1988-02-04

Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, to present the fifth report on Bill C-92, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, without amendment.


BILL C-51-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a moment to thank everyone involved in the legislative committee on Bill C-51, including members of that committee and the support staff. The hours were long and at times emotions ran high. In spite of this, the committee pulled together to ensure that the study of this Bill was complete.
The committee heard from 100 witnesses and received hundreds of written briefs. A complete and thorough analysis of this Bill was accomplished by the committee. The interest and dedication of all committee members was greatly appreciated and I thank them for the assistance and advice they provided to the chair.
It is my belief that the Bill as reported to the House this day accurately reflects the intent of the Government as well as being responsive to the concerns of many witnesses.
Bill C-51 is a very important piece of legislation and it is indeed an honour to have been involved in the legislative committee on this Bill.
Bill C-51 comes from the committee as a fair and equitable piece of legislation. We not only heard from many witnesses, the committee also listened very intently. It is my privilege to table this report today in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to present a petition that has been certified correct according to Standing Order 106. Yet again, my petition is on the subject of the Government's trade arrangement with the United States.
The people who have signed this petition believe that it will have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural and political independence. They also believe the agreement implies the loss of jobs in many sectors and regions of this country.
Therefore they request that the Parliament of Canada obtain a clear mandate from the people of Canada through a national debate on the alternatives available to this country and that this debate result in a national election prior to the implementation of any such agreement.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to table a petition that meets the requirements of Standing Order 106 and expresses a grievance that dozens of Canadians wish to bring to the attention of the House.
Whereas the Mulroney Government has sold out Canada without getting anything in return; Canadian industries have yet to be protected against U.S. trade laws; the United States has obtained everything it wanted in major sectors including agriculture, energy, the automobile industry, financial services and investment; the jobs of thousands of Canadians are threatened; the Conservative Government has made no provision for adjustment assistance for Canadian workers;
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to condemn this Government for having signed the Mulroney-Reagan Trade Agreement.
[DOT] (DIO)
] English]


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition from a number of citizens from Vancouver, Delta, Langley, Surrey and White Rock, British Columbia, on the question of the high incidence of crime, including murder, robbery and sexual assault, committed with knives. The petitioners believe this is on the increase not only in Vancouver but in other major cities across Canada.

February 4, 1988
Order Paper Questions
Whereas the law, through the federal Criminal Code, allows citizens to carry knives for self-defence and this, in turn, creates a high incidence of murders, accidents, and so on, the petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit the carrying of knives by citizens in public places except where it concerns knives used for an occupation or where knives are worn for religious reasons.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and honour to present two petitions. The first is signed by citizens of Consul, Saskatchewan and the second is signed by citizens of Gull Lake, Saskatchewan. The petitioners state that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from the United States. The undersigned, your petitioners, pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, It is also my honour to present petitions pursuant to Standing Order 106 from residents of Thunder Bay, Ontario, Taber, Alberta, Swift Current, Hodgeville, Chaplin, Prince Albert, Stewart Valley, Moose Jaw and Regina, Saskatchewan. All of these petitioners believe that the Government has no mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade deal with the United States. They believe this trade deal would deny Canada the freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine Canada's ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States of America.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to dissolve now in order to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour and the privilege of tabling petitions signed by residents of Sherbrooke; l'Ascension, Quebec; Winnipeg; Normandin, Quebec; Roberval, Quebec; and Ceylon, Saskatchewan. Today's 114 signatures are in addition to 31,760 signatures I tabled previously. The undersigned are aware that since 1974, federal regulations on automobile safety allow the use of self-inflating bags by drivers of private vehicles, and that this device would reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to make the installation of self-inflating bags on the front seat and of adjustable shoulder seat belts on the back seat of automobiles compulsory.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the duty and honour, pursuant to Standing Order 106, to present a petition from a good number of railway workers in the Sarnia-Lambton area. They are concerned that the arbitrator in the dispute act in an efficient and expeditious manner in connection with their agreement. They are concerned about salary increases that have been delayed for over a year and a half and also with job security.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are Indicted by an asterisk.)
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 215 and 216.


Mrs. Sparrow: 1.	Did the company known as Auto Pro Inc. of St. Remi, Quebec, receive
government funding prior to its bankruptcy?
2.	Who were the principals of Auto Pro Inc.?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: 1. AutoPro Inc. had specialized since 1974 in the manufacture of stators for the automotive market. The company was acquired in September, 1983, by its management team at the time. It became 123051 Canada Inc. and continued to operate under the name Autopro.
The following lists offers accepted by AutoPro Inc. and 123051 Canada Inc. (Autopro) under programs administered by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion:
(a)	File 236403-Montreal Special Area Program Offer accepted February 15, 1979 for project involving the expansion of a plant in Saint-Remi. Payments: $75,750.
(b)	File 223975-Enterprise Development Program Offer accepted December 20, 1979 for a productivity study. Payments: $15,240.
(c)	File 270770-Export Market Development Program Offer accepted April 30, 1981. Payments: $ 1,303.
(d)	File 258431-Export Market Development Program Offer accepted April 30, 1981. Payments: $ 1,415.
(e)	File 209700-Export Market Development Program Offer accepted February 16, 1984. Payments: $ 1,822.
(f)	File 210154-Export Market Development Program Offer accepted May 30, 1984. Payments: $ 1,597.
February 4, 1988

2. The president of 123051 Canada Inc. (Autopro) was Mr. Alain Plouffe.


Mrs. Sparrow: 1.	Has the firm of Statcom Ltd. of Montreal received regional development funding?
2.	Who are the principals of Statcom Ltd.?


Robert René de Cotret: In so far as the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion is concerned, the answer is no.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. David Crombie (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-105, an Act to ensure the safe operation of railways and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and present the first address on Bill C-105, the Railway Safety Act. I would like to express my appreciation to the Government House Leader for making earnest efforts to have this Bill called yesterday, but given the fluid nature of this House, that was impossible. I would much rather be in the Crow's Nest Pass handing our Olympic coins to people in the Crow's Nest, Cowley, Pincher Creek, Fort MacLeod and Brocket, but that was impossible. However, I will complete the rest of the circuit in my riding this evening.
The Railway Safety Act is part of the total transport modernization of air, marine and railways. This Parliament has already passed Bill C-18, the National Transportation Act. It has passed Bill C-19, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. It has passed Bill C-21, the Shipping Conferences Act. It has passed Bill C-75 dealing with the Canada Shipping Act, and Bill C-52 respecting the coasting trade is at a legislative
Railway Safety Act
committee right at this moment. Bill C-105, after two or three days, will go to the standing committee, and there is yet to come legislation respecting the transportation accident investigation board. Therefore, you can see, Mr. Speaker, that this Parliament has been active in the field of transportation. I believe this Parliament has acted wisely in those Bills because it is an area in which there has not been much legislative activity for quite some time.
In broad terms, the new transportation agency will look after economic regulation of all modes of transport in this country. The Ministry of Transport will be responsible for safety regulation. The next Bill, establishing the Transportation Accident Investigation Board, for the information of Members, will set up a quasi-judicial, totally independent accident investigation board, similar to the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, but will cover air, railway and marine. In terms of broad principles, I think it is a wise principle to have a separation of those three interests.
In general terms, this railway safety legislation includes all the legislative recommendations of Mr. Justice Foisy after the tragic Hinton accident. It brings safety into the Ministry of Transport. It streamlines many of the processes in the Bill, as I will set forth. It stresses inspection of operating and maintenance rather than what is contained in the existing legislation with its emphasis on construction. It sets up a consultative railway safety committee. It imposes the existing criminal law that applies to everyone in cars, trucks, airplanes and boats to people operating trains. It has a five year review, which I think Hon. Members who are knowledgeable in the area know is in the statute, although other Members might not be aware of it.
The next major point is that in spite of the fact that we have had some tragic accidents-and even one accident is too many-in relative terms Canada is a safe place. The railways are responsible for only some 3 per cent of transportation accidents. CP has been the safest railway in all of North America in seven of the last eleven years. CN is consistently within the top six.
It is fair to say that the introduction of this Bill is confirmation of the Government's political commitment to ensure that safety has first priority in the Canadian transportation system. As Members know, amendments to the Aeronautics Act were passed in 1985 which addressed the safety of Canadian aviation. This was followed up with action to strengthen security at Canadian airports.
In 1987 the House passed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act which dealt primarily with safety. Further steps have been taken to improve navigational safety through measures for vessel traffic control and new safety requirements for offshore drilling rigs.
Of greatest interest to all Canadians is road safety. We have taken the lead in promoting the use of seatbelts. Of course, we have established a requirement for daytime running lights on

February 4, 1988
Railway Safety Act
new vehicles sold in this country, starting later this year. Our commitment to safety in transportation was established as a central tenet of government policy in Section 3 of the National Transportation Act, 1987, Bill C-18. This statement clearly set forth safety as the first objective of transportation legislation by requiring that "the transportation system meet the highest practicable safety standards".
The Bill now before the House has been prepared to implement this policy for the railways of Canada. The Railway Safety Act will be followed in the near future by a Bill to create a transportation accident investigation board. This independent board will be empowered to investigate all accidents in all federally-regulated modes of transportation, drawing upon expert staff to determine causes and to recommend means to prevent any recurrence.
By way of background, Hon. Members will know that for many years the safety of Canada's railways has been regulated under the Railway Act. This Act originated at the turn of the century, at a time when the railway system was rapidly expanding. This growth brought with it an increasing need for safety regulation.
At that time much of Canada's railway system was under construction to open up new territory and to encourage settlement. Lines were often speculative, built into new territory where revenue potential was very low. Some smaller companies lacked cash and were tempted to cut corners on construction and operation. Trains were short, slow, few and far between. Then, and for many years, trains were controlled by instructions sent by telegraph to wayside stations with handwritten messages "hooped-up" to the crew of a passing train on the end of a bamboo stick.
The environment has changed. Canada's railways are moving huge volumes of freight, be it containers from Montreal to southern Ontario, automobiles from Toronto to the Prairies, or bulk commodities: grain, sulphur, potash and coal from the West to the export terminals. Along the way the trains themselves have grown enormously-15,000 tonne trains are now commonplace compared to the 200 tonne or 300 tonne trains that were the norm when the Railway Act was first conceived.
Today's large trains move faster and over longer distances without stopping than ever before. More and more dangerous commodities have been added, often moving through busy urban corridors. Large scale movement of dangerous goods was unheard of when the Railway Act was first written. I notice in the House again today the presence of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) who has spoken so often in Question Period and who is vitally concerned about the railway safety in the Toronto metropolitan areas.
Today, railways are in the midst of a technological revolution. Sophisticated communications equipment and computer systems are being developed to control the movement of trains. A major new development will soon transmit train movement
instructions directly by radio to computers on board locomotives.
Recently, the Minister announced that the Government is providing funding to encourage this development known as the advanced train control system. The railways are making large investments in high technology with much more to come. It is a matter of survival, for the industry is under strong competitive pressure.
The changing environment was reflected in the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Hinton Train Collision. Justice Foisy stated his concern that Government is not keeping apace with the need to modernize rules and regulations. The railways have simply changed but not the legislation. It is becoming more and more difficult for the railway safety regulator to respond to the changing environment while working under the existing Railway Act.
As I said earlier, the Railway Act was created to cover all aspects of railway regulation. It combines in a confusing melange safety regulation, economic regulation and accident investigation, along with an assortment of sections governing telegraph systems and railway corporate affairs. The combination of safety and economic regulations and accident investigation in one agency of Government is now recognized not to be in the public interest. There is a potential for conflict among these responsibilities. While I hasten to add that no such conflict was evident in the performance of the Canadian Transport Commission it is a possibility, and thus the policy of the Government, to separate these responsibilities.
The existing legislation is riddled with anachronisms. For instance, the Railway Act legislates the weight of bells for steam locomotives. The railway of the last century was in many respects a dangerous workplace. Legislative protection for employees was created in areas that would cause surprise today, such as in a specific Railway Act provision prohibiting the oiling of steam locomotive valves while the engine is moving. This questionable practice, not to mention the steam locomotive itself, disappeared many years ago.
Railway construction a century ago was often a hit and miss affair with public and employee safety sometimes taking second place. What the industry could not or would not do, the Government of the day had to undertake. The result was a legislated requirement for the regulator to become directly involved in the details of railway construction. This placed a burden of evaluation and approval of routine construction projects on the Government. Now, with universally-accepted standards of engineering, more protective labour legislation and a stable and mature railway industry, many of these regulatory activities are unproductive.
A review of railway accidents over the past 10 years to 20 years or more shows that the construction of railway track and structures is not the source of safety problems on the railways today. Resources, which now must be committed to approval and inspection of construction projects, could be used to far greater safety effect elsewhere. Performance of these duties by
February 4, 1988

the regulator can even be interpreted as removing some of the responsibility for compliance with safety standards from railway management, which is where it really belongs.
The existing legislation imposes on railway rule making the review of publication procedures for government regulations. These procedures were designed to protect the rights and privacy of individuals. They were not intended to deal with technical aspects of railway operations. The Government regulator and the industry face serious delays when making needed changes to operating rules, simply because the Railway Act requires it. Mr. Justice Foisy was sufficiently concerned about these delays to specifically recommend that the Government "take immediate steps to make the uniform code of operating rules current, and to maintain it in that condition". It is difficult, if not impossible, to do so under the provisions of the existing Railway Act.
[DOT] (M30)
Today our safety concerns focus on how the railways operate and maintain heavy density main lines involving the movement of 15,000 tonne freight trains, and passenger trains carrying hundreds of people. Yet the Railway Act only created powers of inspection for engineers.
The penalties found in the Railway Act make interesting reading. An engineer can be fined $8 for failing to blow his whistle at a crossing, while a multimillion dollar corporation may face a fine of SI00. The Railway Act also contains the somewhat quaint threat of punishment by hard labour.
The message is obvious. Railway transportation and the transportation environment have changed in the past, and are changing rapidly today. The legislation must meet the challenge.
When the Minister tabled the railway safety Bill, he also released a report on drug and alcohol abuse in the railway industry. The Minister has asked for comments from the public on recommendations in that report dealing with mandatory drug testing before proposing any government action to Cabinet. Nevertheless, he indicated that this was an issue that should also be discussed by members of the standing committee when they are hearing evidence on the Bill.
Members should be aware that this Bill does not include any provisions for mandatory drug testing in the railway industry. However, it does include amendments to the Criminal Code with respect to the operation of railway equipment while impaired, as well as dangerous operation; the same rules that apply to us all in our cars, trucks, and boats.
Every one of us knows that it is a criminal offence to drink and drive, or to drive dangerously. The public has a right to expect that these prohibitions apply to the operation of trucks, airplanes, ships, and trains. While this true of the first three, many would be surprised and dismayed to know that criminal prosecution for those offences does not apply to persons responsible for the movement of railway equipment.
Railway Safety Act
This curious situation probably arose because railway companies own and control the railway equipment and the tracks over which it moves, employ the persons who operate the equipment, and even have their own police forces. A combination of railway operating rules and internal enforcement may have been the justification for an otherwise unacceptable omission.
The best known and long established rule in the railway industry is "Rule G" which states:
The use of intoxicants or narcotics by employees subject to duty, or their
possession or use while on duty, is prohibited.
This actual prohibition is more restrictive than that of the Criminal Code, which is only triggered after a threshold level of alcohol has been exceeded. "Rule G" has clearly been an effective measure in ensuring that alcohol or drugs do not constitute a hazard to safety. The record shows that few railway accidents have been attributed to the use of these substances. Nevertheless, railway operating employees work difficult hours and spend much of their time away from home. Research into use of alcohol and the increasing problem of drugs indicate that these working conditions create a high risk of substance abuse. Therefore, in developing the concepts for the railway safety Bill, it was clear that more was needed than only a company rule, albeit a largely effective one, to prevent the possible operation of trains while impaired.
Train crews are routinely responsible for the safety of several hundred passengers. They control the movement of freight trains valued at many millions of dollars which, to an increasing extent, include a wide variety of dangerous commodities. The public is exposed to the operation of trains throughout the country, not only as passengers or motorists at grade crossings, but as individuals living and working near railway lines. It is essential that train crews be alert on the job and that their vigilance be not in any way impaired by alcohol or drugs. For this reason, the Criminal Code provisions that apply to truck drivers, ships' captains, aircraft pilots, and to every motorist, should also apply to railway employees.
There are certain fundamental principles on which the regulation of railway safety in Canada must be based. As I stated earlier, safety regulation must be separated from responsibility for economic regulation, and further separated from accident investigation. The roles and responsibilities of the regulator and railway management must be clearly defined. The regulator must have the power to protect public and employee safety. Management must be responsible and accountable for the safety of operations. Consultation is essential, including full public inquiries on important issues. Regulation must be flexible and responsive in an environment of rapidly changing services and technology. Unnecessary and unproductive regulations should be eliminated, and penalties for offences must be meaningful.
The Bill before us has been drafted to deal with these many concerns. I will highlight the major aspects of the Bill which correct the deficiencies of the existing legislation and create a

February 4, 1988
Railway Safety Act
better legislative framework for the regulation of the railway industry.
This Bill provides a clear focus on safety by placing in a single Act all the federal Government's powers for the regulation of railway safety. Unlike the existing Railway Act, decision making under this Bill is concerned only with questions of safe rail operation which, by definition, includes the safety of the general public. By allocating those powers to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and leaving economic regulation of railways with the National Transportation Agency, the Bill will achieve that needed separation of responsibilities. The same separation will be achieved for accident investigation by the Transportation Accident Investigation Bill, soon to be tabled.
The Railway Safety Act will give the Government all the powers necessary to ensure safety on the railways. For the construction, maintenance, and operation of the system, the railways must satisfy the Minister that each element has been planned, executed, and controlled in a manner that is consistent with regulations and rules. The Act clearly makes the railways responsible for developing and implementing these measures and does not place the Minister, or government officials, in the position of making management decisions. The Minister will have the essential power to accept or reject management's proposals.
The Governor in Council will establish the basic regulations for the safety of the system, without limitation of the power to determine the content of those regulations. The Minister will have the power to impose rules of operation where railway companies have failed, for whatever reason, to develop rules which are acceptable and where these rules are essential for safe operation. The Minister will also the power to order companies to cease using, and to remove, structures whose existence pose a threat to safety.
These are extensive powers. In order to ensure that they are used effectively, the Bill provides for regular consultation by the creation of a railway safety consultative committee. The committee will comprise representation from the railways, railway unions and shippers, as well as persons having special interest or expertise in railway safety matters. This will create a forum for exchange of ideas and views, and a means to anticipate and solve problems in order that the proposed regulatory changes be carefully thought through. In this manner, the Minister can use consultation to avoid confrontation.
The anachronisms that exist in the Railway Act are the result of including detailed technical subjects in legislation. The railway safety Bill establishes the basis for effective regulation, leaving the determination of technical details to regulations and rules. It will not rapidly become outdated.
The vast majority of engineering work on Canada's railways is routine and repetitive. The new Bill will allow the regulator to designate those items of construction and alteration which cannot be undertaken without the express approval of the
Minister. By limiting procedures for other routine projects to selective filing of affidavits which attest to the safety of the completed work, a significant burden of unproductive regulation will be lifted from the Government. But the responsibility of railway management for safe operation will remain undiminished, while the powers of inspection under the Railway Safety Act will enable the Government to monitor the safety of any of these projects at any time.
MO)
Mr. Justice Foisy recommended that the government take steps to keep railway operating rules up to date. This Bill provides a streamlined rule change process which permits regulations and rules to incorporate other material by reference, including automatic update of that reference, and establishes time limits to encourage prompt decision making by the regulator. These provisions, along with the exemption of railway rules from review and publishing requirements of the Statutory Instrument Act will provide for the timely updating of the rules under which the railways operate.
The Foisy Commission also called for separation of rule making and accident investigation and for prosecution for breach of rules, both of which have been provided for in this Bill.
Finally, Mr. Justice Foisy recommended that railway legislation require the reporting of employee medical conditions which may jeopardize railway safety. Hon. Members will find this provision in Clause 35 of the Bill.
By dropping unnecessary and unproductive regulatory activities, and by simplifying and speeding up the evaluation and approval process, the Railway Safety Act will permit the redirection of existing resources into more productive areas.
Clearly, in today's environment, the emphasis must be on inspection for compliance, with the powers of inspection broadened to cover all disciplines, not just engineering. Regulatory staff can be placed anywhere on the system where they are needed. Inspectors appointed under the Railway Safety Act will have the full power to order railways to stop any operation that may prejudice safety.
Since this power could cause serious interruptions in railway operations, railway companies and shippers have concerns about the potential for unnecessary or, indeed, improper use. There will be no compromise on the ability of inspectors to issue these orders.
At the same time, however, the Bill requires the inspectors to do so through railway supervisory staff, unless this is impossible, and to notify the Minister when an order of this nature has been issued. The Minister will then be in a position to judge if these powers are being exercised as intended and will be able to rescind any order which is inappropriate.
I should like to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the penalty provisions of this Bill. Fines of up to $50,000 for corporations and up to $10,000 or imprisonment for up to one
February 4, 1988

year for individuals are created, along with the power to treat continued violations as separate punishable offences for each day incurred. These constitute meaningful penalties to any organization or individual. The railway safety Bill fills the gap that exists in the current legislation.
We have taken the opportunity presented by this Bill to create new powers for Government to protect the security of the system. Sadly, threats to security are an increasing problem world-wide, often with transportation systems as the target. Provisions were made in the Aeronautics Act to deal with security in the air. The railway safety Bill includes similar powers which will help the Government to react to such threats on the ground. While we hope that it will never be necessary to use these powers, it is essential that we create them now to protect the system in the future.
Finally, the railway safety Bill introduces a number of amendments to related legislation. Of particular importance are the amendments to the Criminal Code. As 1 noted earlier, these amendments will add railways to the list of modes which are subject to prohibitions against dangerous operation and operation while impaired. The Bill also repeals the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act, but retains and expands the essential powers of that legislation which allow the Government to promote improvements to safety.
The Bill before us was prepared after thorough consultation with provinces, municipalities, railways, railway unions, shippers, shippers of dangerous commodities, owners of private railway equipment, and of course public interest groups.
We received excellent co-operation and major contributions from all participants. While we believe that the provisions of the Bill have widespread support among the persons consulted, obviously not everyone got everything they wanted. I expect that we will have the opportunity to discuss any such concerns as the standing committee reviews the Bill.
As the Minister of Transport has said on every Bill which has been referred to a legislative or standing committee, if the committee after hearing the evidence has any amendments which can help the Bill and they are within any reasonable possibility, he is more than happy to accept them. Indeed, he has a history of accepting them. I think, in my experience here, that he has accepted more amendments to more Bills than any Minister with whom I have worked in this Government as well as in the previous Government.
Public perception of railway safety is conditioned overwhelmingly by the accidents in Mississauga, Flinton, and the train collisions of last month. These accidents have sensitized all of us to the potential dangers of any railway accident.
In his press conference after tabling the Bill, the Minister took the opportunity to reassure Canadians that our railways are basically safe. Moreover, progressively over the recent past, they have become safer. As I said earlier, in seven of the last eleven years, CP Rail has been the safest class one railway in North America. Over the same period, CN Rail has been
Railway Safety Act
consistently within the top six. This is a good record, which extends to include the smaller railway companies as well. It has been achieved and maintained at a time when the safety performance of all major North American railways has been improving.
The Government keeps a close watch on how the industry performs. As examples, over the period from 1979 to 1986, the total number of train accidents decreased by some 38 per cent, while fatalities decreased by 23 per cent and injuries by 16 per cent. What is more, the statistics for 1986 include the tragic number of deaths and injuries at Hinton. The latest results show no deterioration in this performance during 1987, even though railway freight traffic increased dramatically over levels in 1986.
While there have been major improvements in safety performance in 1986, still 116 persons died and 3,523 persons were injured in railway accidents. These numbers are unacceptably high, and we must act to reduce them. To do so requires an understanding of what is happening. Of the total fatalities, over 40 per cent are due to accidents at grade crossings and, almost without exception, these could have been prevented by the motor vehicle driver. Another 40 per cent of the fatalities include trespassers struck by moving train equipment. That was a figure which was much higher than 1 would have thought in my capacity as a layperson. Excluding 1986 and the Hinton collision, from 1979 to 1985 fatalities from train collisions and derailments have averaged two per year. In terms of injuries, 75 per cent of these involved employees, the vast majority being minor injuries sustained in performing duties and not related to accidents involving trains.
To place railway statistics in perspective, Hon. Members should be aware that while 116 persons lost their lives in railway related accidents during 1986, 90 people were fatally injured in aviation related accidents, 35 lost their lives in commercial shipping and fishing accidents, some 200 persons were killed in pleasure craft accidents on our waterways, and some 4,071 persons died on our roads. There is no room for complacency in respect of any mode of transportation. Any life lost is one too many. The message is that while railway safety can and will be improved, we are dealing with a controllable situation, not an industry in crisis.
While all Canadians are aware of major railway accidents, they are seldom as well informed about the follow-up. Our record is good. The Government established the Toronto area dangerous goods task force and the task force on the shipment of dangerous goods through the B.C. Lower Mainland. Both these groups have involved provincial and municipal Governments and have consulted widely throughout the areas under study. The task forces will be reporting to the Minister later this year on major questions surrounding the movement of dangerous goods through urban areas. The work has already provided insight into the risks and alternatives for transporting hazardous materials, and the results should be relevant for all communities throughout the country.

