1988-02-05

[Stage Direction]
MEASURETO enact
The House resumed from Thursday, February 4, 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. Deputy Speaker:: We should now be in the question and comment period of the speech of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) on Bill C-105. If there are no questions or comments, we will proceed with debate.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Bill C-105, with respect to rail safety, is a very important Bill. Any Member of Parliament from Winnipeg should have a major interest in all questions of rail safety. The maintenance shops for both railways which employ thousands of railway workers is in Winnipeg. It is a city which is the turn-around point for most traffic, passenger and freight, therefore gives employment to a great many workers who actually move the trains.
When one looks at the record of this industry with respect to safety and sees the number of collisions and derailments that have taken place in recent years, one cannot help but feel that it is not only important that we discuss it thoroughly but that a Bill of this nature should have been brought forth years ago.
I have some figures obtained from the Department of Transport and they are, to say the least, shocking. In the last five years, from 1983 to 1987, there were 1,318 derailments across the country. There were 423 collisions and 3,437 crossing accidents which resulted in the death of 361 people. We are talking about a very serious situation, a situation which should have been dealt with a long time ago.
What are some of the reasons we have had so many accidents which have led to well over 300 fatalities? My colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin),
talked about one of the problems yesterday, that is, the thousands of level crossings across Canada. I do not believe there is another industrialized country in the world which has permitted so many railway level crossings to continue to exist. It is true that because of our relatively small population and because of the large area which Canada covers, there is no way in which we could get rid of level crossings as rapidly and effectively as they have in European countries.
The process has also been slowed down to a snail's pace because of the necessity for local communities to participate financially in doing away with level crossings. In my own part of Winnipeg alone where one level crossing was done away with, and another was projected, we were looking at expenditures of more than $10 million in each case, which required the city and the province to participate at a time when their financial ability to pay part of the cost is, to say the least, very difficult.
There is another reason for the number of derailments and accidents, that is, the cut-back and the reductions of the railways in their expenditures for maintenance of equipment and of trackage. This is a long-standing fact which has been brought to the attention of Governments, the former Liberal Government and the present Conservative Government, and by unions such as the Brotherhood of Maintenance and Way Employees whose members work on improving, maintaining or repairing tracks. Other unions such as the one to which the carmen belong have also complained about the continued use of rail cars and freight trains which have defects and need repairing.
The Government's decision to deregulate railway transportation will mean that the railway companies will find it much more difficult to compete not only between themselves but with alternative methods of transportation such as trucks and ships. If railway companies like any other companies have to compete and worry about whether they can continue to keep the kind and volume of traffic they have served in the past or to obtain more traffic, then one of the ways that they will try to compete is by cutting back on the maintenance of their equipment and their tracks. What we will see are more accidents, more collisions, more derailments and, I am sorry to say, more deaths as a result of these cut-backs. The morale of railway workers has gone down, down, down in my City of Winnipeg. I am sure that in other cities it has also gone down. It was not unusual to see working for the railways either in the running trades or in the maintenance shops second and third generation workers whose fathers and grandfathers worked for

February 5, 1988
Railway Safety Act
the same railway. The feeling of loyalty, the feeling that the railway was a good place to work is much less now than it once was. It will decrease more in the future. The reasons for this are very simple.
When I became a Member of Parliament the railway unions negotiated for over 200,000 members. Today, they negotiate for fewer than 75,000 members. In the relentless determination of the railways to be more efficient, which really means more profitable, they have cut employment to the bone. Thus people working for the railways now are not likely to advise their sons or daughters that they should think about working for the railways. Rather, they will be advising their children to look elsewhere for work.
Before the election the Government talked and still talks about its determination, its desire to consult with people who are affected concerning a certain question in any area in which the Government wants to make progress or to change the way that things are done. In the legislation that is before us the Government wants the companies to have the right to be able to perform random checks of their employees to protect the railways and the public against those who have been drinking or using drugs. 1 can understand the concern of the Government. I can understand the concern of the railways and their unions. I can understand the concern of the public. There have been accidents in which there seems to be evidence that some employees running the train had been using alcohol or drugs that cannot be excused.
Surely the way for a Government which believes in consultation and for railway companies which have more than 50 years of collective bargaining with their employees behind them to deal with the problem is not in a ham-fisted and tough way saying, "We are going to amend the legislation so we can decide unilaterally and in a random way that employees will be tested for drug or alcohol use". Surely, the way to cut back on the dangers and the problems which can arise, which do arise and which will arise if railway employees use drugs or alcohol while working is for railway management to sit down with the leaders of the unions representing their workers and together work out a system of education. In this way the use of alcohol and drugs which takes place among a small percentage of railway workers, as it does among a small percentage of any group of Canadians wherever they work, can be dealt with.
The former Liberal Government was, as is the present Government, driven by the determination that the railways have to become cost efficient and that their deficits have to be reduced or eliminated. The concern about employees, whether it be with respect to their number or anything else, has become a small factor, if it is a factor at all, for the management of the two national railway companies.
This legislation is deficient in many ways. Its objectives may sound right, but it will not succeed.
I wish to refer to another aspect of this legislation which was referred to by my friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). It is the question of stress and how it
affects rail safety and the accidents which occur on railways. I refer Hon. Members to an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail of yesterday entitled: "Stress rides the rails". It is an article written by Professor Brian Tucker who teaches at the University of Saskatchewan's College of Commerce. He states in the article:
Three train accidents in as many days last month claimed four lives, injured 35 and caused millions of dollars in damage. The latest episodes in the continuing saga of death and destruction on our railways, they point a spotlight on stress research. A year ago, a locomotive engineer came to see me to talk about the stress he was experiencing from his job. He talked about the trauma trainmen undergo when a car is hit at a crossing.
Earlier I referred to the number of crossing accidents that we have had. There have been almost 3,500 in the last five years.
The article further states:
He described the sickening feeling when an engineer realizes there is no way he can stop thousands of tons of locomotive in time.
That is one experience. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of railway employees who have been involved in an accident. After there has been an accident, a collision, or a derailment, an inquiry is held between the railways and the Department of Transport to find out what happened and who was responsible. In many cases, they come to the conclusion that the engineer, the trainman, and the conductor were not responsible, the accident resulted from factors beyond their control, and they were absolved. But just because they are absolved does not mean that they can quickly forget about it. Not in the railways, but in many companies there are personnel departments with people who are trained, for example, including social workers, psychologists, or psychiatrists on a consulting basis, or social workers who can work with the employees and help them overcome the trauma and the tremendous feeling of guilt that they must have, even when they have been absolved of responsibility.
The railways have been loath to do that, either because they do not understand the importance, or possibly because it would just be another cost at a time when they are being pressed to reduce the cost, and become more efficient, which means cutting back on the financial burdens. In the article, Professor Tucker further states:
Handling stress is a vital part of a manager's job. Managers can and must design jobs and working conditions to ease stress levels .. . When will CP. CN and Via take stress seriously? When will they (and other employers who provide extremely stressful working conditions) realize that proper stress management can prevent disasters?
Professor Tucker asks some very important questions. If we look at the record, the answers are that up until now the railways have been, to say the least, remiss in following the type of procedures and the type of suggestions that Professor Tucker has made in this article. Given the pressure on the railways to become more financially efficient, which means to save money, I suggest that the railways will not voluntarily
February 5, 1988

follow the advice of Professor Tucker, and similar advice given to them many times by the railway union.
Rather than simply passing this Bill and including in it the right of companies or the Department to test employees on a random basis, the Department and the Government ought to be saying to the railways that it is time they started to deal with these very serious problems in a realistic manner. It is time to sit down with the employees, through their unions, and start to develop programs which will encourage workers to avoid the use of drugs and alcohol when they are on their way to work.
In that way, on a year to year steady basis, we will begin to see a reduction-which we have not so far seen-in the number of train derailments, train collisions, railway crossing accidents, and certainly a reduction in the number of deaths which result from rail accidents.
In my Province of Manitoba we have had a number of derailments. There was one in the centre of the city in the CPR yards where trains are moving and switching. In that derailment freight cars containing highly toxic chemicals left the track. In Winnipeg there could have been a situation as critical and dangerous to hundreds of people as the derailment in Mississauga a few years ago.
Those derailments could be avoided, or certainly the numbers could be minimized, if the railways were required to take the type of precautions that they have been urged to do, the identification of cars carrying dangerous chemicals, and much better planning of movement of freight which has potentially dangerous chemicals or other products on board. The railways have to do a much better job. They will not do a much better job unless the Government and the Department of Transport sit down with the railway management and with the unions and work out a program which will lead to the thinking and planning that will decrease, if not completely eliminate, the accidents and the situations that we have seen happen much too frequently in recent years.
While we are not going to oppose this Bill, we certainly think that there is a great deal that should be in the Bill which is not there.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). The Hon. Member has emphasized at considerable length the reduction of persons employed by the railways over a period of time, and I would suggest that this is in direct relation to the reduction in the number of miles travelled by the railways, and the accidents have been related accordingly. One of the greatest railway disasters which hit western Canada was the one that happened in Alberta. As a result of that accident, an inquiry took place conducted by the Hon. Mr. Justice Foisy. In his report Mr. Justice Foisy pointed out that no fault could be laid regarding the integrity of the system, the operation of the mechanics, or whatever signal system was in place. As the Hon. Member knows, it means that in this instance that
Railway Safety Act
disaster took place by reason of human fault. The Hon. Member, and all of us, are very concerned with the safety of railways and a reduction in the number of accidents. Is it fair to say, if human fault is one of the major causes of rail derailments or head-on collisions, that we should work together to find ways and means of reducing, not excusing, the number of incidents which take place?
The Hon. Member indicated that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) might be inclined to impose compulsory, random testing for alcohol or drug abuse. I remind the Hon. Member that a committee was formed, comprised of union people, management personnel, and people involved in safety. That committee reached a conclusion and reported.
1 will refer to some of its findings. For example, 7 per cent of those surveyed were aware of workers drinking alcoholic beverages during shifts, 4 per cent were aware of drugs on the job, 52 per cent said that alcohol used by employees had compromised job safety at some time or other during the course of a run, and 48 per cent said that mandatory drug testing of railway personnel was desirable.
The Minister has not taken that position. He said that we must provide for a position where testing for alcohol and drugs takes place to determine what is the cause of an accident. If it is drug or alcohol, and the number of events justifies such course of action at a later date, then the Minister would be prepared to review and make a recommendation accordingly, in the interest of safety. Is that not a fair conclusion to take, in the interest of safety?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, nothing I said is contradictory or opposed to what the Hon. Member has just said. The accident at Hinton and many other accidents were caused entirely or in part by human failure, and part of human failure is the use of drugs or alcohol by railway employees.
Why should we be surprised about that? A huge majority of automobile accidents, particularly those which lead to the death of passengers, occurs because one or the other of the drivers of the cars was under the influence of liquor or drugs. The same is true when it comes to railway accidents. I tried to say that when I spoke earlier.
The way to deal with that, if we really want results, is not by the Minister calling for random or mandatory tests. It is not for the railways to implement unilaterally what they believe to be the best educational program. Because of the very marked reduction in the number of railway employees, because of the worry of railway employees that they may not have a job a year or two or five from now, and because of many other reasons, morale among railway workers is very low. Therefore, any unilateral proposal by the companies is looked on with a great deal of suspicion by the employees and by their unions.
I say again to the Hon. Member who has asked the question that if we want to succeed, we need co-operation, discussion,

February 5, 1988
Railway Safety Act
and development of programs. This must be done co-operatively among the companies and their management, the workers and their unions, and the Government-the Department of Transport and hopefully the Department of Health and Welfare. If we develop those kinds of educational information programs, I believe that-and I have had a good deal of experience working with unions in many ways-they would be accepted by the vast majority of workers. There would be real reason to believe that those kinds of programs would be successful. If we implemented such programs, we would begin to see a marked reduction over a period of years in the kinds of accidents which have taken place and which all of us regret.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North. I do not think any one of us can really get into a debate on why the morale of the railway workers is low. One reason might be is that they have failed to accept reality.
The position taken by the Hon. Member is such that he does not want any unilateral action to be taken by railway management. If that is the case, I suggest to him that the unions are free to take whatever attitude and action they want to take now to improve morale and safety of the railways. It is just as much in their interest as it is in that of management.
What action has the union taken from the point of view of improving morale, accepting the reality of the situation that exists in the industry today, and ensuring that the number of derailments and other incidents are reduced?
I emphasize the hard premise the Hon. Member comes down on that no unilateral action may be taken by railway management. The union members on the task force to which I referred a moment ago were prepared to recommend a harder line that the one taken by the Minister. They did not adopt that, nor has the Minister of Transport. He is prepared to work out a process of safety regulation in conjunction with the unions rather than take the recommendation which was put forward. That is the approach the Minister has taken in respect of safety in the railway transportation segment in years to come. I hope that it works, and I hope that with the cooperation of the Hon. Member we will get it.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Hon. Member would suggest, as he did a moment ago, or even believe or think that railway workers and their unions are not prepared to face reality. They have had to live with the reality that in the period of less than 25 years the number of railway employees for whom the unions bargain has been reduced from well over 200,000 to under 75,000. They have had to live with that reality, and they have had to accept it.
I point out to the Hon. Member that the main point of contention between the striking group of railway workers whom we legislated back to work last August and the companies was the demand for improvement of the job security system. The main issue of contention of the shopcraft workers who are just waiting to go on strike and with whom the
railways have stopped negotiating is the whole question of job security. They have faced reality.
Let me say just one more thing. I have not said for a moment that I am opposed to any kind of unilateral program initiated by the companies or by the Government. What I have said is that if any proposals, suggestions or programs that are designed to help cut back the number of railway accidents, crossing accidents and derailments are to work, they will work much better if they are planned and implemented through consultation, discussion and co-operation between the Government, the Departments responsible, the railway management and the workers on the job through their unions. Without that kind of co-operation, unfortunately in my belief, tragically the programs will fail.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say a few words on Bill C-105, the Railway Safety Act. We have seen enough derailments and accidents on rail lines in the last several years. Legislation in this regard is desperately needed. This Bill may be a starting point, but our side sees a lot of weaknesses in the Bill and we want to see it strengthened if it is to pass in the House after going to committee. When the Bill does go to committee, we hope the Government will be open and prepared to deal with the issues and the amendments needed to make the legislation effective. I say that because when drafters of a Bill put it together they often overlook weaknesses, and sometimes do not even deal with all of the existing legislation needing amendment.
A few weeks ago, we had Bill C-92 before the Agriculture Committee which had to do with the use of producer cars. That legislation provided for a refund of services by farmers in western Canada who use producer railway cars. These included carrying costs and interest charges et cetera. As the witnesses give their testimony before the committee it became apparent that the Bill did not really deal with all aspects. There was an extra cost in the maintenance of country elevator delivery points by using individual producer cars. This cost was being charged by the railroads to the general cost of transporting grain in western Canada. We had the situation where we had an inadequate Bill because it did not cover transportation costs. It only covered those costs are refundable through the Canadian Wheat Board.
Unfortunately, government Members on the committee refused to agree to spend the extra time to have all that information put before the committee. The same thing will apply to this legislation. Obviously we perceive many weaknesses. If we can deal with those weaknesses without the hammer of the Government's majority coming down, it will make for a better situation in dealing with legislation as important as public safety. Clearly we need improvement in the legislation.
We saw the Hinton train disaster in 1986 when 23 people were killed. Accidents have occurred in my own constituency
February 5, 1988

with fatal results. Canada is rapidly moving to more and more travel by car and truck. Level crossings are dangerous and we have to deal with the question of the transportation of pesticides.
Deregulation of the railroad inevitably brings on more problems and threatens the safety of rail lines. We see deregulation having tremendous impacts in various parts of the country. The Globe and Mail carried a story yesterday in which the senior Vice-President, Mr. D. L. Fletcher of CNR, said that CN must move ahead rapidly to cut back on the number of employees because a general election might happen later this year. Surely that kind of secret memorandum where the political game is being played without thought of the workers and of their safety is a serious matter.
There is so much secrecy. We read reports and documents that the rail line from Espanola to Sault Ste. Marie in northern Ontario may ultimately be shut down because of deregulation because the volume of traffic carried over the line is something less than 400,000 tonnes a year. Yet when you go to the CPR to get a clear statement of its intentions, you never get an answer in any way, shape or form. This kind of secrecy does not give me much confidence that we will get any information from them on matters of safety.
The whole question of deregulation of the railroad system in this country is designed to make greater use of the American railway lines. It will allow shippers to go to the railway companies requiring them to provide a rate to move produce and lumber, whatever it is, down to the American lines to be moved across the United States. In the trade deal that we recently signed between Canada and the United States, the Government gave away one of the major economic benefits to western Canada by indicating that the Crow benefit, which amounts to some $700 million a year to western grain producers, is, in fact, a subsidy and will no longer be provided to shippers of grain and oil seed to the Pacific northwest.
So we have a situation where the Government in its trade negotiations with the United States is going to the GATT negotiations saying yes, this is a subsidy so it will ultimately be removed. The Government has stated that its policy is to be "a me too policy" to the United States in trade negotiations of the Uruguay round at the GATT. That whole movement of deregulation we see as being in conflict. The responsibility for safety is given to the Minister rather than to the CTC. The Minister is also implementing deregulation which is designed to put more pressure on rail employees to create a more competitive rail system with less regulation and less safety.
Those are some of the concerns we have with this legislation. When we are deregulating and giving over the responsibility for safety to the rail companies, we must also look at how good these large, centralized companies are as corporate citizens. Let us look at the way these companies maintain their buildings and properties in many communities along the north
Railway Safety Act
shore of Lake Huron, those communities from Sudbury to Sault Ste Marie. They certainly do not inspire much confidence. They are usually the worst looking buildings, the worst kept properties and on the worst lands. We just hope that this legislation, when amended, will have enough teeth to provide that the railway companies will not be so bad at keeping the safety of workers as a paramount consideration.
We know how the railway companies have acted in communities like the Garden River Indian Band. Negotiations have been going on for the past seven or eight years over lands which were given to the CPR to build a railway 75 or 100 years ago. The CPR refuses to return those lands which contain rich gravel deposits which could be extremely useful in the economic development of the band. The company refused to negotiate, even after an important legal decision in British Columbia. The company is saying that if the Garden River Indian Band wants the lands returned to it, then let it sue the company. That is just great, but the Garden River Band does not have the funds to carry on a long legal battle.
The corporate citizenship of this company is drawn into question. Can this company which has received tens of millions of dollars of benefits from the Government of Canada, including the railway right-of-way through the land of the Garden River Band, be trusted to be concerned with safety when it shows such incredibly bad corporate citizenship by holding up the development of a major new four-lane highway which would benefit not only the Garden River Band but the general public and the safety of the highways? That whole development has been stalled for several years because of the reluctance of the CPR to give any consideration to the Garden River Band which gave up, through an expropriation by the federal Government, a great deal of land 75 or 100 years ago.
This legislation is of great concern to our caucus as well because of Clause 41 which provides for fines and penalties. A single individual railway worker can be meted out a penalty of $10,000. That seems to be pretty severe and could work an incredible hardship on an individual railway worker, perhaps causing him to pay out his life savings. At the same time, the corporate fine for the railway company, whether it is CN or CP or one of the other billion-dollar corporations, is $50,000 maximum. That is a pittance for a large railway company which might find it more convenient to pay the fine occasionally rather than carry out important safety measures in the operation of the railway, the operation of level crossings or the installation of new equipment which would make the railway safer.
We are concerned about the level of fines and penalties provided by Clause 41 of this legislation. We are also concerned with the composition of the railway safety committees provided for in Clause 44. The clause provides for a committee of a maximum of 11 persons. That may be adequate, but it may not. Canada is a large country. There are 10 provinces and two territories. The size of the committee may not be adequate.

