1989-04-18

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the annual report of the Department of Justice.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of constituents who are concerned that scientists in Canada have failed to develop a safe method for the disposal of radioactive waste. They are concerned that Canada's nuclear reactors are already storing significant amounts of spent nuclear fuels.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to establish a moratorium on the development of nuclear energy reactors.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition which points out the fact that 60 per cent of women aged 65 years and over live below the poverty line. The petitioners point out that one out of three women in the labour force has an opportunity to participate in private pension plans.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to introduce reforms to our public pension system which ensure that all women, whether or not they are in the paid labour force, receive pensions which allow them to live in dignity.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present to Parliament a petition signed by a variety of farm people from Saskatchewan, in particular Mr. Lowell Monkhouse of Regina.
The petitioners are asking that Parliament instruct the Government not to remove oats from the marketing jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, and to place oats and barley under the Canadian Wheat Board Act so that in the future Parliament, farmers and their organizations must be consulted before changes are made to the marketing of these products.
The petitioners are asking the Government to back off from its stated intention of removing oats from the Canadian Wheat Board.



Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition on behalf of the Farmers' Wives of my riding of Saint-Laurent who ask the federal Government to cancel the construction of two nuclear submarines costing $2 billion each and to invest these $4 billion in research to find cures for AIDS, cancer and cardiovascular diseases.

The same petition is being deposited on behalf of the Beth Ora Synagogue Seniors in my riding.

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Act


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


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: For the last two days, Mr. Speaker, I have been asking the Government when it will start answering Questions on the Order Paper. I have been told both times that it will be soon. I gave notice that I would want a definition of soon today.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I anticipated that my friend would ask this question. I looked up the word "soon" in the world-renowned Cooper dictionary. It says that soon is a block of time of indefinite dimension.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order this morning. When Members took their seats and opened up their books at their desks, Hansard was missing. There has been a problem today. I think most Members want to review Hansard before Parliament commences at eleven o'clock. I understand that was impossible to do today, and it has been difficult to do so on a number of occasions. I simply wanted to raise this because for us to do our work effectively and efficiently, it is important that we have a chance to look at Hansard. This makes it a little tough to look at it before eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to advise the Hon. Member that Hansard has just arrived, so he will get his copy. We will check to see if we can get it a little sooner for Hon. Members. We will try to expedite it sooner than eleven o'clock or 11.10 a.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 17, 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 the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Resuming debate. When we finished the Hon. Member had 14 minutes left in debate. The Hon. Member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock last night I was just finishing my introductory remarks on the legislation. I was pointing out our concern with the fact that this legislation really is not doing anything new. All the problems that we have had with the present Board looking into accidents and air safety will still exist under this legislation.
We still do not have any guarantees that the Board will be competent. We have had at least one political appointee in the past who indicated that the only thing she knew about air safety was the fact that she flew a lot. That is not going to inspire confidence in Canadians. We are concerned that this legislation does not require appointees to be competent and knowledgeable about a very important area.
We have read during recent months about the problems existing within the present Air Safety Board; the divisions, the fights between staff and the Board, the fact that there is a majority and a minority on the Board that cannot agree with each other. We now have a new piece of legislation setting up the Transportation Accident Investigation Board when we have not learned from the errors and problems that we had in the past.
Our critic, the Member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) said yesterday that we should have recognized that there is a problem with the existing Board and its structure. We have not done that. One of the things that is objectionable in this legislation is that this Board will not have an arms-length relationship with the
April 18, 1989

Minister. The legislation specifically requires that the Board report to the Minister with a confidential draft report. We are talking about air safety. We are talking about something that affects the lives and safety of Canadians.
There is no reason for the Minister to have a confidential draft report. The people of Canada have a right to know whether or not the planes are safe and why accidents occur. They have a right to know why people have died. We do not want the Minister to be interfering with the operation of this new Board. The report of this Board should be made directly to Parliament and to the people of Canada. There should be no political interference whatsoever with this Board.
That is one of the problems that we have had with the existing operation. We had people in the Minister's office interfering with the decisions that were made. We had the Board worried about the politics of what they were going to say in the reports. We had the division that we talked about earlier between the Board members and the staff.
Canadians are frightened about what is happening in the air. They are concerned with the fact that there are not enough inspectors, not enough air traffic controllers and they are concerned about the fact that anybody who tries to fly through Toronto knows that it is going to be a disaster. We have had a lot of accidents over the last couple of years. Yet we are not setting up a competent board that will be responsible to the people of Canada rather than the Minister.
This legislation is fundamentally flawed. It is good news that this legislation is being referred to the standing committee rather than the legislative committee because we believe that the people who served on the standing committee in the past know a lot about the problems that exist. They recognize the fact there have to be changes in this legislation.
I hope that when this Bill goes to committee there will be changes. I hope that the government members, many of whom are from ridings that are concerned about air safety, many of whom recognize that there are problems with the existing Board, take their responsibility very seriously, and not think that because they are government members they have to support the Minister. There are flaws. We are talking about an issue of safety. We are talking about making sure that our planes are safe, that people again have confidence with regard to flights, landings, air traffic control, icing problems, that they are
Transportation Accident Investigation Act
confident in what is going to happen. People are frightened now.
I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is here today. As a Parliamentary Secretary, he is not eligible to sit on the committee. However, I am sure he will be sitting in the wings and watching the progress in the committee. I hope that he will take a message back to the Minister and back to the Cabinet indicating that this legislation, as it stands, will not resolve the fears and concerns of Canadians.
There have to be amendments. As New Democrats, first of all, we want to make sure that there is removal of political interference that has existed with the CASB. We want to make sure that the members of the Board are chosen from a list of candidates proposed by interested parties, proposed by those people who have some knowledge and understanding with regard to air safety problems.
We are saying that is the approach that should be taken rather than having more political appointments, rather than having the President of the Conservative Association of Edmonton East, Edmonton West, Vancouver, Sault Ste Marie, Saskatoon, Clark's Crossing or whatever the rest of them are called. We do not want the presidents of Conservative associations any more. We want competent people on this Board. There are interested and concerned groups who are concerned about air safety who could put a list together of competent people. The Minister could pick from that list. That is an approach that should be used for a lot of boards, especially when we are talking about something as complicated as air safety.
Let us take the political appointments, the slush funds and everything else out of air safety to make sure that the Board will be competent. We indicated earlier that the Board should have an arm's length relationship with the Minister. We must no longer allow the Minister to receive a confidential draft report. People should feel confident that when the Transportation Accident Investigation Board has made its report, it was not a political decision, that the Board was competent and made its decision on the basis of its investigation, rather than on whether the Minister liked the draft report.
There are very important considerations that we believe must be addressed. We hope that at the committee stage, during clause by clause study, we are in a situation where government Members will accept those types of amendments.

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Act
We also want to ensure that access to the findings of the investigation is given to all interested parties. We do not want some closed door, behind the scene investigation. If there is an investigation into an accident, not only should the report be made public, but informational documents should be made available to those people concerned. That is the only way to have any faith that the investigation was thorough and it is the only way that people who are directly concerned with an accident will know what process the Board went through, what information was given to the Board and perhaps what information was not given to the Board.
It is ironic that many years after the tragedy at Gander we still do not know what happened. We do not know why the accident occurred. It is ironic that after all this time, a judge has been asked to look into the investigations that took place so many years ago. If we had the amendments we are talking about now, that would not be necessary because the report would be made not just for the benefit of the Minister but also for the public who would have access to the background documents. We believe this legislation could be improved by making sure that information is given to the public.
We also believe that the structure of the Board should include some constitutional autonomy from political interference. We believe that is necessary and what Canadians want after all the problems we have seen in the past.
We support the Bill in principle. We do not like certain aspects of the Bill. Our critic and former critic pointed out the areas where we believe there should be improvements. However, we believe the Bill is necessary and should not be stalled. We hope that at committee stage the Government will be willing to accept the amendments we outlined earlier.


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his knowledgeable comments. He is a northerner who very often uses small planes in the course of his duties. I think of the people in the rural areas, certainly on the islands along our coast and in the territories, who rely on small planes, often charter planes. What is his opinion of the safety record of these aircraft?
The dramatic accidents we have been so concerned about are connected with larger aircraft. However, we remember what happened in Alberta when Grant Notley and others were killed in an accident involving a small plane. Does he have any other ideas how safety can be enhanced for small aircraft in particular?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I thank our deputy whip for her question. It is a very good question and it gives me an opportunity to talk about some of the concerns we have with regard to small aircraft and the problems that exist not only in my riding but in other areas which should qualify for the northern tax benefit. Thanks to the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), who did not do a very good job in Cabinet for his constituency, they do not qualify.
We know from the first Dubin inquiry that there is a real problem with small planes and regional carriers. Safety is often a minor concern. Often planes are overloaded and maintenance is not kept up. I know from the tragedies that have taken place in my riding that there are too many deaths, too many accidents that could have been avoided had there been proper inspections to ensure that safety was not ignored because of the profit line.
I have flown in planes which I am not overly confident should have been in the air, and I have said so to people. I am also concerned that one of the areas that the Government has cut back over the years is fire-fighting service at airports. It has cut back in the services for smaller airports across the country, especially in remote areas. I know that our critic will expand upon that today, and point out that there is even more information coming out to indicate that the Government, in its desire to cut back the deficit is cutting more money from fire-fighting and those very essential services we need at our airports in Canada.
There is a problem relating directly to the question by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), where many of the small companies working in the North, the Vancouver Island area, northern Ontario, northern Saskatchewan and the interior of British Columbia are not being inspected. Quite often, safety is being threatened because those companies want to keep the planes in the air much too long. We also know that there is a real problem due to the Government cutting services to those airports throughout the country. Every time it cuts back one more fire-fighter, every time it cuts
April 18, 1989

back on a position and takes away an ambulance or fire truck, every time it refuses to spend money to renovate an airport or maintain an airstrip, people are being put at risk. That is one of the tragedies of the cut-backs being implemented by the Government.


Mr. Cole:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question with regard to the reporting mechanism. The Bill states:
- the Board shall, on a confidential basis, send a copy of the draft report or its findings and any safety deficiencies that it has identified to the Minister of Transport and to any other Minister or person who, in the opinion of the Board, has a direct interest in the findings of the Board,-
Is the Hon. Member suggesting that those people who have commented on this question and taken part in this investigative process should not be given the opportunity to see that their facts as they have related them have been reported correctly? Should people within the industry, the pilots and air traffic controllers who have witnessed incidents, not be given the same opportunity as any other person involved in the investigative process, including those in the ministry? I would suggest that union officials, pilots involved or other members of the industry should all receive the report as suggested in the Bill. They would then be able to make comments on it before it became public.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we have no problem with having those who are directly involved or concerned with an accident being informed. As Hon. Members probably heard me say, we believe that those documents should be made available to those people. Our concern is that for some reason, we are putting this in a category which creates political interference.
We understand that, as suggested by the Hon. Member, the pilots, union people and those involved in the investigation should have access to those reports and should perhaps help to amend the reports where necessary. However, that same argument cannot be made for the Minister's office. That is the same problem we have had in the past. We do not want political interference in what should be a quasi-judicial system.
I have served as a vice-chairman of the Manitoba Police Commission. I know how important it is for these bodies to have complete independence from political interference. That is why I believe this legislation is
Transportation Accident Investigation Act
flawed. I know that as soon as a board has to report to a Minister, before it puts its final report out, the focus of the board will no longer be on the accident and the investigation of that accident. It will become a political concern because it is reporting to a political master. That creates a real problem and I have seen it before in my own life.
We have to make absolutely sure that this Board is separate from the Minister. One problem with reporting to the Minister before the report is made final is that quite often, it is the Minister's Department that is at fault. Perhaps there were not enough officials involved, no one checked into something or there were inadequate services provided. We are talking not only about a Minister who is responsible for air safety but about someone who, through his Department, may be the offender, the one who may be the guilty party, the person who is actually responsible for the accident. For the Board to have to give a confidential draft copy of the report to the Minister beforehand takes away any semblance of a quasi-judicial system. It puts political interference exactly where it should not be.
We know that many of the accidents have occurred because the Department was not up to snuff. We know that some of those accidents have occurred because the Department was not doing its job. We know that some of those accidents have occurred because of cut-backs in the Minister's Department. How can we possibly trust that Department to police itself? The Board is supposed to be independent. Let us keep it that way.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us today Bill C-2 which represents an essential building block in Canada's regime for maintaining and improving the safety of our transportation system. The Bill is based on a most important principle which is that the accident investigation should be done separately from the writing and enforcing of safety regulations. Both functions are crucial if we are to have a safe transportation system.
Writing effective safety standards and regulations requires predicting what might go wrong and how best to prevent it from happening. Enforcing those standards involves monitoring of the safety procedures of transportation companies and, through independent inspectors, requires knowledge of the standards and how they can be implemented effectively.

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Act
Accident investigation, on the other hand, is a rather different story. Obviously, if an accident occurred, something went wrong. If an incident occurred, something almost went wrong. The job of accident investigation, then, requires identifying what went wrong and drawing lessons for the future.
What went wrong can involve a wide variety of things. Sometimes humans make mistakes and sometimes equipment fails. My key point, however, is that sometimes what went wrong is the result of improperly written regulations or improper enforcement of those regulations.
Can we expect those who write and enforce regulations to conclude from an accident that they blew it, that the regulations they wrote are wrong or at least inefficient or that they did not enforce them properly? In such situations, some will of course rise to the occasion and admit mistakes. However, human nature being as it is, there is a clear potential at least for conflict of interest when the regulators of safety are also accident investigators.
This potential conflict of interest has been recognized by independent studies. The Dubin inquiry in the early 1980s pointed to the problem in the air mode. This led to the Canadian Aviation Safety Board Act passed in 1983.
The Deschenes study on marine casualty investigation recommended separation of the two functions in the marine mode. The Department responded by making the separation within the Department through administrative action, but a complete separation depends on passage and implementation of Bill C-2.
In the rail sector, the former Canadian Transport Commission and more recently the National Transportation Agency have been responsible for both safety regulation and accident investigation. However, with the implementation of the new Railway Safety Act this year, the job of regulating rail safety has become a direct responsibility of the Minister of Transport and his Department. The rail accident investigators remain with the agency pending creation of the Transportation Accident Investigation Board.
To conclude this chapter, Bill C-2 will separate the two key duties of safety regulation and accident investigation in the rail and marine modes as well as in air. This will remove the potential conflict of interest which exists when the same body is responsible for both.
This aspect of the Bill will also help ensure the independence of the Board. In arguing that the Board will not be independent, as the Hon. Member who spoke previously did, Members on the other side seem to have missed this. Other aspects which contribute to the independence of the Board which they may have missed include, for example, first, a broad mandate to investigate any accident, any incident or near accident or any situation which may endanger safety. There are no limits on the Board's independence to interpret this wide-open mandate. The Bill clearly places responsibility with the Board to set policies on what transportation occurrences will be investigated and how the investigations will be conducted.
Second, the Board has exclusive jurisdiction to make findings regarding the cause of accidents and to make recommendations to prevent similar accidents in the future. Third, the Board can decide whether or not to hold a public inquiry into transportation occurrences. Fourth, although the Board reports to Parliament through a designated Minister, the duties of the Minister responsible for the Board are limited to tabling the annual report and the report of the annual audit.
Having said that the responsibility for safety regulation and accident investigation should be separate, however, let me also say that the two must be complementary. They cannot function totally in separate spheres. When something goes wrong and an accident occurs, the regulators must be in a position to take immediate remedial action if necessary or to impose sanctions if appropriate. Therefore, there must be co-ordination and co-operation between the Accident Investigation Board and the safety regulators in Transport Canada. Bill C-2 provides mechanisms for this necessary co-operation and co-ordination.
Clause 14 of the Bill is so worded as to make the TAIB the only federal agency designated to make findings and report on the causes and contributing factors with respect to any transportation accident, and to make recommendations based thereon to improve safety.
If more than one federal agency had the mandate to investigate any given transportation accident to determine and report on its cause, there could be several reports with perhaps varying conclusions with respect to the same accident. This could cause confusion and lack of public confidence in the findings of any of the agencies involved.
April 18, 1989

As mentioned at the outset, this is not to say that other agencies are not interested in or have no role to play with respect to any such transportation accident. It is well recognized that the Department of Transport, as well as others, must also be able to obtain whatever information about the accident is necessary to carry out their responsibilities for safety regulation, and for disciplinary or remedial action.
In order to make clear that transportation safety regulators and others are not prevented from investigating any transportation occurrence for their purposes, subclauses 14(4) and (5) have been included in the Bill. These subclauses permit the Department of Transport's Coast Guard, for example, to investigate for marine safety regulation or enforcement connected with its responsibility under the Canada Shipping Act.
There are many other clauses in the Bill which are designed to ensure co-operation and smooth co-ordination of the Board's activities with those of other federal agencies. The most important of those clauses are as follows. Clause 15(1) states, in part:
Where, at any time during an investigation into a transportation occurrence under this Act, a Department -investigates that transportation occurrence or undertakes remedial measures-the Board and the Department shall-ensure that their activities with respect to that transportation occurrence are co-ordinated.
This clause specifically requires both the TAIB and the Department concerned to co-ordinate their activities.
The interests served by good regulation and appropriate remedial measures requires that accident investigation be carried out in an efficient and effective manner, and that the various activities with respect to a transportation accident are carried out with the minimum of overlap and confusion.
Clause 23 provides that:
- a person may attend as an observer at an investigation of a transportation occurrence conducted by the Board if the person
(a)	is designated as an observer by the Minister of Transport in order to obtain timely information relevant to the responsibilities of that Minister;
(b)	is designated as an observer by the Minister responsible for a department having a direct interest in the subject- matter of the investigation;
Transportation Accident Investigation Act
Clause 24(5) requires that the Board shall during its investigation notify forthwith in writing the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) of any of its findings and recommendations, whether interim or final, that require urgent action.
I expect that with this set of specific requirements and with the efforts of the new Board and the other agencies involved, a high degree of co-operation and co-ordination with respect to the investigation of transportation accidents can be achieved.
Thinking back to the debate yesterday, I recall that the opposition speakers continually referred to the recommendations of Mr. Justice Sopinka and questioned why the legislation did not follow his recommendations.
I would like to state again that Mr. Justice Sopinka was one of many parties consulted in the development of the final Bill. His recommendations were carefully considered and many were accepted. For example, the Bill makes much clearer the respective roles of the board members, the chairman, the Directors of Investigations and the investigators. It clarifies that although the Board is not investigating to find fault, it should not refrain from fully reporting on cause merely because fault may be inferred from the findings. It confirms the importance of the Minister of Transport having an observer at an investigation. It provides for a five-member Board, and it enables investigators to testify by affidavit. Those were all recommendations made by Mr. Justice Sopinka.
Where the Government differs from Mr. Justice Sopinka is in the approach taken in assigning the respective responsibilities. I believe that the Bill contains the best solution, given all of the extensive consultations. For example, Mr. Justice Sopinka would have made the chairman responsible for the administration of the Board, but given him only whatever powers and duties the Board chose to delegate to him. That approach works well in the private sector where profit is the bottom line, and where shareholders can replace board members at any time. It is not well suited to an independent government agency accountable to Parliament for its mandate, for spending of taxpayers' dollars, and for respecting the merit principle in staffing.
The Bill gives the chairman, as the chief executive officer, the usual powers of a deputy head of a Department under the Financial Administration Act. These include responsibility for personnel, financial and property matters, and generally all other aspects of the internal management of the Board.

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Act
The Bill makes equally clear that it is the board members who set policies, by-laws, and regulations for conducting the Board's business, and the chairman must act in accordance with these.
Mr. Justice Sopinka also felt that the board members should have more direct control over the investigators, and more direct involvement in investigations. Other interested parties, however, have argued that the separation between the professional investigators and board members appointed by the Government should be maintained as it was meant to be in the CASB Act.
In response, the Bill does two things. It gives the Directors of Investigations exclusive authority to conduct investigations and submit their reports to the board members. The board members, however, are given the explicit power to make policies on the conduct of the investigations; policies which the investigators must follow. As well, when the investigators report, the Board may ask them to conduct further investigation with respect to any aspect of the accident, and the investigators are obliged to do that further investigation.
In sum, Mr. Speaker, a number of Mr. Justice Sopin-ka's recommendations were accepted outright. The intent of some others was accepted but achieved in a different way, taking into account the views of others, particularly those in the industry who actually operate the transportation system.
Finally, I would like to address the question of timing. We have been accused of going too fast. "Wait for another year or two", members of the Opposition have stated. The improvements to accident investigation which this Bill will bring should not wait any longer. In addition, as the Minister of Transport has said, and as the Opposition has agreed, the Canadian people's confidence in the existing Aviation Safety Board has been compromised. The new Board to be created by the Bill will restore that confidence.
Under this Bill, Canadians can look forward with confidence to having an effective, credible Transportation Accident Investigation Board which will contribute to making our transportation system even safer in the future. I hope that it will receive due consideration and be passed as soon as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On questions or comments, the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. McCreath).


Mr. McCreath:: I would like to compliment the Hon. Member on his speech. I certainly found it very helpful in understanding this complex but important piece of legislation. I would like to ask a fairly general question.
Tragically, we have seen some serious air crashes in recent years either in Canada, or accidents that have involved Canadians. There have been investigations conducted or are under way with respect to the recent crash in northwestern Ontario, and also the crash two or three years ago in Gander, Newfoundland.
Over the past years, a number of people of Indo-Ca-nadian origin have approached me about the tragic Air-India crash that took place nearly four years ago. It was a foreign carrier. It did not crash on Canadian soil, but it did originate in Canada and carried a large number of Canadians who were tragically killed. I wonder if the Hon. Member would tell me, under this new system that will be put in place with this Bill, how a crash that takes place on foreign soil might be handled differently than has been the case under the previous arrangements.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher).


Ross Belsher: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Hon. Member for his question. This investigating Board that we are talking about under Bill C-2 is a Board which is to set the policies of how the investigators should investigate accidents. I think what is happening in the debate that has been taking place yesterday and this morning is that people are calling them the investigators.
This is a Board which sets the policy and should act as a Board to make sure that the regulations that we have in place in Canada for transportation safety, whether it be marine, rail or aviation, are the right regulations, and when an accident occurs to check out and follow-up on what the investigators have found. They should evaluate whether or not they are satisfied that the conclusions that the investigators have arrived at are actually based on the facts which lead them to feel that action should be taken and changes should be made to the regulations. Their mandate also states that when they send recommendations forward that require action, the Minister must act upon those within 90 days or give written reasons if the Minister is not willing to accept the recommendations that they have found. These are all made public so the public have a chance of seeing that.
April 18, 1989

There is also one other aspect that the Board has been given in this Bill, and that is where they deem it necessary to have a public inquiry carried out they may so designate an accident to take the form of a public inquiry. The Board is not constrained in its activities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Langlois).


Mr. Langlois:: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Belsher) and is in two parts. Could he tell us why the directors of investigations have exclusive authority to direct investigations on behalf of the Board? Could he also tell us whether the members of the Board can themselves conduct investigations?


Ross Belsher: This is something that we try to spell out in this Bill clearly, that they are not the investigators. I believe this is where some of the confusion has happened with CASB people, namely, that they wanted to get involved with the investigation itself. The investigators are the professional staff that are in the Department who carry out the investigation. It is the Board's responsibility to evaluate the investigation and to also go back and send them to do further investigation. In this Bill they may order the investigators to carry out further work on that. I can compare it to a university or a community college, the Board is not the chief executive, not the administration of it. The Board has helped to set the policy, and then requires the people who carry it out to fulfil their function. This is where this Bill clearly sets out the differences. They are not the investigators, but they are the ones who oversee the investigators, and set the policies which the investigators should follow.