February 4, 1988
Railway Safety Act
As mentioned earlier, the Government quickly commissioned Mr. Justice Foisy to carry out a full investigation into the tragedy at Ffinton. You will recall that the Minister released Mr. Justice Foisy's very thorough report to the public and also made public the progress on implementing his recommendations. Members will be delighted to know that the railway safety Bill includes all of the legislative recommendations of Mr. Justice Foisy.
Significant changes have been made to rules governing areas of rest for trained crews. The unsatisfactory "deadman pedal" is now a thing of the past in mainline operations and will soon disappear from all locomotives, having been replaced by the more reliable and tamper proof reset safety control device.
Wherever possible, the recommendations of the Foisy report have already been implemented. Other longer term proposals are under active consideration. One example is Mr. Justice Foisy's conclusion that the advanced train control system holds great promise for improved railway safety. The Government agrees and, as I noted earlier, the Minister recently announced on behalf of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret), a $15 million program to support the development of this technology by the Canadian railway supply industry.
I have spoken of the terrible toll taken at our grade crossings. Members are probably aware of the Government's longterm program to assist provinces and municipalities in reducing these accidents. Funding has been made available for improving the safety of grade crossings by installation of warning lights, bells, and automatic barriers or by physical changes which will improve the safety of crossings.
A companion program has provided financial assistance for the construction of grade separations. It is encouraging to note that grade crossing injuries and fatalities have decreased radically in recent years. The federal Government's funding programs have played an important role in maintaining this trend.
Of equal importance is the joint federal-provincial Government and railway industry program called Operation Lifesav-er. Operation Lifesaver is devoted to educating the public about the dangers associated with railway lines and railway operations. Originally targeted at making drivers aware of the hazards of grade crossings, the program also has shown great promise in teaching school children that trespassing on railway property can lead to tragic results, as we have too often seen. The Minister is enthusiastic about the results of Operation Lifesafer and hopes to increase this essential educational activity.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there are many areas in which the Government has acted to improve safety on our railways. While great progress has been made, much more remains to be done. The introduction of this Bill into the House is an important step in continuing and accelerating this work. While
the safety performance of our railways is good, there is a need for improvement and we are committed to seeing that changes are made. The Railway Safety Act is the means to achieve that objective, and I am sure that all Members of the House will assist by giving this Bill speedy passage.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to participate in debate on the Railway Safety Act. In making my comments today I cast my mind back to another transportation Bill, one of those listed by the Parliamentary Secretary as being marks of achievement by this Government and Ministers of Transport in the last two or three years, that is, Bill C-75, the Canada Shipping Act.
I recall that when that Bill was undertaken, circumstances were very similar. The Parliamentary Secretary has told the House about some of the current archaic provisions in legislation with respect to regulation of the railway; the minimal fines which are available under the current Act, and the fact that there are not provisions, for example, for someone operating equipment under the influence of alcohol because the Bill is literally many decades old. Any Bill has to be an improvement on something that was drafted in the 1940s.
I will, therefore, begin by acknowledging that any Bill which brings us into the 1980s and lifts us decades beyond the forties when the current legislation was drafted must be an improvement. However, having acknowledged that this is an improvement, I must say that I hope the Government will approach the Railway Safety Act with an attitude similar to that which was displayed during the course of debate and, in particular, in committee hearings on Bill C-75, the Canada Shipping Act. That Bill as well replaced a very old piece of legislation. It brought the Canada Shipping Act into the 1980s. It took account of modern technology and modern means of managing and operating shipping equipment.
When we dealt with that Bill the Government was open to amendments which would improve the first draft of the legislation. In fact, as I recall, there were 11 or 12 amendments made to Bill C-75 which I believe were substantive and important amendments. There was one very dramatic change made to Bill C-75 in that Clause 4 was dropped.
I hope that with regard to the Railway Safety Act the Government will show the same degree of interest in having the strongest possible Bill passed by Parliament and will not merely be satisfied with pointing to improvements made only because we are replacing a Bill which is decades old. It is very easy to give the appearance of making improvements when replacing a Model T with a 1980 Cadillac. We want to put forward the best legislation possible.
In examining the legislation we must ask ourselves why we are here today discussing the Railway Safety Act. What was the catalyst which brought us to this point? It is true that this legislation ought to be have been dealt with a long time ago. As a Liberal and a supporter of the former Government I can
February 4, 1988

say that it should have been dealt with by the former administration. That is an honest comment. However, now that we are dealing with the Bill, let us cast our mind back to the catalyst which seized the Government and the House of this issue.
More than anything it was the train derailment in Hinton, Alberta, on February 8, 1986, which took 23 lives that focused Parliament and the Ministry on the issue of railway safety. That derailment, coupled with the new transportation environment in Canada, namely, deregulation, is what focused this House on the issue of railway safety.
Two days after the Hinton derailment and the tragic loss of 23 lives the Ministry appointed the Foisy Commission to look into all aspects of railway safety and operations. We applauded the Minister for that then as we do now. Indeed, I think all Members of Parliament would agree that Judge Foisy produced an excellent piece of work, a thorough review of the operations of the railways in this country with particular emphasis on the regulations necessary for the safe operation of railways.
Upon looking at the Bill before us today one would have to agree that the vast majority of the recommendations of the Foisy Commission report, with a few exceptions, can be found in whole or in part within the provisions of Bill C-105. I say "in whole or in part" because there are a couple of areas which I believe are exceedingly important in which 1 believe the recommendations have not been implemented in the spirit in which they were intended by Judge Foisy. The primary concern of the Liberal Party with Bill C-105-and 1 would hope the Parliamentary Secretary would pay attention because he might want to consider amendments-is the whole notion proposed by the Government that there is finally to be a split between the economic regulation of the railways and the safety regulation of the railways. The Parliamentary Secretary has very clearly said today that a prime consideration for the Government, and in fact a prime recommendation of the Foisy Commission report, is that there be a split between those who are in charge of economic regulation of the railways and those who are in charge of the safety regulation of the railways, for obvious reasons.
If both responsibilities are contained within one agency, the NTA, there is a clear conflict of interest. There is a conflict between those concerned with the economics, the commercial aspect of railway operations, and those concerned with safety. The Government, quite rightly, and Mr. Justice Foisy, quite rightly, said that there must be a split of those responsibilities.
The Government is telling us that we have accomplished that split in this Bill because those responsible for safety regulation will be transferred from the NTA to the Ministry of Transport under the responsibility of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and there will no longer be a conflict of interest. That move takes a step in the right direction, but it does not
Railway Safety Act
fulfil the purpose the Parliamentary Secretary outlined when introducing this Bill today.
How can we possibly conceive of the notion that putting those responsible for safety regulation under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport will solve the conflict of interest problem? After all, it is the Minister of Transport, as a matter of political policy, who has introduced deregulation in Canada. In the last year and a half, this is the Minister who has introduced the concept of deregulation in all modes of transport. He has abolished the independent nature of the CTC and has set up the NTA which takes directives from the Minister.
If there was a conflict of interest within the NTA because people making economic regulations and people making safety regulations were sitting in the same room, then surely to goodness there must be a conflict of interest when the Minister of Transport, who himself is the author of deregulation, is also the person responsible for safety. It is our belief that we have avoided one conflict of interest and have created another.
The Minister must now wear two hats. The primary proponent of and cheerleader for deregulation who is telling the railways to get lean and mean and to be competitive will, because of the provisions of this Bill, be the same gentleman who has responsibility for those people who will enact and enforce safety regulations. That is a conflict of interest for the Minister of Transport himself. I submit that it is perhaps a worse conflict than that which currently exists within the NTA.
I have raised this with the Parliamentary Secretary because I believe that when this goes to committee, we can develop amendments to the Bill that will ensure that the regulatory arm that operates under the jurisdiction of the Minister operates in some kind of quasi-independent manner. That is not specifically spelled out or clear in the Bill as it reads now. We do not know if a group of employees will be given a suite of offices down the hall from the Minister. We do not know if they will operate under the directive of the Minister on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. It is not clear, and as long as it remains unclear, the Minister of Transport, perhaps unwittingly, has been put into a terrible conflict by those who have drafted this piece of legislation.
On the one hand, the Minister will be telling the railways to compete, to cut costs, to make the operations lean and competitive, to be on an even footing with our friends south of the border in hauling traffic east and west, and on the other hand that they have to be safe. It is a difficult role for one single individual to play. That is why we recognized it as a conflict within the NTA. It is puzzling, then, why we would put the Minister in exactly the same conflict we wanted to avoid in the NTA itself.
That is one area of major concern to the Liberal Party. I say that with the knowledge that according to CTC figures, both CN Rail and CP Rail have cut their strength from a joint total of 88,478 employees in 1981 to 78,249 in 1985. If we had more

February 4, 1988
Railway Safety Act
recent figures, we would see that the cuts are even deeper. More than 10,000 people have been cut. The railways ascribe these cuts to technological change, and to some extent, I suppose that could be substantiated. However, the unions charge that many of these cut-backs have reduced safety by lowering inspection and maintenance standards.
We are living in an age of deregulation. One need only look South of the border where there has been 10 years of experience with deregulation, particularly on the air side, since 1978 and at what has happened to safety standards there to appreciate the enormous new pressures that will be on operators to function.
Bearing in mind this new conflict for the Minister and the Minister's ability to wear two hats, one as cheerleader for modernization and streamlining and the other as cheerleader for safety, I would like to bring to the attention of the House Clause 41 of the Bill, the offences clause. This clause provides that on indictment, in the case of a corporation like CN or CP, a fine of not exceeding $50,000 is payable. In the case of an individual, the fine is not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment of one year. On summary conviction, the fine is $25,000 for the corporation and $5,000 for the individual.
When the Parliamentary Secretary introduced the Bill, he talked about existing regulations and said how silly they were. The maximum fine for a company was $100 and for an individual it was $8. He said that that needed to be upgraded. Well, this is the upgrade on the fines.
The maximum fine for an individual employee making $25,000 or $35,000 a year is $10,000 and the maximum fine for a billion-dollar corporation is $50,000. At a time when we expect these companies to cut their costs and to be mean, lean and competitive, the temptation to scrimp on safety expenditures and to cheat is stronger than ever. However, the maximum fine for a billion-dollar corporation is $50,000 and for an individual is $10,000. The fines and offences contained in Clause 41 are out of whack. We had exactly the same problem under the Canada Shipping Act which provided for fines which were ridiculously low.
1 suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that this is another area we ought to explore in committee. We may be able jointly to come to some agreement on amendments. I say frankly to the Parliamentary Secretary that we cannot always assume the goodwill of individuals or corporations. That is why we provide for offences in law.
Frankly, when faced with the possibility of a maximum fine of $50,000-but it could be $5 or $50,000-for a safety offence or with a million-dollar cost for fixing a problem, some companies might decide that it would be cheaper to take a chance on a $50,000 fine than it would be to spend the funds necessary to solve the safety problems. I think this $50,000 fine, given the scheme of things-
>0)


Blaine Allen Thacker: Per day.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It only takes one day to lose 23 lives, such as on February 8, 1986. In just one day many people can be killed. The fact it is $50,000 a day does not assure me that there is a satisfactory deterrent to the people operating our railways to try to cheat the system. I would like to see that number increased dramatically. I hope we can discuss this in committee and come to a mutually agreed upon sum and have this amended. We were able to do that with respect to a number of offences under the Canada Shipping Act by all-Party agreement. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to take a note of that and give consideration to it.
There is another part of this Bill which I have some trouble with the way it is drafted. It concerns the railway safety consultative committee and Clause 44 of the Bill. There are five positions on the committee guaranteed for business, the railways and shippers. Four positions are at the discretion of the Minister. There is one position for labour. It seems to me that that committee is awfully heavily loaded in favour of the railways. Yes, they should be substantially represented, but not, I submit, overwhelmingly represented. I do not think one labour representative is an adequate voice to balance the competing and sometimes different views of the railways themselves.
Neither do I see a position on this committee for the public. What do I mean by the public? Many Members will remember the Mississauga spectacle of 1979 when 250,000 people had to evacuate their homes. No Party has a monopoly on virtue in its desire to prevent a repeat of that kind of incident. In fact, I see a member of the government Party who is frequently on his feet with respect to the transportation of dangerous and hazardous materials through populated centres. Yet it seems to me there has to be a provision for a public group on the committee, someone with a non-vested interest. There should be an opportunity for the public's voice to be heard; those who live in communities where dangerous and hazardous materials are shipped on a regular basis should have a direct say in this committee. I submit to the Parliamentary Secretary that this is an oversight which I hope can be corrected when we get to committee stage.
There is an organization in Toronto which arose out of the Mississauga derailment of 1979 called M-Track. That group has played the role of a public advocate on a regular basis, dealing with the speed of trains, the kind of material being moved, the way the material is secured. That kind of voice needs to be heard on the committee. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this is an amendment we must make. I hope as well he will give consideration to the weighting of the committee. Surely, as presently constituted, it will not lead to an effective and well-functioning committee.
There were a couple of recommendations made by Mr. Justice Foisy in his excellent report which are not found in this
February 4, 1988

Bill. One of those is the notion that there ought to be, in addition to the technology now in place, an oral notification of train meets by radio. I understand there has been consultation between the unions, the companies, the regulators, and a general agreement that the recommendation, while made with Mr. Justice Foisy's best judgment, is not one that would contribute to safety. We accept that that recommendation is not found in the Bill. However, there is a second recommendation covering hours of work scheduling. Again, we understand the Government is in a difficult position because in talking about work scheduling, you are talking about the collective bargaining process. Until some of those issues have been resolved at the bargaining table, it is difficult for Government to impose, in essence, part of the contract through legislation. However, I would note that recommendation and hope that the Government intends, when it is appropriate and the parties have come to some resolution of the question, to come back and amend the legislation at a later date.
I have tried in these remarks to raise a number of areas where I believe the Bill can be improved. These are matters to which members of all Parties should be able to lend their support. I now want to come back to the primary concern I have about the Bill, and its primary motivation which, as the Parliamentary Secretary rightly says, is the notion of setting up a separate, independent safety organization within the Department of Transport.
Currently the economic and safety regulators are in the same offices. That gives rise to at least a potential of a conflict of interest. The Government says it is going to solve that by moving the safety regulators away from the economic regulators. Yet they have been put in the office of the Minister of Transport, and that puts the Minister in an even worse situation of conflict of interest. On the one hand he is the proponent of the regulation, and on the other he is responsible for safety because there is no quasi independent agency.
It was very illuminating that in the Standing Committee on Transport a few days ago we had Mr. Barbeau, the Assistant Deputy Minister for Surface Transportation in the Department of Transport, and we asked him questions about the Foisy report and this Bill. We were concerned specifically with the question of whether or not we were splitting economic regulation from safety regulation. Here is what he said:
A second element was recommended by Justice Foisy, and that is the split between accident investigation and safety regulation. Again, the new Bill will do this in part. What is happening with the new Bill is that we are splitting off safety regulation from economic regulation, which now remains with the National Transportation Agency, and then in a Bill that will be introduced in the House some time soon, we hope, there will be further split between regulation and accident investigation.
Introducing a multimodal accident investigation board through a new Bill, after the fact, will not permanently resolve the problem of safety regulation in this country.
Railway Safety Act
While this Bill generally enjoys the support in principle of the Liberal Official Opposition, until amendments are made to the railway safety consultative committee, until amendments are made to reflect proper fines for offences by corporations, and until there is a proper separation of economic regulation and safety regulation so the Minister is out of the conflict of interest in which this Bill would place the Minister, we cannot endorse it as now drafted.
We have had experience with transportation matters in the past of seeing the House work as a cohesive unit, putting aside partisanship, and delivering good legislation. If the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary accept my remarks in the spirit in which they have been given, 1 hope that we will produce a good Bill at the end of a proper and thorough investigative process at the committee stage.
I equally say to the Parliamentary Secretary that without some of these fundamental matters being addressed, the Bill will not get the kind of timely passage that at least in concept and principle it deserves.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, we are finally seeing some movement on legislation which has been called for at least since the mid 1940s. During the years that my colleagues and 1 have been here, and prior to that when former colleagues in the CCF and NDP were here, our Party annually called for this kind of legislation.
I recall being with the railway between the mid 1940s and early 1960s, and going to union meetings where this matter was discussed every time we met. Union officers would recite how they made repeated efforts with the railroads and the Government of the day to get a national railway safety Act. It is unfortunate that it has taken so long for Governments to see the light.
The NDP recognizes the urgent need for railway safety legislation. We will do all we can to assist in passing the legislation, hopefully in an amended way to make it even stronger.
I believe the motives of all Members from all Parties in the House will be above suspicion when it comes to dealing with safety, about which we all say there should be no compromise.
Bill C-105 represents the first opportunity Parliament has had to consider legislation responding not only to the Foisy report, which was released over a year ago, but responding to many other demands in this area. We are all aware of the rash of rail accidents in recent weeks, in which lives were lost. Of course, it is these types of accidents that make national headlines even though many more people are killed at railway crossings and in highway mishaps. Highway mishaps and railway crossing accidents do not attract as much attention as train wrecks or plane crashes, and I suspect that has made the public and the legislators complacent about other areas of safety.

February 4, 1988
Railway Safety Act
I agree with some of the remarks of my colleague from the Official Opposition. We are in a type of vacuum at the moment. The Government's headlong rush into deregulation before the implementation of all these other measures has left us a situation in which the CTC and the Rail Transport Committee of the CTC have ceased to exist as of December 31, while the new National Transportation Agency is still be reorganized after coming into place January 1. Many of the employees of the CTC are going to the new National Transportation Agency and the Department of Transport, and others are probably retiring early. In the meantime, the regulating authority for the devising of regulations, enforcing of regulations and the investigation of mishaps is spread throughout the NTA and the Department.
Over two years ago we pleaded with the Government not to implement Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 until all the accident and investigation boards were in place and the highway, railway, marine and air safety codes with their respective agencies were established. Even the Canadian Truckers Association pleaded with the Government, both privately and in appearances before the Transport Committee, to delay the implementation of Bill C-19 for at least a year, preferably two years, until the new national highway safety codes were in place with the jurisdictions that have control over highway traffic. The Government refused to listen.
Officials of the Department were present at a committee hearing on January 16. I asked: "With the National Transportation Agency being responsible for the devising and promulgating of regulations, until such time as a national accident investigation board is set up that covers rail, air, marine, whatever, who will be responsible?" I went on to say: "This may take another year or two before all this happens. In the meantime, who is responsible for the regulatory regime for investigations, inspections, enforcement and all the things that go with the regulations that will be in place?"
The answer I received was: "There are really three things going on with the creation of the National Transportation Agency with the Bill. The whole question of rail safety, including both the regulation of rail safety and accident investigation function has been left with the National Transportation Agency as it presently stands". The answer goes on: "The reason is there is no way the responsibility for railway safety can be transferred, for example, to Transport Canada without a piece of legislation". He went on to say that this brings into play the proposed Railway Safety Act. As soon as it is proclaimed, then the responsibility for railway safety will come over to Transport Canada with the function of accident investigation. It is all a matter of timing. As soon as the National Transportation Accident Investigation Act is proclaimed, the responsibility for action and investigation will then be split off from Transport Canada into the new agency. He ended up by saying: "It is a matter of things falling into place one after the other".
That sort of proves what I said two years ago, and several times since then, with respect to the Government's headlong rush into deregulation before having these three things in place. Now the scramble is on. The best I can say for the Government is that it is better late than never. However, the Government could have avoided a lot of the difficulties that have been there, presently are there, and will continue to be there for at least another number of months, if not a year or two. In fact, on January 19 the Atlantic district director of the National Transportation Agency, Rail Safety Branch, who chaired a meeting in Halifax, admitted that there is at present no agency empowered to investigate accidents or make other inquiries into matters related to railway safety. He said that rail safety in this country is in a state of flux. He is sure right about that.
I suppose we could give the Government some credit for trying to clean up the mess it made. People should have to clean up their own mess. Bill C-105 is an attempt to allow some sort of regulation to be put in place to deal with what is quickly becoming a critical situation.
We have to look at this Bill to see what it does for rail safety and we find that by itself it does not do very much. The most important provision in this Bill gives the Government the power to pass regulations having to do with the safe operations of railways, but by itself this Bill does not provide for high standards of safe railway operating practice. There are no specifications for adequate frequency of inspections. There are no specifications for maintenance of track and equipment. Therefore, by itself the Bill does little for safety. It just legislatively allows someone else to do it.
Much will depend on what regulations the Government passes following the passing of this legislation. I feel that the legislation should contain some general and specific principles in each area of maintenance, inspection, investigation and enforcement so that there are some firm legislative requirements put upon those who draft regulations and enforce them and those who carry out inspections and investigations and enforce their findings.
I hope the Government will at some point present to the House a draft of its proposed safety regulations pertaining to Bill C-105. If it does not, perhaps it would consider-and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to raise this matter with the Minister-to at least give a draft of the proposed regulations to the standing committee so that we can look at it while dealing with the Bill and while we are hearing from witnesses. In fact, I have been on the Standing Committee on Transport for 20 years next June and I believe the standing committee could be very helpful to the Minister and to the industry in drafting those regulations. My advice is to make available to the Standing Committee on Transport, if not to all Members of the House, the substance of the Government's proposed regulations so that the committee can make its recommendations as well.
February 4, 1988