February 5, 1988
We are also concerned with the structure of the committee. The clause provides for only one representative of labour. In practically every train accident where there is a loss of life, labour is almost invariably involved in that loss of life. There is one representative of labour, and labour almost invariably lose lives in major train accidents, but there are six representatives of the railway companies and the railway business. It seems rather uneven. Surely the input from labour is more important than that.
There are two major railway companies and many other smaller railway companies like Algoma Central Railway which runs through my constituency. We will end up having no representation from most of the other railway companies and almost no representation from labour. Of course, four representatives are to be appointed by the Minister. We can imagine what those appointments will be like. We need only read Claire Hoy's book to learn about the whole approach to patronage. Surely this legislation is too important to be concerned with patronage in those Ministerial appointments.
There is no provision for representation from municipalities and cities on the committees. There should be provision for representation on that side as well.
I notice that you are signalling me that Question Period is about to begin, Mr. Speaker. Those are some of the concerns we in this caucus have with Bill C-105 which is before the House today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 19(4) the House will now proceed to Members' statements under Standing Order 21.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kelleher), who signed an agreement this week with his American counterpart, under which our two countries will be able to consolidate further their measures against drug trafficking. The consequences of drug use and drug trafficking are a matter of grave concern for the Government and the people of Canada.
To help deal with this problem, the federal Government decided to take the offensive last May by launching its national anti-drug strategy. Tuesday in Washington, the Solicitor General concluded this important agreement with the United States to follow through on the commitment he made in May. The agreement will vastly improve the pooling of
information on drug trafficking, thanks to the work of RCMP officers posted in three American cities.
Mr. Speaker, both countries agree that as a problem that is not only national but also international, drug trafficking must be attacked on all fronts. That is why Canada is placing such emphasis on this agreement and why we have every reason to applaud the Solicitor General's initiative.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the media recently reported that some two dozen male Conservative Members of Parliament formed a very private, indeed secret club, called the BBC, or the Back Bench Committee. Some non-Members call this BBC the Braindead Brontosaurus Committee. Some of us who are more polite call it the Backward Blue Committee. It may turn out to be known as the Blather Bag Committee or, worse, the Brain Baffling Committee. One thing for sure, BBC does not stand for bilingualism and biculturalism.
These prehistoric remnants, these models of antediluvian thought, have lost the first round. We are going to start debating Bill C-72 on Monday. We will debate it thoroughly and I hope they all stand up and tell us what they think about it because we are very interested. They have lost the first battle but they have not lost the war. Let us keep fighting, gentlemen. Get up and tell us what you believe and what you think should be changed in the law. But, for God's sake, let us think of Canada.


NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to deplore the statements of Hull Mayor Michel Legere concerning the vacancy in the position of Director General of the National Arts Centre. Mr. Legere, a former, and perhaps future, NDP candidate in this city, is an ex officio member of the board of trustees of the NAC. In that capacity he has insisted that the new Director General be not just bilingual but a Francophone.
February 5, 1988

Most Canadians, and certainly this Member of Parliament, would agree that it is highly desirable that most chief executives of national cultural institutions be able to function in both official languages. To insist, however, that a particular position be filled by a Francophone or an Anglophone, and not on the basis of merit, and further, that bilingualism, the law of the land, is not good enough, amounts in my considered opinion to racism. I call on members of the NAC board to reject Mayor Legere's regrettable remarks totally.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, 1988 is an important year for municipal parks. It was 100 years ago, in 1888, that the Ontario Legislature passed the first ever Public Parks Act in Canada. That same year the first municipal park was established. On September 3, 1888, the City of Port Arthur, now Thunder Bay, established the first Board of Parks Management in Canada. It also established Waverly Park, the first municipal park in Canada, in that year.
We should all share in the centennial celebrations of Thunder Bay. Without municipal parks we would not have the facilities for sport, recreation, culture and horticulture that we enjoy today in our cities and towns. I salute the City of Thunder Bay and its Parks and Recreation Department, indeed, all Parks and Recreation Departments across this great nation, for their commitment to municipal parks.
The Government of Canada can help municipalities and their parks by agreeing to put money in the Budget this year for municipal rebuilding programs.


ABORTION
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, medical technology is such that it is now possible to use tissues and organs from aborted human fetuses for transplant purposes. Examples are pancreas cells for the treatment of diabetes, bone marrow, and organs such as kidneys. The recent Supreme Court decision on abortion leaves a void in the law governing these matters and might well lead to the deliberate growing of babies to be killed and used for spare parts, and a whole transplant industry based on fetal tissue technology.
The ethical, moral, and legal questions arising therefrom cannot continue to be set aside, and Parliament must prepare itself to deal with this issue.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, disgraceful is the word for the internal memo, dated January 11, 1988, sent by Mr. Fletcher, senior vice-president of CN operations in which he asked regional authorities to finish their employment cuts so as to get them out of the way before a federal election. Here in Ottawa, we are all familiar with the problems of railway services in Abitibi-Temiscamingue. We realize that the railways are part of our essential services and must be maintained for the sake of regional economic development. We therefore have a duty to protect our admissible CN workers in Senneterre and the region.
Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that under the provisions of Bill C-85 passed six months ago, workers may not negotiate job security or any other issues. Since there still has been no arbitration nearly six months later, how will these workers be able to protect their jobs, considering CN's memo?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary State for External Affairs implied that I would go to Haiti with the delegation of Canadian parliamentarians. I want to state that the Hon. Member does not have the right to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada. I may remind the House that we do not approve of this visit to Haiti and that we reserve the right not to take part in the visit at this time.
However, the Liberal Party of Canada has agreed to take part in the committee's proceedings next week, when we shall be considering and reviewing Canadian aid programs for Haiti, to determine whether they meet the needs and aspirations of the Haitian people.
We have also agreed to take part, the week after, in public hearings to be held in Montreal, where five members of the committee will hear the views of the Haitian community in Montreal, as well as the views of representatives of various non-governmental organizations working in Haiti.
That is as far as we are willing to go at this time, until we have received assurances that a genuine democratic election will be held in Haiti.
2666_________________________________________COMMONS DEBATES______________________________________February 5, 1988
S'. 0. 21 [English]	ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
PUBLIC SERVICE LANGUAGE TEACHERS' ROTATING STRIKES	PARLIAMENT HILL VIGIL SEEKING TRANSFER OF PRISON INMATE FROM NEW JERSEY TO CANADIAN INSTITUTION


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention of Members of Parliament to the rotating strikes by language teachers, members of the PSAC, employed by the federal Government. It is indeed regrettable that persons who have worked long and hard with many public servants, including many Members of Parliament, in order to teach second languages, have found it necessary to take this	Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton): Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Alice Curtis of Nova Scotia is in the midst of a vigil on Parliament Hill. She is committed to this vigil out of concern and love for her son Bruce, who is incarcerated in a prison in New Jersey. Appeals for a new trial or clemency for Bruce have failed.
action to support their stand. It is officials of Treasury Board who have sought unilaterally to impose 25-hour classtime workloads on a job that requires considerable preparation to deal with students of greatly differing backgrounds and rates of progress. They have	Initiatives are in progress to have Bruce transferred to a prison in Canada to complete his sentence. The State of New Jersey has laid down conditions for the transfer beyond the Convention established between Canada and the U.S. for prisoner transfer. Such conditions are unacceptable to Canada.
refused to pay teachers for preparation time which most teachers in other jurisdictions receive. Fortunately, the Federal	[DOT] (UIO)
Court has ruled that the 25-hour classtime cannot be imposed. Unfortunately, Treasury Board officials are now trying to get this classtime increased by the front door after failing to get it through the back. I call on the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazan-kowski) to take a personal interest in these negotiations given the extreme importance they have for so many public servants and parliamentarians.	All reports indicate that Bruce Curtis was an excellent student and a caring person who has shown no disposition to any type of criminal activity. I call on my colleagues in the House this morning, and on all Canadians, to join in the chorus to persuade the officials in the State of New Jersey to allow Bruce Curtis to complete his sentence in Canada and to begin his rehabilitation.
* * *
AGRICULTURE	REVENUE CANADA
TWO-PRICE WHEAT SYSTEM-CHANGES CAUSE FOR CONCERN	PAYMENT OF SOURCE DEDUCTION CHARGES-DISALLOW ANCE OF MAILING DATE AS FACTOR


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, eastern Canadian wheat producers have expressed serious concerns over the Government's intention to abolish the two-price wheat policy. This has created considerable uncertainty in the industry and future planning is impossible. Producers have	Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr. Speaker, what does Revenue Canada have against Canada Post? Revenue Canada is now sending notices to employers concerning source deduction changes which read as follows:
prepared an excellent position paper and they question the Government's compensation plan. To quote directly from their document: "We are only asking for fair, equitable and consistent treatment; we are not asking for special concessions."	New remitting requirements go into effect for 1988, and subsequent calendar years. Beginning January I, 1988, all payments of source deductions must be RECEIVED by the due dates. The payment will be considered to be on time if it is RECEIVED by the Department on or before the due date. The mailing date of the payment will no longer be a factor.
In Prince Edward Island alone there are 30 growers who produce an estimated 65,000 metric tonnes of wheat for milling purposes every year. They fear that the proposed changes to the two-price system could have a devastating effect on their industry. Eastern Canadian milling wheat producers made a number of recommendations to the Government. I urge the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) to give their proposals his full support.	In other words, the Government and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) are telling all Canadians not to trust Canada Post because it will not be able to deliver the mail on time. If the Government does not trust the Post Office, why should it expect that ordinary Canadians should? It is obvious that the Government of Canada should start putting its money where its mouth is. It should start reforming the postal system and start believing in it itself.
February 5, 1988


INCOME TAX
Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled on December 10, 1987, a pre-regulation income tax project on housing and travel allowances for residents of remote and northern regions.
Many remote regions in Canada can benefit from this program thanks to the Conservative Government of Brian Mulroney.
Mr. Speaker, many municipalities in the Gaspe riding which I represent qualify as isolated posts, to their great benefit.
Unfortunately, a number of communities in MRC Denis Riverin are excluded from this program.
The Minister of Finance has stated publicly that an inquiry commission would be established to examine further applications for eligibility under this program.
Therefore I can assure the Gaspe residents concerned that their applications will be duly considered and that our Government is fully aware of their problems.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Marion Dewar:: Mr. Speaker, in 1967 Statistics Canada began collecting data on the wage gap between men and women. Figures then showed that women were earning 58.4 per cent of what men were earning. According to the latest StatsCan report, women are now earning 66 per cent of a man's wage. That is hardly an impressive victory for women.
Last spring the Human Rights Commission called upon the federal Government to introduce a pay equity law with some teeth, a law to force employers to pay equal wages and not just to file reports. It has been eight months since the Commission made its recommendation and the Conservative Government has yet to respond.
Effective pay equity legislation requires mandatory compliance and insists on strong enforcement mechanisms to make it work. It must be bolstered by the support systems which encourage women to enter non-traditional occupations. These support systems include training and retraining programs for women, educational opportunities, and access to affordable, quality child care. Women can be assured of a bright future if the Government has the political will to put these systems in place.


HOUSING
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, last March, the Government announced amendments to the National Housing Act to provide, among other things, mortgage access for certain classes of buyers, such as the owners of mobile homes and house boats.
It is now February, 1988, nearly a year later, and nothing has been done.
This clearly shows the lack of interest of this Government for the housing sector. The only acceptable reason to justify such a delay might be a decision on the part of the Minister responsible for housing to include changes which would benefit the homeless and those with inadequate housing in the new legislation.
The only question being asked by all those who deal with housing is this: What is the Government waiting for?
I therefore ask the Conservative Government to use this bill to legislate on the responsibility of the Federal government to provide housing for the homeless, as other countries such as Australia and England have done.


PRIVATIZATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, some attention has been paid in recent days to the plans of the Government to privatize Radiochemical Company, the corporation within Atomic Energy of Canada which is responsible for food irradiation.
I want to suggest, if it has not occurred to some Members already, that there is a connection between this privatization plan of the Government and the decision by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to allow food irradiation.
The fact is that the decision of the Minister of National Health and Welfare makes the long-term commercial possibilities of this particular aspect of AECL much more pleasant to look at. I suggest that the Minister of National Health and Welfare abrogated his duties as Health and Welfare Minister in making that decision and was captive to the privatization agenda of the Government.
The Minister said in regard to the mussel problem that he was not the kind to play Russian roulette with the health of Canadian people. I suggest that he has played Russian roulette

February 5, 1988
Oral Questions
with Canadian people with respect to allowing food irradiation, and that he has done that out of subservience to the privatization and ideological agenda of his colleagues.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have well established in the House this week the principle that loans to members of Cabinet must be declared and registered as part of the provisions of the conflict of interest guidelines.
The Globe and Mai! has reported today that Jack Manion, Associate Secretary to the Cabinet in the Privy Council Office, has "refused to reveal whether the Prime Minister has registered a personal loan".
In light of that information my question to the Deputy Prime Minister is straightforward. Has the Prime Minister registered, pursuant to the conflict of interest guidelines, personal loans reportedly totalling $158,000 which the Prime Minister has received from the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the Hon. Member is trying to get at or what the relevance of this question is. This issue was raised some time ago and I understand it has to do with an arrangement which has been a long-standing tradition of the Party wherein the Progressive Conservative Party has supported activities of the Leader. I know of no such loan and I am not sure why any such loan would have to be disclosed.


PC CANADA FUND LOANS REPORT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, early this week both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister made clear that the initial reason for the dismissal of the Minister of Supply and Services was the nondisclosure of a personal loan as required under the conflict of interest guidelines. I think Canadians are entitled to expect the same standard from the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister himself has imposed on members of his Cabinet.
I repeat, did the Prime Minister record and disclose, as required under the conflict of interest guidelines, loans that the Prime Minister received from the PC Party of Canada as disclosed by the Fund Chairman, Mr. Angus, and as reported in The Globe and Mail last April?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out in the House last April, the PC Canada Fund paid for certain expenses and the Prime Minister reimbursed the PC Canada Fund for his personal share of those expenses. It is my understanding that that was done and I am not sure what relevance that would have with regard to what the Hon. Member is pointing out.


LOAN REGISTRATION QUERY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, at question is not how much was loaned-reportedly $158,000-nor how much or how quickly it was repaid. At question is whether or not, according to the standards laid down and reinforced this week by the Prime Minister, the loan was registered as required by the conflict of interest guidelines. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister again-he doesn't have the answer now-can he please bring to the attention of the House as quickly as possible information relating to the loans-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: What loans?


Brian Vincent Tobin: -secured by the Prime Minister from the P.C. Canada Fund. And can he tell us whether or not those loans were registered upon the dates they were received by the Prime Minister?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is making a charge or an allegation that there is indeed a conflict of interest here, why doesn't he stand up in the House, or go outside the House, and make that charge-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Just answer the question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -instead of the innuendo and smear he is engaging in? The fact is that this was responded to at page 5233 of Hansard on April 27, 1987, when I indicated that those things that were personal were paid for by the Prime Minister. This was not a loan in the traditional sense. The P.C. Canada Fund paid for certain expenditures, which has been the tradition of the Party for many, many years, and billed the Prime Minister for anything that was considered to be personal, which he paid for. That is my understanding of it.


COMPLIANCE WITH GUIDELINES
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and is with respect to the matter of the Prime Minister's compliance with his own guidelines on the matter of conflict of interest.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McDermid:: Give it a rest, Herb. Get up from the gutter.
February 5, 1988


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Deputy Prime Minister has just said that the payments to the Prime Minister from the P.C. Canada Fund were not a loan in the traditional sense. If money was advanced to the Prime Minister and that money was later repaid by the Prime Minister, or if the money was paid by the P.C. Canada Fund to third parties on behalf of the Prime Minister, which he later paid, surely that is a loan, whether it is traditional or not. Why will the Deputy Prime Minister not admit this and tell us whether or not those transactions were disclosed and recorded pursuant to the Prime Minister's own conflict of interest guidelines? Why one set of standards for the Member for Langelier and another set of standards for the Prime Minister?


Charles Joseph Clark: Go swim in the Trudeau pool!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is placing a rather interesting interpretation on this whole issue. This matter, of course, was discussed in the House of Commons on a number of occasions. 1 responded when 1 said that the Prime Minister has undertaken to pay for those things which are personal in nature. And consistent with the traditions of the Party and the Leader, where the Party supports the office of the Leader, those things were paid and whatever was considered to be personal in nature was paid for by the Prime Minister. So I am not sure what loan the Hon. Member is talking about.


Charles Joseph Clark: There is no loan.


QUERY WHETHER PAYMENTS WERE RECORDED
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I can only quote the Deputy Prime Minister's own words when he said the payments were not a loan in the traditional sense.


Charles Joseph Clark: That's right!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Surely one can rely on the Deputy Prime Minister's own words that, while he did not consider it traditional, it was a form of loan. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a specific question, and that is, could he tell us were these payments recorded pursuant to the conflict of interest guidelines? Were they disclosed to the Deputy Registrar General and recorded in statements filed with the Deputy Registrar General? Could he answer yes or no to that question?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Members of Parliament have what they call a petty cash account-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -in the operations of their constituency office, and there are certain things which are personal and certain things which are paid for, perhaps, by their Party, or certain things that are paid for under the provisions of the
Oral Questions
Government of Canada. So these things are sorted out in much the same way. As I understand it, what has happened here is that there were certain bills that were paid for. Those which were personal in nature were paid for by the Prime Minister. Those which were considered to be, in the traditional sense, of the Party supporting the office of the Leader, were paid in that manner.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He didn't register them. The answer is no.


PC FUND-REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MAKE STATEMENT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I do want to say that for ordinary Canadians that kind of money is not petty cash.
For the sake of fairness and honesty and simply being above board, will the Deputy Prime Minister assure this House, on the questions being asked about the Progressive Conservative Fund and the moneys being provided to the Prime Minister, that the Prime Minister, when he returns, will indicate and disclose all of the aspects of the money he received from the fund so that everyone understands exactly what happened? Would he give us that assurance?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is suggesting that the Party has made a loan to the Prime Minister. That is not my understanding. This question is totally irrelevant. The Hon. Member, if he is suggesting there is some wrongdoing, if there is a conflict of interest, should make the charge. Make the charge here in the House, or go outside the House and do it in a proper fashion.


Mr. Cassidy:: Just answer the question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we just want a very clear picture about what did happen.


John Horton McDermid: You just want to smear. That's what you like to do, muck-rake.


REPORTED FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES OF FORMER SENIOR QUEBEC MINISTER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that today it has been reported that back in November of 1986 the Minister in Cabinet responsible for Quebec indicated to the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister that the previous Minister of Supply and Services was having very serious financial problems. Will the Deputy Prime Minister indicate to the House what steps the PMO took at that point knowing full well that the senior Minister from Quebec was experiencing these kinds of personal financial problems?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member in the preamble to

February 5, 1988
Oral Questions
his question clearly pointed out, he is really not interested in the answers; he is interested in smear and insinuation and innuendo.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It really is quite an incredible scene, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister indicated earlier, the Prime Minister's Office had no evidence that the former Minister had breached the conflict of interest of guidelines until earlier this week. There are all sorts of rumours and gossip that float around the Hill, but as soon as that was ascertained, action was taken, and the Prime Minister took the action that he deemed was necessary in accordance with maintaining the spirit and relevance of the Code.


TIME OF ACTION TAKEN BY PRIME MINISTER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Prime Minister's Office knew in November of 1986 that there were serious problems regarding one of his senior Ministers from Quebec in terms of financial matters. The Minister indicated yesterday that these loans took place over two years. Why was it, when this information was known for at least the last two years, it took until reporters were asking questions in a variety of Ministries-that is, before the Government got caught with its hands in the cookie jar- before the Prime Minister came clean?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to restate what the Prime Minister said in the House on February 3 with regard to the conflict of interest guidelines as reported at page 12573 of Hansard:
-which are under my direct responsibility, when I was apprised, not of a violation, but of the possibility of a violation, which was not public knowledge in any way, I immediately instructed the officials of the Government to seek confirmation, and if confirmation was forthcoming, to provide it to me. When that was done, I immediately acted to seek the resignation of a Minister. It seems to me that that is in keeping with the most genuine spirit of parliamentary accountability and responsibility.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What year was that?


Mr. Waddell:: What year was it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This is February 3, 1988. The Opposition wants the Prime Minister to ensure that Cabinet Ministers adhere to the spirit and code of the conflict of interest guidelines and, when action is taken, they are still not satisfied. All they want to do is to dig deeper and smear and tarnish the reputation-


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about November, 1986?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -smear and tarnish the reputation of individual Members of this House and outside this House.


P C. CANADA FUND CHAIRMAN'S LETTER
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I have in hand a copy of a letter signed by Mr. David Angus, Chairman of the P.C. Canada Fund, sent to all major newspapers, which said: "Mr. Mulroney has reimbursed the P.C. Canada Fund"-reimbursed-"for expenses which were strictly personal in nature".


John Horton McDermid: It's paid.


Don Boudria: In view of the fact that one can only reimburse something that was borrowed to start with-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: Come on, Boudria.


Don Boudria: -can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House why there is a different set of rules used for one cabinet Minister for borrowing $250,000 than for another one?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: You are reaching.


Mr. Speaker:: The Deputy Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That merely confirms my earlier answer, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS OF FORMER MINISTER
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and also concerns the conflict of interest guidelines, but this time in connection with the other Minister.
We know that the former Minister neglected to declare financial commitments, which is against Section 24 of the conflict of interest guidelines. Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to tell the House today what he should have told the House three days ago? Was the loan interest bearing? How much was the interest? And what were the terms of repayment? Was it a loan, a benefit or a gift?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House I undertook to provide that information. As soon as it is available to me I will so provide it.
February 5, 1988


CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who just quoted the Prime Minister and his statement that, as soon as he was informed, he "took action" in the case of the former Minister of Supply and Services and asked for his resignation.
Today, it was reported in the press that the Prime Minister's Office was warned by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, fifteen months before the resignation of the former Minister of Supply and Services, that the latter had financial problems and had contracted some heavy personal debts.
The Deputy Prime Minister himself stated that the former Minister's loans were contracted over a period of two years. Furthermore, according to an article in the Globe and Mail, the Prime Minister's Office took action only after it heard a reporter was making inquiries.
My question is this: Why did the Prime Minister's Office again wait until the problem took on the proportions of a scandal before cleaning house? And why does this Government only worry about morality when it is caught with its hands in the cookie jar?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I responded to that question earlier. I indicated that the information that I have is that no evidence was available that would suggest that the Minister had breached or potentially breached the conflict of interest guidelines, until earlier this week. When that information came to light action was taken, swift action was taken.
I regret that the Hon. Member opposite Finds fault with that. Quite frankly, I would have thought that he would have been applauding the Prime Minister for, first, putting in place a stringent set of guidelines and, second, for ensuring that they are enforced.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY WHY GOVERNMENT DID NOT ACT MORE QUICKLY
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, if it is true, as alleged, that the Prime Minister's Office was warned in November 1986, 1 would have applauded if the Prime Minister had acted at the time and not in February 1988.
So once again, my question is this: Why, if the allegations are correct and the Prime Minister's Office was warned about the former Minister's financial problems, did it fail to take any
Oral Questions
action for fifteen months? Why, if the allegations are correct, was no action taken?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I said, when evidence came to light that there could be a possible violation of the conflict of interest guidelines or meeting the strict spirit of the Code, when that was known and confirmed swift action was initiated, and the Minister was asked to resign.


LOAN DIFFERENTIATION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week a cabinet Minister was fired. He was fired because he failed to disclose a loan pursuant to the Conflict of Interest Code. My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is simply this. What is the difference between the loan given to the former Minister of Supply and Services and the loan given to the Prime Minister from the PC Canada Fund?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, one was a loan and the other one was not.



John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, according to David Angus, who was head of the PC Canada Fund, the money was a personal loan made to the Mulroneys after the 1984 election victory. My question again to the Deputy Prime Minister is this. Can he explain to the people of Canada what the difference is between the loan given to the former Minister of Supply and Services and the loan given to the Prime Minister of Canada by the PC Fund?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question. I invite the Hon. Member to read Hansard where he will get the answer.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: Pump it up, Rod!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that they are afraid even before they find out what the topic is.


Mr. Fennell:: Keep it going, Rod, we like this one.

February 5, 1988
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps if the Hon. Member would put his question we would know what the topic is.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question to the very nervous Deputy Prime Minister and his cohorts is the following one.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Under the new Conservative dictionary a repayable gift is not a loan. Last night we discovered that a campaign expense is not an election expense. Considering that the Deputy Prime Minister is in charge of Bill C-79-it is in his name-and considering that he has not made any effort to close this loophole, what will the Government do to ensure that the next federal election will not be so wide open that nobody knows what the hell is going on?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that question simply condemns all Members of the House of Commons. I think all Members of the House of Commons had a part to play in the passage of the Elections Act which governs elections in our country. The important part of the committee hearing process that has been going on is the fact that it has revealed a number of inadequacies within the legislation.
Quite frankly, we have been trying to work out with the Opposition a process wherein we could improve on the Elections Act. Rather than simply engaging in character assassination, 1 hope that members of the Opposition will be more interested in trying to resolve some difficulties that occur and are inherent in the Elections Act. I think that that can be a very productive process as a result of the hearings that are going on.


ELECTION EXPENSES-REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF LEGISLATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows full well that his Government has asked for quick passage of Bill C-79 without any discussion whatsoever of changing the definition of election expense. He should also know that the New Democrats and the Liberals in the summer of 1986 asked for changes to that definition, something which the Conservative Party turned down.
Considering that the Hon. Member for Frontenac was allowed to spend between $12,000 and $20,000 in campaign expenses, which were deemed not to be election expenses, will the Minister ensure that there is an immediate attempt by the Government to amend this legislation so that the next federal election is not Dodge City?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's allegations are not only unfair, they are untrue. He knows very well that there have been extensive consultations at the Party level amongst
all Parties to try to redress the deficiencies in the Elections Act. We are not asking for quick passage. We are asking for consultation to ensure that all Parties can agree on a process so that, rather than engaging in long, protracted debate on the floor of the House of Commons, we can resolve these differences in bilateral and trilateral discussions.
Certainly we are all interested in improving the Elections Act. This Government has co-operated. The Chief Electoral Officer has co-operated. It is fair to say that if there is a genuine spirit that prevails in the interests of improving the Elections Act then 1 am sure that the Hon. Member can count on our full co-operation.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES SUBMIT RESIGNATION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, in addition to what we already knew, we are learning this morning that the Minister of Energy would have overspent to the tune of $20,000-


Mr. Hawkes:: Wrong!


John Horton McDermid: That is not right.


Jacques Guilbault: Information disclosed in 16 police raids has it that the Minister would not have reported the personal chauffeur, gasoline expenses, dinners to promote his candidacy, the rental of hotel rooms, meals-


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the Hon. Member has put sufficient into his preamble to place the question. I think that is what the Hon. Member is leading to, and I would ask him to put his question.


Jacques Guilbault: I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if, in his capacity, he will talk to the Minister of Energy to suggest to him that what he should do next week when he appears before the committee is to seize the opportunity to do what he should have done weeks ago, and that is to submit his resignation, if it were only to prevent further embarrassment to the Government.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's charges are categorically false. I am quite surprised, as a member of that committee who was there and who heard the testimony of Mr. Gorman that he has the guts to stand up in this House and make that kind of false allegation.
Mr. Gorman clearly indicated that this was not a violation. My understanding is that the Commissioner said that the RCMP had placed entirely the wrong interpretation upon the Act in this particular area.
February 5, 1988


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that the sixteen affidavits 1 just referred to are new affidavits that were not discussed yesterday in committee. Only one affidavit was considered in committee yesterday. And I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister to have a serious talk with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, stop this charade, and ask the Minister to resign immediately.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the charade is being generated by Members opposite. The fact of the matter is that they conveniently choose not to use the evidence and the testimony of the key witness who was brought before the committee.
Mr. Gorman, I am told, made it very clear, both in a written statement and in answers to Members' questions, that the expenses referred to were not election expenses, as defined by the Act, and therefore nobody in the campaign could be charged under Section 61 of the Act for overspending.
That is the fact, Mr. Speaker. Why does the Hon. Member persistently try to misrepresent the evidence that was presented before that committee?


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, 1, and many ordinary Canadians, are becoming confused by the answers of the Deputy Prime Minister. Therefore, I address another question to him.
We know that the Prime Minister received from the PC Canada Fund $324,000, which the Deputy Prime Minister describes as petty cash. Although this sum was repaid, the Deputy Prime Minister states that it was not a loan. If it wasn't a loan, then what was it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to the amount of money, as the Hon. Member suggests, as petty cash. He knows that, and he should not try to distort the facts. It is traditional that the opposition Members try to twist and distort the facts.
I think what ordinary Canadians are really wondering is why the Opposition has nothing more to offer than smear, innuendo, and character assassination. I think that is the issue.
Oral Questions DEFINITION OF A LOAN


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, in an exchange of the type that is going on in the House today I think it is important to define our terms. For the benefit of ordinary Canadians, and Members of the House, and perhaps even the dictionary, I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister to define for us what exactly is a loan.


Mr. Speaker:: Even the Chair, although much tempted, is not going to get into definitions of words or phrases. I think 1 have to advise the Hon. Member that that question is out of order.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PRESS SECRETARY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In answer to other questions put to him about what was the difference between the payment to the ex-Minister of Supply and Services and the payment to the Prime Minister from the PC Canada Fund, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that one was a loan and the other was not.
I have a report which appeared in The Globe and Mail on Friday, April 17, and it reports that a Mr. Marc Lortie, and I quote, said that the portion of the money that was lent has been paid back, while the rest was used to buy furnishings that now belong to the Conservative Party. Mr. Lortie said that the loans were a formal arrangement between the Prime Minister-


Charles Joseph Clark: What is in quotes?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -and the chairman of the PC Canada Fund, who raises money for the party. This report appeared on Friday, April 17, 1987.
1 ask the Deputy Prime Minister, wasn't Mr. Lortie the press secretary for the Prime Minister speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister and in his name and, if he said it was a loan, how can the Deputy Prime Minister say today the money was not a loan?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have responded to that question. I think it is quite clear, and the Hon. Member knows it. He has been involved with party politics for a long period of time, and 1 am sure that the Liberal Party supports his Leader and the things that go on. It is in that same tradition that the Conservative Party has, for years, supported the Leader and provided support for the Leader of the office. That is the same kind of arrangement that was made in this particular case.


CODE OF CONDUCT-MONEYS ADVANCED BY PC CANADA FUND
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has created for his Ministers, and I presume himself, a Code of Conduct which he stated was the best in the world.

February 5, 1988
Oral Questions
We are simply trying to find out to what extent the Prime Minister has complied with that Code with respect to the moneys advanced on his behalf by the PC Canada Fund.
If the Deputy Prime Minister's position is that that money does not have to be covered by the Code, let him state that clearly. If his position is that the Prime Minister was in error and overlooked filing, a technical breach, as was the case with the ex-Minister of Supply and Services, let him admit that. All we are asking is for a straight answer about how the Prime Minister lives up to his own set of rules.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Hon. Member is not interested in straight answers. As I indicated, it has been a tradition of the Party that certain expenses are paid for, if they are to discharge the office of the Leader of the Party, and if there are some things that are deemed to have been personal in nature, they are paid for by the Prime Minister, by the Leader. That is exactly what happened in this particular case.


DECLARATION OF LOAN
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has made it clear that the PC Canada Fund has given a loan to the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is a falsehood. Withdraw that falsehood.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member would refrain from re-arguing a matter which has been, to some degree, already argued here, and put his question. I think that that would be helpful to order.


Jack Harris: The question would be, Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister declare that loan?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to explain. I wish Hon. Members would listen. There were accounts that were paid for by the Party. That has been a long-standing tradition. Those items which were deemed to be personal in nature would be billed back to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister paid for those things. That is part of the long-standing arrangement that has been existent with our Party for many, many years.



Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether or not the loan was repaid. We do not know whether Mr. Cote repaid his loan-


An Hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have asked the Hon. Member to put his question and not get into an argument by way of preamble.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether the loan was repaid or not repaid. The question is whether or not the loan was declared, which the former Minister of Supply and Services was supposed to declare and resigned-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member has a question, I would ask him to put it. The Hon. Member is clearly indulging in argument on whether there is a question or what is the issue. I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I believe the question is very straightforward.


Mr. Speaker:: It may well be, but I would ask the Hon. Member to put it.


Jack Harris: My question is: If this is a loan, why was it not declared?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have already answered that, Mr. Speaker. I will try to go through it again.
There are certain expenses incurred by the Office of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Party, and certain expenses were deemed to be of personal nature which were billed to the Prime Minister and for which the Prime Minister paid. If that is a loan, then you have a different version of a loan than I have.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration or his substitute. Mr. Speaker, I am told that today, Statistics Canada has released its figures on employment in Canada. My question is this: Could the Minister inform my constituents and my colleagues in the House about the statistics for my own province, the beautiful province of Quebec?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, how I remember those Friday mornings when the labour market statistics would come out and the then Ministers, when they were in government, would shake because they had no answers to the growing numbers of unemployed, no
February 5, 1988

answers to double digit inflation, or no answers to the families who were renewing mortgages at 15 per cent to 20 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in Quebec has dropped from 12.9 to 9 per cent in less than four years. We have created 293,000 new jobs. Last year in Quebec, we created
119.000	new jobs. There are 104,000 fewer unemployed workers in Quebec since September 1984. In Montreal, the unemployment rate has dropped from 11.8 to 8.6 per cent, and
128.000	jobs have been created since January 1985.


TERRORISM
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General 1 will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
1 have had a great interest in the terrorist acts which took place on June 23, 1985. One of them was the killing of two baggage handlers in a Japanese airport, and the other one was the crash of Air-India Flight 182 in the Irish Sea, killing 329 people.
In view of the fact that we have had calls from the Opposition for the resignation of the Solicitor General, especially coming from the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, because of unsuccessful investigations, I think it might be worth while if the Deputy Prime Minister could elucidate for the House and tell us about the culmination of a successful investigation which was announced yesterday.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that Mr. Reyat was arrested on February 5 in Coventry, England, by the local police and is now in police custody awaiting a bail hearing. An extradition hearing will follow in order for him to be returned to Canada.
A warrant for his arrest was issued by the B.C. Supreme Court on February 1, 1988, and subsequently by an English court. He has been charged with eight offences, including two counts of manslaughter, four counts of causing injury with intent, as well as illegal possession of explosives.
Oral Questions DISASTERS


AIR-INDIA CRASH -REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister in connection with that particular arrest which, as I understand it, does not relate specifically to the Air-India crash.
The Air-India crash took place some two and a half years ago. There have been no charges laid, no trials held, and no convictions registered.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House and Canadians when we will see action in connection with the Air-India crash? Does he not believe that it is time for a public inquiry?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think all Hon. Members would want to applaud the work of investigative officials, the job they have done in terms of the arrest that has been made.
With respect to the Air-India accident, it is still under very full investigation. I would hope that similar results might be forthcoming in the very near future.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the Government's consultation paper, Survivor Benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. According to this paper, widows' pensions now paid up to the age of 65 will be paid for three years only.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House how he expects a widow with dependent children, who has been out of the labour force a long time and may even be in poor health herself, to become economically self-sufficient in three years?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has a tradition of putting very important and pertinent questions to the House. I think this deserves a full and comprehensive answer.
I simply want to tell the Hon. Member that, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and of the Minister of Finance, I will take that question as notice and assure her that she will get a full and comprehensive answer.


PROJECTED REDUCTION IN BENEFIT OUTLAYS
Aideen Nicholson: When the full and comprehensive answer comes, Mr. Speaker, may I also have an

February 5, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Waddell
answer to the following question? The Government's own paper projects a reduction of 15 per cent in benefit outlays as a result of these changes. Will the Deputy Prime Minister guarantee that the Government, in its commitment to deficit reduction, will not be doing it at the expense of widows?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Government's record in social justice has been exemplary. Certainly from the standpoint of considering the welfare of all Canadians, the best social justice is the security of a job.
With the figures which were just announced today, I think a lot of solace is provided for all Canadians, particularly when we consider that the job-creation effort has been so successful in terms of providing long-term jobs, particularly jobs for women. I think the record has been outstanding.
1 will take the Hon. Member's representation into consideration and convey it to the responsible Minister. I am sure that she will be treated with a full and comprehensive answer to her question.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's press secretary indicated today that the money from the PC Canada Fund was a loan and that it was repaid. He did not call it a gift. He did not call it petty cash.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister now indicate whether the Prime Minister registered the loan as required under the conflict of interest guidelines?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Hon. Member was in Question Period earlier today. I explained precisely what took place, and I really have nothing further to add.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member on a short supplementary.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER RESIGN
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, given all the answers that we have received in the House today, it is clear that the Prime Minister did not register this transaction-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question and not argue about facts which may or may not have been established yet. Please put the question.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. When will the Prime Minister take the same course of action with himself as he did for the Member for Langelier, and resign.


John Horton McDermid: Why?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is trying to make a connection here that is totally irrelevant, totally irrelevant.
The PC Canada Fund paid for invoices, which were submitted, and those expenses which were deemed to be personal were then billed to the Prime Minister. Those bills were paid for by the Prime Minister. This does not constitute a loan. I wish Hon. Members would stop distorting the facts. The facts are as I outlined them and I have nothing further to add, Mr. Speaker.


PRIVILEGE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I believe, that in the statements at the beginning of the Question Period, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) called the Mayor of Hull, Mr. Legere, a racist. I do not have the "blues". I would have to check them to see whether the Member firmly said that or said that he tended to be a racist, or some other words. If he said the former and called the mayor an outright racist, I think that is disgraceful, distasteful and I think it is unparliamentary.


Mr. Speaker:: I have already ruled on another occasion that to accuse anybody in this place of being a racist is, in my view, unparliamentary. I did not hear the exchange. The Hon. Member may want to rise and set the record straight or do whatever is appropriate.


David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to look at the "blues". I think the words I used were that the Mayor of Hull in rejecting the notion of a bilingual candidate as Director General of the National Arts Centre and specifying that the candidate had to be a francophone, I said, that such a statement in my view in rejecting the law of the land on bilingualism, and believing in bilingualism myself, amounted to racism.
I did not accuse any Member in this place of being racist. I do deplore the conduct and the words of the Mayor of Hull. As far as I am concerned, they are not unparliamentary, although I will, of course, abide by any ruling you make in that regard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 5, 1988

Mfr. Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. That is not a withdrawal at all.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made it quite clear that whatever he said was not referring to any Hon. Member in this place. I think procedurally that is where I must leave it. What the Hon. Member may want to do outside this Chamber, if he is asked about it, to elaborate on it or do otherwise, is, 1 think, his own business.
Clearly, I accept completely the Hon. Member's truthfulness that it was not a word aimed at any Member in this House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I table in both official languages the final statement of the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers on Southern Africa and the proposed terms of reference of a study made in application of sections 7 to 11 of the Okanagan Statement.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) and other Commonwealth heads of Government met in Vancouver and Lake Okanagan in October they agreed on measures to fight apartheid in South Africa and established a committee of foreign Ministers to give impetus to their decisions. 1 have the honour to chair that committee. 1 was asked in the House before departing by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellette) to report to the House, and I rise now to report to the House on the first meeting of that committee earlier this week in Lusaka, Zambia. In beginning, I want to express formally Canada's great appreciation of the excellent arrangements made by the Government of Zambia.
The committee comprises the Foreign Ministers of Australia, Canada, Guyana, India, Nigeria, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. At Vancouver, the United Kingdom decided not to be a member of the committee, although Britain is contributing to other parts of the Commonwealth program against apartheid. For example, Britain and Canada will be
Statements by Ministers
the major contributors to the restoration of the second phase of the Limpopo Rail Line in Mozambique. Britain, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Malawi are involved in the equally important work of providing security for transportation corridors against terrorist disruption. The best prospect for an end to apartheid is the negotiating concept developed by the Eminent Persons Group, established by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and other Commonwealth leaders in Nassau in the Bahamas. Our committee will work conscientiously to encourage conditions where that negotiating concept might be given effect.
Let me refer to the campaign to defend apartheid, Sir. It is systematic, organized, prosecuted as a priority by the Government of South Africa and supported, for various motives, by businesses and organizations with substantial interests in that country. Among some within South Africa, the resistance to change is intensified by fear, including the fear that they will be torn up from their own roots and that the strong economy they have created will be destroyed. That combination of power and fear is formidable, both in itself, and in the reaction it inspires.
Whatever other lessons might be learned from Africa, the record is consistent that, when majority rule could not be negotiated, it came by violence, fueled by the frustrations of majorities who would not forever be denied citizenship in their own country. That is the lesson of, among others, Kenya, Algeria, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. If the white 14 per cent of the population which governs South Africa maintains its racist system, the black majority will respond, inevitably, not with silence but with violence.
We have to take account of both the power and the fear that fuel apartheid. When I met President Chissano of Mozambique in August, he tried to address the understandable fear of white South Africans. He said:
The Afrikaaner is as African as I am. We both belong here. There is no
other place to which we can return.
The African National Congress acted in the same spirit in the meeting in Dakar, Senegal, where white and black South Africans came together to talk about their future together. Zimbabwe itself, with three white Ministers in the Government, and thousands of white citizens involved fully in industry, agriculture and the public service, is proof that white and black Africans can work together in freedom. The Commonwealth, because of our special reach across races and around the world, can help ease fears, among both blacks and whites. And Canada, in these circumstances, with our history and our nature, can play a leading role.

But fear is only one element of apartheid: power is another-power defended zealously, exercised ruthlessly.
Sanctions are applied for two purposes-the first economic; the second psychological. There is no doubt that the actions actually taken by Canada and other countries have sent clear messages of disapproval to defenders of apartheid, and of

February 5, 1988
Statements by Ministers
encouragement to its opponents. Nor is there doubt that the economic measures have inspired a vigorous campaign to bust sanctions, or evade them, or frustrate their purpose.
Naturally, the South African government does that; but so may other governments, so do many businesses. Those actions deserve to be known and, at Lusaka, we authorized terms of reference for two major studies which will bring to light new patterns of trade, new practices of accounting, new routings of shipments.
The terms of reference of the larger study have been published, and I have tabled them today. In the same spirit we are concerned by what appear to be significant breaches of the mandatory embargo on arms export, which members of the United Nations are obliged to respect. As individual nations, and as a committee, we will be seeking hard evidence and considering specific actions to ensure that the mandatory arms embargo is enforced.
The most effective new weapon enlisted in the defence of apartheid is the deliberate new emphasis on censorship within South Africa and propaganda at home and internationally. A simple summary of major press legislation in South Africa which sets out what journalists may not write about runs to over 300 pages. On top of that is the weight of other threats and regulations which limit freedoms that we Canadians take for granted: the freedom to meet, to publish, to speak without fear, and the right to protection against detention without trial.
No one knows how many people are detained today without charge in South Africa. No one who is detained knows when he or she might be freed or detained again. Even little children are locked away.
As the curtain comes down within South Africa, the campaign intensifies outside to portray as reform proposed institutions in which no authentic black leader will participate, to caricature all opponents of apartheid as communists or killers, to exploit prejudice. I have no doubt that the campaign of censorship and propaganda is carefully organized and targeted, and the Commonwealth will become much more involved in exposing and countering propaganda and censorship.
That holds its own risks. When it comes to rights, no Commonwealth country is blameless, some less than others. During the meeting in Lusaka and in other conversations, I warned that the accusation of a double standard would almost certainly be made against the Commonwealth and that the best way to deal with it is by improvement in our own countries, but most in this House and most in the world would agree that inequity or abuse in other countries does not excuse an apartheid regime which writes racism into law.
There is one other dimension of this committee which 1 want to convey to the House. We are eight countries from five continents. None of us is a superpower. Some, like Guyana, are states with profound economic problems of their own, while others of the front line states are vulnerable every day to destabilization from South Africa. That we came together gave evident hope to groups like the South African Council of Churches whose representatives we met.
What we can do together will enlarge the information and initiative and will to fight apartheid in peaceful and practical ways. That we are together is the best answer to the fear that is at the heart of apartheid, the fear that different races, different colours, cannot work together. The Commonwealth is the antithesis of apartheid. We are different races, different colours, working together. I expect that this committee will help us continue our progress.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Minister for providing me in advance with a copy of his statement. I wish also to congratulate him for rising in the House at the first opportunity to give us an account of this first meeting, held in Lusaka, Zambia, of the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers which has been set up to initiate policies to fight against apartheid in South Africa. Unfortunately, this morning, he could not announce to the House very significant progress. He could only pay lip service to this very important cause. As he admitted himself on page 3 of his statement, and I quote:
The best prospect for an end to apartheid is the negotiating concept developed by the Eminent Persons Group-
Well, 1 must remind him that according to his Department's 1986-87 Annual Report, this initiative has not brought about the expected results. It is even described as a ... The document does not say so in so many words, but it implies that this initiative was ultimately a failure. I was surprised this morning when I heard the Minister refer to it.
Also, and this may be the most important and straightforward point of his whole statement, the Minister described the campaign to defend apartheid, and I quote:
This campaign to defend apartheid is:
-Systematic, organized, prosecuted as a priority by the Government of South Africa, and supported, for various motives, by businesses and organizations with substantial interests in that country.
To clarify this resistance, he points out further on:
Nor is there doubt that the economic measures have inspired a vigorous campaign to bust sanctions, or evade them, or frustrate their purpose.
It therefore seems obvious to me that, in spite of all our goodwill and all our efforts throughout the years, the situation in South Africa remains unchanged. The South African Government does not want to change its policies for any consideration or reason.
February 5, 1988

To relate to my own personal experience, I recall my first speech as Parliamentary Secretary to the Eton. Mitchel Sharp, then Secretary of State for External Affairs, before the UN General Assembly, in which I denounced apartheid. This was my first speech on behalf of Canada before the UN General Assembly, and I dealt with apartheid.
Today, 18 years later, I find myself still denouncing apartheid in this Elouse. This is why 1 can accept that Canada, through its Minister, should continue to play a role in cooperation with Commonwealth countries or South Africa's neighbours in an effort to put as much pressure as possible on South Africa, but I also believe that, apart from such efforts, which are praiseworthy and should be pursued, Canada must do more. I believe that Canada must now take drastic action.
At this point I think I should quote my Party Leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), who said, in an important speech:
Our goal as Liberals has always been to reach the day when every person on this planet lives under a rule of law which fully respects the human rights of all citizens. We can cite human rights abuses in every part of the globe, but nowhere are human rights being so blatantly trampled than by the institutionalized, state-sponsored racism of the apartheid regime in South Africa.
Last September, I called on our Government to impose complete economic sanctions and withdraw diplomatic relations from that country by the end of the year if no progress was made toward ending apartheid. That deadline has been passed, and again we demand that the Mulroney Government take action.
It is time for Canada to chart its own course, and send a clear message. Apartheid is an affront to human dignity and Canadians will not give validity to a regime which imposes it. I also believe that while it is preferable that we convince our allies to take the same action in concert with us, we must be prepared to act alone if need be.

This kind of dramatic gesture can have a very important psychological impact. It can act as a catalyst and help end a situation more quickly. I remember how Canada ventured forth on unbeaten paths in the early seventies when it recognized Mainland China, how it paved the way for many other western countries, how it in fact led the United States to do likewise, and how Canada's attitude, its unique position, enabled it to play a significant and important role on the international scene. I believe that today, breaking off diplomatic relations with South Africa would be as important and have the same impact as our decision, at the time, to be among the first to recognize the People's Republic of China.
I therefore urge the Conservative Government, as the Leader of our Party has done before, to make the dramatic gesture that would make it abundantly clear that we can no longer tolerate apartheid in South Africa.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to begin by thinking the Right Hon. Minister for being
Statements by Ministers
faithful to Parliament and using the House rather than a press conference to report on his visit. It is greatly appreciated and a habit I hope other Ministers will imitate more frequently than they sometimes do.
In his statement the Minister made several points that I wish to comment on. The campaign to defend apartheid is rightly referred to as "systematic, organized and prosecuted as a priority by the Government of South Africa". The Minister went on to say, "supported for various motives by businesses and organizations with substantial interests in that country". Might I suggest-and I do not mean this in a narrow partisan way because it makes the Minister's approach to South Africa even more laudable in the circumstances-that one of the obvious, and I sometimes think willing, intellectual victims of this systematic campaign is the international conservative community, at least as expressed through its magazine International Conservative Insight, the latest issue of which 1 recommend to the Minister. That issue is a pot-pourri of attacks on sanctions, various anti-apartheid leaders, and approaches to the issue which the Minister himself condemns in his statement when he quite rightly denounces as propaganda the caricature offered by the South African Government and its propagandists of all opponents of apartheid as communists or killers.
The Minister has a lot of work to do in the broader political and ideological community to which he and his Party belong, and we wish him well. We also wish for him the same clarity of mind and language that he displays with respect to South Africa when it comes to the caricatures which come out of the Pentagon and White House concerning Central America and those in that region who want to control their own destiny. They are often referred to as communists or killers when neither description is appropriate.
The Minister says that if the white 14 per cent maintains its racist system, "the black majority will respond, inevitably, not with silence but with violence." With respect, that is all that the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) was saying when she was so roundly criticized by the Minister in September of 1987.

The Minister said, and rightly so, that the impact of sanctions is both economic and psychological. I applaud the concept of two studies on the ways and means used to avoid the impact of these sanctions. However, I suggest that these and other studies should also look into statements that some sanctions have actually reinforced certain sectors of the South African economy.
These statements made by opponents to sanctions must be addressed so that the effect of sanctions can be improved, if necessary, thus strengthening instead of weakening their impact.

February 5, 1988
Introduction of Bills

The Minister referred to the fact that even little children are locked away. In this respect, I met not too long ago with Ms. Ann Mitchell, Executive Director for Canada of the International Defence and Aid Fund for South Africa, who attended an international conference on children, repression and the law in apartheid South Africa. One of the recommendations coming out of that conference included the need to make known world-wide the plight of apartheid's child victims and the nature of the South African legal system, one primary purpose of which includes detention, arrest and imprisonment of children. I hope this is something that the Minister and the committee he chairs had in mind when they made their decision to counter South African propaganda, and that making known the plight of these children would be one of the things they would be following up.
I also hope that some day soon either the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade or the Standing Committee on Human Rights might have a chance to hear testimony about this from Canadians who attended that conference, or other Canadians who have concerned themselves with this particular matter. I know that is something they are hoping to be able to do.
I also had the opportunity to meet not so long ago with members of a Canadian delegation to Angola sponsored by the Canadian Council for International Co-operation. One of their principal recommendations was that Canada begin to treat Angola on a par with other front line States and SADCC countries. I am somewhat disappointed that the Minister did not take this opportunity to indicate any new Canadian policy with respect to those recommendations made by Canadian NGOs. I believe Canadian aid to the front line states has to be comprehensive, include all the countries that need that kind of aid, and be thorough. I encourage the Minister to work with the NGO community in Canada which is to co-operate with him in any efforts the Government might contemplate to increase both the amount and effectiveness of Canadian aid to all the front line states.
Finally, the Minister referred to the argument about a double standard and, in very careful language, talked about no Commonwealth country being blameless with regard to "rights". It may be incidental and have no consequence, but I am curious about the blanket use of the term "rights" rather than "human rights". The concession by the Minister that Canada is not blameless is interesting and I welcome it. I have the suspicion that had I got up in the House and said this about Canada the Minister may not have been so forthcoming.
However, the Minister is right in reminding those countries, some of which are strident in denouncing South Africa and its apartheid system but which are not exactly models of political tolerance themselves, to clean up their own houses in order that their criticisms of racism in South Africa might have even
more moral force than they already have by virtue of the inherent offence against humanity which apartheid constitutes.
The Commonwealth is the antithesis of apartheid, as the Minister has said. I might also suggest that la Francophonie, another organization to which Canada belongs in which both blacks and whites work together for the common good of the communities which they represent and the world, is also the antithesis of apartheid.
I ask the Minister to consider, not only with respect to the Commonwealth but also with respect to the U.N. and other international opportunities which Canada has in general, how Canada might act in concert with others and also alone to provide leadership and to give expression to the offence which Canadians unanimously, I hope, take to apartheid.
One of my colleagues has suggested some dramatic action. I do not agree with the dramatic action which he has suggested, the breaking off of all relationships with South Africa. That is not the policy which the NDP supports at this time. However, I do not think the Minister should rule out, as he sometimes does in his language, the possibility that some day-and I do not mean a far away day which never comes-we find ways for Canada to act alone and dramatically which would give expression to the unanimity with which Canadians abhor apartheid.

[ Translation]


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Jean-Robert Gauthier: for leave to introduce Bill C-279, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act (tabling of documents).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this Bill arises from a concern for providing all Members of this House and all Canadians with the same service. The Bill provides that from now on, when the Government tables public documents, it shall do so in both official languages simultaneously-in French and in English-and that both versions will be equally valid. I think that today, it is essential that the Government adhere strictly to this obligation to table documents in the House in both official languages. If the Bill is passed, we will no longer have to complain about occurrences like the one we experienced recently with Bill C-22 or with the Mulroney-Reagan Free Trade Agreement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
February 5, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present two petitions from Canadian citizens in Moose Jaw, Regina, Saskatoon, and Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan. The petitioners say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised, in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations, that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised. They say that the Government did not have a mandate to negotiate a trade agreement and that the agreement denies Canadians secure access.
They therefore humbly petition this House not to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement until we have had a national general election.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour and privilege of tabling two petitions signed by residents of my riding of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic and general area. The undersigned, most of whom are from Haiti, humbly pray the Parliament of Canada to take immediate action and cease all economic aid to the military junta now in power in Haiti. They also ask the Parliament of Canada to increase its support for the Haitian people in their march towards democracy.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty in accordance with Standing Order 106, to present to Parliament a petition duly signed by the Clerk of Petitions from a number of Canadians in Toronto, Sault Ste. Marie, Don Mills, London, St. Mary's, Brantford, Scarborough, Hamilton, and Richmond Hill.
These Canadians are concerned that the very fabric of Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the trade deal negotiated between the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States for which the Prime Minister of Canada had no mandate. They are concerned that
Railway Safety Act
it will reduce Canada's ability to plan our economic, social, and cultural programs.
Therefore, they request the House of Commons to ensure that a national debate takes place on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and that this debate result in a national general election before any agreement is signed.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour and duty to present petitions from White Horse, Yukon; Teslin, Yukon; Atlin, British Columbia; and Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. The petitioners are concerned about potential environmental and nuclear proliferation risks to Canada should flights of plutonium be allowed over northern Canada.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to recognize the dangers of such flights and to say no to the transport of plutonium over northern Canadian territory-
* *
*


Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the Minister's statement, Government Orders will be extended by 29 minutes.
Consequently, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business will start at 2.29 p.m.



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.
[Stage Direction]
February 5, 1988
Railway Safety Act
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-105, the Railway Safety Act. Although the constituency of Spadina has large railway yards in the southern end of the constituency, there is a very particular concern raised in the last several years and continuing into this year about rail safety that relates to the Gault line which runs along the northern boundary of Spadina and, in fact, runs east to west through the heart of the City of Toronto and Metro Toronto. Therefore, I am very much concerned not only because of the railway workers, the passengers, and so on, who are concerned with the railway yards in the south near the lake, but because of the situation on the Gault line about which 1 will say more.
In approaching this subject, I am concerned about the situation as reflected in the comments of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) this morning. In the last five years there were well over 300 fatalities in rail accidents. I am also concerned about the situation which has arisen just this year that because of failure of co-ordinated planning by the Government there is now no investigatory body since January 1 to look into rail accidents. The Government's own legislative action has cancelled the Railway Transport Commission and the Railway Transport Committee despite warnings by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and the New Democratic Party. That rather supports the impression that the Government is not very serious about rail safety.
We are glad the Government is introducing legislation. Our Party and its predecessor have been asking for this for five decades. However, we are very sorry the legislation which was introduced is so weak that it is almost an excuse for no legislation. There are almost no teeth in it. The teeth will have to be in the regulations over which, of course, this Parliament and the public have no control, sometimes not even clear knowledge, and so far there has been no opportunity to debate them. If the Government will bring those regulations before the Standing Committee on Transport there will be at least some opportunity for Members of Parliament, including the opposition Parties and, I hope, the public, to examine those regulations and to give the Government the benefit of whatever wisdom they have. In that connection, I would hope particularly that all of the railway unions will be invited to comment on the regulations before they go into effect, since those people are the ones who must carry them out. In many cases, those people are the ones whose lives are most directly endangered by safety hazards.
In this connection, I want to say that it is not true, as has been implied by some people, that the principal failure of rail safety is the negligence of employees. There are other causes which often go unnoticed or, at least, they are not well publicized. I remember many years ago when my father, a lawyer in Winnipeg, took a case for a railway worker in a nearby town whose daughter had been killed on a railway siding. She had been going to school over a path used by herself and others for weeks during that winter and one day
she was crushed between two boxcars that were being shunted. What the court found was that the railway was fundamentally at fault. The regulations required that there be a "brakie" on the leading end of the car being shunted, but management, in its usual corner-cutting, cost-cutting, way neglected to put a brakie on that job. It saved a little money but it cost a little girl her life.
From my own experience of working 18 years in a factory, I know there are many accidents which occur not primarily through employee negligence but through unsafe conditions created by management, including conditions of speed-up- "Hurry, hurry, hurry. Get it done. Skip the little rules in the book if they slow down your work". Therefore, I am very deeply distressed that this Act provides a ratio of five government officials, who do not necessarily know what is going on with respect to the rail lines, and five railway representatives to one representative of the workers. There would be five representatives from the company which is interested in making profits, five representatives from the Government, but only one representative from the workers who must carry out the orders and whose lives, are themselves more at risk than the lives generally speaking, of the public. This is a very unfair imbalance. It puts a single worker representative in the position of being a mere token who can very often have no real influence on a decision for which he, nevertheless, might be held responsible along with the majority.
Another unfairness of this Bill is the scale of fines. We are told the maximum fine for a worker who violates this Act would be $10,000. However, the maximum fine for a company in violation would be $50,000. That is sickening. An amount of $10,000 could very well be 20 per cent or 25 per cent of the annual earnings of, say, a locomotive engineer. What about the annual earnings of the President of CPR which are about $600,000? For him, $10,000 is almost invisible. It is less than 20 per cent of his earnings. Not, of course, that he would be charged individually, but it does help to point out the contrast. The real contrast is with the annual profits of these companies, which I believe are never less than $100 million, at least on average. If the annual profit of the company is $100 million or more, and if there were to be a proportionate fine levied against the company when the company is at fault under this law, it should be in the range of $20 million to $30 million. That would be "a fine in proportion to the $10,000 against a locomotive engineer earning $40,000 or $50,000 a year.
The Government is not serious in this legislation about compelling or even persuading the companies to be serious about safety. Some of my colleagues have already pointed out the great lack of safety across this country at level crossings, for example. We have them in Toronto. The railways are very unwilling to spend a dollar, if they can avoid it under the law, in order to promote safety for children going to school and old people going to the store, or whatever else people have to do when they use level crossings.
There is a further unfairness in this Bill in its treatment of the doctor-patient relationship. This is something I have had
February 5, 1988

experience with during my 18 years in a factory. There was a company doctor. We were not required to go to the company doctor when we felt sick, but we were required to go to the company doctor when they wanted us examined. The company doctor considered it his obligation to give the medical information to the company. Why? Because the company paid his fee. In ordinary business terms, of course, you get what you pay for and you give what you are paid for. However, the College of Physicians and Surgeons has a different view. The view of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, as expressed to the Toronto Board of Health some years ago in a letter, when we asked its view on a safety question and on a question of a doctor's responsibility to the patient, including a company doctor, said that the only person entitled to receive the information about the patient's health from the doctor is the patient or anyone to whom the patient is willing to have the information transmitted. He must give his waiver before that information is given to anyone else, whether it is the company, the union, the police or whoever it is. That is the view of the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Yet this Bill violates the traditional confidential relationship between doctor and patient by stating that the doctor must give information on the patient's health to the employer. There may be a ground for an employer needing to know certain facts about the patient's condition. It can be addressed, but it should not be addressed simply by an arbitrary rule that the doctor can tell the employer whatever he thinks he should tell him and that the patient should have no recourse against that.
What has happened in our factory is that sometimes the doctor gave information to the employer that he had not even given to the patient. The patient did not know his own condition fully. I know that in another factory in Toronto, a lead factory, the doctor withheld vital information about lead contamination in the employees' bodies.
He may have given the information to the company but he withheld it from the patients because he considered that his obligation was to the people who paid him his money and not to the person whose life he was examining and to whom as a doctor he was sworn to be responsible.
Therefore I find that this pattern in the legislation of reducing worker representation on the railway safety code consultative committee to a token, and of setting such an unfair balance of fines and of giving the company rights over the information regarding the patient's life when he has been examined by a doctor, information which even the patient may not have, I find those to be in the pattern of blaming the workers in a situation where costs are cut on safety so that the profit goes to the company and the personal risk of injury and the blame goes to the worker. That is far too common a pattern in our country. I am sorry that this Bill perpetuates it.
It does thereby give to the company an incentive to increase its profits by corner-cutting. As has been pointed out, the
Railway Safety Act
Government has given the companies another kind of incentive to do the same thing by introducing deregulation. It has made Canadian Pacific and Canadian National extremely vulnerable to unfair competition from south of the border given the geographic arrangements. But to add this further incentive of giving the company an unfair control over safety decisions as against the workers is going to mean that companies will spend even less money on the construction or maintenance of tracks, even less money on the removal of level crossings, even less money on the buying of safety equipment and the maintaining of it in safe running order, even less money on adequate training for all employees, and even less money on necessary scheduling of employees' time so that there is no danger of overtiredness on the job. I think that is very unfortunate. There are possibilities that the Bill's faults in this respect can be rectified. I hope that the government Members as well as the opposition Members will look for those faults and remedy them in amendments in the Transport Committee.
I want to mention one other matter to which I referred at the beginning. Last month the Toronto Area Rail Transportation of Dangerous Goods Advisory Council held hearings in Toronto concerning the complaints that arose about danger on the Gault line since the notorious railway derailment in Mississauga in 1979. There has been continuous and strong pressure from residents of Toronto to stop the practice of bringing dangerous goods, explosives or dangerous gasses, anything that could cause harm to human beings as well as property if railway cars were derailed and perhaps broken open by the force of derailment. None of those things should be transported through that railway line.
At present about 80 percent of what goes through that railway line neither originates in Metro Toronto nor does it terminate in Metro Toronto. It is a through line for most of these dangerous goods. We are saying they should not be curried there. But there is nothing in this Bill that gives us anything to hang on to. Everything in it is referred, as it were, in a discretionary way. The vital parts are referred in a discretionary way to the regulations which we have not seen and do not know when we will see them.
The people in Toronto, and I do not mean just a few residents, I mean Toronto City Council and Metro Council, have both demanded that that line be moved out of Toronto, not on to the perimeter of Toronto but well north of Toronto, for which surveys have been done in a preliminary way. It is a feasible line to build. The advantage of it is that even though population in those areas will no doubt grow, even if the line is built now well outside of Toronto, there can be a buffer strip created along the line so that residents will not be living cheek by jowl with a railroad carrying dangerous goods. At present it would be horrendously costly to build a buffer strip such as that through the City of Toronto because there would be a great deal of expensive property that would have to be acquired. So we want the line out of Toronto.
I believe that from my knowledge of the housing and real estate activities in Toronto and Metro the cost of moving the