Mr. Comuzzi:: Mr. Speaker, my question is to my hon. friend. We all know that the three major issues in this new legislation, if it is going to work in contrast to the Canadian Aviation Safety Board legislation, are the independence of the Board; the composition of that Board; and the duties of the chairman. Once we establish that we have those three things under control, this legislation can be functional or the Canadian Aviation Safety Board legislation can also be functional.
Transportation Accident Investigation Act
What I want to ask the Member is, what are we going to get today from this Government to ensure that the composition of the Board will be one of complete independence. That there will be no political overtones in the membership. That if this legislation should pass that only those members who are completely qualified to act in this very responsible position will be the very best people whom we can find in this country, regardless of political affiliation. That is question number one.
Question number two would be the appointment, and perhaps the question of independence. The appointment of the chairman should be made, and I would like your comments, by the Board after the Board is selected. As I said yesterday, and the Minister of State replied, the duties of the chairperson on this new Board would be so onerous that perhaps the duties of that chairperson should be split, so that we have a chief executive officer who should be appointed by the Board. That is the third question. If you agree with that, the chief executive officer should be appointed by the Board and report to the Board through its chairman.
Those are the three questions and I think if we could answer those, it would give us a lot more assurance in going into the committee as to where we are going to go with this Bill C-2.


Ross Belsher: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will deal with the last question first, and that is the appointment of the chairman. The chairman must be a very highly skilled person so that he can give direction to the chief executive officer. That individual will not be so skilled as to have the oversight, the wherewithal, the knowledge of aviation as such, or of rail of marine situations. It is an administrative role. However, the composition of each of the other members, as I think was suggested in Mr. Sopinka's report, is that in a five-person board that it be relegated on the basis of the chairman, two from the aviation side, and one from each of the marine and the rail side, so that there is a co-ordinated blending of the skills that the people have.
Furthermore, we passed legislation some two to two and a half years ago that gave the right to a standing committee to call before it any Order in Council appointments. I can see a role that the standing committee could possibly follow in something like that, so that when the reports come through, the committee could make rec-

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Act
ommendations back to the Minister for the composition of the Board and the competence that is there.


Mr. Butland:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question. I excerpted a few words from the hon. gentleman's speech, and he spoke of human mistakes and equipment failure. I would like to point out a couple of facts in air safety that I do not think have been divulged in the past few days of debate. One of them is the Government's radar modernization program. I am told by reliable sources that in the case of American-Cana-dian skies the Canadian software is not compatible with the American aircraft, causing a great deal of extra concern with regard to air safety.
Second, with regard to the reclassification of northern airports across this country, the difference of two feet, on the old measurement scale, can result in a decrease of five firefighters in my particular constituency. I believe it is the same for 16 other airports across the northern part of Canada. My question is very specific. The principle of the Board, I think our Party agrees with, but will the Member not accept the fact that the present government policies of cut-backs exacerbates the problem. That is the real problem rather than the creation of the safety Board.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not accept the fact that it is because of government action that we are less safe. There have been additional moneys put into the transportation industry over the last years. The Opposition asks the Canadian public to believe that we have cut back in numbers. When it comes to controllers, we have not been able to bring on enough new ones. It takes two years to bring them on stream. Over the last several months action has been taken to get faster relief. The industry has grown faster than what the system was able to take. I certainly do not buy the premise he has been putting forward to Canadian people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allotted for questions and comments has now terminated. Is the House ready for the question?
The Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are not quite ready for the question yet. There are a few more remarks that ought to be made.
It is a pleasure to rise to say a few words regarding Bill C-2, an Act to establish the Transportation Accident Investigation Board and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof. Basically, we are examining a Bill that would give the authority to investigate accidents.
It is interesting to note that this Bill was introduced about nine months ago, at which time the Minister stated that because of the National Transportation Act the Government places safety at the top of its list of objectives. That was a comment made by the Minister. It is one I think we all appreciate hearing. A great deal has transpired in the last nine months. Hardly a week goes by when we do not see images on the late night news of chunks of planes falling off, or wings falling off, or planes crashing into trees, or all sorts of marine disasters.
One gets the impression that safety in terms of transportation has not been a terribly high priority of the Government. I do not have to even mention the whole matter of the shortage of air traffic controllers at our Canadian airports. I appreciate the straightforward comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Belsher) who agrees that indeed there has been a serious problem in terms of air traffic controllers and the inadequate number of people to fill those positions. However, the Government has now recognized that some special steps have to be taken. He did not mention the chronic shortage of inspectors for large commercial aircraft. Those of us who fly a good deal get on aircraft now on a daily or weekly basis feeling somewhat less secure than we did some years back knowing that some problems exist, to say nothing of the controversy concerning the Gander crash.
I notice that when Mr. Justice Sopinka was looking into the way the Canadian Aviation Safety Board handled that operation he created a very abysmal picture of competency. He indicated that he has observed serious problems with the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, including a breakdown in the day-to-day operations, divisions between members and the chairman, division between members and the accident investigators, and dissension among members. Specifically, he stated that the main problem, generally stated, is that the Canadian Aviation Safety Board is not operating as a cohesive unit in pursuance of its objective to identify safety deficien-
April 18, 1989

cies and make recommendations to remedy them. Rather it has become fractious to the extent that some of its members have been in open conflict with the chairman. There is a rift between members and the accident investigators who view themselves as being independent of board members.
I emphasize the Canadian Aviation Safety Board for two reasons. First, I realize that this is past history now as we move into consideration of this Bill but that it is legislation that the Liberals introduced. It is interesting to hear the views of members of the Liberal Party, particularly the new Members who have been saying that this is the past and it has been horrific. They must be reminded that it was their Party who introduced this process. I feel that we have to accept some responsibility for the ill deeds of the past.
I think that it is safe to say that this Bill really re-creates the Canadian Aviation Safety Board legislation under a new Act. We welcome that new Act. However, I wonder about the wisdom of the timing. We have much to do in this session of Parliament. We also have to remember that two very important investigations are going on today, one into the Diyden crash and the other into the Gander crash. I suspect that out of those investigations will come important recommendations that will be germane to the analysis of this legislation. It may be in the best interests of Parliament to wait until we have preliminary reports from those investigations to see what recommendations they will be making.
We are pleased that we are dealing with this legislation. We were very enthusiastic about the legislation being directed to the Standing Committee on Transport as opposed to following the traditional route and being sent to a legislative committee. We were happy because we recognized the tremendous level of expertise of the members of the Standing Committee on Transport.
As we speak there are at least 1,200 investigations that have been completed or have yet to be dealt with. There are now 1,200 independent investigations sitting out there in limbo. This means that there is some interest in moving expeditiously over the next number of weeks to have the Transportation Accident Investigation Board in place. Goodness knows we cannot continue in this rather ad hoc way in which we have been going over the last number of years.
Transportation Accident Investigation Act
It is important to recognize that this legislation comes after the fact. It will not do anything in the short term to improve the whole matter of air, rail and water safety. It is a process that will determine what went wrong, where the responsibilities lie, what the problems were and so on. At best it looks forward to recommendations to avoid problems in the future.
I would be remiss if I did not make at least one critical comment of the Government in terms of this legislation. That is to say that when we look carefully at why we are facing many of the problems we see in terms of aviation, marine and rail safety, to say nothing of moving commodities through our pipelines, it is because of the deregulation mindset that the Government has perpetuated and imposed on Canadians for many, many years now. I refer to the idea of turning over these critically important sectors of our economy to deregulation , particularly important because we are dealing with the second largest country in the world geographically. Transportation is critical in that light. We have seen the effects of the deregulation of the industry in the United States which had a jump on us as a result of the Reagan administration. The results have been abysmal. The number of accidents has increased. Safety has been jeopardized. That is just a fact of life.
There are countless examples to demonstrate that. Yet the Government blindly fell in line with the Reagan initiative and has now accomplished the same thing. We are now seeing the results. We are now seeing a less safe environment. We are seeing the benefits of deregulation when we fly through the Toronto airport and sit on the tarmac for two or three hours waiting for a turn to get into the air.
Those of us from remote communities have seen quality service reduced to minimal service. We have seen small communities that used to have a number of flights in and out that now maybe have one flight in and out. In other words there has been a real deterioration of service, to say nothing of the fares. The illusion was that with deregulation more competition results and fares decrease. I do not think there is anyone who believes that anymore. We saw in the United States after a while the sifting out of the smaller airlines. These companies go by the board and we end up with a handful of monopolies. Up go the fares, and the travelling public is held at ransom. Those who must travel, particularly into the remote areas of the country, are most affected. That is another question perhaps for another time. I could not help raising it because part of the problem in terms of safety is a reflection of the changes that have occurred as a result of deregulation.

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Act
I want to emphasize that in terms of the principle of the Bill, which is what we are debating here today, we in the New Democratic Party support the principle of this legislation. We support this legislation which is creating this new Board which will be mandated to independently investigate and publicly report on transportation accidents involving air, rail, marine or commodity pipelines and to identify safety deficiencies and make recommendations to reduce such deficiencies in the future. We applaud that, Mr. Speaker. We say that that is a good principle to pursue. We support the Bill because it offers an opportunity to tighten the investigation and accident report procedures as well as a chance to disband nonfunctioning bodies such as the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.
However, Mr. Speaker, it needs work. There is no question. We are debating the principle of the Bill today as opposed to the various clauses. We will be dealing with those at the appropriate time. I simply want to flag that this Bill needs reworking. It needs to be improved. It needs to be tightened. It needs to be more effective, more efficient. This Bill needs to reflect what Canadians demand now of the Government in terms of safety in air, rail, marine and related commodity pipelines.
Because of the excellent speeches that have been made by others in our caucus, primarily the transportation critic, I do not need to restate what he so ably stated yesterday. Let me simply summarize that we need a board that is independent. We do not need a board made up of political hacks. I say that with some hesitancy. Yet in some cases that is the fact. Mr. Speaker, in the Parole Board area, Canadians want the security to know that people who have been convicted are not out on the street prematurely. These people are back on the street prematurely before they have been appropriately rehabilitated because we have Parole Boards that have made errors in judgment. One of the reasons for these errors in judgment is that some members of Parole Boards are nothing more than political hacks who have absolutely no background in the area of justice or corrections. I say that with some hesitancy, but that is the fact. They have absolutely no experience in making decisions regarding the safety of Canadians on our streets.
Mr. Speaker, we now have an opportunity to create a board that is independent of the Minister and that reflects the concerns and priorities of Canadian citizens. So we will be looking very carefully at the ways and means of assembling that Board with respected, qualified individuals who would have the confidence, not only of the Government, but of the people of Canada. I think that is critical. It must act at arm's length. Right now, goodness knows, if there is a flaw in this piece of legislation, it is the fact that the Minister has so much power. Can you believe something as peculiar as when an air or marine disaster occurs and the Board and its investigators do their work. It then makes a recommendation. Before that becomes public, it has to be vetted by the Minister or by other senior people, for example, air controllers. Let us say that an air disaster or a near disaster was a result of understaffed airports in terms of air traffic controllers. We know government policy has been to cut back. So the Minister would say,"Well, listen, we cannot say that. So you have to alter the report to reflect government policy".
Let us say there have been cut-backs in areas of fire protection in remote airports and that there was a problem after an investigation was done that identified the cut-backs in fire protection as crucial in this case. Again, Mr. Speaker, the Minister would be reluctant to criticize his colleagues in Cabinet and his Government. So he would ask that that would be deleted from the report. That is not what the people of Canada want. We cannot afford to play politics with the lives of Canadians, particularly the future lives of Canadians as we are trying to improve the safety system of air, rail and marine travel.
I could go on for an hour, Mr. Speaker, and identify these problems, as you well know. But it has been done by others and will be done at the appropriate time in committee. I simply flag this area as one of real concern.
Not only do I speak of the independence of the Board, Mr. Speaker, but of course implicit in what I am saying is the membership of the Board. Who are the members? Do they reflect the industries that are concerned here in terms of the transportation sectors? What elements of those sectors are represented on the Board? Are the unions represented? Are the people who actually carry out the day-to-day work in transportation areas involved? No, I don't think they will be, Mr. Speaker. Is that fair? Of course it is not fair. I think our job will be to build fairness, justice and equity into the composition
April 18, 1989

and the mandate of the Board. Obviously if the Chair is an appointee of the Minister, maybe the Minister's pal or neighbour or from his constituency, he will be reluctant to criticize the person who gives him the job or who allows him to maintain the job. Again, it is absolutely critical that this Board be independent in dealing with the lives of Canadians.
I want to simply conclude my remarks by saying that again we support the principle, but have grave concerns about a number of elements of the legislation. Knowing the decency of the parliamentary sector and how interested he is in safety in these areas of transportation, I am sure he agrees with the points that we have been making and will do whatever he can to draft the appropriate amendments to the legislation.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to mention one aspect of marine safety that I think all of us are concerned about. That is of course the movement of petroleum products along our sensitive coastlines. I think we have seen examples both in the east and west, on the Great Lakes systems and elsewhere. Because of inappropriate legislation, of inappropriate enforcement mechanisms, because of lack of technology and response, we have had ecological disasters or near disasters. That has to be the concern of all serious-minded parliamentarians. So I simply flag that as something that we must address.
We must carry out a public inquiry into what is happening on the West Coast. You know the area, Mr. Speaker. It is a part of Canada where the word beauty really describes the environment. The West Coast ecological area is pristine, beautiful and of course one of our major economic characteristics in terms of future economic expansion, in terms of international tourism.
So I call upon the Government to consider a public inquiry. The Parliamentary Secretary knows the area well. I know how well and strongly he feels. I am sure he is lobbying the Government as much as anyone, and I wish him luck in his efforts. I know in this Party we have done and will continue to do everything possible so that the people of Canada will have a chance to participate in what is going on in terms of water safety on the West Coast.
Transportation Accident Investigation Act
Back to Bill C-2, Mr. Speaker. I conclude my remarks by saying we look forward to moving this into the Standing Committee on Transport with the appropriate amendments. Thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Saint-Hubert (Mrs. Venne).


Mrs. Venne:: Mr. Speaker, the competence of Investigation Board members was just called into question. From clause 4(2) of Bill C-2, it is obvious that:
The Governor in Council shall appoint as members persons who, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, are knowledgeable about air, marine, rail-transportation.
So-

Everyone is well aware of the importance of appointing Members with backgrounds appropriate to enable them to carry out their responsibilities and establish the credibility of the new Board.

I would therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary to further explain clause 4(2) of Bill C-2 to the Opposition Members, since they do not seem to understand that it will certainly-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You are not to put
the question to the Parliamentary Secretary, but you are to put the question to the last speaker. So maybe he will be able to answer it. The Hon. Member will carry on.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, so I shall then ask the Opposition Member to explain to me his point of view since he does not seem to understand that clause 4(2) clearly states that Board members are knowledgeable- that is, that people will really be appointed on the basis of ability.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member's question. She has a lot more faith in the system than I have.
I understand what the Bill says in terms of competence. All Bills say that. All Governor in Council appointments are prefaced with the remarks that competent people are being appointed.

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Act
Let me relate one incident. It concerns an acquaintance of mine who happens to have been appointed to the Board of Air Canada. When the appointment was made and it went through the appropriate committee process, I asked what her qualifications were. I was not aware that she was an expert in air travel or that she was knowledgeable about the technologies involved. She was not sure herself, and her response was that she guessed it was because she flies a lot. That was the justification coming from the individual herself.
We could go through a long list of very embarrassing comments about people, where I think we will have to agree that political appointments are made.
As I indicated in my presentation, there are appointments to the Parole Board which were made strictly for political reasons, where the appointees do not have a shred of experience in the area of corrections yet make decisions on which a criminal should be allowed out of the system earlier than others. It is a long list.
I want to respond to my hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, who indicated that we ought not to have any concerns because any concerns about a certain appointee can be referred to the standing committee. Of course, the standing committee always make a decision based on the number of government Members who have a majority, but if it wants, the committee can bring someone forward. That is fair enough, but all it can do is talk to the person. It has no vetting power and no influence. It is always after the fact. As a matter of fact, it is often months after the appointment is made before it is gazetted and before the parliamentary standing committee could even have an opportunity to examine a particular appointment.
I do not think the process is very well equipped. I will admit that it is better than it used to be, but it has a long way to go in terms of protecting the public from inappropriate appointments, particularly those based on politics more than expertise.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments just to reinforce what my colleague has suggested about deregulation. My comments are pertinent, perhaps, and quite parochial nevertheless since there are other communities across northern Canada that have suffered and will continue to suffer certain ills. The first is a loss of jet service to many of these communities and the concomitant consequences of that. The second is the reduction in safety, which is proven on a regular basis. The third is the issue that my hon. colleague just mentioned. The return fare from my
constituency to Ottawa has gone up four times in the past four months. It is presently $460 return, I suppose at the taxpayers' expense. Nevertheless, if one compares that to the Toronto to Florida fare, which is something like $100 return, it is a result of this market-driven economy and a direct result of deregulation.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the question leading to something that concerns the Bill in front of us? He is talking about deregulation which was in former legislation. We are talking about a Bill to create an accident investigation board.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) could perhaps answer that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by my hon. friend. The point we are trying to make is that the reason we have to improve the investigation service which was inadequate under the previous Liberal Bill is the increased number of accidents and increased number of disasters or near-disasters. I mentioned that there are 1,200 pending investigations that have not been completed. Part of that is because the airlines and other forms of transportation have been deregulated, which makes the situation less safe.
The removal of cabooses on the trains was part of the deregulation process. Part of the Government cut-back process was to replace the caboose with the infamous black box which everyone on the railway system who actually operates the railway says is not in the best interest of long- term safety. That is the point we are trying to make.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, the concept of an independent Board to investigate transportation accidents in the air was created in 1984 under the Liberal Government. It is an excellent idea which, at that time, was applauded by ail nations in the world.
The new Transportation Accident Investigation Board that the Minister is proposing to replace the Canadian Aviation Safety Board is modelled after the CASE, and rightly so. Accident investigation is a crucial element to ensure high levels of safety standards in this country. The recommendations flowing from the 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 standard, employ top Canadian experts and remain thoroughly independent from the Minister.
April 18, 1989

The portion of the Bill dealing with conflict of interest is interesting. I note that the legislation states these people would be appointed through Governor in Council appointments. This concerns me because my constituents and other Canadians have said they are worried about the actions of the previous Board and its political independence.
I am concerned about the Government's intention in this legislation when it indicates that the responsibility for appointing these people will be with Cabinet. I was interested to read about the qualifications of these appointees. It states essentially that these people would not only have to be well versed in one particular area such as air, the sea,rail or pipelines, but would have to be well versed in all these areas. I am not sure how the Government could find a person knowledgeable in all of those areas. I question the nature of that requirement in the Bill and the real political purpose behind it.
Obviously, we on this side will do all we can to ensure that the Transportation Accident Investigation Board is an organization that can be respected by Canadians everywhere. 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 effectively to wipe out the four dissenting board members who have been questioning the causes of the Gander crash over the last three years? Is it to eliminate dissension on a future board or is it to eliminate dissension on the present Board? We seriously question the need for this legislation to come through at this time. As my hon. friend said, we on this side question that because we are not quite sure whether this is the time to raise this issue.
We believe the Canadian Aviation Safety Board would not have to be eliminated and replaced at this time had this Government done the only right thing and called for a judicial inquiry into the Gander crash several months before the dissension on the Board grew 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 this Government to safeguard the high safety
Transportation Accident Investigation Act
standards that Canadians are accustomed to, and in fact demand.
When this Bill was read for the first time in the previous session on July 8, 1988, the Minister said,"The National Transportation Act-places safety at the top of the list of objectives. The Government takes this commitment seriously-" This is a very honourable statement. However, Canadians have learned since that this is not in fact the case.
Since then, we have learned of the serious shortage of air traffic controllers at Canadian airports, the chronic 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. Today we can only hope that the Government is serious about committing itself to high safety standards for Canadians and is not about to throw out more rhetoric without action. The safety of Canadian travellers is far too vital to mishandle at this time.
The problems at Pearson International Airport are very well documented. We on this side of the House decided it would be best if we got the views of members of the public on how they felt air safety is being dealt with, specifically as it relates to Pearson. More specifically, in my area, there is an airport in southwestern Ontario that we feel would be helpful in alleviating some of the problems at Pearson. I am talking about Mount Hope Airport in Hamilton.
The constituents of my riding and indeed of ridings throughout southwestern Ontario feel that there has been a lack of government attention to the needs of our area as they relate to air traffic and indeed air safety. In fact, the Town of Haldimand, which is in my own riding, presented me with a letter dealing with air safety and how Hamilton Civic Airport will help deal with this. The resolution, as passed by the Town of Haldimand Council on January 16, 1989, reads as follows:
WHEREAS the Hamilton Civic Airport is in a strategic position to service Southern Ontario with cargo and passenger service;
AND WHEREAS the Metropolitan Area of Hamilton boasts a population in excess of 500,000 people who will benefit from the use of this facility;

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Act
AND WHEREAS there is currently a critical over crowding occurring at Ibronto International (Pearson) Airport which could be alleviated if Hamilton Civic Airport handled some of this traffic;
THEREFORE be it resolved that the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Haldimand petitions the Minister of Transport to review the Federal Government policies to establish policies to enhance the operation and facilities at Hamilton Civic Airport to encourage better utilization of this excellent facility for the benefit of the industry and population within the greater Hamilton Metropolitan Area.
AND FURTHER THAT this resolution be forwarded to our Minister of Transportation Canada, Minister of Transportation of Ontario, our Federal and Provincial Members of Parliament-
And it goes on.
This was dated January 25, 1989, and was forwarded to the Minister of Transport as it was to local Members of Parliament.
Further, I received a similar resolution from the City of Nanticoke which is also in my riding. It shows the concerns of these people and of the local politicians about how air traffic is being handled throughout our area. The letter from the City of Nanticoke reads:
This office wishes to advise that the Town of Haldimand's request for endorsement of their resolution regarding the above captioned facility has been considered by the City of Nanticoke Council and as a result of their deliberation the following resolution was passed:
"That the Town of Haldimand's resolution regarding the utilization of Hamilton Civic Airport (Mount Hope) be supported."
It is clear that local Governments are now becoming aware of the situation and are really concerned about how the Government is handling it. Not only should the Government be concerned about air, land and sea safety, but it should do something immediately and directly toward alleviating the problems at Pearson International Airport and using Hamilton Civic Airport, an airport which has been there for years, to help alleviate these problems.
I could go on about how we on this side feel about the Government's negligent mishandling of air safety. It is well documented and requires remedy in several places. However, today our attention is directed toward this Bill. I am sure Hon. Members are aware of the Angus Reid poll which indicated that the Canadian public thought that standards for Canadian air safety were in fact lower than they had been in previous years. In fact, as we learned recently, travel agents across Canada are finding
that business is slowing down because of the problems with air safety. People are becoming afraid to fly. I question whether or not this Bill will do anything to solve that problem. As the Minister of Transport said, the Government was prepared to take some action in this regard. To date, we have not seen anything concrete from the Minister.
The Liberal Party feels that the Government is making a serious mistake by rushing this Bill through before Mr. Justice Willard Estey has had a chance to review the record of the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Gander crash. We say this because Mr. Justice Estey's review 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 this Bill, just like the Dubin inquiry preceded the Canadian Aviation Safety Board Act of 1984. Those recommendations formed the backbone of that piece of legislation.
We feel strongly that a full judicial commission of inquiry into the Gander crash should by all reasonable courses precede this legislation. Only in this way can we create an accident investigation agency that will promote safety in Canada to maximum of efficiency and operate on a day to day basis with the least possible opportunity for dissension to set in. We believe that for reasons of covering upcertain compromising events, this Government has refused to call a judicial inquiry in the last several months and is now caught up in a clear situation, as we say in my riding, of putting the cart before the horse.
I would like to speak for a moment about the review of Mr. Justice John Sopinka on the previous Bill, Bill C-142. Hon. Members are aware of Mr. Justice Sopin-ka's review and of the comments he made about the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. I question whether the Government has actually read that review.
Mr. Justice Sopinka said that the main problem, generally stated, is that the CASB is not operating as a cohesive unit in its pursuance of its objective of identifying safety deficiencies and making recommendations to remedy them. I question whether or not this Bill setting up this agency will not eventually lead to the same thing. I question whether or not appointments of political hacks to the Board will indeed be the proper way to go.
April 18, 1989

Mr. Justice Sopinka went on to say that, rather, it has been 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 from the Board. I have read through the Bill and I cannot see anywhere where a solution to these problems has been adopted. Clearly, the way this Bill is set up, that could happen all over again. In fact-


Ross Belsher: You're reading it through Liberal eyes.


Shirley Maheu: We don't wear blinkers.


Robert (Bob) Speller: In fact, the situation exists and this Bill goes nowhere toward solving those problems.
In conclusion, the people in southwestern Ontario who have had to deal with this chaotic air system at Pearson want action, and they want action in the form of a Bill that will assure them that it will again be safe to fly in the skies.


Mr. Langdon:: I would like to echo the point which has been put so forcefully by the Hon. Member for Haldi-mand-Norfolk (Mr. Speller). Certainly, people from southwestern Ontario, and people from the parts of our province who have to travel through Pearson Airport, have faced dangers over and above what people should have to face in using air travel today. We are not talking about some type of pioneering mode of transportation. We are talking about a mode of transportation which a Government has a responsibility to see is operated safely.
Anyone who has followed the recent course of events at Pearson, the long delays which have taken place, the cancellations, the near misses, knows that all of them can be traced back to the false economies that the Government made in not taking on more air traffic controllers to do the job that is necessary with respect to safety. For our constituents, this has represented what they see as a complete dereliction of duty on the part of the Government.
Would the Hon. Member agree with this perception of complete absence of serious concern which should have been there as soon as the decisions were taken to start down the road toward deregulation? If the Hon. Member does agree with that, does he also feel that those Ministers who took the first steps toward deregulation should also have taken the first steps to see to it that air traffic safety was put fully into the equation right from the beginning?
Transportation Accident Investigation Act


Robert (Bob) Speller: I thank the Hon. Member for his comments. He will be aware that we on this side did take those first steps. When the Hon. Member asks whether or not I feel there have been concerns expressed, I believe there have been many concerns expressed. Unfortunately, the action has not been there to follow those concerns.
The Ministers rise daily and state that they are concerned about the situation at Pearson and are concerned about air safety in Canada. In fact, there does not seem to be the actions there to follow through on those concerns.


Mr. Walker:: I would like to thank my colleague for an excellent analysis of the Bill. I am happy to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport (Mr. Belsher) was present to enjoy it. I am sure he will pass on the comments of the Hon. Member to the Minister to ensure that they are fully understood.
There were two or three points raised indirectly in the speech of my colleague. I would like to go back and discuss them a second time because they are important points.
First, I wish to address the size of the five member board. My suspicion is that for a multimodal board, if that is the route that the Government wishes to go and on which we do not agree, five members is a very small number. How will the Board approach situations? Can that Board handle such situations where, unfortunately, there may be two or three accidents at a time which are quite widely dispersed throughout the country? Will five members have the expertise, the time, and the experience available to relate to these problems?
Second, does my colleague believe that this is the type of board that, as the Bill suggests, should be located in Ottawa close to the Department of Transport, or could the independence of the commission be guaranteed by locating it elsewhere in the country away from the Department so that Canadians are assured that an independent group is carefully looking at what the cause of the accidents might be?
Third, in the Bill it states that public inquiries are an option. It seems to me that one of the big changes that we have tried to insist upon in the Government, both in environmental matters and in other matters, is that as a matter of fact public inquiries be considered as a way of proceeding. The fact that these are optional under the Bill surprises me. Does my colleague have any comments on that?

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Act


Robert (Bob) Speller: I agree with my colleague. I was concerned when I read the section in the Bill that only called for five members to be appointed by the Governor in Council. I was more concerned on the qualifications of the members. This was the point I raised earlier. I have now found the clause in the Bill 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.
I do not know where five members will be found to do that. It might have been better for the Government to get a few more experts in certain areas and increase the numbers on the Board.
As the Hon. Member mentioned, perhaps there is concern in other parts of the country that the Board may not be as independent if it is located close to Ottawa and the Department of Transport. In fact, Winnipeg might be a very good location for the Board.
We on this side are very concerned about the independence of the Board and the make-up of the members. Anything that will help to alleviate the concern in the public that the board is not independent will be a good step forward.


Ross Belsher: It is interesting listening to the debate between Members of the Opposition Parties. Members of those Parties are giving out erroneous information to the Canadian public. Certain things must be recognized. Last year Pearson Airport had a 10 per cent increase in traffic, and the incidents that occurred at Pearson are actually down approximately 40 per cent. Are Members opposite listening? There has been a 10 per cent increase in traffic, but the incidents are down. Members opposite are attempting to tell everybody that everything is very unsafe. I notice that they still fly and come through Pearson on their way to Ottawa.
What we are talking about in the Bill is an investigation board that, when accidents occur or incidents occur, has the power to command that the Department people involved conduct the investigation, send them back to do things, make sure that the regulations in place are being followed, and if improvements can be made, then to make those type of adjustments.
That was not clearly spelled out in the CASB Act. The Bill now makes it clear that the Board must not hesitate to define and report fully on the cause of an accident, even when a person may incidentally be blamed thereby. This brings it out into the forefront and also gives the Board that power. When recommendations have been put forward and a Minister is not willing to follow those recommendations, he must give written reasons as to why he has not followed those recommendations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to this Bill. As Members who were here in the last Parliament, and indeed in two Parliaments before that will know, transportation safety has been an ongoing interest of mine, particularly when it comes to rail. I hope that the comments that I have to make today will be useful in terms of debating the whole matter of transportation safety in all modes.
I thought that the response just given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Belsher)) was offered in a somewhat facetious manner. He pointed out the fact that Members of the Opposition still continue to fly through Toronto is some sort of proof of the insincerity of their criticism. This is really a threadbare argument. The fact is that many people in this country have to fly through Toronto if they want to do their job, if they want to continue living up to their responsibilities, whatever those responsibilities might be, whether they are in the business sector or politics, or whatever the case may be. For the Minister to suggest that because people have not reached the point of refusing to fly through Toronto there is not a problem, I think, with all due respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, is a particularly ignorant form of argument. I hope it is not repeated in future.
I fly from Ottawa to Winnipeg on a direct flight and I am very glad that I do not have to fly through Toronto, not just in terms of safety, but also in terms of delays, and planes being backed up for landing and backed up for taking off. If Tory Members who have to fly in and out of Toronto think that that is just great, that that is something they are willing to put up with in order to preserve the sacred ideological call of deregulation, then that is fine. Suffer, baby. The rest of us and the rest of Canadians ought not to suffer because of the ideological fixations of a Conservative Government.
April 18, 1989

The root of this matter is ideological. The root of everything that we are concerned about here today is the whole question of deregulation, a fixation, a trend which goes back to the Liberal Government of 1980 to 1984. I see the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Walker) starting to look a little uncomfortable. He knows that it was his political mentor, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), who started this trend toward deregulation. It was the Liberals who were first fascinated. They were saying: "What is going on? What are the Americans doing? We should do that too." The Liberals were as prone to that sort of thing as the Tories.
The Tories have finished the Liberal agenda on deregulation. They have completed what the Liberals started. We have a transportation system which is now fraught with confusion and danger. This Bill is designed as a kind of remedial action to pick up the pieces, to figure out what went wrong as a result of deregulation, not to address the root cause, not to address the fundamental problem of deregulation in and of itself, but simply to expedite the investigation of accidents that occur as a result of the kind of transportation system that the Conservatives have created through deregulation.
It is not going to work. It is not going to work because the fundamental problem of deregulation is not being addressed. The fundamental problem of putting airlines, railways, trucking companies, bus companies, and everyone else involved in the business of transportation in a position where they are in a kind of cut-throat relationship with each other, within modes and between modes, is going to create problems. I see it most clearly in the rail sector where the CPR and the CNR have been put in a position where they have to ruthlessly compete with each other. That means cutting comers, laying people off, not making investments that need to be made, not doing inspections that should be made, not doing maintenance that should be done.
They are competing with each other. As a group they are competing with the trucking companies which have also been put in a position where they are competing with each other. Almost anybody can get on the road if they have a couple of wheels to rub together. What have you got? You have a decrease in safety on the highways as a result of the new regulations with respect to trucking. You have problems in the rail sector. At a moment when the Government is doing a lot of talking about the Brundtland Commission, the environment and
Transportation Accident Investigation Act
everything else, we are in a deregulated policy framework that encourages trucking as opposed to rail. We know, and no one has ever disputed this, that rail traffic is an environmentally more suitable form of transportation than trucking.
This is one of the things that needs to be said in this debate, that to have this debate without debating deregulation is woefully inadequate. One of the things that bothers me about the Board, and it is a problem in many areas of Canadian life, is that boards accumulate political appointments. There is no guarantee that this Board will be any different.
I was reminded of that just a couple of weeks ago when I appeared before the National Transportation Agency. That is the Conservative substitute for the CTC, which in my judgment was not independent enough of the Government. It was an independent body, a quasi-judicial body which was replaced by the National Transportation Agency, which is much closer to the Government. That closeness could not be better demonstrated than by the fact that the chairman is a former Government House Leader for the Conservative Party, and an author of a report that at one time recommended severe cut-backs in VIA Rail.
It is a problem for many boards in Canada that they do accumulate political appointments. What happens is that people get appointed to these areas, but they do not necessarily know anything about them. They become dependant on the bureaucrats and the special advisers. Then the Government has special access, if I understand this legislation correctly, to draft reports. If there is something there that the Government does not like, it will have an opportunity to change it, or at least to try and change it.
These are some of the problems that we see with this legislation. It does not go to the heart of the matter. It does not solve the problems that were identified with the old board that this is replacing with respect to aviation safety. It does not address the whole question of deregulation. One of the things that I am particularly upset about in the last little while has been the decision of the courts to overturn the Larson report on the caboose decision. We see that the railways took the report of Mr. Larson, the arbitrator, after the railway strike, to court. The court overturned the report, which got in the way of the railway's plans to get rid of the caboose. This is very unfortunate. It is an example of the kind of thing that we have seen over the last few years.

April 18, 1989
5.0. 31
I see, Mr. Speaker, you are getting itchy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am not getting itchy. I love to listen to the Hon. Member. He will have 10 minutes in his debate after three o'clock, plus 10 minutes questions and comments.
It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, Dominion Textile of Montreal announced in February that it would have to lay off 425 employees this year because of the Free Trade Agreement. What can these employees expect? The Government is not acting!
Enough time has passed since February to set up programs to help all workers stay in their community and find a job that pays the same or requires the same skills.
The Government must assume its responsibilities and ensure that these training programs encourage the diversification and development of local economies.
Let the Minister of Employment and Immigration clearly indicate what training programs will be provided for the Dominion Textile workers and all other Canadians affected by the Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, reassigning unemployment insurance funds to vague training programs for non-existent jobs is not enough!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I rise to again draw the attention of the House to the tragic situation in Lebanon.
On Sunday, I attended a rally of some 500 persons in Halifax, organized by the Canadian Lebanon Society. I spoke with people whose relatives are living in shelters, and whose lives are imperilled on a daily basis.
Lebanese Canadians are convinced that Lebanese of all factions and religions can work together to work out their problems, if only the foreign interventionists can be removed.
I join with Lebanese Canadians of Nova Scotia in urging the Government of Canada to use its best influence and its position on the Security Council to introduce into the United Nations, or to inaugurate whatever measures are necessary to bring about the removal of all foreign forces from Lebanon, and an end to the slaughter of innocent people.
At the same time I would urge the Government of Canada to consider re-establishing effective consular services in Lebanon for the benefit of Canadians wishing to travel to and from that troubled land.



ABORIGINAL PEOPLES


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, later today the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux) is to meet with representatives of native students, some of whom had been on a hunger strike for over three weeks. Other students continue that fast as they seek appropriate access to the tools that will allow them to reach their educational potential. These students believe, and we on this side concur, that post-secondary education funding is an obligation of Canada as a result of the treaties entered into between our Governments and the First Nations.
Yesterday, I provided the Minister with a copy of a petition signed by educators at Confederation College and Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, the home institutions of the hunger-strikers, a petition which I indicated supports the students' cause.
April 18, 1989

I call on the Minister to agree to place a moratorium on the changes that will limit access to post-secondary education by native students and to provide for a full consultation with those to be affected. It makes economic sense to invest in education so that First Nations' peoples can effectively meet the needs of their communities today and in the future.



THE LATE RANDY BERFELO, FORMER MAYOR OF HAY LAKES, ALBERTA

Mr. Brian O'Kurley (Elk Island):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of the riding of Elk Island I would like to recognize the passing of a former Mayor of the Village of Hay Lakes, Randy Berfelo. Mr. Berfelo will not only be missed by the community of Hay Lakes but also by many others across the riding of Elk Island.



TRIBUTE TO FATHER CLAUDE PIEL

Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Later on this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State (Mr. Weiner) will present civic merit certificates to 25 Canadian men and women to highlight their outstanding contribution to the well-being of their fellow citizens. By their voluntary work, these Canadians have shown an uncommon desire to improve the quality of life in their communities.
As Member for Brome-Missisquoi I am both happy and proud that a resident of my riding, Father Claude Piel, has been selected to receive this great testimony of appreciation.
A native of Brittany, Father Piel is a member of the Immaculate Conception Regular Canon Congregation. Since he first came to Canada in the early 1950s, he has always been known for his selflessness, his dedication to work, and his desire to improve the lot of his fellow man. More specifically, he has worked with the mentally handicapped and paved the way for their social rehabilitation. He did all that in addition to his duties in two major parishes.
Mr. Speaker, I echo the words of congratulations the Secretary of State will have for all the recipients this afternoon, and I extend special greetings to Father
Claude Piel, an immigrant who became a great Canadian.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, the senseless killing of children and innocent adults and the destruction of property and essential services in Lebanon is a sad commentary, to say the least, on human history. In the last 41 days it is estimated that 262 people have been killed and 932 wounded.
Now is the time to find out if there is a will and a sincere desire on the part of other world nations to try to bring an end to the 14 years of bloodshed and civil war.
Any member of the UN Security Council has the right to ask for a special session of the Security Council to discuss an important issue. It does not have to come from the beleaguered country.
Therefore we call upon the Government of Canada to request a special meeting of the United Nations Security Council immediately to debate the issue of war-tom Lebanon with the aim of giving the UN Secretary General direction and support to undertake negotiations for meaningful peace.



CITIZENSHIP


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, as this is National Citizenship Week it is a most appropriate time to reflect upon the many advantages our citizenship grants us.
Our citizenship is the envy of the world. It offers people a chance for social and personal advancement, and has given them scope for their talents and energies. All Canadians are guaranteed equality of access and opportunity.
In Canada, there are no degrees or levels of citizenship. We are all blessed with the right to freedom of thought, religious belief and self-expression. We are free to think what we want and to make active representations of those views within the political structure.

April 18, 1989
Another distinctive feature of our citizenship is its affirmation of the cultural heritage of all Canadian citizens.
Multiculturalism and the cross-cultural understanding that it engenders are now proudly recognized as fundamental components of our national identity and add much to our sense of being Canadian.
Citizenship Week is an ideal time to think about our Canadian identity and of how our civic values further this nation's evolution as a compassionate and caring society.
Let us use this week to celebrate our glorious birthright and to share our pride and our hope for the future.



CHILDREN


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Children's Fund is seeking a sponsor for a summit for children. Hopes are being pinned on the Canadian Government taking the lead on this international initiative since Canada is perceived as being neutral and has credibility that will provide the conference with the profile it needs to be successful.
The Government must realize that by further reducing Canada's commitment to the Third World and by attacking social programs at home it is sacrificing the growing minds and bodies of the next generation on the altar of adjustment policy.
The New Democratic Party supports the UN's call for a summit for children and urges the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to respond to the United Nation's request.
On behalf of my colleagues I have introduced a motion asking the federal Government to begin negotiations with the provinces in order to provide a Children's Bill of Rights for our country.



ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne) Mr. Speaker, quite recently at the Lanaudiere economic summit, Repentigny Mayor and l'Assomption RCM Prefect Jacques Dupuis had this to say to the Repentigny Chambre of Commerce, and I quote:
All projects initiated by Repentigny and, I believe, l'Assomption
RCM, will reflect our major concern over the environment.
All projects supported by the Repentigny Mayor and l'Assomption
RCM Prefect will respect the environment and the quality of life.
Mr. Speaker, such is the dynamic approach of the Town and Mayor of Repentigny who is showing that it is possible to plan for economic development and still keep environmental considerations in mind. It is only a matter of wanting to do it.
Therefore I commend the Town and the Mayor of Repentigny for their leadership, and I hope all municipalities throughout Canada will take similar action.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the recent announcement by Westray Incorporated of their intention to open a new coal mine in Pictou County, Nova Scotia, with the assistance of the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia is frightening news for the employees of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. One of the founding principles of the Cape Breton Development Corporation was that it was to be the sole supplier of coal to the Government of Nova Scotia's wholly-owned Nova Scotia Power Corporation. Now that the federal and provincial Governments have broken this undertaking, much economic hardship will occur to the people of Cape Breton.
Why, Mr. Speaker, is the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia putting one poor area of a small province against another poor area of the same province? Should this particular operation proceed, it is inevitable, Mr. Speaker, that a coal mine in Cape Breton will be closed, throwing countless miners out of work. It will substantially reduce the revenue for the Cape Breton Development Corporation. It will also reduce a market for their particular product. I urge, Mr. Speaker, that the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia withdraw their proposed financial assistance to this particular operation and stop playing the cheapest political game in town which is setting one poor area off against another poor area.
April 18, 1989



THE BUDGET


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton):: Mr. Speaker, I know that all Hon. Members await the Finance Minister's Budget next week with both a sense of concern and resolve. We all know that priority choices will be difficult to make. Many essential decisions will be even more difficult to take. I want to mention one such priority briefly, Mr. Speaker, which is of great concern to New Brunswickers. That is the pressing and serious need for reconstruction of our Trans-Canada Highway from the Quebec border to the Nova Scotia border which is indisputably the worst highway in the country. While I realize that highways are essentially a provincial responsibility, it is obvious that in the long run, with the total cost of the Trans-Canada Highway itself, not including connectors, estimated in the range of $15 billion in 1988, it would be impossible to conceive such a major undertaking without the federal Government's participation.
I would suggest it is important for us to recognize such a priority even though it may presently be impossible to determine the timing or the terms of such a commitment. What is clear and compelling is the fact that New Brunswick's Trans-Canada Highway is virtually obsolete, totally inadequate and truly dangerous. The time will come and soon when New Brunswick and Canada will have no alternative but to find a way to rebuild it completely. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: The Government is showing a cavalier disregard for the health of Canadians in the confusion it is allowing to continue around meat inspection practices at the border into Canada. On April 1 a truck crossed into this country carrying meat and chemicals in the same shipment. The Government owes it to Canadians to explain to them what action was taken and how quickly it was taken to make sure that contaminated meat did not reach Canadian consumers. Was this meat immediately tracked down, and if not, why was it not?
5.0. 31
In January inspectors were ordered to cut by 75 per cent the inspections of meat coming into Canada. Adequate notice has been given to the Department that this order is contrary to the Meat Inspection Act. No response has been given to a letter asking for clarification. Instead, the spokesperson for the Government went on radio and said that the directive does not mean what it says. The Government must clear up this confusion so Canadians can have confidence in the meat inspection process in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



TRIBUTE TO IAN MILLAR, WINNER OF WORLD CUP IN EQUESTRIAN EVENTS

Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of this House the flawless performance given by Canada's Ian Millar and Big Ben at the World Cup in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Millar, who resides in North Elmsley Township near the Town of Perth, Ontario, has made show jumping history by becoming the first equestrian jumper to win the Volvo World Cup two years in a row. As Canadians we can be very proud to have such magnificent athletes representing Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CANADA POST


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, today the Minister responsible for Canada Post says he is examining the ending of Canada Post's 120-year monopoly on delivering letter mail and continuing his slow, inch by inch, piece by piece privatization of the Post Office without public discussion or debate in this Chamber. The Minister is reported to have said that he is not working on a proposal to privatize letter mail delivery, but he is considering it because others are suggesting it.

April 18, 1989
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, it is time the Government put an end to the slow privatization of the Post Office and stopped considering foolish ideas like this one.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Taylor:: I call on the Minister to put his foot down and to say no to the private sector, which has no desire to ensure equal or adequate service to rural, remote or regional areas of this country. There must be no privatization of letter mail and the Minister must tell Canada Post management to work towards making the existing service better rather than continuing their plans to turn it out for their corporate friends to deal with.



VIA RAIL


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Nuclear submarines are important to the nation. So is VIA Rail. One is estimated to cost $8 billion, the other $3 billion. The difference is that the lesser of the two has a good chance for a significant cost-recovery. I urge the Government to give VIA that chance.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
A year ago, the Minister for International Trade declared he had not bothered to read the Free Trade Agreement we signed with the United States. Today, I think the Prime Minister should realize that apparently, his Minister has yet to read the Agreement, because yesterday he stated and I quote: "Never have two countries managed to agree on what constitutes an anti-trade subsidy". In that case, Mr. Speaker, why didn't the Government say so during the election?
Why did the Government sign a trade agreement that says the exact opposite? And finally, why did the Government make major concessions in the areas of energy,
investment and so forth, promising us we would obtain concessions in return on the issue of subsidies?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Perhaps I lost something in the translation of this question, Mr. Speaker, but it is the most confused question I have ever heard the Leader of the Opposition ask, and that is really saying something.
All that I stated yesterday was that I don't know of any two countries-you can answer the question if you like, or perhaps you can understand the question better than I can, Mr. Speaker- that have yet managed to agree on a common definition of what is a trade-distorting subsidy. If that is what the hon. gentleman is referring to, we all know that in the negotiations leading to the Free Trade Agreement, we could not agree with the United States on the common definition of a trade-distorting subsidy.


Ms. Copps:: You signed it anyway.


John Carnell Crosbie: And therefore the agreement provides for a period of seven years for us to try to negotiate this question. That is what we intend to do.


John Napier Turner: I can really understand the Minister not understanding the question when he has not read the document.


PARTICIPATION BY THE PROVINCES IN THE NEGOTIATIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister suggest that the subsidy negotiations are virtually impossible when his predecessor and the Prime Minister signed an agreement which was open-ended? A very important part relates to the subsidy negotiations with the United States. The Minister refused to give us a plan, a blueprint or a statement of objectives of what he has in mind. The Americans have been perfectly frank and clear in what their objectives are. The only thing the Minister said yesterday is that he does not intend to allow the provinces to be at the negotiating table.
Now the Americans, and he knows it, have stated it quite clearly that they consider virtually every one of the provincial regional development programs and the federal provincial programs to be against this agreement in terms of offending the definition of subsidy.
Why is it then that he will not allow the provinces to have a say? Why will he not allow the provinces to participate in the negotiations that will have a vital effect on them?
April 18, 1989


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Member wants to refight the past election. Why he would want to do that is beyond me because he was trounced. If he keeps refighting the last election, he will be trounced again and trounced repeatedly. So why he is on this tactic this afternoon, I don't know.
Why he is on this tack this afternoon, I do not know.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is not what Rideout said.


John Carnell Crosbie: This agreement is no more open-ended than the Member is open-mouthed. It takes two parties to agree. There is no provision-


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister ought to take him out behind the woodshed, talking about trouncing-


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


SUBSIDY NEGOTIATIONS-REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY INPUT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that type of answer is not going to give the country much confidence at all, particularly the working people of this country who are dependent upon these negotiations on subsidies.
The Americans have made it quite clear what they want out of the subsidy negotiations. They set it forth in the presidential interpretation when their legislation was tabled in the U.S. Congress.
They want cut-backs in unemployment insurance. They want cut-backs in the ERDA agreement. They want cut-backs in Crown corporations. They want cutbacks in freight rate assistance. They want cut-backs in our stabilization programs. They got those before we even sat down at the negotiating table with the United States.
Could the Minister, in a rare display of commonsense, give us a rational answer? What exactly is the Government's plan? The negotiations on subsidies are vital for the future of this country. Why will the provinces not be involved, as he has said?
Oral Questions
Will he give this Parliament an opportunity to participate and review these negotiations as we did not have on the negotiations for the agreement itself? Will he make this a more public process because of its vital nature for the future of Canada? I put that to him seriously.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is fascinated by what the Americans want, by their timetable and by their agenda. We are setting our own agenda. He can go along with the American agenda; we are going with our agenda.


INTERPRETATION OF UNFAIR SUBSIDIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. The U.S. Government has made abundantly clear in its recent countervail actions against Canada what it considers trade distorting subsidies to be and which Canadian programs fall into that category.
Will the Minister make clear to Canadians today what interpretation of unfair subsidies his Government intends to defend in the subsidy negotiations with the Americans?
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we are going to maintain our position with reference to what is a trade distorting subsidy and what is not. We will start by asking the Americans for an inventory of their subsidy practices so we can have a look at theirs.
At Montebello on the weekend it was resolved that the way ahead for Canadian Liberals is to return to the tried and true values of the past. You are a forward-looking group, that's for sure.


PARTICIPATION OF PROVINCES IN NEGOTIATIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. Francis LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): I have a supplementary for the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. The Government still refuses to disclose its position on the Canadian definition of a subsidy. We know the American definition. Canadian programs that would be affected include federal-provincial regional development agreements and provincial programs. Why not ask the provinces to participate directly in these negotiations since they are directly concerned?
[Stage Direction]
April 18, 1989
Oral Questions
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that interprovincial trade and international trade are within the constitutional jurisdiction of the Government of Canada. We are quite willing to consult and, in fact, we are consulting with the provinces before negotiations, after negotiations, and during negotiations. But the Government of Canada will conduct the negotiations. That is our constitutional responsibility and our constitutional jurisdiction. We will not share that with anyone else.
We are the Government of Canada and we have responsibility in international trade. Consultations, yes, that is what we are doing with the provinces. We will continue as we did so successfully in the last four years as contrasted with the previous 10 years which created chaos in Canada because the Liberal Party was completely centrist and would not consult with the provinces at all.


TAXATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I was in Newfoundland on the weekend and I heard-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Beatty:: A first-time visit?


John Edward Broadbent: Wait for it.
While I was there I heard an interesting old quote by the Minister for International Trade in which the National Council on Welfare has a real interest.
A few years ago the Minister for International Trade said, with reference to his own Party, that: "If the people of Canada knew what we were going to do in advance they would never vote for us". It was one of those rare moments of candour coming from the Minister for International Trade.
Today the National Council on Welfare has produced a study of what the Conservative Government has actually done with the tax system since the 1984 election. The net effect has been for taxes on the rich to go down by over 6 per cent while taxes on middle-income people went up 17 per cent and personal taxes for the working poor in Canada went up by a whopping 60 per cent.
Since he has always talked about fairness before Budgets, is this what fairness has meant for the Conservatives, and is this what the working poor and average Canadians will see in the coming Budget?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had occasion to look at the document to which my hon. friend refers, but in general terms he seems to be talking about the working poor and greater social justice. He would probably agree that over the last four years the creation of 1.4 million new jobs is the greatest contribution to social justice that a Government could make.
The number of Canadians living below the poverty line has fallen by 549,000 since 1984, including 179,000 fewer children and 61,000 fewer senior citizens. I know my hon. friend would agree that those are very important social policy considerations.
I think we have made much progress toward a greater degree of social justice. We can surely do a lot more, and hopefully the Budget and the actions of this Parliament over the next four years will improve upon an already enviable record.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ADOPT COUNCILS RECOMMENDATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that is just what I was alluding to. In the past the Prime Minister has said there would be fairness and improvement for the working poor, for the average family. Notwithstanding the number of working poor having gone down, the reality today is that there are about four million Canadians living in poverty and the Conservative Government has increased their taxes since 1984 by 60 per cent, increased the taxes on the average family by 17 per cent, and reduced them for the richest Canadians. That is a reversal of where a commitment to social justice should lead a Government.
Since all of these Canadians are living at the poverty level and the tax system is working increasingly in an unfair direction, will the Government for once listen to people like those on the National Council on Welfare who have produced this assessment and bring in their practical reforms, instead of just listening to the big business community that has virtually written the Throne Speech and no doubt will write the Budget as well?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is offended by the input of the business community. We are not offended by the input of the business community at all. The business community, like the labour community, represents a very major
April 18, 1989

contribution to our national well-being and we welcome the input of all citizens. We do not denigrate anyone in terms of their contribution to the Budget process.
My recollection is that the data provided some time ago by the Minister of Finance indicates that subsequent to tax reform some eight Canadian families out of ten would be paying less tax; nine Canadian senior citizens out of ten would be paying less tax since tax reform, and 850,000 Canadians were removed from the tax rolls entirely. That is social justice.


John Edward Broadbent: We went through this whole routine before. This Government, after its first two years in office, increased the number of Canadians on the tax rolls by over one million and then changed the tax system to bring them back off the rolls. It is the Government that has been playing around with the numbers. I have something very concrete to ask.


SALES TAX INCREASE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Since the last election, the Government, according to this study, has increased sales tax by 5 per cent, and during the election campaign, the Minister of Finance suggested that under a Conservative Government, the new sales tax would go up to 9 per cent, which means another $1,000 per year for the average family.
My question is just this: Can the Minister guarantee Canadians that the Government does not intend to introduce this new sales tax and, instead, will introduce a new tax on profitable companies which are not paying a cent of income tax at the present time?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there have been some sweeping changes with respect to Canadian corporations, and an increasing number of corporations which formerly were exempt from income tax now pay their fair share with everyone else in Canada. We are talking about a major tax reform that was announced by the Minister some time ago. We still have a long way to go in this area, but we intend to deal with this problem.
Regarding the fundamental question put by the Hon. Member, the Department of Finance has already announced that, after adjustment for inflation, personal disposable income in Canada after taxes has increased by
Oral Questions
$1,100 since 1984. Those are hard facts. That is social justice which benefits those in our society who are less well-off.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the Government's latest attempt at destroying one of our national institutions, this time the Canadian postal service.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, losing the Post Office is nothing to laugh about. Numerous media reports today confirm that the Minister responsible for Canada Post, in cahoots with the right-wing Fraser Institute, is planning to privatize first-class mail in Canada.
Given that this policy is contrary to the Government's own Marchment Report and that it would effectively put an end to rural mail service in Canada, if not totally destroy the Canadian postal system, will the Prime Minister tell the Minister responsible for the Post Office to hold his horses and cut out that kind of nonsense right now?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Hon. Member should re-read the article. If he reads the article in question, he will see that all I said was that I have an open mind to any changes in-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: I have an open mind to any changes in Canada Post's operations which will lead to a more efficient, more effective organization, including opening it up to more private sector competition.
I realize that a closed mind is more appealing to Members of the Liberal Party, but I think that to fulfil one's responsibilities, one should be open to new ideas. The fact that things worked last century does not mean that they have to be strictly adhered to this century. We can always improve.

April 18, 1989
Oral Questions


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the Minister speaks of an open mind and attends a conference sponsored by the Fraser Institute.


FRASER INSTITUTE'S INVITATION TO MINISTER-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I have here a program of the Fraser Institute Conference which indicates that the Minister responsible for Canada Post will be the guest speaker at a conference to be held shortly on the privatization of the Canadian Postal Service.
In view of the fact that the Fraser Institute is a far right organization which is against daycare, against bilingualism and against social development, does the Prime Minister agree with his Minister's behaviour? Why does he not forbid forthwith his Minister to appear at this Conference?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that attack on the Fraser Institute is something I will let the Fraser Institute deal with. I find it pretty shocking that a Member of this House should say that it is forbidden to listen to the ideas of a think tank from Vancouver, that it might have some ideas which will contaminate.
Mikhail Gorbachev can listen to new ideas; the Liberal Party apparently cannot.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: I would suggest that the Hon. Member should return to Hawkesbuiy and talk to his constituents. I have an article here from the Hawkesbury paper which says that a bunch of people were asked if mail service is getting better. Marilyn Hill said yes, Gaston Laviolette said yes, Chantal Letoumeau said yes, Monique Fournier said yes. The Hon. Member's constituents say yes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Chief Electoral Officer tabled his report
to Parliament. He concluded that the last election was a mess.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The results indicate that he was right.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Thousands of Canadians were left off the voters' lists, inexperienced Deputy Returning Officers were appointed at the last minute and millions were spent on third party advertising, making a mockery of the spending controls in the Elections Act. To quote the Chief Electoral Officer, the election system is on the verge of collapse.
After four years of indolence, when will the Government act to deal with the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the Hon. Member would associate himself with the conclusion of the Chief Electoral Officer, albeit in a perhaps somewhat different context.
Quite frankly, what is at issue here is the failure on the part of the Hon. Member's Party and the New Democratic Party to agree on changes that were incorporated in Bill C-79, notwithstanding the fact that I appealed to the two House Leaders and their critics on no less than four occasions and had many, many discussions with them about cleaning up the Elections Act and putting in place those necessary changes which were enshrined in Bill C-79. That in fact was the big issue that denied many citizens of Canada the right to vote in the last election.


COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister knows perfectly well that we on this side of the House cannot hold up legislation. It takes three to make an agreement in this House and the Deputy Prime Minister had it in his power, as he knows, to agree with the proposals put forward by this Party and by my friends on my left. Having said that, after four years, the country is now looking for some leadership on this issue.
The Deputy Prime Minister knows that in the Speech from the Throne, there was an announcement of a Commission of Inquiry to be appointed to inquire into the Elections Act. Could the Minister tell us when he will discuss with his opposition counterparts the makeup of the committee, its terms of reference and the proposed date for its report?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, indeed we have been waiting for the report of the Chief Electoral Officer to look at some of the recommendations that he has brought forth. I have discussed some of the proposed terms of reference with him. We are in the process of defining those terms of reference, and I would hope that we will be in a position to discuss this with Members opposite in the very near future.
To reiterate, I wish to state that the Chief Electoral Officer said that 85 per cent of the problems would have been cleared up if Bill C-79 had been passed. The opposition Parties failed to concur with the Government on that particular issue-


Mr. Gauthier:: Wrong. You are the Government.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and they bear the responsibility.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Two hundred and eleven you had.


REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton -Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday his Minister of Finance challenged us in the Opposition to come up with a tax measure that could be eliminated in order to salvage some expenditure cuts in next week's Budget.
I have here a copy of a January, 1986, circular from Revenue Canada. It allows both individuals and corporations to deduct from their income tax certain bribes and certain kickbacks.
In fact, on kickbacks and bribes Section 5 states: "An unvouchered expenditure that maybe described as an under-the-table payment is not deductible unless the following conditions are met: (a) the recipient therefor is identified, and (b) the expenditure was made or incurred to earn income and the amount was reasonable in the circumstances".
Can the Prime Minister explain why under-the-table payments, kickbacks and bribes are still deductible under the Conservative Government? Can he explain why,
Oral Questions
after more than four years as Prime Minister, he has not moved to end this offensive program of his Party?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain from what document the Hon. Member is quoting. Let me assure him, and I know that he is going to come across the floor-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Otto John Jelinek: A good way to run for the leadership.
I can assure him that, over the last five years, the Government has been taking every step to make the system fair for Canadians. As a result, the returns have come in thus far in record numbers. Let me assure the Hon. Member that Canadians are better off under tax reform than they were before.
In any event, I would be very happy to study the circular and come up with a specific answer to this questionable circular when I have had a chance to look at it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the "questionable circular" comes from his own Department. If the Minister will check Sections 1 and 5 he will find that under-the-table payments, bribes and kickbacks are all tax deductible under certain circumstances, a practice, by the way, which has been ended in the United States.
My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister, as the Head of Government.


PRACTICES NOT RECOMMENDED-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact that the Canadian public finds bribes and other under-the table payments extremely degrading, Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Is he going to put an end to this practice now? And will he make public next week how much this practice costs Canadian taxpayers every year?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has done more to clean up what was left with us from the previous Liberal administration than any Government in the history of the country. The Canadian public know it, and that is why we are back here and not on the other side.

April 18, 1989
Oral Questions
In response to the Hon. Member's specific question, I will repeat what I stated earlier. I will be glad to look at the piece of paper that the Hon. Member handed to me. I will look at it and return with a specific answer for him tomorrow.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. FRANCOIS LONCLE, PRESIDENT OF THE CANADA-FRANCE SECTION OF THE INTERPARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of Members to the presence in our Gallery of Mr. Fran go is Loncle, M.P., President of the Canada-France Section of the Interparliamentary Association.


REVENUE CANADA
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Revenue Canada.
Less than one year ago the Government made a commitment to eliminate the use of Social Insurance Numbers as a federal identifier for other than the basic requirement originally intended.
Last fall the Government moved to require it for anyone who deals in bonds, T-bills, interest-bearing accounts, and generally all commercial paper. This has greatly upset a good number of people who now feel, rightly so, that they could be made vulnerable to fraud and theft.
Will the Minister instruct his officials to comply with the announcement from Treasury Board last June, and eliminate the need and the requirement for SIN disclosure, along with the offensive fines and other punitive threats that have been made for non-compliance?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Hon. Member, and all Canadians, that no taxpayer need be worried about vulnerability as a result of providing their Social Insurance Number with their tax returns.
As the Hon. Member knows, Canadians have been required to provide the SIN number since 1967. Every individual Social Insurance Number is protected under the security provisions of the Income Tax Act.
We are constantly working in conjunction with the Minister of Finance and with Treasury Board to tiy to improve the situation, and I am satisfied that we have made a great step forward in improving the situation thus far, and will continue to work on it further.
The bottom line is that no Canadian need be worried about their confidentiality.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last week, in her reply to one of our colleagues, the Minister stated that the unemployment insurance scheme for fishermen would remain intact. The words she used were "full and unchanged". Yet, during her press conference, the Minister changed her tune. She said that changes would be forthcoming following consultations with the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Could the Minister enlighten us and come clean with us?
Will changes to the special program for fishermen be announced in the Budget speech? Could she tell us whether she has bad news in store for some 30,000 families in the Atlantic area who news on unemployment insurance? What is the truth?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I stated that fishermen are not included in the manpower strategy.

The comment that I made was that a policy regarding fishermen would involve a number of Departments. I did not in any way suggest there were any changes contemplated at this time.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is the following. The fishermen and all those families who depend on UIC would like to know what the Minister meant when she said that the changes to UI for fishermen are going to involve different kinds of changes and would only come after discussion with the Minister for International Trade and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans to determine what changes can and will be made to this program.
April 18, 1989

What did the Minister mean by those words, and why did she use them?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I thought I answered that question in response to the first question of the Member. I was asked specifically about the program for fishermen. I said it was outside this program. I said that if and when any changes were contemplated it would involve discussions with other Ministers. I do not see anything remotely threatening in that statement for the people involved in the fishing program under UIC.


TRANSPORT
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Atlantic freight rate assistance programs are not promises or a commitment but a negotiated constitutional right. The Deputy Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Transportation quoting the Prime Minister, assured Atlantic Canadians that the freight rate subsidy program would be maintained. Freight rate subsidies create millions in sales and affect over 12,000 Atlantic Canadians. My question to the Minister is this. Will the Minister give his commitment on the floor of this House to the continued maintenance and present funding levels of the maritime freight rates?
[Translation\


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we have said many times that questions of this kind, which inevitably have a financial impact and therefore relate to the Budget, will be answered when the Budget is presented on April 27.1 have no other answer to give than that.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ON FUTURE OF PROGRAM
George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplemental question. This Government is unnecessarily fueling business uncertainty in Atlantic Canada. This issue cannot be subjected to the whims and fancies of the budget process. We need a clear, unequivocal commitment.
Oral Questions
Will the Prime Minister please give Atlantic Canadians this Government's assurance that maritime freight rate assistance programs will not be touched?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will give the same answer in English that I gave in French. I am particularly-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That bad!


Benoît Bouchard: -if the Member from Hamilton East would shut her mouth it would be easier.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister could complete his answer.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be a member of this Government which has done much more than you did in five years for Atlantic Canada. I think that we have a lot of programs, and of course you were against the most of them. It is normal. I repeat concerning the earlier question you raised, that this question if it has to be answered will be answered in due course on April 27.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is a very straightforward question, as I always ask.
Can the Minister tell this House what the cost of her proposed changes to the UI will be on the welfare rolls of communities like Belle Island in Newfoundland, and Sudbury, Ontario? Does the Minister from Rosedale not recognize the devastating impact that her proposed changes will have on these communities, which are already strapped for money?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the fact that the Member got my riding wrong, and simply suggest to him that there are enormous benefits for small communities in this new program. I think he should be congratulating us. There are many communities in his part of the world that will benefit from the increased funding to Community Futures.

April 18, 1989
Oral Questions
As for Newfoundland, let me just reiterate that there will be $15 million more going into Newfoundland as a result of this program than would have been going in otherwise, including a $50 million enhancement of the Community Futures Program. There will be resources for entry level skills training. There will be $350 million for non-apprentice trainees. There will be an additional $50 million for the provision of training and work experience to social assistance recipients. There is a $100 million towards new services for displaced older workers. There is $45 million self-employment entrepreneurship in the building programs.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to hear some more, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECTED FUTURE JOBS
John R. Rodriguez: I direct a supplementary to the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. According to a planning document prepared by the Minister's Strategic Policy and Planning Division, published in August, 1988, the top 10 occupations facing the greatest job growth in the next six years include sales persons, food serving occupations, cashiers, janitors and cleaners. The document goes on to say that "by and large low to medium skill levels characterize these occupations with most requiring little or no post-secondary education or training." Does not the document from the Minister's own Department reveal what a farce those changes are? Aren't they simply designed to trample workers into low paying jobs, or in Joey Smallwood's words, resettle them in Toronto?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the things that the Hon. Member must take into account is that the kind of training that we are providing for people is to get them out of low paying unskilled jobs into better jobs. If the Hon. Member would just raise his sights and help the people in his community take advantage of the program to get them out of low paying jobs, and particularly the women of his riding, then I think that they would all be better off. We are prepared to help them on this side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It pertains to the serious situation in Lebanon.
Yesterday Lebanon experienced its worst bombing in 14 years. The latest outbreaks of violence have claimed hundreds of lives, and countless casualties. Our Party has always said that violence and aggression are not the route to national reconciliation. The situation has intensified and is growing worse each hour.
Is the Secretary of State prepared to exercise Canada's right as a member, both of the UN and the Security Council, and call for an emergency debate in the Security Council regarding this crisis?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the great seriousness with which the Hon. Member and all Members of the House take the situation in Lebanon. His question was precise as to whether we would be prepared to exercise our rights. In the appropriate circumstances we would, of course, be prepared to do that.
I think one of the elements of this tragedy that is of concern to us all is that this is not a matter that debate will resolve. It is very important that there be diplomatic pressures and such others as may apply, upon the Arab League or others who may have influence in Lebanon. We are following all of those examples.
I give the Hon. Member my assurance that if the point arrived where we thought it would be helpful for there to be the kind of debate that he has recommended, we would certainly initiate that debate.


ASSISTANCE FOR REFUGEES
Jesse Philip Flis: My supplementary is to the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. The people of Lebanon are crying out for help. It has taken two months and a special appeal from the Red Cross of Canada to offer any kind of help to that country. While we applaud this gesture, though late in coming, I ask the Minister what immediate steps is the Government undertaking to ensure increased assistance is made available to the refugees who are fleeing Lebanon to neighbouring countries?
April 18, 1989


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Hon. Member just referred to the announcement that was made by my colleague earlier this week of a substantial Canadian contribution to the International Red Cross to deal with precisely that problem. We will continue to look for other ways in which Canada might be able to be of help in resolving the problems of refugees in Lebanon. We will also look for ways in which we might be able to encourage the forces of peace in that country, and in very many ways the ultimate responsibility for that-I don't mean to shed the responsibility of Canada or others-rests with the Lebanese themselves. We certainly want to do everything we can to encourage all elements in that country to recognize the tragedy of this situation, and to take actions to bring it to an end. To the degree that Canada can help we shall help.


AIRPORTS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In the spring of 1987 I and my colleagues called upon the Government to provide for a rescue component, as well as a firefighting component, at major Canadian airports. At that time the Government said it was not necessary.
A few days ago, thanks to the Minister of State (Transport), I received a copy of a consultant's report, commissioned in the fall of 1987, and received by the Department this past December. That report recommends that rescue staff be added at a number of major Canadian airports, in addition to the firefighting staff. Will the Minister accept this recommendation and immediately request sufficient additional dollars and person years from Treasury Board to provide this lifesaving service?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (TVansport)):: Mr. Speaker, as well as to the Hon. Member, the report was sent out to interested parties who had taken part in the consultation process. They have provided their input to me as well as to the Department. It is being studied. Action will be taken on it.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL AIRPORTS-FIRE-FIGHTING SERVICES
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of State for Transport.
The report recommends that the way to pay for this provision of rescue services is through the elimination of fire-fighting services at a number of regional airports throughout Canada, airports such as those at Baie Comeau, London, Norman Wells, Prince Rupert, Ste-phenville, Whitehorse, and Yarmouth. Will the Minister not indicate that they were prepared to go to Treasury Board for additional moneys and additional person years? At the very least will the Minister repudiate this part of the recommendation and say that in no way, under any circumstances, will the Government of Canada eliminate or reduce the ability of Transport Canada to provide fire-fighting services at these small regional airports?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, in sending out the report for consultation I made a point in the letter that I sent out with it in which I stated that I did not agree with that recommendation.


EXTERNAL AID
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for External Relations and concerns a world summit for children.
The Third World's foreign debt burden has forced governments to reduce health expenditures by 50 per cent. Children suffer as a result.
Will the Minister honour the commitment to help the poorest countries and people with a summit where developed and developing countries could deal with the problems of the world's children who live in extreme poverty, even in Canada?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has already done much to deal with the various problems set forth in the UNICEF report. I think it is worth pointing out the wonderful work UNICEF does to aid women and children, particularly in Third World countries. And I would like to add that Canada is the fourth largest contributor to UNICEF.

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague refers, as does the report, to the disastrous effects of the debt on children and on Third World countries. In this regard, I would mention that I was very glad to table yesterday in the House the Bill that will cancel the debt of some sub-Saharan African countries, as a result of the Government's commitment.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague referred to health. There too, we have contributed $120 million to a universal immunization program.
I think that those are all very concrete actions to help the poorest and especially children in Third World countries.



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.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When debate ceased for Question Period and the House recessed the Hon. Member for Winnipeg Transcona (Mr. Blaikie) was on his feet. Other duties require that the Hon. Member be out of the House. I suggest that we continue on with the regular schedule of speakers.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to say a few words in connection with Bill C-2. I understand that at this time we are discussing the Bill in principle as opposed to in detail. However, I would like to bring a few matters to the attention of Members on the government side. Hopefully, someone there will listen to some of the concerns I am going to express and perhaps take them into account when the matters are discussed in committee.
Scarborough West is one of the ridings which is part of Metropolitan Toronto-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The only reason I interrupt the Hon. Member is so that we can have a little more quiet in the House. I think that would
make it easier for the Hon. Member to speak and for the Speaker and everyone else to listen.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, Scarborough West forms part of Metropolitan Toronto. Metropolitan Toronto is very concerned about transportation, as I am sure are other areas, but specifically Toronto since it has the Pearson International Airport. There are many rail lines going through it. It is located on Lake Ontario. It is a port both for Great Lakes shipping and international shipping. Needless to say the people of Toronto and the people of Scarborough West are very concerned with transportation safety.
That being said, I would like to discuss some of the specifics of Bill C-2 beginning with the stated purpose of the Bill. It is to advance transportation safety. Who could possibly be against such a purpose? We are all interested in the advancement of transportation safety.
How will this Government advance the safety of the Canadian public? We have before us Bill C-2, which is a rather lengthy document. The first thing that it proposes is the establishment of a Transportation Accident Investigation Board.
I would really appreciate it if some Hon. Members would allow me the courtesy of making my remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair has tried to bring all Hon. Members to attention. I would like the Hon. Member to notice that the noise does not come from only one side of the House.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Madam Speaker, I am delighted with any noise on this side of the House.
As I was saying, there is to be a proposed board. This proposed board it is suggested will apply its efforts to three separate areas. They are aviation occurrences, marine occurrences and railway occurrences. I have a conceptual problem with this idea. The types of occurrences that will occur, hopefully very infrequently, with respect to these different types of transportation are so completely different that it seems foolhardy to group them all together so that they fall within the jurisdiction of one five-member board.
I raise this matter because this Bill was brought forward in order to replace an Act which the Liberal Party brought forward in 1984 which established the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. I mention that board specifically because in that legislation we were dealing with aviation safety. We were talking about a board which was established for the specific purpose of dealing with safety in aviation. We now have a board which will be established for the purpose of dealing with all types of transportation. If it is possible for the members of the
April 18, 1989

board to deal with those types of transportation, then that is fine. But what kind of qualifications do the board members have to have? Other Hon. Members have already referred to Clause 4(2). All that is required is that the members of the board "-be collectively knowledgeable about air, marine, rail and commodity pipeline transportation". That seems to me to be a requirement for a Renaissance man. I would be very interested to see if we can find people who are collectively knowledgeable about those four different types of transportation.
Can you imagine, Madam Speaker, the difference between the problems experienced by an aircraft which develops trouble and the problems experienced by transporting commodities via pipeline and transporting them via a rail system? There is such a vast diversification of potential problems that to force the five member board to have a collective knowledge of all of these different types of transportation is dangerous. I would ask the Government to consider having three different boards to deal with the three different areas: aviation, marine and railway and commodity occurrences. That is the first comment I would like to make.
The next comment is about how this Board is going to be constituted. A chairman will be appointed. There are no qualifications set forth on the appointment of the chairman. Under that chairman, there will be three branches, each of them headed by a director, the so-called director of investigations. There is no definition of the qualifications of a director of investigations.
Indeed, we are going to have the situation of the chairman who has no specified qualifications appointing the three directors who have no specified qualifications. Then there will be other investigators. It is interesting that in this Act the word investigator is defined as any person referred to in Paragraph 10 1(a) or (b). If you look at Paragraph 10 1(a) or (b), it does not give any further help as to the definition or qualifications of an investigator. Accordingly, I suggest that there be some discussion and some fix in the Act about the types of qualifications necessary. If we are going to have a multimodal situation and one chairman, we may end up with a chairman
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
whose major interest is aviation. The chairman has the exclusive responsibility for managing personnel matters, financial matters and property matters as we see in the Act. He has as well the exclusive responsibility for directing the staff. Here I think it is important to note in Section 5 (2)(a), and apportioning its work; (b) directing the members and apportioning their work.
I suggest that there may be perhaps an unintentional but nonetheless human bias for someone who is particularly interested in aviation to apportion work in the aviation area as opposed to railway transportation investigations or commodity and other types of investigations. Along with that, that person would be appointing the various directors of investigation who no doubt would have the focus that the chairman would want at that particular time. I would suggest that there should be some direction in the Bill as to who can be appointed and on what qualification.
One of the speakers this morning indicated that the Canadian Aviation Safety Board has been compromised. I agree with that comment. It is most unfortunate, but there is no question that there is a lack of confidence in transportation safety by Canadians today. He went on to say that this Act will restore that confidence. I have difficulty understanding the logic behind those remarks. I do not understand how replacing one Act by another Act in and of itself is going to restore confidence. To restore confidence we need an Act that makes some logical sense, one that is promulgated and implemented in a logical and consistent fashion independently. It will then demonstrate that it deserves the confidence of the Canadian public.
With respect to some of the other difficulties that I have discerned in my review of Bill C-2, what happens if there is a transportation accident? 'lake an aviation accident. That accident is then brought to the director of investigations for the air. That is in Section 10(2). That investigation department conducts an investigation, brings forward its findings to the Board which consists of up to five members who are collectively knowledgeable about air, marine, rail and commodity transportation. They then digest this report. Do they make it public? No, they do not.

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
What is the next step as this Act states? The next step is to prepare a draft report. Where does that draft report go? The Act states that it is a confidential document. It goes directly to the Minister of Transport. Why? Obviously it is so that the Minister of Transport can see that draft report before anyone else sees it. The Act is quite blunt in that it then gives the Minister the opportunity to make representations with respect to it. It is only after the representations have been made and the Board has considered them as they must do under the Act that a final report is made public.
Is that a problem? I suggest that it could very well be a problem because of the need to perceive that such a Board investigating accidents is independent, that it is not under the thumb of any particular Minister. Not only must it be independent, it must be seen to be independent. I have a real difficulty where the Act requires that the draft report be submitted to the Minister for his review and recommendations before it can be made public. The perception might be that if there is a minority report, if there is a report that perhaps could embarrass the Government of the day, that the Minister concerned would have the opportunity to make representations which may be perceived by the public as attempting to influence the final report. If the public is not confident that the Board is independent of the Minister, we are not going to have confidence in the Board and its reports.
It seems that it is designed to breed allegations, to breed questions in Question Period, to breed non-confidence as opposed to confidence.
There is also a potential for conflict in Section 24. In Section 24(2) the Act requires that the Board shall-and of course this is mandatory-"on a confidential basis" send a copy of the draft report to the Minister. It is clear that the draft report is to be confidential. It is clear that it is a mandatoiy requirement. There is no discretion on the Board. It must do this.
Two sections later, however, in Subsection (4), we see that the Board shall again mandatorily receive the representations made pursuant to Subsection (2). What are they supposed to do with those representations? They are supposed to keep a record of those representations. If you are going to keep a record of representations, one presumes that that record is going to be public. How can you have a public record of representations dealing with a confidential report? Surely the representations that are going to be kept by the Board dealing with the confidential report are going to be talking about matters in the confidential report.
I find it difficult to follow the rationale there. If we are going to have confidentiality, then we have to remain completely confidential. I suggest that that is not going to build confidence.
The final thing that is going to build confidence is the bottom line. What is the bottom line here? The bottom line is very clear. Whenever a safety board delivers its report, that safety board's report should be listened to. What is the use of this board and that board and the next board delivering all kinds of reports if no one reads them, if no one follows the recommendations contained in them? It is key that we have a commitment to a board whose reports are going to be followed.
We have seen that that has not been the case in the past with the Government. The Canadian Air Safety Board has made specific recommendations with respect to Pearson International Airport, for example. Has the Government listened to those recommendations? No. If we want to have confidence in the new Board that this legislation will create, there must be a commitment by the Government that the report of these boards will be heard and implemented.
With those words, I look forward to the committee work on this Bill. While the spirit is there, the flesh is weak.


Mr. Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Hon. Member deals with safety. There is a situation concerning airport safety that has existed for more than a decade. It involves the federal Government's responsibility for sharing in airport infrastructure.
At Campbell River there is an airport road which is in disastrous condition. The medical association of Campbell River has said it cannot, in many cases, advise patients to use that road for Medivac. Ambulance drivers do not want to use that road. People who work there have raised the problem of road safety many times.
Does the Hon. Member believe that this Board should be able to examine questions of infrastructure when it concerns a serious situation like that of the Campbell River Airport road?
April 18, 1989

Let me provide a bit more information. Because this road connects to a provincial highway, the provincial Government offered to pay a third of the cost. The MLA, Colin Gabelmann, worked very hard and secured support for that. Mayor Bob Ostler and the Campbell River council offered to pay a third of the cost because some of it was within the district of Campbell River. Ultimately, the greatest part of the road joins the federal airport to a provincial highway. It is in such disastrous shape that the medical association, those associated with the hospital, and those transporting patients for Medivac will not propose the use of that road in many cases.
Should the matter of airport infrastructure and safety be a subject of investigation? Should the federal Government be paying for those costs of road structure and maintenance, sharing it with them, particularly because that is exactly what it did at Williams Lake? It covered the entire cost to join that airport to a provincial highway, which is essentially the same distance.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Madam Speaker, as I understand the Hon. Member's question, it deals with whether the Board should be concerned with the infrastructure. Clause 7 of Bill C-2 describes one of the objects of the Board as identifying safety deficiencies as evidenced by transportation occurrences. Admittedly, we are talking about aviation, marine, railroad. However, I think the Board should be given a broad enough mandate so that wherever road systems infrastructure or any kind of infrastructure that is involved in any of those types of transportation impacts in any way on any potential safety, clearly the Board should have the mandate to make recommendations in order to avoid that kind of problem in the future.


David Walker: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent comments on this legislation. He has accurately pointed out many of the pitfalls. I want to draw the attention of the House to the comments by the Member for Winnipeg-Transcona (Mr. Blaikie) to show the difference between quality research and quality thought and a Member who simply stands up to ramble on. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Transcona mentioned in his speech that I was nervous when he stood up to speak. Let me say that I am quite nervous when he stands up to speak, lest other people think that he represents Winnipeg.
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
I have a specific question for my colleague. Did he notice whether the legislation would make public inquiries or public hearings optional, with a decision to be made by the Board? It seems that one of the great changes in the decision-making in this country is to encourage Governments to be more open and forthright from the beginning, and sometimes to mandate this requirement. Would he comment on how he thinks the Board should proceed with regard to public inquiries?


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Madam Speaker, public inquiries are very important and serve a purpose. We must recognize that not every incident of every branch of these three transportation investigations will require a public inquiry. Sometimes even the tip of the wing of an aircraft going into the safety zone miles away from another aircraft is deemed to be a so-called occurrence, yet that may not require a public inquiry costing hundreds of thousands of dollars of Canadian taxpayers money.
Having said that, it seems to me the Board should be encouraged, wherever there is a major safety violation or major accident, to have a public inquiry so that Canadians see that the facts have been put on the table and appreciate that the Board is doing all it can in order to come to a conclusion.
For example, we know that the Canadian public has some serious concerns with what happened in Gander. We do not have a public inquiry. That seems like the kind of incident that cries out for a public inquiry. While you cannot mandate a public inquiry for every incident, it seems the Government of the day should encourage as a policy matter that any kind of severe accident like that, with loss of life or major loss of property, should have a public inquiry so that the Canadian populace will know exactly what happened and get to the bottom of it.


Raymond John Skelly: I have another question concerning the one I asked the Member about the Campbell River Airport road and its infrastructure. While embellishing many of the worth-while comments he made previously, the Member neglected to look at the question of infrastructure funding. I remind him that the previous Liberal government had this matter under close scrutiny and was on the verge of basically approving funding to share in the one-third-one-third-one-third proposal.

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
Both the district of Campbell River and the provincial Government have this money available and are prepared to proceed if the Conservative Government would simply show the same level of concern and commitment to the safety in that particular area. I am one who is very concerned about the area of Medivac as well as highway safety. If we could ensure that the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) would give this matter his undivided attention and respond directly to the provincial Minister of Transportation and Highways and the mayor of Campbell River, the matter might be resolved. Would the Hon. Member comment on that?


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: I have a brief comment, Madam Speaker. Of course, I am not familiar with every area of Canada, much as I would like to be. I am not familiar with the comments the Member has made with respect to the area to which he has just referred.
I appreciate the short history lesson about what this Liberal Party believed in the past and where we are going in the future. My only comment would be that I think we are discussing safety and I am beginning to see that the Hon. Member, with due respect, is wandering from the subject of safety and going on to subjects of funding, which I do not think are appropriate and which I have not developed, and about which I have done no research. Therefore, I would rather not make any comment with respect to those.


Mr. John F. Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I want to address a few remarks to Bill C-2. The one aspect of the Bill that is of particular interest to those of us from Vancouver Island is that which would afford this new Board the role of conducting independent investigations of marine incidents. Clause 7 of the Bill provides that the object of the Board is to advance transportation safety by conducting independent investigations and, if necessary, public inquiries into transportation occurrences. Those occurrences, as defined by the Bill, include marine occurrences related to an activity of a vessel or a ship.
Under the Bill, the board is given the power to decide whether a public inquiry is to be held. It is not imposed upon the board that it must hold public inquiries, but it is given the responsibility of deciding in appropriate circumstances whether public inquiries are to be held.
With that preamble, I would like to address two points. First, the Bill does not spell out the implications of a public inquiry and what that really means, nor have we heard anything about it from the Government. We have seen examples in the past of inquiries which simply give a nod in the direction of public input. We on this side of the House will make proposals at committee stage that will provide that the elements of the public face of the inquiry be spelled out in greater detail. I am thinking particularly of a point made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) yesterday.
Yesterday was Law Day and the Minister made a speech at the National Law Day dinner which was held at the Chateau Laurier Hotel. He made the clear and I think uncontroversial point that it is not enough to provide on paper for justice but it is critically important that all people in the community be given genuine and real access to justice. In one context, that may mean access to legal assistance, but in the case of inquiries under this Bill, it seems to me that the Government will have to provide a genuine opportunity for interested persons to participate in a real and effective way in the inquiries provided for in the Bill.
Let us use the example of the west coast oil spill. I will be getting into this in greater detail later. If there is to be a public inquiry into the west coast oil spill, we see it as being necessary that it will not simply be a pro forma opportunity for members of the public to show up at an inquiry in Ottawa. The inquiry should take place in locations to which interested people can conveniently travel. It means that funds should be set aside under the terms of the board for those interested parties to prepare for the hearings, to retain research assistance, if necessary to retain legal counsel and to have an opportunity to introduce witnesses and to cross-examine witnesses put up by either the big companies that will have an interest in these kinds of inquiries or even by Government agencies.
All of these things cost money. If there is to be a genuine form of public access, however, it is our submission that it will be necessary for the board to provide funds for that kind of assistance to interested groups. For example, if we do end up with an inquiry into the west coast oil spill, funds should be made available to environmental groups and others from Vancouver Island to retain the necessary expertise to make a meaningful commitment and contribution to that inquiry.
April 18, 1989

Some 12 or 13 years ago, or maybe even 15 years ago,
I had the opportunity while working with the British Columbia Government to be Chairman of the Rent Review Commission. We entered into a comprehensive study of rent control and made very sure that not only did tenant groups have the kind of support of which I am speaking, but even the developers who opposed rent controls. Of course, there are different kinds of inquiries. Some inquiries would not need the full-blown treatment of which I am speaking. In today's paper, we read that the Dubin inquiry has already run up a bill of $750,000. Not every incident will require that level of investigation, but there are some that will. Where they do require it, the public should have that kind of assistance and support if the inquiry is to be meaningful.
The second point I wish to make relates to the west coast oil spill. We on this side of the House have been pressing since Parliament resumed at the beginning of April for a full public inquiry into the west coast oil spill. Since Parliament convened, there have been two further threats to the environment posed by the spillage of fuel or the threatened spillage of fuel on the west coast. In each case, the Minister has advised the House that the situation is under control, that they are looking into it and no one need worry.
On the last two occasions, however, he has added that he would be prepared to see some form of public input into the review of the standards and controls on tankers passing through Canadian waters on the west coast and he has promised the House that will take place. It seems to me that a Government that can produce a Bill of this kind, providing for public inquiries into marine incidents, something which would clearly include oil spills, ought without any further delay to direct a public inquiry into the west coast oil spills and the tanker and barge traffic up and down the coast. There is no excuse for any further delay.
The Minister met this weekend with representatives of a group of 158 prominent British Columbians who have been calling for a public inquiry. He was quoted in the newspapers as saying that he was prepared to have some public input into the departmental inquiry, but he still failed to make a commitment to the House, to the people of Canada and particularly to the people of the west coast of Vancouver Island that there will be a full, public, open, accessible inquiry located at least in part on Vancouver Island into this massive threat to our environment.
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
Returning to my original point on public inquiries, it seems to me that the whole point of the exercise is that the people who are affected must have the power to influence the outcome of the inquiry. If Canada is a genuine democracy, that means that these kinds of inquiries and investigations cannot be intended to cover up problems or to protect the reputations of major companies or even Government Departments that may have failed. Rather, the intention is to help those who are most interested and affected to contribute in a genuine way to solving the problems that need to be addressed. It is their lives and their environment and they are the ones who should have major control over the direction and nature of the inquiry. It is for that reason that we call on the Government not only to introduce at committee stage clear and specific provisions for genuine public enquiries but, as a measure of good faith, to immediately establish a proper public inquiry into the case of the west coast oil spill.
I have not been paying much attention to the clock, but if I still have a few minutes let me add a comment on another aspect of the Bill. I wish to speak about those provisions in the Bill for the appointment of board members. Being a new Member, I may stray just a tad into a clause-by-clause discussion, but I will try to make my comments as general as possible to avoid what may be a breach of the rules. I am sure either you or my colleagues, Madam Speaker, will correct me if I do not succeed.
I would like to comment on the provisions of the Bill for the appointment of the board, at least in general terms. I think this raises a question which we in this Parliament will have to press the Government hard to address in better terms than it has in the Bill.
Those who have had an opportunity to read Jeffrey Simpson's book on patronage in Canada will appreciate that this country needs substantial changes in how boards are appointed. One probably does not even have to read Jeffrey Simpson's book to appreciate that. The public is looking for quite a different approach to how boards are appointed.
I would certainly concede that a Government is entitled to have those who reflect at least in part its perspectives on boards which are policy oriented. There needs to be some provision for that interest to be taken care of. However, in taking care of that interest, we must guard against a tendency to abuse the privilege. We also must consider the other interests involved, that is, the interests of the public in having an independent, honest, open exercise of public responsibility.

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
The provisions of this Bill still give the Government yet another vehicle for patronage. It is a system which must end. When we get to committee stage this corner of the House will have proposals to offer in that regard.


Raymond John Skelly: I would like to thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. Brewin), for raising a critical matter in transportation safety, which is the question of the spillage of oil. The Hon. Member has raised this matter in conjunction with a very serious oil spill on the west coast of Vancouver Island. He and other Members of the House know that on Vancouver Island and the coast of B.C. there is currently under way a massive petition by citizens who are demanding a public inquiry.
Every municipality, city, regional board, native community and tribal council is writing to the Ministers involved urging that a public inquiry take place. Today there is a delegation headed by Richard Lucas, the co-ordinator for the Nuu-chahnulth people, on that clean-up. He is here in Ottawa attempting to meet with Ministers about the clean-up. I would add that with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), he has basically had no luck at all at this point. He is here to urge that a public inquiry be held so that the livelihoods of the Nuu-chahnulth people and the other citizens who live there are not destroyed in the same manner as those who live in Valdez.
I ask my colleague if he could comment on the refusal of the Prime Minister and Ministers to meet with these people who have firsthand experience and who will be the first line exposed to the damage created by the transportation safety problems. Why will the Ministers not meet with them, hear their concerns, and launch that public inquiry? The Minister of Transport is quite prepared to go around the Canadian Aviation Safety Board and appoint a public inquiry into the Dryden accident, which certainly is serious, but oil spills are serious too and the potential for enormous destruction is serious. A public inquiry must be appointed. The Government Members must meet with the people who have suffered the damage, who have been involved in the clean-up and know firsthand what has happened.
Would the Member join with me in urging those Ministers and the Prime Minister to meet with the delegations that are here now and those who are on their
way?


John F. Brewin: I thank my friend for the question. We are working together with the other Members from Vancouver Island, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett), the Hon. Member for Saanich- Gulf Islands (Ms. Hunter), the Hon. Member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Cowichan (Mr. Stupich) to press the Government on this issue.
Frankly, it is difficult for me to understand why the Government has not moved more quickly on this. The only excuse Government Members might have is that they are still poring over the map to try to figure out exactly where the west coast of Vancouver Island is.
However, we were pleased that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) went to Vancouver on the weekend. We hope that effort will have moved him closer to a decision to proceed with the public inquiry.
There cannot be a public inquiry in the case of every single event that comes along, and we on this side of the House understand that. However, the potential for major damage is so great that we should take the lesson that has been learned with relatively minimal damage to our shores and to our environment to get to the heart of what will be necessary to avoid a major catastrophe in the future.
Three or four tankers per day go by the City of Victoria through the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Each one is a floating invitation to an oil spill disaster. So far we have been fortunate, but inevitably there will a disaster somewhere in the Strait of Georgia or in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. There will be a serious oil spill off the coast, unless steps are taken now.
The tankers that are used are beginning to age. The potential that they have for leakage increases as each year goes by. It is critical that we look at the technology for transporting oil, and that we look at the technology that is being used in barges.
April 18, 1989

The other day a tug had an explosion on board 14 miles off the west coast of Vancouver Island. The barge had to be cut loose and was floating around the ocean for a number of hours before it was rescued. Fortunately, the seas were relatively calm, and because the Government has been sensitized to these issues, it was able to jump on the problem fairly quickly. Perhaps next time we will not be so lucky.
The case is overwhelming for an immediate major investigation which would take the form of a public inquiry in order that the people can have some confidence in the results and give their input. I hope the initial indications that the Minister has given that he is beginning to see the need for at least some public input will flower into a commitment in the next day or two for a public inquiry. The time is long overdue.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I also wish to rise on the same point. All of us from British Columbia, and I hope all Members of the House, are extremely worried about the lack of protection, the lack of planning, the lack of resources, and the lack of safety measures to both prevent and contain future spills.
The Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. Brewin) knows that there is a particular vulnerability on the Gulf Islands, to which I have a special attachment, and to the San Juan Islands, a group of beautiful islands between Vancouver Island and the mainland.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member particularly about the risk connected with the Cherry Point refinery where spills could happen. As the Hon. Member pointed out, there is frequent transport of oil through those straits, which is a very dangerous and narrow passageway into the Cherry Point refinery. The risk element is very high. I would like the Hon. Member to comment on that. It is bad enough on the west coast of Vancouver Island. However, in the centre area where there is no sweep out to the sea it would be worse, if that is possible.
Since the Hon. Member is a lawyer of some renown, I would like to ask him what responsibility there is for payment on the part of offenders. In the past history it was American companies that were responsible for the spill that hit our coastline of British Columbia. Does the Canadian Government have a fund from which to immediately pay volunteers who help with the clean-up, something which has not been the case in the past? I understand Canada has some type of legal fund but that it is not available to pay helpers in the event of a spill.
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
Another issue I would like to mention while I am on my feet is the need for a standard policy of double-bottomed tankers as part of the safety measures.


John F. Brewin: My colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), has hurled a number of specific issues at me, on each of which I could speak for considerable length, but it may divert us. I suppose I should divert myself as far as I possibly can from the individual issues, but let me deal with a couple of points. I presume I only have a couple of seconds left.
First of all, one of the things about this Bill is that the findings of the Board are not binding. There is to be no civil or criminal liability assigned by the Board, nor are its findings to be construed as such. As the Member by implication has pointed out, the Government needs to bring forward some companion legislation to deal with the sharing and burden of costs of these oil spills.
The Exxon company is going to be facing hundreds of millions of dollars of costs, which of course it will just pass on to the consumer after its insurance runs out. Apparently even the limits of its insurance will not cover what is done.
The next oil spill may be caused by a company with very few assets, and then the public will be stuck with it. One of the questions for a public inquiry would be: What insurance is being carried? What guarantee is there that there will be any company standing behind the insurance or any funds standing behind the insurance? What about the volunteers? What about the tourist industry, the home owners, the native fishermen and other fishermen on the coast, all of whom may well suffer damages?
In the west coast oil spill which happened in December and January, we on this side have proposed that the Government immediately establish a compensation fund. I think my colleague from Comox-Albemi is going to be introducing a motion if he has not done so already.


An Hon. Member:: It is done.


John F. Brewin: "It is done", I am told. It calls on the Government to establish a compensation fund so that those who are hurt do not have to go into American courts and go through international lawsuits and the complexity of that. The people should pay, the Government should compensate the people who have been damaged, and then the Government should take on the responsibility of suing. There are thousands of aspects to

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
this thing, all of which should be handled by a public inquiry.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, this afternoon I would like to deal with two issues. First, I will speak to the Bill before the House, and second, I would like to deal with the tragic accident that occured in Gander, Newfoundland, on December 12, 1985.
First of all, in referring to Bill C-2, Madam Speaker, we should remember it was not the Conservative Party that dreamt up this whole business of having a commission of inquiry on air accidents. In fact, it was the former Liberal Government which in 1984 proposed and, in fact, established the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.
Today, the Government is proposing to establish a new transportation accident investigation board, which will replace the Canadian Aviation Safety Board and also be responsible for other, similar types of accidents.
Madam Speaker, investigations are essential in order to maintain safety standards in this country. In 1978 we had the tragic crash in Cranbrook, British Columbia, and the Progressive Conservative Party, the Official Opposition at the time, asked the Government to set up a royal commission of inquiry. A few months later, the Government was defeated in a general election, and the new Conservative Government set up the Dubin Commission which reported several years later. On the basis of that report, the Government, in 1984, established the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.

I have here a speech from the Hon. Member for Vegreville, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankows-ki), in his days as the transportation critic, opposition critic as he was in those days, for the Conservative Party. It is dated February 22, 1979. Let me read some of it. I think there will be a sentiment of deja vu in what I will read. The Hon. Member for Vegreville said at that time, and I quote from Hansard:
I turn now to the question of air safety. In spite of the minister's assurance, it is clear that events of the recent past, and specifically over the last 12 months, have given Canadians clear evidence that there is serious erosion taking place in public air safety in Canada.
He adds further:
Rather than acting responsibly, this minister chooses to gloss over the issue and play the old reassuring game that all is well. I suggest that constitutes a clear of dereliction of duty on his part. We again call for a full public inquiry into the whole area of air safety so that all the facts may be known and corrective measures put in place. That is a minimum.
Ten years later that judicial commission of inquiry is something for which my colleagues and I in the Liberal Party have been asking, specifically in the area of the Gander air crash.
Just to refresh the memory of all Hon. Members on the Gander air crash, the crash in question occurred at approximately 6.45 a.m. on December 12, 1985, approximately one kilometre from the runway at the Gander International Airport. An Arrow Air DC-8 crashed to the ground. It had 256 passengers, eight of them were U.S. servicemen returning from a mission in the Sinai Desert. The remaining eight people were crew members. All perished in the crash. All were citizens of the United States of America.
Following that very tragic air crash we had the Canadian Aviation Safety Board do an investigation of the incident in question. I do not mean to complain about the quality of the investigators themselves. I have no reason to believe that anything went wrong in terms of the quality of the individual investigators, whether I am speaking of Mr. Tom Hinton of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, Mr. Peter Bogue, or others. However, I am saying that the investigation was handled by the Board and by the Government in such a way that the CASB no longer enjoys the confidence of the Canadian public. Very few people now believe anything that has come out of the report of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board on the Gander air crash.
First, we had internal division within the Board. We had an interim report of the Board. We had a dissenting interim report of the Board. We had the Board that attempted to constitute itself in an evidence review committee to oversee the evidence, and at a subsequent meeting the chairman used this power to vote twice in order to dismantle the evidence review committee that had been established at a previous meeting.
April 18, 1989

We had an eminent lawyer, now a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, who prepared a report basically stating that the Canadian Aviation Safety Board was in a grave state of disagreement and that things need to be patched up and repaired immediately. We had all of those things occurring. Afterwards, of course, we had the final report of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board supported by five members and the minority report supported by four members. The only reason there were four on the minority side was because one of the dissenting members by then had quit. Otherwise, we would have had five people supporting the report, five dissenting, and probably again a situation where the chairman would have had to cast a second and deciding vote in order to break the tie.
What we have is obviously very tragic in terms of what happened at the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. Even more fundamental, there are families of American servicemen, families wondering what exactly happened to their loved ones and why 256 people died in the most serious accident ever to occur on Canadian soil. I do not have the answer to that question. However, the probable cause of the accident, as was determined by the Board, has been determined by many people as not being a likely scenario at best. It is difficult to say what caused the crash.
I have certain items that I would like to bring to your attention, Madam Speaker. First, there is another company that frequently transports troops from the United States. It is known as Transamerica Airlines. At one point in time that airline was transporting American military personnel and had an unusual incident happen. A parcel fell out of the bag that a military person was carrying in which it was identified that there was a detonator cap. The military authorities immediately made the discovery of live ammunition as being part of the luggage of this particular military person. At that point in time the authorities asked everyone on the plane to leave it. They then told all the passengers that if they wanted to they could immediately surrender all arms and ammunition that they had on board and that they would not be punished. However, if they failed to do so within the space of a few minutes then of course they would send in the sniffing dogs and anything that they found. Then the military people in question would be charged for illegal possession and illegal transportation of these arms and military hardware.
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
Do you know what was found, Madam Speaker? On board that flight was found six rolls of detonator caps, eight static fire blasting caps, three 20-millimetre projectiles, nine 20-millimetre practice rounds, five .50 calibre machine rounds, one .308 millimetre shell, one .208 millimetre shell, nine slap flares, one green smoke flare, one 45-70 line cutter, one simulated grenade fuse, one practice bomb, one smoke-bomb, one signal flare, and eighteen 5.56 shells.
Following that incident Transamerica complained bitterly to the United States military. The United States military established procedures at that point to ensure that nothing like that would happen again.
I have in my hand an internal document from the United States military. It is dated July 28, 1986. I would like to read what it states. It is written in military jargon and I may not be able to decipher it all. It is also a very bad photocopy of an original document. The document was sent by Lieutenant-Colonel M. L. Becker of the United States Air Force. The subject of the document is hazardous materials prohibited on PAX aircraft. It states:
On two MTMC arranged commercial air movements that have moved in the last 60 days, hazardous items were found in the stowed baggage of troops. On 26 Feb. 86, a quantity of hazardous munitions items was identified which included 20 mm, 50 calibre, 40 mm and 5.56mm ammunition; detonating cord; nine slap flares; smoke flares and grenade simulators.
Perhaps if I had the attention of all Members who are busy conversing on various issues, such as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), we could proceed with this debate. The document states further:
The procedures require that troop commanders check to ensure stowed and carry-on baggage does not contain hazardous contraband. This procedure further requires commanders to certify on the passenger manifest that anti-hazard inspection was made and baggage was checked.
I draw the following sentence to your attention, Madam Speaker, because I believe it is of the utmost importance. It is:
In light of the fatal air crash of a DC-8 in Gander, Newfoundland, on 12 Dec. 85, request that all concerned with the movement of troops aboard commercial aircraft, contracted by MAC or MTMC, do their part to ensure that hazardous items do not get aboard aircraft.
What does that mean? Anyone who would be reading that document for the first time could be led to the following conclusion. I took the document and handed it to someone asking them this question: "Do you remember what caused the Gander crash in Newfoundland?" The individual told me: "No". I said: "All right. Take this document, read it and then tell me if you know".

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
The person read the document and said: "Oh, yeah, I know what caused it. It is obvious from this document. It says here that in light of the DC-8 crash in Gander, Newfoundland, they should not allow live ammunition to get on board airplanes any more".
In other words, it was the accidental explosion of such ammunition that had caused the air crash. That is what I read from that United States military document. Is that what caused the crash in question? I do not know. I say to you, Madam Speaker, that that possible theory, that evidence which is in the hands of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, does not form part of the conclusion that the Board made. It is interesting to note that in the minority report there is reference to the fact that it could have been an explosion on board that caused the crash of the plane in question.


Ross Belsher: On what evidence?


Don Boudria: I thought I just read to the Hon. Member across the way a letter from the United States military. Perhaps I could provide him with a copy of it. The Member across the way asks: "On what evidence?" I could ask the very same question in regard to the majority report of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. As a matter of fact, I am not the only one who questions that evidence. On March 8, 1989, the Minister called a press conference and basically said that he supported the majority report of the Board and that he was going to implement a number of measures to fix things up. At that same press conference I said that the Minister should have questioned not only the recommendations of the report but the report itself. The Minister said that there was nothing wrong with the report, that there was no reason to question it. A few days later The Ottawa Citizen got hold of an internal report from the Minister's office which stated the same thing that I was saying and the exact opposite of what the Minister was saying.
It stated that in fact the theory of ice on the wings was questionable, if not to say not supportable at all; that there could have been a number of other things that caused the air crash; and that in the view expressed in the internal document from the Minister's office there seemed to have been a kind of bent to the report of only exploring that theoiy rather than other possible theories. I cannot say what caused the crash in question, nor am I
an investigator, but I can read documents. I know when the Minister's own staff is questioning a report. I know when the United States military has documents, copies of which I have, which allude albeit in an indirect way to a possible other cause, that there is indeed a possibility that there were other causes for this tragic air crash.
After the document from the Minister's Department became public, what happened? The Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of the Department that was producing the document was fired, or forced to resign. Thus General Lafrance resigned his position as Assistant Deputy Minister of Transport.
The Minister called another press conference. This time with all due respect he was a little less arrogant than at the one on March 8 in which he was condemning the Opposition for asking the questions that it was asking. It was quite an exercise. The Minister was eating humble pie at the press theatre across the street. He described that he would have an investigation into the Dryden air crash and that he would commission a judge as a form of consultant in order to determine whether there should be an inquiry into the Gander crash. Now why should we have an inquiry to determine whether there should be an inquiry? I am not sure. But to that end Justice Estey was appointed. He is an eminent judge. I have no difficulty with the qualifications of the individual except that he is not a Royal Commission of Inquiry. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, there is no mechanism by which I know that I, as a Member of Parliament, could even give a copy of the letter that I have just read to you to Judge Estey. The families of the victims at Gander have asked to provide information, to make requests, to make a brief, to submit items to Judge Estey. It was not possible for them to do so.
I have a briefing book here, Madam Speaker, which contains several hundred pages of material on Gander. I would like at least to give a copy of it to Judge Estey, as I have to a number of Members of this House. It is not even possible for me to do that under the structure that was established by the Minister of Transport. So I say to you, Madam Speaker, there are many things more that need to be done.
April 18, 1989

Simply moving with this item at the present time, although not a bad one, is not sufficient to remove the doubts in the minds of many Canadians and Americans about that particular crash and about airline safety generally. Indeed, the very prestigious US magazine, Aviation Week Space and Technology on February 6, 1989, was asking for exactly what my colleagues and I in the Liberal Party have been asking for, which is a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Gander air crash.
I want to conclude, Madam Speaker, by once again making this formal request to the Government across the way to institute immediately a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the most tragic event ever to have occurred on Canadian soil, the most tragic air crash which killed 256 people. I mean of course the Gander air crash of December 12, 1985.


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


Raymond John Skelly: I wish to compliment the previous speaker on the very sensitive and eloquent manner in which he raised the important details of a very tragic accident. He noted questions that still have to be answered concerning that accident. I would like to inquire if his remarks included a concern for other transportation safety matters that a number of Members in this House have raised. One is the matter of proper inquiries into oil spills. I know that his Party has shown concern and been very vocal on this. I would point to the question of the four serious oil spills off the coast of Vancouver Island, most notably the one through December and January and the response of the Government to that. Most of the organized communities and citizens who live there are demanding that the Government implement a public inquiry into it.
I would certainly like it to know whether the Member agrees with the citizens and communities on the need for that public inquiry and possibly an expanded role for a transportation and accident investigation group on the oil spill question.
One more item that I would like to have him comment on is the oil spill in December and January which washed up on Long Beach Park. The Government was not prepared to do anything in terms of an investigation, inquiry, and recommendations, until it washed up on a national park. They are still cleaning it up. The Government has withdrawn many of its resources, but it did give a substantial contract to the Nuu-chahnulth Tribal
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
Council for beach-walking programs and clean-up programs that are still going on. That of course extends from Sooke to the Brooks Peninsula on Vancouver Island. But they denied the Kwagwelth Tribal Council to monitor their beaches and undertake the same kind of clean-up. Clearly the issue is that the Kwagwelth people, although they depend on the food and resources that are on those beaches, do not luckily have a national park there. Unfortunately because they don't have the national park, their resources can be spoiled and coated with oil. Yet the Nachalnov people, because it did include the park, were given a substantial government contract to find that oil and clean it up so that the damage does not occur.
I wonder if the Member would be in a position to comment on the equity of that type of situation in addition to the response. In particular does he support the call for a public inquiry into protection, prevention, and the necessity for proper investigation of oil spills off the West Coast of the Island?


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question. Of course, when we are talking about toxic spills, whether they involve oil or other products, the federal Government must act when it has jurisdictional authority.

It is not good enough either, Madam Speaker, to pretend that we get an undertaking from someone in the corporate sector that in the unlikely event that there is a spill, that they will make sure to clean it up. Surely the Valdez incident would tell us that those kinds of undertakings are sometimes not worth the paper they are written on. If that particular incident has demonstrated anything to us, it is that not only must the rules be there, but that we should ensure that those who are charged with the application and the follow-up on those rules have the necessary equipment to do it.
In fact it was quite obvious after some hours that, first, the Exxon Corporation in that case did not really have much of a will to do anything in the beginning. Secondly, when they did muster the will necessary, that they in fact could not get the equipment there on time. Had they been able to get the equipment there on time much of the damage, which will be felt for years to come, could have been alleviated.

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
So we must ensure that there is that mechanism there, not only in principle, but in reality as well.
I want to bring a different item to the attention of the Member in the area of spills. That is the spills of toxic substances in our waters generally. In the constituency that I represent is the St. Lawrence River, and there is the proud Indian community of Aquasasne on Cornwall Island which is partially in my riding and partially in the riding of my hon. friend. Across the river on the American side, there are a GM plant and two aluminum plants. Material is seeping into the St. Lawrence River sometimes by spills, sometimes from storage right on the shore which later leaches into the river system. It does not matter. One way or the other it still has the same toxic effect. We know the PCBs are in the St. Lawrence River and exactly where they are.
We know that the amount of leaching is increasing, but no one is doing anything about it. The Aquasasne community that lives there used to produce cattle and milk. They used to live off agriculture on the island. There got to be so much fluoride poisoning that they had to cease that. Then they were living off fishing and acting as guides for tourists. Now you cannot eat the fish because it is so polluted from those contaminants that I described that were either spilled, leached or otherwise got into the St. Lawrence River. We have social problems in that same community, and we wonder as a society why it is happening. Well, if we had to have a recipe for a disaster, we could not have planned it any better.
It is a most unfortunate event there, but it was caused by that kind of negligence to which the Hon. Member has referred. It is happening in my own constituency, this time not as a result of an oil spill, but as a result of a spill of a different kind.


David Walker: Madam Speaker, the House will recognize that the Hon. Member has evolved as the ranking expert on having a public review of the investigation of airline crashes, particularly the one at Gander. In light of his expertise on this, would he comment on how this Act would pertain to the investigation of that particular crash if it was in place at the time?
I understand that when a military vehicle is involved the Government wishes to shift emphasis and have the Department of Transport as the leading and co-ordinating agency. Does my colleague believe that that would strengthen or weaken the role of the Government in reviewing accidents?


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I do not know if it will make that much difference. Of course, when we are dealing with military personnel there is always a certain sensitivity on the part of the military authorities, but I do not think that is justification for having different people do the work.
In the case of Gander, the United States military became involved very quickly. As a matter of fact, the day after the accident there was a request, a copy of which I have here, by a Major General John Crosbie of the U.S. military who wanted to bulldoze the site immediately. I have a copy of that letter.
Why did we see those kinds of activities? Is it because someone wanted to ensure that the site, which was for all intents and purposes a grave, was ploughed over as soon as possible in order not to disturb the people who died there, or was it for another reason? What could have been the reason for wanting to bulldoze over the site immediately after the accident, even before all the pieces had been picked up? Thankfully, the bulldozing was refused. If it had been accepted, much of the evidence, whatever little we were able to get from the accident, would not have been found. It would have been buried.
In the case of Gander, the autopsies were all done in the United States. The bodies were taken to the United States and autopsies were done there. While I objected to that process, even I have to recognize that, effectively, there was no way in which 256 autopsies could be done at that particular location. No one in that province had that kind of capacity.
There was an arrangement between the United States authorities and Canada by which all the bodies were flown to the United States and the autopsies were done there. Strangely enough, the autopsy reports which are compulsory for the issuing of death certificates in Newfoundland have never been brought back. Surely there has to be something wrong with that.
April 18, 1989



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38(1), to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. Brewin)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Bus Hijacking-Timing of Information; the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi)-Immigration-Refugee claimant applications backlog; the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. Gardiner)-Forestry-Federal-Provincial agreements- Administrative responsibility-Request for consideration at First Ministers' Conference).


TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION BOARD
[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.
David Walker: Madam Speaker, I only have a few comments because many of the points we sought to raise during this debate have been made by other Members. I want to re-emphasize our concern that the questions of safety are addressed properly by the Government. Our desire to debate this in detail is very much influenced by this concern. While we appreciate the anxiousness of the Government to assure Canadians that it too is concerned, we think the Government has moved too hastily with this particular legislation.
Some of the principles that are at stake here are worth reviewing to make sure that Canadians understand them. First, by switching from a single purpose agency to a multimodal agency to review investigations, the Government runs the risk of having a group of people who must respond to crises of a completely different order. While it is very convenient, I am sure the Minister took the advice of his Ministry which has its own parallel organization. The Department of Transport has a surface section, an air section and a marine section. Lo and behold, this legislation proposes a parallel organization.
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
Our fear is that while it may be convenient from a bureaucratic point of view, the risk one runs is setting up an organization that is too close to the original Department so that there will develop a buddy system which is contrary to the purposes of the legislation.
The second concern we have from an administrative point of view, in principle, is that there is a small number of people appointed to the board with such wide ranging responsibilities. If there are five people appointed, one of them must be the chairman. I assume one will take responsibility for air, another for surface, including pipeline and rail, and a third would take responsibility for marine, with an extra member performing various duties. It does not take much imagination to see that with a series of crises occurring in the country and an investigating time of some two or three years, which is not uncommon, the five members will not be able to pay attention to crises as they evolve. This means that people at the second tier will have to address the issue, which raises another problem of public servants investigating public servants.
I suggest the public needs reassurance that we are moving away from investigating ourselves and having others study the question. The principle of parliamentary government is to invite as many Canadians as possible to review our activities rather than doing it among ourselves.
The third principle that is not explored enough, although the Government attempted in its various ways to pretend it understood the issue, is the requirement of public investigation and public inquiry. We hope that as we review this legislation at its various stages in the House it will be improved by ensuring immediate publication of information, the holding of public inquiries under all circumstances as needed, so that the public not only feels that the Government is looking after its interests but their concerns from one region to another can be addressed.
There is the question of where this organization should be headquartered and whether it should be kept close to the Ministry of Transport or physically removed. In the past, the Government followed a pattern with the establishment of CN in Montreal, the establishment of VIA Rail in Montreal, and the establishment of Air Canada in Montreal. It took the strategy that it should separate Crown corporations and independent agencies from the Ministry of Transport. I will be interested in seeing future announcements from the Government about where this should be located so that Canadians understand the independence of the organization.

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
I hope the Government understands that although it has moved quickly to take the show away from its opponents in terms of the headlines, that it has left behind an awful wake. It is the responsibility and duty of the Opposition to continue to remind the Government that appearances are not everything and this legislation needs some substance.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a number of concerns that have been expressed over the last couple of days of debate on this Bill. We on this side of the House are in favour of the thrust of the Bill in principle. However, it is essential that our concerns be re-emphasized for all in the House, particularly for the Minister responsible for the legislation.
The main point to be emphasized is that nothing will have changed with the appointment of this board. The investigation board itself should be totally separate from the Ministry of Transport and from the Minister in charge. If it is not, we will have exactly the same situation we have at the present time. We will have an unworkable system, the system that now exists under the Canadian Aviation Safety Board Act. In that case, people on the board cannot get along with each other. They are coming out with different recommendations based on their investigations.
An example of a problem with this Bill is that the National Energy Board is exempted from this legislation. Yet under this legislation, the National Energy Board regulates the flow of such volatile and flammable materials as gas and oil. If there is an accident with any one of those materials, it will be an accident of major proportions.
As I understand it, the National Energy Board essentially regulates itself. It makes its investigations and appoints from within itself. It appears that the board, as with so many of the other boards that have been set up by this Government and Liberal Governments of the past, does not stand alone. There is, I suggest, a substantial conflict of interest between the members of the board and the Minister in charge.
Again, the same situation will exist under this Bill. Board members will be appointed from lists of Conservative Party hacks, people who are owed favours and people who do not necessarily have any expertise other than taking flights or riding on the rails, as my hon. friend pointed out earlier.
We feel that the appointees to this board should be at arm's length from the Government. They should be people who are not at the beck and call of the Party or of the Minister. They should be people who can investigate and come up with recommendations without fear that they will lose their plum jobs on the investigating board.
It cannot be emphasized enough that we must have a board that stands alone, a board that will never be influenced by those on the other side of the House or by the Minister, a board that can come up with recommendations without fear of repercussion from the Government and without the threat of losing their jobs. I suggest that the committee ensure that there will be independence on any board that will investigate air, rail, marine or commodity pipeline accidents or incidents as stated in the Bill.
Another aspect of this Bill relates to deregulation. This is something that is near and dear to my heart, as it affects my riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. I see deregulation as being a problem for small communities that are not on the regular rail or air corridors but have spur lines or small air services. In my area, the Canadian Pacific Railway is now in the process of shutting down a line between Spences Bridge and Okanagan Falls, a line, I would suggest, that assisted in opening up the interior of the Province of British Columbia. Because of deregulation in transport and because of competitiveness, the rail company now feels there is no reason to keep the line. It has down-graded the service given to the area to the extent that industries can no longer viably use that transportation service. The final crunch was the closing down of the rail line.
There is a similar situation with small airports in the interior. In the case of Penticton, just two short years ago there was jet air service into that airport. That was changed to Dash-7 and Dash-8 service and there is now a 19-passenger aircraft coming into the area.
This feeds on itself. As the routes become less competitive and less money can be made through deregulation, fewer and fewer people want to go to these places. They want to go where the money is, so the routes are closed down. The Government, looking at these areas, feels that not enough traffic goes into them and will no longer
April 18, 1989

provide the services. We then get cut-backs in air traffic control. We can no longer get flights after 7 p.m. because the Government is not willing to staff them. There are no flights in after dark because there is no air traffic control. The fire department in the area has been cut back with a resulting loss of jobs. Perhaps that means nothing to a community of one million or even 100,000, but certainly for a community of 60,000, the loss of those jobs means a lot.
Those of us from the Province of British Columbia, particularly the interior of the province, object to this whittling away of our services. The Government is whittling away services through deregulation and Government cut-backs to the airports and transportation services. This makes it more and more difficult for those of us who live in those areas to have viable industries, to continue to build population and to give jobs to our children in the future. It has wide and vast ramifications for those in small communities throughout the Okanagan region.
Madam Speaker, the thrust of the Bill before us is a good one. Something must be done, and it appears that the Government is coming part way. That is to be applauded, but improvements can be made. I implore Government Members to look at those projected improvements that will be put forward by those on the committee and to listen carefully to those on the opposition benches who know and are experienced in this area and who are willing to help the Government. I ask Government Members and the Minister not to turn their backs, to listen to what is being said and to listen to how this is affecting others. If they listen, I am sure they will find the ideas are plausible. They will find that the suggestions we have come up with are workable. They will find that we have the best interests of Canadians at heart as well.
I ask the Government to please listen so that we can help the Government ensure the safety of Canadians through this Bill, through proper appointment of the board, for all Canadians into the future.


Raymond John Skelly: I wish to put a question to the previous speaker who gave an informed and eloquent speech on the problems of safety created by the Conservative Government. Would the Hon. Member comment on the proposition that the Conservative Government is driving up the costs to general aviation so drastically that it is creating a major safety
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
hazard? I would like to give a couple of examples for the Hon. Member to ruminate upon.
First, a voltage regulator used in smaller aircraft, which is made by the Ford Motor Company to put into a car, costs $14. If it is put into an airplane and bought from the Cessna dealer, it costs $140. The same applies to an alternator and many other common components. Those costs are so high that other items are neglected by owners.
The second issue I wish to address is cost-recovery programs put in place by Transport Canada. They drive up the costs enormously. At airports such as the one in Ottawa, the cost of parking an aircraft has gone very close to $1,000, which is unconscionable gouging of the operators of general aviation.
In Vancouver the necessity to instal an encoding altimeter in aircraft has been moved up to July, 1989. It should cost every aircraft owner who wants to use that airport somewhere between $500 and $1,000 to instal it, because they have determined that it is a major installation, rather than allowing it to be installed by an AME. Indeed, the process of moving that requirement up from 1990 to 1989 will cause enormous hardship to aircraft owners.
Again, the Conservative Government cost recovery is unnecessary and thoughtless regulation. In the case of the encoding altimeter, hundreds if not thousands of aircraft will be denied access to Vancouver because for those encoding altimeters there are not enough avionics shops in British Columbia to service the aircraft and instal them in the limited time available.
This type of regulation and this type of cost recovery, the failure to deal with the major problems at Vancouver, the parallel runway, enough air traffic controllers, and proper reorganization of the air space, means that the Government will deny access to an airport which is absolutely unjustified. It is going to drive up the costs enormously to the operators of smaller general aviation type aircraft. The proposal is to drive that sector out of business by cost increases and by regulation that is not required, and also deny them access to airports that, if proper resources had been expended on them, would be accessible for aircraft of all types for many years to come.
The basic concept I wish to relay to the Hon. Member today is, does he believe that these are justified, and does he believe this is not only driving people out of general aviation but also causing a major safety hazard?

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: The Hon. Member raises an interesting proposition, one that we have seen over a lengthy period of time but particularly throughout the last four years. The small business person, in this case in aviation, is forced through regulation to add increases in costs. I would suggest the subsequent cut-back in similar areas that we have seen in the United States with deregulation, and increases in costs, means a subsequent drop in service and maintenance of airlines. We see the airlines attempting to make do with the bail wire mentality of keeping aircraft up in the air at all costs, the idea being that in order to make a living, one must continue to keep flying regardless of the safety factor. With deregulation there is a tendency to cut back on many of these things. The Government adds to this problem through its attitude toward safety in that there are not sufficient safety inspectors or adequate numbers of air traffic controllers. The Hon. Member raised an interesting point about the parallel runway in Vancouver.
Recently I sat in an airport waiting room and timed how often planes were landing on one of the runways. They were landing approximately once every 1.32 minutes. I kept timing them for approximately one and a half hours. That was on one runway on one approach. Those planes were large. To my mind, it is obvious that in airports such as Vancouver there must be a large parallel runway with the addition of extra air traffic controllers. I would suggest that there have to be more air traffic controllers not only for Vancouver, but also for the inner harbour in Vancouver and in Victoria where there has been an increase in air traffic over the last little while.
If the Government were serious about safety in the area of air traffic, money would be available, cut-backs would not have been made when they were made, and there would be additional money available for schooling to ensure a supply of sufficient air traffic controllers, not only in places such as Pearson International Airport but throughout all the airports in Canada, particularly in the Vancouver area.


Ms. Hunter:: I would like to turn to a different aspect of the Bill regarding identifying safety deficiencies and making recommendations to reduce such deficiencies.
The proposed Transportation Accident Investigation Board is mandated to do such investigation. In relation
to the oil spills and the unresponsiveness on the part of the Government to our requests for a public inquiry, I believe that the board, which does not assign blame but which shall make recommendations, is what we are trying to get across to the Government. We are not so concerned about assigning blame. We want to know how we can prevent such accidents as the ones that occurred on the west coast of Vancouver Island and in Valdez from occurring again.
My riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands will be affected in a myriad of ways. From initiatives taken by Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line in Vancouver there will be an increase in tanker traffic through the Gulf of Georgia which washes up on the Gulf Islands. If this public inquiry is not called, and does not make recommendations about the safe transportation of goods, then it is likely that such increased tanker traffic will ultimately lead to another oil spill that will wreck the lives of my constituents and the economy of my constituency.
I call on the Government to consider the double hulling of tankers, to call a moratorium on offshore drilling and to pour money into financing research in tracking oil spills effectively.
On numerous occasions we have called for a public inquiry. In my riding which is between Vancouver and the State of Washington, there is a refinery at Cherry Point that has regular tanker traffic. This Transportation Accident Investigation Board would certainly be a neutral, non-threatening vehicle for the Government to utilize to conduct that public inquiry.
I ask the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similka-meen-Merritt (Mr. Whittaker) if he would address his comments to this aspect of the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There is very little time left but I will give time for rebuttal to the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt (Mr. Whittaker).


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is the area of the Bill dealing with marine transport. I see the way the Bill is set out and the way that the Board is structured as a problem for such investigations as requested by the Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands (Ms. Hunter).
April 18, 1989

I refer back to earlier comments that what we need is a structure set up within this Bill for an independent board that can make proper investigations without having it stalled or short-shifted by simply saying the legislation is not available, we have our board in place. In the case of marine traffic, with oil spills such as we have seen over the last little while on the west coast of Vancouver Island and on the West Coast of Canada, there should be the ability to appoint a public board of inquiry that, regardless of political affiliation, can properly bring recommendations back to Parliament after having looked at everything within.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Rideout).


George Saunders Rideout: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think that we on this side of the House are agreeable that an independent board to investigate transportation accidents and incidents is welcomed. I am most concerned, and I think my colleagues are concerned as well, that when you look at the definition of a transportation occurrence and you consider the magnitude that that definition strikes, one has to become somewhat concerned that a board consisting of five members will not have the capabilities to deal with the many incidents they will have to investigate. It is not just a matter of air investigations, but rail, oil spills, all of those sorts of things are going to have to be investigated. We are concerned on this side of the House that this board will not be able to do that. We think that the thrust is in the right direction. But we are concerned about the speed or the urgency which the Government seems to be attaching to this particular matter.
We feel that, fortunately for Members opposite, they are picking up the direction that the Liberal Government gave many years ago and are now seeing the way and the light and are moving in a positive and proper direction in that sense. However, we are worried that as they proceed in haste, they may be making mistakes.
We view the effects of things like deregulation and the ramifications that deregulation has on the transportation infrastructure as being one of paramount concern. We are concerned on this side of the House that when the pressure comes on the infrastructure, safety will be sacrificed on the altar of expediency.
I should tell you that in my experience as a municipal politician I have seen what can happen when deteriorating infrastructure strikes communities across this country. I speak with some experience in knowing terrible
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
road conditions, terrible water and sewer conditions that strike municipalities all across this country. I could think of a classic case in Saint John, New Brunswick, where they had half the city without water for over a day. Those situations strike at the safety of citizens and I am concerned that with deregulation and the pressure that is obviously impacting on the transportation infrastructure, we may face and are now facing the same types of concern for safety.
We see a great deal of confusion and charges and countercharges amongst the present board. Our view is that a strong and independent board is absolutely essential if it is to function properly. Given the increased mandate of this board, we are very concerned that it will not be able to carry out the mandate which it has been assigned.
As mentioned earlier by a number of speakers, we are very concerned about the urgency in which the Government is now presenting this legislation. It is coming very quickly. While we agree it is important that there be some sort of improvement in what is going on, when you look at the Estey review of the Gander incident, the Dryden crash, just to name a few, we wonder why we are now proceeding with haste. The haste should have perhaps occurred a year or more ago.
Quite frankly, we wonder whether the Government is simply papering over the old board, just putting it aside by creating this new board, and not dealing with the inherent problems that were obvious with the old board. If that is the case, those problems will not disappear. They will still be there, only to arise again. I think there were inherent problems in the old board, just changing the faces does not necessarily help the problem. In fact, one may wonder if the Government is not just putting a clean sock on a dirty foot.
We have not solved any of the problems at Pearson International. We have not solved any of the problems all across this country as far as air traffic is concerned. We also have a public that is both inconvenienced and worried about its safety. I do not think we are getting into the nub and substance of the issues that face us.
In New Brunswick, we are concerned that budget cuts will affect a number of transportation industries. I am thinking particularly of budget cuts that the Government is talking about with respect to VIA Rail. If massive cuts take place, and we have all heard the rumours of a $160 million or a $180 million as far as VIA is concerned, we wonder if that will affect the safety of the VIA operation. We are very concerned that again safety will be sacrificed

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
on the altar of the bottom line, for what we consider in New Brunswick as a vital transportation link all across this country. We feel that VIA Rail should be strengthened, that more money should be invested in that operation, and that improvements should be made with respect to the outmoded equipment that is presently being utilized by VIA. If that were done, we feel we would not face the necessity of investigation upon investigation of rail crashes and accidents, and the risk to people who travel with VIA. We are also concerned when we hear that there are to be cut-backs in grants and support to provinces.
For example, the freight rate subsidy is one question to which we could not get a clear answer from the Minister today in Question Period. If those subsidies are cut, if that support mechanism is in fact removed or lessened, that will have a very serious impact on the Canadian National Railway, a very large employer in my riding. We are concerned again that if CN is cut back and they do not have the revenue and the support mechanisms in place, they as well will be forced not to be as safety conscious and the board that we are discussing in Bill C-2 will have to be investigating more and more accidents.
We are concerned as well when the Government will not come forward and provide the necessary assistance to a province like New Brunswick, a province with the worst Trans-Canada Highway in Canada. That again is an example where if you allow the infrastructure to deteriorate and go to pieces, like our Trans-Canada Highway has, very unsafe conditions will result. We have frequent accidents on our Trans-Canada Highway, and most of them have been attributed by experts to be caused by the lack of upgrading and proper Trans-Canada facilities in our province. If there are cuts in the directions that have been clearly indicated by the Government, then this board is going to be investigating more and more safety-associated accidents.
We are going to have more rail accidents. We are going to have more passenger train accidents. We are going to have more air accidents, all because in our view there are greater pressures being put on air infrastructure, on road infrastructure, and on rail infrastructure. We applaud the general direction of this Bill. We are supportive in that regard. However, we are concerned that the Government is going too quickly and that it has not thought through exactly what should take place. We urge the Government to ensure that there is a strong board made up of strong independent members and that there are the resources necessary made available to this Board so that it can do the job and do it properly.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there questions or comments?


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, will the Hon. Member confirm that his major concern is that the Government is creating an accident investigation Board today while at the same time, because of a number of the Government's failures, it is creating an enormous safety hazard.
The Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Rideout) mentioned that budget cuts and Public Service cuts were two major concerns. He said that the same is true for an ill-conceived cost recovery program and that the enormous cost of aviation is removing the ability of many people to afford upgrading safety systems while paying higher parking rates and more for radio licences.
The Government has taken action by increasing taxes on aviation fuel. This has moved the price out of reach, as well as the supplies. Yet at the same time the Government has failed to permit wider use of motor fuels in aircraft. I am certainly not aware of any Saskatchewan farmer who has crashed his airplane because he has been using his tractor gas.
In the House we see two west coast Members of Parliament. I refer to the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) and the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) laughing and joking about the matter. The serious matter they have not commented on is the improvement to Vancouver airport. I refer to the second runway. The Government has been absolutely silent on the matter and is creating an enormous safety hazard in the area. At the same time those two Members voted, along with other members of the Government, to freeze hiring of air traffic controllers for three years, something which has created a desperate shortage and which has placed the travelling public from the ridings of Surrey-White Rock and Fraser Valley East in a serious safety situation.
April 18, 1989

Would the Hon. Member not agree that these Hon. Members have not had the fortitude to stand up in the House to justify their actions on the issue of a second runway for this airport, or on the need for effective hiring of air traffic controllers? They have not commented on the brutal cost recovery program that is harming safety and killing general aviation in the long run. I would like to see them stand up to make a comment in the House rather than pass their leisure time in here telling funny stories and whatnot. This is a sad and serious situation. I hope the Hon. Member will comment on it. I know that he is as concerned as I am and that he would like to hear their approach to a solution.


George Saunders Rideout: Madam Speaker, I was most intrigued with the second question asked by the Hon. Member. I will leave it for Members opposite to comment on since the Hon. Member is calling upon them to justify then-irresponsible actions. I would rather not go any further on that.
I welcome the question as it relates to cut-backs, increased taxation, and all those measures which have the effect of making every company so bottom line conscious that things like safety start to slip through the cracks. That is my concern. I have seen it happen in municipalities. I know from where I speak in that regard. Safety is a soft cost. It is something which is looked at second. As VIA, Air Canada and all those organizations are looking at how to make their bottom line look better, and when Air Canada is privatized and wants to make its stock look a lot better, I am concerned that we will see safety sacrificed on the altar of bottom line.
The result will be that this Board will have a lot more work to do. I think that it will be investigating a great many more accidents. I fully support the Hon. Member to my left in his comments in that regard.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Rideout). Since he comes from the East Coast he is probably aware of some of the problems with which we are concerned on the West Coast. In particular I am talking now about the Port of Vancouver, part of which falls in the riding of Vancouver East.
As I understand it the Board is to have appointees who represent the different modes of transportation, although only one from each mode. Does the Hon. Member think that in the situation such as we have in Vancouver East it will be possible for such a Board to
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
plan effectively, having four jurisdictions and three or four different modes of transportation?
Will it be able to deal not only with major crises which may arise, but will it be able to prevent them, something which is even more important? The situation in Vancouver East is that there is a transfer point for dangerous goods in the riding. The dangerous goods come in on rail tracks which are in the heart of Vancouver East, one of the most highly populated areas in downtown Vancouver near Chinatown. The goods are transferred from there to ships and barges. They are also transported by air. There is a great danger of accident. There have been some dangerous goods spilled on the railway tracks in the past. There are some very risky situations. Furthermore, the Vancouver City Council has taken away our fire boat, which is a means of fire protection from the water. That is another issue on which I wish the federal Government would intervene and do something about.
With increased transport and the exchange between helicopters and float planes which my friend tells me are coming in, in increasing numbers, there is a great increase in the risk of accident. I honestly do not feel confident nor do my constituents feel confident that this Bill and the proposed Board is going to be strong enough to deal with all the different complex modes of transportation. Also involved in the situation is the City of Vancouver, the Regional District of Greater Vancouver, as well as provincial and federal jurisdictions. I would appreciate the Hon. Member's comment since he probably has similar concerns coming from the East Coast.


George Saunders Rideout: Madam Speaker, I share the concerns mentioned by the Hon. Member. When one considers the Department of Transport and the wide number of items with which it deals, one wonders whether one committee dealing with safety in all of those aspects can really do the job. One also wonders whether a five-member Board can really do the job. We on the East Coast are just as concerned.
I recall hearing stories about PCBs being shipped over in the holds of Air Canada planes. There is the potential for all types of disasters to arise as a result of that, which cause citizens in the East Coast concern as well. We have similar type situations with both truck and rail traffic in shipping from the Ports of Halifax and Saint John. There are dangerous commodities involved. There are problems which could ensue. As I have indicated, we are concerned with the cut-backs and with the lack of support to the regional areas of the country that safety will become a greater problem. We do not have confidence in the Government that it will be able either to

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
have an independent board or to deliver on its supposed promise concerning safety.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I had originally not intended to take part in this debate. I thought rather that I would leave it up to others in our caucus who have more expertise and experience in the area of transportation safety. There is no question that the debate has been handled competently by my colleagues. It was only when the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. Brewin) and some other Members raised parts of the Bill relating to the power of the chairman of the Board to involve himself in a public inquiry if the Minister fails to do so under the Inquiries Act that I decided to participate.
When it was drawn to my attention by the Hon. Member for Victoria that the Bill also applies to marine incidents I felt compelled to address a number of issues around those parts of the Bill which I think are important.
We on this side of the House whose constituencies have been affected by the recent west Coast oil spills have had difficulty in persuading the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) and other cabinet Ministers involved to strike a public inquiry into all aspects of the west coast oil spill that took place between December 1988 and January 1989. A public inquiry is desperately needed into a shipping incident off the West Coast which resulted in a tremendous amount of environmental damage, a tremendous amount of damage to my constituents in the fishing and aquaculture industry and in the tourist industry which will be affected by this spill both now and for some time to come.
This section of Bill C-2 gives us an additional opportunity where the Minister appears reluctant to strike an inquiry under the Inquiries Act to have the chairman of this safety Board take a look at the possibility of striking a public inquiry so that there can be full public involvement into accidents and damage which result from marine incidents.
I do not know why the Minister of the Environment feels so reluctant or so fearful of calling a public inquiry into the west coast oil spill. He knows, as most people on the West Coast and most people in this House know, that an in-house ministerial review is not sufficient to determine what the problems were with respect to the oil spill and what the causes were with respect to the caused the marine incident which ultimately resulted in oil spilling on to the oceans, crossing international boundaries, affecting Canadian waters and affecting the shores of Vancouver Island.
It is insufficient to have an internal ministerial inquiry to try to deal with all the causes of that problem and to deal with the adequacy of the response. What we have there is a case of the Ministry examining its own reaction to the oil spill. Needless to say there is concern on the part of the people of the West Coast of Vancouver Island that this is going to result in a cover-up, that adequate measures are not going to be taken, and that fault is not going to be placed where fault should be placed. Therefore we will not be able to react adequately to an oil spill in the future or to improve our reaction to such a spill in the future.
I welcome this provision in Bill C-2 to allow the chairman of the Board to strike an inquiry where he feels it is necessary and where the Minister has neglected to call an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. When I looked at the advantages of a public inquiry in this case, I cannot understand why the Minister of the Environment is so fearful of calling an inquiry. It simply does not make sense. We have the advantage of the volunteers who were the very first people on site when the oil came ashore on the west coast of Vancouver Island. They are not part of the current ministerial review, yet they have a great deal to say in a very informed way that would be helpful to the Ministry, to the Minister of the Environment and to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) in their response to oil spills in the future. Those volunteers are excluded from the ministerial review, but they should be part of a full public inquiry into the incident which resulted in our West Coast being fouled by oil between December 1988 and January 1989. I cannot understand what the Minister has to fear from a full public inquiry into this incident.
April 18, 1989

First, he is ignoring the valuable input of those volunteers who did a great deal of work for which they should be congratulated. They were the first on the scene and were able to alleviate some of the problems which may have resulted had they not become involved in the clean-up right away when it was first coming on to the beaches.
The second advantage of a public inquiry is that we can hear from people who are experts in the development of oil spill response equipment. In my constituency offices on the West Coast, I have received a number of suggestions from inventors and entrepreneurs who have developed oil spill response equipment. Had the Government paid attention to these people prior to the last oil spill, they may have had the resources and the wherewithal to deal effectively and to prevent damage of the magnitude that eventually occurred because of the inadequate response of the various federal agencies that took place on the West Coast.
There has been an excellent proposal from a gentleman in my constituency by the name of Mr. Bedford who has developed a method of locating chip barges and hog fuel barges along the West coast of Vancouver Island. Those resources are there already. Chips and hog fuel can absorb a great deal of the lighter elements in the oil so that it can be captured, collected and burned before it creates a problem on our beaches. Yet Mr. Bedford does not get a hearing from the provincial Government or from the federal Government. In the absence of a full public inquiry, Mr. Bedford does not have an opportunity to present his proposal to the people who are concerned about oil spills, to the people in the Ministry of Transport or in this Board who might take a look at the proposal and discover it would be valuable to locate on the West Coast to prevent any further damage of the magnitude that took place as a result of the last oil spill.
Another gentleman who my colleague from North Island-Powell River mentioned in the emergency debate is a Mr. Wiley. He has developed a method for cleaning up oil spills in tidal waters offshore of the west coast of Vancouver Island. Again Mr. Wiley has not had an opportunity to present his proposals for oil spill clean-ups to a public body so that he can be cross-examined and suggestions can be made, suggestions for improvements to these techniques, and ultimately suggestions for the deployment of this equipment in various centres up and down the west coast of Vancouver Island so that these pieces of equipment will be there in the
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
very likely event that another spill will take place, because as the experts have pointed out to us, it is only a matter of chance. As was mentioned by another of my colleagues, as we allow these tankers with vast quantities of oil to run up and down the coast from Valdez, Alaska into Cherry Point within a very few miles of the West Coast of Canada, which is a very delicate and sensitive coastal environment, there is bound to be another disaster, and in fact another disaster of major proportions, similar to what we are seeing in Valdez, Alaska within the last week or so.
We do not need simply to place the blame. Surely fault has to be placed because the response time of federal government agencies to the oil spill was inadequate and the quality of response was inadequate as well. We want to see where we went wrong and what we can do in the future to ensure that we do not go wrong the next time, and we know that the next spill is going to bring us much more serious damage, much more serious problems than the last oil spill brought to the west coast of Vancouver Island.
There are many advantages of a public inquiry that will bring benefits to all of the people living on the West Coast. It will make us better able to deal with oil spills or marine incidents the next time. I think that such a provision in this legislation is absolutely necessary. The chairman should be as independent as possible so that when the Minister is fearful of calling for a public inquiry because he does not want blame to descend on his Ministry, he will be sufficiently independent that he can call a public inquiry and the full facts of the marine incident which resulted in the oil spillage will be brought to the attention of the public. Also the full details of how to respond to a spill and how to correct a previous response will be brought forward so that we will be better able to deal with an oil spill next time.
I share the concerns that have been expressed previously by my colleagues. I strongly support the idea of a public inquiry process being inserted in the legislation. If the legislation is passed quickly, I hope we can overcome the unnecessary delay that has been developed by the Minister of the Environment over this oil spill issue. The delay has been damaging in itself. We should be getting to these issues right away, while they are still fresh in people's mind, while they are still able to make a contribution to a public inquiry.

April 18, 1989
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
I hope this portion of the legislation is passed quickly so that we can have a board in place which will strike an inquiry into that oil spill which took place off the west coast of Vancouver Island. At least then we can have an independent inquiry which we are all desperately seeking.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have three short questions. The first concerns the matter of very serious importance. The Hon. Member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Skeily) represents in this Parliament the people of the Nuu-chahnulth Tribal Council. They are currently working on a government contract under which they are becoming familiar with the beach areas. It is a voluntary organization for clean up. That contract is an important part of having a group of people available for the next oil spill.
The Government has denied the Kwagwelth people, who have oil washing upon the shores of their complex beaches, the same type of contract to clean up the oil and develop the expertise to clean up the resources. I want the Member to comment on that. It is absolutely necessary that the Government treat equally the native people on the West Coast who are exposed to these hazards.
Richard Lucas, a person from the Hon. Member's riding, is here in Ottawa. He co-ordinated the Nuu-chahnulth Tribal Council clean-up contract. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has refused to see him. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) has refused to see him. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) have refused to see him.
However, to compliment the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp), he has made provisions to have discussions with this person who has first-hand knowledge. I suggest to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Albemi who has also heard the complaints, that the only way the Government will listen to the people from the West Coast of British Columbia is if, per chance, the next oil spill happens to circumnavigate the globe, wash up the St. Lawrence River and on to the shores of Charlevoix. That is the only way we will get a fair hearing on the next oil spill. That comment is being made by people up and down the coast of British Columbia.
People who come here as a delegation must be given a hearing by those responsible for launching a public inquiry and allocating the resources for the proper
protection of the people in British Columbia. Will the Hon. Member for Comox-Alberni not agree?


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, given the nature of the question and the questioner, the question is in such terms that it would be very difficult not to agree. However, this is another of the problems that faced us during the development of this oil spill and the understanding that damage was taking place off the west coast of Vancouver Island. Once we found that the oil was coming ashore it was very difficult to establish contacts with the Ministers involved. We tried to phone the Ministers and we tried to contact them at their constituency offices, in one case, in Vancouver. It was very difficult to make contact with the Ministers involved.
When a disaster like this takes place, I think it is very important that the first contact that is made is between the Ministers who have jurisdiction over the clean-up and the issue, who should then get in touch with Members of Parliament in the area, members of the local Government in the area and make sure the information they have is made available to the people in the area and that the issue is treated on a non-partisan basis.
I think the agreement between the Nuu-chahnulth Tribal Council and the federal Government to monitor the beaches is an excellent one. I think it is based on some very good precedents. For example, there are archaeological observers or wardens who monitor the archaeological sites up and down the coasts. There are environmental wardens and fisheries wardens in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who, as volunteers, basically monitor what is happening in the fishing industry and are able to report back to the paid staff in the Ministry so that they can be kept informed because they cannot always be in every part of the province or coast at once.
To have people from the Nuu-chahnulth Tribal Council hired virtually as coast watchers to make sure that damage is not taking place which the Ministry is not aware of is a good idea. It does not make any sense at all for the Government not to hire the Kwagwelth on the same basis that it hired the Nuu-chahnulth Tribal Council whose land occupies the southern part of Vancouver Island below the Brooks Peninsula. The Minister has left the northern part of Vancouver Island virtually uncovered when there should be a similar force monitoring that area.
April 18, 1989

I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister does not treat the Kwagwelth Indians as fairly as he has treated the Nuu-chahnulth Tribal Council.


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to debate this legislation, in all likelihood being the last Member to speak at this stage of the Bill. I must admit that I will stray somewhat from the topic, as I did this morning in my questioning, because I am not an expert on the CASB. However, I feel somewhat knowledgeable about the status of deregulation.
I suggest that the Government was ill prepared for deregulation, and myriad newspaper clippings indicate that it was indeed ill prepared. Let me just cite one of the hundreds of clippings: "Ex Pilot Claims Some U.S. Airlines Prefer Profit to Safety". I suggest that is coming true in Canada as well.
I believe the Government is as ill prepared for deregulation as it was ill prepared for the Free Trade Agreement. It is most unfortunate that the skies will not be any safer today than they were yesterday, nor will they be any safer tomorrow as a result of this new multimodal investigation agency. That is what is unfortunate about all of this.
Our Party welcomes the Bill in principle, but that is not the crux of the problem. The Bill does not solve the crux of the problem, which is deregulation. Deregulation has not lived up to some of the billings of the Government despite the warnings given by everyone else.
Cost cutting is the bottom line. I refer once again to northern communities that have suffered the loss of jet service. There is no competition in the northern communities. We have been subject to fare increases which, as I indicated this morning, have risen four times in four months in my constituency. It costs almost $500 now to fly return 450 miles from Sault Ste. Marie to Ottawa. It is cheaper for me to fly from Toronto to Vancouver. It is almost cheaper for me to fly to Europe than to go from Sault Ste. Marie to Ottawa. I think that is a shame.
Safety is decreasing at an alarming rate each day. The Radar Modernization Program, of which the Government is extremely proud I am told, is already outdated. I have it from good sources that it is not compatible with the American system and the Canadian radar cannot track some American airplanes flying over northern
Transportation Accident Investigation Board
communities. There are some 6,000 flights daily over my community and certainly that causes us great concern.
Certain airports in northern communities have been reclassified from category 6 to category 5, with no appreciable difference in the aircraft, resulting in five or six people losing fire-fighting jobs. The Dryden tragedy is an example of the safety concern. A stewardess who perished on that aircraft suggested to her husband that she was prepared to quit in the very near future if things did not change. Less competition has resulted in a loss of 14 employees in my constituency in the past several months. Employees of Canadian partners will soon be out of work. Air Canada shut down a ticket office. One might say that this only affected two employees, so what, they can move to Toronto. I am reminded of the U.I. program. I suppose people from northern Ontario and other regions of Canada can move to Toronto get jobs. People who have worked for 15 or 19 years for Air Canada do not want to move to Toronto. They want to remain in their communities.
We will accept the new legislation after it is further discussed because we know the board will be a busy body. It will probably be too busy. It is our desperate hope that it will not be busy.
Daily we read horror stories in newspapers across Canada. Just a couple of weeks ago, our local paper had an article saying that passengers had described the Convair as ready for the bone yard and rickety, and Mr. McKnight, who just recently resigned from his Air Ontario post, said that these planes were built in the late 1950s and they have a high level of vibration. That is of grave concern to everyone in northern Canada.
We suggest that the airways are no safer today. We are concerned about ground safety as well. I am not sure that the investigation board should not look into the Minister's Department to see about its status.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there questions or comments? Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.

April 18, 1989
Adjournment Debate


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Considering the lateness of the hour and the fact that we have now completed this debate, I think that if you put the question to the House, the House would agree to call it six o'clock and proceed with new legislation tomorrow morning.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Then it is six o'clock.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When we do these things unanimously, we sometimes forget the consequences, the consequence of this being that there are Members of the House who have an adjournment debate at six o'clock. Perhaps we could stand the House for a few minutes to give those Members, who I am sure are watching television, a chance to get here and speak on the adjournment debate.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like Hon. Members to know that the two people from our side are here and are prepared to speak if that is the desire of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are the
Parliamentary Secretaries on the Government side present?
Mr.Cooper: Yes, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would be prepared to change the order, should the Hon. Member who is not here not be present when his name is called.



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

John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, on April 10,1 raised the issue of the bus hostage-taking which had occurred the previous Friday. To put it succinctly, I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) how they managed to lose the bus for two hours. The Minister, in effect, answered that he did not know, he would ask the Commissioner of the RCMP to find out.
The facts that have emerged, such as we can tell at this stage, suggest a high level of confusion among a number of police forces. According to the reports, the Ports Canada police learned about the hostage taking from a passenger on the bus itself at around 11.45 that morning, and it was at about 1.45 p.m. that the bus showed up on Parliament Hill and reported its presence. The RCMP here in Ottawa had apparently not even heard of the incident. They moved quickly along with the security staff on the Hill. As we know, the incident was from that time on effectively handled. However, there were two missing hours about which questions have arisen, and I certainly accept the assurance of the Minister that a thorough internal investigation will be undertaken. I will look forward, as will all Hon. Members, to hearing from the Minister the results of that inquiry. I would look to the Parliamentary Secretary to assure us that the report will be presented to the House and made public in due course.
By the way, I am not sure whether or not this is the first opportunity we have given the new Parliamentary Secretary to strut his stuff. I certainly congratulate him on his appointment and look forward with some trepidation to working with him. The trepidation is based not on his charming personality but on the fact that he holds views, at least as previously expressed, with which I have often found myself in profound disagreement. We will sort all that out, I hope, in the next few years.
Underlying the question of what happened from the time Ports Canada police found out about this is the issue of co-ordination between the various police forces. Ports Canada police is one of 46 federal agencies empowered by legislation to have police powers and to act as a police force.
A few years ago, the Secretariat of the Solicitor General General undertook a study, the Federal Law Enforcement Under Review, or FLEUR for short. It reported in 1986, though the report was initially never made public. It reported that there was absolute chaos within these various federal agencies. There was poor management or no management at all. There was no
April 18, 1989

consistency of rules over, for example, who could carry guns, under what circumstances could they use guns, what they would report and how they would handle various incidents. All of the various agencies seemed to be operating on their own.
The report finally surfaced, partly due to badgering by journalists from The Globe and Mail and other newspapers under access to information legislation. We now understand that a committee of Deputy Ministers has been established and the Deputy Solicitor General will take some responsibility for chairing it. Ultimately, there will be some effort at co-ordination.
I say to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Solicitor General through him that we will watch that committee very carefully. It will be very important that some very real resources be given to that committee, that it is not just a pro forma exercise done simply for window dressing. This is a very, very important issue.
At the federal level, there must be tremendous consistency in dealing with the issues of co-ordinating our law enforcement agencies across Canada. We on the West Coast, as the Parliamentary Secretary will recognize, know of problems we have had with wildlife officials in their attempts to enforce the law or to harass fishermen, depending on one's point of view. They have been agitating to carry guns. Under what circumstances do they do that? Who is in charge of all of this? The FLEUR report indicated that no one was. It is critical that there be quick and immediate provision of serious resources by the federal Government to implementing recommendations of the FLEUR report and carrying it through. That cannot wait. We will also ask and press for consistent and regular reports to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. That should be done and I look to the Parliamentary Secretary to give us an undertaking that that will be done and that we will hear regularly and consistently on the progress of the Deputy Minister's consideration.
Let me mention another report that is relevant. I refer to the Senate report of a couple of years ago. After the assassination in the Armenian-Turkish issue the Senate made a report and I have seen a copy of it. One of the recommendations of that report, which is a couple of years old, is that the Solicitor General's Department be responsible for co-ordinating response to hostage-taking issues. That was a very clear and specific recommendation.
Adjournment Debate
I put the following question to the Parliamentary Secretary. Was that recommendation implemented? Did the new Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), when he took office in February, understand that report? Did he take any steps to implement the report? If he has not, why not? Will he?
These are issues which should be undertaken and commitments made now that the Government will no longer allow hostage-takings and the chaos in federal law enforcement to continue, and that today we will get a commitment from the Government that this issue will be taken seriously by the new administration of the Department of the Solicitor General and that we will get action now.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: I welcome the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. Brewin) as the critic for the Solicitor General and thank him for his guarded compliments. I know that any time he throws a compliment my way something is brewing! We will follow that in the future.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Bad pun!


Benno Friesen: I agree with the Hon. Member that the law enforcement agencies that worked on the case here in Ottawa deserve all the compliments we can throw in their direction. The RCMP and the Ottawa police forces work together very well. We are thankful that nothing untoward happened beyond what did happen.
I am sorry that the Member raised the question at the adjournment debate today. He asks a very legitimate question regarding the co-ordination of these law enforcement agencies. The newspaper reports indicated that there was a problem with co-ordination between the time when the hostage-taking first began and when it ended here in Ottawa. The public itself is concerned about that lack of contact or lapse of contact from the beginning to the end.
The Hon. Member mentions the FLEUR Report. As he indicated, there were more than 40 different Government agencies involved in it. As I stated, I am sorry the Hon. Member raised this issue so soon after the event, because it is a serious question and deserves a full answer. However, if the Hon. Member wants a full answer, it is not adequate or fair to raise it one week after the question was raised in the House. We can possibly provide a partial answer, but if the Hon. Member wants an adequate answer, then surely he has to give FLEUR an opportunity to do the investigation that will provide us the answer the Hon. Member is seeking, which is some type of assurance that there will be

April 18, 1989
Adjournment Debate
lessons learned as a result of this and that there will be an adequate reporting made of it.
I am not blaming the Hon. Member for this, because it is early in the session. However, I am saying to him that one week is not very much time when we are looking at a cross-section of agencies involved in this activity.
I take his point very seriously. It is important that the Canadian people have an assurance that this type of reporting and integration will take place. When the agencies work together as an out-growth of the FLEUR Report, it is important that there will be a reporting of it. I give the Member the assurance that I will be happy to work with him to ensure that those agencies work together in a co-ordinated way in order that the people of Canada will have confidence in the integration of all of these agencies.


IMMIGRATION-REFUGEE CLAIMANT APPLICATIONS BACKLOG
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, I am grateful to have this opportunity during the adjournment debate to pursue a question that I posed to the Government, namely, the Minister for Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) on April 11. The question was in regard to the refugee backlog that has been completely mismanaged and ignored in terms of any agenda of priority that the Government may have had for the last session and also for this session.
It is useful to keep in mind that when the Government took office in 1984 there was a backlog accumulating in the number of 8,000 to 10,000 individuals. At that time the Liberal Government commissioned Rabbi Plaut to come up with recommendations to change the system to prevent the backlog from mushrooming.
As we debate this evening, the backlog numbers approximately 110,000 individuals in this country. It is an absolute shame that the Government has allowed that backlog to reach those numbers.
Last December 28 the Government added insult to injury when the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced programs or an initiative to speedily clear up the backlog. A few weeks ago, on March 31, the Government called a press conference and indicated that no processing on that backlog had started. For three months there was absolutely nothing done to ease the pressure of that human backlog that is festering. On top
of that, the Government has suggested that the processing will not start until this summer at the very earliest.
Canadians, myself and my colleagues on this side of the House, are beginning to ask if the Minister will come in the summer and tell us that the processing will start at Christmas, or in the following year? I believe it is time the Government commenced its easing of the backlog. It is a sore point, not only in terms of the credibility of our system, but it is also very unfair to 110,000 individuals, some of whom have been in the country for two and three years and separated from their families and who simply want to know what the future holds for them. If they are to be accepted, then that is one set of equations. If they are not to be accepted, then obviously they will be deported and have to pick up their life from that point in time.
It does not behoove the Government to continually blame the Opposition, the constituency, the churches, or the social service agencies when the problem is staring at Government Members in the reflection of that giant mirror.
Time and again we have suggested to the Government that it attempt an administrative review, something which has been turned down, and to become sensitive and interested in the backlog that has not become better, but has become worse. In terms of undermining confidence in the system, it does us a disservice.
I urge the Parliamentary Secretary who will be responding for the Minister to come to grips with this problem. It is not good enough to simply say: "We are thinking about it. We are putting it into motion. It is going to take us some time for the administration of the exercise to take shape." We have not been articulating this problem and frustration for the last week, the last month, or for two months. It has been an ongoing situation for the better part of close to three years.
Madam Speaker, I think it is a tragic situation for the majority of these claimants who come from Quebec and Ontario. It is a tragedy for their families. It is a tragedy for our refugee system. It is a tragedy for our country because it is unable to give these people an answer, a future. While the Government is saying that we need more people and more immigration, it does nothing about this backlog, and it has taken a very negative stance toward new claimants.
April 18, 1989

With my party colleagues, I think we have a human backlog, a backlog of refugee claimants in this country who are waiting for this Government to act realistically and sensitively.
That is why we kept hammering away at this issue during the election campaign last year. We also put the pressure on in committee and in the House during oral question period, in the hope that the situation would improve.
Today, we are not getting any answers from the Government that would be satisfactory to the people who are part of this backlog.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary's reply will be able to give these people some glimmer of hope, some confidence in our system. I hope we will get that kind of response today.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, when this Member decides what side of the street he wants to work on, I hope he lets the people of Canada know.
A year and a half ago when we were debating Bills C-84 and C-55, this Member, together with his colleagues, did everything they could to block the Bill while so-called refugees were streaming into Canada at a rate of 2,000 a month. Yes, 2,000 a month, and the Member made sure, with his colleagues, that while we passed the legislation in this House in September, it did not pass through the Senate until the following June. Now he wants to know why is the Government not doing something about the backlog that he helped create. So will he tell us which side of the street he is working on? He had better make up his mind.
I am glad that not all the people in Canada think as he does. I want to refer the Member to The Globe and Mail of yesterday, to Jeffrey Simpson's column, in which he says:
The four Toronto lawyers who are always yakking about Canada's immigration policies-Lome Waldman, Mendel Green, Barbara Jackman and Marshall Drukarsh -find the backlog clearance program "impractical, improper and inhumane". They consider it immoral that Canada might deport thousands of people who, in the lawyers' words, will not "meet the credible basis test for a refugee claim on the humanitarian and compassionate guidelines".
Adjournment Debate
There is no doubt that we could hurry the process up. But if we failed on one point, this Member would be screaming his head off that we were violating somebody's human rights. He would be the first on his feet to say that we were not doing our job. So we will make this system work, and it is working. He should know that the flow of bogus claims has gone down. It is working. In the meantime, the process is established, the applications are being received. He knows that the appeal process is working. What bothers him is that Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 are doing the job, that genuine refugees are coming into Canada, as they should be able to, but that the bogus claims are being turned off and the system is working.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. Gardiner).


FORESTRY - FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENTS - ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY-REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION AT FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today in this adjournment debate to pursue further some of the questions I put to the Minister of State Forestry (Mr. Oberle) on April 10, in particular regarding the administration of forestry agreements with the provinces, the funding of such agreements, the creation of the Department, and a major study I made reference to. I look forward to the comments from the Parliamentary Secretary this evening.
First of all, I just want to comment. I have just come from a seminar that is in process, sponsored by Mr. Speaker, regarding Canada's role and responsibility in the crisis that our world's tropical and temperate rain forests are facing. What it points out to this House, and I think to all Canadians, is that forestry is a global issue as much as it is an issue here in Canada.
The point that I raised during my question was that following rumours and stories that were occurring during the November election campaign, the forestry agreement in British Columbia and other agreements in the country were going to end up being administered by some of those co-ordinating agencies that the Government has created. I refer specifically in western Canada to the Western Diversification Office, in the Maritimes to the Atlantic Opportunities Office, and to the federal agency in northern Ontario.

April 18, 1989
Adjournment Debate
The question I put to the Minister on April 10 was seeking an assurance from the Minister that his Department, and his Department alone, would continue to administer those forestry agreements. I think it is critical that the number one industry in this country deserves its own department and is the prime agency when it comes to administering those agreements.
At the same time I raised an important question about the need for adequate funding to those agreements. As Members know, we currently have some six agreements that have expired with the provinces in this country. It is shocking that we have reached a stage where to date there were no official negotiations taking place between Ministers, that those agreements were allowed to expire. Now, of course, we are told to wait until the Budget on April 27.1 fear for that wait. I think I have reason since, following the Minister of State's comments in the House on April 10, he said I would be pleased with the results after the Budget. A short few days later the Minister is suggesting that the agreements will have to conform to the new budgetary disciplines. I suggest to you that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has talked to the Minister of State for Forests, and I suggest to you that it is the Minister of Finance who is running the Forestry Department. That is just not good enough for this country.
Another issue that has been on the agenda of this House, certainly in political campaigns and two election campaigns, is the creation of a fully legislative department and a national forests act. We are told the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has written letters, and yes, it will be done, and he made reference to that just recently when the Minister of State was appointed. I think we need an answer from the Minister, and from the Prime Minister, about what the Government's intentions are, specifically when the Government's own Minister says, and I quote from the Prince George Citizen of January 31, "However," he said-and this is in reference to the Department-"it is not a high priority of the Government". This is a Government and a Party across the way that has talked about creating a full department for two election campaigns and I do not know for how many years. But there was no reference in the Throne Speech to the creation of the department. We deserve more, Madam Speaker, and we are going to continue to pursue the Minister and the Prime Minister to ensure that we see that legislation in this House at the earliest date possible.
When I raised the question with the Minister, and I was able to cover a lot of ground when I had an opportunity to question him, I mentioned that a report is currently being prepared, or in the final stages, from his Department regarding the future of Canadian forests. I am pleased that we have been able to ferret out some information from the Department about this study. It is a critical study. It has been in the works now since 1986. It is a $300,000 study. You can appreciate with that kind of money what kind of study it is. It is pointing out how critical and important the forest industry is to this country, and the work that we have to do in the future. I am now told by the Minister that we will see the report in May. I look forward to its release. We can then discuss it in the Standing Committee. We can review the legislation put forward by the Government to create this department and also take a look at the report in terms of what it has to say about the future of the industry.
In closing, I wish to say that forestry is important to my riding, to British Columbia and to all provinces. There is a commitment from all Members of the House to forestry. We will hold the Government to its agenda. I look forward to continued and further action from the Government on this issue.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry)):: Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to take this opportunity to say it is truly a pleasure, as parliamentary secretary, to be able to work together with the Minister of State (Forestry), the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). As a man and a minister he is very responsible, very much aware of the problems in the forestry sector in Canada and very much involved in promoting an industry that is so important to our country.
Not long ago, the Minister said, in referring to the various agreements signed in Canada, that the federal Government, working with the provinces of this country, had invested over $1 billion in our forests and federal-provincial agreements. As you know, Madam Speaker, one of the most important agreements, worth over $300 million, was signed with British Columbia.
I can also inform the Hon. Member that under these agreements, the Progressive Conservative Government has made a commitment to place tremendous emphasis on promoting the industry as such. We are proud to say that 80 per cent of these funds are invested in the field, in sylviculture and forestry generation.
April 18, 1989

Madam Speaker, we have made considerable progress under these agreements, and we believe in them. We prepared and sprayed more than one million hectares, and more than one billion seedlings were transplanted. This is very important work, Madam Speaker, and it must be allowed to continue. And I think that the Minister is quite aware of the agreements and works conscientiously with his colleagues in every province.
Regarding the province of my New Democratic colleague who asked the question, we can say, Madam Speaker, that this $300-million agreement has produced tremendous employment benefits: nearly 100,000 jobs were created. We can also say, Madam Speaker, that it brought major gains to British Columbia because thousands of hectares were replanted. That represents 850,000 days of work for British Columbia workers.
Madam Speaker, I think that as a responsible Government, we must first, as the Minister said, consider the national debt, but at the same time we must also look
Adjournment Debate
at-and the Minister said so, he repeated that we must be aware of the situation and continue to work together with the provinces to promote the growth of this highly important natural resource for the Canadian economy, namely forests, and to ensure that they continue to be a major source of wealth for our workers and businesses as they have been in recent years.
That is how, Madam Speaker, with the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Oberle) who is doing spectacular work to promote forestry, we will be able to give all Canadians and the Canadian forestry industry the best resources, the best technology, and together we will be able to move forward to the future.


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 afternoon at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 19,1989