Some amendments to this Bill are necessary. The Bill as it is tabled is vague in a number of instances. I depicted the Bill as very nebulous. 1 do not know whether the Minister is out in space or spaced out with the nebuli. For example, Section 4 defines a number of terms introduced in the Act. One troublesome definition is for relevant associations or organizations of persons employed by a railway company. The Act says the Minister must declare by order that a particular union is a relevant association or organization. I thought that was something that the Canada Labour Relations Board did. All the railway brotherhoods, as far as 1 know, are certified as railway employees by the Canada Labour Relations Board. I do not know why the Minister needs to have an additional authority to pick and choose which union he things is a relevant association or organization. We already know who they are.
The wording of this section of the Act could lead to some very interesting confrontations if it is left as it is now written. The Minister could leave some railway unions out of the consultation provided for in the Bill. If that is not asking for trouble, 1 do not know what is.
The Government does not seem to have considered employees very carefully when it drafted the Bill. That is why the railway safety consultative committee the Bill creates is structured so unfairly. We are just fed up with the unfairness of this Government in so many ways since September 4, 1984, and it continues to perpetuate unfairness in its legislation. The proposed make-up of the Bill betrays the Government's intention to allow railways to regulate themselves with minimal interference from the Government. The Minister will be represented on the committee by as many as five members. The railways will be represented by five members. The railway employees will be represented by only one. It specifies the Canadian Railway Labour Association in the Act. What if the railway brotherhoods do not want a representative from the Canadian Railway Labour Association? What is the Minister going to do then? Will he just barrel ahead anyway? That is no way to treat the 50,000 or 60,000 people engaged in the operation of railways in Canada.
This kind of set-up effectively stacks the deck against labour in any dispute that might arise in the committee. Perhaps that is what the Government wants. That is not the only example in this Bill of the Government trying to make life easier for the railway companies. Clause 11, for example, takes the responsibility to ensure that some railway works are safe from government regulators and gives the responsibility to the companies. This will no doubt make life easier for the companies, but what it does for safety is a mystery to me.
Perhaps the Government has good reasons to want to help the rail companies through some pretty rough times since both CN an CP are in a much weaker competitive position, thanks to deregulation. However, safety has to be a primary concern. It cannot be sacrificed or compromised. When a company is victimized by the bottom line syndrome under deregulation, and is faced with competing modes of transportation, and
Railway Safety Act
when American railroads have a licence to raid up to $2 billion of the revenues of CN or CP in any year, otherwise honest and reputable corporations are forced into a position where they have to cheat. They have to cut corners. They have to save every nickel they can find.
The Bill is too soft on the rail companies. It comes down hard on employees in some ways, especially in terms of the setting out of offences and the establishment of penalties for contravening the legislation. There is a relatively small difference between the penalties faced by corporations and those faced by individuals. Ten thousand dollars is a great deal of money to an individual who, as my colleague said earlier, might be making $25,000, $30,000 or $50,000 per year. A $50,000 penalty placed on a corporation which has revenues of anywhere from $1 billion to $3 billion per year, depending on how good a year it is, amounts to nothing more than a licence fee to be unsafe. I submit that the fine and the penalty should be severe enough that they are equal to or exceed the cost of the safe practices which should have been carried out before a penalty was imposed.
This type of unfairness cannot be tolerated. The penalties on the railroads should be at least 10 times as high, up to $500,000. Safety costs money. A company which has been unsafe or which has carried out an unsafe practice should be required to pay more money than it would have cost to implement a safety measure. If that were in the legislation, then the railroads would be not only more mindful but they would know that this is one area in which they cannot and do not dare cut corners or slow down especially in matters concerning maintenance and inspections. We hope that the Government will agree to accept changes in this area as well.
The fact that an individual not only can be fined but can go to prison for neglecting to tell his or her physician that he or she holds a certain kind of job with the railroad while a corporation found guilty of a flagrant violation of the Bill causing loss of life and damage to property has to pay only what amounts to small change is an imbalance of some proportion.
Clause 35 of the Bill threatens the confidentiality between patient and physician. Physicians are required to provide confidential medical information to railway employers rather than to the Minister or to the regulatory agency. How can the employer be prevented from abusing this information?
Drug and alcohol testing are not specifically mentioned in Bill C-105, but it allows for regulations governing the control or prohibition of the consumption of alcoholic beverages and the use of drugs. In other words, the Minister will be able to allow companies to administer drug and alcohol tests to its employees. There are a few points about that issue which need to be remembered.
First, drug testing will not prevent accidents or abuse. The Bill is silent on preventive and non-punitive approaches to

February 4, 1988
Railway Safety Act
alleged problems of drugs and alcohol in the workplace. The Bill could have included, and 1 hope it will, provisions to improve employee assistance programs.
I want to recommend to all Members an article that was in this morning's issue of The Globe and Mail. It appeared on the editorial page and is written by Professor Brian Tucker of the University of Saskatchewan. It is entitled: "Stress rides the rails". It is not only those who ride the rails, locomotive engineers, brakemen and conductors, but those who hold a number of other high stress positions which exist in railway operations. I think particularly of train dispatchers in this regard.
I can recall a senior life insurance executive telling me a number of years ago that insurance companies would rather insure the fellow who paints the Lions Gate Bridge or washes windows on a 50 storey building than insure a train dispatcher or an air traffic controller. The difference in mortality rates and disability rates was remarkable. I have seen people in those occupations who are faced with stomach ulcers, nervous breakdowns and heart attacks when they are at the age of 40, 45 or 50. These people a number of years ago had an average life expectancy of 56 compared to the national average a number of years ago of about 72.
The whole area of stress includes as well other personal, mental and physical problems. A person in these sensitive positions has to be vigilant. They are highly trained, competent and conscientious people. It is not just alcohol or drug use or abuse that causes stress. In fact, it is my view that the rate of alcohol use or abuse or drug use or abuse among employees in those types of jobs on the railroads and the airlines is far less than among the public generally in most other occupations.
If there is any one thing that one is conscious of when one is working on a railroad, for example, is "Rule G". An employee to whom this rule applies does not consume alcohol when on duty or subject to duty. That is drilled into one's head from the first day on the job. One is reminded of it continually not only by supervisors but by fellow employees. They know that the lives and property of thousands of other people are in their hands.
1 recommend this article by Professor Tucker and other studies that have been done to Hon. Members. The legislation should provide for, and require, sufficient funding for employee assistance plans. I am confident that in this respect the full co-operation of the employees and of their unions will be obtained. The federal Government and the railroads should share in the funding of these types of programs.
It is unsafe to send a man to work to run a locomotive or dispatch trains when he is having severe difficulties at home. Those problems are on his mind when he should be concentrating on his work. Dealing with this is called risk management. Without those types of programs being carried out and a requirement in the law there is not sufficient risk management.
I wish to point out a regrettable omission in the Bill. In Bill C-105 there is no protection given to railway employees who report unsafe practices or conditions to the Minister or to a regulatory agency. The Bill can be improved by adding a provision which states that an employee cannot be dismissed because of disclosures of unsafe practices and conditions to authorities outside of railway management. It is called whistle blowing, if Hon. Members will pardon the expression, on the railway.
I remember a train wreck near the station where I was working in Saskatchewan. The section foreman had won the prize for the best section in the whole Medicine Hat Division. He had received merit marks, awards, certificates on several occasions and even a handshake from the General Manager of Western Lines on several occasions. He was a man from Czechoslovakia who escaped that country in 1939. All his life in Canada he worked on the CPR rails, on the tracks. He became a section foreman, a very good one. The investigation showed that that mishap was due to a broken rail. Who received 35 demerit marks and was taken out of service for two weeks? That section foreman. Several times a year, year in and year out, that section foreman would plead with the roadmas-ter, the division engineer, and write to the superintendent of the division, pleading and asking for some more rails, or some newer rails, if not new ones. He knew the track and he knew what the rails were like. He could not get them; it cost too much money. Because he was doing a conscientious job, even though he had the best section in the whole Medicine Hat Division, he is the one who was made the scapegoat. The railway management did not even receive a slap on the wrist from the Canadian Transport Commission.
We have had reports given to us of a carman "bad ordering" a car, and his supervisor takes the "bad order" tag off and says to leave it on the train. If the carman objects, he is considered to be insubordinate and a trouble-maker, so he keeps his mouth shut. But there is an unsafe practice going on. Trying to document something like that is next to impossible.
The regulations have to include some procedures that protect the employee on the ground on the job, and protect the employee in his employment if and when he blows the whistle on unsafe practices by railway management. That is a must. It is not that the employee wants to get even with the company or get even with some foreman or superintendent; it is because the safety regulations require them, as well as him, to operate safely and carry out their duties in order that the railway operation be more safe.
I wish to say to the Parliamentary Secretary through you, Mr. Speaker, that it will require the help and the maximum co-operation of 50,000 to 60,000 railway employees for this to work to its maximum best. To pay so little attention to their conditions, and to have some unfair provisions in there, will not generate their co-operation and assistance. It will only worsen morale further and make bad attitudes worse.
February 4, 1988

I hope that the consultative committee is given a little muscle. The employees' representation on it should at least be equal to-I submit that it should be larger-than the representation by the railroads. The railroads continually have the ear of the Minister. They continually have the ear of the National Transportation Agency. The employees do not. When they did, they did not get very far.
There are a couple of other things that are or will lead to further unsafe conditions. I have mentioned stress and fatigue, and physical and mental problems of an employee and the help that they need and deserve. That should be funded jointly by the railroads and the federal authority. But there are a couple of other things. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that the Railway Crossing Act is repealed and will be covered in this Bill, if 1 heard him correctly. I do not know the figures, but over the years thousands of people have been killed at railway crossings. Our country runs approximately 30 years behind European countries in the situation that we have with railway crossings, compared to them.
To maximize railway safety and safety to the public, something has to be done about level crossings. It will cost money. 1 estimate a minimum cost of SI00 million a year for six to ten years to really do something about level crossings. There are thousands of locations where flashing red lights and the arms across the track are not sufficient. There will have to be an overpass or an underpass. The last one that was done in Regina cost $11 million, but it is a beautiful job. Six lanes of traffic move under the double track main railway line. It was jointly funded by the federal, provincial, and municipal Governments. That has to continue, and it has to be substantially increased. The funds are woefully inadequate. It is a disgrace.
There are more than 100,000 level crossings in this country, some of which could be completely done away with. For example, there are areas on the Prairies where a crossing every mile is not needed. In many areas one every two miles would be fine. But it would mean that a road would have to be built parallel to the track for that extra mile in order to do away with one crossing. There is an area where rail safety can be substantially enhanced when we start removing tens of thousands of level crossings and replacing them with overpasses or underpasses, grade separations as they are called.
I want you to visualize, Mr. Speaker, an 80-car freight train of grain moving from Moose Jaw to Assiniboia. On the Prairies there are thousands of farm fuel trucks owned by oil companies or contractors delivering fuel to farmers all over the three prairie provinces. In every location each truck makes a dozen or two dozen trips a day. They cross railway tracks a dozen or two dozen times a day. Visualize this, Mr. Speaker. It is still dark or it is getting dark, and that 80-car train of grain from Assiniboia to Moose Jaw-I will bring it the other way around in the right direction-ploughs into that farm fuel truck. The locomotive bursts into flames. The consist of the train is on the locomotive. The only communication that the train has beyond that locomotive is in the locomotive. Who is
Railway Safety Act
going to phone whom about what? If there are any carloads of dangerous goods on the train, who knows where they are? The locomotive is in flames, and it is miles from nowhere. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker, there is no one to do anything? The cabooses are going to be taken off. There will be no cabooses.
I find that the most incredible decision of the Canadian Transport Commission that I have ever seen, and they have made some dandy messes that contribute to unsafe practices. No matter what the railroads say about saving money-Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few extra minutes, if I may have permission of the House after three o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has two minutes left in his speech. Would the Hon. Member prefer to complete it now, if the House wishes?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues. I will wind up quickly by referring to some things the Bill should do but does not do. It is nebulous. It is too vague. It is not strong enough in terms of what it requires of the railroads. It is unfair in terms of what it does with, for and to employees. Too many things are not in it that should be in it.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary meant what he said about the Minister being willing and amenable to changes and improvements to the legislation. I hope that he is right and that he will forgive me for being a little bit doubtful, since of the 130 amendments moved to Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 I think the Government accepted 7 or 8 of them. Big deal. They were mostly ones dealing with minor details, but on the ones that really meant something, government Members sat there like sheep. Some of them even agreed with some of my amendments, but they sat there like sheep and followed their marching orders. So much for the independence of the committee.
My Party supports the railway safety Bill in principle, for we have been calling for such legislation for many years. We are sad that the Bill is so deficient, but we appreciate that it is a long overdue first try.
We will all be groping around in terms of what more we can do, but I think we could make that effort in committee. I plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to prevail upon the Minister to make available to us a draft, no matter how rough or incomplete, of regulations they are envisioning bringing in. The committee can be very helpful. We can hear the views of witnesses as well, which will make it even more useful in the finalizing of the new regulations.
Again I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the extra time. I hope the Bill will receive the many more improvements it so badly needs.

February 4, 1988


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 1.04 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. later this day.
At 1.04 p.m. the Elouse took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday The Globe and Mail reported on a confidential government memorandum which, unfortunately, outlined the Government's true agenda on refugee applications, namely, to utilize the pre-screening stage Bill C-55 to eliminate nearly two-thirds of all claimants. In doing so the Government is revealing a very diabolical and despicable streak.
For months the two Ministers of Immigration have stated that the Bill contains no pre-screening at all. Yet, at the very same time, they are designing, in secret, a strategy that is based purely on the opposite, on pre-judging applications. The Government's intent is to maximize the efficiency of the system by indiscriminately keeping people from ever accessing the system. This is paramount to a hospital turfing out needy patients in the name of achieving greater efficiency.
I call upon the Government to abandon its deceitful calculations and to end its wishful role of trying to play both judge and jury. It should instead establish an independent process to judge these claims fairly and honestly, and provide Canadians with policies which they can respect and trust.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is leading the Canadian economy into the 21st century despite the incredible debt left by the Liberals. In the four years prior to 1984 spending grew by 15 per cent per year, effectively mortgaging the next generation. The interest payments on this debt amount to 30 cents of every dollar of federal revenue.
The Government has reduced the annual deficit from a high of $38 billion in 1984 to an estimated $29 billion this year, which represents the first consecutive three-year decline in 30 years. Yet the Opposition continually calls for increased public
spending, not caring about the long-term damage this will cause.
The Government has responded to Canadian needs with initiatives like the Special Grains Program and the National Day Care Strategy in a responsible manner, while the Opposition asks Canadian taxpayers to spend even more. Just think, Mr. Speaker, how huge the deficit would be if either opposition Party were allowed to implement its irresponsible spending plans.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet take every opportunity to protest the independence of standing and legislative committees. Too often, however, these protestations simply hide reality. We have just had another example of this in the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
As you know, Bill C-92 was referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture instead of to a legislative committee. There is a serious flaw in Bill C-92, a Bill to amend the Wheat Board Act, which flaw government members on the committee recognized. Despite this recognition, the majority members of the committee were unwilling to recommend any changes to the Bill without the approval of the Minister. You have guessed it, Mr. Speaker, the Minister gave the government members their marching orders-there are no amendments.
The Bill will be reported to the House to allow producer car rebates without recognition of the cost of those cars to the grain moving system. This, Mr. Speaker, is not the way parliamentary reform was supposed to operate.



THE MEDIA


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of competition among the various tv stations in Ottawa. We had a very good example of this yesterday when the Hon. Michel Cote left the House after his statement.
Well before Question Period, we had trouble getting into the House. I had to ask Officer Desforges to let me through, and I had to do the same thing after Question Period.
Yesterday, members of the press who are in Ottawa on a regular basis did not stand in Mr. Cote's way, but there were
February 4, 1988

journalists and cameramen who only come here once a year and would not let us through. Mr. Speaker, no Member from Quebec is going to leave this House by the back door.
To prevent any recurrence of incidents of this kind, it would be useful to meet with representatives of the media and the cameramen, to find a solution.
Mr. Speaker, I may add that if I were a hockey coach today, I would immediately recruit some of the reporters and cameramen who were here yesterday, considering their muscle and the incredible speed with which they were able to move.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the American House of Representatives for giving peace a chance in Central America. Yesterday, the United States House, by a vote of 219 to 211, turned down the President's request to provide further military funds to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua.
The President's paranoic policy with respect to Nicaragua is totally wrong. It is an unwarranted, illegal interference by a superpower in the internal affairs of a small, poor country. It is a failure to recognize the principle of self-determination and it is a distortion of the real situation in that country. Nicaragua is not and never was a threat to the United States.
Finally, the President's policy was contrary to and undermined the peace plan agreed to by all Central American countries on the initiative of President Arias of Costa Rica, an initiative for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize. This is a good day for Central America and a good day for peace.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, where is our country heading? For many generations Canadians endeavoured to make laws in harmony with Holy Writ, but now our laws have to conform to the Charter of Rights, a document in which we had to fight to even get the name of God mentioned, a document that leaves out property rights and, even worse, makes no mention at all of the rights of unborn babies.
We lost the Sabbath Day as we knew it for many years because it did not conform to the Charter. Now we have abortion on request and unborn babies can be butchered in the womb simply as a birth-control measure. To our shame, we now let the convicted murderers live and permit the murder of unborn babies. It is enough to bring tears to the eyes of the Statue of Justice that stands silently in front of the Supreme Court of Canada.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House to a proposal of the B.C. Government to expand mining in Strathcona Park. The Government has changed provincial park boundaries to allow extended mining and exploration activity in the park.
Exploration activities by Cream Silver Mines Ltd. will lead to further mining in the park. Serious danger of contamination and destruction of major salmonid enhancement projects in the Great Central Lake and the Oyster River systems are a definite potential.
We in the NDP demand that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) use their powers under the Fisheries Act to suspend any further exploration and mining in Strathcona Park, to launch an in-depth investigation of the potential damage to fisheries systems in that park, and to hold public hearings to ascertain the wishes of the public in this matter.



CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation announced that 1,808 non-profit housing units have been approved for Metropolitan Toronto in 1988. One of the projects approved at St. Mark's Presbyterian Church in my riding will provide 62 family units and 14 special-purpose units.
That is good news, until we recall that there are at least
17,000	families, seniors and single people, now on waiting lists for affordable housing in the greater Metro area. That makes us realize that 1,808 new units will help but certainly will not solve the problem.
It is time for CMHC to use more of its Scarborough land bank for housing, to redevelop its own Toronto branch-office

February 4, 1988
lands on Lawrence Avenue for housing, and to explore the housing potential of other federal lands in Metro as recommended by the McLaughlin report.
 * *



RAILWAYS


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, it now seems that the federal Government is renegotiating with the Province of Newfoundland for the abandonment of the Newfoundland Railway. This was negotiated before, but the parties could not reach an agreement that the Province of Newfoundland would accept.
Now it seems the province will accept an agreement. If the province is satisfied with it, I wish it well. However, I wish this agreement had been negotiated in public and not behind closed doors.
When the Terms of Confederation were brought forward in 1949, Newfoundlanders were promised a link with the mainland which would extend from North Sydney to Port aux Basques. 1 assume the people of Port aux Basques will be looked after by the Province of Newfoundland in the settlement with the federal Government. However, I do not want the federal Government to forget the obligation it took upon itself in the negotiations for the town of North Sydney and for the workers of Marine Atlantic. I would suggest to the federal Government that it treat the people of North Sydney fairly.



PUBLIC DEBT


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's editorial, the Globe and Mail reported the most shocking scandal we have known in the past 25 years, one that has an impact on Canadians today and will go on affecting us for the next 25 years. During the lengthy Liberal reign over this country, when the Liberals were unfortunately often supported by members of the Socialist Party, this country was spending money left and right, getting involved in frivolous expenditures and then having to borrow to buy the groceries.
That is why today, Canada has the largest per capita debt in the world. Canada ranks second after the United States in terms of absolute figures. We owe $172 billion abroad, that is, half the U.S. debt, for a country with one-tenth the population of the U.S. Mr. Speaker, that is a legacy we received from the Liberal big spenders. Lest we forget, the present Liberal
Leader was there at the time, with his present team, and they were there thanks to the Socialist Leader's support.
Something to think about for Canadians, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin on behalf of all my colleagues in the NDP caucus by joining with the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) in celebrating the vote in Congress last night on funding for the Contras. I would like to express my regret that the Canadian Government could not show as much distance from the policy of President Reagan as obviously a majority of U.S. Congressmen were willing to do; 1 suppose they are anti-American, too.
Let us turn our attention to another country torn not only by war but by famine, the country of Ethiopia. Many of us are disturbed by persistent reports that indicate food relief is being used as a political weapon by the Ethiopian Government. The problem of safe passage for emergency food supplies is of increasing concern. In that respect 1 draw attention to an allParty motion passed in the West German Bundestag calling for safe passage of those supplies. It specified that the impending famine must not be misused for political or military objectives; that the international humanitarian aid agencies must be guaranteed free and unhindered access to the needy population in all parts of Ethiopia; that relief convoys must be identifiable as such and it must be possible to check that they are not being misused for military purposes; and that food assistance and logistic support must not be misapplied for forced resettlement and villagization programs, nor misappropriated for the Ethiopian Army.
Those are the kinds of concerns on which we need a response from the Government. I hope the Minister in charge of this program will soon make a statement with respect to these charges and the effect they have on Canadian policy in that area.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MEECH LAKE AGREEMENT-ONTARIO PREMIER'S REFERENCE TO NEW CO-OPERATIVE SPIRIT

Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that a Progressive Conservative Member of
February 4, 1988

Parliament from Ontario has an opportunity to applaud a statement made by Premier David Peterson. Elowever, being one who gives credit where credit is due, I am delighted to have such an opportunity today.
The Ottawa Citizen reported that during a speech in London, England, to the Canada-United Kingdom Chamber of Commerce, the Premier praised Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and applauded what he referred to as a new cooperative spirit in Canada. He called the Meech Lake Agreement an example of the new co-operation taking over federal-provincial relations. He stated in his comments: "I don't believe our Confederation has been stronger in the last 20 years."
It is my hope that such expressions of praise and good will by the Premier of Ontario will continue upon his return to Canada.



IMMIGRATION


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, on August 11, in this House, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) announced that he proposed to change regulations so that parents could sponsor unmarried children over 21. Last week he issued a release which was not only disappointing but patronizing in its tone. It chided those who have been making inquiries and said that he would issue a release when he was ready to move on the regulations.
I find it absolutely heartless that the Minister would raise expectations in August and then, six months later, the best he can say is: "Don't call us, we'll call you."



ABORTION


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, seen in positive terms, the Supreme Court decision on abortion now gives Parliament an historic opportunity to enact a comprehensive new statute, one that we might call the Human Life Act.
A Human Life Act would deal not only with abortion, genetic engineering, surrogate motherhood, and new forms of reproductive technology, but also euthanasia, suicide, and similar instances of intentional intervention in the human life cycle.
Oral Questions
The Human Life Act should provide a legal framework within which particular decisions can then be reached by the individuals concerned and their medical doctor.
The sanctity of human life makes it appropriate to deal with all these questions as variations on a single theme, even though the medical procedures and individual circumstances vary dramatically.
My hope is that we can move beyond the current level of debate and analysis of this subject by placing the abortion issue in this broader context of a full-field concern for human life.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister characterized the offence of the Minister he fired as technical, the failure to report his true financial situation, and a matter that, if reported, would have been acceptable.
Today it seems that the Prime Minister has not told the Canadian people everything he should have. Will the Acting Prime Minister confirm that the fired Minister obtained substantial benefits from an individual who was awarded contracts and did work on a government project?
Was the undisclosed loan for approximately $250,000? What was the interest rate charged on that loan to the Minister, and how much interest did the Minister pay to the lender? Was the lender the individual whose companies did substantial work on Crown land development at the Port of Quebec?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite right. The Minister was dismissed for failing to comply with the disclosure as is required under the conflict of interest guidelines outlined by the Prime Minister, namely, the failure to disclose the existence of a personal loan. When it was confirmed that the loan was in existence, the Prime Minister took the necessary steps consistent with the spirit of the guidelines.
With respect to the individual with whom the former Minister made the loan, whether there are in fact any government contracts or whether he or his subsidiaries do any work for the Government, 1 am not completely aware, but that is a matter that is being looked into. Quite frankly, if the Hon. Member is suggesting that there is some sense of wrongdoing here-and I suspect that is what he is doing when raising the

February 4, 1988
Oral Questions
question-I would appreciate if he came forth with that information.