February 5, 1988
Railway Safety Act
line would be fully recovered by the railway and its subsidiaries such as Marathon Realty because the land values would immediately soar. 1 know Marathon well enough to know it would make a mint of money out of recycling that railway line into housing.
1 regret that this law is weak as it is. It is no doubt better than nothing. It is a start. But it is a very poor start considering what the Government should have brought in in connection with public complaints. It gives no real voice to the workers. It gives no real voice to the public. It is loaded in favour of the cost-cutting interests of the companies.
I hope that this Bill will be amended so as to provide that the Government and the companies and the unions at least would sit down public hearings, to which the public have access as well, in order to work out a fairer system of responsibility for rail safety.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) on a question or comment.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has emphasized the lack of provisions for safety on the railways. By way of comment, I would like to point out to him the Canadian incident record of railway happenings, and I will read from a report which states that the number of train accidents, derailments, collisions, crossings and maintenance equipment accidents decreased from 1,456 to 985 or 32 per cent between 1975 and 1985.
The Hon. Member gives the impression that all across the transportation modes there will be a decrease of interest and concern for safety. May I point out again that the Hon. Minister has emphasized that safety and security will be a top priority in the deregulation aspect of the modes of transportation.
In the United States, and on the United States' side, I do not know why the Hon. Member feels that this record of safety will diminish. How does the Hon. Member respond to the position of John Riley, a federal railroad administrator in the United States where the Staggers Act and the deregulation policy have been implemented for several years ahead of that which is being implemented in Canada? Mr. Riley states, "One of the often overlooked aspects of this issue is that safety for the railroads has improved dramatically since Staggers". I think there is a direct cause and relationship there. There is no reason to believe that with deregulation safety will be prejudiced.
The Hon. Member makes the misconceived statement that the Bill has no provision for investigation of accidents on the railway. Bill C-105 refers to the National Transportation Act and a National Transportation Agency. If the Hon. Member reads that Act, he will realize that the responsibilities charged to that agency is one of investigating the reason for the
accident and determining causes, which gives Parliament an opportunity thereafter to take the necessary action.
As a Ministry, we have indicated that safety is of high priority as are the number of safety factors, security measures, and inspectors to ensure that the security measures are implemented and kept in place. I say to the Hon. Member that the basis of his presentation is not properly founded when he points out that safety will be prejudiced in the years to come under Bill C-105.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) for his intervention, and I take him quite seriously, knowing his concern in a number of other areas. I may not have explained myself clearly on one point that he raised. I did not intend to say that this Bill has no provision for investigation. If I stated that, I was mistaken. That was not what I meant to say. What I am referring to is the fact that for the last five weeks there is no provision for investigation. There is a gap. The accidents do not stop, but the investigation authority has stopped.
There I am referring to a statement attributed to L. R. Steves on January 19. He is the Atlantic District Director of NTA Rail Safety Branch. In chairing a public meeting in Halifax dealing with a series of derailments that have taken place in Nova Scotia over the past year or so, Mr. Steves admitted that as of January 19, there is no agency empowered to investigate accidents or make other inquiries into matters related to railway safety.
When this Bill is passed, and when the regulations are written and put into force, they may very well provide what the Hon. Member says. But sitting in front of the Hon. Member is a Minister whose colleague last summer promised a change of regulations in immigration matters. After six months all he does is to send us a nice letter saying that it will be some months yet before those regulations are written. We really do not know how long it will take to write the regulations for Bill C-105 and put them into effect. Until then, in effect, there is no investigative agency. We just have to hope that accidents will miraculously cease until the Government gets ready to put an agency back into being.
The Hon. Member referred to a decrease in the accident rate over a decade. I believe I remember that earlier today he referred to a decrease in the volume of traffic. Of course, one way to bring the accident rate to zero would be to shut down the railways entirely and permanently. Sometimes, in passenger traffic, it looks as if that is exactly what the railway companies are trying to do. If there is no service, there will be no passengers. Nobody will be hurt. There will be no workers, and none of them will be hurt either. I do not think that is what the Hon. Member who raised the question wishes, but I think his use of that statistic raises as many questions as it might answer.
As to the Minister's assurance that safety has a high priority, we have heard that before. We have heard it many
February 5, 1988

times. It is now more than eight years since the derailment in Mississauga. That derailment could have been a disaster with a disastrous death toll, if it had not happened in fairly vacant land. If that had happened north of Dupont Street in Spadina, there may have been hundreds of fatalities. We do not know. But certainly it would have been a much larger disaster. Yet eight years later the matter is still being investigated under the authority of the Minister. There is no big hurry about safety, Mr. Speaker. This is in spite of representations from the city council and from the metro council, both of which are led by responsible officials, many of them of the same Party as the Hon. Member who raised this question with me. Yet they cannot get a serious answer from the Government on the safety question.
Most people are not even satisfied that the 25 mile per hour limit is being observed. It is difficult to prove. If someone stands by a train that goes rushing by, they usually do not have a radar trap with them in order to test the speed of the train. I know that residents along that line do not believe that the railway is honouring its so-called voluntary undertaking to reduce speeds to 25 miles per hour when carrying dangerous goods.
The public in Toronto is becoming impatient waiting for some evidence that the Minister has this high regard for safety that we have been told about.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on the Bill entitled, "An Act to ensure the safe operation of railways and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof1.
Since I came to the House in 1984, I have been a full and active member of the Transport Committee. During that time the committee has dealt with a number of pieces of transportation legislation. We have dealt with two deregulation Bills, the Aviation Safety Act, and the Canada Shipping Act. This Bill is clearly an important component. It exemplifies the Government's attitude towards safety that it was not in a position to bring in a rail safety Act until after it had not only brought in legislation dealing with deregulation on the railroads, but actually had that legislation enacted and in effect.
As we know, even if we move quickly, consideration of Bills like this will take time. It is regrettable that, up until this point, the Government has put safety on the back burner.
Let me begin by indicating why we need a Railway Safety Act. I should point out that rail unions since almost immediately after the Second World War, along with the CCF and then the NDP, have been calling for a Railway Safety Act. It goes to show that the previous administration did not value safety on the rails as a high priority, nor did previous Conservative Governments. However, I am pleased that we finally have a Bill before us. I look forward to the work that we will be doing in the Standing Committee on Transport to refine the
Railway Safety Act
legislation to reflect better the needs of the people who work on the rails and the people who come in contact with railroads.
I want to do a little historical look-see since 1984 and to start with the final piece of correspondence I have on a matter regarding inspection procedures, particularly in Thunder Bay but elsewhere as well. It is a letter addressed to the Minister of Transport from the Canadian Division, Brotherhood of Railway Carmen, signed by its National President, S. A. Horodyski. I want to read into the record parts of this letter. It was sent in response to a letter from the Minister saying that safety was no problem and that there was no need for a safety inquiry. It read:
Your response has missed the point of our concerns. Your policies have failed to recognize the serious potential for disaster being created by the railways' massive lay-offs of the employees who are responsible and specifically trained to identify defective railway rolling stock components and ensure they are set off the train and properly repaired prior to resumption of service.
The intervals of inspections by specially trained carmen (car inspectors) are being reduced drastically across Canada's railways with elimination of inspection points with the railways relying on unqualified personnel to insure safe movement of trains across Canada. This practice appears to have the blessing of the soon to be defunct Canadian Transport Commission (CTC)...
An example of why our confidence in the CTC is not what it should be is attached which deals with a directive by the CTC to CP Rail concerning mechanized inspections, which was ignored by the railway without any repercussion.
While technologies introduced on the railways today have assisted in reducing mechanical failures, they have not eliminated those failures. It is extremely precarious for railways to adopt an attitude towards safety which is on a practical basis as opposed to one based on a stringent standard of rail safety with consistent maximum application so as to ensure minimal failure, thereby, protecting against loss of life, personal injury of employees and the general public, as well as property damage.
By the federal Government introducing the economic regulatory reform (C-18) first, the railways appear to have taken this as a signal from the Government that safety takes second place to economics. This is further evidence by our understanding that the Railway Safety Act mentioned in your letter will not be introduced until sometime in 1990.
Obviously that part of the letter was incorrect, because the Act is before us in 1988.
I want to return to the reference about CPR ignoring CTC instructions. The matter was first raised with me in February 1986. To go back a little further, I have a May 24, 1985 copy of an internal CPR memo from the General Car Foreman addressed to the Westfort supervisors and the traffic yard supervisors in Thunder Bay. It reads:
Effective immediately, Kubota Tractors are to be utilized to perform train inspections at Westfort Yard.
This is to be done in all areas where the tractors can be driven and operated in a safe manner. It is realized that some areas are not yet suitable for this operation but will be made so in the future.
That was CP's first shot. On February 12, 1986 I received a letter from the President of Lodge 361, Mr. Lemesani of the Canadian Division of Brotherhood Railway Carmen. It read: Dear Mr. Angus:
The subject of this letter in the form of a petition, is that of the Safety Standing Inspection of originating trains in the Westfort Inspection Yard of

February 5, 1988
Railway Safety Act
CP Rail by the Carmen who are being forced to do these inspections while operating Kubota tractors.
All Carmen of Lodge 361 in Thunder Bay who are required to do inspections of trains while driving the tractors, maintain that they can not do a proper inspection. Most of the under carriage is not visible while sitting on a tractor. The Carmen have to look ahead at the road while driving, and insist that no one can see to his side to inspect the train and also ahead to drive at the same time. This will undoubtedly cause many defects on these trains to be missed.
Many of these trains travel in excess of a thousand miles before having another Standing Inspection, and only have Pull-By inspections while on route to their destination. The Carmen of Thunder Bay strongly urge that this policy be changed, by allowing the qualified inspectors (Carmen) to walk the train while inspecting. In this manner they will be able to inspect cars properly by standing and bending to see up under the cars at the coupler assemblies, at the brake rigging and a close inspection of the wheels, all of which when defective cause cars to derail and cause major mishaps.
The lives of all the public who come in contact with these trains at level crossings and in towns and cities in which these trains travel through are at stake, as well as the train crews. The Carmen, who are the Safety Qualified Inspectors on the railroad know that they cannot inspect trains properly while driving tractors, and stress to you that this policy must be changed for the safety of all.
I wrote to the Minister of Transport at that time asking him to investigate the matter, which he did. On May 9, 1986, the then Minister of Transport, the present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) wrote the following:
Dear Mr. Angus:
Thank you for your letter of 17 February 1986, with which you enclosed a copy of correspondence from Mr. H. Lemesani of Britannia Lodge No. 361 of the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen, concerning safety inspections at CP Rail's Westfort inspection yard at Thunder Bay.
I appreciate receiving Mr. Lemesani's comments on this matter. I understand that the Railway Transport Committee-was aware of this type of inspection practice. The matter was investigated and, as a result, the RTC instructed CP Rail to correct its practice.
I trust that this action will meet Mr. Lemesani's concerns. Thank you for your interest in this matter.
The practice was not corrected, and I have what appears to be a telex dated at Winnipeg on June 17, 1986 from the General Manager, Operation and Maintenance, CPR. It went to some of the Thunder Bay supervisors and read:
This refers to the recent press clipping from Thunder Bay and Moose Jaw quoting various Members of Parliament that CP Rail has been ordered by the Railway Transport Committee to cease using Kubota tractors in the safety inspection of freight cars. The procedures that CP Rail is using has been adopted by most North American railroads and we do not intend to back off from our position. You should therefore ensure that there will be no changes made in our inspection and repair procedures at Thunder Bay and Moose Jaw regardless of what the press has said.
Obviously regardless of what the Minister of Transport was saying at that time as well. This is why we need a Railway Safety Act. From January 24, 1986 to February 7, 1986, the following is a list of the level of inspections and what they found at Thunder Bay:
January 24-10 trains were run thru-only one was given a thorough check for running-gear defects train #481-Unit #5545 had skids reported on #5 and #6 wheels and had to be taken to the shops for repair. January 30-6 trains were run thru-only 1 was given a thorough running gear check . . .
February 1-7 trains R/T-only 1 checked-
February 3-6 trains R/T-2 checked-
February 7-7 trains R/T, 2 checked-
Obviously economics are dictating to the railroads that they must reduce their level of inspections. They are dropping back on the number of inspectors and changing work responsibilities for less qualified people to do the inspections, and all in the name of cutting costs. When they cut costs, they cut corners. This is also why we need a Railway Safety Act.
Quite frankly we need a Railway Safety Act which is a bit stronger than the one before us. Instead of there being an overseeing committee charged with the responsibility of administering the inspection side of things or in charge of enforcement, we have a railway safety consultative committee.
I mentioned earlier that this House had passed another Act during the life of this Government, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board Act. Under that Act there was not a consultative board or an advisory board set up. There was a Canadian Aviation Safety Board. Let me quote from that Act:
There shall be a board to be known as the Canadian Aviation Safety Board consisting of not fewer than three members, at least one of whom shall be a full-time member, to be appointed by the Governor in Council.
This Board is to oversee aviation safety, not observe it, not to pass comments to Ministers but to oversee it. Concerning the object of the Board, we find:
The object of the Board is to advance aviation safety
(a)	by identifying safety deficiencies as evidenced by aviation occurrences;
(b)	by conducting independent investigations and. if necessary, public inquiries into aviation occurrences in order to make findings as to their contributing factors and causes; and
(c)	by reporting publicly on its investigations and public inquiries and on the findings in relation thereto and by making recommendations designed to eliminate or reduce safety deficiencies.
What we have in the Railway Safety Act is:
The Minister may establish a committee, to be known as the Railway Safety Consultative Committee . .. consisting of not fewer than two and not more than four members who, in the opinion of the Minister, have special expertise or special interests in matters of safe railway operations, plus seven other members as follows:
(a)	one member to represent the Minister;
(b)	one member to represent the Canadian National Railway Company;
(c)	one member to represent Canadian Pacific Limited;
(d)	one member to represent VIA Rail Canada Inc.;
(e)	one member to represent the other railway companies to which this Act applies;
(f)	one member to represent the shippers of rail freight traffic; and
(g)	one member to represent the Canadian Railway Labour Association.
What does this committee do?
The Committee may, on its own initiative, and shall, at the request of the Minister, advise and make recommendations to the Minister on any matter affecting safe railway operations, and shall make to the Minister at least one report annually on the activities of the Committee.
That is not good enough at all. If we are to have a properly developed rail safety act, we have to ensure that we are not
February 5, 1988

allowing the bureaucrats in the Department or the Minister, although we accept the fact that ultimately the Minister is responsible for the safety of the railways, but an independent board with the power to oversee the activities of the rail safety act.
The other area of concern that I have and upon which some of my colleagues have touched already is that of fines. There is an incredible imbalance in this Bill. We do not have to go back too far, just to the Hinton inquiry, to hear about the pressures of the rail industry and how it has become the practice for a conductor to not stop a train because he cannot communicate with the head end-he assumes it is a radio problem or what have you-and, if the train is later he will probably get demerit points. So, that railway psychology came into being. Someone who perhaps breaks a rule, not vindictively, but because everyone else is, may become involved in an accident. This individual is subject to a fine of SI0,000. The company, which may have set the scenario for that ignoring of the rules by the economic pressure on workers-assuming that it could be convicted of that-will be fined $50,000.
Now, $50,000 to the CPR is petty cash, to use a phrase that was used earlier today. That is meaningless to the CPR, but $10,000 to an individual who works for the railroad, who is a brakeman, a conductor or an engineer with a family and a mortgage, is a lot of money. While there should be penalties for infractions, we have to keep the balance in mind. Quite clearly, the fine for the railroads the corporations, is peanuts. The amount should be raised substantially so that it is no longer deemed a licence fee, a licence fee to stretch safety requirements, to avoid living up to the law of the land.
The amount should be substantial. Make it $1 million, make it $5 million or make it $10 million. Obviously, we should be giving the judiciary the power to set a fine that relates to the infraction. If one of the two railroads providing locomotive services to VIA Rail, for example, by their economic action have not had locomotives safety checked for a period longer than is acceptable, and if they put at risk the lives of their passengers on that train, why should they only face a fine of $50,000 if convicted? It is ludicrous. That $50,000 has to be raised significantly. What about putting on a ceiling of $10 million or $20 million, but make the amount a major economic impact on the operator.
Another area to which I want to refer briefly is the section which requires engineers employed by a proposing party to certify for safety railway works that have received ministerial approval as well as other works which fall within certain prescribed categories. This section removes the responsibility of the regulator to ensure that works are completed to an acceptable standard for safe operation while placing that responsibility in the hands of proposing parties, namely, railway companies for the most part.
This provision of the Bill will make it easier for railway companies to operate as they choose. It is unclear what contribution they will make to safety of railway operations. I
Railway Safety Act
think it is a responsibility of the Government to ensure that whatever works are paid for meet the standards. The Government should not rely on the railroad or the company because they may cut corners. A company may decide to design something in a way that has a limited lifespan for purely economic reasons. That section has to be changed.
I am sure that if we talk to railroaders across the country we would be horrified to hear about all of the things happening, the violations and the stretching of safety, all of the problems that have been created in the name of the bottom line. Move more goods faster at less cost is the philosophy. There is a cost, and ultimately that cost is safety.
1 look forward to working with my colleagues on the Transport Committee in reviewing this legislation and hearing witnesses. Hopefully we can modify the Bill and make it better. We have to change the consultative committee to give it real power. We have to change the make-up because it is really a railroad company committee as it stands now, with weight behind it. We have to achieve some balance. Over the years the railroad workers themselves have been fighting for safety, whether health and safety for themselves, demanding changes in the lay-out of the locomotives so that the workers can work in a proper environment, or whether it is inspection procedures, track maintenance, you name it. The railroad workers are the ones who have been fighting. We have a responsibility to them to make sure that this Bill, which will probably not be amended for quite some time, is the best possible rail safety act that money can buy.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member. I always have considered him to be a reasonable Member, one who is trying to move the world forward with his comments and his positions. However, I was disturbed to hear him talk about the Government putting rail safety on the back burner.
As the Hon. Member knows, this piece of legislation is the first railway safety legislation of a comprehensive kind to be introduced in Canada in a long time. In fact, I am told that the original rail safety legislation was introduced in 1908, a long time ago. While there have been amendments and some tinkering with the law in an attempt to improve it in that time, there has not been a comprehensive look at the safety legislation until now, 1988, under the present Government.
I would hope that the Hon. Member would give credit where credit is due. This is a major step forward that has been long overdue and the credit for it belongs to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and the present Government.
I know from the Hon. Member's comments that he will be working to improve the Bill. I think that is exactly what all of us should be doing. That is the main thrust of the railway safety legislation itself. Safety is of prime significance to the public as it is to all Hon. Members. Members of the public do not want to see us playing politics with safety. They want to

February 5, 1988
Railway Safety Act
see us working together to make sure that railways and all other modes of transportation are as safe as they possibly can be.
1 might point out to the Hon. Member that there are some concerns about the speed with which this legislation is actually progressing. A consultative process took place in the development of the Bill and part of that consultative process was with the railways, the unions and citizen groups such as the M-TRAC organization from Metropolitan Toronto, Metro residents for rail safety. That group played a major part in the consultation in and development of the Bill and it is most concerned that it have an opportunity to examine the Bill in its final form carefully and to make representations before the committee because it has many concerns with the Bill. I hope the Hon. Member will agree to co-operate with that and will give his assurance that he and his Party are prepared to give every accommodation to citizen groups who wish to make representations-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Listen to him.


Alan Redway: -and that in fact they will co-operate in ensuring that this Bill is the best possible Bill to ensure public safety on the railways.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They refused a hundred witnesses.


Alan Redway: 1 am sure the Hon. Member will not be disturbed by his colleague who keeps shouting out and interrupting me.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank the Hon. Member for his comments and his questions. I will give credit to this Government. Unlike the last, it did bring in a rail safety Bill. The point, though, is the over-all priorities.
The Conservative Government has made its prime focus in transportation the economic side, deregulation. Bills C-18 and C-19, the deregulation Bills, were brought in well before the Railway Safety Act was brought in. It is my understanding that a national highway safety code is not in place yet. That code was to be in place to ensure that under deregulation, there was one set of national rules to govern trucking on the highways.
In road and rail, 1 can legitimately say that the Government had its priorities reversed. I will give credit to the Government because it dealt with safety on the air side before it deregulated it or deregulated it any more than the Liberals already had.
The Hon. Member spoke about M-TRAC, a very excellent organization. I would like to remind the Hon. Member that it was not the New Democrats who refused to allow in excess of 100 groups to appear before the Transport Committee studying Bills C-18 and C-19. We would be more than happy to hear from everyone who wishes to have input.
As I said in my speech, this is an important piece of legislation. The Hon. Member has pointed out that there has not been a comprehensive review of it since 1908. This means
that it will be some time in the next century before we do it again. Even though it might take us a bit of extra time, I think we should do it right this time.
I would ask government Members to go into this not with the Whip's hand at their backs but with open minds and open eyes to look legitimately at this legislation and make it the best possible. This is not a philosophical issue, it is a question of safety, safety for those who work on or beside the rails and safety for the public as well.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate briefly in the debate on Bill C-105, an Act to ensure the safe operation of railways and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof. This is indeed a comprehensive piece of legislation. It is several hundred pages long, indeed a Bill which warrants special attention by all Hon. Members.

Since as usual, the Official Opposition in the House is prepared to give its full co-operation, Mr. Speaker, we want the Government to promise to hold hearings and listen to what the people have to say about a subject as important as that of the safety of our Canadian railways.
Mr. Speaker, we know the Railway Act has not been amended for many years. That is why it would be important for parliamentarians, as I said earlier, to hear the voice of the people, of elected municipal officials and of a large number of Canadians who are interested in the subject, and also of course, the voice of the railway unions.

This piece of legislation is necessary to bring rail standards up to date. It moves in the right direction and to that extent, of course, the Liberal Party intends to offer its usual co-operation to ensure that the Bill goes to committee without delay.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down then.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member across said that I should sit down. It only takes a Tory to make those kinds of unfortunate and Tory-like remarks-


John V. Nunziata: Ignorant remarks.


Don Boudria: As my distinguished colleague from York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) has said, ignorant. That is a good way to describe it. We do not apologize for being concerned with railway safety. It is an important issue for us and it is important for me as a Member who represents a constituency in which there is a very important railway line which faced closure because of the inaction and unfortunate decisions of this Government to cut back on rail services.
Notwithstanding attempts of government Members to scuttle debate, I will continue with the brief remarks I had in mind. Statistics for the year 1985 from the Canadian Transport Commission show that 59 people died in rail-related
February 5, 1988

accidents and 400 people suffered bodily injuries. One must wonder just how many more Canadians were affected because, of course, not all rail-related accidents are reported and for that matter, not all accidents of any kind are reported.
We know, of course, that the Foisy report was tabled in January of 1987. It has had a major impact on bringing rail safety to the attention of Canadians. A number of the recommendations of the Foisy report are in place now or are in this Bill.
There is a concern shared by some people that the Minister responsible for railways is also going to be responsible for rail safety. That is not a conflict of interest, but it is a form of conflict. We just wonder how sincere a Minister can be about the responsibility for rail safety when the same Minister is responsible for deregulation. We know about the adverse impact deregulation can have on rail safety. Need we remind ourselves of the experiments in highway transport deregulation and airline deregulation in the U.S. and the impact it had there. While not saying deregulation of Canadian railways will necessarily cause a number of accidents, we have to be conscious of the fact that when you operate in a deregulated environment you at least increase the chances of mishaps. Therefore, the concern for safety has to be increased in order to compensate for the danger inherent in the deregulation process.
The Minister has been telling the railways to downsize. We know about internal correspondence between officials of railways and railway employees with respect to cut-backs and how they are supposed to go about it. 1 have an article written by Mr. Lome Slotnick of The Globe and Mail. Seeing as it comes from that newspaper, 1 know the Ministers here today will pay close attention because it is a very factual and accurate article, as I am sure they know. It says:
A senior executive of Canadian National Railways has ordered his managers to get moving quickly on layoffs and other "downsizing" because the Crown corporation will find it harder to do so during an election campaign.
"Current opinion is reflecting the strong possibility of a late spring-early summer federal election,"-
That was before the latest round of scandals. We know the possibility is a little more remote now. To continue:
-says a confidential internal memo, dated Jan. 11, from D. L. Fletcher, CN's senior vice-president for operations. "Downsizing actions may be harder to implement as this time approaches."
So we have a situation whereby decisions on downsizing and lay-offs which could affect rail safety are taken not necessarily because they are the appropriate decision at this time, but because it is politically expedient to do so now as opposed to some months from now.
We all know that CN Rail has plans to shut down a large number of rail lines. The effect of doing so will not only be on rail safety but highway safety as well. 1 may have brought to your attention before the fact that CN has produced an
Railway Safety Act
internal document, a copy of which I just happen to have here because someone slid it underneath my door one day, which demonstrates clearly the intention of CN to shut down a number of rail lines across Canada, some of which are in the great constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
The document I have comes from the St. Lawrence region of CNR and contains a rationalization program, which is a euphemism for cut-backs, from 1986 to 1996. It is entitled, "Lists of Sections Identified for Abandonment". Among those sections are the Beachburg subdivision, 163.9 miles, and the Alexandria subdivision, some 57.7 miles. That subdivision is the part of the CN rail line between Ottawa and Montreal. Actually, it runs from the Quebec border just west of Coteau-Station. I know the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) is familiar with that area. It runs from there almost to Ottawa. In other words, through my constituency. If you put the Beachburg subdivision together with the Alderdale subdivision, it would mean rail transport between Montreal and Sudbury could be done only via Toronto if one is using the CN line.
Why is that important to rail safety? For a number of reasons. I see my friend from York East is here. I know he is interested in the subject of transportation of dangerous goods via Toronto. He will know that once you shut down this rail line from Sudbury to Montreal, you increase the traffic and the flow of dangerous goods through Toronto. That is where the other line is. I have discussed this with the Hon. Member before and I know he is concerned about the issue. I congratulate the Hon. Member for his interest.
1 have another letter here dated September 9, 1986, from the office of the President and Chief Operating Officer of CN rail. I do not think he likes me reading his confidential letters here in the House but that is just tough. It says:
This will confirm discussions on Thursday, September 4. 1986, concerning the Alderdale-Beachburg Subdivisions.
You will remember that is the line between Ottawa and Sudbury. He goes on:
These changes in routing should achieve economies of scale in the Montreal-Toronto corridor, and at the same time, will focus attention on actively seeking alternatives for handling the 2,000 annual carloads of woodpulp traffic from Portage du Fort, which is currently served by way-freight from Ottawa.
A carload is the equivalent of about two large 18-wheelers. This means 4,000 extra truckloads of wood pulp could be placed on the road in the national capital area as a result of that line closure. Obviously when you talk about rail safety there is a parallel concern about an increase in truck traffic which in turn increases the chances of accidents on the highways. We know that transporting goods by truck has a lower safety record than by rail. That is quite normal. We are talking about transporting on highways which become slippery during harsh periods of winter which does cause that unfortunate circumstance. That is an entire area which is not necessarily discussed in this Bill at all. However, that is an area of real safety which I want to bring to the attention of the Government.

February 5, 1988
Railway Safety Act
I know that the Member for York East (Mr. Redway) is interested in the area of transportation of dangerous goods. Chemicals produced in northern Ontario presently go through the Alderdale, Beachburg, and Alexandria subdivisions. If the unfortunate decision to close this line were ever implemented, those goods would be shipped to Montreal via Toronto. In the process those dangerous goods would be travelling through an area with an even greater concentration of population, thereby further compromising the safety of Canadians.
I bring those matters to the attention of the House, not in an effort to use up time or delay the passage of this Bill, but to bring to the attention of the Government and all Members who will sit on the committee studying Bill C-105 that in the area of rail safety there is an important concern about safety on the tracks and the downsizing measures and cut-backs forced by the Government which may affect safety on those tracks.
A second concern is the effects which deregulation could have on rail safety. There are other concerns which I have expressed which I will summarize again in conclusion. Those are my concerns in the area of downsizing railroads and shutting down rail lines which will increase truck traffic and further compromise the safety of Canadians.
I wish to offer my own co-operation and that of my colleagues. I hope that the Government and all Members who will be sitting on the committee will take into consideration the remarks I have just made in order to ensure that rail lines are not closed, creating safety concerns in addition to the ones we have already. It is a difficult area to deal with.
I know that Governments are trying to cut down on rail lines but a cut-back in rail lines is not necessarily an economy. In many cases the federal Government saves a few dollars, but the increased truck traffic on highways causes further deterioration of road-beds. In that case you achieve an economy for the federal Government but an expense for the provinces which are charged with maintenance of highways. That is an important concern which I hope the Tories will remember.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. friend. I listened to his speech and I do not think he mentioned in any detail the fact that the Bill contains no provision to allow employees to relate unsafe practices. In other words, when they encounter unsafe practices or are asked to do something which they believe is unsafe or unsound in terms of health or safety, there is no provision in the Bill for their protection.
Does my hon. friend not think it is reasonable that legislation should contain some mention of how that is to be handled? If employees are expected to report on unsafe practices by their superiors, it would be like reporting on your boss. That is probably an unfair request to make of any employee unless there was a procedure for the avoidance of any possible harassment. Could my hon. friend comment on those two items?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for his question. The Hon. Member is right in that there is nothing to encourage or protect an employee who may decide to report or make public or inform his superiors or supervisors of a deficiency in the railway safety system. Obviously, an employee should be encouraged as much as possible to do so, and there should be a special provision in the Act or the regulations to protect the employee in question. In fact, this is not the only part of the Bill that is found wanting in this respect.
For instance, we know that a committee will be created as a result of this Bill. I have been told the committee will have eleven members: Four will be ministerial appointments, six will be appointed by the railway companies, and only one will be appointed by the unions.
So as you see, Mr. Speaker, we hardly have a balanced situation here. One representative for the workers and ten for the Department and the railways.
I think it is clear that this particular clause, I believe it is Clause 44, should provide a better balance, that is, increased representation by those who speak for the railway workers. I think the Government would do well to have a larger number of employees so that these employees or more appropriately, their representatives, the unions, could raise any concerns they might have about safety or similar subjects.
Interestingly, there are a number of other groups that do not have much say in the matter either. 1 am thinking of groups representing community interests, and a good example would be the towns, municipalities and counties across Canada that often have serious concerns about safety. They will not be represented on the committee the Minister proposes to appoint in Bill C-105.
My point is that municipalities, employees and their unions should have far greater representation on this committee. Some people will say that the Minister has the discretionary power to appoint municipal representatives, and so on, to the committee but I feel this is not enough. We should have a system that would guarantee public interest groups are given a number of seats, for instance, Transport 2000, municipalities and so forth, to provide as I said earlier, a balance and ensure that the committee will not only represent a Government that wants to cut costs and railway companies, who also want to cut costs like the Government tells them to, especially in the case of the Crown corporation.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in listening to the Hon. Member's response to the question with regard to whether he believes there should be some sort of job protection for employees of railways who disclose breeches of safety practices, in other words, to use the generic term, whistleblowing protection.
February 5, 1988

I was most interested in his comments in that regard because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I introduced a private Member's motion on the subject of whistleblowing protection generally within the federal area of competence a few months ago. That particular whistleblowing protection would have included not only the protection of whistleblowers in federally regulated industries and businesses such as railroads, but it would also have protected whistleblowers in Government departments and agencies and those who were engaged in businesses which were contracting with the federal Government. At that time, during the course of the debate-and my motion was talked out, Mr. Speaker-the Hon. Member's Party, the Liberal Party, took a position against that sort of legislation. The spokesman for the Liberal Party spoke out quite strongly against support for whistleblowing legislation.
I wonder if the Hon. Member would have a word with Members of his Party and urge them in future to support this form of whistleblowing legislation, particularly my own motion when 1 bring it forth again in the House?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad to respond to the Hon. Member. He, of course, will know that Private Members' motions are just that, Private Members' motions. It is interesting to note-and I invite the Hon. Member to pay attention to this-that most of the people who disagreed with the Hon. Member's motion, although it is true that one Liberal expressed that view, were speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party.


Alan Redway: Only one Liberal spoke.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity late this week to make some comments with respect to Bill C-105, the Railway Safety Act. I must say that over the last number of months I cannot recall how many delegations representing the various railway unions, users of the railways and representatives of CN, CP and VIA Rail, 1 have received. They are all concerned about a variety of issues. I suppose the top of the list would be the low moral we are presently experiencing with our railway employees.
I suspect the number of people in this country who are directly employed by the railways would approach nearly
60,000	and, of course, there are thousands of others who are indirectly employed by either CN, CP or VIA Rail. Therefore, we are talking about a vast number of Canadians and the moral of railway employees is probably at its lowest level ever. One can hardly blame them when one considers that the Government of Canada legislated the workers back to work last August with the promise that the differences between the companies and the employees would be ironed out through an arbitrator. An arbitrator was appointed, but month after month passed, one deadline was reached and extensions were given, and now we are told that the arbitrator is planning
Railway Safety Act
meetings well into April, May and June and, I have heard, as far away as September.
It would appear-and I repeat appear-that the companies have no intention of working to resolve this issue with respect to the working conditions of their employees. It seems that the Government, by giving these extensions to the arbitrator, is almost sympathetic to that view. 1 hope that is not the case.
On the front page of the Globe and Mail yesterday there was a major story with respect to a memo sent by a senior vicepresident of CNR, Mr. Doug Fletcher, indicating to his subordinates that they had better get on with downsizing of each and every aspect of the railway because of the fear that as we get closer and closer to an election, it will become more and more difficult for the railway to do so, for political reasons. I do not know if that memo is accurate. The Globe and Mail published it on its front page, and I suspect it would have ensured that a story of that nature would be well researched. If the railways are downsizing-which is a fancy word for saying laying off people-and from talking to employees across the country one certainly gets that impression, it seems the railways are bent on laying off people.
In Kamloops we have both the CN and CP coming through that community, and have seen the effects of downsizing. We have seen the loss of many, many jobs over the last number of months as the railways rationalize their operations and downsize. While I must admit I have never been a super fan of CN or CP in terms of how they approach their labour relations, I also want to be a little sympathetic because they have been forced to enter into what in many respects could be called an unrealistic competitive world as a result of deregulation in the transportation sector. They are now forced to rationalize their operations, to cut back their operations to the bone in an effort to compete with other modes of transpora-tion, as a result of deregulation.
I realize that this is an ideological debate which I suspect we will have for many years, perhaps forever, with respect to the role our railroads play in terms of competitiveness. If we are trying to do everything as cheaply as possible, that is one route. If we are trying to do things as safely as possible, that is another route. If one is responsible for one of Canada's major railways and sees very clearly that because of the Government's commitment to deregulation one has to cut every corner possible to be competitive with trucking firms from the United States and elsewhere, the one thing that goes by the by, obviously, is safety, safety for employees and safety generally for people living along the rail lines, and for others. That is a fact of life.
Railroaders have consistently heard story after story about the lives of people working on the railways being put at risk. Many people have lost their lives through accidents of one kind or another. There is a growing sense that our railway systems are not becoming safer but in fact more unsafe. The fact that they are moving faster, that they are heavier, and moving more

February 5, 1988
Railway Safety Act
hazardous materials all the time, ought to raise our level of concern as parliamentarians higher than ever.
I also want to say that 1 am happy we are debating this Bill on railway safety. If I recall my history books correctly, CCF Members in the House of Commons in the late 1940s asked for this piece of legislation. I remember all sorts of instances where New Democrats in the House of Commons have called for Liberal and Conservative Governments to bring forward legislation that would enable those people working on or alongside the railways of Canada to do so in a safe environment. We are now debating that kind of legislation and, to be fair, I want to indicate how pleased I am to be doing so.
That pleasure will be reflected in our willingness to expedite this legislation with respect to its debate in the House of Commons and its treatment at whatever committee it might end up. That is not saying we like everything in this piece of legislation. There are things we do not like about it. There are areas where we believe we can suggest improvements through amendments, and we will be doing just that. However, 1 want to make it very clear that we have no intention of doing anything that might hinder the progress of this legislation so that we can see it introduced into reality as soon as possible.,
That becomes very important because I am sure you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, of the vacuum in which we are operating. Because of the deregulation legislation that was introduced into this House not long ago, the CTC and the Rail Transport Committee ceased to exist as of the end of last year. We are now into the next year and are awaiting the National Transportation Agency to set itself up and get its various regulatory organizations in place. That has yet to occur in total. So we are caught in a no-man's land. We are existing in a vacuum when it comes to railway safety. So 1 think it is in the interest of all of us to ensure we progress expeditiously and do what we can not only to improve this legislation but to see it passed in amended form.
Perhaps it would be useful to look at some of the statistics over the last little while in terms of what has been going on with our rail systems across Canada. You would be interested, Mr. Speaker, to learn that since 1982 we have experienced 1,318 train derailments. From my recollection, it would seem that most of those occurred in my constituency which is in the mountainous area of British Columbia where both the CN and CP travel through some incredibly scenic country. That is another way of saying very mountainous and rough terrain. It is a wonder that we do not have more derailments. There have been 1,318 train derailments that have resulted in a few fatalities, fortunately not too many.
Let us now look at collisions, which is another category when we talk about rail safety. Since 1982 there have been nearly 450 train collisions. Of course, part of this is because of those over-zealous dispatchers who, in the effort to move material more rapidly across the country to generate more
transportation business, often have more than one train in the same section of the track at the same time. This has resulted in some problems which have resulted, inevitably, in a collision with a number of fatalities I am sorry to have to say.
The main area of concern in terms of fatalities is associated with crossing accidents. I refer to level crossings where one is required to cross a train track, whether one is travelling in a car, a truck or some other kind of vehicle. We have had 3,437 crossing accidents since 1982 resulting in 361 fatalities, to say nothing of the very serious injuries which have occurred because of these accidents.
When we look at the last six years, we find that hundreds and hundreds of deaths have occurred as a result of crossing accidents, train collisions or derailments. Obviously, when we consider legislation dealing with rail safety its importance becomes very evident indeed.
One of the aspects that perplexes me about this legislation, and I recognize that we are not talking about the specifics of it but about the principles involved in it, is that it does not set very high standards at all. As a matter of fact, in most areas it does not set any standards. We are told that that will come at a later time when the Government introduces regulations. For example, there is nothing in the Bill that provides specifics with respect to the frequency of inspections. When will these regular inspections occur, weekly, monthly, yearly, biannually, when?
The Government has decided to take the cabooses off our trains. Many people who make their living on those same trains say that this will result in less safety. They say that the removal of the cabooses will result in more train mishaps. As a result the whole matter of inspection frequency becomes a major item of concern. When cabooses are not on these trains there will be instead what is called special boxes and the like to do the monitoring. There will be people to do some visual monitoring as well. We are talking about some very sophisticated, heavy equipment. As a result inspection frequency becomes a critical issue, to say nothing of the specifics regarding the maintenance of track and equipment. If we are talking about a Bill regarding rail safety, it is not unrealistic to expect that it will have to say something about the maintenance of equipment and tracks which criss-cross the country. However, the Bill is mute when it comes to these areas. As I have said, regulations will come later.
While some people would suggest that unfairness has become a hallmark of the Government, when we consider this piece of legislation we see that there are some unfair aspects to it as well. I refer specifically to the area concerning penalties and the regulations which will be developed. There are expectations in the Bill for companies as well as individuals. If one breaks the regulations or fails to comply with them then there will be penalties to be paid. This legislation virtually does not distinguish between individuals and corporations such as the CPR. If one is found to be guilty of having committed an infraction and one is an individual, then one could receive a
February 5, 1988

fine of up to $10,000, and spend time in jail. However, if one is the CPR and is found to be in contravention of some aspect of this legislation, then one could actually receive a fine of up to $50,000.
CPR is one of the largest corporations in the western world. It has assets in the billions and billions of dollars, with revenues in the many billions of dollars. To think that it could actually be fined up to $50,000 is hardly what one would think is something that will deter the CPR, the CNR or VIA Rail. The point I am trying to make is that this provision is probably a licence fee to be unsafe, since if one is caught and is found guilty one would receive a fine of a few thousand dollars. That will not do anything to encourage the CPR, the CNR or VIA Rail to change some of their habits.
In terms of the theme of unfairness I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the railway safety consultative committee which is the committee that will be set up under this legislation to advise on a whole variety of areas. Let us consider the make-up of this committee. The Minister himself or herself will be able to appoint five members to the committee. The railway companies will be able to appoint five members to the committee. The employees, who represent 60,000 individuals, will have but one member on the committee. I think it is initiatives such as this that send a very clear message to the rank and file employees of our railways that their concerns and their views are irrelevant. Quite frankly, there should be 10 employee representatives on the committee, in addition to the five appointed by the Minister and the five appointed by the companies. This would send a clear signal that the views of the employees are respected and that their welfare is utmost in the mind of the Government. I can only interpret this provision to mean that that, unfortunately, is not the case.
There is another area in the legislation which is also of great concern to me. It has to do with the protection for employees who recognize that what they have to do or what they are being requested to do by their superior is unsafe. What course of events may employees such as these pursue? What course of action is open to them when they find themselves in such a situation? The Bill has no provisions for this type of situation. It simply indicates that the employee should report to his or her superior and complain about his or her decision. You can imagine a situation, Mr. Speaker, when someone's boss tells him or her to do a certain thing, that is, to ride a train in a certain way or to deal with a piece of equipment that that person knows to be unsafe because he or she works in that environment every day, and he or she refuses to do it. That person will be in deep trouble. Obviously, if he or she goes against the wishes of the superior then that person will be harassed. He or she can expect some type of disciplinary action. There is no protection in the Bill for the employee.
If we are going to run the type of incredibly vast railway system that we have in Canada then we must want to have the employees on side. I am always amazed at the tremendous amount of loyalty that actually exists in the train community, if I can use that term, where employees of CPR, CNR and
Railway Safety Act
VIA are committed to their work and the companies in terms of serving them in spite of the harassment and in spite of the incredible conditions under which they are forced to work.
I referred earlier to a copy of a memo that was printed in The Globe and Mail of yesterday in which the Vice-President of the CNR states that the company must move expeditiously to lay off as many people as it can as quickly as it can so that it does not become a political issue in the next federal election campaign. That is not the way to build morale with one's employees.
I want to conclude my remarks by referring to an article by Professor Brian Tucker who teaches organizational behaviour at the University of Saskatchewan's College of Commerce. For some time now he has spent much of his effort and expertise examining the whole matter of stress experienced by railway employees. He has interviewed individuals who work for the railway. Of course, much of our attention was focused on the terrible incident near Hinton, Alberta, that killed 23 people in February, 1986.
That incident prompted Professor Tucker to do some analysis of what it is that causes problems on our rail systems. He figured that stress was a major factor. In this era of deregulation when competition requires companies to cut corners at every opportunity, often the employees are pushed to limits that are simply unacceptable in terms of normal human behaviour. The other day 1 heard representations from railway employees who live in Kamloops. They indicated the type of shifts that they were expected to work, the hours and hours that they were expected to be alert and on the job and finely tuned in terms of safety conditions. After a person works for many hours in one day, has a short sleep, and is back again for another long shift, the level of stress and the alertness and ability becomes problematic.
Brian Tucker spent much time looking at the railroad system. In the article he states:
In the macho culture of the railways, stress is a taboo topic. Trainmen are
not supposed to be affected by work-related or domestic stress. If they can't
stand the heat, they're supposed to get out of the locomotive.
That is an interesting observation and an interesting code, but the reality is that those people do have work related stress, and they do have domestic related stress. Quite frankly, what is needed is a change in the culture and the working environment on the railways to reduce this stress. When employees of the railroads of Canada read in yesterday's Globe and Mail that one of the senior vice-presidents of CPR is encouraging maximum lay-offs to occur immediately, that is not the type of comment that builds confidence and generates positive morale in a corporation.
In co-operation with the federal Government, because we are dealing with federal legislation and CN is a Crown corporation, and we know the ownership pattern of VIA, it is in the best interest of the rail companies and the federal

February 5, 1988
Environmental Affairs
Government to work co-operatively to build a sense of positive morale with the employees across Canada, the 60,000 men and women who make our railways run. If they all had a feeling that their jobs were secure, their futures were secure, and that their contribution is recognized, the productivity would inevitably increase substantially.
If one reads any book on management the theme is that an employee who feels confident, secure, understood, and recognized will perform at the highest level possible. Unfortunately, those conditions do not exist within the railways of Canada today. I am afraid to say it, but much of the legislation of the federal Government has abetted the downward spiralling of morale.
In conclusion, this legislation is welcome. I appreciate the fact that we are debating the Railway Safety Act. Our intention is to co-operate as much as possible not only to ensure that the Bill moves quickly, but that the final legislation that is passed at third reading is the very best possible.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, there are two things that I would like my colleague to comment on. One is the situation in his own community of Kamloops, and what he can tell us about any lay-offs there. A couple of years ago I was told about one railroad that reduced its number of carmen from nine to four. Those are the people who do the inspections and the minor repairs.
The other thing I would like to ask him is if he can comment on what he thinks would be appropriate penalties for railways, and should it also include railway officers.
You may not be aware, Mr. Speaker, but the only way to find out how much the officers of Canadian Pacific or Canadian National get paid is to go to the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission in Washington. That information cannot be found out in Canada, but the United States law requires that information. The last time I saw any figures, the President of Canadian Pacific Ltd. receives about 12 or 13 times as much as the highest paid locomotive engineer. The last time I received a figure it was $656,000 a year that that President received. I have often wondered if perhaps an appropriate penalty would not be a fine on the President of Canadian Pacific Ltd. of 13 times as much as an ordinary employee would be fined, and perhaps also a jail term for that President who is also an employee.
Would the Hon. Member comment on what he thinks would be an appropriate fine? Should it be on officers of the company as well as the company itself?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Regina West jogged my memory, and I want to make one other comment today as we are debating railway safety. Of course, railway safety to a large extent is a reflection of the willingness of employees and others to co-operate with regulations and so on. As those people wait for their contract after the Government of Canada legislated them back to work, what was interesting is that the management received their raises for the year. They
received a substantial raise prior to the employees receiving theirs. Those of us here who in the past, or even at the present, have had employees, know that that is not a rule that one normally follows. Once the contract is settled with the employees, then one is in a position to consider the increases to the management personnel. The railways do it the opposite way around which again aggravates a serious situation.
With respect to the two questions from my hon. friend from Regina West. The situation in Kamloops is that, yes, there have been lay-offs over the last number of months; and, yes, they were in the inspection and repair areas. In a hard pressed part of Canada, the central part of British Columbia, where the unemployment rates in some communities are running as high as 40 per cent, this was a very serious blow. However, all of this happens in the spirit of deregulation and the fact that the federal Government is forcing cut-backs on the railway companies.
Returning to the suggestion of my hon. colleague that we ought to reconsider the penalties. When an individual can be fined up to $10,000 or receive a term in jail for an infraction and the company management do not exist under those same conditions, it is only fair, if we are going to have that type of penalty, that officers of the company be eligible for the same treatment. It is obviously ridiculous to consider a maximum fine of $50,000 for a company like CPR. The fine should probably be 10 times that figure, or perhaps something to approximate the annual salary of the President of CPR which is in the $600,000 range plus bonuses. Perhaps that would be an appropriate criteria to use.
To be serious, Mr. Speaker, certainly all I can say as a lay person in the area of railways, $50,000 as a fine for a company like CPR or CNR is obviously ridiculous.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 2.29 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ADVISABILITY OF ESTABLISHING MORE SANITARY ENVIRONMENT
Jean-Robert Gauthier: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing, in co-operation with the provinces, regional municipalities and municipalities, a national water purification, sewage treatment and storm sewer building program, in order to provide Canadians with a healthier and more sanitary environment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this motion today, I do so with full knowledge that the costs of such a program are high, and that indeed we will have to establish some form of
February 5, 1988

consultative process, possibly a tripartite consultative process where the federal Government, the provinces, and the municipalities are involved in this study.
I also draw to the attention of Hon. Members that we are dealing with a very important subject. The Government of the day has said that it has consulted more than any Government in the history of Canada. It should listen attentively to the spirit of the motion, that is, that further consultations should take place. The Government has said to Canadians that the ongoing and meaningful process of consultation will open a new era of reconciliation. Those are nice words, but I am asking for some real action or some pro-active move on the part of the Government so that we will see in the near future a real process of consultation with the provinces and the municipalities to deal with the very important issue of establishing, in co-operation with them, a national water purification, sewage treatment, and storm sewer building program, in order to provide Canadians with a healthier and more sanitary environment.
I have brought forward this motion because of the issues which preoccupy the residents of Ottawa-Vanier. Environment or quality of life is probably the number one or number two preoccupation of my constituents.

Mr. Speaker, this motion proposes the establishment of a national water purification, sewage treatment and storm sewer building program to provide Canadians with a healthier and more sanitary environment.
Many interested parties consider this motion deals with one of the most acute problems our country will have to face.
In the time available to me today, 1 will try to convey to my colleagues in the House the concerns I have over that problem in an attempt to make them realize how very urgent it is to deal with it, because there is an emergency.
There is no doubt people are worried about it. Every day and every week, we hear and read comments on the urgency of seriously coming to grips with the pollution problem.
All provincial Governments and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities have also acknowledged it.
Later, I will quote comments of different interested parties, including the provincial environment ministers. I sent each of them a letter to which they all replied, saying unanimously: Something must be done, because it is urgent!
Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, in my own city of Ottawa, the National Capital, we still have wooden pipes! They have been in use for a hundred years and they are beginning to disintegrate, to fall apart. And it is urgent that we put in place modern systems to be able to do what we all want to do, to treat sewage and purify the water before returning it to nature.
Here, in Ottawa, in the Capital, deteriorating infrastructures would require $500 million worth of repairs and investment. In some cases, there may be up to $1 million worth of repairs to be done to buried pipes in one block.
Environmental Affairs
Why is it urgent to make those repairs? Because, for instance, some Ottawa houses have been flooded as many as eight times in the last twelve months. Those floodings are caused by the non-separated, storm-and-sewage systems.
In my own case, Mr. Speaker, when I complained to the city about the basement drain overflooding when there was a storm, they came with a wood stopper and plugged the drain. No water comes in, but then no water will get out either. All they answer is: Well, that's it! It is impossible today, we cannot afford a separation! Too bad your basement on Cumberland Street, here in my constituency, can only be used for hosting on occasion a mixture of sewage and storm water that often contains contaminant waste. They come in, they clean up, they sterilize more or less.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am not the only citizen to complain about the lack of separation between storm water and sewage.
City officials mentioned recently that with the funding available and in view of the extent of the work involved, 100 years would be needed to pay for the whole program. Of course Ottawa is a major city, with an even-increasing population. Some people therefore, might explain that way the urgent need for that project.
However, this kind of problem does not affect larger cities only. According to a recent report in the Ottawa Citizen of January 26, 1988, residents in the town of Carp-not far from here-had to pay up to $11 000 each because 91 per cent of septic tanks and 83 per cent of wells in the town did not meet the standards of the Ontario Department of Environment. Worse still, wells were polluted by seepage from septic tanks. This means drinking water is at risk.
Even here in the city of Ottawa, we had similar cases of underground waters being contaminated not by septic tanks but waste from city dumps where domestic and industrial wastes are buried.
In the waste degradation process, fluids seep off. They can then infiltrate by gravity and finally contaminate underground water tables. Worse still, in some cases extremely polluant industrial wastes such as polycholorated biphenyls, lacquers and solvants, heavy metals, etc., find their way into drinking waters. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the pollution problem does not strictly concern cities. It concerns several levels of government. I am thinking of rivers, the Ottawa River that is polluted. And I am reminded of what I am told at times: "This is a municipal responsibility! Municipalities are responsible for cleaning up their waters!" Is Montreal to blame if it draws its drinking water from a river that is polluted with industrial waste by municipalities situated upstream? We only have to look on the other side of the river, Mr. Speaker, to see tons of industrial waste daily discharged in the river, and Montreal would be held responsible for purifying its water and getting rid of heavy metals and other poisons being found in it? Mr. Speaker, I maintain that it is a national problem which should be dealt with nationwide with the co-operation of all governments, at the federal, provincial and municipal levels.

February 5, 1988
Environmental Affairs
The pollution problem, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, is not strictly a municipal problem. Almost all sectors of production or services produce some pollutants biodegradable or otherwise, which should be eliminated or treated before being reintroduced into our environment. The problems arising from the disposal of waste are no less real and important. We will have to find one day some safe processes to get rid of them. I think that incineration, as recently suggested by the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, is not a valid alternative if the incinerator itself will also pollutes the atmosphere.
[DOT] (M40)
We are all aware of the problem caused by acid rain and we know that it is caused in large part by atmospheric emissions. The incineration of solid waste could well turn out to be a disguised way to get rid of the problem instead of solving it.
However, those problems are not restricted to the city of Ottawa and the village of Carp. They affect all Canadians. That is why the Province of Quebec is considering the launching a huge project at a cost of $640 million to clean up the water and curb the pollution caused by wastes such as manure and liquid manure from farming operations.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the amounts required for water purification are colossal: $640 million in Quebec alone because of a farming problem. It is obvious that the municipalities will not be able to do the job alone, even though they have ultimate responsibility for it. What must they do? First, they have to ask the provinces for assistance, but even the provinces cannot absorb by themselves within their budget, the total cost involved which means a piecemeal approach to water purification programs.
Despite this fact, existing programs are quite substantial. For instance, in Quebec, the water purification program has a budget of $6.6 billion.
In Ontario, the Liberal Government is also doing its share. It recently announced the Lifelines Program, which will allow the municipalities to recover part of their costs for repairing their infrastructures. The Ontario Government expects to spend between $45 and $50 million a year under this program beginning in 1991-92. It expects to invest a total of $333 million in Lifelines, and as its contribution is limited to 33 per cent of the cost of projects, at least $1 billion will be invested for this purpose in Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, according to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, a very well-known and serious organization which has looked at the situation from a national perspective, some $15 billion will be needed over the next five years. Municipal infrastructures include a great many things, such as road repairs as well as recreational and cultural facilities. This projected expenditure of $15 billion includes all these services.
As for my motion, it deals only with the infrastructures related to water and the environment. The amounts required must therefore be broken down to determine how much will be needed for water purification, sewage treatment and storm sewer building programs.
These amounts have already been broken down and they are contained in the joint report of provincial and territorial departments and agencies responsible for municipal affairs. This report, published in 1985, is entitled Infrastructure Needs of Canadian Municipalities 1986-1990.
In the section dealing with Environment, water and sewer sytems, we see that the expenditures involved expressed in constant dollars of 1985, on the part of municipalities and provinces will be $1.5 billion in 1986, $1.3 billion in 1987, $1.3 billion in 1988, $1.2 billion in 1989, $1.2 billion in 1990, for a five-year total of $6.3 billion.
On the other hand, it is estimated that the minimum investment which would be required to preserve the integrity of the current structure should reach some $8.7 billion over the same period. There is therefore a shortfall of $2.25 billion. These amounts which should be invested, but which will not be invested for lack of funds, will contribute to a greater deterioration of our infrastructure system.
It is recognized that this system is in poor condition and should be urgently repaired; yet, we witness a laissez-faire attitude. Without any financial assistance from the federal Government, the deterioration of these infrastructures will reach a point where it will no longer be possible to solve the problem because of the enormous amounts which would be required. The more we allow these infrastructures to deteriorate, Mr. Speaker, the more Canadian taxpayers will have to pay.
According to a study carried out by the Ontario Government before it inaugurated its Lifelines program, the estimated costs for updating these infrastructures would be between 30 per cent and 50 per cent lower than for their complete replacement. Reason urges us to act immediately. What does the Mulroney Government do? Again nothing, or rather, since it had to do something, it did something:
All municipalities and provinces were told to "Get lost! We are not interested in footing your bills."
It told as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the problem of municipal infrastructures concerns us all, because it is a common problem. I hope that this debate and all the arguments we will put forward may help the Government change its mind. The problem is serious, the situation is urgent and all Canadians are concerned about it. We must realize that the problem will not go away and that the situation is serious. The Government is abandoning not only the municipalities, but all Canadians who are entitled to a quality environment and safe drinking water.
February 5, 1988

Although the provincial ministers of Municipal Affairs have made representations to the federal Government, they were met with a definite refusal. They were told: "We are not interested; you are on your own". However, historically, the federal government has always played a predominant role in economic development, particularly in the area of municipal infrastructure. During the 60's and the 70's, the federal government contributed mostly through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That contribution was made under three programs: the Sewage Treatment Program from 1961 to 1974, the Municipal Infrastructure Program from 1975 to 1978 and the Community Services Contribution Program from 1979 to 1980. Mr. Speaker, since I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Urban Affairs Minister during those years, I know very well that those very useful programs greatly helped to restore our municipalities and our urban fabric. They also helped to create important jobs and to purify our waters.
Between 1961 and 1980, loans of over $2 billion and grants of $750 million were made by CMHC to build sewers and other hydraulic works. From 1961 to 1974, a total of $980 million was lent at a preferred rate under the sewage program. Then, until 1978, storm sewer purification infrastructures and water supplies facilities were funded under the Municipal Infrastructure Program. Loans totalling $1,025 billion were made under this program. About 92 per cent of all the loans made between 1961 and 1978 were dedicated to building purification plants and main sewer collectors. Grants of over $525 million were also given during those years. In 1979 and 1980, the CMHC loaned money to the provinces for community equipment under the Community Services Contributions Program. A total of $221 million was granted for the construction of municipal water and sewage systems.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the federal Government was present and actively helping the municipalities and if there are today water, purification and sewage treatment systems in the Ottawa-Carleton region, in the Outaouais region on the Quebec side, and in many eastern as well as western and central municipalities, we owe it in large measure to those programs that were financed by the federal Government in the 60's, 70's and 80's.
Considering all those facts, I sincerely believe it would be logical for the Government to once again get involved in that area because we helped put those installations into place and should now help upgrade them. It is the logical continuation of our investments. If those works were important enough some 20 or 25 years ago to spend billions of dollars for them, then we must at least continue to keep those installations in good shape, otherwise our initial investments will have been wasted.
Besides those reasons, there are others for re-activating such programs: they create jobs, and they do so in all parts of the country, not only in big cities. We could have a chance alleviate regional disparities in terms of employment if the
Environmental Affairs
Government decided to go ahead and agree to the motion I am proposing. Indeed, provincial government studies show that, for every $40,000 to $50,000 invested in infrastructure projects, one person-year of employment is directly created. Thus, a $10 million sewage system renovation project could create locally between 200 and 250 direct jobs, apart from the indirect effects. The impact of such projects on a small municipality is obvious.
Nationally, to meet the most urgent needs, we would have to invest over $5 billion over the next five years, which would create between 100,000 and 130,000 full-time jobs, or between
20,000	and 30,000 direct jobs a year. It would also be possible to achieve full employment in Canada, which would make it easier for municipalities to attract investments based on the quality of their work and infrastructures, and the general quality of life locally. This would not just mean a new federal-provincial program, but true economic recovery for all regions of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I have taken it upon myself to write to all provincial Ministers to inform them about what is being done. This correspondence is available to everyone who would like to see it. I shall gladly provide copies of it. I must thank all those people for having unanimously endorsed the idea of more extensive federal-provincial consultations, with, of course, the contribution of the municipalities. I urge this House to adopt this motion, which simply asks for more consultation and positive action for a water purification program.


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, usually my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) speaks in fair terms in this House but today, he was unfair when he began his speech with a few comments on reconciliation and the consultation by the Mulroney Government.
I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that last week in Montreal, the Quebec premier, Mr. Bourassa, said that Mr. Mulroney had done more than any other prime minister since Confederation to contribute to national unity by the process of consultation and reconciliation. This was pointed out by the premier, a Liberal Mr. Bourassa who said that last week in Montreal.
My colleague from Ottawa-Vanier has not been very just to us today, but has brought forward a motion to provide Canadians with a healthier and more sanitary environment. There are many ways to do that. Perhaps we could flush some political rhetoric down the toilet and we would have a much healthier and more sanitary environment. Let us not get into that, Mr. Speaker. It has been a rough week.
The Hon. Member should not be addressing Parliament. He knows very well that he should be addressing the mayors of the

February 5, 1988
Environmental Affairs
municipalities. He should be addressing the provinces, not Parliament. It is their problem and we all know that.


Iain Francis Angus: Don't you live in a municipality?


John Barry Turner: Yes, I live in a municipality, but it is not-

Let us look briefly at the history of this. From 1961 until 1980, CMHC had a program that dealt with this, a program introduced by Mr. Diefenbaker's Government. The CMHC program was enacted in 1960 through a change to the National Housing Act. Loans were given out, 25 per cent of which were to be forgiven.
The program was restricted to only new and extensions to existing sewage treatment plants and main-trunk sewers. Secondary sewers and water supply facilities were not included. The federal Government cited twin objectives for the program of job creation and water pollution abatement in providing this assistance. There was a sunset provision in the original 1961 program that was to have permitted the 25 per cent forgiveness only for those expenditures incurred up to March 31, 1963.
As Canada grew very, very quickly in population and in demand for housing, the urban population grew from about 6.2 million in 1941 to 13.7 million by 1961. That put tremendous pressures on the housing stock in Canada and there was a need for more co-operation between municipalities, provinces and the federal Government to provide more sanitary services.
The sunset clause of which I spoke was extended repeatedly through amendments to the legislation until the process had become automatic and almost routine. The administration of these programs became more complex and very controversial. From a situation of determining eligibility, strict financial arrangements, inspection and making progress payments as befitted the mortgage function of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the program started to deteriorate under the onslaught of provincial and municipal complaints of excessive red tape and federal intrusion into a provincial municipal area. It was not an area of direct federal responsibility.
In 1979, the Liberal Government of the time virtually handed over the process to the provinces. The federal Government became pretty much relegated to writing cheques to the provinces. What started out as a noble program with clearly defined objectives and parameters degenerated over a 20-year period into an undeclared fiscal transfer whereby moneys collected federally were transferred to pay for local services.
I wish to refer briefly to Hansard of January 19, 1981, a time when the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) was a member of the ruling Party. At that time, government Members asked if it was appropriate for the federal Government to continue funding the provision of
services which were the responsibility of the provinces and municipalities. They questioned the rationale for such a program by asking whether the Government, raising moneys through national taxation, should not be accountable for the expenditure of such revenues and whether there was not better value for money in other programs, particularly job-creation programs. They asked themselves if the program was valid, given the climate of what was beginning to be serious fiscal restraint.
In 1984, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities submitted a report to the decision-makers in Canada at the provincial, municipal and federal levels, and suggested a new program of roads, bridges and sidewalks with a total price tag of $15 billion. In fact, water and sewer infrastructure accounted for half of that amount.
We have problems in Ottawa. There are two bridges over the Canal, the Mackenzie King Bridge and the Lyon Street Bridge, which the NCC wants to turn over to the region. The region does not want them and there are problems about who will pay for the repairs because they have been neglected for so long. The federal Government cannot always be looked upon as the big brother, the one to provide all the big bucks all the time to pay for these problems.
In 1984, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities outlined in its five-year program municipal, federal and provincial cost sharing of one-third each. There is a problem with sewage disposal in the National Capital Region. There is a genuine problem with the Green Creek sewage plant and I hope we will be able to reach an agreement as to how that will be financed.
Recently, Ted Carmichael of the C. D. Howe Institute spoke again of the importance of not losing sight of the federal deficit and the national debt which is still climbing, something over which we have little or no control, although the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has shown great leadership in reducing the amount. Where do we get the money for these things? Everyone says: "Go to the feds, they have all the money," but we do not.
I think of the Rideau River and Mooney's Bay. The Hon. Member has done a useful service to the House today by allowing us to bring to the attention of the public the importance of having cleaner water resources. Mooney's Bay is a mess. My brother and sister have houses there. They are afraid to water-ski on the river. If they ever fall into it and take two gulps of that water, they may end up in hospital because of storm sewage runoff. Their kids cannot swim in the river.
It cannot always be the federal Government that bails out money to provide better sewage facilities. The Hon. Member has brought this to the attention of the public, but I do not think the solution can be found in this House.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has put this motion on the Order Paper and I was pleased to have the opportunity to second the motion.
February 5, 1988

The reality is that this is a federal responsibility. There can be no getting away from that. The federal Government has the responsibility for the environment of Canada. It has the responsibility for the environment of boundary waters. Whether it is the Ottawa River, Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, the St. Lawrence River, or the Gulf, anything we discharge into those waters in eastern Canada contributes to the pollution of an international waterway and is therefore the responsibility of the federal Government. There is no getting around that.
1 want to quote from a speech by an Hon. Member of this House which was given to a municipal organization. I will not initially tell you the name because I want you to guess where it is coming from:
-if all three levels of government in Canada do not collectively deal with the growing water problem in the country, the problem will become unmanageable.
Across Canada, municipalities are already struggling with aging plants and delivery systems that undermine the clean water all Canadians need and have a right to expect.
Fact: Only 10 per cent of all raw sewage east of Ontario is treated.
Fact: More than eight million Canadians, a third of the entire population, live in municipalities that do not provide sewage treatment.
Fact: Water quality in Toronto, Canada's largest city, is causing so much concern that some politicians arc calling for a $200 million pipeline from Georgian Bay to serve the city.
Fact: Water quality has become such a concern to Canadians that they spent $80 million on bottled drinking water in 1986. This figure is expected to increase by 15 per cent this year.
The bill for the next five years for repairing aging underground pipes alone is estimated at $3 billion with an additional $3 billion needed to improve water and sewage treatment facilities.
Who spoke those words? A member of the Opposition? A government back-bencher? They were spoken by the Hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan). You know what else he said? He said:
Let me begin by ending the suspense, for you and for me: The federal government does not intend to restore previously dismantled municipal programs. That's the bad news!
He was right about that.
The reality is that municipalities by themselves cannot afford the price tag of repairing the existing infrastructure, let alone providing the needed infrastructure to make sure our sewage is treated, not just primary treatment which is basically chopping up the lumps, but secondary and tertiary treatment as well so that we return to the environment what we took out. They do not have enough money to replace their aging water pipes. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier talked about wooden water pipes in Ottawa. In the City of Thunder Bay we have leaded pipes and we all know the ramifications of that for human beings.
We have two systems of taxation, a provincial and federal income tax system and a municipal property tax system. In theory the income tax system is fair and progressive. You need
Environmental Affairs
to have a certain level of income before you start paying. In theory, at least, the more money you make, the greater your share of the cost of running the country. However, property taxes and user fees, because the Minister is hiding behind user fees as his reason for not implementing a federal-provincial municipal program, are paid regardless of the ability to pay. They are based on the value of a home which may have been purchased or built 20, 30 or 40 years ago. Because of inflation its value has gone up astronomically. If you are a senior citizen you do not have the money at hand to pay taxes based on the value of a house at $50,000 or $60,000 or $80,000. Yet you are taxed based on that amount.
The same applies to water rates. They are of value in restricting consumption, and I agree every household in this country should be metered as a means of reminding people on a regular basis how much they are using and also remind them to restrict that usage. However, it will cost us anywhere from $12 billion to $15 billion over five years to repair the existing system. Municipalities cannot afford that by themselves. All 10 provinces agree with that, and have also agreed to match municipal contributions one for one up to one-third of the cost of the program. What the Canadian Federation of Municipalities is asking for is that the federal Government, the senior partner in this triumvirate, participate to the same level so we can repair our cities, their roads, sewers, sewage treatment plants and recreational facilities.
Even though the money from a federal-provincial-municipal program under the resolution put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier would be focused on specific areas such as water purification, sewage treatment and storm sewer building programs, it would alleviate the pressure in other municipal areas so tax dollars can be used to repair park buildings, bridges and roads.
Just to give you an idea of the state of things in our cities, I have a study done by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities entitled "Municipal Infrastructure in Canada". It shows that for water treatment facilities, 15 per cent of the existing ones need some repair, much repair, or are not acceptable. For water distribution, 30 per cent; for sewage collection, 45 per cent; for sewage treatment, 25 per cent; for storm sewer treatment, 45 per cent. Some 65 per cent of our roads, 55 per cent of our walks, 45 per cent of our bridges, and 30 per cent of our buildings and parks need some repair, much repair, or are not acceptable.
Coming back to the environmental aspect, there has been study after study of municipalities along the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. We know the problem areas. We know raw sewage goes directly into nature's sewers, but those sewers were not designed to carry away the kind of effluent we are putting into that system today. It is not just human waste, it is deadly, toxic chemicals being pumped from our industries into our sewers and directly into our lakes and rivers without any kind of treatment. It is imperative, if we are to turn this situation around, that the federal Government participate. I urge the government side to take the message to the Minister

February 5, 1988
Environmental Affairs
of Finance so that when he brings down his Budget on February 10 there is a major component for municipal rebuilding programs. The studies show that the federal contribution will be repaid 100 per cent through increased income taxes of people working in the regions and through reduced pay-outs from the Unemployment Insurance Commission. It makes sense for the environment. It makes sense for employment. It makes sense for Canada.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, if the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) gives rise to a certain concern about the protection and conservation of water resources in Canada for the benefit of all Canadians, I can then say that I share his concern.
Throughout Canada, municipalities have to make do with ageing purification stations and distribution systems which do not provide to Canadians the safe water they need and to which they are entitled.
However, if it is relatively easy to grasp the problem, it is not so easy to find valid solutions at reasonable cost. This is indeed a matter that has lost nothing in complexity since the building of our first water systems in the middle of the 19th century. Even the majority of our so-called modern water systems date from the end of World War II. The construction of most of our sewer systems dates from the middle-50's. The whole system is obsolete and nearing the end of its useful lifespan. Worse still, a large number of communities, including large cities, do not even have sewage treatment systems.
We must do better. The question is how to pay the bill. The construction and maintenance of a water infrastructure is costly by definition. Municipal authorities always found it difficult to increase tax. That was already the feeling during the golden days of the sixties when public expenditures were a matter of pride. Nowadays, in the eighties, city counsellors find it almost impossible to ask more from ratepayers. In their minds, it is still more difficult to do so for water systems because, contrary to services such as childcare or schools, water is literally an invisible commodity. Not only it is not seen, but it is taken for granted and therefore not a concern.
Requests for funds keep increasing despite the lack of a federal program in that area and of federal funding for that kind of program. And to be frank, in view of the fact the federal Government is head over ears in debt, it finds it impossible at this point to announce billion-dollar national programs to fund municipal water treatment projects which, under the Constitution and according to the provinces themselves, are not a federal matter.
At a time when the federal Government must face many high-priority problems, it is indeed unrealistic to expect more large federal expenditures to fund municipal water treatment plants. I said "more expenditures" because the Government is
already injecting tens of millions of dollars in order to help provinces provide such essential services. It is doing it either directly through special projects, or indirectly through large transfer and federal tax exemption schemes. We simply cannot afford to increase our financial participation.
Let us look at the facts. Each year, the Government of Canada has to face a $30 to $35 billion deficit. The national debt has grown to $300 billion.
In 1975, debt servicing accounted for only 12 cents out of each dollar spent by the Government. Today, it is 33 cents. By contrast, provinces only allocate 12 cents out of each tax dollar to debt servicing while municipalities pay less than 9 cents.
In Canada, the federal Government is the level of government that has the least fiscal flexibility. It is unable to pay its own bills and cannot therefore pay those of others. In fact, we are speaking of such huge expenditures that no single government has enough reserves to afford them. Provinces and municipalities are better placed than the federal Government to get new loans for water distribution and treatment plants.
If we manage to justify expanding the federal Government's role at the municipal level, it will be necessary to work through existing federal programs. This could be done, for instance, by using a formula similar to that used for regional economic development agreements, a mechanism that has worked well in other areas.
However, I think we have to ask ourselves whether requesting federal subsidies for municipal facilities is a reflection of sensible public policy or just another way "to pass the buck". We could also ask whether the reluctance of other levels of government to deal with this responsibility will not in fact perpetuate poor water management in Canada by making it easier to avoid realistic solutions.
In my view, if we truly want to find a solution, we must look at the basic problem of over-consumption and abuse of our water resources. The inevitable conclusion is that, unfortunately, we do not have a realistic pricing system. The problem in a nutshell is that today, only a few Canadians pay water rates that reflect actual cost. When water is cheap, it is taken for granted. And like anything that is taken for granted, it tends to be wasted.
In Europe, where the price of water is four times as high as it is in Canada, per capita consumption is less than half. In the Durham area, in Ontario, per capita consumption dropped 20 per cent between 1975 and 1983, when a realistic pricing system was in effect. When the first water meters made their appearance in Kingston in 1954, per capita consumption dropped by more than one third.
Other industrialized nations have applied this principle and asked their users to pay the capital costs for the water distribution and sewage collecting systems as well as their costs of operation. Canada has yet to apply this principle. Although tax benefits and Government subsidies are granted
February 5, 1988

everywhere in the world ... I think that my ten-minute period has expired. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am going to respond to this motion of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) in a way that will give one of his colleagues a few moments as well. At the outset, I would like to put on the record my bona fides for being able to speak in this debate. The fact is that some 30 years ago when I entered the Council of the City of Belleville, all of the raw sewage from that community went into the river and the bay beside Belleville. When I left some 19 years ago, all of the raw sewage was given secondary treatment and, indeed, since that time subsequent mayors have improved on the system and it now receives tertiary treatment. In fact, in my constituency even the smallest municipalities have sewer and water systems and the residents of those areas have paid for their own systems.
The federal water policy recognizes that water is at present one of Canada's most neglected natural resources. The underlying philosophy of the policy is that Canadians must start viewing water as both a key to environmental health and as a commodity having real value, and begin to manage it accordingly.
It is now recognized that more stringent regulations and standards alone cannot protect our water resources without economic incentives and disincentives to prevent their impairment. The water policy, therefore, emphasizes the "polluter pays" principle which will redirect the inevitable cost of pollution reduction to those responsible. As a result, costs will be distributed more fairly to the benefit of all Canadians.
In terms of water and sewer systems, realistic pricing for these services will encourage users to conserve water, raise the funds needed to build and maintain these costly systems, and encourage efficiencies and greater effectiveness through technological innovation.
The Government has already considered the proposal put forward by the Hon. Member in considerable detail. It has also been discussed at length with provincial Governments and national municipal organizations. In fact, in response to the Hon. Member's request, there has been a great deal of conversation and mutual discussion on the subject.
The federal Government has concluded for both fiscal and constitutional reasons, and for consistency with the principles which I outlined earlier, that it will not reinstate a general program of financial assistance in this area. Instead, it will promote the view that municipalities should institute more realistic prices for their water and sewer services and will limit federal involvement to sponsorship of research and development. It will continue to implement proper environmental and health practices with respect to federal undertakings. It will provide financial assistance for projects that otherwise meet
Environmental Affairs
federal and provincial development priorities and are eligible for assistance under existing federal programs and it will encourage financial and economic efficiencies in supplying water and sewer services to Canadians.
In the technological area, Environment Canada operates a major waste water technology in Burlington, Ontario. One of its current projects involves demonstrating a process to convert sewage sludge to oil. In many urban centres, sludge disposal is a serious economic and environmental problem which accounts for almost half the cost of waste water treatment. In Canada the proposed technology could solve disposal problems for
350,000	tonnes of sludge by generating 700,000 barrels of oil per year.
Another innovation is a Canadian developed computer-automated process control system for sewage treatment plants. This innovation alone could save hundreds of millions of dollars over the next five years.
Within its own area of responsibility, the federal Government has pledged itself to implement proper environmental and health practices for all water supply and waste treatment services associated with federal undertakings and facilities. These include projects with federal involvement, as well as those in the North on native and reserve lands, in federal parks, as well as federal buildings and other facilities such as airports.
In terms of encouraging realistic pricing and greater efficiencies, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is working closely with his provincial counterparts on the Canadian Council of Research and Environment Ministers on several fronts.
I want to leave time for the colleague of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier so I will conclude by saying that what we do not need in this country is another protracted subsidy debate. What we do need is a realistic approach to pricing which encourages conservation, raises the cash necessary to provide the needed services and stimulates the kind of research and technology development required to bring down costs and make our systems more effective.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Hon. Member opposite for giving me a couple of minutes of his time so that I could make a few remarks in this debate. There are a few Members of this House who have had the opportunity of sitting at the municipal level of Government. The Hon. Member opposite is one and so am I. Actually, 1 am one of those who has been fortunate enough to sit at all three levels of government; municipal, provincial and federal. There are concerns that municipalities have at the present time with the decay of the infrastructure. These are concerns, in my view, which are very legitimate and, indeed, need to be addressed. Need we remind ourselves of the experience south of us with respect to the decay of the infrastructure in the United States as an example of just how much we need to address the problems of the

February 5, 1988
Environmental Affairs
municipal infrastructure. Whether we are looking at the U.S. interstate highway system, which is full of pot holes, or the downtown areas of many American cities, we know it is a problem which needs to be addressed.
On May 4, 1987, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), speaking to the Ontario Municipal Water Association:
Water pollution has become so bad in this country that vast numbers of Canadians cannot take water quality for granted in their communities-a third of the Canadian population (eight million people) live in municipalities that do not treat their sewage.
Faced with those bills, municipalities in every part of Canada are seeking a quick fix. Having ignored the problem for so long, without planning for the day of reckoning or budgeting for it, they now expect the federal Government to help bail them out.
That kind of attitude is not one which is shared with Members of my Party, at least not myself, nor my Leader. We are of the opinion, as is the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), as proven in his excellent motion, that the federal Government should consider co-operating with all the provinces and with the municipalities in order to update and review the municipal infrastructure.
[ Translation]
On June 1, 1987, Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), made a speech before the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, in which he indicated that, upon the 50th anniversary of this organization, it would be important for the Canadian people, through its federal Government, to adopt a policy whereby the three levels of Government would make a concerted and collective effort to renew and update Canada's municipal infrastructures. This is an important issue, and I urge all Hon. Members to support the initiative taken by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) in his motion today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 3.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11.00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, February 8, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers