1989-04-17

Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the statutory report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada for 1989.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 32(5) this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedures and Private Members' Business.


FORGIVENESS OF DEBTS (SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA) ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-10, an Act relating to the forgiveness of debts incurred or assumed in respect of certain official development assistance loans made by the Government of Canada to the governments of certain countries in sub-Saharan Africa.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties with reference to Bill C-2. I think you would find there is agreement to my moving the following motion:
That, the order for second reading and reference to a Legislative Committee of Bill C-2, an Act to establish the Transportation Accident Investigation Board and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, standing on the Order Paper be changed to read "second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport".


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition today on behalf of a number of Canadians who are very concerned that the national unemployment rate remains higher today than before the onset of the 1981 recession. They believe that the Government's programs in a sense work for parts of central Canada, with the emphasis on parts, but really leave the regions out to diy. They are calling upon Parliament to adopt policies and programs that will increase employment in Canada, which of course will include the reduction of interest rates and provide for greater regional investment by the federal Government.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by 5,266 individuals in Thompson and Wabowden, Manitoba expressing their displeasure and discontent with regard to the Government's attempt to take away their northern tax benefit, to reduce it by one-third this year. They point out in this petition, which is signed by almost the majority of people living in those communities, that the Government appointed a task force on northern benefits, and that that report has yet to be made to the Government, and for the Minister of

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
Finance (Mr. Wilson) to penalize these communities, along with a number of other communities in northern Alberta and northern B.C., indicates that the Government is completely unfair in its approach to the entire tax system. The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to direct the Minister of Finance to reconsider this major change of heart for the 1988 taxation year, and that there should be no changes to any taxpayer currently residing in a community within the prescribed areas until the task force has made its report.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition from 132 petitioners in my riding on a topic that concerns all Canadians. This petition deals with the world's rain forests. The world's rain forests are an essential link in the global environment and ecosystems and are therefore important to the future safety of the world and all its creatures. The destruction of the tropical rain forests in areas such as Brazil, Central America, and southeast Asia is of great concern to the petitioners, and in fact to all of Canada.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take vigorous economic, political or other sanctions as may be available to the Government and all its agencies against those nations which are destroying the rain forests in our world today.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to present to the House today a petition from a number of residents of Scarborough concerning saving the Rouge Valley. The petitioners are very encouraged today because yesterday the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) toured the Rouge Valley. He said the whole area was a miracle that it should be saved in the form that it is, and he urged the provincial Government to play its part in terms of saving the Rouge Valley as a provincial park. The Minister affirmed the $10 million that the federal Government is giving to the province to save this valley as a provincial park. Of course it is contingent on no dump and no freeway being put through the Rouge Valley. The petitioners join the Mayor of Scarborough, as well as Save the Rouge Valley System Volunteers, and the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations in supporting saving the Rouge Valley. They humbly pray and call upon
Parliament to work with the Government of Ontario to establish the Rouge River Valley as a Canadian heritage land or provincial park.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I rise to ask the Parliamentary Secretary the same question I asked him on Friday. When does he expect that he will start answering questions?


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the same answer that was given on Friday applies today-soon.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of TVansport) moved: that Bill C-2, an Act to establish the Transportation Accident Investigation Board and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and, pursuant to order adopted earlier today, referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
-He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to start the debate on second reading of Bill C-2, an Act to establish the Transportation Accident Investigation Board.
First of all, I would like to inform the House that upon completion of second reading, the Bill will be referred to the Standing Committee for further study.
Madam Speaker, we firmly believe that Canadians will find in this legislation a number of provisions that will reassure them and restore their confidence in the safety of their transportation system, whether they travel by air, rail or ship.

April 17, 1989



Unfortunate events in recent months have served to undermine the confidence of Canadians in the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. Two weeks ago I announced two independent inquiries into aviation accidents which occurred in Canada. I asked Justice Willard Estey to review the entire record of the investigation into the Gander accident. He will submit his report to me within three months.
Justice Virgil Moshansky of the Queen's Bench of Alberta was appointed to conduct a full inquiry into the recent tragedy at Diyden. I asked Justice Moshansky to submit an interim report within six months, and a final report with recommendations as required within one year.
Our responsibility, when faced with such situations, is to take all the measures necessary to reassure the travelling public. This is exactly what we are doing today. The confidence Canadians put in the safety of the air transportation system is just as important as the level of safety which actually exists. In this regard I do not hesitate to state that Canada has one of the best safety records in the world for all modes of transport. Maintaining and improving this record is my highest priority. As we all know, this is a task which is never truly complete.
For the first time in history of Government, this Government has enshrined its commitment to transportation safety in legislation. I refer to the National Transportation Act adopted by this House on June 18, 1987, and proclaimed on January 1, 1988.1 quote in part from the Act which states: "-under conditions ensuring that-the national transportation system meets the highest practicable safety standards-"
The legislation we have before us today is another major step in a series of initiatives undertaken by this Government since 1984 in support of this commitment. These safety measures include amendments to the Aeronautics Act in 1985, amendments to the Canada Shipping Act in 1987, and most recently the new railway safety legislation.
However, the foundation of a truly safe transportation system rests on our ability to learn from the past. That is to say our ability to learn all we can about the causes of accidents in order to prevent them in the future. This essential element of transportation safety is being addressed today in a logical and comprehensive manner.
Bill C-2 is the result of extensive consultations with interested parties and reflects many of the conclusions
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
and recommendations contained in various safety studies, evaluation reports and inquiries conducted in recent years.
In addition to the valuable comments and suggestions provided by the wide range of transportation interests, we had the benefit of the views expressed in the Dubin inquiry into aviation safety, the Deschenes study on marine casualty investigation, the Foisy inquiry into the Hinton derailment and the Hickling evaluation of the CASB, and the Sopinka review of the CASB.

Madam Speaker, in establishing the Transportation Accident Investigation Board, we have opted for an integrated approach to safety systems, as was in fact recommended by other parties. This means that from now on, a single agency will be responsible for investigating transportation accidents, whether they occur in the air, on our waterways, on our railways or in our commodity pipelines.
The new board will therefore absorb three existing agencies: the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, the Transport Canada group responsible for investigating shipping casualties, and the branch of the National Transportation Agency which is responsible for investigating accidents on railways and in commodity pipelines. This multimodal approach offers several advantages. It will make it possible to pool specialized resources in areas such as engineering, medicine and psychology, while the experiences of each transport mode can be shared as well.
It goes without saying that our various types of transportation will be on an equal footing. I want to make this quite clear, because some concern has been voiced in this respect. By establishing the Transportation Accident Investigation Board, we will also be responding to calls for an independent agency that came from most of the groups concerned. The Board will therefore be separate from any of the departments. It will be accountable to Parliament through a minister designated by the Governor in Council. The independence of the new agency is a guarantee that investigations will be conducted fairly and objectively, since from now on, those who investigate shipping and railway accidents will not be connected in any way to those who determine the safety regulations, thus Madam Speaker, eliminating any possibility of a conflict of interest.
The investigation procedure provided in the Bill meets standards of effectiveness that are essential if the Board is to fulfil its mandate satisfactorily. Investigators, in addition to their guaranteed independence, will have

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
extensive powers. They will enjoy certain facilities for obtaining the information they need to determine the causes of accidents.
However, the role of the Board will not be to assign fault or liability, insofar as safety is concerned here. Thus, it will be limited to indicating breaches of safety, determining the causes of accidents and making appropriate recommendations to improve safety.
We also insisted, Madam Speaker, that the process to investigate transportation accidents be more open. Thus, parties with a direct interest in the causes and effects of an accident will be invited to participate in the investigation. They will be able to delegate representatives and the Board will submit draft reports to them. The reason for this openness, obviously, is the need to search for the causes of an accident as thoroughly as possible.
Now, by creating an agency independent of government departments, by giving extended powers to investigators and by encouraging an open investigation process, we ensure that nothing will escape those responsible for the investigation. That is what it takes to make our safety system the best. That is also what it takes to increase Canadians' confidence in their transportation safety system.
While this new Board would have a mandate similar to that of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, a clear definition of their roles and responsibilities would be beneficial to the board of members, the chairman and the staff respectively. This will remove a source of unproductive conflict which serves to undermine the confidence of Canadians in this agency. Board members will apply their experience and expertise to the setting of the policies and procedures to conduct investigations, the reviewing of the reports submitted by the directors of investigation, and most important, making safety-related recommendations.
The directors of investigation, on the other hand, will have exclusive authority to directly conduct investigations in accordance with the policies and procedures established by the Board members. This clear separation
of responsibilities will allow Board members to objectively review the reports submitted by investigators and will remove any perception of conflict of interest which might exist if Board members were actually conducting the investigation. While these provisions will remove one source of conflict, I cannot promise that it will ensure the total absence of dissension in the new Board nor, frankly, would I wish it would do for, as we in the House know very well, disagreements are not only part of the human condition. They can and often do lead to a better result. In this case the result will be a safer transportation system for all Canadians.

Madam Speaker, we have benefited from the experience gained by the Aviation Safety Board since it was created in 1984. This Bill takes account of it to a great extent.
First, we decided to limit the number of members of the new Board to five, whereas the number of members of the Aviation Safety Board was unlimited.
In addition to clearly establishing the roles and responsibilities of everyone at the Board, as I explained earlier, Bill C-2 expressly asks the Board not to hesitate in determining the causes of an accident and presenting complete conclusions, even if someone may later be held responsible.
Bill C-2 formally gives the Board power to set policies on the nature of the transportation accidents that it will investigate and the extent of its investigations.
The Bill also provides measures to further protect human rights when the investigators exercise their powers. Thus, from now on investigators will have to have a warrant to exercise their search and seizure powers.
This Bill, Madam Speaker, is totally in keeping with a series of actions that we have taken in the last several years to improve safety in all systems at Transport Canada. It is based on the experience acquired over many years and we can say that it provides the best possible formula to investigate accidents. The mechanisms contained in it will no doubt enable us to respond to accidents diligently and effectively and, above all, to prevent their recurrence.
April 17, 1989

I hope that the Hon. Members who will consider it in committee will look at it from this point of view and in light of the prevention objectives that we have set forth.

I invite Members of this House to give careful consideration to the Bill in committee. I will be pleased to consider any amendment which will serve to advance the cause of transportation safety. Once again I would like to emphasize the importance of this legislation. It is an essential key to a safer transportation system for tomorrow, essential also because it affects the level of confidence Canadians have in a vital sector of our national economy.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to assure Members of this House and the travelling public that we will never relax our vigilance nor our efforts to constantly maintain and improve the higher level of transportation safety which currently exists in this country.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, I take the commitment by the Minister in his final statement at face value. I think that Canadians deserve nothing less. However, I do not agree with the Minister's assessment of what this Bill will do. If he is going to ensure what he just said, this Bill is going to require a lot of reworking. This Bill, called an Act to establish the Transportation Accident Investigation Board, purports to establish an investigative body to inquire into the causes of accidents in the air, on the land and on the water as well as commodity pipelines within Canadian territories.
It might at first blush seem like a laudable idea, but if we look at the raison d'etre, it is readily apparent that the genesis had no such nobility at all. Indeed, the motive of the Government is all too apparent: to wit, it is an attempt to sweep under the rug the botched investigation into the crash at Gander and an ignoble attempt by this Government to exonerate itself.
Let us take a quick look at what happened at Gander after that awful crash. First, four of the nine members of the Board issued a dissenting report vis-a-vis the conclusions of the investigators that icing was the cause of the crash. These members are professionals. They were told in a letter from the Minister to follow and support the chairman, no matter what their professional conclusions told them. In other words, the Minister was in effect
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
telling them to put aside their professional conclusions and say, aye, aye, sir, to the new chairman.
The Minister went further. He sent the same letter to Brigadier-General Roger Lacroix even though he was no longer a member of the board. I think that smacks of intimidation and cover-up. All this took place after Mr. Justice Sopinka said there was a rift between members of the Board and aviation investigators, and they were unable to get investigations that they felt were necessary.
Let us examine what Mr. Justice Sopinka said, first with respect to respective powers and duties of the Board and chairman. Mr. Sopinka observed serious problems within the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, including a breakdown in the day-to-day operations, division between members and the chairman, division between members and the accident investigators, and dissensions among members.
The following is the passage that best sums up Mr. Sopinka's comments:
The main problem, generally stated, is that the CASB is not operating as a cohesive unit in pursuance of its objective of identifying safety deficiencies and making recommendations to remedy them. Rather, it has become fractious to the extent that some of its members are in open conflict with the chairman and there is a rift between members and the accident investigators who view themselves as independent of the board members.
Mr. Sopinka states in a later comment:
It is fundamental to its image as an independent body that its direction be vested in a board and not an individual.
He was referring to the powers conferred in the chairman of the CASB, and how many of these powers should be conferred to the Board.
Let us refer to Mr. Justice Sopinka's recommendations to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) in February, 1988, regarding Clause 5 of the Transportation Accident Investigation Board Bill, dealing with powers and duties of the chairman.
He recommended that Clause 5 be replaced by the following:
"1. The Chairman is the chief executive officer of the Board and subject to Section 2 hereof shall have the responsibility for the administration of the Board and

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
such powers and duties as are delegated to him by the Board.
2.	In exercising the powers conferred on him by subsection 1, by the Public Service Employment Act, and the Financial Administration Act, and by this Act, the Chairman is subject to and shall act in accordance with the general policies, resolutions, rules and regulations of the Board.
3.	In the event of the absence or incapacity of the Chairman, or if there is no chairman, the Governor-inCouncil may authorize a member to act as chairman for the time being and a member so authorized, while so acting, has and may exercise and perform all the powers and duties of the Chairman".
Clause 5 of the Transportation Accident Investigation Board Act states:
(1)	The Governor in Council shall designate one member to be the Chairman of the Board.
(2)	The Chairman is the chief executive officer of the Board and has exclusive responsibility for managing personnel matters, financial matters and property matters and for all other aspects of the internal management of the Board, including
(a)	directing the staff and apportioning its work, subject to subsections 10(2) and (3);
(b)	directing the members and apportioning their work, subject to section (8); and
(c)	convening meetings in accordance with section 12 and presiding at meetings in accordance with any by-laws made under paragraph 8(a).
(3)	The Chairman may, subject to any limitations specified in the instrument of delegation,
(a)	delegate to any member any power or duty of the Chairman related to
(i)	convening or presiding at meetings or
(ii)	directing the members or apportioning their work, and
(b)	delegate to the staff of the Board any power or duty of the Chairman under this Act, except the matters described in paragraph
(a)
(4)	A delegation under subsection (3) may be revoked in writing at any time by the Chairman.
(5)	In the event of the absence or incapacity of the Chairman, or if the office of chairman is vacant, a member designated, either before or after that occurrence, by the Governor in Council shall act as Chairman during the continuance of that absence or incapacity or until a new Chairman is designated.
Mr. Justice Sopinka's recommendation to confer to the Board presently held powers of the chairman was rejected outright. Instead, the chairman's powers, duties and responsibilities have been increased. Therefore, in accordance with Mr. Sopinka's legal opinion, the serious problems of dissension and division caused by the Board's inadequate powers will continue, if not worsen. In no way does Clause 5 of the Transportation Accident Investigation Board Bill address this problem which threatens the independence of the Board. Increased powers to the chairman, as Mr. Justice Sopinka noted, does not allow for an amelioration of the relationship between the Director of Investigations and the Board members.
Mr. Justice Sopinka observed that evidence was being withheld from the Board of the CASB by the Director of Investigations. He further noted that the Director of Investigations placed serious limitations on Board members. Mr. Justice Sopinka commented that: "Because of limitations placed upon the Board members by the Director of Investigations, the Board is precluded from conducting a meaningful review in many instances".
In his summary, Mr. Justice Sopinka stated the main cause of this serious inconsistency to be the fact that the Chairman appoints the Director of Investigations under the CASB Act. He said that this situation was based on the rationale that the Board is an adjudicating body and should be separate from the investigators because the Board adjudicates on the findings of the investigators. Mr. Justice Sopinka totally disagreed with this rationale, and so do I. He noted that this is an erroneous concept. The Board is an investigative body and its report is not a judicial or quasi judicial finding. Indeed, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board Act expressly prohibits the Board from finding fault or liability.
The field investigation and the preparation of the report of the Board are one process and should not be torn asunder.
Mr. Justice Sopinka therefore recommended that the Board appoint the Director of Investigation under the Transportation Accident Investigation Board Act because the Board bears the responsibility, ultimately, for the quality of the report.
It should be noted that the Canadian Bar Association concurred with Mr. Justice Sopinka as well. In a report submitted in April, 1987, to Transport Canada, the Canadian Bar Association, also responding to a request for comments on the draft version of the Transportation Accident Investigation Board Bill, stated that there are three features of the legislation that, in the Canadian Bar Association's submission, jeopardized the necessary
April 17, 1989

degree of independence. The first of these relates to the appointment and role of the Director of Investigation required by Clause 9 of the TAIB draft Act. The clause is strangely silent on the question of who appoints the director. It should be clear that it is the Board for otherwise independence of the Board is directly threatened. This threat is all the more serious when it is considered that the director has the exclusive authority to direct the conduct of investigations by the Board.
Two highly respected legal opinions recommended strongly that the directors of investigation be appointed by the Board so as to establish the Board's ultimate independence in its relationship with the investigative division.
The second recommendation relates to conferring powers or authority on the director in a manner that would have unduly restricted the Board's activities. The Canadian Bar Association summarized it by saying that the director being appointed by the board is a mark of independence showing that a tribunal controls its own procedures. However, the Government of Canada saw fit to do otherwise in total opposition to the opinions of a Supreme Court judge and the Canadian Bar Association, two very highly respected sources of opinion. Instead of adopting these recommendations and granting the power to appoint the directors of investigation to the Board, the Government opted for the status quo.
I will suffer the House to listen to Clause 9 of the TAIB Bill as introduced on July 8, 1988, because I think it is that important. Clause 9(1) provides that such employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the work of the Board, including investigators shall, be appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act. If a conflict of interest would not thereby be created, the chairman may engage on a temporary basis the services of persons having technical or specialized knowledge to assist the Board in carrying out its duties under this Act and may pay them such remuneration and expenses as the Board, with the approval of Treasury Board, may fix. In this clause as it is drafted, the board does not have the power to appoint the directors of investigation. The Public Service Employment Act confers this authority upon the chairman.
Clause 9(2) also confers upon the chairman the authority to appoint any additional staff as required. Both Clause 9(1) and Clause 9(2) are diametrically
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
opposed to the recommendations of Mr. Justice Sopinka and the Canadian Bar Association. Why has the Government taken that route?
Why would the Government wish to restrict the activities of a board being established for the purpose of maximizing its independence? Why maintain a clause within a Bill that has proven to have contributed to widespread dissension because the director of investigation, supported by the chairman, has withheld key evidence from the Board, thereby seriously restricting its ability to report and recommend safety measures? Is any board in Canada truly independent when staff not only control the procedures but in fact set the agenda? The Canadian Aviation Safety Board has been plagued by this situation for some time and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the new TAIB will not be similarly affected.
Mr. Justice Sopinka recommended that Clause 9(2) be redrafted by substituting "board" in place of "chairman" in the second line in order to conform with the Public Service Employment Act and the Financial Administration Act. Clause 9(1) remains the same, but as pointed out above, the chairman acts subject to the limitations of Clause 5. Without doubt, had these recommendations been incorporated into the TAIB Bill, the new Board would have had full authority over its staff and would have functioned as a truly independent board of directors.
The independence of the Board from Transport Canada is now in jeopardy because of the following: first, the observer status. Clause 23(2)(a) of the TAIB Bill allows the Minister of Transport to designate an observer at any investigation of any transportation occurrence. This provision recognizes that the Minister of Transport (Mr. B. Bouchard) has the authority to designate an observer at any time for any occurrence, an authority which no other party has. The question is, does this erode in any way the independence of the Board. I believe it does.
Mr. Justice Sopinka concluded that the Board's investigators would not be biased by the presence of an observer designated by the Minister. The Canadian Bar Association did not view this in the same light. The mere existence of the preferred status is undesirable and indeed unnecessary, it says. The Canadian Bar Association felt that because Clause 23(3) empowered the Board to remove an observer and therefore the Minister's representative, why should it not be simply empow-

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
ered to confer observer status on that representative in the first instance. The Canadian Bar Association concluded that this special status which was maintained in Bill C-142 represents an erosion of the Board's independence because the Minister, not the board, holds the power to designate.
Second, we must talk about the career opportunities of investigators. Mr. Justice Sopinka observed that investigators at the CASB demonstrated favouritism toward Transport Canada at the expense of the board because all opportunities for career advancement rested with Transport Canada. In other words, there is the suggestion that because these investigators, in looking for career advancement, must go to Transport Canada, they have to please Transport Canada. This situation was seen to have contributed to a reduction in co-operation with board members and therefore an erosion of the board's independence. Mr. Justice Sopinka stated that the investigators always had one eye on the job with Transport Canada. He recommended that a new provision be added to Clause 9 that would prevent investigators from seeking employment with Transport Canada for one year after termination of employment with the board. His recommendation for Clause 9(5) is that no person who has been designated under Clause 9(1), while he holds a certificate of such designation or for a period of one year after he ceases to hold a certificate of designation, shall be employed by Transport Canada without the approval of the board.
Some of the most serious problems with the Canadian Aviation Safety Board Act have not been addressed in the proposed transportation accident investigation Board Bill. Strong recommendations submitted by the Canadian Bar Association and Mr. Justice Sopinka among others, recommendations which would have gone a long way toward correcting these problems, have been rejected by the Government. Therefore, it is expected that the dissension, conflict of interest and erosion of the board's independence which plagued the CASB will simply be transferred to the new TAIB. Both the chairman and the director of investigation are perceived to hold too much power in the present board. This situation ties the hands of the board in limiting its role and function while infringing on its independence. Moreover, the TAIB Bill fails to cut some of Transport Canada's conduits to the board which also restricts its independence.
The failure of the Government to adopt recommendations from two of the most respected sources of legal opinions in Canada raises serious questions. Many controversial and contradictory events have taken place at the CASB in recent times. These need no elaboration. Why has the Government chosen not to adopt provisions that would have corrected these and gone a long way toward improving transportation safety standards in Canada?
The concept of an independent Board to investigate transportation accidents in the air was created in 1984 under a Liberal Government. It was an excellent idea which has been applauded by experts all over the world. The new Transportation Accident Investigation Board that the Minister is proposing to replace the Canadian Aviation Safety Board is modelled after the CASB, and rightly so.
Accident investigation is a crucial element in ensuring high levels of safety standards in this country. The recommendations flowing from investigation reports form the cornerstone of Canada's safety regulations which protect travellers on a daily basis. Therefore, this new multi-modal investigation agency must be of the highest standards, employing top Canadian experts who remain thoroughly independent from the Minister. We will ensure that the TAIB is such an organization by the time this Bill becomes law.
The Liberal Party is curious as to why this multi-modal board is being established on such an urgent basis. Is it really to promote increased safety, or is it to effectively wipe out the four dissenting board members who, for the last three years, have been questioning the causes of the Gander crash? Is it to eliminate dissension on a future board, or is it to eliminate dissenters on the present board?
We believe that the CASB would not have had to be eliminated and replaced at this time had the Government done the only right thing several months ago and called a judicial inquiry into the Gander crash, before the dissension on the Board had grown to a point of being unworkable.
This unjustified delay not only compounded the problem of dissension, but contributed to a lengthy public debate and put into serious doubt the ability of the Government to safeguard the high safety standards to which Canadians have become accustomed.
April 17, 1989

This Bill was read for the first time in the previous session on July 8, 1988. At that time the Minister stated: "The National Transportation Act-places safety at the top of our list of objectives. The Government takes this commitment seriously-". That was a very honourable statement, Madam Speaker. However, since that time Canadians have learned that the Government did not take that commitment seriously. Since then we have learned of the serious shortage of air traffic controllers at Canadian airports, the ironic shortage of inspectors for large commercial aircraft, the controversy over the cause of the Gander crash, the Government's inability to offset the dangerous effects of deregulation, the Dryden crash, and other serious shortfalls.
We can only hope today that the Government is serious about committing itself to high safety standards for Canadians, and is not about to generate more rhetoric without action. The safety of Canadian travellers is far too vital to be mishandled in any way. It is far too vital for political games to be played with the safety of Canadians.
We could go on and on about the Government's negligent mishandling of air safety. It is well documented and requires an immediate remedy on several fronts. Today, our attention is focused on transportation accident investigation and the new Bill C-2 presently before the House.
The Liberal Party of Canada believes that the Government is making a serious mistake by rushing this Bill through the House before Mr. Justice Willard Estey has had an opportunity to review the record of investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Gander crash.
We say this because Mr. Justice Estey's review may- and I use the word "may"-result in a recommendation to the Minister for a judicial inquiry which would have a profound impact on aviation accident investigation, and subsequently on Bill C-2.
In the same manner that the Dubin inquiry preceded the Canadian Aviation Safety Board Act of 1984 whose recommendations form the backbone of that piece of legislation, we strongly believe that a full judicial commission of inquiry into the Gander crash should, by all reasonableness, precede this legislation. Only in this manner can we establish an accident investigation agency that will promote safety in Canada to maximum efficien-
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
cy, and operate on a day-to-day basis with the least possible opportunity for dissension to arise.
We believe that for reasons of covering up certain compromising events, the Government has refused to call a judicial inquiry over the last several months, and now it is clearly caught in a situation of putting the cart before the horse. From the very beginning of its mandate, the Government has not listened to the people. From day one it has had a hidden agenda, an agenda to sell us out to the Americans. However, in this incident when Americans were killed on Canadian soil, the Government even failed them and their surviving relatives. No effort, no expense, and no fear should have prevented a calm, thorough, and orderly investigation of the crash at Gander.
This Bill should go back to the drawing board. It should be redrafted from a to z. If it is not, it will have a very turbulent flight through the committee stage. We in the Official Opposition will not let this slipshod travesty of a Bill go forward in its present form.
Someone has done a snow job on the Minister. This Bill is designed to be unworkable. The entire Board is a mirage. The investigator is responsible to himself, and the latest government attempt by Mr. Justice Estey's inquiry is not likely to produce much new information because, by his terms of reference, Mr. Estey is not allowed to look at any new information. Again, it looks like a whitewash.
No new information will be heard from anyone. I think that that is important. Who does the Government think it is kidding? Canadians are entitled to better than this from the Minister and the Government.
While the Minister's words were laudatory in his presentation of Bill C-2 on second reading, I would strongly urge him to take the advice of other people to go back to the drawing board and to call a judicial inquiry into the Gander crash, and start over and draft a Bill that will in fact make it possible for Canadians again to have confidence in the air and on the ground.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I wish to start my contribution to the debate on Bill C-2 by apologizing to the Minister and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), for not being here for the Minister's full presentation and the first half of the Hon. Member's presentation. The

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
realities of air transportation do not get one from one's riding through Toronto very quickly these days.
I want to start first by saying a few things about my colleague, the Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin), who just joined us, who has been the NDP's transport critic for over 20 years. Ete has said, I told you so, to more Ministers of Transport than I think a lot of us could ever remember. And he has usually been right. When he has told the Government, whether it has been a Liberal Government or a Conservative Government, that they were going off on the wrong tangent, or they were doing the wrong things, time proved him correct. I think it is important that we listen to individuals like the Member for Regina-Lumsden, and thank him for his contribution to transportation, to air safety, to rail safety, to all forms of transportation in this country.
I am going to approach Bill C-2 on a fairly non-partisan basis. I think we have to recognize that we are in a point in history when we have to learn from our mistakes. The Hon. Member for Miramichi was castigating the Government over what they were doing, but in fact all the Government has done is to recreate the Canadian Aviation Safety Board legislation under the new Act. That CASB legislation, I want to remind Members, was a creation of the former Liberal Government. They were the ones who put in place the rules that we found so unworkable as we came to examine serious crashes in this country.
Let us be very clear, this is not a Bill that is there to quickly enhance safety in this country, whether it is safety in the air, safety on the rails, safety on the water, or safety in terms of moving commodities by pipelines. This is a Bill designed to pick up the pieces, to find out what went wrong, why it did not go right and who failed. That is the purpose of this Bill. It is an after the fact piece of legislation. Hopefully, because of the work done by the investigators and by the Board, we will find out the why, and be able to make recommendations so that that situation is not recreated on another rail line, on another aircraft, or another pipeline somewhere down the road.
The whole process is a confused one. It is a confused one within the Board itself as it existed under the CASB, which is now being recreated almost identically under the National Accident Investigation Board. There is confusion in terms of the relationship between the old BOARD, THE NEW Board, and the Minister. Is there a
conflict of interest? Is there a perceived conflict of interest?
What happens when it comes down to enacting the recommendations of the new Board? And let us say they are not disputed recommendations, that it is a unanimous recommendation that this went wrong and the Government should do this to prevent it in the future. What happens if the Government comes back and says, "Thank you very much, Board, but no, we cannot afford it, or we do not think you are right." It is a very confused relationship, and what I would like to do this morning is to outline some of the concerns and some of the questions that a number of people have with regard to how the CASB has operated, how they see the new multi-modal Board operating, and lay out some responsibilities and some possible roles for the transport committee to take this legislation, to hear from people in the know, people who have been involved in the CASB, people who are railroaders by lifestyle, by profession, who work on the ships, and the engineers, not just in the context of an aircraft engineer, a ship engineer or a pipeline engineer, but those specialists who have an understanding of how things fly, how things move, and what can affect their ability to get from point A to point B safely.
I want to take a look at what has gone on in the past. I think it is important that we reflect on the two studies that have been done for the former Minister of Transport, as it relates to the Canadian Aviation Safety Board and its operation, in particular, the apparent conflict between board members, who I might add were appointed both by the previous Liberal Government and by the current Conservative Government. Those two Parties have some responsibility for at least recognizing that they have had a say in how that Board would function, and who has been on it. I think we have to recognize that.
A counsel for Stikeman, Elliott in Toronto, now Justice Sopinka of the Supreme Court, in a letter to the then Minister of Transport, now Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) on February 3, 1988, wrote:
The main problem, generally stated, is that the CASB is not operating as a cohesive unit in pursuance of its objective of identifying safety deficiencies and making recommendations to remedy them". Rather, it has become fractious to the extent that some of its members are in open conflict with the Chairman and there is a rift between members and the accident investigators who view themselves as independent of the Board Members.
April 17, 1989

The result of this dissension is that many members of the board feel powerless to carry out their mandate. On occasion some of the Board members have been unable to obtain investigation of facts which they consider essential in order to carry out their function. The investigators have taken the position that the material upon which the Board is to operate is the report prepared by the investigators.
Suggestions or requests that the investigators examine other facts or causes have been met with the observation that the investigation is exclusively within the prerogative of the Director of investigations.
One would ask, why have a board if there is going to be staff who do all of the work? It continues to read:
I have observed that, in the position they have taken, the investigators are supported by the Chairman. The latter has interpreted the provisions of S. 5 of the CASB Act and the provisions of Public Service Employment Act and the Financial Administration Act as conferring on him virtually exclusive power to run the Board and its staff subject to his right to delegate to Board Members such powers as he deems appropriate.
This view does not extend to the Board's power to review the accident reports but as I point out because of the limitations placed upon the Board members by the Director of Investigations the Board is precluded from conducting a meaningful review in many instances.
That is the key element in this legislation and any other legislation. When we as a Parliament establish a board, do we establish it as a rubber stamp of a group of bureaucrats who perhaps have expertise in investigating or administering, or do we give them the authority to take charge? In some cases they may do it through their chairman, in some cases they may do it through a director of investigations, or a chief administrative officer.
We have to be clear in this House as to what role we want to impose on them. I think what Justice Sopinka was saying in his letter to the Minister was that it was not clear. There were those who interpreted the Board as a rubber stamp board, that really the power was within the chair and the Director of Investigations, and that the Board itself could not in any way attempt to focus investigations in a certain area, to point out gaps in investigations, and forthwith have the investigators go and check that area. There seems to be a real gap in the authority and the delegating of authority. That is one of the tasks that we have to assume as members of the transport committee who will be charged with the responsibility of reviewing Bill C-2, that is,to take a look at that relationship.
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
Let me go back again to the letter to the Minister, and I am dealing with another factor. It reads:
The fact that the CASB reports to Parliament through, and has its Estimates presented by the Minister of Transport, has also been referred to as contributing to the appearance of conflict.
Finally the view in the industry is that the competence of the investigators and the quality of their investigations and reports has deteriorated in recent years. Some feel that there is insufficient investigation of human factors, and that the Board lacks technical expertise and facilities. The investigators, on the other hand, complain that they spend valuable time attending as witnesses in court or at coroner's inquests.
Not all of these problems, particularly the last, can be solved by changes in the legislation. Much of the success of the future Board, as in the case of any body or organization, will depend on the quality of people appointed and the resources provided.
I will come back to those aspects later.
I want now to turn to a study done again for the former Minister of Transport by James F. Hickling Management Consultants Ltd. It was submitted to the Minister of Transport on October 30, 1987. At the time the report was held up as an example to say that there were no problems with the Board, that everything was A-okay. However, upon close reading of the report, going beyond some of the summary comments, and if we look at the details of surveys conducted, as well as discussions with board members and with officials and staff of Transport Canada, from commercial aviation and general aviation people and others we find that there is a relatively high level of uncomfortableness with the activities of the Board and its staff.
Let me start out on a positive note. One of the questions that was asked was: "Do you feel that CASB operates as an aviation safety organization separate and independent from Transport Canada?" The vast majority, 24 to 1, said: "Yes". Another question asked was: "Do you believe that CASB is in a conflict of interest with Transport Canada?" Some 18 respondents stated that there was no conflict while 6 responded affirmatively. It is interesting to note that three of the six are from Transport Canada, two from commercial aviation and one from general aviation. It is not as if this was a bee in the bonnet of one group, it was spread throughout the industry. Thus it is safe to say, as is stated in the report's summary comments, that slightly under 25 per cent of respondents believe that Transport Canada and CASB

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
are in a conflict of interest, with both the commercial aviation respondents believing that there is a conflict.
One point mentioned in support of the claim that a conflict exists is that under the Act the Minister of Transport may appoint a representative to attend any investigation. This was seen as an example of conflict inasmuch as no comparable privilege is available to other interests and involved parties.
Another question asked was: "In your opinion are the findings of CASB objective, i.e. are they impartial?" A total of 18 replied affirmatively while 6 replied negatively. Four out of the six who replied negatively were from Transport Canada. We see the development of a pattern in which so far in the public debate there has been a conflict among board members. But here there is an indication that Transport Canada officials, and I assume that these are the people who work directly with CASB or who are concerned about aviation safety, are questioning the objectivity of the Board.
Another question asked was: "Are the findings of the CASB credible?" Sixteen said: "Yes" while seven said: "No". Six of the seven were from Transport Canada. Close to 30 per cent of the respondents questioned the credibility of CASB. Another question asked was: "Are CASB recommendations technically feasible, i.e. can they be implemented?" Eighteen said: "Yes" while six said: "No". Six of those were from Transport Canada.
The respondents were asked: "Are CASB recommendations economically feasible?" Fourteen said: "Yes" while nine said: "No". That is to say that 36 per cent of the respondents believe that CASB recommendations are economically not feasible while 56 per cent believe that they are.
Madam Speaker, if you look at that just on the surface you will say: "There is a problem. CASB is off the mark. They want the sky. They want chapter and verse to ensure that there is no risk whatsoever". I recall a study that I had the CASB initiate. It was a safety study concerning the area of northern Ontario between Wawa and Kenora. There was a belief that in an area referred to as the Wawa triangle there was an extraordinarily high number of general aviation accidents. As a result of a particular crash in the Wawa area the CASB agreed to evolve the study into a general safety study of the region. It found that that part of northern Ontario had a higher level of accidents per capita than the Canadian average. It was not as high as northern Canada. Some of the reasons for this were pilots unfamiliar with the area
pushing into the weather and a few other minor reasons. It recommended improvement of weather services.
A report went to the Minister and the Department who came back and said: "No". They argued at the time that in some cases what CASB had recommended was not technically possible at this point in time. In other cases they indicated that they were not prepared to do it. We just cannot assume that CASB is the one at fault when we read this particular statistic in terms of the economic feasibility of the recommendations.
The question of staffing is the nub of the problem in air safety in Canada. The question asked in this respect was: "Are findings and recommendations made available in a timely manner?" Fifteen respondents said: "No" while seven said: "Yes". Some 60 per cent of respondents believe that Canadian Aviation Safety Board findings and recommendations are not made available in a timely manner. This figure is higher for Transport Canada than for other respondents. Non-Transport Canada respondents are evenly divided on the matter. As of last September there were 81 members of the inspection staff. On average they received 600 occurrences to investigate a year. They have a backlog of 1200, to which they have yet to respond. Is that because the Minister of Transport has been unable to acquire the person-years necessary to maintain the level of investigations appropriate given the response time needed? This gives us a sense of how people outside of CASB feel about the operations of the Board.
I would now like to return to the role and size of the CASB as detailed by Hickling Management Consultants. This is the report about which the Government spoke very highly and one which was used as a defence to criticism from the Members on this side of the House concerning the Government's lack of action.
The role of the CASB and the roles of individual CASB members relative to that of the chairman have been the subject of much recent discussion within CASB. Representations have been made to outside bodies by individual board members and by the Chairman of the Board to seek advice , clarification and direction on individual aspects of these two issues.
Dealing first with the over-all role of the CASB, interviews of CASB board members and senior officials suggest different interpretations of the Act with regard to the appropriate degree of involvement of the board members in this investigation function. A questionnaire subsequently confirmed this. From the analysis of the questionnaire it was found that the board members who responded to the questionnaire were evenly split on the

:

[DOT] [DOT];
*

April 17, 1989

key issue of the independence of the investigation function. Results obtained from the questionnaire shed some insight into why some board members felt this independence in Canada had been detrimental to the operation of CASB. With the exception of the above group there was a general consensus that the investigation function should remain independent. It was determined in the international comparison that the U.K. and the U.S. both have independent investigation functions.
Dealing with the role of CASB members vis-a-vis the chairman, one sees that under the CASB legislation it should operate as does a private corporation's board of directors, with major decisions being taken by vote. Another view holds that the chairman is the chief executive officer with authorities conveyed by the CASB legislation and by collateral legislation, the Public Service Employment Act and the Financial Administration Act. The chairman can delegate some but not all the authorities conveyed to him under legislation. In summary, several of the CASB members see themselves as playing a role in guiding the investigations and studying policies to govern the selection of investigating staff.
The report found that there is a fundamental split within the CASB about the respective roles of the chairman and other board members and about the responsibilities and independence of the Director of Investigations. These divisions are so entrenched that if allowed to continue the Board's effectiveness could be seriously impaired.
In this regard some provisions of the CASB Act invite various interpretations. In part, this is because the wording of the Act does not distinguish between "Board" as a synonym for CASB and "Board" as a synonym for the CASB Board. This absence indicates the philosophy underlying the Act.
The more we examine these documents, the more we recognize the confusion that has existed within the Board. What has the Government done? In the wake of the Gander crash and many months later in the wake of the Dryden crash, it would appear that the Government has put them in suspended animation. It has appointed judges to handle an inquiry to see if an inquiry is needed in Gander and to head up the inquiry into the Dryden
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
crash. But what about the inspection staff? Are they going to be the ones who are working for the judge in Toronto who is going to hold the hearings? Is it going to be the same group of people? Does that change the problem? Or is it that they only have one person to convince instead of a group of eight to ten?
Another thing is very clear, Madam Speaker. The night before the legislation was tabled in this House, I went back and compared the Bill that was tabled last year, which the Minister indicates is substantially the same as Bill C-2, the multi-modal Bill, to the Canadian Aviation Safety Act as passed in 1984. I compared the components dealing with the Board. Substantially, there is no change. There is the same level of confusion between the powers. It suggests that the Government intends to leave things as they are. The chairman and the Director of Investigations have the authority. The members of the Board, now limited to an additional four, are there not as aides to focus the investigation, but are there in part as bench-warmers to rubber-stamp the decisions made by the chair or made by the Director of Investigation.
So what the Government has not done, Madam Speaker, is, first, it hasn't learned the lessons of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. It hasn't taken the time to rethink the legislation, listen to the comments of Justice Sopinka and to those of Hickling to bring forth some legislation that more accurately reflects-assuming that it wants to change it-the way in which the Board works and the way in which it relates to the Minister and to this House. It has not done so.
So I think the responsibility then is up to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons. This committee has historical involvement in this legislation in that it was the committee that dealt with the Canadian Aviation Safety Board prior to the establishment of legislative committees when it went through this House back in '83 and '84. There are people there who are knowledgeable about air, rail, road, marine service and to a lesser extent pipelines. We have staff available to us. I hope the Minister is prepared to allow us the freedom to pursue the opportunity we have in this House to take the principle of this Bill, which we all support and examine it. We recognize the need for a clean-up crew. We need

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
to find out what went wrong and to find ways of preventing a recurrence. It is a very noble cause.
Let us invite the members of the Aviation Safety Board to come in and talk to us about their experiences, about what they liked and did not like about the old legislation, how we can improve it. Let us have people who are involved in those sectors outside of aviation- rail, marine, pipelines-come in to tell us what they like and don't like about their past experiences. They are all operating under one form or another of an accident investigation board, whether it is under the Canada Shipping Act or the Railway Act, wherever the legislation falls. They have experience and know what works and what does not work. So let us invite them in.
Let us also contact our colleagues in other jurisdictions. Hickling surveyed at length the United States' and the United Kingdom's experience. I think we should meet with the agencies and the people in Washington who have developed their own system in the context of deregulation and who are learning from their mistakes as well. Then we can build a better Bill. We have to make sure that those who operate these planes, boats and trains, who maintain and operate the pipeline also have an opportunity to raise their concerns. I know they have concerns, Madam Speaker, as we have already been speaking to them.
We have to recognize also that we are dealing with different kinds of employee-employer relationships. It is a different kind of situation in aviation as opposed to railways. I think we have to recognize that we might have to treat different modes in a different way. Does it make sense to throw pipelines in with railroads? I am not sure. Maybe it is because there are not that many pipeline accidents, but I am sure my colleagues from B.C. will provide me with the information that there are more than I realize.
We have to make sure that the employee representatives have a chance to have their say. I know one of the things they are going to raise, particularly on the railroad side, is who gets on the Board. Under the current structure there are the Order in Council appointments, which really means that the Minister of Transport recommends from a list that comes out of nowhere. Someone suggested that it comes from Party lists somewhere else in the country, but we know it just comes out of nowhere. He makes recommendations and appointments are made. The experience on the rail side is that it tends to be old company hacks who have a bias towards the railroads, in favour of the railroads. So the workers are saying,"Hey, every time there is an accident, it is going to be employees who are responsible. It is not going to be the company." So we have to find a mechanism to make sure that the people who are placed on this Board are the appropriate ones for the job.
There is a way that we can do that. In the United States, they have a tradition of review by Congress of presidential appointments. In Canada we do not have that tradition. We did move a little closer to that in the last Parliament where, as a result of the review of parliamentary operations, we did have the opportunity to review after the fact any Order in Council appointments. They would automatically be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, for example. But usually we would not get those until many months after those people were actually in place. First, they would be appointed. Then they would have to wait to be gazetted. It was only after being gazetted that it would come to us. I think in the case of a board that is charged with accident investigation, unlike boards that are charged with implementation of government policy or a government direction, whether it is a Conservative, Liberal or New Democratic Government, this is more of a non-partisan kind of committee.
I think it would be appropriate to develop a mechanism by which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard), for example, could seek nominations from all sectors. Perhaps he could even make a short list, providing CVs and describing their knowledgeability, and refer that to an all-Party committee of the House which would still have a government majority. We are dealing with the ultimate safety of people who travel and work in our transportation industry. They should have the opportunity to know that, at the very least, these are not backroom decisions and that those appointed to take charge of these very important matters have been scrutinized, not in terms of the fiascos in the United States, but in terms of the ability of these people to do the job.
The Transport Committee, during discussion of this Bill, has responsibility to look at that separation between the Transportation Accident Investigation Board and the Minister of Transport. One of the two reports to which I
April 17, 1989

referred earlier suggested that perhaps it should go through a Minister other than the Minister of Transport.
Another suggestion I would like to make is for a procedure, which I believe is done in other instances in the House, by which rather than reporting to the Minister the Transportation Accident Investigation Board becomes a body of the House and reports to the House through the normal procedures. The report is tabled in the House and referred to the Transport Committee and the Minister of Transport. The response of the Minister of Transport is tabled in the House, not made to the CASB, so that the people who have been elected by the citizens of this country can have an opportunity to judge both the appropriateness of the Investigation Board's findings and the response of the Minister. If necessary, it can go back to the Transport Committee for further review.
In some ways that deals with the kind of question raised by the Member for Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), and the Liberal Party's call for a public inquiry into Gander. Such an inquiry becomes a built-in mechanism. Rather than an opposition Party or an individual having to make such a demand, the process would already exist and be set in motion by whatever procedure must take place in the House.
We also have to look at the responsibility of the Minister of Transport to accept those recommendations or give good grounds for refusing them. One reason that is unacceptable for rejecting recommendations is that there is not enough money. The recent report regarding the lack of separation between two airplanes at Pearson International Airport clearly stated that one reason for that was the overwork of the air traffic controllers.
Obviously there are a number of short and long- term solutions to that problem, but once it is identified as a problem, and not simply an administrative one but one that could lead to a mid-air collision of two large aircraft, it must be dealt with.
We must find an appropriate mechanism, and clearly we have to do it through the Transport Committee where this legislation will be referred. We have to find a way to make the Minister of Transport, the railroads, airline companies, pipeline companies or shipping companies directly responsible for the implementation of those recommendations. It is an important issue for which we must find a solution. We cannot continue leaving it up to the whim of a Minister of Transport or the staff of the Department if we are to protect the travelling public and the people who work in the industry.
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
We must also deal with the area of separation of investigations. Transport Canada still conducts investigations. Only when the Canadian Aviation Safety Board wants to investigate a separation occurrence does Transport Canada step aside. Is it appropriate to allow Transport Canada to continue investigating matters over which it has direct control?
Transport Canada decides on the rules of operation for Pearson International Airport. It decided to cut back on the number of air traffic controllers entering into the system, even though it was warned that a crisis was developing.


Mr. Blenkarn:: The Auditor General had something to do with it, too.


Iain Francis Angus: Should the Ministry of Transport have any further responsibility for accident investigations, or should it all be in the bailiwick of the new Transportation Accident Investigation Board?
Is it part of that perceived conflict of interest? It is true that the Auditor General referred to it, but with all due respect, the Auditor General is not necessarily always right.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He ought to be called before the committee to explain why he made that reference.


Iain Francis Angus: That is probably something worth-while doing.
We will support this Bill in principle at second reading because we believe the principle is sound. We recognize that there is a limitation in the wording. We have some questions about the marine aspect, as well as some questions about the pipeline side and rail side. My colleagues will address those in debate and we will raise them particularly within the committee.
For example, one minor question that jumped out at me when I read the Bill as I was coming here today concerned the definition of commodity pipeline. For this Act, that definition includes everything but does not include a pipeline as defined in the National Energy Board Act. Does that mean the big ones? Does it mean the big ones are exempted? That is one question we have to ask because, if that is what it means, that part is not worth the paper it is written on.
There are a number of other questions that must be answered. For example, what about the ministerial planes? It is my understanding that they are under DND control and, according to this legislation, if there is an accident at a DND airport the military will investigate it, not the Transportation Accident Investigation Board.

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
What about the Snowbirds? It may suggest in the legislation that an accident with the Snowbirds at Thunder Bay or Pearson Airport would be investigated by the new Transportation Accident Investigation Board, but it is not clear. If they have an accident at a military base, the military clearly has jurisdiction. We must clear up those jurisdictional questions.
I want to read into the record the Hickling recommendations with regard to the proposed future multi-modal Board. They are worth considering and are a good basis for review by the Transport Committee. The report states:
These recommendations are based on findings derived from an evaluation of CASB's first three years of operation. They are intended to provide guidance to those charged with framing the legislation, regulations, organization and processes that will govern the operation of the proposed new multimodal accident investigation/safety board intended to address aviation, rail, marine and commodity pipeline transportation.
Since the lessons learned from CASB may not all be relevant to the design of the multimodal investigation board, these recommendations are presented in the form of a model.
This model portrays a a proposed philosophy, some key provisions of the legislation and organization and a process that could apply to the multimodal board. Portraying these recommendations as a model is intended to emphasize that they are based solely on experience with aviation safety and some adaptation may be required to meet the requirements of the multimodal board. In what follows, various elements of the model are presented separately. Elements of the philosophy and process models should also be taken into account by those drafting the TA1B legislation.
3.2.1. Philosophy Model
The ultimate goal of any safety board is to prevent future accidents. To facilitate achieving this goal, the occurrence investigation and report process comprises five elements: investigation, assigning cause, identifying safety deficiencies, adjudication and reporting.
To ensure credibility for the findings and recommendations of the TAIB:
-	the process must afford an opportunity for all pertinent information to be considered;
-	the process must incorporate an adjudicatory function to assess the merits of contending viewpoints on occurrence investigations when such differences arise;
-	the results of the TAIB's activities must be made public;
-	the process must ensure that occurrences are thoroughly and professionally investigated; and
-	members of the board of the proposed TAIB should be selected on the basis of publicly-known criteria that would ensure that board
has stature and respect within all parts of the transportation community.
To ensure objectivity:
-	all the TAIB's constituent elements must be independent of the regulatory function, and seen to be independent;
-	the investigation and adjudicatory functions must operate independently of one another; and,
-	the process must allow responsibility for the causes of occurrences to be assigned unequivocally, without fear of adverse legal repercussions -
To ensure effectiveness:
-	The process must operate in a timely manner; and,
-	the process must lead to likely (the possibility of) preventive action which would improve safety. The intent of this criterion is to ensure that no more occurrences are investigated than strictly necessary.
It goes on and on, but I realize that my time is now up. I look forward to the contributions of my colleagues on all sides of the Blouse. All of us have the goal of developing an accident investigation board that not only works but works well.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, when Bill C-2 was introduced in the House about two weeks ago, it was the first time that I as a new Member had to deal with legislation in its initial form. I found that I would have a chance to interpret and work with this legislation in a way different from that which I did in my previous occupation. When Bill C-2 was read for the first time, I reviewed it thoroughly-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there not a period for questions and comments following the third speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Normally when the first three speakers are allowed 40 minutes, there are no question or observation periods following their speeches. The floor belongs to the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Comuzzi).


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I had the opportunity to review thoroughly Bill C-2. I then compared Bill C-2 with the legislation that died on the order paper, Bill C-142, to see what differences there were. I then compared Bill C-2 with the legislation that is currently in operation, the Canadian Aviation Safety Act, and attempted to analyse the differences between these two pieces of legislation with the intention of
April 17, 1989

seeing whether or not the new piece of legislation could be operative.
As I was going through this legislation, my thoughts returned to a time approximately 10 years ago when I was at the University of Windsor in the Faculty of Law. The professors in that faculty instilled in me an interest in statutory law, statutory interpretation and administrative law, and I thank them for that, particularly one of my favourite professors who is now the Dean of Law at McGill University. It is from that perspective that I will make my comments with respect to Bill C-2.
As I was preparing my comments, I found it interesting to read an article in the Saturday, April 15, edition of The Ottawa Citizen in which the Chairman of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, commenting on his annual report, urged Parliament to quickly pass Bill C-2 so that the Canadian Aviation Safety Board will be abolished because the Board is divided. The present Board is made up of nine members appointed by the Governor in Council. As I have stated, I have reviewed the Canadian Aviation Safety Act and I see nothing in that legislation which states that all Board decisions must be unanimous.
In reviewing most Canadian dispute resolution bodies and particularly the appellate court system, I find that these panels usually sit with three, five or nine members. The reason for this is logical and reasonable. Decisions arrived at should be arrived at on the evidence presented and members of a decision-making body may interpret that evidence differently. When decisions are made by these bodies, they are majority decisions based on the evidence presented. If the dissenting members of a panel or bench feel strongly about the issue and want to express their opinions, they usually do so by writing a dissenting opinion and stating their reasons for doing so. This is much the same as what we have seen happen recently with the Canadian Aviation Safety Board with respect to a recent investigation. There was a division of thought between the members of the Board, and as a result, there were dissenting opinions.
I would hope that Parliament is not being asked to change this legislation simply because members of a Board, members appointed by the Government I may add, cannot agree on the cause of an aviation occurrence. As stated earlier, there is nothing in the legislation that which that decisions must be unanimous. I would think it would be suspicious and in fact highly improbable for all boards constituted by legislation to
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
arrive at unanimous decisions. Perhaps such boards that do are the ones that we should be looking into.
If there is dissension on this Board as the chairman has stated, then when and if this legislation receives Royal Assent, when selecting the five-member body to replace the present Canadian Aviation Safety Board, the Board should forgo the usual affiliation appointment process. I would urge the appointment of only the most qualified people to ensure that the Bill we are considering today will be operative and functional.
To be more pragmatic, if the only reason for the legislation is that the Board is divided, there are quicker and more effective ways to deal with this problem than to change the legislation in its entirety. The article to which I referred earlier states that the federally appointed members are deeply divided on what constitutes their duties and their responsibilities. The present act is clear in its definition under the power-granting section with respect to the duties of the Board, the duties of its chairperson and the duties of its investigators. If there is a dispute as to the interpretation of the meaning of sections of the current legislation, that dispute can certainly be settled by an application to the Federal Court for clarification of the duties imposed by the statute on the chairperson, the Board and even the investigators. I find it extremely difficult to reconcile my thinking to that of the chairperson who states that the only solution to this problem is a fast review and quick implementation of Bill C-2.
Certainly, the solution to making legislation operative is in its application by various boards appointed for that express purpose. Boards that are appointed for that purpose cannot keep running to the House to change legislation because, in their judgment, the legislation that they are entrusted to operate is inoperative. Members of those boards must use other means. There are other dispute-resolution mechanisms within our society.
After legislation is passed and becomes operative, as time goes on it may require minor changes or fine tuning, or as social conditions and circumstances change, the legislation may require some changes. Those changes can be accomplished by a variety of means. Changes to legislation can be made by making amendments to the statute or by making further regulations for which all statutes provide in order that the legislation becomes more effective. The legislation can be changed by the practice of the boards, or in the most dire of

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
circumstances, we may have to consider changing the appointments to those boards.
As I stated earlier, members of those boards cannot keep running to Parliament to cancel one Act over another. Acts cannot be replaced with another because of the reasons stated, simply those reasons for the change in this legislation.
The article about the annual report states: "Only expedient passage of similar legislation will resolve this issue considering the depth of division". Can one imagine the floodgates of legislation that would be before the House if every administrative board was allowed to come before the House when it found itself in conflict or divided on an issue on which all board members could not agree?
The fundamental purpose of government agencies and boards is to follow the statutory powers given to them by the legislation, and to perform their duties within the framework of providing natural justice to those who are directly affected by the legislation. The tenets of natural justice do not only apply to those people who are directly affected by the legislation which is being discussed. The tenets of natural justice also apply to the manner in which board members come to their decision and follow the decision-making process.
Decision-makers are obligated to give reasons for their decisions. After hearing all the evidence, if a decision-maker cannot in good conscience agree with his or her colleagues, he or she is bound by the oath taken not to vote accordingly just for the sake of unanimity. The decision-maker must vote by his or her conscience on the strength and the weight of the evidence which has been accepted. It would be most imprudent for the House to consider this legislation if the only reason for its passage is the division of the Board. The floodgates would open and perhaps never close.
Another perceived difficulty with the present legislation is the Director of Investigations' exclusive authority to conduct probes and report to the Board. Some members on the Board interpret this section to mean that they have a responsibility to satisfy themselves about the work performance of the staff. Other members on the Board should feel that they have a right to actively
participate in the day-to-day operations of the Board, including visiting the accident sites.
The sections in the Canadian Aviation Safety Board Act give the Board power to hire employees necessary to conduct the work of the Board. That includes the person referred to in Section 9 who is the Director of Investigations who has exclusive authority to direct the conduct of investigations. With respect, this is the only problem with the present legislation. It is not sufficient reason to request the passage of new legislation. It would be my hope that the purpose for introducing new legislation would be more substantive than the reason we have heard, that the Board is divisive. I invite our friends to inform us of the main reasons and purpose for the new legislation referred to as Bill C-2.
Perhaps one of the reasons for this new legislation is the multimodal requirement for an accident board to investigate all forms of transportation occurrences, not only aviation. I will return to that question later in my submission.
When one looks at the size of Canada and its climate, there are very few problems not affected by geography or climate, or both. In a country as large as Canada, transportation is more than the provision of services for travel by air, land or sea. A country like ours must develop a philosophy and a concept that meets the needs and expectations of all Canadians to develop a transportation system that is economical, efficient, and above all safe.
What is the intent of Bill C-2, an Act to establish the Transportation Accident Investigation Board? As the title states, the intent is to investigate accidents and occurrences that happen on land, sea, air, or on the pipelines.
I am advised that the fundamental function of the Board is to prevent transportation accidents or occurrences, and to investigate the reasons for accidents or occurrences. From the title of the Bill, it is submitted that not enough impetus is given to the fact that there is a dual role, one of prevention and one of investigation. Therefore, the name of the Bill should be changed to better reflect the purpose and the intent of the legislation.
We have also been advised that the intent of the legislation is to create a strong, independent board. In my understanding, an independent board means that it has no allegiance to any Ministry, group, or to any external body. Of necessity, an independent board must
April 17, 1989

make a total break with all forms of Government. It must be completely independent, and its only responsibility is to the Canadian people in dealing with those major issues of safety.
We all agree with the concept and the intention of independence. However, we cannot say one thing and do another. Bill C-2 states that a five-member board is to be established, or not more than a five-member board is to be established. That language is not precise and the Bill should be more specific as to the number of members who should sit on the board.
The Bill also states that a chairperson is to be selected from the five-member board. However, he or she is not elected by the other members of the board. He or she will be appointed by the Minister of Transport. If something happens to the chairperson the Minister appoints a successor, independent of any advice from the board.
As a preliminary observation, we would suggest that the Minister appoint the five-member board and let the board elect its own chairperson. The board will set out by regulation the term of office and the other vital functions that it feels the chairperson should accomplish while he or she sits as chairperson of that board.
Bill C-2 states what the duties of the chairperson should be. The chief executive officer of the board has exclusive responsibility for all personnel matters, all financial matters, all property matters, all internal management of the board, directing staff and the work of the staff, directing and apportioning the work of the staff, and directing and apportioning the work of the board members.
It has always been my understanding that all board members are equal and the chairperson is only the first among equals. Perhaps this is the most fundamental problem with the previous legislation and the proposed legislation before us.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will now interrupt the Hon. Member. There will four minutes left to his intervention when we return, followed by a period of questions and comments.

It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.00 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the irresponsible attempt of this Government, and especially of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), to cripple VIA rail through misinformation and double speak will have a devastating impact on the travelling population of this country. Nowhere will that impact create more hardship than in Atlantic Canada.
When will this Government stop using hysteria and misinformation and get on with the job of building a comfortable, efficient and affordable rail transportation service for the Canadian public? The time, Sir, is now.



CHILDREN


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, this is the National Child Safety Week in Canada. This year, based on the theme "Child Safety: A Shared Responsibility", we will particularly try to make Canadians more aware of a number of situations which present a danger to our kids.
Briefly, let me mention three ways to ensure the safety of our children. First of all, there is public awareness, then safety standards voluntarily enforced in the industry, and finally legislative measures.
Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada is implementing various awareness programs not only for adults, but also for the children themselves. For example, thousands of children have learned to recognize warning symbols on dangerous products by watching a puppet show put on by the Department.
Mr. Speaker, with the support of all Members of this House, I am sure that our children will now feel more safe in their communities.

April 17, 1989
5.0. 31



CITIZENSHIP


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, last week, in honour of Citizenship Week, I attended a citizenship court at Vancouver Technical School where 65 new Canadians from 28 countries were sworn in as citizens.
Judge Angela Kan spoke eloquently on the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. She explained the new Multiculturalism Act which allows people to retain their heritage and identity while becoming a part of mainstream Canada. She stressed the importance of learning English or French and urged new citizens to make new friends and participate in community affairs. She urged all of us to participate in human relations and education to counteract prejudice and misunderstanding.
I was reminded how blessed we are to live in a country with plentiful resources, a glorious environment and a rich mix of people. We have a high standard of health, education and social security. We enjoy a parliamentary democracy and our legal rights are protected.
I urge all Canadians during Citizenship Week to count our blessing and to reach out in friendship to those who chose to become Canadians.



CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, today is Equality Day, the fourth anniversary of the coming into effect of Section 15 of the Charter.
Equality Day reminds us of the important principles enshrined in our Constitution which guarantee all individuals equal access to the protection and benefits of the law without discrimination.
A measure of the fairness of our society is provided by the existence of these equality rights. A far more telling measure, however, is the extent of their application. Canadian women are acutely aware of the gap that still exists between equality in principle and equality in practice.
Since September 1984, our Government has worked with women to broaden their access to the kinds of opportunities essential to equality. Employment equity,
the Federal Contractors Program, our efforts to open up training opportunities to women, our pension reforms and our recently announced intention to broaden and equalize maternity and parental benefits are proof positive of our Government's commitment to make equality real for Canadian women.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I follow up on what I said in this House on December 23. Tobacco farmers in Haldimand-Norfolk and throughout Canada are seeing major restructuring go on through and in their industry due to the Government's policies. During the election the Government committed itself to a $30 million program for Redux to support these farmers.
To date, these farmers have not seen a penny from this program. I urge the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazan-kowski) to obtain approval from Treasury Board for this program quickly and to assure producers that once applications are completed the cheques will be in the mail immediately.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister also take the leadership role in negotiations with the province to eliminate the prerequisite that producers have to sell 25 per cent of their quota to be eligible for the program? The livelihood of many producers has been affected by the Government's policies and many farmers were forced out prior to the present Redux program.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister also give his commitment that his Department will review these matters on a case-by-case basis and consider them for retroactive compensation as well?
The Government has delayed too long, Mr. Speaker. Now is the time to translate promises into action.



CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of Hon. Members present that today is the seventh anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms coming into force. It has become a tradition on this day, April 17, to mark the occasion across Canada by commemorating the anniver-
April 17, 1989

sary as Law Day. This year's "access to justice" theme is one that I strongly endorse. It reflects the right of every Canadian to have equal access to information about the laws and the legal institutions of Canada.
Information activities have been organized across Canada by the Department of Justice, the Canadian Bar Association and other lawyers to make the law more accessible to all Canadians to expand their knowledge of their rights within Canada's justice system.
As Members of this House, we should offer our active encouragement to the Canadian Bar Association as well as the many community groups across Canada in their endeavours on Law Day. Please join me in extending best wishes to all involved for a successful Law Day 1989.




Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was implemented four years ago today. That particular section guarantees each and every individual's right to equal protection and equal benefit under the law without discrimination. Because of that legal instrument, all Canadians, men and women alike, have access to a greater freedom and a vast number of opportunities.

Equality Day holds special significance for Canadian women who were among the most active and effective proponents of entrenching equality rights in our Constitution.

While we should not rest on our laurels, we can see that the House has a record number of female Members of Parliament, six of whom sit on the Cabinet. Today, women can be found in every field, every profession, every walk of life. I am proud to be part of a Government that actively supports women in their quest for equality in all walks of life.




Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, today Canadian women are celebrating the anniversary of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms coming into force. This clause guarantees equality to the women of Canada.
Canadian women depend on the women's Legal Education and Action Fund to use the Charter to promote women's equality. We also need equal access to education and jobs, child care and pay equity. For those programs we need a Government truly committed to women's rights.
How is the Conservative Government celebrating this anniversary? It is funding a gathering of REAL Women, a group opposed to the inclusion of women's rights in the Charter and dedicated to turning back the clock. This action shows us what the Government really thinks of the Constitution and of women's equality.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, many farmers in the Essex-Kent area are concerned about the poor handling of the drought relief program. This program omitted townships which should have received relief. This was due to a lack of adequate information. As a result many farmers remain uncertain about the relief they will receive. An appeal process was promised, but to date no process has been established.
Farmers throughout Canada, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and many rural groups have requested alterations to the crop insurance program. This program is inadequate.
The federal Government through the introduction of a drought relief program has admitted crop insurance is inadequate. Therefore I call upon the Government to work immediately with the provinces to revise the crop insurance program so that it will be adequate for the farmers of Canada, thus eliminating the need for poorly organized measures such as drought relief which has

April 17, 1989
only been a band-aid approach to the real problem fanners face.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, despite our government's many initiatives over the past few years to improve our environment, a SORE-COM poll published yesterday shows that less than a third of the people in Quebec believe their governments' contention that say they give as much importance to the environment as to economic growth.
For 92 percent of Quebecers, the environment should get the same priority as the economy. Quebecers are most concerned about acid rain and air pollution.
The people of Quebec want effective clean-up programs and tough laws with drastic penalties for polluters.
Mr. Speaker, our government has provided unprecedented leadership in this field both at home and abroad. Consequently, I have no doubt that in the months and years to come the requirements of the people of Quebec will be adequatly met.



CHILDREN


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Children's Fund is anxiously waiting for the Canadian Government to sponsor a special conference on the dark future of the world's children.
Through the development of low-cost health measures such as immunization and oral rehydration therapy, the annual death of children has dropped from 25 million in 1950 to 14 million in 1988. However, the debt burden has forced Third World Governments to cut health budgets by 50 per cent. It is the children who will pay the price. For lack of a 50 cent vaccine, millions of children will die. Without rehydration therapy another 2.5 million will die.
The Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Landry) fully endorsed the Prime Minister's statement that alleviating poverty must be given a new priority on national and international agendas.
I urge the Government to live up to its commitment to help the world's poorest countries and people by sponsoring a summit for children where developing and developed nations can address the problems of the world's children living in poverty, including those in Canada. Canada could help save millions of children by sponsoring a world summit.



TAXATION


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, in Canadian homes across this land these days there is no joy. There is no laughter. There are no light hearts. Rather, the lights bum late into the night for stretched out on the kitchen tables of the country the new 62-page simplified income tax guide plagues, torments and mystifies the average Canadian.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) promised Canadians that his new tax reform would make the tax system simpler for all. But it is not simple, it is much more difficult.
In the last reported tax year over one-quarter of Canadians made mistakes in filling out their tax returns. That was before tax reform.
Accountants and tax professionals are thanking the Finance Minister for the favour. Their business is booming. Now not only do Canadians have to pay taxes, they have to pay to pay taxes.
We are calling for the Government to keep its promise. What we have seen in this year's tax form is yet another broken promise by a Government that has a long track record of broken promises.
I call on the Minister to undertake immediately to devise a truly simplified form. I suggest that those ordinary Canadians who are now carrying the largest tax burden be consulted during this process.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that today is Equality Day. It is an occasion to celebrate the equality rights of all residents of Canada. In particular it gives us the opportunity to review the progress made in a practical sense by the women of Canada.
April 17, 1989

Canadian women played an important part in securing the equality rights for all of us here today. Women now represent 43 per cent of Canada's labour force. They comprise almost one-quarter of our country's business owners.
Some 55 per cent of the undergraduate enrolment at Canada's universities is made up of women.
By coincidence today was the day of the swearing in of the new Supreme Court of Canada justice from British Columbia, Justice Beverley McLachlin.
Women's status in Canadian society is continuing to expand and evolve. Our Government remains committed to encouraging and promoting the remarkable potential of Canadian women.



ORAL QUESTIONS


Right Hon. John N. Tbmer@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On this day which is dedicated to equality rights, could the Minister explain to the House why she has cut benefits paid to older women in our country? Will the Minister confirm, for instance, that today, based on her figures, 30,000 women over the age of 55 receive unemployment insurance benefits? And could the Minister explain why those 30,000 women, who have worked all their lives and now have to live on unemployment insurance, will lose part of their benefits to pay for re-training younger Canadians?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has clearly missed the fact that one of the things that we are doing within the new program is extending benefits to older workers through programs for older workers. There will be an extra $50 million for older workers. It is a very important component of the program. It will include older women as well as older men. It is a group in which I have taken some particular interest in the past. I am sure the Hon. Member will support that initiative.
Oral Questions


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, let it be noted that the Minister does not want to explain why 30,000 women in the country over 55 years of age will be having their benefits cut to pay for retraining for younger people.


TRAINING PROGRAMS-CUTS IN BENEFITS FOR OLDER WOMEN
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):
Perhaps the Minister would like to explain why 78,000 women over the age of 45-and again I am using her own statistics-are having their benefits cut to pay for the retraining of workers half their age. Does the Minister not realize that there are now 122,000 women currently receiving unemployment insurance who previously worked in low-paying clerical jobs? That is to say five times as many women as men are employed in these jobs. Why should women formerly in low-paying jobs and now receiving unemployment insurance be forced to pay for the retraining of the Canadian workforce?
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, women are not only participants in this program but contributors to our economy, something which the Government fully recognizes and has done so in a variety of ways. We have instituted the contractors' program, employment equity, and other programs which the Government has put in place to benefit people who were disadvantaged, particularly women. They are important initiatives of the Government. But women of all ages under this program will benefit from the new measures that we are taking.
The women of Canada are best served if we can help them get out of some of those traditional occupations into better occupations. That is what this is all about. I think that the Hon. Member should help Canadian women and support them in their efforts as this Government is doing.


John Napier Turner: I am relying on the Minister's own statistics to put questions, neither of which she has answered, but one more time, Mr. Speaker.


UNEMPLOYED 5 5-YEAR OLD WOMEN
John Napier Turner: An unemployed 55 year-old woman, according to her figures, is caught on the unemployment insurance rolls for an average of 25 weeks. That is two and one-half times longer for instance than an unemployed male of, say, 20 years old.

April 17, 1989
Oral Questions
Now the Minister says that the rationale behind her program is that she wants to force an attitudinal change-whatever those words really mean-on our unemployed. What attitudinal problem does the Minister think that these women have that forces them on to unemployment insurance? Does she think that a 55 year-old unemployed woman is twice as lazy as a 20 year-old male? Is that what she is trying to tell us?


Barbara Jean McDougall: The Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, is going out of his way to twist the facts as far as women under this program are concerned. We are doubling the money for training.
We have a program for older workers, and people on this program of every age, of both genders are going to be in a position to benefit from this program.
The average usage by women of this program is still below the maximum number of weeks that will be available to them. During that time they will have access to programs to upgrade themselves, older workers as well as younger workers, that they have not had before and that when Members opposite were in office, they did not bring into place.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: My question, Mr. Speaker, on this Equality Day is for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. In 1984 the Government promised Canadian women both employment equity legislation and contract compliance in those areas of the private sector under federal government influence. Nearly five years later Canadian women are still waiting for meaningful government action on contract compliance. Can the Minister tell us why we must wait and when this waiting will end?


Barbara Jean McDougall: I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is important for the Hon. Member to know that it was this Government and not that Party when it was in office that brought in employment equity legislation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barbara Jean McDougall: I think that it is important that she know that it was this Government and not those people when they were in office that brought in the Federal Contractors Program. The Federal Contractors Program, which is administered by my colleague, the Minister of State, has been working very well. There have been companies that have lost their rights under contracts because they have not had the appropriate plan. We will continue to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that both the contractors program and the equity program move women forward in this country.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mary Catherine Clancy: The Minister parades one or two examples of government action when thousands of reports come in yearly to show women deserve a little more than this from their Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Catherine Clancy: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is in the same area, but it is for the Secretary of State. I have received hundreds of letters from Canadian women protesting the recent funding to REAL Women.
When is the Minister going to review this decision? Will he stand up in the House today and announce that this funding will be rescinded, and that instead it will go towards the funding of those womens' groups who truly work for equality for women?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: This project, Mr. Speaker, was funded under the criteria of the womens' program.


Ms. Copps:: No way.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: It was recommended by the people who have been examining and working with the program for years. We will continue to look with favour on any project that meets the criteria of programs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Catherine Clancy: Read the criteria.
April 17, 1989


THE ECONOMY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. This Government and its corporate friends have spent a lot of money in the last few weeks trying to whip Canadians into a frenzy, indeed into hysteria, over the size of the deficit in an effort to justify program cut-backs and tax increases.
Mr. Speaker, while all Canadians are concerned about the size of the deficit-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Are you in a frenzy?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Contrary to the myths that this Government has been spreading, the deficit has not been caused by federal spending programs. I cite a study released by the Canadian Thx Foundation of 1988 which says:
Reductions in revenues rather than-increases in expenditureslargely accounted for the deficit's increases.
Mr. Speaker, in the interest of fairness, would it not be more appropriate for the Government to focus on the $30 billion that it gives out in tax expenditures rather than scapegoating spending programs for Canada's families and regions?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member has finally acknowledged that the debt and the deficit clearly are problems. This is not the result of major efforts on the part of the Government to generate this interest. It has happened because we do have a serious problem. I would hope that the Hon. Member would bear that in mind at the time we bring down the Budget in a week and a half.
The Hon. Member has talked about a number of tax expenditures. If he has some tax expenditures that he would like to have eliminated, possibly he could let me know what they are.
During the course of the last four years we have eliminated a very large number of tax expenditures, tax breaks, what he and his Party had referred to as tax loopholes, and more than any other previous Government in Canadian history.
Oral Questions


EFFECT OF INTEREST RATE INCREASES
Nelson Andrew Riis: The Minister of Finance does not have to wait. If he wants to really convey to people that he is carrying out real tax reform and tax fairness then he should consider implementing a minimum corporate tax so that the 60,000 large profitable corporations that do not pay a single penny start paying their fair share.


An Hon. Member:: The Americans have got that one.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That same Tax Foundation study said that the other major cause of deficit growth is high interest rates.
The Minister of Finance knows that for every 1 per cent increase in interest rates, the deficit will increase by $1.5 billion, which this year could add $30 to $35 billion to the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, can the Minister justify cutting valuable programs that benefit families and regions when the increase in the deficit in 1989 will be caused exclusively by a high interest rate policy that has been condemned by the 10 provincial Premiers, has been condemned by the bishops, by the New Democratic Party and many others?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have to agree in part with what the Hon. Member has said. Spending has been very tightly controlled by this Government. That has been the record that we have demonstrated over the course of the past four years. But yes, there has been a problem with interest rates going up in the last year. That has been the case in Canada as it has been the case in the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries in the world.
The solution to that problem is not the facile solution that the Hon. Member suggests from time to time, that we should just snap our fingers and say that interest rates could go down.


An Hon. Member:: Let the market set the interest rates!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member from Saskatchewan says let the market set the interest rate. If we allow the facile approach of the Member for Kamloops, which is to get interest rates down by the snap of a finger, that would involve printing more money, and printing money at a time when last Friday we saw that the inflation rate has been up at 4.6 per cent for the last two months. It has been up over 5 per cent if you take away the more volatile limits of food and energy. Printing money is just going to make that problem far more difficult and far more serious. It will get us back to

April 17, 1989
Oral Questions
the problem that we were in in 1981 and 1982. That is something that this Government is determined to avoid.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION-CHAIRMAN'S LETTER-DEFICIT REDUCTION AND FREE TRADE
Nelson Andrew Riis: We all recognize that the Minister of Finance is keen to harmonize Canadian programs with American programs. May I suggest that one of the programs he might want to harmonize is Canadian interest rate policy with American interest policy, and to drop it 2 percentage points as a result.
Mr. Speaker, my third and final question is this. Having avoided two primary causes of our deficit growth when the Minister said he is not prepared to deal with either of them, it encourages one to become somewhat suspicious that perhaps this whole deficit propaganda program is intended to do something else.
I want to quote from a letter written on February 27, 1989, to the Minister by the President of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association which links deficit reduction and free trade. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Thibeault says that failure to cut the deficit:
Undermines our ability to make the transition to free trade.
Is it not time that the Minister came clean with Canadians and said that the reason they are creating this hysteria about the deficit has nothing to do with reducing the deficit but it is stage 2, if you like, of the Free Trade Agreement which is designed to cut programs to families and cut programs to the regions of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that I am not prepared to deal with the interest rate problem. I am prepared to deal with the interest rate problem, but in a way that will get interest rates down on a permanent basis, rather than for a veiy short time, only to find them move right up higher than they are today and on a much more permanent basis as a result of the policies the Hon. Member suggests we follow. That is the type of policy we are determined to avoid.
The Hon. Member says that our desire to get the deficit down is linked to free trade. That is absolutely nonsense. There is a serious problem which the Hon. Member acknowledged in his first question. He and many other Canadians are concerned about the deficit, not because of free trade but because of the high debt which is causing the problem we are facing in the upcoming Budget-high interest cost because we have a high debt. We must get that debt under control.
If we can get that debt under control then we can get a much healthier economy here. That is what he and many others want. I look forward to his support on April 27.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns her unemployment insurance cut-backs which will have devastating effects on rural Canada.
Is the Minister aware that rural areas of this country which have high unemployment rates, ranging anywhere from 12 per cent to 18 per cent, will now be subject to the same cut-backs affecting neighbouring urban areas which, in many cases, have unemployment rates ranging between 5 per cent and 8 per cent?
Does she believe that someone in a high unemployment area in my constituency should be treated the same as someone in Ottawa?
Does she think that the people of Newfoundland living in rural areas should be penalized unduly by her Government? If not, is she at least willing to reapportion the maps and areas in order to ensure that rural residents are not penalized the way they will be under her system?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Hon. Member is about five steps behind.
Last fall the Minister of State announced that we would be revising the boundaries for unemployment insurance and that they will recognize regional differences. That is something the former Government did not do. That will be introduced as soon as possible so there will be more equitable treatment of claimants in regions with different unemployment levels.
April 17, 1989


EFFECT OF CHANGES ON NEWFOUNDLAND
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
I have a press release from her colleague, the Minister for International Trade, dated April 11. It says in part that in 1990, $830 million will be provided in direct UI income for the people of Newfoundland. It goes on to say that if the Labour Force Development Strategy would not have been in place, that amount would have been $860 million at that time, which means a cut-back of $30 million.
Will the Minister explain to the House why her colleague was saying it was complete nonsense that there would be cut-backs in unemployment insurance during the last election campaign? Is it not obvious that the people of Newfoundland were not told the truth?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, under this program there will be $15 million more going into Newfoundland next year than there would have been otherwise. We also have the Canadian Jobs Strategy that focuses on Newfoundland communities through Community Futures. There is more funding going into Newfoundland, not less. If the Hon. Member would like to go through all the figures with me, I would be happy to do it later.


AIR SAFETY
Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The provisions implemented on April 7 by the Minister have created further safety problems at Pearson. These measures have saturated air space east of Pearson, forced en route controllers to stack airplanes as far back as Coe Hill, 95 miles from Pearson, and created havoc for controllers due to the reduction in flights from 42 to 32 per hour.
Moreover, en route controllers to date have not received any sort of briefing on these measures.
Is the Minister aware of these unsafe conditions that these two measures he implemented last week are
Oral Questions
causing? What does he intend to do immediately to correct them?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will recall that those measures were proposed by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board after the near-miss in Toronto last November. I think he will also admit that we have talked about safety in the Canadian skies for the last two or three weeks, perhaps longer. I hope he is not telling me today that because there are more delays in Toronto we should decrease safety in Canadian skies.


TESTING OF MEASURES PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION
Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, the rigidity of these interim measures almost caused a mid-air collision last week.
Why were these measures not tested on simulators in Hull before being implemented, as is the common and safe practice? When will the Minister stop using Canadian air passengers and Canadian airlines as guinea pigs and take appropriate action to ensure the safety of Canadian airlines?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we are used to the contradictory messages from that side of the House. I repeat that the day after it was recommended by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board we put forward new rules to improve safety over Toronto Pearson Airport and the surrounding area. We did it immediately afterwards.
Of course, it is absolutely normal that at the beginning it could create some problems for the controllers. But I believe, and I am sure he shares that concern with me, that what we did was necessary for Canadian air safety. Otherwise, I would like him to tell me whether it is better to neglect air safety to improve the delays? Is that what he means?


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. On March 31, next year, funding for the Federal Court Challenges Program will run out. Today, on Equality Day, a broad national coalition of respected human rights groups have

April 17, 1989
Oral Questions
joined in calling upon the Government to continue and expand this program which is so important to ensure that the Charter is accessible to the disadvantaged and not just to the privileged. Will the Minister assure the House and all Canadians that expenses for cases which go beyond March, 1990, will in fact be covered and this vital program will be continued and hopefully expanded beyond that date?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the current agreement does not end until March 1990. It will be important for us to have a look at it sometime during this forthcoming year, the fourth year, to review the efficiency and effectiveness of the program. We will be doing that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, that leaves the uncertainty. Certainly a Government that is committed to true equality would fund Court Challenges and not fund REAL Women, which is a denial of equality.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the Government promised over three years ago to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in the area of reasonable accommodation, equal pay for women, and adding sexual orientation to the Act, I want to ask the Minister on this Equality Day if the Government remains committed to these important amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act? If so, when will the Government finally act to ensure equality for all Canadians? Why was the Speech from the Throne silent on this fundamental question of equality?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I point out to my hon. friend that recently we had a further report from the Human Rights Commission, with several suggestions.
All of the matters to which my hon. friend referred are under active consideration by the Government.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SUPREME COURT OF CANADA JUSTICE, MADAM BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to Hon. Members' attention the presence in the gallery of Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEXICAN CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to bring to Hon. Members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Guillermo Jimenez Morales, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Mexican Chamber of Deputies.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to Hon. Members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Bud Smith, Attorney General of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN EXPLORATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The difficulties being experienced by small producers and the service sector in the oil and gas industry are putting in jeopardy thousands of jobs in western Canada. Capital is hard to secure, the major companies are reducing capital expenditures, yet the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program is of little use because of the retroactive nature of the exploration definition clause.
The Minister told the small producers and the service industry in Calgary that he would not be extending the Canadian Exploration Development Incentive Program. Why is the Government abandoning the small producers and the service industry at a time when planned exploration is minimal?
April 17, 1989


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Government came in with the CEDIP when oil prices were considerably lower than they are now to meet the requirements of that period of time.
It was the Government's position that we should move as quickly as we could to a market-based economy in the oil and gas industry. I went to Calgary and said directly to the industry, including the juniors, that that would be the Government's position. I said that in Calgary and I repeated it in the House of Commons. The Hon. Member's question is correct. Yes, we are cutting out CEDIP.


SITUATION OF SMALL PRODUCERS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, was it the Minister's intention to abandon the small producers and the service industry? Was it the intention of the Minister of Finance to mess up CEDIP completely?
Ninety per cent of the applicants have received less than 20 per cent of the funds. How can that be when the Government wants to help the small producers and the service industry? Instead of cancelling the program, why does the Government not reduce the ceiling from $10 million to $1 million, thereby servicing 90 per cent of the applicants and saving 65 per cent of the funds?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Government's decision on CEDIP is final. The Government did bring in CEDIP. I think the Hon. Member should know that-


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: It's the Americans.


Mr. Gauthier:: Big money, big oil.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is the best speech you ever made. Too bad nobody else heard it.
I am telling the Hon. Member that CEIP is now in place. It is being tested on the money markets. It has had a slow start. I believe sincerely that with the promotion of CEIP and aspects of the flow-through, it can work. I think the Hon. Member has to realize that we have moved toward a program which gives the Government better control over the finances rather than having a demand-driven program which CEDIP was.
Oral Questions


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns the refugee process.
A lawyer in Montreal called me about a Romanian claimant who was denied refugee status and who wants to appeal to the Federal Court.
Since under our legal system, his complaints and his criticism of the regime in Romania, which has the worst human rights record in Europe, would be public information and thus accessible to Romanian officials, will the Minister change the appeal procedure so as to guarantee the privacy of individuals and avoid subjecting these people to possibly fatal retaliation on the part of the regime concerned? This is a very serious problem which has many implications for everyone in the refugee's riding.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I am aware of this situation. It is something we are looking into.
Pending the appeal procedure, there is not much I can comment on, but I do want to assure the Hon. Member that we are very sensitive to the situation both in Canada and in that particular case.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF APPEAL PROCESS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister can comment. This Montreal case does represent other cases. The claimant in Montreal is thinking about appealing his refugee board decision to the Federal Court. If he does, the entire dossier of evidence against the regime, evidence which he deposited with Canadian officials, will become public because of our court system.
Is the Minister prepared to consider amending the refugee appeal system that her Government designed so that any claimant who goes to an appeal before the courts will not have his or her evidence publicly dragged out and therefore possibly utilized against him or her in retaliation by any regime to which the applicant is forced to return, particularly Communist bloc countries? This is

April 17, 1989
Oral Questions
a serious question with very serious life or death implications.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, first, I am sure that the Hon. Member is aware that courts can hold hearings in camera. They do have that ability. As I said to the Hon. Member, at the moment I am investigating this situation among others.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration said that news that the Government was going to stop financing the Unemployment Insurance Program was pure speculation.
In that case, could the Government give the House the assurance that it intends to continue paying the cost of extended benefits based on regional unemployment rates?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, any questions that refer to the funding of the Unemployment Insurance Program will have to await the Budget. I have said that before. I am sure the Hon.
Member can wait that long. In the meantime, there is a plan in terms of where regional funds will be spent or at least in terms of what the regional benefits will be because they will go to the high unemployment regions. That is clear from the policy paper, and I would suggest that the Hon. Member read it.


REGIONALLY EXTENDED BENEFITS-GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the arrogance of the Minister suggesting that her critics have not read the document is simply a reflection on herself, not on us.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Steven W. Langdon: I would like to ask the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member can put the question.


Steven W. Langdon: I would like to ask the Minister as clearly as I can, since these regionally extended benefits are in fact part of the present legislation and since she has brought in a White Paper showing that she intends to change that legislation, will she clearly tell Canada whether the Government is committed to continuing to pay for regionally extended benefits, yes or no.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for the Hon. Member that there will be benefits to every region of Canada, particularly the high unemployment regions for which he expresses so much concern. In terms of some of the regions of considerable benefit, we have taken out the penalty for the repeater provision. I am sure the Hon. Member is aware of that. The other benefits for training and upgrading will be there for all regions of Canada.


FORESTRY
Mr. Guy H. Arsenault (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Forestry). Could the Minister explain why his Government has allowed Forest Resources Development Agreements, in the six provinces where those agreements had expired as of March 31, 1989, to elapse without taking steps to renegotiate them?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should thank the Hon. Member for endorsing the success that has been achieved as a result of the Forest Resources Development Agreements.


Coline M. Campbell: He didn't. He asked why are you letting them go?


Frank Oberle: The Hon. Member would also agree that a new generation of such agreements and co-operative measures should include new principles that the public and others are demanding. Discussions are under way with the provinces, and the new agreements will also have to conform with the new budgetary disciplines.
The Hon. Member will soon learn what the new agreements will look like.

April 17, 1989


FUTURE OF AGREEMENTS-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Guy H. Arseneault: My supplementary question is the following. My teacher background compels me to rate the answer at a fat zero, the same as the Throne Speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Guy H. Arseneault: In a paper on forestry co-authored by the Minister he stated that relations between the federal and provincial Governments need to be improved. Furthermore, renegotiating new forestry agreements with all provinces had to be a main federal initiative.
Will the Government's policy in the future be to allow regional agreements, such as the FRDA, to elapse before it attempts to renegotiate them? If and when the agreements are renegotiated, will they be retroactive to the date on which they elapsed?
There is your question. Answer it!


Frank Oberle: You
would agree, Mr. Speaker, that our colleague who is a teacher will have a lot to learn in this place.
I have told my hon. friend that discussions are under way. There is nothing to stop the provinces that have received revenues that came from the export tax to start without us, and we will be behind them strongly with a very firm commitment to our forest resources.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Alfonso Gafgliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Finance). Last fall, before the election, the Government had started negotiations with the banks to settle the whole issue of double charging for cheques without sufficient funds. Now, after the election, the Government has abandoned small business and supports the banks. Can the Minister seriously claim that a double charge is necessary? Should the person who receives those cheques be penalized as well as the person who writes them? Where is the justice in all this?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Hon. Member that it was the banks who voluntarily agreed not to impose charges on personal accounts. They have not done so in the case of small business, and that may be regrettable, but I believe
Oral Questions
that small business may start another campaign to change this. In the legislation I had the privilege of introducing in this House, we have made considerable progress on the access to information on these charges. We included small business in the Bill in fact,it is very well covered and I believe that both consumers and business will be pleased with a bill of which we are very proud.


PAYMENT OF PENALTIES
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of State for Small Businesses to see if I can find a member of the Government who understands small business.
The Minister of State for Small Businesses should stand up today and defend small business. How can he accept that his colleague in the Cabinet introduced legislation that was the same as that introduced in the fall? It does not address the problem of a cheque deposited at a bank to a person who has no funds, and who has to pay a penalty in the same amount as the person who issued the cheque with no funds. Should it not be the person who issued the cheque with no funds who is penalized?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member just asked the same question, so I will have to give him the same answer.
Considerable progress has been made with respect to the treatment of disclosure of banking charges. I hope that what we have done with the banks-and the results are already visible-will also be taken up by the other institutions, and I believe this is an important step forward. Once again, this is a very important step which benefits both small business and consumers.


TAX REFORM
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister knows that he has cut off many northern communities from the full benefit of the Northern Benefits Program. How can the Minister cut off this deduction from people in communities in northern B.C., northern Alberta, and

April 17, 1989
Oral Questions
northern Manitoba, before his own task force on northern tax benefits has reported to the Minister?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what is happening now is simply following through on what was proposed at the time that the announcement was made, which I believe was almost exactly one year ago.


TASK FORCE REPORT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that as people fill in their tax forms this month, hundreds of communities across northern Canada are suffering because he has not waited for that report to be made.
This morning I presented a petition signed by over 5,000 residents of my riding which stated that that is not fair.
Why would the Minister not wait for that task force, which travelled the country, to report, before he denied thousands and thousands of Canadians that benefit?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member goes back to the situation as it was in 1984 when we came into office, my recollection is that there was a very limited northern benefit. It was only provided to certain people who lived in northern and isolated regions of the country. We expanded that quite considerably. We found there were some difficulties as a result of the broad expansion that we made in that benefit. It was for that reason that we asked the task force to study the program and come back with certain recommendations.
However, at the time that that was done, we acknowledged that there was some inequity there. We said we would put in place some adjustments to address that inequity. At the same time we said that we were going to phase those out over a period of time. That is continuing.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday I accompanied the Minister on an extensive tour of the beautiful Rouge Valley system which has its source in the
Markham and Whitchurch-Stouffville areas of my riding.
Will the Minister confirm that he is committed to protecting this rare wildlife preserve by helping to have it designated as a provincial park?
Will he use his influence with the provincial Government to stop renewed efforts to create a garbage dump on the site and to build a major north-south, six to eight-lane expressway, which would run right through the middle of the park?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I confirm that the Hon. Member and I were together in the Rouge Valley yesterday. It was an occasion for us to renew and confirm the Government's commitment to the protection of the Rouge Valley. If the Ontario Government decides to protect the area there will be $10 million from the federal Government for it.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to work together with the Minister of Justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: On March 27 charges of distributing obscene material were dropped against two Ontario video firms. In his ruling the judge stated that Canada's Criminal Code's obscenity provisions do not cover video cassettes. He stated that "the wording is too vague to permit its application".
What steps will be taken to ensure that videos will be subject to the same regulations which prohibit the distribution and the sale of other obscene material?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the House that video tapes have been the subject of successful and unsuccessful prosecutions.
I cannot comment on the case in question because the appeal process still has to follow its route. But I would say that it is a little premature at this time to state that all cases involving video tapes cannot be prosecuted.
April 17, 1989


POINT OF ORDER
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret that in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition I referred to the funding for older workers under our program as $50 million. I am sure he will be delighted to know that the amount is actually $100 million.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard (Roberval) that Bill C-2, an Act to establish the Transportation Accident Investigation Board and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House recessed for lunch, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Comuzzi) had the floor. There were four minutes left for his intervention.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Madam Speaker, at the break we were discussing the duties of the chairperson under Bill C-2. All power seems to be vested in the chairperson. The chairperson acts not only in that capacity but acts as chief executive officer and top administrator in personnel and financial matters. The chairperson also directs the director of investigations. I would suggest that this is much too much responsibility for one person to handle.
It will be our recommendation in committee that the functions and the duties of the chairperson and the chief executive officer should be divided, and further that the
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
board should be responsible for hiring the chief executive officers.
Carrying on with the intent of the legislation, Madam Speaker, transportation occurrence under the definition section should be defined so that the jurisdiction of the board can be properly and clearly carried out. "Accident", I think, is self-explanatory, but "occurrence" must be defined so that the new board, if and when it becomes operative, is aware of its responsibilities and more importantly aware of its total jurisdiction so that it can act in the best interests of Canadian travellers.
Earlier I said I would I return to the multi-modal concept. We have been advised that the previous legislation, aviation safety, was unworkable. Yet we are asked to consider new legislation today that not only deals with aviation but it is to be enlarged to deal with accidents and occurrences that happen in rail, pipeline, commodities and marine areas. How can we enlarge the scope of this Bill when, by admission, the board had difficulty with investigating aviation accidents and occurrences? Does this make sense? We should broaden Bill's scope rather than limit it and get the proper Bill working right now.
It would be trite to say that this legislation affecting the safety of Canadian travellers and those who visit our country should be clear, operative, functional and understandable. It should address the transportation concerns of all Canadians considering our philosophy and the concept that our transportation problem must be addressed.
As this legislation goes to committee, we will follow it very closely and the remarks we have made here today will be followed through committee and we hope will be reflected when the Bill returns to the House for further discussion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Any questions or comments? Debate.


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (TVansport)):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in support of Bill C-2, an Act to establish a Transportation Accident Investigation Board.
This Government recognizes that a thorough and objective accident investigation is crucial to transportation safety. From such studies we learn, document, and implement improved procedures and endeavour to find better and safer materials and technologies.
Transportation has played a crucial role in the development of this nation. Canadians have come to depend on,

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
and expect, safe and efficient modes of transportation. Our record has been enviable. However, we cannot rest on our laurels. We must remain ever vigilant, incorporating new technologies and procedures where applicable and establishing appropriate institutions as required.
Our Government has endeavoured to improve transportation safety at every opportunity. The revision of the Aeronautics Act in 1985, the upgrading of the safety amendments to the Canada Shipping Act in 1987 and the Railway Safety Act in 1988 are a testament to this fact. In keeping with this determination, the proposed TAIB legislation will create a new, independent board entrusted with the authority to investigate and report on accidents involving the marine, rail, and commodity pipeline modes of transportation as well as that of air mode. This multi-modal board proposal was developed in response to the evident need to separate accident investigation from the safety regulation function in all of these vital modes of transportation in Canada.
In drafting the TAIB Bill we have had the benefit of experience since 1984 with the CASB Act and we have learned a great deal from that experience, including the difficulties which have led to so much recent concern.
As well, following circulation in June, 1987, of some preliminary suggestions and the tabling last July of former Bill C-142 we have had the benefit of advice from many sources. We received valued comments from all elements of the transportation industry as well as from organizations as the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Maritime Law Association and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
The Deschenes study on maritime casualty investigations has been very helpful, as has the Hickling evaluation of the CASB. Comments from the Hon. Mr. Justice John Sopinka, before his appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, have also been of great assistance.
Serious consideration was given in the determination of the structure and composition of the new board. The creation of one multi-modal board offers distinct advantages which other formats do not provide.
It affords consistency in the application of standards while, at the same time, respecting the unique requirements of the individual modes. The multi-modal format will ensure consistency of treatment for those involved in transportation accidents in all modes. Each mode can
learn from the experience of the others, and much scientific, medical and other expertise can be applied across all modes.
To ensure that the respective differences between modes are considered the Bill provides in Clause 10 that three separate directors of investigation will be designated; one each for air and marine investigations, and one for rail-commodity pipeline investigations.
While ensuring recognition of the uniqueness of each transportation mode's needs, the Bill also provides that in appointing members to the new board the Governor in Council must appoint those who, and I quote:
-will ensure that the members are, collectively, knowledgeable about air, marine, rail and commodity pipeline transportation.
With these measures, I believe we can be confident that appropriate attention will be directed to accident investigation in each transportation mode as required, and yet we can rest assured that no one mode will be afforded a disproportionate degree of resources.
The new board will be independent. It will have jurisdiction to investigate a wide range of accidents, incidents, conditions and situations, and be mandated to report publicly on all findings as to the contributing factors and causes of accidents. Most important, the new board will be required to make recommendations to avoid repetition of similar accidents in the future.
The issue of board structure and composition was given very serious consideration. Independent advice was sought as to the most effective and efficient composition of the new board.
The TAIB Bill precisely clarifies the respective roles and responsibilities of the board members, the chairman, the directors of investigation and the board staff.
The chairman will be the chief executive officer of the board and will supervise and direct the work of the board and the staff. The board chairman will have the responsibility for the internal management of the board, including personnel, financial and property matters.
As with any other deputy head of a federal agency, the duties of the chairman will also include such responsibilities as directing and apportioning the work of the members and staff, calling and chairing board meetings, approving budgets and so forth.
April 17, 1989

The present Bill is drafted to give board members, acting as a unit, full responsibility for establishing the board's policies in key areas. The board members will be fully responsible for board activities. This responsibility will include the establishment of general policies to be applied when determining the causes of accidents, when finalizing board reports on those accidents and when making recommendations to improve safety.
It is intended that the board members shall apply their background and expertise not to conducting investigations for which very competent staff will be employed, but to weighing the contributing factors identified by the investigators.
The board as a whole will have the over-all responsibility for accident investigation, for making findings as to the contributing factors and causes of these accidents, and for issuing reports which contain recommendations based on their findings.
The board as a whole will determine which accidents are to be investigated while the directors of investigation will be responsible for directing the content of those investigations.
The board as a whole will review the reports of the accident investigators, obtain information from them as board members may see fit and, ultimately, determine the final board findings as to the causes and contributing factors, and approve final board reports.
Most important, board members are to make appropriate recommendations based on their findings and designed to prevent repetition of similar accidents.
As I noted earlier, board members set policies, by-laws and regulations for conducting the board's business. The Bill makes clear that the chairman must act in accordance with these policies, by-laws and regulations.
To carry out the actual investigation of accidents the Bill specifically establishes three positions for directors of accident investigation. These persons will be charged with directing the conduct of accident investigations on behalf of the board. They will have exclusive authority to carry out this function. However, they will exercise their authority in accordance with the policies established by the Board. Investigative staff will report to them. Their reports will be reviewed by the board members. The directors of investigation will then be required to con-
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
duct such further investigations as the Board may request.
The Board will be entitled to adopt and issue the investigators' report as its official report, or the Board may disagree with it in whole or in part and issue a final board report independent of the investigators' findings. The investigators' report would remain on record as submitted to the Board and be part of the record that may be accessed by the public.
The delineation of responsibilities between the board members and the investigators is obvious and deliberate. It is the duty of board members to review the reports of investigators and then make their determinations on the basis of this material and any other relevant information that they may have. Consequently, it is essential that the board members be able to review the reports of the investigators objectively.
With the deliberate provision of this separation of duties, board members will be free to disagree if they wish with investigators' reports, and there will be no question that the board members have been unduly influenced by investigative staff, or vice versa. This arrangement will enable board members to conduct their review and make their findings objectively. Parties with a direct interest who then make representations to the Board on review of circulated draft reports, or at public inquiries, can thus be confident that their representations are given equal weight by board members along with the reports prepared by the investigators.
Establishment of an independent board to investigate accidents for the rail and marine sectors, as well as the air mode, is clearly desirable. The TAIB will be completely independent and separate from any Department of Government. It will be handed a clear and precise mandate to investigate accidents and practices in each of the critical transportation modes in Canada.
The clearer definition of the roles of the board members, chairman and directors of investigation in the proposed TAIB Act should enable the new board to function effectively, efficiently and expeditiously.
The Board shall act as an impartial arbiter. It will not seek to lay blame or liability. Its sole purpose is to determine cause and to recommend changes to ensure future safety. It will judiciously investigate accidents in an open and public fashion. Interested parties will be welcome at investigations and will be in receipt of the Board's draft reports.

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
Quality accident investigation is essential to ensure improved transportation safety. The new board will improve the quality of accident investigations in rail, marine, as well as air. This will lead to even better safety recommendations to help us avoid similar accidents in the future.
We all want to be confident that investigations are conducted fairly and objectively. The total independence of the new board will provide this objectivity. The investigators in the rail and marine modes will no longer be linked to the safety regulators. Potential conflicts of interest will be eliminated.
The Canadian transportation community at large strongly supports the creation of an independent transportation accident investigation board for all modes.
I truly believe that all Members support the basic objective of the Bill, that is, to improve the quality of accident investigation policies and procedures so that our transportation system can be made even safer for the future.
I hope that the Bill will be considered quickly so that this objective can be realized as soon as possible.
I look forward, along with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) to working with the Standing Committee on Transport to ensure that, in all respects, this Bill will achieve its objective to the fullest extent possible. If that means considering some modifications to the provisions of the Bill, we are prepared to do so.
As a Government we will not compromise public safety for expediency. TAIB is not a stop-gap measure or an interim solution. Rather, it is a product of the Canadian Government's constant effort to improve safety in all modes of transportation. The new Transportation Accident Investigation Board embodies lessons we have learned, and attempts to anticipate foreseeable needs.
As a responsible Government we have observed, listened and now we have tabled this legislation. I trust that all Members of the House will respond in kind with equal appreciation for the need for swift passage of this critical Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there questions or comments? The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park.


Mr. Flis:: Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear that the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin) welcomed the contributions and recommendations of John
Sopinka and the Canadian Bar Association, two outstanding authorities in this area and especially outstanding in terms of drafting Bills. The recommendations that both John Sopinka and the Canadian Bar Association made to the Government were that this Bill does not provide the Board the independence that it needs, that there is too much control and too much power given to the chairman and directors of investigation. We saw this in the Canadian Aviation Safety Board in its consideration of the Gander investigation where information was withheld from the members of the board because the chairman and the directors of investigation had too much power unto themselves.
Since the Minister of State for Transport stated in the House that the Government found the recommendations of the Canadian Bar Association and John Sopinka very helpful, can she tell us why her Government did not implement the main recommendations of these two bodies?


Shirley Martin: As I also mentioned, during the consultation we heard from the Hon. Justice Sopinka, from the Bar Association and from other groups and interested parties as far as the safety Acts were concerned. We took into consideration all the input we received, not just the two that the Hon. Member mentions. In taking those into consideration, we have drafted a Bill that we feel will make for a well-rounded, operable board that will look into all modes of transportation accident investigation.
Certainly as that Bill comes before the standing committee, there are opportunities for making recommendations and making suggestions. We will have a lively debate at that point during committee as to the changes that may be necessary to the Bill. We do feel in the drafting that we have taken into consideration all input, partly from the Bar, partly from Justice Sopinka, and also from the other groups as well. It is from all the input that we have that the Bill has been drafted, not just the two reports that the Member mentions.


Mr. Benjamin:: Madam Speaker, the Minister has made much about the independence of the Board. She mentioned something about the findings being made public and available, et cetera. I would ask if she could explain why the Minister should be entitled to an advance copy of the confidential draft for the Minister's response. In fact, a reasonable opportunity-Section
April 17, 1989

24.2-must be allowed for the Minister to respond before it is publicly released.
What about the accident investigations that involved pilots, air traffic controllers, railway conductors or engineers? Are they not just as entitled since they are the subject of the investigations? Why not keep them independent? Nobody gets a copy of the report, including the Minister, until the report is made public by the Board?


Shirley Martin: I think the Hon. Member will notice, as he studies the Bill, that the draft reports are going to be circulated for comments to all Parties with a direct interest, not just to the Minister. We are making it open and objective for those people who make appearances before the committee. The Minister of Transport, who is a very competent Minister of Transport, I might state, has a responsibility for safety as a Minister in the Transport Department, and he is entitled to that draft report, as are other interested parties that are going to be involved in these investigations.


Mr. Pagtakhan:: I have the same question on the same section of the Act. My question is, will the Government ensure that the copy of the draft report be included and hence be compared with the copy of the final report, where made public, so that we can truly test the objectivity of the investigating board?


Shirley Martin: As I mentioned, those people who are interested in the report will receive the draft report, those who have been part of the investigation, people that we have gone to. Naturally if they receive the draft report, they will receive the final report and will have no problem comparing them.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, my question through you to the Minister of State for Transport is: In my presentation earlier today I talked about the potential role for the Transport committee in actually being given the freedom to fully examine this legislation, the freedom to consult whoever the committee deems appropriate, whether they be in this country or the United States or elsewhere. I am wondering if the Minister of State for Transport could give us a commitment today that because the very nature of this Bill is not partisan in the sense that it is an implementation of a government philosophy, economically or what have you, that this should really be an all-Party Bill? Will the Minister give us the commitment that maximum flexibility will be allowed the committee to chart its own course, to decide on who to call, the
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
duration of its hearings and all the matters that it deems appropriate?


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, I am very much encouraged by the support from all sides of the House for improved investigation boards in all modes of transportation. I look forward to that co-operation in committee to make sure that we can move this quickly. As the Hon. Member knows, the chairman of a committee is the individual who is responsible, along with the steering committee if he forms such, to decide what action the committee will take, who they will hear and what time frames they will work under. I am sure that the chairman of the committee will have the co-operation of all sides of the House to make sure that we get the right information from the right people in the right time frame so that we can move this Bill through and have a good Bill when we are finished with it with the necessary changes that will make it function properly.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Madam Speaker, three very short questions to the Minister of State. I was interested in her remarks about the records that will be accessible by the public. My question is: How soon will they be accessible to the public, when and where?
The second question is with respect to the multimodal concept and her comments that they should ensure consistency. My question is: Consistency in what area?
The third question is also to the Minister and is with regard to the duties of the chairperson and chief executive officer. Does she not feel that those duties are so onerous that that position should be split into two separate categories?


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, if I could start with the last question first. As far as it being a very large task for the chairperson and chief executive officer that is going to depend on the individual who is in the chair and his or her abilities to function there. We feel that the right individual would be capable of handling both parts of it. If we find in the future that that does not prove to be true, we may find it necessary to make changes. But with the right person at the helm, I think it can be done.
As to the consistency in all modes, by having one investigative body or one board looking at all investigations, we can make sure that there is consistency in application of investigation methods in the assessing of the material. The information that comes through will be done by one board in all modes. They will be able to share from each other's responsibilities and each other's expertise in making those decisions. We feel over all that

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
it will make for a more knowledgeable board by sharing of expertise.
As to the first question about records and how soon they will be available to the public, I am sorry, I don't understand what the Hon. Member is referring to. I would like further explanation on that, if I may, Madam Speaker.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Madam Speaker, I thought that the Minister had said in her remarks that all the transcripts or the records would be made available to the public. Did I not hear that properly? I am wondering if I heard that properly.


Shirley Martin: I believe what the Member is referring to is the statement that the draft reports would be available to the interested parties that were involved in the investigation for perusal prior to the final report. At that time they would have an opportunity to look at it. Certainly when the report is made public, the investigation reports are part of that public tabling of the information that would be available to those who are interested.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I have the feeling I have been here before on the same subject several times since 1968. While some of my colleagues on all sides might think that I have been here too long, I want them to know that I do not think so.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Until I do think so, I am going to stay, the Lord willing.
I have heard much about the independence of accident investigation boards, whether it be airline investigations, railway accidents, pipelines, or marine accidents. There has always been a question about their so-called independence.
Too often the boards were run by those who formulated the laws and regulations and were charged with the responsibility of enforcing them. They were also the judge and jury, and not too often convicted themselves.
We hear much about the independence of this board. Frankly, I believe it should be able to present its report and make it public the day it is ready, press conference
and all. If there is anything fundamentally bad or perceived to be bad about it, those concerned can appeal. If that does not work, they can go to the Federal Court, just like any other citizen of this country. I see no reason why the Minister should get an advance copy of the report.
While I have not yet read the whole Bill, clause by clause, I have found nothing that says anyone else concerned can get a confidential copy of the report in advance. I suggest that provision of an advance copy to the Minister weakens the independence of the Accident Investigation Board.
While some may disagree with me, particularly those in the trucking industry, I think the legislation should also cover trans-boundary, international and interprovincial trucking. One day a semi-transport with a couple of pup trailers will plow into the ground floor of an apartment block and everyone will ask what happened. It is inevitable.
With Bill C-19 we were promised that there would be a uniform set of regulations to which all the provinces would agree. The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) will recall the committee dealing with Bill C-19 when the Canadian Truckers Association begged the Government not to bring that legislation into place until everything else was in place first and there was agreement with the other jurisdictions in the 10 provinces and two territories on a uniform set of regulations, rules and conditions under which interprovincial transboundary trucking could operate. We still do not have such agreement. It is a jungle out there.
I understand that my own province refuses to even discuss the subject with the federal authority. According to the Constitution of Canada, going back to the BNA Act, the national government had jurisdiction under international and trans-border trucking until the early 1950s, when it gave it up to let the provinces administer it. Since then we have seen them run off in 10 different directions, and it still continues in spite of what the Government told us.
A Transportation Accident Investigation Board that will cover air, rail, marine and pipeline will have to be a large operation. Someone who is an ideal investigator of an aircraft will not be very good with pipelines, and vice-versa. You cannot hire these kinds of people at the Canada Employment Centre, or off the street. They
April 17, 1989

have to be experts. It will have to be a large operation, which I support, but there must be a commitment to it by the Government. There had better be a lot of money provided for this in the Budget to make sure there is the capacity to appoint and hire the best possible people for the board.
I do not want a repeat of the past. I remember a famous incident when an alderperson from Edmonton was put on the Board of Directors of Air Canada. When asked about her qualifications she said that she had flown a few times. We certainly do not want someone on an investigation board who is not knowledgeable about the industry. The people appointed to these boards should be experienced and competent.
There have been five Ministers of Transport since 1980, and almost as many Ministers of State for Transport. Jean-Luc Pepin opposed deregulation and that was the end of him. It was the Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy) who started all this nonsense of the nirvana of the marketplace, private enterprise and deregulation. In spite of the warnings from the experts outside Parliament, that government proceeded with deregulation in 1982, before there were any laws or regulations. The Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski), the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and now the Member for Roberval (Mr. Bouchard) were the succeeding Ministers. All five of them told us repeatedly in the committee that there would be no compromise on safety, security, inspection, enforcement and investigation.
This time we will not take those assurances at face value. If we cannot take the Government's word, it had better state in the Budget how much money it will provide, how many people it will involve, and what kind of people. If it is in the Budget, we might believe it.
We were accused of trying to frighten the public. Every Minister since the beginning of deregulation was repeatedly warned about the inadequacies of the system. These warnings were not just from Members of Parliament; they were from expert witnesses who knew what they were talking about. There were scores of hearings, including hearings on cabooses, hearings on the Freedom to Move White Paper, the National Transportation
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
Act and the Trucking Act. There were hundreds of witnesses and on these and other occasions it was pointed out that safety and security inspection and enforcement was insufficient. Yet there was a lack of follow-up action.
I would like to remind Hon. Members of one witness in particular. One sure as heck could not call him a raving socialist. He was the immediate past head of the American Federal Aviation Administration, a Reagan appointee. He appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport and not only urged us but pleaded with us not to deregulate until we had everything else in place in all modes of transportation. He admitted very plainly and honestly what had happened in the United States and told us not to make the mistakes they had made, but to learn the lessons of the American experience. I could not find a Minister and I could not even find a small majority of the Transport Committee who would agree with the man.
This man told us to have in place, before deregulating, enough controllers, enough inspectors, enough enforcement, enough runway capacity, enough terminal capacity and enough passenger and baggage security capacity. He told us to have that in place first and then to deregulate. The truckers told us the same thing.
Representatives of the Canadian Air Transport Association, Canadian owners and pilots, air traffic controllers and the machinists' union appeared before the committee and most of them said they were in favour of deregulation but did not think we were ready. Boy, were they right.
We were told ad nauseam that there would be no compromise on safety. But what do we continue to get under the last four Ministers of Transport? There have been cut-backs, reductions and restraint. This is after they have told us that there would be no compromise. That is why we will not accept the Minister's word or the Government's word this time. It had better be in writing, on paper and irrevocable.
If the Treasury Board or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) refuses to grant the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) and the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs.

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
Martin) the kind of wherewithal that is required, then I think those Ministers should ask why and resign to the applause of the entire nation.
No matter what one thinks of the deficit or the national debt, in the last four years Ministers of Transport have done nothing but play fast and loose with the well-being of the travelling public in the name of restraint, cut-backs and the deficit, and with the safety and security of the facilities for the workers in the transportation industry. From what I have seen in some sectors of the transportation industry, I am amazed that the industry has done as well as it has with the tools given to it to do the job.
I do not see how we can have an effective accident investigation board without that kind of sign-on-the-dotted-line commitment. I do not want to have to go through this again. I have been through too many hearings, too many debates, too many pieces of legislation and way too many Ministers who never did follow through and do the job. In my experience so far with this Minister, the same thing applies. He is a nice fellow. There is nothing personal about it. It ain't his cup of tea. It is not what you could call his long suit, and I am not talking about his underwear!
We have to try to put the round pegs into the round holes and the square pegs into the square holes. In the transportation industry in Canada since the late 1970s, the opposite has been the case. This time, I hope the Government will put its action where its mouth is. We have heard all of this before ad nauseam.
I remember the days of Otto Lang, the late unlamented. It was very interesting this morning to listen to my good friend from New Brunswick who led off for the Official Opposition. I was hoping he would have the courtesy to blush. He was chairman of the Transport Committee when the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy) brought in deregulation. Butter would not melt in the mouths of the Liberal members of the Transport Committee. They were telling us how good this was, but the Tories kicked the heck out of them. Then the Liberals got defeated and the Tories came in. I'll be darned. For the first year of the new Parliament, back in 1984, I sat here listening to Liberals making Conservative speeches and Conservatives making Liberal speeches. I must confess I got a little confused.
The Government is really not committed to treating transportation as a public utility. It is not prepared to treat it as something that must be regulated. We must make the transporters perform. I have no objection to
the transporters getting a reasonable return on their investment, but we cannot leave it to them. We cannot have airlines in charge of the inspection of passengers and luggage at airports. That has to be done by the Department of Transport. We cannot have the railways inspecting their own equipment with their shortage of car inspectors.
The Government has allowed the owners and operators of the transportation industry to have their way. As long as they can make a buck, they are called successful. This Government or another one like it, God forbid, will kill more people because this Minister and the previous three Ministers as well as the previous Government have in fact compromised on safety, security, inspection and enforcement. Unless the Government comes up in the Budget with all the wherewithal to do it right, we will not believe it and we will fight it to make it do so.


Mr. Ricard:: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech by the Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party, and I remember that a few years ago when an accident happened in Gander and also recently with the accident in Dryden, all the Opposition Parties screamed bloody murder and asked for a royal commission of inquiry. Today, we have introduced a Bill that will separate investigators from the people who enforce the legislation, and they don't like that. My first question is: I would like to know what they don't like about a system which, once and for all, will separate investigators from those who enforce the regulations. My second question is, whether they have an alternative policy. If they do, I wish they would let us know because they keep criticizing the Government but never suggest any concrete alternatives. My last question is this: If a socialist party ever came to power, what amounts would it appropriate in this area?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I apologize to my colleague. I missed his first couple of sentences. He said something about Gander, which I do not pretend to know anything about.
The hon. gentleman asks what we would do. As I said in my speech, and I meant it, we would ask the Government to treat transportation as a public utility. It is something that everyone in Canada has to use both directly and indirectly. It cannot be left up to the whims of the operators and owners of each mode of transportation, whether they are publicly or privately owned, to
April 17, 1989

operate what is first in their best interests, the bottom line. That cannot be allowed.
I forget the other question of my hon. friend, however, not once did I mention the words NDP in my entire speech. If my hon. friend would like me to give him a 40-minute exercise in NDP transportation policy, I would be delighted and willing to ask the House for unanimous consent for me to have another 40 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Minister of State for Transport.


Shirley Martin: There were a couple of points raised by the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin) on which I would like to reassure him. First, he was talking about the ability and the competence of the people. As I mentioned in my remarks, there is a clause that calls for the appointments to ensure that the members are collectively knowledgeable about air, marine, rail, and commodity pipeline transportation. That is contained in the Bill to ensure that that will take place.
As far as resources are concerned, at the current time there are approximately 300 people who are now involved in accident investigation activities among the three modes. There is absolutely no intent to decrease the resources that are devoted to accident investigation.
The Hon. Member mentioned that expertise is required. The vast majority of those people who are currently doing the investigations will no doubt be transferred to the new Board so the expertise will continue. We will not necessarily be hiring these people through the local employment office, I would like to add.
Transportation is indeed the Minister of Transport's cup of tea, and it is my cup of coffee. I am looking forward to becoming involved very thoroughly in carrying this Bill through to the end and seeing it implemented and carried out in the future.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I appreciate and thank the Minister for her attempts to reassure me. I recall when I was assured there were enough railway inspectors that it turned out there were 19 for 100,000 miles of track in Canada and over 150,000 units of rolling stock.
We were repeatedly assured there would be enough air traffic controllers. Does the fact that there is a backlog of more than 1,200 investigations not tell the Minister of State something? Does that not make the Minister and the foggy bottoms in the Department of Transport
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
realize and understand that they are not only away behind but they have to do more than catch up?
Of course, some people will be recruited from the Department of Transport and from the National Transportation Agency. I expect that expertise will have to be found in other countries and brought in. Those people are not hired down at the Canada Employment Centre. The Minister will have a sweet time getting this set up. I do not believe there are enough bodies in the Government. If all the Minister is going to do is hire ex-railway officers or airline officers, then the problem has not been solved.


Mrs. Feltham:: The Hon. Member mentioned in his speech that he had not read all of the Bill. I would like to refer to page 6 which states:
4.(2) The Governor in Council shall appoint as members persons
who, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, are collectively
knowledgeable about air, marine, rail and commodity pipeline
transportation.
The Hon. Member was also concerned about the object of the Board. On page 8 it refers to what the Board must do and how it must report. In Clause 7(2), it states in part:
- the Board shall not refrain from fully reporting on the causes and contributing factors merely because fault or liability might be inferred from the Board's findings.
The Bill in its present form sets out what the Board must do and will continue to do.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I thank my colleague for that comment. However, I wish to suggest to her that we have had that before where, in the opinion of the Government, someone is qualified.
If my hon. colleague had been here for the number of years that I have, she would find out how that did not work. That is another reason the Standing Committee will now insist on sitting down with every appointee, and I do not care if it is in camera or not, to see whether or not the Standing Committee is prepared to recommend them. Too often the opinion of the Government is more designed to hand somebody a job than it is a matter of competence, background, and experience.


Mr. Belsher:: I have listened with interest to the speech of Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin). As transportation is one of his fortes that he has studied for a great many years, I would like to remind him that it sounded like we had deregulated safety. Nothing could

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
be further from the truth, and the Hon. Member knows that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Compromised on it.


Ross Belsher: Canada has a very good safety record. In fact, it is one of the top safety records world-wide in any mode the Hon. Member cares to choose. Certainly there are accidents, and that is what the Bill is all about. We are trying to prevent accidents. We want to ensure that we have the right means in place to prevent accidents.
The Bill addresses the need to improve on safety and to ensure that it has been properly studied. The Government did bring forward the Aeronautics Act amendments in 1985, of which the Hon. Member was a part and studied that legislation. There were also the Canada Shipping Act amendments in 1987, and the railway shipping Act of last year. The Hon. Member was also a part of those.
The Hon. Member talked about interprovincial trucking. Highways are a provincial matter. Each province has its own police force which works within its own province. It makes no difference whether the truck is going from one province to the next. Why should it not be maintained and the safety part adjudicated from within each individual province? Why should we attempt to put this into an intermodal scheme of things when it is already under the jurisdiction of each individual province?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: A short rebuttal from the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you for your patience, Madam Speaker, with all of us. In my opinion, in some respects safety was deregulated when the exit and entry regulations for airlines and charter aircraft were cancelled. It was left wide open. As long as someone could get a bank loan, lease a couple of airplanes, and hire a laid-off crew at half the wages, he was in business. There may have been no mechanics or hangar, but he was in business. How many dozens have started up? It is even worse south of the border. It seems to me that that is deregulating safety.
The same thing has applied in other sectors of the transportation industry. They are fundamental to the national economy, and whether they are privately or publicly owned, by their very nature they are natural monopolies. Therefore, they have to be regulated and controlled, particularly in the areas of safety, inspection,
security enforcement, and all the other things I have mentioned.
There are not only one or two items that crop up now and again. It is a large ball of wax, and so far all the Government has done is melt it.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand)-Unemployment Insurance-Funds redirected to training-Expenditure locations-White Paper-Request for referral to parliamentary committee; the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey)-Energy-Energy alternative programs-Termination of positions-Alternative energy development; the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Nault)-Aboriginal Rights-Post-secondary education-Students' hunger strike- Bilateral process.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard (Roberval) that Bill C-2, an Act to establish the Transportation Investigation Board and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the legislation before us, that is, the establishment of a new Transportation Accident Investigation Board.
I must begin my remarks by saying that the Minister's decision to model this new Transportation Accident Investigation Board after the CASB is on the right track.
April 17, 1989

However, I believe the Minister is putting the cart before the horse. Accident investigation is of primary importance to ensure high levels of safety standards. Many recommendations stemming from investigations have contributed to this country's high level of safety regulations which protect air travellers on a daily basis.
Why is this Government rushing the creation of this new board? Why will this Government not wait for the findings of the judicial inquiry into the Dryden crash? Why will it not wait to hear from Justice Estey's review of the circumstances surrounding the Gander crash?
The logic is that an inquiry always precedes legislation, similar to the previous process when the Dubin inquiry into air safety provided the building block for the Canadian Aviation Safety Board Act. Or, is it that this Government is not interested in the findings and recommendations of the Estey review and the Dryden inquiry?
A recent Angus Reid poll indicates that Canadians think air travel in this country is less safe than it was, and an overwhelming majority wants this Government to show some leadership and do something about it. The poll also suggests that Canadians want firmer regulations of air travel. Air safety should be this Government's first priority. Let me tell the House why.
On Friday, March 10, I received word that Air Ontario's Flight 363 crashed in Dryden shortly after take-off. Some 24 people lost their lives and many more were injured. The victims' families want to know what happened. They want to be reassured that our airways are safe. They want to know that regulations have been followed.
In the days following the crash we heard of a three-year old Transport Canada report which pinpointed the Wawa to Kenora region as one of the most dangerous flying zones in the country. We also heard again in the same report that northern Ontario's accident rate is higher than the national average. This is frightening, and it is totally unacceptable.
It is unacceptable to the people of northern Ontario, and it should be a top priority of this Government. This is also why members of the Liberal Party believe that this legislation could have waited until all the facts are in.
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
This new Transportation Accident Investigation Board will not address the immediate issue of air safety in this country. It will not address the immediate issue of air safety inspectors, nor will it address the immediate issue of air traffic controllers and the perilous effects of deregulation.
Deregulation of Canada's air industry has created some major difficulties with respect to air safety in this country. This Government accelerated the legislative process of deregulation and this led to several key mistakes in the final legislation which have left air safety in peril. I know and I need not be reminded that deregulation was introduced by a Liberal Government. The Liberal Party supports the basic concept of deregulation, but it was totally opposed to the rapid process adopted by this Government. This Government's failure to include a key clause in the final legislation, which could have protected remote and distant communities such as those located in northern Ontario from loss of services as a result of deregulation, has contributed to today's problems with aviation safety.
Bill C-2 will not restore faith in air safety. Canadians want assurances that our airways are safe. They want regulations which will protect them, and rightly so. I can tell Hon. Members of the House that this Government's failure to include this key clause has led to a loss in service. It has led to inadequate weather reporting facilities in my riding and across the whole northern part of this province. It has led to higher air incidences, and it has led to the loss of lives. I encourage the Minister to fly into my riding on a Saturday and see for himself the level of service being provided to northerners.
When this Bill was originally introduced last July, the Minister said at the time and I quote: "The National Transportation Act places safety at the top of our list of objectives. The Government takes this commitment seriously".
What has happened to this commitment? Given the crash at Dryden, the inefficient numbers of air safety inspectors, and the lack of air traffic controllers in this country, I fail to see this Government's commitment to air safety. How will this piece of legislation reassure Canadians that air safety is a priority with this Government?
I would like to turn to the new Transportation Accident Investigation Board's mandate. This legislation was to establish this Board as a totally independent body. It must be of the highest standards employing Canada's top experts in the field of transportation safety. Failure to provide these basic principles will lead to another situa-

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
tion such as we have seen with the Gander crash investigation.
Members of my Party cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of waiting for the results of the judicial inquiry into the Dryden crash and the judicial review of the Gander crash before rushing ahead with this legislation.
The Dubin inquiry on aviation safety formed the basis of the legislation creating the Canadian Aviation Safety Board Act, 1984. It boils down to basic common sense and logic. Waiting for these results will provide the Government with the necessary recommendations to create an accident investigation agency which will promote safety in Canada to the maximum efficiency and to ensure that the day-to-day operations of this agency will proceed with the least possible opportunities for dissension to set in.
It is also my hope that this Government will be bound by this new Transportation Accident Investigations Board's recommendations, such was the case with the CASB. The only difference is that Bill C-2 should ensure that the recommendations to the Government are adhered to.
In March 1987, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board completed a study of aviation accidents in the Wawa-Ke-nora region. The conclusions of this study indicated that situations involving pilots operating under visual flight rules pushing on into bad weather appeared to be a factor in the higher accident rate in this region. Further, this was some indication that weather facilities in northern Ontario, particularly 24-hour weather observations sites were not sufficient to counteract the difficulties of weather forecasting. Based on these findings the board made two safety recommendations and recommended that the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment expedite the installation of automatic weather observing and reporting facilities in the Wawa-Kenora region. It also recommended that the Department of Transport institute a promotional campaign to improve pilot awareness of the extra efforts needed to conduct their safety operations throughout that region. Neither of these recommendations were acted upon. Had the Government listened to the experts, the Dryden crash could have possibly been avoided.
In closing, I urge this Government to listen closely to the recommendations being made by Members on this side of the House. They are sound and valid recommendations. I urge this Government to wait for the findings of the Estey review on the Gander crash and the judicial enquiry of the Dryden crash before proceeding with this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments.


Mr. Johnson:: Madam Speaker, I am surprised and appalled at some of the comments made by the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Nault). He has suggested that we should delay the formation of this Board and keep the CASB for just a little while longer. Surely, this is in complete contradiction to what he wants and what this country needs.
Is he and his Party willing to take responsibility for any delay that would occur by such a move? Surely if we do not have the proper structures in place to investigate accidents of all kinds in transportation we will not be able to save lives, and such a delay would surely contribute to additional loss of life.
I would like to comment that in addition we are not rushing with the creation of this Board. In fact the creation of a multimodal accident investigation board has long been part of the plans of this Government and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard).
In Hansard for July 6, 1986, we find the following from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski).


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do apologize for interrupting the Hon. Member. Is that just a comment and a question or is the Hon. Member rising on debate?


Al Johnson: I will put my question. Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We will be expecting the question so that the Member will have a chance to answer before the time runs out.


Al Johnson: Madam Speaker, my question is very simple. As the Hon. Member knows, we have not been rushing the formation of this board.
Is he willing to take responsibility for any delay that he
suggests?


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. First, Canadians do not believe that the new investigation board will do anything for the situation facing us today. Safety in the air is not there at present. Whether the Government installs the investigation
April 17, 1989

board now or after the results of the two inquiries will make no difference to the situation.
To put in legislation to meet the people's needs the Government should wait for the reports. By doing so information will be at hand to have legislation with some teeth to it to investigate properly, avoiding the same thing a couple of years down the road that we are going through now.


Mr. Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I would like the previous speaker to clarify his point. He said that the Government in cutting back and freezing the hiring on air traffic controllers for three years in 1985 created a desperate shortage in air traffic controllers and is creating a serious safety problem in Canada. There is a similar situation with weather facilities and the air space organizations. The failure to put parallel runways in Vancouver and all these cost-cutting measures are what are putting Canadian lives at risk. It is not the fault of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board which is continuing to function, to investigate accidents, and report on them and in spite of the Gander situation and in spite of this legislation. The accident investigation is going on and the professionals doing it are doing it competently. It is really the Government's restraint program and creating an unregulated environment that has created a disastrous aviation situation. Is that about what the Member was indicating to the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Johnson)?


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. In a nutshell, that is the problem in northern Ontario. The recommendations being put forward by the CASB are not being followed through. It is easy to have recommendations put forward by different investigation boards but if they are not followed through, it does nothing for anybody. That is the problem.
In northern Ontario recommendations and reports are being handed to the Government and to the Minister but nothing is being done. We saw the magnitude of the Dryden crash which has created deep concern in the people of Northern Ontario and the people in my riding about it being unsafe to fly in airplanes presently.
We ask the Government to put in legislation to meet those concerns. By not waiting for the reports, not waiting for what we are asking for, it will do nothing for northern Ontario. We will have what has been done previously and that is pay lip service to the problem.
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
People running the airlines in northern Ontario are cutting costs to compete in a jurisdiction that is not able to compete with the hub of central Canada. That is our problem and we see it every day.
We should allow the have-not regions which do not have the capabilities to make a profit to revert to regulations allowing them to have safety first not safety last as it may be at this time.


Mr. Casey:: Madam Speaker, I have just a few comments. In listening to the Hon. Member from Kenora- Rainy River, he mentions rushing and asks why we are told we are rushing with this Bill. As a new Member, it occurs to me that either we are rushing into something or we are going too slowly. We are never going at the right speed. I say this is the right speed.
The Bill is well thought out. It will provide uniform quality accident investigation facilities for an accident no matter what type of accident there is. Up to now an accident occurring on rail gets a different quality of investigation compared with accidents concerning air or marine traffic. Under this program all accidents will get the same attention as air traffic or any other type.
The Hon. Member demands leadership. This Bill is exactly that. It is leadership. It will provide uniform quality accident investigation.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I thank the new Member for his remarks. The biggest problem with this situation is that when we get back to the Bill we will see that nothing has been changed from the CASB. There will still be problems with board members not having the ability to make their feelings known or to play a part in the investigation itself. We are back to square one.
We want an independent body to review accidents and review situations like the Dryden crash, to take recommendations and allow us to improve our airways in Canada. To put this Bill in place now will just replace the same problem we had before. People cannot agree because they do not have the power and the ability to tell Canadians what is going on in the industry in Canada.


Mr. MacDougall:: Madam Speaker, I also come from northern Ontario. When the Hon. Member refers to air travel in northern Ontario, could he clarify whether he is meaning services such as Nor Ont Air, Air Ontario Beaskin or Frontier? The list goes on. Is the Member saying he is not satisfied today with the services those

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
companies are giving to the residents of Northern Ontario safety-wise?


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I am not satisfied with the service that we are getting in northern Ontario. I do not know how long it takes the Hon. Member to get from Ottawa to his riding but it takes me six hours. That is totally unacceptable. I am not saying the situation is totally unsafe. I am saying that the mechanisms are not in place to make it as safe as it was previous to deregulation when there were enough inspectors working. We just have to take a look at the Dryden accident. We are being told that the recommendation of the CASB was simple. Pilots should visually inspect wings before taking off. That recommendation should have been circulated to the airlines because of weather patterns in northern Ontario. That courtesy should have been extended to people in Northern Ontario. I see now that my time is up.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate today on second reading of the legislation of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) to create the Transportation Accident Investigation Board.
Before I start I want to pay credit to the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), who was our lead speaker for our Party this morning. He raised a number of important concerns. As well I mention the dean of transportation in the House from our side, the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin), who brings us a great deal of knowledge and experience.
I have a few brief comments to make before I discuss the legislation before us. It deals perhaps in some ways with safety by rail but it is also a much broader issue that has been raised by many members in Question Period and in other Debates, namely, VIA Rail and its possible future expansion-unlikely as that may be considering the responses from the Minister of Transport. I am speaking particularly of VIA Rail service in northern British Columbia. I had an opportunity to ride from Prince George to Goat River and return Friday evening. I want to thank the crew of that train with whom I had a chance to talk about the service, as well as the passengers who expressed their opinions to me in terms of how important this service is.
I also wish to thank VIA officials in Montreal who gave notice of my trip and ensured that I had all of the proper paperwork in place to be on board that train. Perhaps safety was involved with this trip. I say that because I had the opportunity to go up to the head-end of the train. Frankly, some of the equipment that the Liberal Government before this Government put in place has forced the railway to run with old furnaces on rails. That is a safety hazard. According to the press release of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) the new Transportation Accident Investigation Board will investigate causes of accidents, make recommendations to correct safety deficiencies, prepare public reports on its findings and, where possible, suggest ways to prevent recurrences.
According to the press release what the legislation will do is combine three existing organizations. They are the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, the Marine Casualty Investigations Branch of Transport Canada and the Railway Pipelines Investigation Directorate of the National Transportation Agency. As the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) said this morning I suppose most Members wish that we would not have to have such boards to investigate accidents, especially when they have to pick up the pieces and to take a look at what are often tragic accidents that happen in transportation in Canada. Of course we have to have a body to review such accidents to ensure that we learn from them and to ensure that regulations and legislation in the future will be introduced by the Government so that these carriers will not incur damage.
I would like to give an example as to why this legislation is important. In doing so I will reflect on some of the comments made by the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin) about responsibility. Whose responsibility is it to ensure that these carriers operate properly and that we do not end up with major accidents?
My example concerns a situation in my riding which is in northern British Columbia. It was brought to my attention by representatives of Lodge 1415 of the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada. They have an interesting situation similar to many communities where there is an interchange between two railroads. In this case it is the British Colum-
April 17, 1989

bia Railway owned by the Province of British Columbia and Canadian National with which we are all familiar.
In this case under the authority of the National Transportation Agency CN used to be required to have its trainmen inspect the cars before they were sent off on a train. These people are certified under the National Transportation Agency. For those who are familiar with northern British Columbia and Prince George, these trains are made up in the B.C.R. yard which is just south of Prince George. CN sends a locomotive and cabooses over to the B.C.R. yard and then takes the train from there to Winnipeg. Because B.C.R. is a provincially regulated railway the need to have certified inspectors look at those cars is avoided.
The Brotherhood of Railway Carmen think that this is important. They have raised the matter on a number of occasions with the National Transportation Agency. I will be raising it on their behalf again. I have told them that this legislation will be before the House today and likely tomorrow. We felt it would be a good idea to raise this issue in order to point out the concerns that there are.
The carmen conducted a survey concerning one particular train, Train No. 358 which goes from Prince George to Winnipeg. They had their brothers and sisters in Winnipeg report to them on the condition of the train when it arrived, especially in terms of any particular problems that there were with it. In this way they built evidence with respect to the safety of the railroad, which is their paramount concern. If they are required to be certified to send trains out why is the National Transportation Agency allowing a train to travel from Prince George to Winnipeg without being inspected?
In the month from January 13, 1989, to February 12, 1989, a survey of Train 358 was conducted. Normally it has about 75 to 100 cars on it. This survey was conducted by the Brotherhood. The results are as follows. Some 44 cars were reported in bad order, 22 of them for wheels. I asked the members of the brotherhood which of these bad orders were of particular concern because of potential derailment. Wheels are the most important aspect of the train to be inspected. Nine cars were cited for defective loads such as shifting of loads, bands coming loose and what have you. Eight cars had defects in connection with their braking systems. One can understand the concern over a braking system not working.
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
Five cars had various defects concerning draft gears and couplers.
The people who conducted this survey feel that these 44 cars in one month on one train in the state in which they were in is unacceptable considering that these cars are travelling half way across the country in bad order status. However, we are at a point at which the Government and its regulatory agencies have allowed the carriers to govern themselves, to find ways to avoid just such situations as the one I have cited. What we have to be cognizant of when we are discussing the legislation that we are discussing today is what we have to face in the future.
It states in the Minister's release: "-and where possible suggest ways to prevent recurrences". In the case which I have cited I hope and trust that that will not occur after an accident has happened. I certainly intend to pass this information on to the Minister. A situation such as this should be investigated. There should be a report so that those people who are servicing the trains know and feel confident that they are safe and that all the communities along the line from Prince George to Winnipeg can be assured of rail safety.
If there are Members in the House who have concerns in other locations of the country then it is our duty to bring them to the attention of the Minister at the earliest possible opportunity.
I have one other situation which I would like to raise with Members in order to give them an appreciation of just what we are facing in terms of rail safety. I have more information from the same Brotherhood of Railway Carmen. They have particular duties to inspect trains to ensure that they are safe. In the particular case which I would like to cite now a worker alleges that there is a problem in identifying roller bearing noise when a train is going through inspection. I have spoken with the worker and he is prepared to provide additional information to investigators. In this case the worker alleges that the crew that was inspecting the train suggested that there was a problem with these roller bearings, that it was not identified by supervisory personnel and that the train or car went out. In this particular case we are talking about a north-east coal train with which people from western Canada are familiar. The train proceeded and in fact ended up derailing.
These employees of the railway feel that there is a concern about the safety of equipment and its reliability which may lead to derailments that we all hope will not happen. In this particular case it was on the British

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
Columbia Railway again, a provincially regulated railway. It is of particular interest to us because the equipment is actually inspected by Canadian National Railway employees.
Let me get then to the legislation before us and before it goes to committee where there will be opportunity for people to air their views and, I hope, to call witnesses to look into this legislation. I hope there will be sufficient opportunity to research the area so that we end up with some good legislation.
One of the concerns we have is that while the legislation lays out in detail some of the membership requirements, as Hon. Members opposite have said, it is important that they be collectively knowledgeable about transportation issues. That is very important, Madam Speaker. But one of the issues I would like to raise is that there should be a section in the legislation, a direction to the Government to seek out all interested parties to see if they are interested in sitting on the board. I hope the Minister will attempt to include this.
One of the comments from my meeting on the weekend with the Railway Carmen is that nobody ever asks them. As the people who basically do that day-today work, through their organizations-perhaps a professional association or a union-they should have an opportunity to make comment and to sit in on the deliberations.
I would certainly encourage amendment to the legislation that gives direction to the Minister to seek some wide membership and to make sure all of the interested parties have an opportunity to participate in the discussion and the appointment of members.
I think a general concern of all Members should be that bodies such as the Transportation Accident Investigation Board be perceived as independent. I know it is often difficult for the Government to appear not to politically interfere. They have not had a particularly good record in that case. But in the future, I think boards like this that often have to review very tragic circumstances, should be above board and be given every opportunity to make comment. That is not going to necessarily be a part of the day-to-day goings on in this House, such as we see in Question Period, though ultimately it is this House's responsibility to deal with those issues. Let us keep it at arm's length. Let us keep it
professional, and offer an opportunity for all to have input.
Equal access should be given to all interested parties to the findings of any investigation. These interested parties should be clearly named by group, whether we are talking about a private company, union representatives, family members or accident victims. I think that is important.
I should say this Bill is long overdue because of the circumstances in our rail, air and water. I am not as familiar as many Members are about air transportation. However, having had to experience it in the last short while, I can certainly vouch that I have been commuting the hard way. It is not just the six hours to Prince George, B.C. It is sitting on those planes for what ended up last Friday to be a lot longer than that, spread over two days to get home. But we appreciate the work that the crews of these airlines and these railroads do to ensure that we, as travellers, can get home, not just Members of Parliament but Canadian travellers and our many visitors and to know that they are travelling in a safe and comfortable way.
The experience of the United States is a perfect example of some of the problems we may face in this country with deregulation. Undoubtedly, the additional airline traffic that we are seeing now at Pearson International Airport means that the Government and Transport Canada and boards like this will have to be ever vigilant to ensure that the proper regulations are followed and that when something does happen, this type of board is given the opportunity and the resources it needs to make a thorough investigation. I think our Transport critic from Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) made that point very clear. It is important that a body like this and the Government have the resources to carry out any of those necessary changes.
What is going to happen on Budget night? We do not know what the impact is going to be on this legislation. It may render this legislation useless. We hope that does not happen, but that could be the impact of the Budget of the Minister of Finance on April 27.
We hope that does not happen with a number of issues, be it in forestry or unemployment insurance or regional development. We do not want to see perhaps well-intentioned legislation, such as this, damaged by Government Members opposite voting it down by supporting a Budget that may gut the usefulness of this legislation and this board. I would like to hear assurances from the Minister that this will not happen and
April 17, 1989

that we will have the resources to ensure that proper investigations are carried out.
These kinds of boards are critical because they give that independence to the kinds of unfortunate accidents we have seen. I look forward to following the proceedings in the Transport Committee, although I am not a member of that committee. As you can see, Madam Speaker, from the representations made to me, the people who work in the transportation industry in my riding are concerned. It is opportunities like this and in correspondence with the Minister and department officials that we can raise the concerns of the people who work in the industry so that, hopefully, we will not need to have very many investigations under this board. I trust it will have a boring future and, if needed, the Government will give it the resources to be effective.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard).


Guy Ricard: Madam Speaker, I noticed in his speech that the Hon. Member made a reference to routine inspection on trains. If I understood correctly, he would like the Bill tabled in the House today to contain a chapter or section requiring railway companies to make routine inspections on trains, in addition to the inspections after an accident. Perhaps the Hon. Member would care to expand, since I am not quite sure what he meant in this respect.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, it would seem to me that regulations governing the routine inspection of trains is something that should be governed by the National Transportation Agency. After this, I intend to pass on the concerns that have been raised with me by the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen to the Minister. I am not going to wait for this particular legislation to go through before raising these concerns. I think it is the responsibility of the Minister and the National Transportation Agency to raise those issues with the railroad and with the people who work on the railroad. They should be raised as soon as possible.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I must congratulate my colleague from Prince
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. Gardiner) on a brilliant and intuitive speech on the matter of safety. I ask him to enlarge upon his comments and his hope that there will be a boring future for this particular organization. Would he comment in the light of the fact that most of the transportation safety problems in this country today result from the Government's policy of Public Service cut-backs-air traffic controllers, air worthiness inspectors- cut-backs at every level. Cut-backs in the Public Service are a major cause of public safety problems.
The second thing is budget cuts. There is no second runway at Vancouver. They propose closing down weather facilities. They are closing down flight service stations at Tofino. Instead of expanding to meet the rising passage of traffic, the rising number of aircraft, the Government is contracting its services or freezing them and creating an enormous dilemma.
Would he expand on how Government policy is working directly opposite to the safety of the travelling public?


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, my general comment still stands. I hope a body like this has a boring future and its members do not have a lot to do. Perhaps it will render the clause in the Bill that discusses remuneration as one of the smallest Budget items this Parliament will have to deal with in the future.
It is important that we look at the impact of cut-backs on air traffic controllers. I understand that two years ago departmental officials and others brought to the attention of the Government the concerns they had over transport safety and the problems that would result from all modes with the lack of regulatory authority to watch over what is happening in that field.
There is the example of the tragic VIA Rail accident in northern Alberta that led to an inquiry and produced further information about the need to investigate the problems that exist. I am not suggesting that anything specific happened, but I read the report on the VIA Rail accident and only suggest that it symbolizes the problem we have had with railway safety and safety in other areas. The cut-backs that we may face on April 27 from the Government could put us further in the hole as far as transportation safety is concerned in this country.

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board


Mr. Cote:: With respect to the financial conditions, I think resources have increased since 1984.


M. Cote:: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment.
I would like to go back to one of the Hon. Member's remarks he made earlier with respect to the independence of this Board, when he stressed the various problems involved in controlling the safety aspect and gave serveral examples.
It seems to me that the very purpose of the Bill before the House is to make the distinction in safety management between accident investigations and enforcement of safety regulations.
The Hon. Member is very critical of both compliance and enforcement where our safety regulations are concerned. I would like to ask the following question: In the present circumstances, how can we have strict compliance with and enforcement of safety regulations when we consider that at the present time, this Board is strictly unimodal and that investigation and enforcement may be a source of conflict of interest?
I will rephrase my question: How can he claim that safety regulations can be followed and enforced today, if the whole purpose of the Bill is to separate the two aspects as much as possible?


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I am not sure if I caught all of the Hon. Member's question but I will do my best to answer. First I will deal with having good people on the board to ensure that policies are followed. We should follow a practice that I hope is used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), that good, qualified people are appointed to these boards. They should be people who think independently and can be assured that when they are presented with advice and information from various departmental officials they can make an independent decisions about what they recommend. We hope that is what the Prime Minister does when he chooses members of his Cabinet. We trust that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) will do that when he considers appointees to this particular board. I hope he will be mindful of my comments about direction and ensuring a broad base of representation on the board. I hope he looks hard to find good people.
The Hon. Member asked how one applies the rules
and makes them work. That responsibility comes under the National Transportation Agency. I believe this body should review some of the authority that the National Transportation Agency has, just to see if the rules are carried out effectively on the ground.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in debate on Bill C-2, an Act to establish the Transportation Accident Investigation Board, and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof. Like the Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin), I too have been here before. Except, unlike the Hon. Member, I had an opportunity to take a leave of absence for four years from the House and observe the work of the Government and the workings and process of the House from the outside. That was good experience. -
I was actually pleased when the Government was elected in 1984, because it promised it would consult grassroot Canadians.


An Hon. Member:: We did.


Jesse Philip Flis: They say they did. I had the good fortune of being Vice-President of the Canadian Polish Congress for two years. The Government swamped us with requests for input, requests for input on the multicultural Bill, on immigration matters, on transportation matters. What the Government does not realize is that these organizations do not have paid researchers and advisers. They do not have professional writers. Weeks and months were spent responding to the Government's request for input. What was done with that information? Nothing. It wasted Canadians' time.
The Government said it was consulting us and wanted our input, but what did it do with it? It paid no attention to us. If it implemented one suggestion from all these Canadians, then Canadians would say the Government is legitimate. It had all of that input, as it does from Justice Sopinka and the Canadian Bar Association on this Bill, but not one of their recommendations have been implemented. It makes the whole democratic process a farce and the Government should resign now. The first one who should resign is the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard).
April 17, 1989

In November, 1983,1 was the Parliamentary Secretary to the then Minister of Transport whose duty it was to monitor Bill C-163, an Act to establish the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, through all of the parliamentary stages. The Act came into effect in October, 1984. There was much debate at the time about whether the Government of the day should be implementing a unimodal transportation investigation agency or a multimodal board. The consensus of the day was that we should establish a unimodal agency. Of course, the logical travel mode to begin with was aviation, since Justice Dubin's Inquiry on aviation safety made this recommendation. He recommended separating safety regulations from accident investigation and establishing an independent investigating body.
The three Parties agreed that we should begin with a unimodal agency and, when such a board proved to function well, we would move to a multimodal investigating board as recommended by Bill C-2. When one looks at the previous legislation, Bill C-163 and Bill C-2, one sees that in most articles they are identical. Therefore, the Official Opposition agrees with the intent of Bill C-2, as stated in Article 7(1): "To advance transportation safety".
However, the fly in the ointment is that the Canadian Aviation Safety Board is not functioning well, as was demonstrated in the investigation of the Gander crash. To this day, three years after the crash, Canadians do not know the cause of the crash. Five members of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board concluded that it was caused by icing on the wings. Four members suspected that there may have been an explosion on board which had nothing to do with the icing theory.
The Conservative Government demonstrated that it cannot manage a unimodal board. How can it manage a multimodal agency? Why did the Government not call a judicial inquiry to answer the questions raised in the minority report of the four members? Transport Canada, in a leaked document, also did not agree with the icing theory. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) flip-flopped in his assessment of the findings on the cause of the Gander crash. With so many unanswered questions, why is the Government rushing this Bill through the House on an urgent basis?
The other week, all three Parties expressed condo-
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
lences to the families of the victims of the Dryden crash. Had the icing recommendations of the CASB reached the appropriate people, maybe condolences would not have had to be expressed in the House. I see nothing in Bill C-2 that would guarantee that the recommendations of the TAIB will be received by the principal players and implemented where and when necessary. The public and the Public Service working in Transport Canada have lost confidence in the Minister and in the Government.
Less than a month ago, we saw the headlines dealing with this issue. I do not have time to quote all of them, but I would like to share with Hon. Members this headline from The Ottawa Citizen which reads: "Senior bureaucrat resigns over air crash controversy". The article reads: "Another senior Transport official, said Lafrance, quit because he had lost the confidence of the Minister and the Deputy Minister. Lafrance also recently told the Minister that the Department had issued special wing icing warnings to all commercial airlines in January. He later admitted his Department had not sent the warning to Air Ontario until mid-March, five days after one of its planes crashed and killed 24 people at Dryden, Ontario".
Now the Minister has appointed Mr. Justice Willard Estey to review the record of the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Gander crash. The reference given to Mr. Justice Estey was that he could call witnesses who were not heard from before and could call for evidence in addition to going through the existing testimony. I was disappointed when I heard that Mr. Justice Estey will only review the evidence on hand. If he does that, naturally he will come to the same conclusion that the Minister wants; that is, he will support the icing theory.
There were witnesses to incidents just prior to the crash who were not called in to testify. As an example, a truck driver saw a ball of fire under the plane. Will that lead us to suspect that the crash was caused by icing on the wings, or was there an explosion? Why is Mr. Justice Estey not calling this truck driver to give evidence about what he observed?
What is the Government trying to cover up? Were unsafe explosives on board, was it sabotage? The mother of the killed pilot wants to testify before the inquiry of Mr. Justice Estey. Now she cannot. Why not?

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
How can the Government have the gall to bring in a multimodal transportation Bill when it cannot tidy up its act in one mode of travel? Look at what is happening at Pearson International Airport. People are losing confidence in air travel and in the Government. There is a shortage of air traffic controllers. There is a shortage of inspectors.
Why is there a shortage of air traffic controllers? Not long ago, during my time as Parliamentary Secretary, almost entire classes of air traffic controllers were being failed. Then there was some intervention and the same people re-wrote the exams and passed them. My own son wanted to be an air traffic controller. He wrote the exams and passed them. Six years later, he is still waiting to be called in for an oral interview. That is how the Government is running transportation in Canada.
We have a Government that cannot respond quickly to oil spills caused by marine accidents. We have a Government that is abandoning sections of VIA Rail routes. This is causing low morale, and we know what low morale does. Low morale will lead to more accidents. There appears to be no Government commitment to an adequate, safe transportation system.
Our Party is recommending that we wait for Mr. Justice Estey's findings and then bring in Bill C-2. By forcing the Bill through now, the Minister is putting the caboose before the engine, or does the Minister have a hidden agenda in this Bill? Is he trying to eliminate the four dissenters from the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, four members who truly want to make air travel safer by obtaining the true cause of the Gander crash?
Looking at the expertise of the dissenting members, it is no wonder that Canadians and Americans are placing a great deal of importance on this minority report. Let us look at the qualifications of some of the members who submitted the minority report. Les Filotas has a Ph.D. in theoretical aeronautics. He is the most highly qualified Canadian in aeronautics. Captain Ross Stephenson is a Captain with Air Canada with over 30,000 hours of flying including 9,000 hours on the DC-8. If anyone would know whether to pursue the icing theory or the explosion theory, it would be Captain Ross Stephenson. Mr. Mussallem is an aeronautical engineer who also spent several years as a pilot with Wardair. With experts like that submitting a minority report, surely to goodness the Minister should have called a judicial inquiry right away. Now he wants to deal with a multimodal board. He should clean up his act in one mode first.
Let us look at Bill C-2. Clause 4 establishes a board to be known as the Transportation Accident Investigation Board consisting of not more than five full-time members appointed by Governor in Council. There are nine members investigating one mode and the Bill is recommending that a maximum of only five members shall explore all modes of travel. The Bill goes on to say that the Governor in Council shall appoint as members persons who, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, are collectively knowledgeable about air, marine, rail and commodity pipeline transportation. I challenge the Minister to find five people who are experts in all aspects of each mode.
Clause 5 of the Bill states that the Governor in Council should designate one member of the five to be chairman of the board. Here the Government is appointing five top-notch Canadians to this board and then telling them they are not competent enough to choose their own chairman, that the Minister will do it for them. Sure, the Minister will do it for them because then he will have the chairman in his pocket. That is the problem with the CASB. Mr. Justice Sopinka and the Canadian Bar Association challenged the Government on that clause of the Bill. Government Members are thanking everyone for input. Why do they not use some of that input?
Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill provide that such employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the work of the board shall be appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act. That is just a nice way of saying that again the Minister will have a hand in selecting staff.
Under the title directors of investigations and other investigators it states:
10(1) From among the employees appointed under subsection 9(1)
there shall be -
The Bill does not clarify who appoints these directors of investigations. Will the power lie with the director of education and the chairman, bypassing the wishes of the members? When members ask for more information or ask that certain parts of an accident should be investigated further, will the chairman and director of investigation say: "Sorry, there is no need for it"? That happened in the Gander crash. This is why we are asking why the Government is rushing the Bill through. What is the Minister's hidden agenda?
April 17, 1989

I would like to compliment the Government on parts of the Bill. For example, I am pleased that the Government built in a review process. Section 63(1) states:
The Governor in Council shall, in January 1994, appoint one or more persons to carry out a comprehensive review of the operation of this Act for the purpose of assessing its effect on the safety of air-
That is a good recommendation with which we agree. If the Government feels that a review process is important in 1994, does it not feel that there should have been a review process on the Canadian aviation safety Bill? That is why we are suggesting that we should wait for Justice Estey's report.
Before Bill C-163, the CASB Bill, was implemented we had the investigations and the knowledge of Justice Dubin. That is why it was a good Bill. There are many things in that Bill that have to be ironed out, studied, changed, or amended.
When the Minister gave a background to the release of the Bill, he stated: "the Bill tabled today is much improved as a result of these extensive consultations over the past year. The Bill also clarifies the confusion which has arisen over interpretation of the CASB Act with regard to the roles and responsibilities of the chairman, board members, and investigators." This Bill does not clarify that. The confusion is still there, and the confusion will continue to plague the new Board just as the CASB was plagued with this confusion.
As I mentioned in one of my questions, one of the biggest errors that the Government has made in bringing forward the Bill is that it did not accept the recommendations of the Canadian Bar Association and Justice Sopinka. In the document entitled "Review of John Sopinka's Recommendations to the Minister of Transport" and the submission of the Canadian Bar Association to Transport Canada, it states: "The Government's failure to adopt recommendations from two of the most respected sources of legal opinion in Canada opens an avenue to raise serious questions. Many controversial and contradicting events have taken place at the CASB in recent times. These need no elaboration. Why has the Government chosen not to adopt provisions that would have corrected these and gone a long way toward improving transportation safety standards in Canada?"
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
The Official Opposition agrees with the intent of the Bill. However, we do not agree with the hidden agenda of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard).


Ross Belsher: I have listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis). He makes much ado about the fact that all the recommendations from Justice Sopinka were not used. Nonetheless, a great many people were consulted about the legislation that we have before us today.
There was general recommendation made that it was good to separate the Board from the investigating arm itself so that the Board would function as a board to ask the correct questions of the investigators.
At the time Justice Sopinka was asked for his comments he was not a justice but a very highly respected lawyer. On Section 4 which provides for five members, Justice Sopinka stated that he agreed that the Board was too large. There should be at least one member from each mode of transportation so that at least one person with experience in each mode can be appointed.
For a five-member board the composition should be aviation, two; marine, one; railway, one; commodity pipeline, one; making a grand total of five. Therefore, it is false to give the impression today that we have not been listening to what Justice Sopinka has said. Certainly, all the recommendations of each individual person who reviewed the draft Bill were not followed. However, by and large the thrust of them were. I am glad to hear that both opposition Parties have at least said that the thrust of the Bill was in the right direction.


Jesse Philip Flis: I still stick to what I said about not accepting the recommendations of Justice Sopinka and the Canadian Bar Association. That was already in the Bill, and it was not a recommendation from Justice John Sopinka.
I would like to answer the Member with a rhetorical question. How can a board of five be operated when all that is needed for a quorum is two members? Again, this Board of five members will have the same problems as the board of nine members under the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.


Raymond John Skelly: I am pleased to see the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
Flis) back in the House after his sojourn. His contribution in a previous Parliament was notable.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member to respond to suggestions that the purview of the committee should be expanded somewhat. There is a definition in the aviation accident area that aircraft is too limited. There have been suggestions that sport parachuting should come under their purview. The ability to investigate accidents involving military aircraft doing aerobatic demonstrations in public areas, hang-gliders, and ultralights where there have been a number of deaths in Canada, is a regulatory vacuum area.
Would the Hon. Member like to comment on the example of sport parachuting where the government restraint program has wound up cutting the Canadian Sports Parachuting Organization out of the umbrella group? It has lost its funding and lost its technical adviser, making the sport somewhat more hazardous. Yet there is no over-all investigative body. How would the Hon. Member approach expanding that section to a little broader examination of safety questions?


Jesse Philip Flis: I thank the Hon. Member for those kind comments. That is why it is always a pleasure to return to places like this.
The comments of the Hon. Member agree with what I have stated. The Government does not appear to have a commitment to safety in transportation. What can a captain who has been flying nothing but jumbo jets know about gliders? That sector of sports and transportation should be represented.
Is it represented in this Bill? No, Madam Speaker, it is not. This is something that we should raise in committee. I hope the Government does not attempt to bulldoze this Bill through committee as quickly as it is attempting to force it through the House.
I stress that we should be waiting for the recommendations and comments of Justice Estey. We should consider representations such as those we have heard from my colleague in the New Democratic Party.
We agree with the intent of the Bill, to make transportation safer. Let us work together in committee. That is why I enjoyed the transportation committee; when we got Out of this place we sort of put aside our partisanship politics and we tried to work together to improve a Bill.
Some Members of the House will recall that the Canadian Aviation Safety Bill went through quite quickly, but there was that agreement too. Let us see if a unimodal board will work. If it does, let us expand it to involve all modes of transportation. Maybe the Bill is okay. Maybe the Canadian Aviation Safety Board is okay. Maybe the fault lies in the incompetent Government opposite.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have another question for the former Parliamentary Secretary who is knowledgeable in these areas. The problem is that the development of aviation safety is based on the Government responding to the recommendations of an accident investigation agency and the failure to do that because of cutting of personnel, cutting of budgets and basically almost leaving the private sector to handle many of these things.
I would like to make a suggestion that has been made to me, that the Transport Committee should immediately have the report of these agencies referred to it, that the Transport Committee should be monitoring the recommendations and the implementation of the recommendations, and that it should be required to present a report to the House of Commons on implementations of recommendations put forward by the safety agency.
How would the Hon. Member respond to that suggestion which has been brought forward on a couple of occasions, that monitoring must take place and a report to the House from one of its own agencies rather than the Public Service?


Jesse Philip Flis: I think if that were implemented, Madam Speaker, what it would avoid is what happened in the Dryden crash where Air Ontario got the recommendations five days after the crash. I think we need a better watch-dog on transport matters, and what better watchdog than the Transport Committee.


Raymond John Skelly: ment, rather than a subsidiary group of an enormously large department.
There has been the suggestion made that this multimodal approach is almost going in a direction counter to where it should be going, that the problems of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board should be resolved by legislation and changes, and that a unimodal approach should be continued and enhanced rather than amalgamating it all into a very narrow board where they would have to compete internally for resources in each area and then go forward to the Ministry and to the Government to compete for a much smaller piece of the pie.
Is he familiar with the fact that there is talk of breaking the FAA out in the United States into a separate agency and allowing in Canada almost a move in the opposite direction of trying to integrate aviation and the other forms of transportation together in a much smaller body where they would be much more limited?


Jesse Philip Flis: I thank the Hon. Member for the series of questions. I do not think that following trends that are happening across the border is always the correct direction to go. I think deregulation took place much faster in the United States than in Canada. We recommended deregulation. It was a limited regulation which we monitored to move slowly. Unfortunately, when this Government got in it just opened the doors and let the airline companies dictate regulations. This is why we have such a mess at Pearson and so on.
I think we are going in the right direction with a multimodal Board, but I think we have to make sure that we have more resources. I hope the Government does not think that it is going to try to operate a multimodal board with the same people resource and the same financial resources as they did for a unimodal board. I give the Minister at least that much credit for his thinking.
We can proceed in the direction we are going, but we should do it a little more slowly. I think we should wait for Justice Estey's recommendations. Maybe after we hear from him we may have to seek further information. Maybe we have to ask for a more in-depth inquiry such as the inquiry by Justice Dubin.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for North Island-Powell River.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting debate to this point in time. It certainly raises many questions in the House that
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
cause us all great concern. The whole question of safety in transportation is foremost on the minds of almost everybody in this country at the rate that we move here.
I am often surprised that highways are not the greatest national concern, considering the carnage and destruction on highways. Yet we as a national legislature pay very little attention to what causes the greatest number of deaths and injuries and destruction of property in this country. We spend an enormous amount of time on the others not without justification, but certainly it is always surprising.
I personally have misgivings about the Bill before us today. I think that by moving into a multimodal approach, especially with the experience that the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) referred to, there has not been great success with handling that approach and there is the suspicion that it is going to be there to submerge politically embarrassing issues rather than to serve the needs of safety.
Next, we should not lose sight that safety is a multifaceted thing, from the aviation point of view, the people who are involved in air regulation, air worthiness, personnel licensing, people involved in enforcement, air navigation, airports, all the way down the road. However, when something does go wrong in the system, the bottom line is the accident investigation group. They are the ones who take a look at the failure of the system, where it occurred. They examine it impartially, without finding blame but just to find out what went wrong, and then refer it back to those other safety agencies to rectify the situation.
Ultimately when there is an error in the system we cannot shy on the resources. When the Dubin commission started there was a profound belief that government was politically interfering with the results of aviation investigation, to the extent where it was suggested in this House, in committee, and in many other forums that the air administrator of the day was in fact rewriting the accident investigation reports when he did not like them, before submitting them to Parliament or to the public.
I think that day has changed considerably with the Canadian Aviation Safety Board and Justice Dubin's inquiry and recommendations, the attempt to give independence to that Board. Another about the Aviation Safety Board is that there really seems to be a severe problem of personalities in that the Board has not been able to take up the challenge and resolve the personality issues involved in it so that it can move forward over a couple of nasty accidents. We as legislators and Canadians should see it in the broader perspective that the

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
Board in its short growth period or period of adaptation in fact has done a good job over all.
It has handled hundreds if not thousands of cases without controversy, without problem. It has given good recommendations and in fact did the job. It certainly hit a major stumbling block with the Gander investigation. When it comes down to the bottom line we have to ask: Can it be expected to answer all the questions?
Out of the Gander investigation certainly procedural changes will follow. There may be new investigative techniques to create retrospectively a situation that will help us come forward with a solution. There were certainly security questions at the other end. Whether there was a bomb on that aircraft was not the issue, but certainly the security to stop the potential for it occurring was resolved.
Everyone involved in that Gander crash learned something about it. Indeed the Safety Board learned something about it as did those who investigated it. Unfortunately it probably means the end of that organization as a result.
There is a lot of concern about the name of the board. It should be called the transport safety board or something along that line to enhance the idea that the board is there to prevent accidents and to promote safety and that the bottom line accident investigation is about safety. The job is not only to investigate accidents. It is to investigate near misses and listen to suggetions that could in the future cause problems if not investigated.
We should be expanding the terms of reference of the Bill, particularly on the aviation side. Members of the Canadian Sport Parachute Association suggest that the Board should investigate parachute accidents because some of them have involved inferior, faulty equipment or not up-to-date equipment. The Board should be making recommendations so that operators are use up-to-date teaching techniques and the most advanced equipment to ensure safety in ultralights, hang-gliders or balloons. There is a whole host of things not strictly classed aircraft so we should have expansion of the Board's purview.
I come back to the parachute situation. The Government turfed the Canadian Sport Parachute Association out of the Fitness and Amateur Sport umbrella, cutting funding and, as I understand it, making sure that the organization could not continue to hire a technical advisor to make the sport safer. The direct result will be an unsafe situation with more fatalities.
I have mentioned the Transport Committee. There is a problem monitoring. If these boards continue to investigate accidents and make recommendations for implementation, who does the monitoring? The Minister through the Department of Transport authorizes monitoring. Information and implementation recommendations go to the Minister. If the Government is in a restraint mode, cutting personnel, resources and the budget, people will not hear about anything nor will they be able to raise the matter with the Government.
We should ensure that every report is referred to the Transport Committee to monitor the implementation of the recommendations. Thereafter the Transport Committee should be required to report to this House so that if the recommendations are not implemented there can at least be a public debate in a public forum about the lack of responsiveness toward it. Otherwise the whole system collapses. When there is an accident, the Board investigates and says the probability of having that accident occur again will be reduced by these changes. The Government says that they only happen once in a while and it is too expensive to implement so it will not do it right now, that no one can monitor that situation, but if the Transport Committee does it we would have a much safer situation. I urge the Committee to consider that suggestion.
Throughout the afternoon I have raised with a number of my colleagues in this House the problem of restraint being the major problem in transportation safety. On the one hand we have a conundrum which the Government has created by opening up access to promote transportation services through deregulation. There has been encouragement in the private sector to own and operate private aircraft. In centres like Toronto, and in Vancouver particularly, this expansion has created a nightmare because the Government has failed to put in the facilities required. Vancouver desperately needs a second runway. It needs air space reorganization. Vancouver is
April 17, 1989

about 20 to 40 controllers short, and Toronto is about 60 controllers short.
Toronto has had to modify procedures to make its runways safe because there are not enough controllers to do it. That is strictly restraint. The Government on the one hand asks everybody who wants to provide avaiation services to come in, and there has been a whole blossoming of new entrepreneurs in the aviation business. On the other hand the Government is not willing to provide the resources, namely air traffic controllers, air worthiness inspectors, maintenance people, adequate airport facilities, adequate navigation facilities, and adequate weather facilities. The Government is also talking about cutting a flight service station at Tofino. There is no other opportunity on the other side of the mountains on the west coast of Vancouver Island to get flight services, weather reports and some assistance if one is in difficulty. I urge the Government not to cut that service. Here is the great contradiction and it is time the Government woke up to it. If it is going to encourage a rapid, dramatic expansion in aviation as a result of deregulation, the Government must provide services and the resources to make sure the expansion is carried out safely.
This new multimodal Board is to be made up of five people. Many are saying the board membership is too small. I for one cannot see how a board that size can in any way give proper direction to four agencies-air, marine, rail and commodity pipelines. There are a number of aviation incidents, as I understand it, backlogged in the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. It does not have the resources to move them forward quickly enough to get the investigations done and the process out. We are looking at a far greater board with a potential for part-time members. When we talk about five people doing the task, it is impossible. Everything will be backlogged. If there is a single problem with a single accident and it is referred back, the whole system will be tied up.
There is also a problem with the Board in terms of competition for resources internally which could rip it to pieces, say the background of each of the board members, one from commodity pipeline, one from rail, marine, air and maybe the chairperson of the committee will double up with somebody else. It is a concern that
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
there will be disproportionate allocation of resources as louder voices get those resources. Fights will begin on the Board. There will be lack of agreements, and further personality breakdowns that we have seen with the present board. The Board should be bigger, and it should have the capacity to deal with reporting accident outcomes and recommendations in a timely way. With a board made up of five people there is a great deal of skepticism that this can take place. Is there a need to proceed right away on this issue?
The query by Mr. Justice Estey into the Gander accident will likely provide us with some excellent insights into the dilemmas faced by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. Once we have had an opportunity to look at that report, we will be in a better position to deal with this Bill. We have not had wide consultation on the Bill. The Bill has been changed. There are other people with lawyers looking at it who want to come forward with views. Since there is such a broad area of subject matter, we should move this Bill to committee now before giving approval in principle. We should allow the committee to take a look at the subject matter so that those who want to appear before the committee to make their points and proposals for changes to be made can do so.
If changes have to be made as a result of Mr. Justice Estey's report and as a result of the subject matter study, why can the Bill not then be brought back in, in a redrafted form, by the Government, given approval in principle, and moved quickly through to second reading? I agree with previous speakers that we should not be jamming this Bill through quickly.
Who will this committee report through? There was an indication in the speech of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard), and I do hope it is the case, that he will not be the Minister of the Crown responsible for it. We hope it will be the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) or some other relevant Minister who takes the responsibility of reporting this to the House of Commons. The Board can then have the true appearance of an arms length situation and we do not have the suspicions that Transport is once again dabbling in the internal workings of the transportation safety system or the transportation accident investigation system. It is critically important that whichever Minister of the Crown reports to the

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
House, it not be the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard).
At this point, I would like to draw my remarks to a close. I think that the name of the board should be changed to the Safety Board, since that is what we are trying to enhance. The Minister of Transport should not be the one responsible for reporting this Bill to the House. It should be someone else, such as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis). I think the Transport Committee should be charged with the responsibility of monitoring the implementation of those recommendations, not for just receiving the report but having the responsibility for making a report to Parliament annually concerning the implementation of those safety recommendations.
With respect to the restraint program, the Government has to get its act together. There cannot be on the one hand unbridled deregulation and, on the other, the cutting of personnel budgets and services. That will make the situation a worse nightmare than it already is.
I return to the situation at Toronto Airport, which is about 60 controllers short. In Vancouver the situation will not resolve itself until after 1990. There is also a desperate need for a parallel runway there. I believe this is the only airport in Canada where there is an intersecting runway situation. Two airplanes can be cleared to land on the same runway and should both overshoot then the contract they have signed not to encroach on other people's runways becomes void. Two airplanes will fly at each other because of something that may have occurred on a runway. It is an absolutely ludicrous situation and potentially very dangerous. The airport has to be upgraded. The airspace has to be reorganized to make it an operationally safe place. The main point is that it needs the human and physical resources to carry that out.


Guy Ricard: Madam Speaker, I would just like to comment on the reference by my Hon. friend to the number of members on the Board. He said that five members was not enough. But it says in subsection (2) that the Governor in Council shall appoint as members five persons who are collectively knowledgeable about air, marine, rail and commodity pipeline transportation.
Fortunately, not many transportation accidents in Canada require an investigation of that caliber. And I wonder what the Hon. Member means when he says we
don't have enough members. How many people would he like to see on this Board, since we have people who are specialists in each field?


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I am absolutely astounded by the Hon. Member's comment. First, there are thousands of accidents, incidents and occurrences. If someone does not investigate and draw a conclusion as to why they occur and then make recommendations for the situation to change we may find much larger and more serious accidents occurring. This board is not going to just look at accidents. I hope it will be looking at occurrences and incidents that have not become accidents.
As an example I refer to a near-miss between two jetliners. We must consider what created the situation. The potential is for 500 people to die if it reoccurs. We are not simply looking at accidents. Luckily, we do not have a large number of Ganders or Drydens. But we do have situations on almost a daily basis in cities like Vancouver and Toronto which, if they escalate, will have the potential for becoming major accidents. This is what I see the board becoming involved with.
I would see the number of members on the board being doubled. If we are looking at accidents or incidents involving rail, marine or air transportation, one good accident will likely take the single board member with the expertise in that area. What if we were to have something the same size as the oil spill at Valdez? That would be the end of our marine investigator for a good long time. What would then happen if there were another marine accident?
The point is, what if one of these people gets sick and the one with the key expertise is not able to be present throughout a major part of the investigation? Would the investigation be shelved? Would the person come back after the report is written and say: "You did this without my expertise. Therefore, I am not prepared to get on board and authenticate it"? An enormous great battle would occur afterward. So I say there are not enough people on the board. I think most people would like to see a larger number. Perhaps the number could be doubled to 10 so that there would be a back-up in the case of a large accident which would take a member of the board away. What will happen if a person gets ill or the backlog gets too heavy?
April 17, 1989


William D. (Bill) Casey: Madam Speaker, I have a few observations to make on the remarks of the Eton. Member. He mentioned restraint. He mentioned one member of the board not being available. But he failed to mention that there will be approximately 300 people employed by the board. There will not be just five people but 300. If one person is away I am sure it would not hurt the board too badly.
The Hon. Member urged the Government not to show restraint in this area. The Government will not be showing restraint in this area. There are approximately 300 people working in this field now and there will continue to be as many. There is no intent to decrease the number at all.
The Hon. Member brings up the too-fast, too-slow question. He says we are going too fast but we are going too stow all at the same time. I heard one Member say that we do not have good enough service and another saying we have too many airplanes in the air. It is a little confusing at times.
One thing that the Hon. Member did not mention is that we cannot stay with the status quo. Things are changing. Payloads are changing. Toxic wastes are changing. Volumes are changing. We cannot stay with the old legislation which addressed accidents in the old way. We have to have changes.
This Bill shows leadership. It provides for the necessary changes. There are no guarantees that it will be perfect. But in the legislation there is provision for the requirements to be reviewed after two years to see if they are operating properly. In January, 1995, there will be another review of operations under the Act. Those provisions are built into the Act, so I think it is quite safe.
The Hon. Member mentioned hang-gliders in his remarks. He feels they should come under transportation. That begs the question, should sailboards come under transportation, as well as bicycles and water slides? Perhaps the Hon. Member could answer those questions.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that the Hon. Member has chosen to trivialize the issue. People have been killed. This is a national problem. In my remarks I came back several times to the parachute association and the deliberate pushing by the Government of that association out from under the fitness and amateur sports umbrella. The immediate response of the association was that it had to let its technical adviser go. Concerning the number of deaths we have had in Canada, people have said to me that if the correct technical advice were there and some mechanism existed to ensure that the operators used
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
modern techniques and equipment, then many deaths would be unnecessary. Anything that the Hon. Member says to trivialize that is unacceptable to me. I am sure he did not mean that.
When I talked about restraint I was not talking about restraint on the Aviation Safety Board or the Accident Investigation Board. What I was talking about is a Government that is criminally negligent by cutting back in its hiring of air traffic controllers for three years in an environment in which it deregulated aviation. We now find ourselves in a terrible situation in many airports, particularly in Toronto and Vancouver.
Someone said that a professional pilot and his family were in the plane that crashed in Dryden. As soon as the plane started off the runway this pitot said: "Put your heads down. This plane is going to crash". I would tell the Government, if we have to took forward to the same kind of management that we had in air transportation and the cuts that occurred between 1985 and 1988 with air traffic controllers and failing to address the problem of the parallel runways at Vancouver, then members of the Government ought to put their heads down because this system will crash.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Debate. The Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Fontana).


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some opening comments with respect to Bill C-2, introduced by the Government some two weeks ago, an Act to establish the Transportation Accident Investigation Board. I listened with great interest this morning to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard). His words were, I believe, laudable and sincere. He sang a good tune, but upon review of this proposed Bill, I am not sure he is singing from the same song sheet.
The public has tost confidence in this Government, its boards and agencies, especially as it relates to safety in the air, rail and seas of this country. Safety, safety, safety is on the minds of a confused and troubled public. We on this side for the past four months have spoken about air safety on a daily basis. I would agree that safety is and should be a non-partisan issue. Therefore, I hope this Government will have the political will to put in place a law that will in fact speak to safety for a multimodal transportation network in this country, and how to prevent accidents from occurring. We hope it will be a positive and a pro-active approach as opposed to reactive one, one that speaks of prevention, not only investigation. Changing the name of a board and the members of a board without giving it a clear, independent, responsi-

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
ble and accountable mandate will not stop one accident from occurring. We need a board that will have the opportunity of reviewing and investigating all aspects of our transportation safety systems, not only to investigate tragedies after the fact.
Safety speaks to preventing tragedies from occurring. Madam Speaker, my colleagues on this side of the House have addressed other concerns, but I wish to address some concerns with respect to Clause 7. It says the object of the Board is to advance transportation safety. It says:
(a)	by conducting independent investigations and, if necessary, public inquiries into transportation occurrences in order to make findings as to their causes and contributing factors;
(b)	by reporting publicly on its investigations and public inquiries and on the findings in relation thereto;
(c)	by identifying safety deficiencies as evidenced by transportation occurrences;
Madam Speaker, you will note that all of the objects of this speak to advancing transportation safety after the fact. This afternoon, the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin) indicated a willingness for additional input before the Bill is enacted. The Minister of State for Transport indicated some positive input from various law societies and Chambers of Commerce. But what about the people on the front lines, the workers, the inspectors, the supervisors in our aviation, railroad and marine industries?
Madam Speaker, the most serious problems with the Canadian Aviation Safety Board Act have not been addressed in the new proposed Accident Investigation Act. Strong recommendations by the Canadian Bar Association and Justice John Sopinka, which would have gone a long way to correct these problems, have been rejected and not incorporated into this retread of Bill C-142 which was introduced in July of 1988. The dissension, conflict of interest, the lack of independence are simply being transplanted into this proposed new board. So much for public input. Both the chairman and the director of investigation seem to have too much power in respect to the board, a board of only five members that must be knowledgeable on all aspects of air, rail, marine and pipeline.
We on this side of the House are prepared to work with the Government, but this new multimodal investigation agency must be of the highest standard, employing top Canadian experts and independent of the Minister. The public will not settle for anything less.
In July, 1988, the then Minister of Transport said:
The National Transportation Act places safety at the top of our
objectives. The Government takes this commitment seriously.
Since then, Canadians have witnessed incident after incident in our aviation industry and on our railroads. We still have shortages of air traffic controllers, a shortage of inspectors for aircraft and railroad rolling stock. The Government must not wait for this Act to be passed before putting in place those actions necessary to restore public confidence and public safety. Let us hope that this new board means more to the Government than merely a new name, a new face with an old mandate. Let us hope we are not replacing the board with a transportation czar that merely wants four rubber stamps for the Minister. We on this side of the House are prepared to take on the challenge of really coming to grips with all the real problems if the Minister and the Government are willing to do so. Thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher).


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, in listening to the Hon. Member and also the Member that spoke before him, much has been made about the name of the Bill by the word "safety". Really, the reason the Minister has not chosen to put the word safety into the Bill is because it would give a different connotation as to what the Board is all about. The name Transportation Accident and Investigation Board reflects more precisely what the principal activity of the board is in its investigation of accidents. The use of the name safety, such as Transportation Safety Board, would give the impression that the Board's mandate is actually wider than it really is.
The main objective of the board is investigation of accidents, and it is to make recommendations to improve transportation safety in all modes. The responsibility for implementing the improved safety regulations lies with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard). It is he, not the board, who is responsible for the safety and the regulations that go into that.

April 17, 1989

So why the Member keeps harping about the word safety having to be in the name is really sending out the wrong message. We want a board that will review what the investigators are doing, to make sure they have asked the right questions to make the recommendations to the Minister as to what regulations should be improved.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: I am not sending the wrong message. In fact, I think the message that I and my Party are sending is that safety should come first.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: If the Hon. Member is suggesting that the Minister of Transport is ultimately going to be responsible for all safety action in the air, on the railroads and on the seas, then I think that is really asking too much of the Minister. I heard the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin) suggesting this afternoon that there has to be a separation between investigation and safety. I, and I believe our Party, do not agree with that position. I believe that prevention is where the Government should be going. This board should put its stock in prevention so that we can act before tragedies occur. Surely safety, prevention and investigation of those things that make a system unsafe should be something that this board should be looking into. I hope the board, and through the committees, we are able to develop a clear mandate so that the board can investigate accidents after the fact as opposed to being pro-active and looking at ways of preventing things from occurring because of bad safety practices of an agency or company.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond John Skelly: I would like to ask the Member to respond to a comment that says regional safety officers of Transport Canada should in fact be moved out of Transport Canada and placed under the auspices of this board in order to continue the arm's length relationship between safety and some of the enforcement practices of Transport Canada. There have been suggestions that the safety officers could be more effective if they were seen, not as enforcement officers, but officers responsible for education in the promotion of safety. There is a bit of jading of the response. I would ask the Hon. Member how he feels about that. Secondly,
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
when they are talking about the mandate of the board, it is to deal with aviation occurrences, which is designated as any accident or incident involved in the operation of an aircraft.
It is contemplated that the Board will look at incidents, not just accidents, that can be used to develop and improve safety. I would like the Hon. Member to comment on whether the regional safety officers should be placed under the auspices of the Transportation Safety Board rather than Transport Canada.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member who spoke before me talked about prevention. Obviously, his idea of the regional officers being responsible or associated in a preventative way could be considered by the committee. That is a positive point we would consider.
I want to make a comment to him with respect to occurrences being defined as incidents. Let us be clear. If that is the intention of the Government, that is exactly what it should spell out as a clear mandate. The last thing we need is another board that is confused by its mandate and what it can or cannot do. If it is possible for it to investigate possible incidents or things that are brought to their attention by a railroad worker or someone in the industry who finds something unsafe, then let us be clear in the legislation. Let us put it in.
I believe he was talking about prevention. I think the board has to be much more than essentially an investigative arm of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard). I think it has to be pro-active and look for prevention.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member would examine the legislation he would see what the scope of the board's mandate really is. The board may exercise its mandate for any of the modes we talked about. It is free to decide the extent of any investigation and how different investigations will be conducted. It can decide, for example, if a public hearing is to be held on an issue. It will set the rules of how the investigation should be held and what should be taken.
When it comes to carrying out the recommendations to see that they have been followed, that is the responsibility of the Minister himself. The board is the one that carries out the responsibilities. It has the mandate. That is what is in the legislation.

April 17, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
The board has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate the transportation occurrences for any of the modes involved, marine, air, railway and commodities transported by pipeline.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Madam Speaker, I look forward to the Hon. Member's work on the committee, to essentially spell out what in fact he has indicated. I do not see that in the Bill. Perhaps there is a way of clarifying the issue.
I am sure that all Parties in the House have one mission, which is obviously to make safety paramount in the air, on the rails, on the seas and especially with respect to pipelines. If there is a way of clarifying that mission, that he believes the board has, then I and our Party are prepared to support it. Let us clarify it so there are no questions afterwards about what this board can or cannot do.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Unfortunately, I cannot recognize the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Comuzzi) at this time. Resuming debate.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the legislation before us today is very important. We know there have been a lot of problems under the existing board. There has been concern with regard to political interference as well as controversy with regard to how the board is working in relation to the staff. I am concerned that this legislation will not resolve any of those problems.
We know that there must be a competent board that can study the situation. We have to know that the people who are appointed to the board are not appointed because they happen to represent a certain region of Canada but have no knowledge about transportation.
My hon. friend, the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), points out the fact that although they maybe Conservatives does not necessarily mean they are knowledgeable about transportation. Our former transport critic, the Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin), correctly pointed out earlier today that having someone on the board who admits that their only knowledge about air transport is having taken some flights, does not give much security to Canadians.
I come from a riding where people in a number of my communities have no choice but to travel by air. There are no roads or rail lines and air transportation is then-only means of getting in and out of the communities. We know that as a result of deregulation, problems with air transportation increase daily. For example, Canadian Airlines International was supposed to have started its new schedule in my riding on April 2. It admits that it could not implement the schedule on time and, for that matter, has told us it would like to put the new schedule in place for May 2, one month later.
However, it cannot tell me when the planes will be flying to and from my riding. Canadian Airlines International is one of our two major airlines, responsible for flights right across the nation, but it does not even know when it will be flying into communities only two weeks from now.
How can there be any sense of confidence in our airlines when they cannot even plan their schedules as a result of this new climate of deregulation?
Last week our transportation critic released a number of documents in the House of Commons which show that it was known that deregulation would result in the same problems the Americans have experienced. The documents released by my colleague, the Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), show that the industry and the department knew that safety would be threatened and that, as a result of trying to maintain their profits, maintenance would be an area where the airlines would cut back. That is happening now.
Canadians are very apprehensive about flying. They are very concerned about whether or not we have safety in the air. We hear about near misses at Pearson. We know that if you fly through Toronto you might as well add an extra hour or two to your day and perhaps miss your connecting flight.
We are in a situation where we know the Government has been cutting back. My community faces the same problem. It has been cutting back in renovations at airports and there are air strips maintained by the federal Government which have been unsafe for three or four years. The work has not been done.
A couple of years ago in my riding a PWA jet, as it was known then, could not land safely on the airstrip. That is what we are dealing with now.
April 17, 1989

I see it is six o'clock. If the Government calls this legislation for tomorrow, I will be glad to take my 18 and one-half minutes left to me at that time.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the Elouse under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, over the weekend most of the native students protesting against the Government's cut-back to native post-secondary education assistance ended their fast. The Government, more particularly the Minister responsible for Canada's Indian and Inuit people, can no longer put this matter off. It is time for the Government to stand up to its commitment of beginning a bilateral consultative process on the issue.
The Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux) has repeatedly said he is committed to a bilateral consultative process with native leaders. He also said that he is prepared to meet with whoever wishes to discuss the cut-backs and that he is prepared to review the program as soon as the hunger strike ends. It is now up to the Minister to make the first move and to invite native leaders and students to meetings which will begin that process.
It is now time for the Government to show some leadership. It is now time for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to negotiate in good faith with the Indian people of Canada on the Native Post-Secondary Education Assistance Program. This must be a priority for the Minister.
Post-secondary education for our native peoples is the key to self-determination and economic self-reliance. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Cabinet have repeatedly said that the country's future is dependent upon economic development. Does this Government have one opinion for non-native people and a different one for native people?
There are 46 native communities in my riding. Many of them have very active economic development projects in
Adjournment Debate
the works which will ensure economic self-reliance in the years to come. Jobs have been created for the people. Welfare pay-outs have decreased. Drug and alcohol abuse is also on the decrease. These results have largely been achieved by people who have been through the post-secondary education system and have returned to their communities with the skills and knowledge to carry out these projects.
By restricting the number of students under the Native Post-Secondary Education Assistance Program, by limiting the funding by capping it at $130 million, and by removing incentives for masters and doctorate degrees, the Government has gone at least 10 years back in time. The changes in this policy will restrict the development of Canada's First Nations and will condemn many of them to continuing dependency on the Government from birth until death. Under this Government, Canada's First Nations people will not achieve self-determination and economic self-reliance. The Government has, in essence, put an end to many young native peoples' futures.
The success stories of the Native Post-Secondary Education Assistance Program are many. Indian and Inuit lawyers, doctors, teachers and administrators, to name just a few, have come through the system. Those who choose not to return to their communities pay taxes to the Government. Canada's native peoples want to make a contribution to society. They do not want hand-outs. They do not want to be totally dependent on the Government.
The Government knows full well that this issue is a long-standing one. Since it first announced its intentions to review the Native Post-Secondary Education Assistance Program in 1987, native peoples have been asking for a full bilateral review. Why has the Government waited until things got out of hand? Why has the Government announced changes to a policy without consulting the people it will most affect? Why must our First Nations resort to hunger strikes to get their message across? It is because this Government and the Minister of Indian Affairs have not been listening to native people.
A bureaucracy, concerned with its own future, is dictating the policies of the Government when it comes to native people. When will the Government learn from its mistakes?
Finally, 10 students have demonstrated their good faith by ending their fast. I call on the Minister of Indian Affairs to demonstrate his good faith by living up to his commitment and beginning immediately a bilateral con-

April 17, 1989
Adjournment Debate
sultative process with the First Nations people of Canada on the issue of native post-secondary education.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, on April 14, 1989, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Nault), raised several concerns on which I wish to comment. The Government announced changes to the E-12 guidelines in May 1987 and indicated at that time that a process would begin to develop a new policy. An intensive consultation period began in July 1988 and concluded on December 31,1988. During this period, meetings were held with over 500 Indian groups and individuals. We received important and useful feedback which resulted in many changes to the draft which was circulated in 1988.
For example, up to 5 per cent of the students will be eligible for scholarships of $3,500 for successful study in a range of programs supporting self-government and economic development. As well, the new policy includes an annual scholarship of $1,000 based on academic achievement.
The Post-Secondary Education Assistance Program which the Government maintains for eligible Indian students is fair and generous. It provides assistance for a range of expenses which include tuition, living allowances, seasonal travel and books and supplies. Some 84 per cent of the students will obtain higher benefits under the new rates for living allowances.
Interest on the part of Indians in post-secondary education has increased steadily since 1964 when fewer than 170 Indians enrolled in university. The program budget reflects these increases. In a letter to the chiefs and councils of March 20, 1989, the Minister indicated that the budget for the program rose from $9 million in 1977-78 to close to $130 million in 1988-89.
The Government is committed to Indian post-secondary education. We have a generous student assistance program already in place. Should an Indian student's application be deferred, it would be given top priority the following year. In such a case, this student, like any other Canadian student, would have access to the Canada Student Loan Program to help offset expenses. In addition, if this student qualifies, there are provincially administered student loan programs and university and college scholarships and bursaries available. Access to a post-secondary education for eligible Indian students is therefore clearly not in question.
In conclusion, the Minister will be meeting in the near future with the chiefs and the students who have ceased their fasting in order to seek resolutions to the concerns raised.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-FUNDS REDIRECTED TO TRAINING-EXPENDITURE LOCATIONS-WHITE PAPER-REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I hope I receive a better answer to my question than the one that was just given to my hon. colleague from Kenora-Rainy River. It is interesting to note that very often Parliamentary Secretaries come into the House and give an answer without even listening to what the Hon. Member has said. They read out answers prepared by bureaucrats in the Departments.
On Friday, April 14,1 continued to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) questions with respect to changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act which she announced on Tuesday, April 11. On that date, the Minister announced that she was redirecting $1.3 billion from the unemployment insurance fund to other programs. In other words, she was taking money away from a fund contributed to by workers and employers to protect the workers who are put out of work against their will.
Of that money $450 million was redirected to improvements in the Unemployment Insurance Act and we do not have much complaint with that. These are improvements with respect to parental benefits, senior worker benefits, and benefits for persons involved in labour disputes. However, we do not give much credit to the Government for that because the courts of Canada have all ruled that those benefits must be covered. Even though the Government made appeals to higher courts to contest those rulings, it has now seen the light and is covering those things. That is good and we have no disagreement with that.
With respect to $850 million that is being redirected to such things as training, labour resource planning, consultation, apprenticeship and co-operative education, we feel that although these are all good things which should be financed and improved, they should not be financed with moneys from the unemployment insurance fund. This is a new use of unemployment insurance moneys and we object to the use of these funds for these purposes. This is a regressive and inequitable way of funding programs which benefit all Canadians.
April 17, 1989

The programs that are being funded out of the unemployment insurance moneys do not just benefit the unemployed, they benefit the economy in general. To use unemployment insurance moneys is unfair because it reduces the money available to people who are unemployed and will cover people who have not even paid into the fund.
For example, the program will cover apprenticeship programs, co-operative education programs and entry programs, all of which are excellent programs. However, why should workers who have been paying for years into a fund to cover themselves for unemployment pay for those programs?
This is where there is some misunderstanding. Right now, unemployment insurance moneys are used for training programs but in order to qualify for those training programs, one must be a claimant under the unemployment insurance program, a beneficiary of the unemployment insurance program. Under the new proposals, one would never have to have contributed at all but would still qualify for those programs. We say that these proposals are wrong because labour-intensive industries will subsidize high-tech industries and underdeveloped regions of the country will subsidize developed regions, unless it precisely states in the legislation, which is the question I asked on Friday, that those moneys for training must go to the provinces and the regions where workers paid into the funds and that is not left to the discretion of the Minister.
We also oppose the program because through their contributions workers in low-skilled service industries will be paying to train high-skilled workers.
We object to this program and we want to receive some answers. All last week we asked questions, and today we asked questions. We are not receiving any answers from the Minister with respect to these issues.
I also want to know from the parliamentary secretary why the Minister has now announced that she is going to launch herself on a tour of the country to sell these programs. When I asked her on Friday to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, in order that parliamentarians from all Parties can also consult with the people
Adjournment Debate
throughout the country, the Minister said: "No, wait for the legislation". The Minister is not waiting for the legislation. She is going to be out there using taxpayers' money selling this program to the people in the country. If we are to be fair about this, parliamentarians in the Standing Committee should also be out in the country consulting with the people in the regions who will be affected. I want to hear some answers from the Government.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member will be delighted to know that he is going to receive just as good an answer this time as he did the last time.
I welcome the opportunity to expand upon the reply given by the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) to the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) on April 14 last.
On April 11, the Minister tabled a policy paper outlining a major federal government initiative of labour force development and unemployment insurance program.
The highlights include proposals to increase assistance to employers for human resource planning, special help to displaced older workers, more job related training for young people, and more generous benefits for both new parents and workers aged 65 and over. These measures will be financed through a reallocation of resources in the UI program.
A particularly important feature of the strategy is the increased role which is accorded to employer and employee organizations in government decision making about labour force programs.
The objective of the Government is to mobilize a national effort and to challenge Canadian business, unions, provincial and territorial Governments, educators, interested groups, and individual Canadians to give priority to increasing the skills levels of Canadians and finding the best combination of policies, programs, and employment practices to ensure that all Canadians can achieve their potential.
I can assure the House that the combined resources of the UI program and the Canadian Jobs Strategy will be

April 17, 1989
Adjournment Debate
maintained and used more effectively to help the Canadian unemployed.
The views of Canadians on the new labour force programs will be sought, and their suggestions will influence the final design of these measures. The labour force development strategy is designed to achieve four goals: a substantial increase in the private sector's role in training workers and in ensuring that training is more responsive to current labour market needs; a realignment within the UI program so that more expenditures are directed to active training and re-employment measures for the unemployed; in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a significant improvement to UI benefits, to better respond to the needs of working parents and to encourage the full participation of those workers over 65; and a reduction of work disincentives that are currently in the UI program.
The Government intends to launch a major consultation effort in all parts of the country before implementing the new training programs. Our goal is to take the advice of those who have the greatest interest in the design of training programs, namely, Canadian employees and employers. This process will commence immediately and will continue for the next several months.
The size of the unemployment insurance program will not change, but the benefits available under UI will improve. More unemployed Canadians in all parts of Canada who need training to find good jobs will be able to use their UI benefits while they are on training.
I can assure the Elon. Member that the $800 million in redirected funds will improve the employment prospects of unemployed Canadians in each and every region of the country.


ENERGY-ENERGY ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS-TERMINATION OF POSITIONS-ALTERNATIVE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I cannot cover a lot of ground in a few minutes this evening, however I would like to pose some questions to the Government on energy conservation, alternative energy, and developing a more environmentally sustainable energy future.
There is no doubt that more Canadians than ever before are concerned about protecting the environment. They listened carefully when the Brundtland commission called for major changes to ensure that the environment and economic development are seen as two sides of the same coin. They have followed reports about the damage to the ozone layer, and they take note when scientists advocate sharp reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide to tackle the greenhouse effect.
The more visible and spectacular environmental disasters, such as the PCB fire in Quebec, and the recent oil spills off the west coast, have only reinforced the public's already deep-seated and justifiable concerns about the environment.
By contrast, it seems fair to say that Canada's Government has lagged far, far behind ordinary Canadians and is now scrambling to catch up with public opinion. There is still a huge gap between what the Government says and what it does. The Government's words indicate that it is aware that Canadians are concerned about the environment.
The Government supported the goal of sustainable economic development. The previous Minister of the Environment called for a "fundamental shift in attitudes and practices at all levels". The current Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) made a brave start by stating that his Department would conduct environmental audits of previously approved projects. The Government's recent Throne Speech spoke of "the environmental imperative", stating that we face "an environmental challenge of unprecedented magnitude" and must strike a "new environmental agenda".
It would seem that on the whole the Government is saying a lot of the right things. However, Canadians are sophisticated and they know that actions speak louder than words. They are interested in looking beyond words to examine what lies behind all the rhetoric.
What does lie behind the rhetoric? Let us look at the evidence from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, where a great deal of valuable work on conservation and energy alternatives has been done in the past. What one discovers is a distressing list of program cuts. What are these cuts? I will give a sample. A listing of others is available in a background paper that I have prepared for anyone who wants one. I would cheerfully hand over to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary a copy for himself and for the Minister.
What did the Government cut? CHIP helped three million families upgrade the thermal efficiency of their homes. It was terminated in 1986. The Canada Energy Audit Program provided help for low cost changes to conserve energy. It was ended in 1986. This Solar Energy
April 17, 1989

Demonstration Program to develop cost effective applications of active solar energy ended this year. The Remote Community Demonstration Program to provide energy saving advice and financial support to 370 remote communities ended two weeks ago on March 31. The Forest Industry Renewable Energy Program to encourage biomass energy facilities, similarly shut down on March 31. All of those programs and more are gone.
Spending on energy conservation and alternative energy programs declined from $400 million per year in 1980-1984, to $150 million per year in 1985-1987, to only $50 million per year today.
This leads to my first question: What conclusion can Canadians reasonably draw from these massive cuts and the Government's public announcements other than that this Government's main intention is not to tackle today's environmental problems in a meaningful way but rather to conduct a successful public relations exercise merely to try to give Canadians the impression that it takes environmental concerns seriously?
On a more positive note, let us look to the future. When it comes to protecting the environment hundreds of energy related initiatives, low-tech, cheap, easy and effective initiatives, are just crying out for attention. The way to start is clearly by conserving energy. For example, encouraging the use of compact fluorescent lights in the ceilings of public plazas reduces electricity costs by approximately $70 per year and can reduce the need to bum coal and the subsequent emissions of SO2 and CO2. High efficiency refrigerators can save approximately $30 per year in electricity charges and can cut coal consumption and consequent CO2 and SO2 emissions. R-2000 super energy efficient houses with heat recovery ventilators can cut heating bills in half. Promoting the use of the many alternative energy sources is another area for progress.
Examples include developing the ethanol fuel industry in Canada, using com, and barley. Other agricultural products and forestry by-products would complement our fossil fuel sources and would provide jobs and much needed economic development in rural areas from the Maritimes to the Pacific. A recent U.S. Congressional study shows that 10 per cent ethanol blended gasoline would also reduce CO2 emissions.
Another example is actively promoting wind power in Atlantic Canada and in southern Alberta, particularly where the wind streams off the mountains. This simply
Adjournment Debate
makes good sense. As a special House of Commons committed on alternative energy pointed out in 1980, the possibilities for alternative energy sources are huge- heat pumps, hydrogen, and photovoltaics. We need not wait in the hope that desk-top fusion will provide yet another technological fix. We should proceed, with vision and commitment to our environment, to make some of these possibilities a reality.
This brings me to my second question: What new programs has the Government formulated, or is now formulating, to replace the massive cuts this Government has made to the energy conservation and alternative energy programs in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?
Finally, since my time has all but expired: What plan of action has the Government devised to promote environmentally sustainable energy development in Canada? If no plan currently exists, what concrete steps have been taken to develop one in the near future?
I reminded the Government that Canadians are watching and waiting for substantive answers to these important questions and for action. They do not want even further evidence of inaction or confirmation of their suspicions that this Government is only trying to give the impression of caring about the future of our planet and that that suspicion is unfortunately correct.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, I would first like to welcome the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey) in his role as critic for the NDP. After his few comments, I imagine over the next period of time there will be quite a few evenings that we will be here together.
Given the recent round of publicity on this issue, I am pleased to be given the opportunity to clarify some of the misinformation that is being perpetrated by various reports. I would like to reiterate a point made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp) when he initially responded to the Hon. Member in the House in last week's Question Period on Thursday, that is, that these resource deductions are nothing new. They were announced back in 1985 in an Energy, Mines and Resources planning document entitled "A Multi-Year Operational Plan" which projected reducing resource requirements to the year 1991, given the Government's move away from the costly energy conservation and renewable energy programs announced under the for-

April 17, 1989
Adjournment Debate
mer Liberal Government's extravagant National Energy Program.
In September 1988 the Government announced the Energy Efficiency and Diversification Initiative Program in support of energy conservation, renewable energy, and alternative fuels for transportation.
The primary objectives of the EED are to enhance Canadian industrial competitiveness, physical environment, quality of life, and energy security throughout the promotion of efficiency and the energy consumption and diversification of energy sources and technology.
The EED is designed to address the kinds of energy and environment issues raised recently in the press and by various Members of the House. The EED initiative is clearly consistent with this Government's commitment to the environment. I make that very clear, Madam Speaker. It is an important energy policy initiative which we feel is a key part of the solution of these problems.
Unlike the programs under the former Liberal Government, EED is based on the principle of co-operation with the industry and the provinces. EED is not a rich giveaway program like that of the notorious National Energy Program. Instead, under the EED we are working closely with the industry and the provincial representatives to obtain a maximum leverage on the EED's
dollars. The emphasis under EED is on supporting research and development on energy efficiency and alternative energy and technology for the type that will be critical to dealing with the many environmental problems.
With the current EED which constitutes and focuses on the programs from the old regime there is no longer a need for as many employees to be involved in the administrative work and such matters. Instead, the EED ensures that Energy, Mines and Resources will retain a strong in-house technical capacity in the important areas of alternative energy which in turn will be an important part of the Government's many environmental initiatives.
This Government, this Minister, and every one of us in this House are concerned about the environment. In our Department we will ensure that environment is a very high priority.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 18, 1989