QUERY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER KNEW CERTAIN FACTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Prime Minister himself talked about a minister who neglected to report a loan, was he aware of the facts that I mentioned in my previous question?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, when the existence of the loan came to the attention of the Prime Minister, and the fact that it had not been disclosed and filed with the Deputy Registrar General in accordance with the guidelines, that indeed was a breach of the spirit of the Code. It was on that basis that the action was taken.


QUERY WHY MINISTER WAS DISMISSED
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Is the Government prepared to come clean with the House and the Canadian people, and tell us all the reasons why that Minister was fired, not just a superficial, if valid, reason?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not sure what reasons the Hon. Member has in mind. If he has some pertinent or specific allegations or reasons, for instance, I wish he would bring them to the attention of the House. What I am telling the Hon. Member is the information we have and upon which the Prime Minister acted. If the Hon. Member has other information, I would certainly invite him to impart it to the House.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told us to wait for Mr. Gorman's appearance before pursuing further explanations about the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Mr. Gorman has stated he was in the position to lay charges under the Criminal Code but that he did not want to do that because of the Minister's last election victory, and also because he was reluctant to use the Criminal Code to deal with an infraction under the Elections Act.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, because it certainly throws the ball back into his court, how he can still
keep the Minister in his Cabinet in view of Mr. Gorman's evidence that he was in a position to lay charges against the Minister under the Criminal Code.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gorman can say before the committee or outside the committee whatever he chooses to say. I suppose the Member can distort and put any interpretation he so wishes on that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is a lot of nonsense!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The fact is, as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, and as I indicated, today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources wrote to the chairman of the committee requesting-requesting-that he appear before the committee so he can set the record straight and respond to some of the false allegations that are emanating from Members across the way.
[ Translation]


QUERY WHY PRIME MINISTER IS HESITANT TO DISMISS MINISTER
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, lately the Government has asked us to direct our questions to Mr. Gorman, and that is what we have done. He told us he had all the information to lay criminal charges against the Minister. He said he did not do so because of the Minister's big majority in the last election, and especially because he was reluctant to use the Criminal Code in the case of a violation of the Canada Elections Act. I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister, now that the ball is in his court, why he was so reluctant to fire the Minister, considering the statements we heard by the Commissioner of Elections, to the effect that he had the requisite information to lay criminal charges against the Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was at the committee, I was not, but my interpretation of the evidence presented by Mr. Gorman is that he did not find the Minister guilty of an offence under the Elections Act. In fact, I understand he said that, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been a letter he should have never written.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: So, quite frankly, there are these kinds of bits and pieces of testimony that are picked up in the committee that are selectively chosen to form the basis of questions on the floor of the House. It makes it very difficult, not having had the benefit of being in the committee, to determine what in fact is going on there. This makes it very difficult, with due respect, Mr. Speaker, to respond to these questions when some Members have the advantage of being in the committee while others have not.
February 4, 1988


THE CABINET
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's press release concerning the resignation of the Hon. Member for Langelier was very brief. The Prime Minister did not mention the name of the person who made the loan. He did not mention the amount. He did not give a list of the contracts this person received from the federal Government. These questions are very important to Canadians and to the Members of this House. My question is just this: Can the Deputy Prime Minister guarantee that the Government will provide all this information and, more specifically, information concerning any contracts Mr. Laberge has received in the past from the federal Government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that I am not aware of all the details of any contractual arrangements or any work the individual in question may be conducting with the Government of Canada. That is being looked into. I will certainly report to the Hon. Member in due course.


REASON FOR DEMANDING MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. Considering that it was the Prime Minister who alluded to possible conflict of interest in the guidelines, and he said specifically that there was a neglect to report the loan in question, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House in response to this question, in a way that he did not to an earlier question, was the sole ground for demanding the resignation of the Hon. Member for Langelier that he had failed to report the loan? Or was there any other possible view about a potential conflict of interest of a different kind?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and for the benefit of the House, that what we are dealing with here is a breach of the Code and not necessarily a conflict of interest. It was on the basis that the personal loan that was arranged for by the former Minister was not disclosed, as is required under the Code.


REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister knew about the information which he used to ask for the former Minister's resignation approximately two days ago, is the Deputy Prime Minister telling the House that
Oral Questions
in the intervening 48 hours the federal Government has not yet obtained information about all the contracts that the person who issued the loan had with the federal Government? The basic point is that the Government has not obtained that information in the past 48 hours. If it has not done so, which we find a little bizarre, when will the Government have this information?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think I said that the Government was in the process of compiling that. I repeat again, there is no evidence on the basis of information that we have that there was a conflict of interest.
If the Hon. Member has some suggestions of impropriety or wrongdoing I hope that he will raise them. I sense that his question is presented in the best of tenor, and I want to respond to it in the same manner.


MICHEL CQTE AFFAIR-QUERY WHY GOVERNMENT REFUSED TO DISCLOSE ALL FACTS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does he expect the public to believe that the Government has waited for the resignation of the Hon. Member for Langelier before investigating the facts? Mr. Speaker, this is incredible. I therefore ask the Deputy Prime Minister why he and the Prime Minister are refusing to give the House and the public all the facts on which they based their request for the resignation of the Hon. Member for Langelier. Why the urge to hide the whole truth about this matter?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is no desire to conceal or hide the truth as the Hon. Member is suggesting. I want to remind him again that what we are dealing with here is a breach in the compliance with the guidelines rather than the assumption that there has been a bona fide breach in terms of conflict of interest.
On the basis of the failure of the former Minister to comply with the Code, by not disclosing the details of a personal loan, he was in violation of the Code. It was for that reason that he was dismissed.


GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION-AWARDING OF CONTRACTS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin my supplementary question by asking the Deputy Prime Minister, if he and the Prime Minister are certain that we are dealing only with a technical breach of the guidelines and not a conflict of interest, why is it necessary for the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to carry out further inquiries?

February 4, 1988

Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This certainly suggests that there is some reason why they are not willing to tell the whole story about this matter to the Canadian public.
1 want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister specifically, will he tell us today whether or not Rene Laberge of Quebec, or any company in which he has an interest, received any government contracts, loans, or grants from this Government since it took office? Can he at least answer that specific question linked with this matter?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to be as fair as I can. The Hon. Member wants to know why we are carrying out inquiries, and then he asks a question as to whether in fact there was any business done by this individual. That is precisely why there is further examination in this case. That is what I responded to his seat mate, and that is precisely the response that I gave to the Leader of the New Democratic Party. We have undertaken to do that.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. All Members of Parliament, and I suspect that all Canadians were flabbergasted when Mr. Gorman indicated in testimony yesterday that he made his recommendations regarding the alleged violations of the Canada Elections Act and the Criminal Code because the Minister had such a huge majority. It seems that if someone has a huge majority, and in that sense is very popular, no charges would be laid; but if someone was narrowly a winner, charges would be laid.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister do the right thing and indicate on behalf of the Government, and on behalf of the Parliament of Canada, that this type of decision is wrong, that this type of justice is inappropriate, and that the Government of Canada will not stand for any type of decision of this nature?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thought that that is what the work of the committee was seized with. This individual is an officer of Parliament, and if he has conducted his mandate-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are wrong.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I'm sorry, he was.
If in fact he did conduct the mandate of his office in an improper manner, in the opinion of the committee, or if he exercised bad judgment or used his discretionary powers in too broad or in an improper fashion, I think that that is clearly something for the committee to report on. Perhaps in the course of that, there may very well be ways and means in which the legislation could be changed to ensure that this type of thing does not happen again.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: I think it is very important that the Deputy Prime Minister send a very clear signal right at this moment that, in no way, is this type of justice tolerated. Surely the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada does not have to wait for a committee to examine this type of statement, that if you win by a huge majority you can presumably break the law.
I wish the Deputy Prime Minister to stand up now and state that this type of decision and this type of justice are unacceptable and will not happen again.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 may very well share the views of the Hon. Member. But the fact of the matter is that this individual was authorized to carry out a job as sanctioned by the Parliament of Canada. I certainly would not want to usurp the role of individual Members of Parliament who may want to render a decision or a judgment on the basis on which Mr. Gorman conducted his stewardship.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question involves another scandal, this one involving the negligence of the Solicitor General. Four months ago on October 2, 1987, here in the House I brought to the attention of the Government a series of leaked memos on parole supervision in Toronto which described the system as being at the breaking point. I warned the Government that the situation was a powderkeg ready to explode and that the safety of Metro residents was at risk.
The response of the Government was that "The situation is well in hand". The situation was not well in hand. A young woman was murdered in Metropolitan Toronto last week. My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is the following.
In view of the gross negligence of the Solicitor General, will he immediately ask for his resignation?



February 4, 1988


Hon. Janies Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not aware of any gross negligence on my part or those in my Department. I believe that the Hon. Member is referring to the Stanton case in Toronto. I am certainly relieved that he has been recaptured and is back in custody.
As Hon. Members will know, there is an ongoing police investigation into this matter, charges have been laid, and I cannot comment on that aspect of it as it is before the courts.
With respect to what responsibility, if any, Correctional Services and the National Parole Board have, as the Hon. Member well knows, 1 have directed that there be an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding that under Section 12 of the Penitentiary Act. That has already commenced.


RELEASE OF CONVICTED RAPIST ON UNESCORTED PASS
John V. Nunziata: On October 2, 1987, I brought to the attention of the Government the memorandum from Mr. Max Stienburg, who is a senior member of the National Parole Board, to Mr. Ole Ingstrup, the Chairman of the National Parole Board. In the first paragraph he states:
It is becoming very apparent that major problems exist in the area of
supervision in Toronto and vicinity. We continue to lose jurisdiction in
cases ... due to late reporting to see evidence of very shoddy work and to see
signs of impending major problems.
The Solicitor General was warned about the serious nature of parole supervision in Metropolitan Toronto. Can he explain to the House how it was possible for a convicted rapist to be given an unescorted pass from a federal penitentiary, and how it was possible for that individual to escape from a half-way house, and for it to take the half-way house eight hours to notify the police?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I have already advised the Hon. Member, there is a police investigation under way. Therefore, I cannot comment on that.
I can tell the Hon. Member that there will be a public inquest into this matter, and that I have already initiated an inquiry under Section 12 of the Penitentiary Act into all aspects surrounding the involvement of the National Parole Board, Correctional Services of Canada, and the half-way house itself, in this particular incident.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for International Trade. The Minister knows the impact of the free trade agreement with the United States upon the grape and wine industry of
Oral Questions
both the Niagara region and the Okanagan Valley. More serious than that, and of greater concern, is the recent GATT trade panel report. This report is under discussion in Brussels.
Would the Minister be good enough to advise the House of the status of those discussions that are going on, or have been going on, whether there is any opportunity for a compromise agreement, and what might be done as an alternative to save the Niagara region and the fruit growing belts of Canada?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for St. Catharines for his question and for his efforts on behalf of the wine industry and the grape growers in his region.
I do want to point out that this is a provincial matter in the sense that the procedures in question are provincial pricing practices. I want to assure the Member that every effort was made by our federal negotiators to secure as long a period of adjustment as possible. Unfortunately, in these negotiations with the European Community the Europeans were not prepared to take into account the need to have a satisfactory period of adjustment time, and they set unacceptable conditions as a basis for continuing to negotiate.
We are involving the provinces in this discussion. We are involving the industry. We will continue to do so while we evolve our response to the GATT panel decision.


THE CABINET
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr. Marc Lefranqois, Conservative Party organizer, told the media this morning that Mr. Rene Laberge purchased property from the federal Government for $1,008,000 about two years or eighteen months ago. Could the Deputy Prime Minister confirm to the House today that Mr. Laberge purchased federal land from the federal Government, and could he release all the details of this transaction? Finally, Mr. Speaker, could he give the House the assurance that the usual bidding process was followed? Mr. Speaker, it is time to be open and honest with the Canadian people.


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am able to confirm that Mr. Laberge had an interest in a company or companies which has purchased lands from the federal Government, in particular in the old Port of Quebec.

February 4, 1988
Oral Questions
I do not have all the particulars today. I can confirm that the purchases were further to calls for proposals which were done according to a tendering system. There was an adjudication process involving not only directors of the Old Port of Quebec but also representatives from the community, universities, and business, to determine who should be awarded the contracts.
I do not have all those particulars, but 1 can confirm, in general, that the general thrust is that Mr. Laberge was involved.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS-REQUEST FOR FULL DISCLOSURE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in light of that, 1 go back to the Deputy Prime Minister and ask him whether or not the inquiry that he is talking about will be broad enough in scope to deal not only with some contracts that Mr. Laberge may or may not have had with the federal Government but also details about the land. Will he make public what Mr. Laberge paid for the land? Will he also make public all details that are relevant vis-a-vis this particular transaction?
Can he say to the House whether or not the inquiry is an inquiry of the Government internally, or whether or not the police are also doing an investigation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, once again may I simply reiterate that there is no evidence of a conflict of interest here. There are allegations and suggestions being raised such as the one the Hon. Member raised earlier.
1 indicated to the House earlier that we were compiling any relationship the individual may have, or his subsidiaries may have, with the Government in terms of doing business. As soon as that is available, I will certainly provide it to the House.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE-ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS OR OTHER BENEFITS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister said in the House that the Minister of Supply and Services was kicked out of Cabinet because of a technical breach, namely, the failure to report a loan.
In view of the fact that Section 33 of the Conflict of Interest Code, tabled in the House by the Prime Minister on September 9, 1985, says that public office holders in their judgment and performance of duties shall decline gifts or other benefits, could the Deputy Prime Minister admit to the House that it is not only the failure to report the loan that is at stake here? It
is the fact that the benefit or the loan in question was accepted at all. It is far more than a technical breach.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that that has been adequately answered by the Prime Minister. I really have nothing further to add other than the fact that I should point out to the House that on January 29, 1987, as the Prime Minister indicated, I instructed the Associate Secretary to Cabinet to review with each Minister the arrangements made to ensure his or her compliance with the Conflict of Interest Code. As a result, a very detailed questionnaire, some 19 pages in length, was submitted to each Minister. It was on that basis that the Associate Secretary to Cabinet did a complete and thorough review and analysis of all cabinet Ministers.
Unfortunately, in this particular case there was a breach of the Code, which we discovered this week and on which the Prime Minister acted immediately.


Don Boudria: The Deputy Prime Minister still has not told us what section of the Code has been breached.


CONFLICTS OF INTEREST-PRIME MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister claimed he found it very difficult to get his Ministers to observe the code of conduct on conflicts of interests, because, as he said, he had inherited this code from the previous Liberal Government.
Considering the fact that the present code was tabled in the House by the present Prime Minister on September 9, 1985, why doesn't the Prime Minister take the responsibility instead of trying to sell Canadians a bill of goods? And when is the Prime Minister finally going to stop blaming others for the Conservative Government's improprieties?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any Government has to take any lecture from this particular individual. The fact of the matter is that the guidelines which are in existence today are much, much more stringent than those of any other previous administration, any previous Government. The fact of the matter is that the guidelines are working.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We have proof positive as a result of what happened this week.
February 4, 1988


MEDICAL CARE
Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am wondering how the implementation of the free trade agreement with regard to the specific area of health care facilities management services affects the already widely diverse method of health care management found throughout the country.
Specifically, could it have any effect on the principle of universal access to health care services?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member, this matter has come up before in respect of the discussion on the free trade agreement. Hon. Members of the House will recall that I very specifically referred to hospital management at that time, and I am referring to it again.
Private sector management of health facilities is not inconsistent with the medicare tradition in Canada. It has been supported and promoted by various provinces to various degrees. The Canada Health Act, while requiring provincial plans to be administered on a non-profit basis, does not close the door on private sector management.
The free trade agreement, therefore, is simply a recognition of the current way of doing things in Canada and has not changed anything from present practice or the future.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and concerns the level of dioxins in the Mirami-chi River near the Domtar plant. Is the Minister aware that in the past 20 years, studies have shown levels of very toxic dioxins in the water near Domtar? What is his Department doing to protect the environment, public health and the fisheries industry in this area?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the company, hand in glove, on a clean-up. I am advised that Domtar itself is launching a major excavation and that a clean-up is under way with the full backing of the Government of Canada through my Department.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ADEQUATE MEASURES WILL BE TAKEN
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly welcome to hear that a clean-up is under way. Could we have some more details about it? Can we understand what his responsibility is and what checking there has been with Agriculture, for example, with the possible presence of dioxins in cattle in the area and with the evidence of dioxin in fish?
Can we be assured that comprehensive attention will be paid to the matter and that the clean-up will be adequate for all these problems?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, if I had for my own answer alone the remaining time in Question Period, I probably could not do justice to all the questions that were asked. However, suffice it to say, the plant in question has been closed. A clean-up is under way. The Government of Canada is providing every technical back-up possible. We are monitoring it as an issue of first importance. As for the detailed information the Hon. Member has requested, I would be glad to provide it to her either directly or in response to any question she might wish to put on the Order Paper.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I say to him that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the guidelines. It is the people who administer the guidelines, that is the problem with this particular Government.
Yesterday there was no information forthcoming from the Prime Minister regarding the details surrounding the firing of his Minister. Today, on the floor of the House, the Deputy Prime Minister was not prepared to give any details and in fact only said "we are compiling information", only to have, 15 minutes later, the Minister of Public Works admit, on the floor of the House of Commons, the relationship of Mr. Laberge and the Government of Canada in certain contracts.
1 want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, on the basis of honesty and integrity, will he not now tell the House the amount of the loan, the interest rate which was charged, and all details which are in his possession in the aide-memoire which lies in his briefing book?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member asks a specific question he will get a specific answer, as did the Hon. Member

February 4. 1988
Oral Questions
for Yorkton-Melville. It was a very specific question and he got an answer.
[DOT] <1450)
I can confirm that the loan is in the order of $250,000. The identity of the lender is Adelard Laberge Incorporated and I understand the owner is Rene Laberge. I am not aware of the interest rate. I do not have that information available at this time.


INTEREST RATE CHARGED ON LOAN
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of knowledge and the impact which it has on the whole discussion of this issue, will the Deputy Prime Minister now give an undertaking to the House that no later than tomorrow at Question Period he will have, for the benefit of all Members, the precise information as it relates to the interest on this particular loan?
In addition to that, will he not now give a clear and unequivocal undertaking that he will stand in his place and give a detailed description of all of the information which is in his possession and the possession of the Prime Minister relating to the dismissal of the former Minister of Supply and Services? Will he not now do that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to conceal any information on the facts that I have at my disposal. That which I am giving to the Hon. Member today is the information which was provided to me. I have absolutely no desire to withhold such information, as he would suggest.
I will provide any pertinent information as it becomes available to me. I want to assure the Hon. Member that I would not want to give him an undertaking and not be able to fulfil that undertaking. As I have indicated to other Members of the House, as the information becomes available I will be prepared to provide it.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister as well. He knows that Mr. Fletcher, senior Vice-President of CN, has indicated through a memo that he wants lay-offs to continue at an accelerated rate because during a federal election that may not be possible.
The Deputy Prime Minister knows that as a result of Bill C-85 which was passed six months ago workers cannot negotiate job security or anything else. Since there is no arbitration ongoing even now after almost six months, how will those workers be able to protect their jobs in light of the CN memo?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, Canadian National is a Crown corporation that competes on the open market, and the Government cannot interfere with its corporate plan. As a member of this Government, I regret that a rationalization program is having an impact on the workers themselves, but the Government as such cannot intervene.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PROTECT JOBS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It does not relate only to transport but to the back-to-work legislation introduced by the Minister of Labour and passed by this House.
That legislation prevents the shop craft workers from exercising their right to strike. They cannot get an arbitration at the present time because the other group is in arbitration. They are losing their jobs because of legislation passed by this House. What is the Government going to do to protect those workers?


Mr. Joe Price (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the Hon. Member that the arbitration proceedings are proceeding quite well with respect to these unions. Among the outstanding issues, the issue of job security is front and foremost in the arbitration proceedings. Three of the six issues which were put before the arbitrator have now been resolved by an interim award made by the arbitrator. The three outstanding issues will indeed be resolved in very short order as a result of the excellent arbitration process.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. According to an article in today's Ottawa Citizen the former Minister of Supply and Services was also the chief fundraiser for the Conservative Party in the Province of Quebec. Notwithstanding the circumstances surrounding the Minister's departure from Cabinet in the last two days, does the Deputy Prime Minister deem it appropriate that a Minister of Supply and Services in charge of administering government contracts would also be given the responsibility by the Prime Minister of being the chief fundraiser in the Province of Quebec?
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury
February 4, 1988

Board): Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, says that the allegation is totally false.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's question has been answered in a way. I must advise that the Hon. Member, who is a skillful debater in this place, has probably asked a question which is, on strict interpretation of procedure, out of order. Before the Hon. Member rises to ask a supplementary question I would ask him to keep that in mind. The question seems to be directed at an area of activity outside the responsibilities of the Ministry.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Member is trying to understand the way in which the ethical standards of the Government are being enforced. We are trying to determine how the Government determines a benefit.


CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING MINISTER S RESIGNATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, how is it that the Deputy Prime Minister has no information at the beginning of the day and the Minister of Public Works has a great deal of information in the middle of the day? The Minister subsequently told the House that "if you ask specific questions you will get specific answers".
What kind of cat and mouse game is he playing with the people of Canada and the Parliament of Canada? When will he make a full statement disclosing all the information the Government has with respect to all of the circumstances surrounding the resignation of the former Minister of Supply and Services and, we are told, the chief fundraiser for the Conservative Party in the Province of Quebec?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have already responded to that question.

[ Translation]


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Immigration). Considering that on August 11, 1987, the Minister of Employment and Immigration promised that single sons and daughters, whatever their age, would be able to immigrate to Canada as relatives of permanent residents, when does the Minister intend to keep his promise and allow Canadian citizens to reunite their families?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I thought for a moment that the Member was rising
Oral Questions
to compliment us on the 148,000 immigrants and refugees this country welcomed in 1987.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: That is 60,000 more than the 88,000 that were admitted by the previous administration. That is our commitment to keep increasing immigration levels to this country and to continue to allow immigration to contribute to the economic, social, and humanitarian growth of the country.


BACKLOG IN PROCESSING APPLICATIONS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question concerned the Minister's promise made last summer for which he says the regulations are not yet ready. My supplementary question concerns the fact that normal immigration applications have so surged that there is a heavy backlog, not in refugee matters, but in immigration matters.
Therefore, when will the Minister apply sufficient staff to carry out the obligations he already has and the promises he has made to the people of Canada?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, when we came forward with the planning figures for 1987-which we indicated, were targets and not quotas- Members of the Opposition said we would not meet those figures. Well, we did, and we will meet the planning figures again this year.
There is a productivity review under way by a small internal committee comprised of ourselves, the Solicitor General, Health and Welfare, and External Affairs, to learn whether there are more expeditious ways of processing. We are improving our procedures in terms of advancing new technology. An example is the new technology in Hong Kong where we have quadrupled the number of visas we are issuing on a monthly basis.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question of Question Period. I would ask the Hon. Member for York West to make his preamble short.


REFUGEES
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of State for Immigration and it relates to Bill C-55. The Minister said, as reported at page 7330 of Hansard of June 18, the following:
Every claimant will have an opportunity to argue why his or her claim should be heard. It is not correct that the initial hearing before an immigration adjudicator and a refugee board member is a prescreening.

February 4, 1988
Business of the House
Yesterday, The Globe and Mail quoted a confidential government memorandum which unfortunately outlines the true government agenda which is to use prescreening to eliminate nearly two-thirds of all applicants.
How can the Minister justify earlier statements to the House and to Canadians that there will be no prescreening and at the same time use a secret strategy that is based on prescreening and prejudging? Why is the Minister using a systematic prejudging approach rather than allowing the system to be independent, fair and honest?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is certainly not quoting from a secret document. The letter he has referred to was sent to officials around the country. It was one hypothesis. There are some planning and resources that have to take place. It is hypothetical because we do not know what the flow of claimants may be in the future.
We said clearly that we will protect those who do not have a safe haven. There will of course be eligibility criteria that might render some ineligible for access to the system, but of course there will be subjective criteria, and an individual, on a credibility basis, will be given access to the board.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ESTABLISH NEW PROCESS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister is saying now and what he said before in public are not the same as what that memorandum is suggesting. He should be ashamed of employing that double standard.
Given that the Government, in this memorandum, is clearly planning to prejudge, eliminate and discourage claimants without the facts, will he not reassure the House that he will abandon this Machiavellian strategy and will establish a process that can fairly and objectively judge claimants without him trying to be both judge and jury?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that we brought forward a process that will identify and welcome real refugees in an expeditious fashion. Today we do not have such a process. With the complicated, unfunctioning system the Hon. Member's Party left to us, individuals do not know when they can be protected in our system.
My advice is that at least 70 per cent of those people coming now are making what might be inappropriate refugee claims. They may be very good immigrants, but they should be applying in that stream. In a recent survey we took, 80 per cent came from a country which was not the country from which they fled out of fear of persecution.
Canada alone cannot solve the refugee problems of the world. We will do it in concert with our allies. Yes, we will return some to the safe havens they have had, to the homes in which they have lived or to the places from where they could have sought protection.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State to give a statement of the government business for the coming week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will try to outline the agenda for government business from now through until next Friday in view of the fact that we will then be breaking for a week.
We intend today to continue with Bill C-105, the Railway Safety Act. If Bill C-105 is not completed, we will call it again on Friday. Once that is completed, we will continue debate on Bill C-54.
On Monday, February 8, we will commence debate on Bill C-72, the Official Languages Act. We will debate that Monday and probably Tuesday.
As Hon. Members know, Wednesday is the day of the Budget presentation by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) which will take place at 4.30 in the afternoon. After the presentation by the Minister of Finance, we will on Thursday deal with what is normally known as the Opposition's reply to the Budget and have a full debate on Thursday on the Budget.
What we will do on Friday has not been determined at this time. We may do some housekeeping legislation at that time.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question also relates to House business. Yesterday in Question Period, it was brought up that the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure was looking into the Canada Elections Act with regard to the Hon. Member for Frontenac (Mr. Masse). In response to many questions, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) said that one route for resolving the impasse was to have a House order.
The Minister of State recognizes that the only reason the committee is conducting its business at the present time is that the majority of the committee overruled the Chair and decided to proceed despite the Chair's ruling. That is not a great way to do business. I wonder if the Government would reaffirm its commitment to allow the committee to call all witnesses and to ask all necessary questions on this matter and confirm that there will be a House order forthcoming to allow that to happen.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I have here the committee reference. Just to refresh the memory of Hon. Members, after the Speaker's ruling with respect to this matter on a question of privilege last week, we indicated that the Government was content to have this matter discussed in committee and that there were two ways of doing this, either by a House reference or by having the committee decide on its own just exactly what it wanted to do. We felt, quite frankly,
February 4, 1988

that we would be better advised to allow the committee to form its own reference, which it did.
The committee is now in the process of examining witnesses in the process of deciding whether or not it ought to proceed under the Elections Act with a formal charge. It is my understanding that the committee has seen Mr. Hamel and Mr. Gorman and that their testimony will continue at 3.30 this afternoon.
The point made yesterday was a question of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Masse) attending committee to answer questions put by the committee. I have not read the committee transcripts, I must admit. I am getting my information from the print and electronic media. As I understand it, there was some question about whether or not the committee could compel the Minister of Energy to attend. It is my understanding also, and I have seen a copy of the letter, that the Minister of Energy has cleared up that problem and has offered to attend in order that he may give testimony. That will happen, I believe, some time next week.
I think the House should let the committee do its work and follow its reference. I believe we are meeting all of the tests required. The Minister will be there of his own volition, and that is the best way to get a witness to answer any questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to remind Hon. Members that Question Period has ended. We are on the Business of the House question.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, we are on Business of the House, certainly, because we are discussing a House order to determine the terms of reference of the committee. The Minister cannot hide behind the fact that the committee is now operating under very narrow terms of reference.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have just said that Question Period had ended.

If the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) has a question about the business of the House as it relates to the Government's plans, we could perhaps dispense with further comment, except for the specific question to the Hon. Minister about the business of the House.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, let me put a straight question by asking whether the Minister is now ready to cause a motion to come before the House to determine the terms of reference to be used by the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure to look into the election expenses in a proper way. That would allow for all persons concerned to be summoned and for all documents to be
Business of the House
obtained so that the committee would not have to operate in the narrow fashion in which it is forced to operate at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has a question on House business. If the Minister of State would like to comment, of course he may do so, but I think it would probably be better if there were to be a House Leaders' meeting to settle this matter. It would be easier, I believe.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to conclude this discussion by indicating that there have been discussions between the House Leaders. I simply want to seek clarification from my hon. friend.
The discussions were to the effect that we would see how things proceeded with the committee on the assumption that a complete and thorough investigation would occur. There was the caveat that if there were problems, for whatever reason, I believe the Deputy House Leader indicated it would be his intention to consider seriously a reference from the House to clarify the terms of reference in order to allow a thorough investigation to occur.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to negotiate on the floor of the House on something like this. We made it very clear that we want the procedures of the commissioner in investigating these charges to be fully investigated by the committee. We have no intention of standing in the way of a thorough examination of the procedure involved in investigating charges. I want that to be very clear to everyone.
The committee is seized of this issue. It is not House business. However, I want to make it perfectly clear that the Minister has agreed to go and answer questions. That clears up that problem. The Government has done everything possible to make sure that the committee can do its work.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, last week the Government projected Bill C-33 on the Order Paper as a substitute Bill. I think it was on Monday or Tuesday last. We heard thereafter that the Government was not going to present that Bill because it wanted to amend it. We know that the scope of the Bill does not allow for amendments. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government is going to bring in a new Bill? That is, is it going to withdraw Bill C-33 as it stands now and amend it as it wishes, and can we expect the Government to bring this legislation forward soon or not?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-33 is on the Order Paper. 1 have advised my hon. friend of the government business from now until the break. If my hon. friend wishes to ask a question in Question Period about Bill C-33, we are open for answers.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will accept that invitation.

February 4, 1988
12636_____________________________________
Railway Safety Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-105, an Act to ensure the safe operation of railways and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, in resuming debate on Bill C-105 I would like to say, having listened to the debate that has taken place, that the important thing to note is that we are in complete agreement. It is an essential Bill and important to Canadians. In the debate so far much information has been given, and in my brief remarks I want to touch on two main areas of the Bill because I believe all Canadians should know what is included in the Bill.
With respect to railway construction, Part 1 of the Bill establishes the Government's powers and procedures related to construction and alteration of railway works. Under this part of the Bill the Governor in Council will have unlimited power to make regulations which establish standards for these activities. Equally important is the fact that through this provision the Bill makes it possible for the Government to select which construction and alteration projects it wishes to evaluate in detail. As a result, for the first time the regulator can focus on projects which may affect the safety of railway operations or may cause concern to the general public. There will no longer be a requirement to process a multitude of project approvals which have little or no bearing on safety.
The Governor in Council will also be empowered to designate kinds of railways works which cannot be undertaken without the proposer, in most cases a railway company, giving prior notice to persons who may be affected. The Bill makes full provision for any objections to be considered before a decision is made to allow the work to proceed. By putting the onus on the railways to notify potential objectors, the Bill removes the burden of ensuring public input which is now placed on Government by the existing Railway Act.
Bill C-105 creates three categories of construction and alteration projects for regulatory purposes. I would like to comment on those. First, projects which must have ministerial approval before work can begin. Second, works which may be undertaken without ministerial approval provided no objections are received but for which an affidavit certifying the safety of the completed work must be filed with the Minister. Third, projects which may be carried out without reference to the regulator.
The first category of works includes projects for which engineering standards have been prescribed and which depart from those standards or those which meet standards but are
objected to by other persons on the grounds of safety. Section 10 of the Bill sets forth the procedures to be followed in seeking authority to proceed. The Minister may seek advice, hold an inquiry into the proposal, and must consider legitimate objections before rendering a decision. The bottom line is that the Minister has the necessary power to deny authority to proceed if he or she, as the case may be, is not satisfied with the proposal on the grounds of safety.
The Minister will not be placed in the position of ordering the proposing party to proceed with the project or to carry out the project in a certain manner. It is up to the proposer and, as usual, the railway company concerned, to come up with a plan that satisfies the Minister's requirements. If a railway company uses the rejection of a proposed work by the Minister as a reason to abandon the service, appeals for restoration or service may be made to the National Transportation Agency on the grounds of public convenience.
I should add, with the introduction in this House of Bill C-18 and Bill C-19, steps the Government has taken we are continuing with Bill C-105 to complete and complement the work already done.
Members should note that the Bill creates an assessment period of 60 days within which the Minister must advise the proposing party that their request is approved, rejected, or that more information is required. The Minister may extend the assessment period indicating the length of time of the extension and the reasons for doing so. Also, the 60-day period excludes any time taken for an inquiry. In this manner the Bill establishes a normal term for rendering decisions but provides flexibility in the event that the proposal is particularly complex or controversial.
For the person proposing the project there is assurance in the legislation that applications will be handled expeditiously and that the time limit for decisions will be known. This has been the subject of considerable criticism in the past with proponents often facing difficulties in scheduling work in the absence of any indication of anything to the contrary. The new procedures may place pressure on the regulator to make decisions quickly, but this will provide a more equitable system for everyone concerned.
As regards the Railway Safety Act, for any project requiring ministerial approval, and for certain other types designated in the regulations, the completed works may not be placed in operation until an affidavit has been filed with the Minister. This affidavit must testify to the safety of the works and be signed by the professional engineer in charge of the works. This provision requires the proposing party to confirm in writing that works have been carried out in accordance with applicable standards or are otherwise consistent with safe railway operations. The onus to operate safely is placed squarely on the management of the railway companies or any person who undertakes railway work.
February 4, 1988

There remains a third category of work which may be carried out without reference to the regulator. These would include minor construction or alteration projects which do not have a significant impact on railway safety and which do not have potential to raise objections from other persons on the grounds of safety. The objective in creating these options is to eliminate the processing of routine applications for approval which do not yield benefits in terms of improved safety.
Elowever, Members should note that even in the case of this third category of projects which can be carried out without reference to the regulator, there remain full powers of inspection under the Bill and the power for either the railway safety inspector or the Minister to stop or put restrictions on any operation if a threat to railway safety should rise.
Furthermore, the Minister would have powers to order modification or removal of railway work which is not in accordance with the requirements of the Act.
In providing for the establishment of standards, the Bill states that these may include physical specifications or they may be performance related. This reference to performance standards is intended to encourage a departure from the use of physical specifications, which are usually highly detailed and tend to lock the regulator and the industry into a particular technology. Standards based on performance establish what the railways must achieve in the interest of safety, but do not dictate the method for achieving it.
For example, the existing standards for train brakes are expressed in detailed specifications which are based on the conventional air brake system. In fact, the concern of the safety regulator should only be that a braking system is provided that is capable of stopping moving trains within certain limits. Whether that system be based on air brakes, electric brakes or any other means of stopping a train, depends only on whether the technology does the job safely. The railway safety Bill encourages the regulator to accommodate technological changes which enhance safety without having to change regulations.
Part II of the Bill gives the Governor in Council broad powers to make regulations governing the operation and maintenance of railways. These powers include controls over the safety of railway equipment and the standards to be met by persons employed in positions designated as being critical to the safety of railway operations.
Under these regulations, the Minister will have control over the essential area of operating rules. These rules, which control every facet of the safe operation of railways, include how trains are dispatched and operated by train crews, how equipment is designed and manufactured, and how equipment and track is inspected and maintained.
Members are aware that railway accidents are sometimes ascribed to human error. These almost always involve a violation of the rules which will be covered under Part II of the
Railway Safety Act
Railway Safety Act. By simplifying the procedures and removing these rules from the requirements of the Statutory Instruments Act, this Bill will enable the Minister to implement changes rapidly in the interest of safety and to keep the rules up to date. This was a point of great concern to Mr. Justice Foisy after the collision at Hinton. I am pleased to note on behalf of the Government and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) that Bill C-105 will make it possible for the Minister to respond to Mr. Justice Foisy's recommendation.
The railway safety bill provides flexibility in rule making so that the Minister can tailor rules to special requirements of individual companies. This is particularly desirable in the case of the smaller railways under federal jurisdiction which have no need for many of the rules which have been written with the large main line railways in mind. Nevertheless, the Bill seeks retention of uniformity in rules wherever it is reasonable and practical to do so.
Bill C-105 also allows exemptions from regulations to be granted for specific reasons. This flexible approach will be of particular benefit for carrying out research projects of short duration. The exemption process also could be used to relax certain rules to allow a demonstration of new technology, such as a trial operation of a new rail bus. These exemptions would only be permitted under controlled circumstances which would ensure that there is no threat to safety.
I had the honour of serving as Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and having worked with the Minister of Transport and the Minister of State. I have had the pleasure of working with the transport critics of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party and listened with great interest to their debate on Bill C-105 this morning. New Members of Parliament sometimes lack experience and can learn from those more experienced Members. Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 are a reflection of the complexity of our country.

-whether we come from Quebec or from out West, the key to promoting regional development, and this is important, is transportation. For years, we have seen that in some areas, there is a definite lack of transportation. Whether we are looking at a Crown corporation-whether it calls itself CN or VIA Rail-or at a private company, and in the past we had CP and I think we still do, but the important thing is that we must keep our priorities straight for developing this country from east to west, and we should be sensible, both about safety and the way we spend the funds available.
Mr. Speaker, being on the Transport Committee, I had an opportunity to make the trip between Paris and Lyon on the TGV super express.
Mr. Speaker, it was fantastic. But don't misunderstand me. I am not asking for a train like this for the regions, whether we are talking about the Gaspe, Bonaventure or the Magdelen Islands. We don't need one, but we do need transportation

February 4, 1988
Railway Safety Act
across this country because that is the secret of our success, and it is vital for investment.
There were a couple of points made in the debate which raised questions in my mind but we must realize that transportation is not political. It is an essential service for Canadians. For myself as a Member of Parliament, the transportation system between Charlo, New Brunswick, and the Gaspe is important because there is not a direct line from Ottawa to my office in Carleton. The fact that I do not have direct transportation is not important. What is important is to increase communication and investment in our areas.
We always hear doom and gloom from the Opposition Parties. But there are no politics, as I said, in transportation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and all members of the Conservative Party will listen to recommendations made by the Opposition with respect to the Railway Safety Act. There is no Conservative, no Liberal, no New Democrat, in fact no one in this country who would want another accident such as the one in Hinton, Alberta. Politics must be put aside. We must hone the Bill. We must respect the recommendations of Mr. Foisy, and we must give the Minister flexibility in the Bill, under special circumstances, so that he can react and react directly. We cannot produce legislation that will cover every possible accident, which is why the Minister will have these powers.
I cannot respond to all the points made in the time I have left. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) this morning mentioned whistleblowers and unions. He talked about fines, accidents and U.S. deregulation. I believe Hon. Members should know that with deregulation in the United States the accident rate went down, according to the figures 1 have here, for the year 1984. The percentage of accidents has gone down as it concerns railway activities in the United States. In closing I will say I am proud that we have a new Railway Safety Act in Canada for freight and passengers and I am sure that with the co-operation of all Parties, Bill C-105 will be developed into a great Bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend and colleague on the committee if he would care to express his views as to the adequacy of the Bill in terms of the amount of representation on the consultative committee, which is, one from the union, five from the Government and five from the railroads. Does the Hon. Member consider that fair? Also, would he agree that employee representation should be substantially increased and made at least equal to that of the railroads? Will the Hon. Member also tell us his views as to the disproportionate size of the penalties; $10,000 for an individual and $50,000 for a large railroad? Does he consider that a fair proportion?


Darryl L. Gray: I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I am sure he realizes that
in terms of railway safety we must ensure that we have equal representation, whatever that might imply. Railway safety, be it on the union side, the railway side or with respect to public input, is very important, and I am sure the Minister has taken that into account in drafting the Bill. At the same time I believe it is very important to note that during the travels of the Standing Committee on Transport to Europe, we found there is more and more an ongoing process there where the employees become part shareholders in the company, which I think would be a very interesting proposition to look at. I do not presume to go beyond what the Minister might say at a later date. Safety cannot be regulated in a sense that we will work 10 per cent of our time on safety and the rest of the time will be spent on other parts of productivity. I believe it is very important that the consultative body be there and be representative of all Canadians who use the service, be it cargo or passenger.
I would like to say at the same time that because of my interest in transport I had the opportunity, as did the Hon. Member for Regina West, to work for several years in the railway business. My father worked for CN for 33 years. So we take this subject very seriously. We want an ideal system for all Canadians so that we can all be happy with our transportation system.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Act to ensure the safe operation of our railways is one which commands attention and is of an importance that goes well beyond the title of this Bill. What struck me in reading the first few pages of the Bill is the fact that the Bill does not contain a very important aspect that surrounds the operations of a railway, that is, the environment through which it travels. On not one page was I able to find a reference to the environment, any words with respect to our natural resources, nor any words to show that in drafting the Bill the Government was not only sensitive but receptive to environmental issues.
The Bill makes reference in Clause 5 to compliance with the Navigable Waters Protection Act almost as an afterthought or as an add on. For that one can be grateful. However, as we examine the Bill, over some 75 pages, we have to come to the conclusion that the environment has been forgotten. One wonders where the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) was when this Bill was drafted. Was he consulted? Did he ask to be drawn into the discussions to ensure that environmental concerns were included in Bill C-105? For that matter, where were Members of the Progressive Conservative Party from British Columbia when this Bill was drafted?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I think it is absolutely offensive that on the first day we are debating railway safety legislation there is not a person, not a body, not a soul, not even a mirror image on the Government side. There is a completely empty panorama there. 1 call for a quorum count. It is disgusting.
February 4, 1988


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We shall proceed with a count of Members present.
And the count having been taken:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We do not have a quorum. Ring the bells.
And the bells having rung:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We do now have a quorum. The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) has the floor on debate.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, the powers of the bell are remarkable. Indeed, we are glad to resume this debate.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is such a good speech, we want others to hear it.


Charles L. Caccia: 1 wish to thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) for ensuring that there be an audience on this intervention on the environment.
The fact is that in Bill C-105 the environment has been forgotten. One can legitimately ask in the Chamber as to where the Minister of the Environment was when this Bill was drafted, considering the fact that railway transportation does affect the environment in a number of ways. One can also ask where the British Columbia members of the Tory caucus were when this Bill was drafted, considering the experience that they had directly in British Columbia when it came to the twin-tracking of Canadian National in the Fraser River Valley. As a matter of fact, there are two of us in this Chamber now who travelled to British Columbia in 1985, together with a considerable number of Tory Members from B.C., to investigate first-hand that very situation because of the environmental impact imposed by the proposed twin-tracking of CN in a certain section along the Fraser River.
On page 5 of the Bill, where Clauses 7 and 8 are found, which clauses relate to regulations and to the notice in particular of proposed railway works, there is not one reference to the desirability-indeed I should say necessity-of initiating an environmental impact study or an environmental impact assessment in relation to works coming under this particular legislation and related, of course, to railway works. The environment and the experience made thus far in the environment has been forgotten by the drafters of this Bill. The Government has to carry that responsibility for having ignored this very important aspect.
Every year tracks are widened, as are bridges, and railway works are undertaken. It is high time that when works of this type are proposed, before they are initiated and even considered for approval, environment impact be considered as an
Railway Safety Act
essential part in the legislation that covers these types of works. It is therefore not too late, since I think it would be unacceptable to see this Bill go through the House at third reading, to make amendments in committee to Clause 8 in particular to the effect that environmental impact studies and assessments be made mandatory when it comes to railway works that have an impact on the environment.
In reading through the Bill one comes across some other environmental impacts that deserve attention in this day and age since Bills of this type do not receive approval and passage every year. Usually it is every 10 years that a measure such as this is put forward. Therefore I draw Your Honour's attention to Clause 24 of the Bill which is headed "Regulations" as they affect the removal of trees, brush and weeds along railway lines. A subclause here is desirable which would indicate the Government's readiness to consider the use of alternatives to pesticides when it comes to the clearing of weeds, brush, trees and the like along railway lines.
It is a well established fact that jobs can be created by way of manual clearing as an alternative to the removal by pesticides with chemical substances. The reason that manual removal is preferable is due to the fact that conventional pesticides eventually find their way into water and contaminate our water supply. Over the years we have gradually come to the conclusion that the fewer pesticides we use and the more we reduce our dependence on them the better it is for the quality of our waters. I am sure that that conclusion is one that the Minister of the Environment is aware of and one that he should advance in Cabinet when considering amendments to this Bill, as they will inevitably have to be considered in the not too distant future.
If we move to Clause 44(1) of the Bill, which I am sure has been discussed by previous speakers, Hon. Members will see that there is a description of the consultative committee to be established by the Minister. The public affected by rail transportation is not represented in Clause 44(1). In the clause is the provision for a representative of the Minister, of the Canadian National Railway Company, Canadian Pacific Limited, VIA Rail, one to represent the other railway companies to which this Bill will apply, one member to represent the shippers of rail freight and, finally, one member to represent the Canadian Railway Labour Association. However, the public affected by railway transportation, be it VIA Rail, the transportation of goods in general and, in particular, when it comes to the transportation of dangerous goods, is completely missing. One wonders why it is that there is such an oversight. This clause has to be modified in committee. The consultative group to the Minister, as envisaged in Clause 44, must be expanded to ensure the presence of the public affected by, I would say, at least two members to make any sense. We see that in the Bill there is a provision for representatives of various sectors and for specific interests representing what amounts to seven people.
What I would urge you to do, Mr. Speaker, at this stage is to ensure that an amendment to Clause 44 is carried to make

February 4, 1988
Railway Safety Act
this consultative committee representative of the public interest, the very public that is affected by the operation of railways. In too much of this Bill do we find the mind-set of the railway companies which seem to be operating in a vacuum, not aware that whatever they do in the end affects the public. They are there to serve the public. Therefore, if it comes to a consultative committee, 1 submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the public has to be represented.
In looking at Clause 50, and this is the time to do so because we are at second reading debate, again in this clause the citizens or non-governmental organizations that are interested in transportation matters have to be included in this specific clause for the reasons I stated when discussing Clause 44.
Let me briefly comment on a matter that concerns the city I come from, Metropolitan Toronto, where for some time now the citizenry has been increasingly worried about the safety of neighbourhoods should an accident take place as a result of a derailment or an explosion in a train that is moving dangerous goods.
Over the past four or five years since the Mississauga accident of 1979, an organization called M-TRAC has done a remarkable job of sensitizing public opinion and governments to the potential dangers that do exist, in virtually every large metropolitan urban area across the country.
The Government has appointed a special task force on the Toronto area dangerous goods railway matters. Public hearings have taken place and submissions have been made to that task force. In essence, the issues at stake are the following.
It is desirable to start planning and putting aside the funds necessary to relocate rails that go through densely populated areas. This is a costly operation, but it must be done. It is in the interests of large numbers of the population, particularly in downtown Toronto, because the railway line travels through areas where the number of schools is incredibly high. Apart from that fact, over the decades apartment buildings and low-rise residential areas have developed both north and south and east and west of the downtown railway lines. Hence the necessity for beginning to plan the removal of those railway lines to outside the densely populated areas, and specific alternative routes have been recommended to the task force. Therefore, we hope that the very clear and specific recommendations that have been made to the task force will soon reach the Government for its consideration.
There is also the question of the maximum allowable speed. When it comes to the movement of dangerous commodities through densely populated areas, it is important that the speed does not exceed 40 kilometres per hour. This should apply not only to cars that are full, but also to those that are marked empty. Very often with certain commodities cars that are marked empty are not completely or truly empty, and therefore potentially explosive and dangerous.
We have to respect what could be called a vital function of human observers. Here what stands out as an offensive item of neglect is the recent decision of the CTC to abolish the caboose. We are convinced that, for the basic elements of safety, a train that is hauling dangerous goods and is perhaps half a mile long does require a caboose in order to facilitate signalling to the front in case something goes wrong and can be seen at the end of that moving train. The decision made in December, 1987 by the CTC to remove the caboose must be revisited and reversed.
It is important that funds are available to the railway lines to perform the maintenance and the quality repairs that are needed, particularly in relation to hot boxes, the maintenance of rolling stock, the inspection of tracks and switches and, of course, last but not least, the training of employees.
Submissions have been made to the task force in relation to the transportation of dangerous goods. It is just completing its public hearing in Toronto, and it is in a well advanced stage.
I recognize the fact that Bill C-105 may not be intended to cover the transportation of dangerous goods. But at the same time it contains clauses of consultations with the Minister and the composition of committees for the purpose of consultations, which need to be expanded to include the public, particularly those organizations that are interested in dangerous goods. We welcome the idea of a consultative committee to the Minister, but we are saying that that concept has to be expanded to include interested and competent citizens.
Also, in a Bill like Bill C-105 which deals so intimately with the safe operation of railways, the environment must be included and taken into account, particularly in those clauses of the Bill that deal with railway works, alterations, and changes which are a matter of grave concern to neighbourhoods, farmers, native people, and to other activities that directly or indirectly impinge on the environment. For that reason, it is important that the discussion in committee include considerations that are of an environmental nature, and particularly in light of the experience in recent years, considerations that will permit the inclusion of environmental impact studies and environmental assessments.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it is particularly timely, or perhaps even ironic, that we are debating this legislation today. Earlier the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) spoke about the relationship between stress and safety. He referred to an article entitled, "Stress rides the rails" by Professor Tucker who teaches organizational behaviour at the University of Saskatchewan's College of Commerce.
I mention this at the outset because at this point in time there are other things going on within the railway industry which are adding to the stress to which Professor Tucker relates so well in his article. I am referring to the prolonged period of arbitration which has followed the back to work legislation of August 27, 1987.
February 4, 1988

I am also referring to the fact that there is another group of railway unions in limbo at this point to the extent that the railway has now refused to negotiate with them, has taken the position that the second group will receive whatever is awarded to the first group, and is therefore, no longer willing to bargain, relying instead on the willingness of the Government to play the railway's game. The minute the second group, the railway shopcraftsmen, go on strike, if they were to exercise that option, the railway is confident that the Government would proclaim the sections of the Act that would make the strike illegal. They would have to return to work, with binding arbitrations and eventually have imposed on them the settlement which is being imposed on the ARU, or Associated Railway Unions, the group that precipitated the strike in August 1987.
Mir. Benjamin: It is a stacked deck.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it is what the Hon. Member for Regina West has called a stacked deck. Rail workers know that.
As I told Hon. Members of the House on August 27-and it is even worse now-the morale within the railway industry and on the part of rail workers is at an all-time low for very good reason. It is no wonder when we see the time it has taken the current arbitrator, Mr. Larson, plus the effect of rumours about the extension of the arbitrator's period to as late as even September 1988. In the meantime, while things such as job security are being arbitrated by Mr. Larson for the ARU and are not being arbitrated or negotiated at all for the Shopcraft Unions, the railway is proceeding with what it calls "downsizing". Jobs are disappearing all over the place before any arrangements, contract, or agreement can be reached in respect of job security.
On the front page of The Globe and Mail today we see a story about a memo by senior Vice-President of CNR, Doug Fletcher, indicating to his subordinates that they had better get on with the downsizing of each and every aspect of the railway, anything targeted for downsizing, because of the fear that as we get closer and closer to a pre-election political context it would become more and more difficult for the railway to do so.
On the one hand we see accelerated downsizing while at the same time the hands of the rail unions are tied either by extended arbitration or refusal to negotiate on the part of the companies, depending upon which group of unions we are talking about. It is no bloody wonder that these people are angry and frustrated and talk about taking job action.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is a marked deck.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is a stacked deck. It is a marked deck. Rail workers have just about had it with the attitude of the Government toward them as working people. All the Bill does is reinforce that impression. What else could such a Bill do
Railway Safety Act
except to reinforce that impression when it talks about setting up a consultative committee of nine to eleven members and only one of them is to be a representative of rail workers themselves? The rest are to be representatives of the Government or of the railways.
One would have thought that the Government would have had the common decency to have at least a five, five, and five arrangement or something like it. It is an insult. It is just like kicking rail workers in the face to say: "Look, guys, we have a good idea. We will have a consultative committee of 11 people. You can have one of them and the rest will be government and railway people. The committee will be giving advice, giving the railways advice, and you will have a big say in the matter". One would have to be an idiot to think that the proposal of the Government in respect of the consultative committee was anything but an insult to railway workers.
The Bill, whatever good may come of it in the sense that it at least establishes the notion of the Railway Safety Act, which is something the NDP and the CCF before it advocated for years, is greatly overridden by the fact that it is stacked against the employee. I have already mentioned the consultative committee. However, let us consider the question of fines. If an individual is found to be in violation of the Act, he or she can be dinged for $10,000. If the CPR is found to be in violation, it can be fined for $50,000. Wow, a $50,000 fine to the CPR! As the Hon. Member for Regina West and others indicated earlier, this is no more than merely a licence fee to be unsafe. Individuals are to take the rap. Employees are to take the rap. The companies not only get light fines, but they have, along with the Government, majority representation on the consultative committee.
Employees have the dubious privilege of being compelled to tell on themselves when it comes to the relationship with their doctors. They have to tell their doctor what is their job, if they are a locomotive engineer or whatever the case may be. Presumably the doctors also have some responsibility pursuant to the legislation. However, rail workers still have no freedom, no protection, no incentive, and no provision whatsoever within the Bill to tell on the railways when they are practising in an unsafe way.
What has been the case for years, and what has actually worsened, will continue. Railway employees will be in a position where, if they are asked to do something unsafe and report it, or if they are compelled to do something unsafe and report it, they will be subject to harassment by management and persecution by management. It goes on believe me. In fact, over time they are liable to lose their job because they are marked and people are out for them. Or, if they go ahead and do the unsafe thing they were asked to do and an accident happens, then they are really in trouble. Then it is the employee who has to take the rap and the company gets away with murder, literally in some cases. This kind of bind that employees are in, where they are damned if they do and damned if they don't, is completely beyond the scope of the

February 4, 1988
Railway Safety Act
Bill. It does not try to address that very difficult situation in which railway employees find themselves whatsoever.
For that reason I predict that many rail workers will simply see the Bill not as the golden opportunity it could have been for the Government to have done something substantial in the area of railway safety but as more evidence of the fact that in some strange and cruel way they have been targeted by the Government as scapegoats in one series of decisions after another, going back to decisions like the one allowed by the Government in respect of the running of cabooseless trains, to the whole deregulation policy of the Government that has created a situation in which railways will be cutting corners and trying to do everything they can to save a few dollars here and there. In the long run it will cost Canadian taxpayers even more in respect of the cost of derailments and of social and other consequences of this short-sightedness.
I would have liked to have had the opportunity to rise today to debate a set of comprehensive safety measures put before Parliament. We do not have either a set of comprehensive measures or the regulations. We do not even have a set of principles that we could debate on rail safety and its relationship to other things like economic criteria, et cetera. We have nothing laid out. It would have been nice, in the Railway Safety Act, to have had a preamble which stated clearly the supremacy of safety over economic consideration. Is it only oversight that we do not have that, or is it further evidence that the railways, along with a lot of other organizations unfortunately, are being instructed basically to adopt this uncritical, excessive, I would say extremist, bottom-line view of how companies ought to operate, that is, in such a way as to make their employees feel that they are disposable commodities which will be eliminated at the first opportunity?
It is pretty hard to work for a company which is constantly sending out messages that it is nice to have one as an employee but if we could figure out a way to get rid of you tomorrow, we would. That is basically the message which CN and CP have been sending to rail workers for four or five years. The story in The Globe and Mail today reinforces that.
It is no wonder that people are as angry as they are and I can tell you that they will be angrier and that we will have more trouble. The Government will have sat idly by doing the bidding of the railways and the bidding of their own ideological fantasies about deregulations, bottom line, and competition while a very good transportation system went down the drain before their very eyes. I was very glad to see the Flon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) raise the matter of the environment. I see that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is here. The fact that there is no reference to the environment in this Bill is evidence of the fact that in spite of all the rhetoric the notion that environmental considerations, pursuant to the Bruntland report, the national task force on the environment and the economy, and all the other fancy documents to which the Government has affixed its name,
should work themselves into all aspects of government policy has not been absorbed by the Government.
If I were the Minister of the Environment I would be somewhat embarrassed to sit there today knowing that there is no reference to the environment in this major piece of railway legislation. That is not something I would like my counterpart in other countries to know about given some of the things I might have said at international fora with regard to how the Canadian Government was moving ahead to incorporate environmental considerations into ail its legislative actions.


Mr. Cassidy:: They had an option.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) said that they had an option. They could have done it otherwise. They could have done it better but they did not. They left out the considerations which were mentioned by the Hon. Member for Davenport.
I have received complaints in my riding. The railways think they are a law unto themselves. It has been tough enough trying to regulate the railways without having a Government which is committed to the view that they can do whatever they like and that it is somehow good for everyone if the railways do whatever they like. Without regard for public safety or the environment, in clearing rights of ways beside tracks through residential areas the railways spray whatever herbicide they got the best deal on. All hell would break loose if municipal governments tried to do that without hearings to find out who was allergic, et cetera. The railways just do whatever they like.
The Government has basically said that that is okay, that it will not even cover such things in this legislation. The Government says that if anything comes up there will be a consultative committee to deal with it made up of representatives of the railway, the Government, and one member from labour.
This Bill will do very little indeed unless it is accompanied by very strong regulations. I am sorry, but I have absolutely no confidence that that will be the case. I believe that these regulations will be drawn up by the railways for the railways and, according to this legislation, will even basically be enforced by the railways. Rather than an improvement in rail safety, in the sense that this legislation reinforces all the stress and low moral-related problems on the railway, one could even argue, although only time will tell, that this will actually contribute to lack of safety rather than advance the cause of safety. The Government is to be roundly condemned for that.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let some of the comments of the Hon. Member go by without response. He has a way, without having really looked at the Bill or knowing some of the factual background, of making excessive statements which are simply not factually correct.
This Bill has needed amendment for many decades. The Member was not in Parliament at the time, but his Party was virtually the Government of the day from 1972 to 1974 and it
February 4, 1988

did not put forth any bills for railway safety, railway workers, or anything like that, and they cannot get around that.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The fact is that the Liberals were right under the thumb of the NDP as they always have been.
With regard to the consultative committee, 1 indicated in my speech this morning, which I guess the Member did not hear, that the Minister is prepared to expand that committee. The fact is that the Bill was put together after broad consultations by officials with provinces, municipalities, and all sorts of other organizations and they came up with the proposals. We have studied it and have signalled to the opposition Parties that we would be happy to hear views on how the committee should be structured. The Minister can appoint four members of that committee and maybe they can be more clearly specified. However, I have already indicated that.
With regard to whistleblowers, there are all sorts of cases of individual workers reporting anonymously to the CTC, which has followed up on the matter and kept the names of the workers anonymous. On occasion workers have reported to the Department and the Department has kept names anonymous. In my speech this morning I indicated that we are prepared to consider a clause which will give better coverage in this area. I cited the example of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. Why is the Member standing up and making these outrageous statements? It is an exaggeration which goes beyond even that which is fair in terms of debate. I do not understand him saying that.
The Member is also leaving the impression that increased costs with regard to deregulation will make it less safe. In fact, as a result of deregulation in the United States the air is still becoming more safe and more people are using it. There is more rail traffic in Canada than ever, yet the number of accidents, the number of people injured, and the number of fatalities is dropping. That is factual. We have all the data yet the Member implies quite the opposite.
In terms of the environment, he is saying it is not included in the Bill. In fact, Bill C-74, the Environmental Protection Act, is in committee right now. Things are being done and we, as a nation, are becoming more and more conscious of the environment, as we should. It is not only the New Democratic Party which is concerned about the environment. All sorts of people are concerned, including members of the government Party. As a result, there is a Bill in committee today. Why was that not done between 1972 and 1974? When the NDP was controlling the Liberals during that period of time, I do not remember hearing it proposing a Bill on the environment. I do not think it did.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, some things are very hard to take seriously. Sometimes replies from the Hon. Member for
Railway Safety Act
Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) are hard to take seriously as well.
I am complimented by the great expectations the Hon. Member had of the Parliament in which the NDP held the balance of power for a year and a half. We were expected to do all kinds of things that the Conservatives feel that they should not be criticized for not doing now that they have been in Government for twice that long. They are still in the habit of asking why the Liberals did not do the kinds of things people are asking the Conservatives to do.
Between 1972 and 1974, a Railway Safety Act was one of the commitments the NDP had extracted from the Liberals just prior to the calling of an election. Unfortunately, Liberals being what they are, once they had a majority in the House in 1974, they went on to abandon that commitment. That is unfortunate-


Blaine Allen Thacker: In 1979, you put them back in.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Hon. Member is talking about 1979. The Conservatives still have not accepted the fact, and I think they need therapy on this, that they defeated themselves in 1979. No one else defeated them. It is only human nature for them to blame others for it and they continue to do so. They continue to be psychologically damaged by that event and that is not something we can do anything about.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Minister might be open to amendments regarding the consultative committee. That is good, but we will believe it when we see it. In the mean time, it is outrageous that the draft of the Bill, if that is what it is, appeared in the way it did. I make no apologies for being downright angry about the fact that it is only at this stage that the Parliamentary Secretary has said that. If we have been waiting for this legislation for so long, why would the Parliamentary Secretary say at this time on the floor of the House of Commons that the Minister might be open to it? Why could that consideration not have been in the legislation?
The same is true with respect to whistleblowing. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Minister might be open to some of those amendments. Surely to God government Members have been thinking about this long enough. The fact that it is not in the draft tells us something about the mind-set of this Government.
The fact is that rail workers look back on the period of 1972 to 1974 fondly. When there was a rail strike in August of 1973, instead of bringing in back-to-work legislation to send them back to work without any increase or settlement and with an arbitrator who is taking forever and ever to do his job, Parliament, led by a New Democratic minority, sent those people back to work with an agreement that even we could vote for because it was just. It was a just settlement both for workers and the railways, and there are plenty of rail workers who look back on that time with a great deal of fondness. When the NDP had anything to say about it, rail workers were

February 4, 1988
Message from the Senate
not treated in the callous manner that they were treated by this Government in August of 1987.
Concerning safety in deregulation, all the evidence points to just the contrary of what the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary said. The experience with deregulation in the United States has not been increased safety. I do not know where the Parliamentary Secretary gets the nerve to say that.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that government Members are all concerned about the environment. If they are so concerned about the environment, why is the environment not in the Bill? We were only asking for a little evidence that some of the rhetoric we have heard from the Minister of the Environment and the Parliamentary Secretary would have legislative reality and would translate into government policy. We do not have that.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill C-108, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1988.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
February 4, 1988 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerald Eric Le Dain, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as the Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 4th day of February, 1988, at 4.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth Deputy Secretary,
Policy and Program



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Farm Credit Corporation-Lack of financial resources/Farm foreclosures; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Hazardous substances-Dioxin in paper products-Chlorine bleaching process; The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-Richmond East (Mr.	Dingwall)-Pharmaceutical industry-Drug price
increases/Bill C-22-Minister's position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crombie (for the Minister of Transport) that Bill C-105, an Act to ensure the safe operation of railways and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on the Railway Safety Act, Bill C-105. 1 do not think it comes as much of a surprise or shock to Hon. Members that I have an interest in this area which dates back to the time 1 served in municipal Government, the time of the Mississauga train derailment.
On November 10, 1979, a freight train which was bound from London, Ontario, to the Agincourt marshalling yards in Metropolitan Toronto derailed in Mississauga. Of the some 106 cars on that train, some 19 cars were filled with dangerous materials. Three of those 19 cars were tankers that were loaded with propane and at the time of the derailment, they exploded, shooting great balls of fire into the sky. Another car was filled with chlorine and was ripped apart. The chlorine gas seeped out and spread throughout the entire community.
As a result of that derailment which caused the three cars of propane to explode and the one car of chlorine to be ripped open, some 250,000 people had to be evacuated from their homes and businesses for up to five days. In addition, there were substantial economic losses in connection with that derailment. In fact, when the total bill was in and all of the costs added up, losses were estimated at something in excess of $68 million.
February 4, 1988

That derailment occurred in an area of Mississauga which, in 1979, was a relatively undeveloped area. Notwithstanding that, a quarter of a million people had to be evacuated from their homes and almost $70-million worth of damage was done. If the train had stayed on its tracks for another 20 minutes or so, the derailment would have occurred right in the heart of the City of Toronto, obviously an area of much denser development. One can imagine the economic losses that would have resulted if that had happened and the number of people who, if evacuation was possible in an area of that density, would have had to have been evacuated.
If the train had stayed on its tracks for slightly longer than 20 minutes, perhaps for half an hour, the accident would have occurred right in the heart of my own constituency. As I have indicated in the Elouse on a number of occasions, the main lines of both the CPR and the CNR run right through the heart of my constituency.
That accident occurred some eight years ago now. That seems like a long time ago and some of us are starting to forget it and think perhaps it did not happen or, if it did, the whole problem has been dealt with and solved.
Much to the credit of the Government of the day, led by the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), who was then Prime Minister, a royal commission was appointed to investigate that derailment and see what could be done to ensure that nothing like that would happen again. The commission was headed by Mr. Justice Samuel Grange. It investigated the matter thoroughly, made recommendations, all but two, I believe, of which were implemented. One would think that the problem was solved and we would not have any more problems of that sort. The Grange Commission had apparently discovered what went wrong, made its recommendations, and there should not be any more problems.
In spite of that, approximately two rail accidents occur each year in Metropolitan Toronto involving trains carrying dangerous goods. It has become particularly evident to me that this problem has not been solved because, as I brought to the attention of the House last summer, on July 14, just six or eight months ago, another derailment occurred in my own constituency, very near to the densely populated intersection of Don Mills Road and Wynford Drive. At that time 31 cars of a 103-car train derailed. Fortunately, only one car was carrying dangerous goods, car number 87. Also fortunately, although it was carrying a load of vinyl acetate, it did not derail. If it had, the fire chief for the City of North York indicated he would have ordered an evacuation of people within 2,500 feet of the accident site.
I do not know whether you are familiar with that site or its nature and the number of people and businesses located there, but I can tell you it is very substantial. The apartment communities of Wynford Heights have perhaps upwards of
10,000	residents. The apartment community immediately to
Railway Safety Act
the south, Flemingdon Park, has somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000 residents. There are numerous businesses in the area, including a number of major oil companies such as Esso, Shell and Texaco. They all have major facilities there. IBM has its major Canadian plant with about 2,000 employees in that area. All of this, to name just a few. We were looking at a very substantial evacuation and very substantial damage if that one car had been part of the derailment.
That made the whole issue quite clear to me. In spite of the fact that we had a royal commission investigate the Mississauga derailment, in spite of the recommendations which had been made and accepted, in spite of all the new procedures instituted, new technology, and efforts to make sure that a Mississauga derailment could not happen again, in 1987 a derailment of a similar nature occurred again.
One factor that was pinpointed at that time was the speed of the train, which was approximately 40 miles per hour. Immediately to the south of that location by just a few kilometres, there is a voluntary speed limit, self-imposed by CPR, of 25 miles per hour. That voluntary speed limit does not apply where this derailment occurred.
At present about 2,000 hazardous commodities used by Canadian industry are transported by rail every day of the week. They include propane, sulphuric acid, butane, and chlorine. I could go on with a long list. Every day of the week about 25 freight trains carrying those hazardous goods pass through my constituency and Metropolitan Toronto. If a derailment occurs today or tomorrow or the next day, what sort of risks would we be running?
It has been estimated that people within one-quarter kilometre of the line would be at the greatest risk. It has been estimated as well that those within one kilometre on either side of the accident site would have to be evacuated because of the problems of escaping gases. In the Mississauga derailment you may be aware that people within 10 kilometres of the track in either direction were evacuated and that damage was experienced within a half a kilometre of the track on either side. We are looking at a very substantial area of potential damage and potential evacuation, especially when you are talking about a heavily built-up area such as in my constituency and in the bulk of Metropolitan Toronto.
What can be done about this situation other than what has been done to date as a result of the Grange Commission? Another Member of this House referred to the fact that in March of 1986 the then Minister of Transport, now the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), created a task force to look into the problems of the transportation of dangerous commodities in the greater Toronto area. I think that is to the credit of this Government and to the particular credit of the Deputy Prime Minister. That task force has been gathering information, done a number of studies, 12 or more, on the problem, and has been holding public hearings. I had an opportunity during the Christmas break of appearing before it to make representations, as did a great many other people.

February 4, 1988
Railway Safety Act
That task force is looking at things like the potential rerouting of dangerous goods, potential relocation of the rail route itself, and other things like imposing a speed limit on trains carrying dangerous goods.
It is not an easy matter to solve that problem because there are a number of different points of view. There are those who believe that a relocation of the railroad tracks would in fact be shifting the burden from one part of the country to another. However, there is evolving a consensus which I believe will go to Metropolitan Toronto City Council for its endorsement tomorrow. That includes the relocation of the tracks to an area north of the city relatively free from development at this time.
There would be the creation of a buffer zone around the track in conjunction with that, similar to the one they have in the City of Regina. That is a 1,000-foot buffer zone. It could be similar to the one in Edmonton which is an even greater buffer zone of approximately 3,000 feet around the main railroad line that carries dangerous goods. That is the kind of long term solution being considered and around which a consensus is developing.
It is being suggested that in the interim period before such a policy can be implemented, a 25-mile per hour speed limit be imposed on all trains carrying dangerous goods through the Greater Metropolitan Toronto area. That is one way we can deal with this kind of problem. But the other obvious solution is through the Bill before us today.
Bill C-105 specifically deals with railway safety. I believe it gives us another opportunity, as the Parliament of Canada, to address the issue of railway safety and ensure that we are doing everything possible to ensure that there are no accidents of the kind that occurred in the Mississauga derailment.
I was pleased to see and learn that in developing the Bill that is before us today there was a consultative process as with Bill C-74, the Environmental Protection Act. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is in the House at the moment. He followed a consultative process with industry, environmental groups and labour in developing the Environmental Protection Act. That is a great credit to the Minister. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has followed exactly the same procedure in developing this legislation. He also consulted with a wide number and variety of groups.
During his remarks, an Hon. Member mentioned a citizen group in the Metropolitan Toronto area which he commended to the Minister of Transport as a citizens group which should be involved in this process. In fact, it was involved in the process. It is the M-TRAC group which stands for Metro Toronto Residents Action Committee. They formed as a citizens action group after the Mississauga derailment and have been actively involved in promoting rail safety, particularly as it applies to the transportation of hazardous goods, since 1979.
I would like to point out that there are some people in the M-TRAC group who have given of their time and effort on a constant basis to promote rail safety for close to nine years. The group include people like Harold Morrison, Harry Behrend, Rose Dyson, Norm Dyson, Phil Wade and Ying Hope. They are shining examples of citizens who are prepared to give their time and effort on behalf of their fellow citizens, on a voluntary basis, to see that there is safety in our society, our community and our country. They were part of the consultative process and I think we can congratulate them on the effort that they and others have made in helping develop this Bill.
I understand that the Bill implements virtually all the recommendations of the Foisy Commission that looked into the derailment in Hinton, Alberta. I believe that is a major step in the right direction.
Other Members have pointed out their concerns about different parts of the Bill, including the question of the consultative committee and the representation on that committee. I certainly endorse the comments that there should be citizen participation. I would urge the Minister to either amend the Bill or, within the confines of the Bill itself, since he has the right to appoint other people, ensure that there is adequate citizen representation on this consultative committee. I recommend to the Minister that representatives of the M-TRAC organization be included in that.
I know that the Bill is not perfect, and that while it goes a long way there will be criticism. I understand that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities believes there could be improvements, as do the unions. As well, M-TRAC believes there could be improvements.
I am sure that when the Bill goes to committee improvements will be made. I know from past experience that the Minister of Transport has been most willing to see legislation he has put forth improved.
I am convinced that this will be another major step forward in rail safety in this country. I am very pleased with the initiative taken by the Minister of Transport and compliment him for it. I look forward to seeing him strengthen the Bill in committee before it receives third reading.


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Speaker, first 1 want to compliment the Member on what I believe is a very effective and hopefully influential speech on this issue.
I have three questions which arise from my discussions with rail workers and others in the Windsor area who have been very concerned about the question of rail safety there. Many of them have suggested that there will be a great increase in north-south traffic if the trade deal which has been signed goes through. They suggest that this will result in a considerable increase in run-through traffic from the United States, especially if trains, due to lax standards in many states, are not up to safety standards that we hope to have operating in our
February 4, 1988

rail systems here. In fact, various people have given me some examples of the terrible state of some run-through trains.
Does the Hon. Member believe that this Bill needs to be strengthened so that it is clear that control over the safety conditions of run-through trains from the United States into Canada will be very closely regulated, with teeth to back up those regulations?
Second, reports I have had from people in my constituency and my part of Ontario suggest that there have been lay-offs of inspectors. For example, according to reports 1 have received, an extra seven inspectors have been laid off in Sania. Does the Member feel that reducing the number of inspectors is the way to achieve greater safety, or does it not obviously make sense that an increase in inspectors is a crucial part of establishing greater rail safety in this country?
Finally, what is the Member's opinion about the points which have been raised about the role of the whistleblower? For instance, I have a letter that was sent to the chairperson of the negotiating committee in the Windsor area, dealing with points that he raised with respect to rail safety in Windsor during the lead-up to the recent strike. There is a letter from the company which employs him. Among other things the letter states: "1 want to inform you at this time that similar irresponsible conduct will not be tolerated in the future and will prompt a more formal complete investigation".
Is this effort on the part of railway workers to back up safety, to give it publicity, to fight for it publicly, not in fact something that is crucial to assuring safety on the railways and something that should be guaranteed in the Bill itself?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his comments and also for his questions. Dealing with the questions in the order they were asked, he indicated he felt, and that some of his constituents also feel, there will be a substantial increase in north-south traffic as a result of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. I certainly would hope that would be the case because obviously one of the intentions is to try to open up the American market to Canadian businesses and ensure that we increase the number of jobs in this country. I would see this as a vehicle for doing that. I expect there would be more traffic on the part of Canadian railways going south than there would be on the part of American railways coming north. However, I certainly agree that regardless of what railways these might be, we must insist on safety, and the highest level and degree of safety.
As the Hon. Member knows, there are a number of American railways which operate in our country at the moment. As far as I am aware they have to comply with all of our safety regulations.
Royal Assent
With respect to the number of inspectors, that is a matter that has been raised with me as well from time to time in the Metropolitan Toronto area. Certainly, on the surface 1 would have to agree that it would seem that more inspectors rather than less mean better safety. I would have to be convinced by the railroads in their representations that there was another way of providing for railroad safety other than with more inspectors before 1 would be prepared to agree that we should have a reduction rather than maintaining the ones we have or in fact increasing the ones we have.
With respect to the whistleblower legislation, the Member may be aware, and 1 hope he is aware, that I in fact introduced a motion on whistleblowing into this House in Private Members' Hour. I wish I had been able to have the support of the Hon. Member and his Party, and the support of other Members of the House at that time. Perhaps we would now have whistleblower legislation on a general basis. My particular proposition applied not only to federal Departments and agencies but also applied to all businesses that were federally regulated, which would include the railroads, and it applied to businesses contracting to the Government as well. So I do hope that when I bring forward the proposition again, the Hon. Member will be here to speak in its support.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned.
["The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-104, an Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada-Chapter No. 2, 1988.
Bill C-108, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1988-Chapter No. 3, 1988.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Member's Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

February 4, 1988
Statue of Monarch
[DOT]	(1700)



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, December 15, 1987, consideration of the motion of Mr. Tupper:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the
advisability of commissioning the structure of a statue of Her Majesty, Queen
Elizabeth II, to be placed on Parliament Hill in commemoration of the thirtyfifth anniversary of Her ascension to the Throne.
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, on the last day that Motion 135 in the name of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) was debated, I was indicating my support and the support of others in the House with respect to this measure. I had been saying that after this length of time we should commission the building of a statue of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.
I was telling of the visit, as was my friend from Welland, of Her Majesty to the Niagara area in 1973. I remember that it was a rainy day. She buckled her coat around her against the rain and wind. She walked through puddles of water to shake the hands of many a senior citizen, Girl Guide and ordinary citizen of our community, to win the hearts of the thousands that were there gathered. All the while she was doing that, the Duke of Edinburgh was paying his respects to the veterans and the Legions gathered there as well.
Her Majesty has won the respect of many peoples. She has a reputation among senior statespersons as a well informed resource person. Even such distinguished people as Churchill and Charles De Gaulle greatly respected her as a leader and as a person.
General De Gaulle once said that in his time Her Majesty was the most effective statesperson in Europe. The Queen and her family have very frequently been visitors to Canada. Officially, she is the one person who is a non-political person and in a non-partisan way she has travelled from coast to coast. As she travelled from one end of this country to the other, she gained the respect of the people who therein lived; a tradition of democracy in action, a democratic monarchy. She had the support of all democratic peoples wherever they lived and whatever their political or party affiliation might be. Hers was a sympathetic ear, and even in just the telling there was some ease and comfort given to many.
[DOT]	(1710)
Her Majesty the Queen has built up a rapport with the peoples of Canada. It started with a visit by Her father and Her mother in 1939 when daily that telephone call went home to Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret telling them of Canada, its changing climate, and how each day the tour took them to a different region or different part, and those stories
were told to those daughters of the then sovereigns of this country.
Then as now, in troubled times royalty gave us strength, encouragement, and unity to face the challenges that confronted us. Later as Queen, she made her first television broadcast in 1957. "Industry and commerce may bring wealth to a country", she told Canadians, "but the character of a nation is formed by other factors. Race, language, religion, culture and tradition all have some contribution to make. I feel proud and happy to be Queen of such a nation".
I wish to join those who think it appropriate to commemorate the thirty-fifth anniversary of the reign of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II by erecting a statue here on Parliament Hill. To those Members who have reservations about erecting a statue to someone who is still alive, it should be pointed out that the statue of Queen Victoria which now adorns the Hill was proposed and agreed to in 1897 to mark that sovereign's diamond jubilee.
To those Members who feel that such a gesture could be construed as a slight to Canadians of French culture, it should be pointed out that both the man who sculpted the statue of Queen Victoria, the famous Louis-Philippe Hebert, and the Prime Minister of the day, Sir Wilfred Laurier, wanted the monument in an even more conspicuous place than it now is. They wished it to be located on the prestigious site that marked half way between where the Centennial Flame presently is and the entrance to the House of Commons.
Both those French Canadians understood that the British monarchy has nothing to do with ethnicity, race, or language, but everything to do with the constitutional liberty that is ours, and the very words inscribed on the scroll that the Queen extends before her for all to read.
I am pleased and proud to join in support of this motion to commission the erection of a statue to commemorate our great sovereign, the Queen.


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate this afternoon on Motion M-135 brought forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper). I wish to begin by congratulating my colleague for the work that he has done in bringing forward this motion before the House. It is an important one, and it is important to all Canadians. I am pleased to take part in the debate and lend my support to the motion.
I do not have to remind anyone in the House that, when the Fathers of Confederation set about framing our Constitution, they chose to make the new nation a constitutional monarchy. That means we have a Queen of Canada. By an Act of our own Parliament in 1953, and our own deliberate decision in this Chamber, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II is officially the Queen of Canada.
February 4, 1988

The motion we are discussing today is of special interest to me. I am only the second generation of my family who was born in Canada. My grandfather immigrated to Canada early in the 20th century. 1 learned a great deal from my grandfather about Her Majesty, the Queen. Perhaps it means a little extra to me, although it is important to all Canadians.
Her Majesty is much more than a symbol, she brings a unique perspective to public life. The Queen has a reputation among senior statesmen as one of the best informed and most sensible public servants at that level in the world. As well as being a very charming person Her Majesty inspires affection, along with the respect that she carries throughout the world.
The assets of Her Majesty are non-partisan, she provides knowledge, advice, and encouragement to Ministers of the Crown, as well a being an official patron of the Opposition. Her Majesty's influence in Canada is exercised in two ways, the first being through the activities of the Governor General and the provincial Lieutenant Governors, and secondly Her Majesty's personal visits and participation in special Canadian events.
1 can go back to 1970 when my home Province of Manitoba celebrated its one hundredth anniversary of being part of Canada. Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II visited my home town of Swan River, which is located in west central Manitoba. That was quite an event. For the entire town of approximately 4,500 people it was something that we looked forward to for many months, she arrived in Swan River on the train and spent the better part of an afternoon with us. We are well known in Swan River for having one of the largest rodeos in western Canada, she spent two or three hours viewing some special events put on for her at that time. Virtually everyone from the town and the area came to visit Her Majesty. It was something that the people of the Swan River Valley still talk about.
Again in 1984, shortly after 1 was elected to the House of Commons, I had the special opportunity of greeting Her Majesty when she paid a visit to Canada's National Ukrainian Festival in Dauphin, Manitoba, also in my constituency. That occasion was the second time I was able to meet Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Also at that time thousands of people came out and met and saw Her Majesty as she spent two or three hours with us that afternoon. On that particular occasion, she attended Canada's National Ukrainian Festival, and was part of the grandstand audience for approximately one hour that afternoon. It made the event that much more special.
There are thousands of other Canadians from every province and territory in Canada who can tell a similar story, and who can say with full sincerity what the presence of Her Majesty means to events like this. It adds that special majesty and makes the occasion that much more memorable in the minds of Canadians across the country.
Earlier this week 1 read an article in a local newspaper. The article was based on the Super Bowl last weekend, but some of
Statue of Monarch
the comments contained in the article had a lot of truth. The gentleman who wrote the article compared Canadians and Americans. He described Americans as being a confident, energetic people, and how when they are in trouble or when they need something they depend on each other to solve their problems.
In his opinion Canadians are much more cautious, much more conservative, and tend to depend not so much on each other but more on government to solve their problems. Another point he made with which I tend to agree was that we sometimes tend to take ourselves a little too seriously. Sometimes we lose sight of our sense of humour and our sense of pride. In many cases we have become much too critical of ourselves, of our political system, and even of the monarchy at times. I believe these institutions deserve much more respect than we tend to give them as Canadians.
The visits of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth to Canada should inspire and invoke celebration, happiness, and pride in our country, rather than the criticism which quite often happens.
As I mentioned, from personal experience-and I know that other Canadians have had similar experiences-with the visits of Her Majesty, Her very presence adds so much to occasions that are special in themselves. Because of her presence, they are that much better.
By passing Motion M-135, the House could send a clear message to all Canadians that indeed we have great pride in the fact that we are a constitutional monarchy. We could give Canadians no better message than passing a motion which indicates that we will commission the structure of a statue of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.
I lend my full and complete support to the motion. I hope that at the appropriate time the Chamber will lend its total support. Once again I congratulate the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton for bringing the matter to our attention.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, indeed I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of Motion M-135 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper). I should like to congratulate him on bringing forward the motion which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the
advisability of commissioning the structure of a statue of Her Majesty, Queen
Elizabeth II, to be placed on Parliament Hill in commemoration of the thirtyfifth anniversary of Her ascension to the Throne.
As I was thinking about my remarks this evening and what I might say in connection with the motion, my thoughts went back to my recollections of the Queen and the occasions throughout my life in which I have heard about the Queen, seen the Queen, or listened to the Queen.
I am sure that is the same with you, Mr. Speaker, as you have listened to debate on this subject for over three hours

February 4, 1988
Statue of Monarch
now. 1 am sure that you have had thoughts running through your mind about the occasions you have experienced and the recollections you have in connection with the Queen. Mr. Speaker, you are a younger man than I am, so my recollections probably go back a little ways longer than yours do. However, interestingly enough, as I reflected on this subject, the first thing 1 thought about was a record that 1 have in my record library. I have to admit that it is an older record. These days we have tapes and we have 33 1/3 recordings; my kids have some 45s. In any event, this record is a 78. It goes back to the olden days, but it is a recording called "I Can Hear it Now". It was done by a well-known American broadcaster, the late Edward R. Murrow, who turned out three sets of records called "I Can Hear it Now" in which he extracted bits of history and put them into the form of a recording.
The very first of these recordings was of the years which encompassed the Second World War. On that recording he has an excerpt of the two little princesses, as he refers to them, Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret. As one listens to the recording, one can picture them standing in the rubble of London with fires and destruction all around them. They were there, little Princess Elizabeth and little Princess Margaret, to broadcast a message to the children of England, to the children of Britain, to the children of the world, from the blitz in London, England during the Second World War. Just as the name of Edward R. Murrow's records were "I Can Hear it Now", I can hear it now in my mind-Princess Elizabeth saying "Good night, Margaret" and Princess Margaret saying "Good night, children", and Princess Elizabeth saying "Good night and good luck to you all". That is really the first thing that I thought about in terms of my recollections of our Queen and the things I was to mention tonight.
Another wartime experience comes to mind in connection with the Queen. It relates to a story that was told me shortly after I came to Ottawa by a really outstanding Canadian by the name of General Shnuk.
General Shnuk was a Polish officer in the Second World War. He commanded the Polish Air Force. He took them out of Poland, escaping from the advancing German and Russian forces. They fought under his command and direction in the Battle of France. Again escaping after the Battle of France, he took them to Britain to fight with the RAF as the Polish Air Force. General Shnuk told me a story of his experiences in England during the Battle of Britain. At that time the RAF was very short of pilots and was looking for replacement pilots. They saw in the Polish Air Force a great potential source of pilots. A great number of negotiations went on between the RAF and General Shnuk on behalf of the Polish Air Force about freeing up Polish pilots to fly for the RAF. Finally, under certain conditions, the Polish Air Force agreed to lend pilots to the RAF. General Shnuk told me that he was picked up one morning and taken to RAF headquarters to sign the agreement whereby Polish fliers would fly in the RAF. About that occasion he said: "Who do you think it was that drove the Jeep which took me over to sign that agreement? It was Queen
Elizabeth". That is another story which comes to my mind when I think of our Queen.
Many other stories come to mind. I remember back in 1947, I guess it was, that the then Princess Elizabeth married Prince Philip. I remember getting up in the middle of the night to listen to the crackling of the radio and the service from Westminster Abbey. That is another memory that I have.
I remember as well the newsreel shots of the time when King George VI died. Queen Elizabeth, then Princess Elizabeth, was visiting in a place in Kenya called "Treetops" with Prince Philip. People went to that resort in Kenya to watch wild animals and it was there that she received the news that her father had died and she had become Queen. I remember those scenes on the newsreels quite vividly. I remember as well her coronation in 1952. By that time our family had a television set and I can remember getting up early again to watch the coronation of the Queen at Westminster Abbey.
I have other much more recent memories of several of the royal tours here in Canada. On one of the last ones her route was to take her past my house. The streets were lined with people for hours in advance and for some reason they changed the route. Everyone was most disappointed, as you will appreciate. However, I have that lasting memory of a time the Queen did not show.
I have many other memories, of course, including the birth of the Queen's children; Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward. More recent are my memories of her Christmas broadcasts. One of the highlights of Christmas Day for my family is that we listen to the message from the Queen, formerly on radio, now on television.
What sort of messages do these memories of the Queen send to me? I guess the message is that to my mind the Queen personifies everything that is good about human beings. That is the theoretic role that she plays, but in actual fact as a person she seems to do exactly that. She fulfils that role very well. She fulfils the role of a good woman, a good mother, and a good person. If there is anyone who personifies the ideal of family life in this world today I think it is Queen Elizabeth. If she is a role model for all the people of Canada, all the people of the Commonwealth, and all the people of the world, it is the role of how one should live a good life.
In support of this motion I believe that we should have something to symbolize the role model which she has been to us all. I commend this motion to Members of the House.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say in support of this motion today. I think it is certainly a good idea that if we are to have statues of royalty on Parliament Hill we have statues of members of the royalty who mean something in a contemporary context to a lot of Canadians, particularly young Canadians. I say that as someone who has never really known a reigning monarch other
February 4, 1988

than Queen Elizabeth. Elaving been born in 1951 the reigning monarch as far back as 1 can remember has always been Queen Elizabeth.
It is only appropriate that rather than having only statues of Queen Victoria and other people who have long since passed from contemporary Canadian life, a statue to commemorate the thirty-fifth anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II accession to the Throne is something which the Government should consider the advisability of. That is why I rise to speak in favour of this motion.
It was only a few days ago, on January 25, that I rose in this House on Robbie Burns Day to point out the traditional tension which exists between Scotland and England. In speaking to this motion today I have to put aside my inherited Scottish nationalist feelings, as did my grandfather when he came to this country, and say that in spite of that the British constitutional monarchy and the democratic parliamentary system which attends that is something to be valued. One can at least take some solace from the fact that through some of the marriages of the Queen's children, Scottish blood is working its way back into the British monarchy.
My own first memory of the Royal Family, although not of the Queen herself was of the Pan American Games in Winnipeg in 1967. As a member of the Lord Selkirk and District Boy Scout Pipe Band I stood for three hours in the rain waiting for His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh to arrive. We spent some hours after that drying our uniforms.
I had a similar opportunity, also as a member of a pipe band, to wait for hours on end for Princess Anne to arrive at Lower Fort Garry in Manitoba. Finally, I had the opportunity to meet the Queen herself on the occasion of the patriation of the Canadian Constitution being a Member of Parliament at that time and being present for the walkabout in the rotunda of the House of Commons and in the Railway Committee Room.
Given the fact that there are so many Canadians, and that there will come to be more, whose only experience of the British monarchy is Queen Elizabeth II, the motion put forward by the Hon. Member is one which the Government should consider.
While on the subject of statues and women, we ought to be more creative in our use of statues in the parliamentary precincts. We should use them to tell the story of Canadian history. One of the women to whom the Government might also consider the advisability of erecting a statue would be the first woman ever elected to Parliament, Agnes McPhail.
It is certainly the case that the story of women, both in Canada and in the world, is undertold. At the same time as I rise to speak in favour of the motion for the Government to consider erecting a statue of Queen Elizabeth II, I would like to suggest to the House that we consider commissioning other statues to commemorate the roles which other women have played in Canadian political and social life.
Statue of Monarch
I would like to ask the Hon. Member who moved this motion to think about that. It is not that he has deliberately excluded anyone-his motion has to do with Queen Elizabeth II and that is perfectly fair-but there are certainly others whom we could consider and they do not necessarily have to be Prime Ministers or monarchs. Consider, for example, the late J. S. Woodsworth who had a profound impact on Canadian political life but never became Prime Minister. I make a plea not only for the motion but also for recognition of others to the extent that it is possible. We do not want to have the parliamentary precinct cluttered with statues. However, those who are responsible for the commissioning of statues ought to try to think of ways to demonstrate that it is not just in queens, prime ministers and princes that we find human worth and what is to be valued. As Burns himself said, princes and lords are but the breath of kings, an honest man is the noblest work of God.
We should take into consideration in our statue policy that many of the finest achievements of Canadian men and women are achievements that, by their very nature, have put them beyond the pale of those who have come to occupy the positions to which the statues are customarily commissioned. I hope some day that that political reality will be reflected in our policy on the parliamentary precincts.


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a privilege for me to take part in this debate this afternoon on the motion of my friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper), a Member whose riding is the neighbouring riding of mine of Ottawa West. I congratulate the Hon. Member for presenting this motion. I believe it is a motion indicative of his fealty to the Crown and of his devotion to Canada. It is indicative also, I would suggest, of his appreciation of Canada and its place in history.
I believe that the preservation of our heritage is as important to Canada's future as good economic policies or social programs. The monarchy is an integral part of that heritage. The symbol of the Crown in Canada is important constitutionally as well as historically. The fact that we are a constitutional monarchy sets Canada apart from the United States, both politically and culturally.
It was loyalty to the Crown that led to the development of much of eastern and central Canada by the Loyalists who fled the 13 colonies following the American Revolution. Two hundred years later, it is the Crown or the Queen in whose name government institutions, from local Crown prosecutors to Parliament itself, function and give force to decisions.
Today's motion deals with a proposal to erect a statue of Her Majesty the Queen here on Parliament Hill. Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, since coming to the throne in 1952, has served her Canadian subjects well, with grace, energy and devotion. Her Majesty has paid many visits to Canada over the

February 4, 1988
Statue of Monarch
years, helping Canadians celebrate many milestones including Expo '67, the Montreal Olympics and the ceremonies marking the patriation of the Canadian Constitution.
I fondly remember being here on Parliament Hill on Dominion Day in our centennial year of 1967, that great and wonderful year in which Canadian nationalism came to the fore. What a memorable, glorious day that was when Her Majesty joined thousands of other Canadians here on the Hill in proudly celebrating our one hundredth birthday. How appropriate it is, therefore, that her presence be permanently celebrated here on the spot she has visited so often.
Besides paying visits to Canada, Her Majesty has travelled throughout the world. It is interesting to note that in 1957, after a visit to Canada, she paid a state visit to the United States in her capacity not as Queen of the United Kingdom but as Queen of Canada.
When Her Majesty spends time in Canada, she does so as Queen of Canada, not as the head of the Commonwealth. The title, Queen of Canada, is a relatively new one, having been created only in 1953 to reflect Canada's changing role in the world.
In 1957, shortly after she opened Parliament in John Diefenbaker's first Government, Her Majesty addressed Canadians on television and stated in part the following:
Industry and commerce may bring wealth to a country, but the character of a nation is formed by other factors. Race, language, religion, culture and tradition all have some contribution to make, and when I think of the diversity of these factors in Canada today and the achievements that have grown from their union, 1 feel proud and happy to be Queen of such a nation.
Thirty years later, how much more proud Her Majesty must feel, given the Constitutional Accord of 1987 which makes Canada whole once again.
In fact, the Queen's record in regard to French-Canada is undoubtedly equal or better than that of any of her subjects. Long before bilingualism became a political catchword, the Queen was its living exponent. Able to speak French fluently, she has used both languages in speeches throughout Canada. In an address to the Quebec Legislature, she stated:
It is agreeable to me-to think that there exists in our Commonwealth a country where I can express myself officially in French-one of the more important languages in our occidental civilization.
The character the Queen bestows upon the state goes so far as to legitimize and even honour that part of the community which opposes the Government, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It is a reality then when Parliament is dissolved in the Queen's name and the Royal Proclamation reads:
Whereas we are desirous and resolved, as soon as may be, to meet our people of Canada, and to have their advice in Parliament: we do make known our Royal will and pleasure to call a Parliament, and do further declare that by the advice of our Privy Council for Canada, we have this day given orders for issuing writs, for calling a Parliament in Canada.
There are those who suggest that the monarchy has no role in our modern society. This attitude, with respect, betrays a lack of understanding and appreciation both of history and of
our Constitution. In my experience, it does not reflect the thinking of the young Canadians with whom I have come in contact since my election and with whom I have discussed the role of the monarchy.
I think of my own 11-year-old daughter Jennifer and her friends who have a keen, abiding interest in the royals, not just Di and Sarah, although I must say that they are special favourites, but the entire Royal Family. They recognize, as I think most thoughtful Canadians do, that the Queen and what she symbolizes contributes to our uniqueness and special character in the northern half of this continent and indeed in the world.
Her Majesty, Elizabeth II has always acted as a constitutional monarch, co-operating with and assisting her Ministers as well as accepting their advice. Some 36 years of direct involvement in Canadian affairs as sovereign in addition to her apprenticeship to that role have made her counsel highly valuable. I know how important that counsel has been to our own Prime Ministers over the years as it is on a weekly basis to Prime Ministers in London. As the Queen told Canada in 1977:
My family's association with this country over many generations allows me
to see and appreciate Canada from another viewpoint, that of history.
That historical perspective, perhaps helped by being viewed from across the Atlantic, is, 1 would suggest, a perspective that many of us could benefit from in our analysis of the issues that come before this Chamber and the Parliament of Canada.
Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II has made so many contributions to Canada that I think it is only fitting that Canadians honour her through the erection of a statue here on Parliament Hill, the seat of Her Majesty's Government in Canada. Once again, I congratulate the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton for bringing this suggestion to the House.


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Nepean- Carleton (Mr. Tupper). We are all very busy, either in our ridings or in this House helping to formulate and guide legislation through. There are many occasions when something like this passes by unnoticed, but our hon. friend and colleague did not let it pass by. He took the time to put this legislation before us and I commend him for that.
Canada is a proud country. It is proud of its history. The Royal Family has always played a very important part in Canadian history. For us, no royal figure has played a more prominent role than Queen Elizabeth II. She is truly the Queen of Canada.
When considering statues around Parliament Hill, I sometimes think we do things backwards. I do not know why we have waited so long. We have commissioned statues for Parliament Hill and we have discussed doing it for great people. Do not misunderstand, they are all deserving, but I
February 4, 1988

think a statue Her Majesty should have been considered before this. Therefore, let the Thirty-third Parliament be remembered as the Parliament which cared enough to honour our very own Queen.
I have enjoyed the debate very much. Hon. Members have reminisced so much that 1 have learned a great deal about their lives. 1 also have a sampling of the Queen's very busy life in Canada. Many Canadians on occasion regard the Queen as being way over there in Great Britain and not really attached to Canada. That is wrong. 1 shall not go into this at great length but the Queen succeeded to the throne on February 6, 1952. Skipping down to 1956, the Queen assigned coats of arms to the Yukon and Northwest Territories. In 1957 she became the first reigning monarch to open a Canadian Parliament. If I may quote briefly, she said:
I greet you as your Queen. Together we constitute the Parliament of
Canada.
In 1960 Prince Andrew was born to the Queen, on February 19. Her Majesty honoured the three-quarter million member Canadian Legion that year as well by giving it the prefix Royal. In 1965 the Queen proclaimed the Maple Leaf flag, on January 28. She approved the design of the flag of the Province of Ontario on April 12. In 1967 she approved the Canadian Armed Forces ensign. She presided at the Centennial of Confederation weekend and addressed both Houses of Parliament. In 1969, on Dominion Day, she invested Prince Charles as Prince of Wales at Carnarvon Castle. In 1973 she toured Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and Alberta. She spent Dominion Day in Charlottetown for the province's centenary. In Toronto she made a widely-acclaimed speech, and I quote:
I want the Crown to be seen as a symbol of national sovereignty belonging to
all. It is not only a link between Commonwealth nations, but between
Canadian citizens of every national origin and ancestry.
In 1977 the Queen celebrated her Silver Jubilee in Ottawa, in October, and opened the third Session of the Thirtieth Parliament. She said at that time:
I dedicate myself anew to the people and the nation I am proud to serve.
Going down to 1981, the Queen held an investiture of the Order of Military Merit of Canada at Buckingham Palace. She declared to her Canadian Privy Council her consent to the marriage of the Prince of Wales. In March she approved a new flag for the Governor General. In 1982, as some of my colleagues have referred to, the Queen proclaimed the revised Canadian Constitution at Ottawa on April 17.
Those are just some examples of the extent to which the Queen visits and cares about Canada.
I just want to say that the Bill put forward by my hon. colleague has my unequivocal support. We very badly need a statue of the Queen of Canada for all Canadians to view on the grounds of this Parliament. It will remind everyone in Canada that Her Majesty is our Queen.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the clock is running and I may not have very much time to make my remarks in this debate, but I want to begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper).
As one of the junior Members of this House, I speak from a slightly different perspective than some of my colleagues. I have never met the Queen, although I have had the opportunity to meet a number of members of the Royal Family. Despite the fact that I never had that opportunity, I certainly respect her role and feel she maintains the traditional relationship with Commonwealth countries around the world, which is very important to us here in Canada as well as in other nations around the world.
I recall her many trips to Canada over the last number of years, in particular her 1973 visit to Prince Edward Island where she commemorated the one-hundredth anniversary of the entrance of that province into Confederation. She was there for Dominion Day, a proud day for all Islanders and one we will long remember.
Her family has some relationship to all of us in their individual capacities. For example, I think Prince Charles is the same age as myself and so my family would relate to that particular year, and so on. I think all Canadians feel some relationship to the monarchy in one way or another. Prince Edward visited Prince Edward Island last summer. That again shows the relationship we have, and there are so many other connections we have with the monarchy and the institution. I live, for example, in Kings County, just a mile down the road from Queens County. Again, the relationship to the monarchy in our heritage is very important.
Let me just conclude by saying that I think our Canadian identity is very important. It developed because we recognize a sovereign leader. We have a Queen and that makes us different from our neighbour to the south. It influences our day-to-day policies, internal and external. The Queen has been a leading force in our development. I very much support the motion put forward by the Hon. Member and I hope all my colleagues will join us in supporting the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
February 4, 1988
Adjournment Debate
FARM CREDIT CORPORATION-LACK OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES/FARM FORECLOSURES
['The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).']
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, last September I put a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and pointed out that the Farm Credit Corporation had slipped into a position of negative equity of $124 million, making it essentially insolvent. That was the state of insolvency of the Farm Credit Corporation on April 1 last year. I am told that by April 1 this year the level of insolvency will be over $300 million. The Farm Credit Corporation is in a terrible situation.
Many Canadians may not be too worried about the level of insolvency of a Crown corporation of the federal Government, but this corporation is charged with the responsibility of providing long term credit at stable levels in order to help some
50,000	farmers in this country who are either insolvent or facing serious financial difficulty. 1 asked the Prime Minister how this corporation could carry out this responsibility when it, itself, is insolvent?
The greatest failure of the Government in terms of agriculture has been the handling of the farm debt crisis. That crisis was well catalogued in the fall of 1984 by a report of the Farm Credit Corporation which indicated that thousands of farmers were in serious financial difficulty.
The Minister did little during that three and one-half year period. It took him almost a year and a half to bring in legislation for a Farm Debt Review Board. The legislation had no teeth but simply established a mechanism for consultation between farmers and their creditors. If the banks decided not to do anything, they simply waited out the stay of execution for the 120 days as prescribed, then went ahead with the foreclosure. It took years to get even that mechanism in place.
Next, the Minister introduced stay of foreclosures on people who had mortgages with the Farm Credit Corporation. He maintained that policy for some 18 months, without providing money to the Farm Credit Corporation or giving any meaningful programs to reschedule that debt.
The debt of Canadian agriculture during the last three and one-half years has grown from some $19 billion to approximately $22 billion, at a time when farm incomes are being chopped and the entire system is deteriorating.
When the Outlook conference was held and the Government announced all of its massive initiatives to help Canadian agriculture, it is interesting to note that it included the announcement that it would have to write off some $500 million more during the next three years. It is another indication of a tremendous opportunity lost, where the Government simply held on to land during the last three and a half years, rather than take a pro-active approach to find ways to reschedule debt and save literally thousands of farmers.
There are more farmers in serious difficulty now than in the fall of 1984 when the Government took office. Moreover, for over a year the chairman and vice-chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation were putting forward recovery programs.
All of those were rejected by the Government. Finally, in December, it discharged the chairman and vice-chairman and brought in new people, one from the Treasury Board and another who was not an active farmer, to take charge of the Farm Credit Corporation and try to come up with a recovery program. Since then a new survey has been announced to find out how serious the financial difficulty is.
What we need is not more surveys. What we need is a proactive recovery program to try to keep as many as possible of the 50,000 farmers who are insolvent or in serious financial difficulty on the farm. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will announce tonight a complete revamping and recovery package for the Farm Credit Corporation so that farmers who are facing the loss of their land will know the Government is finally coming to its senses and putting in place a program not only to put this Crown corporation on a sound financial footing but to help the thousands of farmers who need help today.


Mrs. Shirley Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in July of last year the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) stated:
We will be taking action to keep the FCC viable and to ensure that we are
meeting the farm community's credit requirements.
He said further:
-we are going to have to take steps to pul the FCC on a firmer footing. I
can assure the farm community that the federal Government will do just that.
These statements still apply. There has never been any question of the Government's responsibility for losses suffered by the Farm Credit Corporation. That is why the corporation has been able to continue an active lending program despite the financial losses it has suffered. There has been increasing concern in the farm community about the financial situation of the Farm Credit Corporation and it is important that this concern be allayed.
The Government has taken action. Funding for the completion for the 1987-88 lending program of the Farm Credit Corporation has been announced. This has provided additional funding of $100 million toward the past losses of the corporation and has indicated the Government's intention of addressing the remaining financial problems of the FCC once a business plan has been developed which clearly identifies the expected future financial position of the corporation.
The root cause of the financial problems of the FCC is the inability of its clients to meet their loan commitments. We have taken steps to deal with these basic problems. The commodity based loan program and funding for the FCC's participation in farm debt reviews are specifically aimed at the clients of the Farm Credit Corporation. The income support offered through the generally available Western Grain Stabilization Program and the programs offered under the Agricultural Stabilization Act and the Special Grains Program have also helped FCC clients to service their debts.
February 4, 1988

With respect to the financial position of the Farm Credit Corporation itself, I emphasize again that there has never been any question that the Government is responsible for the losses suffered by the FCC. The Government has always acknowledged this. When the full extent of the financial difficulty of the corporation is known, and the business plan is in hand, the appropriate action to address these problems will definitely be taken.



Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, you look like a coffee drinker to me. I will bet that, like myself, you really do not feel human in the morning until you have had your first cup of coffee. I can see by the way you are nodding your head that that is true. 1 do not think you should feel badly about this, Mr. Speaker, because there are thousands, probably millions of people like you and I who need that cup of coffee in the morning before we feel human. Flow do you go about making your coffee, Mr. Speaker? I use a Melitta coffee maker. When 1 get up in the morning I fill the container of the coffee maker with water and then 1 get out the coffee. Coffee is an awful price now, is it not, Mr. Speaker?
1 get out the coffee and I put it in the filter. I put that into the coffee maker and turn on the switch. Before very long I have a wonderful cup of coffee. I know you would enjoy having a cup of coffee with me, Mr. Speaker.
Lately, I really have not felt the same way about my coffee as I did before. I do not really look forward to it now the way I used to. The reason for that, and 1 bet you probably feel the same as I do, Mr. Speaker, is because I have read in newspaper reports that traces of dioxin have been found in the paper filters for coffee makers.
Dioxin is a deadly, deadly toxic chemical. Fortunately, the most deadly kind of dioxin has not been found in the paper filters for coffee makers. But the most deadly kind of dioxin there is is very deadly indeed. Just a trace of dioxin of that sort can cause birth defects. It can cause cancer and damage to the immune system. A level of safe exposure to that kind of dioxin has never been established.
Fortunately for you and I, Mr. Speaker, as coffee drinkers, traces of that sort of dioxin have not been found in those coffee filters as yet. However, it is no wonder when we read the stories that you and I, Mr. Speaker, will look very carefully now at those coffee filters that we use in the mornings. It is no wonder that Your Honour and 1 watch the coffee dripping through those filters with much more intense interest than we ever did in the past. It is no wonder that Your Honour and I think twice as we sip our coffee that has come through those paper filters each morning.
It is not just the paper coffee filters in which dioxin has been found. It has been found in other forms of paper products as
Adjournment Debate
well. I refer to facial tissues, and I am seriously thinking of going back to the linen handkerchief. It has been found in paper plates. Just think of all the paper plates used by McDonald's and Burger King. It has been found in paper towels. In those types of paper products traces of the most deadly kind of dioxin known to mankind has been found.
When you and I think about this, Mr. Speaker, it is only logical that we feel that in using these products there is a transfer of the dioxin from the product to ourselves. What is causing this sort of thing? We do not really know for sure. However, the paper companies and the pulp and paper industry feel and suspect that this dioxin is formed in the bleaching process for paper. Chlorine is used in this bleaching process. Our pulp and paper industry uses this chlorine. The pulp and paper industry in the United States uses chlorine in the bleaching process as well.
You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that just last week the Department of the Environment conducted some tests on pulp and paper mills and found in and around a pulp and paper mill in Nanaimo, British Columbia, traces of dioxin.
In Europe, chlorine is not used in the paper bleaching process. An oxygen bleaching process is used instead of chlorine. It is used because it has been claimed that the oxygen process does not produce dioxin and that the process for paper is more safe. I wonder why it is that we are not using that oxygen process here. If it is safer and does not produce dioxin, and if we used it here, you and I, Mr. Speaker, would feel a lot better when we had that cup of filtered coffee every morning.
1 ask you, Mr. Speaker, how about it? I put the same question to the Parliamentary Secretary, how about it, Mrs. Parliamentary Secretary? When are we going to get the pulp and paper industry in Canada to start using an oxygen bleaching process instead of a chlorine bleaching process for paper that causes and results in dioxin in paper products?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, I join with you and my hon. colleague in looking forward to that cup of coffee in the morning to make myself human.
The Hon. Member asks that the federal Government require Canadian pulp and paper mills to switch from the chlorine bleaching process, now used in Canada, to oxygen bleaching, as used in many Swedish mills. The reason for this is the detection of low levels of the dioxins 2, 3, 7, 8 TCDD in paper products, and also in effluents from some U.S. mills that use chlorine bleaching.
I believe it is premature to conclude that such a conversion is immediately required. Both the Department of the Environment, which regulates environmental matters, and Consumer and Corporate Affairs, which regulates product exposure, have been advised by National Health and Welfare that, based on a preliminary risk assessment, it is unlikely that there are any

February 4, 1988
Adjournment Debate
significant health risks associated with dioxins in paper products. National Flealth and Welfare will conduct a quantitative assessment when studies on the migration of dioxins from paper products are complete. That Department is also monitoring work which is under way in this area in the United States.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has formed an interdepartmental task force to address product concern issues, and is interacting with officials of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in this area. The Departments of National Health and Welfare, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and Environment are represented on this task force.
In addition, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has formed a task force with Environment Canada to determine the amount of dioxin released from the Canadian pulp and paper industry, the levels in the environment, and to recommend ways and means of controlling releases.
It has been advocated by some, as well as my hon. colleague across the floor, that the oxygen bleaching process as a means of avoiding dioxin formation should be used, rather than the present chlorine bleaching process. Oxygen prebleaching is now fairly extensively used in Sweden. In fact, eight of the fourteen Swedish bleached kraft mills now use it. However, the Swedes use oxygen prebleaching to limit total organic chlorine discharges and not specifically dioxin discharges. The process is being implemented under a Swedish action plan that has the goal of reducing total organic chlorine compound discharges to 1.5 to 2 kilograms per tonne of product by 1991. At present, one Canadian mill uses oxygen prebleaching. That is the E. B. Eddy Mill at Espanola, Ontario.
We are seeking reliable information on the specific levels of dioxins formed and released with oxygen bleaching. It is possible that dioxin formation may still occur with the oxygen prebleaching process, as chlorine and chlorine compounds still continue to be used. However, the amount of chlorine used is less than that required for conventional chlorine bleaching.
The departmental task force within Environment Canada is charged with assessing the effectiveness of this and other technologies that may be used to reduce dioxin formation. Environment Canada officials have held preliminary discussions with the Swedish Environmental Protection Board, and will have further consultations with them and environmental authorities of other countries concerned with this issue.
Thorough assessments needs to be performed to determine dioxin levels in effluents and products, the risks posed, and the effectiveness of various technologies to reduce their presence. This work is now under way. Environment Canada will be reporting on progress.
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY-DRUG PRICE INCREASES/ BILL C-22-MINISTER'S POSITION


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on January 22, 1988, I put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), in view of the fact that the Ontario Ministry of Health published information with regard to the high cost of prescription drugs and the fact that it had conducted a survey of some 1,000 drugs and found that the prices of most of those drugs were rising beyond the Consumer Price Index. In some instances they were rising in excess of 100 per cent and, in a particular instance, in excess of 250 per cent.
As usual with that particular Minister, his answer to my question was totally unsatisfactory. In fact, I quoted for the Minister's consumption his own words as reported at page 10666 of Hansard wherein he said:
One of the consequences of the activity of the Senate is to raise once again
the spectre of whether drug prices will increase at a faster rate than the cost of
living. They will not. I maintain that those who claim that they will are wrong
and have no basis for making that claim.
Those were the Minister's comments away back then.
From time to time I have been required to purchase medication for my two daughters, Leigh-Ann and Jennifer. I have found in tracing the prices of drugs for young girls five and six years old that the prices have increased. It is not a phenomenon which has occurred only in the Province of Ontario. It has occurred in other jurisdictions as well.
What is perhaps very appalling is that the Government of Canada, in particular the Minister responsible, has not seen fit to act on behalf of Canadian consumers. He has failed to exercise the responsibilities given to him as Minister. Also, he seems to want to slough off the issue as something for which they were not responsible.
If one were to check Hansard and the proceedings of the various standing committees, in particular the legislative committee seized with Bill C-22, one would find clear and unequivocal statements by myself, and indeed by other Hon. Members, that in effect the mere tabling of the legislation, by providing to multinational corporations an extended monopoly of upwards to 10 years, would result in higher drug prices for Canadians both by brand name and perhaps by generic.
The reason we said so at that time was that the multinational corporations would choke off the viability of generic firms, thereby necessitating them either to float money on the markets and/or to increase the price of their particular product to generate additional revenues.
A few months, have gone by since the passage of Bill C-22, and what we predicted has come true-higher drug prices for Canadians.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has abdicated his responsibility. He refuses to give a directive to the new Drug Prices Review Board in which I must admit I do not have much faith. He refuses to exercise the persuasive
February 4, 1988

powers that are tied into that particular board. He refuses to give it a directive to investigate, when it is up and going, the drugs which have been reviewed by the Ontario Ministry of Health.
There has been an abdication of the responsibilities to consumers, to young people such as my daughters Jennifer and Leigh-Anne who, through their parents, have to pay higher costs for their medication, to senior citizens, to poor people, and to people on fixed incomes across the country. This was a time for the Government of Canada to seize the opportunity and act forcibly on behalf of Canadian consumers.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will stand in her place and share with us a new attitude, a new behaviour by the Government toward Canadian consumers. I hope that we will not get the same pat answers which we have been getting from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for well over a year with regard to the high cost of prescription drugs.
It is time for new action. It is time for a new attitude by the Government which is quickly losing the confidence and respect of Canadians on a host of consumer-related issues.


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Government does not have to change its attitude toward consumers because it is and always has been concerned about consumers and will continue to be in the future.
It has been stated on numerous occasions that Bill C-22 has been carefully designed to balance a variety of objectives in respect of the pharmaceutical industry in Canada. Among these are increased research and development, increased chemical manufacturing, a healthy and growing generic drug industry, improved health care and, very important, the expansion of consumer protection in respect of drug prices.
Bill C-22 is both an instrument of industrial policy and, at the same time, an instrument designed to ensure that Canadian consumers have access to fairly priced drugs.
Members of the Opposition have consistently maintained that Bill C-22 fails to provide this guarantee. In fact, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) has said that drug prices in the Province of Ontario are rising faster than the Consumer Price Index because of Bill C-22. I
Adjournment Debate
point out that drug prices across Canada have risen more than the Consumer Price Index in each of the last 10 years. Bill C-22 did not exist then. How does the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond answer this?
In fact, members of the Opposition have failed to see, as they usually do, that Bill C-22 for the first time provides a new mechanism which will ensure fairer prices for consumers. The instrument the Bill created to ensure that prices will not get out of hand is the Patented Medicine Price Review Board.
In fact, the Board began start-up procedures over a month ago when the Chairman, Dr. Harry Eastman, and ViceChairman, Dr. Robert Goyer were appointed. At this time, through the development of effective regulations, the Board is gearing up to address not only the question of increases in Ontario which were the subject of considerable press attention as noted by our hon. friend, but also to address the prices charged for all patented drugs.
This is an important distinction because Bill C-22 provides the consumer much wider protection than was available under the previous compulsory licensing system. It is interesting to note that without Bill C-22 the price increases reported by the Province of Ontario would not have been an issue as there would have been no board with the potential to address the issue. Canadian consumers would have absorbed these increases because without Bill C-22 consumers have no way of knowing whether they are paying fair prices for their patent medicines.
The Board collects the necessary data to rule on the appropriateness of the drug prices and it will analyse, not only the information provided by companies themselves but also information from individuals and the provinces.
I am confident that with all the protective measures in place the interests of Canadian consumers are in good hands. The Minister has not abdicated his responsibility on Bill C-22 because the Board does exist and will examine this and other issues for the benefit of all Canadians in a way which was not previously possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, February 5, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers