1998-11-20

Government Orders
Railway Safety ActHon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Transport, Lib.): 
moved that Bill C-58, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to begin the second reading debate on Bill C-58.
In September 1997, following the train derailment near Biggar, Saskatchewan, the Minister of Transport ensured that a number of immediate safety actions were taken by the railway. Subsequently, the department ensured that a Transportation Safety Board interim recommendation on the derailment was addressed so that travelling Canadians could benefit from the recommended safety enhancements.
Shortly after the derailment the minister announced that he was delaying the reintroduction in the House of Commons of the amendments to the Railway Safety Act. He directed departmental officials to examine other possible improvements to the legislation as well to see whether we could improve the mechanisms for overseeing safety and regulatory compliance.
A rail safety review committee was immediately established and was composed of railway safety, risk management and regulatory experts. The committee was also asked to consult with the rail industry and other stakeholders and to recommend ways to further improve rail safety.
Departmental officials reported back to the minister last January and in March the minister announced that he had accepted the department's rail safety review committee's recommendations. At the same time, he made public the committee's report.
At that time the minister asked his officials to proceed quickly with the committee recommendations that did not require changes to the legislative framework, such as improvements to rail safety practices and rules. This work began in the spring of 1998.
Today I am pleased to inform the House that the legislative changes imposed in this bill include a number of new provisions recommended by the review committee which will further enhance safety in Canada's rail industry.
These new amendments to the Railway Safety Act were prepared in extensive consultation with the railway industry, railway unions, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Safety Council, Transport 2000 and provincial officials.
Consultations were held as late as October of this year to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to reach a consensus on the intent of the proposed amendments in Bill C-58.
These proposed changes are fully modernized and reflect good practices used in safety regimes for other modes of transportation, changes such as: a new policy clarifying the objective of the act as well as the roles and responsibilities of all parties relative to railway safety; authority to require railways to implement safety management systems; authority to require railways to report safety-critical information for the purpose of railway system safety performance monitoring; a new safety compliance order targeted at safety management system deficiencies; increased authority for rail safety inspectors; and an improved consultative process.
The legislative framework will allow the department to require railways under federal jurisdiction to adopt formal safety management systems. The department would have full authority under the legislation to ensure that railways comply with this requirement and to take effective action as required to ensure full compliance.
This will also respond to earlier recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board with respect to more effective means of auditing railway safety.
The inclusion of the safety management systems is expected to improve railway safety by promoting a safety culture within the railroads, enabling railways to demonstrate their commitment to safety and demonstrating that railways are in compliance with regulatory requirements.
In the consultations with stakeholders it was evident that the majority of them wished to have a consultative committee on matters of safety. I am pleased to say, as the minister previously announced in March 1998, that the department is committed to the establishment of a permanent consultative committee of departmental officials and rail safety stakeholders.
The objective of this committee, which will be comprised of all interested parties, is to ensure that decision making on issues of railway safety includes effective consultation. This would involve an active two-way communication to develop a better understanding of issues and solutions. This committee will complement the improved consultative requirements contained in this bill.
It is anticipated that the first meeting will be held early in the new year.
Every year many Canadians lose their lives at crossings or while trespassing on railway property. This is the most significant problem facing rail safety and a major effort has been undertaken to respond to it. The Department of Transport has a program and a number of initiatives in place, and this act also contains provisions to further improve safety at crossings.
The department's program in this regard is covered by the following four Es: elimination, engineering, enforcement and education.
The first E stands for elimination. The objective is to eliminate unnecessary and unsafe crossings so that road users will be using, wherever possible, those with automated warning systems or better physical characteristics.
One amendment for crossings would allow the minister to make a grant as compensation for closures. Another would allow him to control the opening of new crossings on high speed lines.
The second E stands for engineering. As part of the Transport Canada crossing monitoring program, the new bill will provide for safety reviews at crossings in certain circumstances such as serious accidents.
The third E stands for enforcement. The railway safety inspector's overall monitoring for compliance can result in a variety of safety actions being taken for identified deficiencies.
Finally, the fourth E stands for education. Education is vital if we are to obtain the full benefits from the other three Es. For example, the Department of Transport is a full partner in operation lifesaver which educates Canadians on safety issues.
The proposed changes will also support a national program called direction 2006 which aims to reduce by 50% the number of highway/railway grade crossing collisions and trespassing incidents on railway property by that year. This program has the ongoing support of all stakeholders.
The government faces a huge challenge to reduce greenhouse gases and improve the environment. The proposed bill includes an authority to make regulations restricting emissions from the operation of railroad equipment. There is at present no such authority federally and the proposed Canadian Environment Protection Act excludes railway equipment. This proposed power will allow for a cleaner environment and will help Canada meet worldwide quotas for emissions.
The proposed legislative changes will enhance the ability of the railway safety system to give reasonable assurance of the continuing state of railway safety in Canada and to contribute to sustainable transportation.
To conclude, Transport Canada's first priority is and always will be the safety of the transportation system in Canada. I believe these amendments to the Railway Safety Act will strengthen the regulatory framework that governs safety in this critical mode of transportation. I believe they will provide the department with the means to ensure that Canada's railways will continue to improve their safety performance as we head into the 21st century.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to address this bill which I am sure everyone here finds extremely fascinating.
Bill C-58 was introduced on November 5. Now a mere 15 days later, which happens in this case to be only six sitting days, we are debating it at second reading. The Standing Committee on Transport may consider this bill as soon as next Tuesday which is eight sitting days after its first reading. Do I smell a whiff of prorogation in the air?
When I gave a few stakeholders a heads up as to what was happening, they were quite astonished and not at all amused. I understand that some of them are already prepared to appear on short notice and that they have contacted the committee clerk. The minister has been sitting on this legislation for several weeks, like a hen sitting on an egg and now suddenly it is full speed ahead.
This is reminiscent of what went on a year ago with the marine act, Bill C-9, essentially a good piece of legislation that was seriously flawed in a couple of places with regard to financing. There were stakeholders who were extremely upset about it but they were not heard. Now, a year later, the flaws in the bill are already coming back to haunt us, specifically relative to the port of Halifax.
This is a safety bill. Safety is a relative term. It means different things to different people. In the transportation sector the word safety is often used and has been used to promote some dubious proposals, demands and schemes. There are people who do not understand that there is no such thing as absolute safety.
If we wanted absolute transportation safety, I suppose we could all travel by foot, however we would still run the risk of breaking a leg. A less drastic but equally unacceptable measure would be to lower speed limits for all modes of transportation and make such things as airline tickets and automobiles beyond the purchasing power of most people. Certainly we would be safer but modern society with its emphasis on convenience, time and cost effectiveness would never tolerate such restrictions. The question then becomes one of what level of safety we are prepared to accept.
The Railway Safety Act is a relatively new piece of legislation. Bill C-58 seeks to legislate amendments recommended by the statutory five year review committee, as has been explained by the parliamentary secretary.
The review committee's report was tabled in parliament in February 1995. It recommended 69 amendments to streamline railway safety and to reduce the bureaucratic burden. The government introduced Bill C-43 in May 1996 incorporating 60 of the 69 recommendations, but the bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called in April 1997.
The 1995 report described the railway mode as an extremely safe means of moving freight and people in this country. Indeed the report found that Canadian railways have a good safety record when compared with other modes of transportation and when compared to other countries' rail operations. The report also noted that work related safety of railways and the manner in which their operations are carried out have clearly shown improvement. The picture painted by the Transportation Safety Board however is a little murkier.
Main track train derailments increased by 75% over the last nine years, from 101 in 1988 to 177 in 1997. We seem to be running tracks along the right of way instead of on the rails in this country. Occurrences of train collisions on main tracks have increased by 44%.
There is some good news. Accidents at road crossings have decreased by 39% over the same period. More good news is the total personal injury accidents for all types of rail related incidents have decreased by almost 80% since 1988. The number of total fatalities is quite low and it has not changed much in the last nine years.
In response to the 1997 fatal derailment of a VIA passenger train at Biggar, Saskatchewan, the minister announced that he would delay reintroduction of these amendments to the Railway Safety Act in order to further study other possible improvements.
Unlike its predecessor, Bill C-58 will now require railway companies to draw up and implement safety management systems. These systems will have to be vetted and approved by the minister. The minister may also order a railway company to take necessary corrective measures if he believes that the safety management system is deficient.
There is unfortunately no avenue to appeal a ministerial order to an independent tribunal, a tribunal similar perhaps to the Civil Aviation Tribunal. There is a rumour that Transport Canada is planning a Canada transportation tribunal for rail, aviation, marine and pipelines. I sincerely hope that the rumour is true.
One curious change from Bill C-43 was the omission of an amendment which would have explicitly given railways the right of way through road crossings. I am not a rail safety expert but it seems to me to be plain common sense that road crossing users should yield to a train. Trains are bigger.
Bill C-58 goes further than its predecessor in that it increases the powers of railway safety inspectors, particularly over road crossings. This includes broadening the inspectors' access authority and their authority to obtain documents in order to enforce the act. There are concerns again that there is no established independent venue to appeal the decisions of railway safety inspectors.
Another new amendment will insert a policy statement itemizing the objectives of the act directly into the legislation. These objectives include: promotion and provision of safety for the public and employees; protection of property; stakeholder collaboration and participation; the recognition that railway safety is primarily the responsibility of railway companies. Flexibility, efficiency and modernity are the new catch phrases for Canada's rail safety regulatory system.
In its 1995 report the review committee recommended that Canada's rail safety system be made non-prescriptive and industry driven. It advocated improvements to the overall safety framework but recommended leaving the details to the appropriate authorities. Bill C-58 therefore contains a number of technical amendments to streamline the regulatory process and reduce red tape.
The streamlined safety regulatory system proposed by Bill C-58 can be summarized as follows: the government continues to set rail safety standards; the railway companies decide after consulting with other stakeholders what safety rules are necessary and how best to meet those standards; and the government approves the rules, allows for exemptions, monitors for compliance and when necessary, enforces.
The new regime will also provide temporary regulatory exemptions to railway companies for the purpose of conducting tests related to rail transportation. The proposed regulatory regime will also require that the railways consult interested organizations as part of their process for creating operational safety rules and also when applying for exemptions from them.
Bill C-58 seeks to improve the provisions for the security of railway property. It includes a new designation, screening officers to screen persons or goods before they are taken on board a train or into a restricted area such as a freight yard. The terms of reference for screening are very similar to those currently practised by airlines and in airports.
With respect to road crossings, most MPs are probably already very familiar with the whistling issue. Many constituents and municipalities have sought help from their federal representatives to shepherd them through the whistling removal process.
Whistling through road crossings is an important safety tool, but the noise can torment people living close to a railway line. The new legislation is still somewhat convoluted, but any simplification of the removal process will be welcomed by communities requesting the cessation of whistling through residential areas, provided of course that other safety requirements are met.
Bill C-58 will also strengthen and clarify federal regulatory powers over road crossings, including legislating ministerial authority over the construction, alteration and maintenance of such crossings, and making regulations respecting the control of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on road approaches to crossings. Cabinet will have the power to require railway companies, road authorities or persons who have rights to a crossing to conduct a safety review of that crossing following an accident.
One significant change to existing rules is the section of Bill C-58 which will authorize road authorities to enter onto any land in the vicinity of the crossing to cut down overgrown trees or brush perceived to be a hazard to safe railway operations. However, the government has neglected to tie up some loose ends pointed out to it by stakeholders in committee the last time around. Specifically, municipalities expressed concerns over potential liability. They also wanted to know who will pay for brush clearing, the local taxpayers or the railways. Good question.
In conclusion, although Bill C-58 is necessarily limited in scope, in fact most of it, if we cut through all the thickets, seems to apply in one way or another to road crossings and is a step in the right direction toward greater railway safety. Although the proposed amendments appear to be good ones, the bill is highly technical. I want to hear from the stakeholders in committee before passing judgment. I do hope that we will be given the time to do that.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ ): Mr. Speaker, on September 3, 1997, a train derailment in Saskatchewan led to one fatality. This moved the government to speed up the introduction of a bill to bring up to date and enhance railway safety by amending the legislation dating back to 1989.
A committee of experts was appointed to prepare this new legislative text, and this is what we are now looking at.
Obviously, it is regrettable that it took an accident and a fatality to move the government to speed up introduction of a bill that had been needed for some time. Nevertheless, if it is a good law, one that improves railway safety, who could be against it. There is, however, one point on which we do not agree, and on which we will be introducing an amendment. I will come to that later.
I will start with a brief summary of the objectives of this bill. First of all, to enhance the government's ability to get the railways to remedy nuisances and hazards relating to safety and to the environment.
Second, it also improves collaboration between the various parties involved in railway transportation, namely the companies, the government, the municipal authorities, the railway unions, and those who own or lease railroad stock.
Third, the bill is aimed at reducing harmful emissions from locomotives for the good of the environment.
We fully support the objective of this bill. I am also quite pleased with clause 18, which should address something that bothers people in our region and in many other regions too. I am talking about train whistles. In my region, there is a passenger train that goes by around 6 a.m., and most people do not appreciate being woken up so early in the morning, except of course if it is a matter of safety, which is not always the case, and municipalities are in the best position to determine if it is. Therefore, we fully agree with the proposed clause I am about to read.
It states, and I quote:
No person shall use the whistle on any railway equipment in an area within a municipality if a ) the area meets the requirements prescribed for the purposes of this section; and b ) the government of the municipality—which is the best judge—by resolution declares that it agrees that such whistles should not be used in that area and has, before passing the resolution, (i) consulted the railway company that operates the relevant line of railway, (ii) notified each relevant association or organization, and (iii) given public notice of its intention to pass the resolution.
Notwithstanding this clause, the train conductor may of course use the whistle in an emergency. This way, my fellow citizens will be able to sleep more soundly in the future.
I now come to our concern, which will be addressed in an amendment we will be introducing. The existing legislation states:
24.(1) The governor in council may make regulations f .1) respecting the construction, alteration and maintenance of roads for the purpose of ensuring safe railway operations.
Our amendment will ensure that the costs associated with such alterations imposed on municipalities are borne by the federal government, and not by the municipalities on which these alterations are imposed.
These are my remarks on this bill, which we will support, but only after introducing the amendment I just mentioned.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I am happy to say a few words on the Bill C-58 to amend the Railway Safety Act. The bill is a complex one and the government has asked that we co-operate with it in moving it quickly through second reading to committee stage.
I know that our transportation spokesperson, the hon. member for Churchill, is very keen to review the bill when it goes to the Standing Committee on Transport and indeed to hear from the various stakeholders and the many witnesses who will appear before that committee to deal with the intricacies of that legislation.
For that reason and because it is important to hear from those stakeholders we will co-operate with the government's request to date. However, government members should not take our congeniality at this stage to mean that we will give them an easy time of the legislation when it goes to committee.
There are some points in the legislation that are positive but important questions remain to be answered. When dealing with bills as intricate and comprehensive as this one, committees have to review them very carefully and systematically to avoid unintended consequences or unforeseen results. That is why the testimony of the witnesses will be particularly important.
The bill does many things. It seeks to update the Railway Safety Act and it includes some positive measures to strengthen enforcement of safety regulations. It also addresses concerns about noise pollution from train whistles which was addressed by the previous speaker from the Bloc Quebecois.
Since passenger rail service was abandoned by first the Conservative government and not reinstated by this government, in the part of the country I come from in Cape Breton we miss the sound of the railway whistle. There are others who may miss it. When I grew up there were those who would complain about the late night whistles, but there was also a rumour that those who lived close to the railway line tended to have more children. Maybe we will hear from witnesses in that regard before the committee.
On a more serious note, one area we will be looking at very carefully is the clause dealing with the medical fitness of railway employees designated as critical to railway safety operation. Admittedly, since these workers are responsible for the lives and safety of Canadians, it is crucial that they be medically fit when on the job.
At the same time, however, there is a careful balancing act here. We must be careful not to go too far to infringe on an individual's right to work. Workers must not be prevented from working to support themselves and their families unless there is good reason. It would be interesting to see—and it could be a very progressive step—if there was some kind of obligation on the part of the corporations to assist the workers in ensuring their fitness for the job.
We know there are problems in terms of fitness. As Canadians work harder and harder, do more and more work and have less and less leisure time, those who are fortunate enough to work, their physical health suffers. It would be an opportunity to see corporations in the railway business take the lead in this area and assist in providing their employees with the time and facilities, with perhaps some financial incentives, to ensure they are medically fit to do the job, especially if that is a requirement.
Another area of particular concern is that the bill in its current form empowers railway companies by requiring the Minister of Transport to consult with them in certain circumstances. At the same time the bill does away with the railway safety consultative committee. This is of particular concern to us.
That committee, composed of representatives from industry, labour and other stakeholders, advises Transport Canada on railway safety issues. Bill C-58 will be replacing that by requiring the Minister of Transport to consult with the corporations. It does not do the same thing for the other stakeholders. That is an important distinction and an important area to explore at the committee level.
The discrepancy perhaps reflects the Liberals' corporatist ideological bias, not to mention the propensity to reward those who support them financially. We are however encouraged that the bill at least recognizes the importance of outside consultation. It recognizes that government bureaucracy is not infallible and that there is a place for outside opinions, but simply consulting with the railway companies alone is not sufficient.
Let us face it. If a railway company is in business its objective is to meet the bottom line. That is not always consistent with the public good. This is something that we understand in the New Democratic Party. The role of government is to ensure, protect and enhance the public good. That is not necessarily the role of a private corporation. Therefore only consulting with railway companies will not give the necessary balanced picture that is required. We believe it is important that other stakeholders be consulted.
I mentioned that we miss the sound of the railway whistle on Cape Breton. We have not given up the fight in that regard. It is my hope that the bill will have some relevance. Indeed there is a private railway company in the part of the country I come from and the riding I represent. It will have significance and impact on my riding. What is lacking is passenger rail service.
I would take every opportunity in the House to encourage the Minister of Transport to re-examine the decision of the government not to reinstate that passenger rail service. At the time that it was dismantled by the Mulroney government it was clear that members of the Liberal Party were opposed to it. I attended the hearings in my own riding and we still await some remedial action in that regard.
However I will not take any more time in the House on this issue because it has to go to committee. I have said that we are complying with the government's request to move the bill to committee as quickly as possible. Therefore I offer our conditional support at this stage.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to speak to second reading of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.
The bill is basically the same as the previous Bill C-43 which was introduced during the last parliament. Unfortunately it died on the order paper at the call of the last election. I would like to point out our disappointment that the bill was not introduced earlier. I hope this does not reveal that safety is not the minister's number one concern.
The bill proposes amendments to the Railway Safety Act which came into effect in January 1988. A statutory review took place after five years and the result was the previous Bill C-43. We are pleased with the exhaustive consultation which took place with the stakeholders involved during the mandatory review and with their valuable input. It should be noted that this is an ongoing process. As the minister has repeatedly stated, safety is his number one concern and we will continue to hold him to that.
The Railway Safety Act which passed in 1988 was a significant change in the way we regulate railways and how railways interact with government. This has proven to be a very good approach, and with the legislation before us today I hope it will become much better.
The railway system makes up an important part of our national fabric and is a great economic engine for the country. This great national work does not come without some unfortunate costs. What I am speaking about is the many lives which have been lost at railway crossings every year. The railway companies work very hard to ensure that we have the most up to date technologies and warning signals available. I would like to thank them for their effort, but I think the federal government must play a much larger role in the safety issue.
At a time when the government is looking at revitalizing our passenger service we should ensure that the railway network is as safe as possible. Where road and rail meet many safety concerns have to be addressed. There are currently too many level crossing accidents in Canada. I am aware that there are some innovative ways to prevent these accidents from occurring. The old mentality of creating more bells and guards may not be the only way to attack the issue.
My hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester, who is the official transportation critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, will examine the bill in further detail in committee and if further changes are needed I am sure they will be welcome. As the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester has proven in the House, he is an able defender of the critic portfolio of transportation.
Obviously I speak of his involvement with respect to toll highways in the Atlantic provinces. He has brought that issue to the House and has dealt with it very effectively.
I would like to deal with rail safety. There are a number of very good points that are going to come forward in committee with respect to this piece of legislation. There are a couple of things I must put forward with respect to rail transportation particularly in western Canada.
As I said, rail transportation is a vital economic link particularly in western Canada. In my community of Brandon, Manitoba we are blessed with having two main lines, the CP and the CN. One runs through the city and one runs north of the city. We are pleased to have both main railway lines.
I talked about the economic viability of western Canada with respect to the railroads. I speak obviously of the transportation necessity of moving commodities and products throughout western Canada. The number one commodity without question is grain. We export the major portion of grain that is being produced right now. We get it to ports by rail transportation.
Potash is important to the province of Saskatchewan. It is a commodity that in most instances is transported to international markets. There are a number of industrial now being produced in western Canada that must find their way to globalized markets. Again, rail transportation is that vital link. Also, coal is very important to B.C., requiring rail transportation.
The reason I mention those commodities is that there is substantial traffic on the main lines in western Canada. Unlike the previous speaker, the hon. member from Cape Breton who not longer has the opportunity of listening to train whistles, in my area we hear the whistling of trains on a fairly regular basis. The reason I mention that is there is a section in this bill that speaks to train whistles.
I would like to take minute to explain the situation that I have found myself in with respect to train whistles going through some communities with controlled crossings. Under the current regulations the main line railroad continues to blow whistles at crossings. The municipality has on many occasions tried to curtail some of that whistling in residential areas. It has fallen on deaf ears.
I will read the section in the legislation that says the minister will now have the opportunity of looking at whistling in municipalities. Also, municipalities will now have some input. Section 23(1) says that the government of the municipality by resolution declares that it agrees that such whistles should not be used in that area, and has before passing the resolution consulted the railway company that operates the relevant rail lines, notified each relevant association or organization, and given public notice of its intention to pass the resolution.
What that now does is give the opportunity for some municipalities to improve their quality of life when main lines run through their communities.
In this instance the municipality did pass a resolution. It suggested it would pay any additional insurance costs the railway might incur. It was a controlled railway crossing with not only whistles but arms that came down to protect the travelling public. This legislation would now allow the minister to be involved and to allow those types of changes to be made. That is very positive.
There are a couple of other issues that have to deal with rail transportation that are not dealt with in the safety bill. The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester from the Progressive Conservative Party will bring them forward. It has been mentioned by previous speakers that railroads are doing a reasonable job with respect to safety. In some cases they have also abdicated their responsibility in other areas. I specifically speak of line abandonment and the ability for short line operators to work in rural communities, particularly in western Canada.
This legislation, however, is of safety. I compliment the railroads for attempting to put into place safety measures that are as good as possible. This legislation will help them do that with the assistance of the minister's office.
The minister has said that safety is his number one priority. I accept that. In committee there will be some changes suggested by members of the opposition. Members of the opposition have a lot of experience with respect to railroads and rail safety.
I hope the committee and the minister will listen to those proposals put forward in the form of amendments so that this legislation can be even better than what is being proposed right now.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in a debate on a bill where we seem to have some agreement on all sides of the House. I think it is fundamentally because of the importance of rail safety.
Members opposite may be aware that this is the 20th anniversary of the train derailment in my city of Mississauga which resulted in the largest peace time evacuation in the history of our country. We moved a quarter of a million people out of our city in stages in about four or five days and did it quite successfully actually.
There were no deaths and no serious injuries caused by the train derailment but the actual derailment and subsequent investigation and involvement with CP rail and the hearings that went on really brought out some major improvements led by the municipality.
When that train derailed, I had an almost out of body experience of laying in my bed and seeing the entire sky light up. I thought it was Consumers Gas that had exploded or something like that. I jumped into the car and drove over toward the light, which shows how bright I was. I arrived at the corner of Dundas Street and Mavis Road just in time for the second explosion, an explosion that shot chemicals and chlorine gas into the air.
The proof that was later found, in a somewhat frightening way, was there were hundreds of dead birds around our city because of the chlorine in combination with the explosion.
Chlorine is carried in great abundance across this land on our rail system. A lot of those cars that we see trundling through our residential communities are not carrying milk. They are carrying dangerous chemicals. Chlorine is a low seeking gas that will actually go into the river and sewer systems and wind up in peoples' homes. It is a very serious safety concern.
What I think saved our community from catastrophe was the fact that the explosion went straight up and took the chlorine mushroom cloud straight up into the air. It killed some birds but fortunately no people.
I was actually the acting mayor, which is a hard thing to be when Hazel is the mayor, but she was out of town at the time this accident occurred.
There is apparently no truth to the rumour that Hazel was seen jumping on the car going through Streetsville in an attempt to derail it because, as we all know, she has become extremely famous right across the land.
In all seriousness, that fame is due to the hard nosed efforts that she, the members of council, the staff, the city and the residents put forward in demanding improvements to safety.
One of the issues in safety has to do with labelling of the cars going through. I am sure members would agree that is extremely important for fire departments. One of the real frightening aspects of dealing with that train derailment 20 years ago was that our firefighters had to go into the fire not knowing what was there. They were completely unaware because there was no labelling system. They had no idea whether there was another gas filled car ready to explode as they went in.
Frankly, our firefighters in Mississauga were heroes on that night and the next day as they fought the fire. They had tremendous difficulty in putting it out and they did so in the face of tremendous personal risk.
Rail safety is critical to all of us. We think of it in the terms the former speaker talked about, the two rail lines going through Manitoba. We think of it in terms more today of hauling grain and perhaps freight. But the reality is there is a proposal that is always kicked around, it seems from election to election, to put a high speed train in the Windsor to Quebec City corridor, where we have the population that could justify such a high speed commuter passenger trail, something that would surpass the VIA Rail service.
If we are to go this route then safety is clearly a critical issue and it is the quality of the beds, the quality of the actual infrastructure these trains go across. If members have ever had the experience of travelling on the Shinkansen in Tokyo, they will agree and realize that the nature of the infrastructure has to be at such a high level to accommodate the high speed of trains of that nature that frankly I do not think our infrastructure would suffice today. So we need to address safety from that point of view.
Whistle blowing is interesting. I have heard members talk about that. Anyone who might be familiar with my part of the world would know that the provincial government several years ago built a major highway right through Mississauga and connecting up at the 410 in Brampton. It is called Highway 403.
In the acquisition of land to accommodate the road right of way and all the allowances required, there was one farmer who was a holdout. For years we could never figure out why a train was travelling right through the heart of communities like Erin Mills, Medowvale and Deer Run in my riding. We could never figure out why the train was blowing its whistle at all hours of the night and seemingly with some joy. The conductor would sit right on that horn and the noise of course would result in a number of rather dramatic phone calls to my office, since I was the councillor of the day, people complaining about that.
We found out there was an unprotected crossing as a result of not being able to acquire the land. It was a bit of a lovers lane apparently and that is all it was used for. Know the blowing of the whistle is important for safety.
The Speaker: The member still has plenty of time in his speech and will be the first recognized after question period. It being 11 a.m., we will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Statements By Members
National Child DayMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is National Child Day, a day to recognize children and their accomplishments.
Shortly I will have the honour to recognize the accomplishments of 7 year old Ryan Hreljac of Kempville.
Ryan, with the help of his brothers Jordan and Keegan, worked tirelessly to get clean water wells for people in a village in Uganda, Africa. For his efforts Ryan will receive a You Made a Difference Award.
Here in Ottawa the student volunteer program of the Queensway-Carleton Hospital will also receive an award for the work of the 200 grade 10 students who donated over 10,000 hours annually to the hospital.
Mr. Marc Croteau, the mayor of the city of Aylmer, will also receive an award in recognition of his efforts to build respect and confidence among the general population and youth of Aylmer, Quebec.
On behalf of my colleagues I would like to say congratulations to Janis Machin and Bernie Muzeen of Our Kids. I would also like to say congratulations to all individuals involved in improving the lives of others, especially our children. For those who are celebrating their birthday today, happy birthday.
Focus On The FamilyMr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today is UN Universal Children's Day. On such a day it is a sad comment that Focus on the Family, an organization devoted to children and Christian family values, was censured earlier this year by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
The CBSC condemned Focus on the Family and has been the witness, prosecutor, judge and jury.
I understood that all Canadians had the right to freedom of religion, freedom of thought and expression, freedom of the press and communications. I ask the government has this changed?
The CBSC listened to one complaint, made no attempt to contact the source of the broadcast and ruled against radio station CKRD.
There was no opportunity for the presentation of supporting documents, opposing views, appeal or even notification of the decision.
Clearly the broadcast industry's self-regulation process leaves much to be desired. This judgment is biased and, contrary to the values of millions of Canadians, this method does not work. Justice has not been served. The CRTC has entrusted the broadcast council with a self-regulating procedure, but the process is flawed.
International Firefighters CompetitionMr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to rise in the House to congratulate five members of the Crapaud Fire Department who made Canada proud at the recent International Firefighters Competition in Orlando, Florida. The team of Kent Clyke, Mike Craig, Dean Ferguson, Harold Taylor and Sandy MacQuarrie were the first among all Canadian teams and 17th overall at the Firefighter Combat Challenge.
Their success is especially significant because they are strictly a volunteer fire department—real volunteers—from a small rural community of 400 in P.E.I. What these men lacked in training facilities they made up for with commitment, determination and pure heart. The people of Crapaud must also be congratulated for the overwhelming support they gave their firefighters. Without this support their efforts would not have been realized.
Once again, congratulations on a job well done. All of Canada is proud of them.
Education And Advanced ResearchMr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 1998 federal budget, the first no-deficit federal budget in 27 years, was also an education budget. As a consequence of federal investment in education and advanced research, a $450,117 contract has been awarded to the University of British Columbia's Faculty of Education for Applied Research and Evaluation Services. This will support 12 full time and 36 part time academic scientific jobs through to the end of March 2000.
In actively sponsoring education and advanced research the government is building the intellectual infrastructure to lead us successfully into the next millennium.
National Child DayMrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to bring the attention of the House to the annual observance of National Child Day. As a proud mother of four sons I know how important the early years of a child's life are in enabling the child to attain his or her full potential.
National Child Day promotes the awareness of the importance of these early years. Special activities and events are held across the country on November 20 to celebrate National Child Day. Launches of special initiatives, programs to protect children's rights, workshops and public exhibits are being held to promote the day.
Our children are our most precious resource. They will determine the future of this country. The Government of Canada recognizes this and has made children's issues a clear priority. One example is the national child benefit which is part and parcel of a greater effort—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.
Parental RightsMr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on November 5 Sun Media Corporation published an article entitled “Spank your child, go to jail”. Columnist Michael Coren told the sad story of what happened to Joe Cleary because he spanked his five-year old son for continuing to kick the family cat after being told repeatedly not to do so. A month after he used this totally reasonable measure to correct his son's behaviour, police came to Mr. Cleary's place of work, arrested him, handcuffed him in front of co-workers, put him in jail for two days and charged him with assault.
The Clearys had to go to court seven times and incurred legal bills totalling $10,000. The judge quite correctly dismissed the charges under section 43 of the Criminal Code which protects the fundamental parental right of parents to use reasonable measures to correct their children's behaviour.
The judge got it right, but how did the police and crown prosecutors get it so wrong? On National Child Day can the government please explain how the persecution of good parents by the state is in the best interests of the child?
National Child DayMrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to alert the House to the annual celebration of National Child Day.
The aim of this day is to make better known and to understand the factors that contribute to the growth of children, especially very young children, so we may help them realize their full potential.
Several events will take place across Canada to mark National Child Day. Many communities have organized events for children and their families.
Our children are our most valuable resource. They will help determine the future of our country. The government is very committed to helping children.
I have spent over 30 years of my life working with children in poverty. We need to continue to provide support and resources at the community level to ensure that the needs of all children are met.
I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting National Child Day and all the activities that will help Canadian children get a good start in life.
Michel TrudeauMr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we continue our work in the House today, former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his family along with many friends and Canadians from across the country are gathering at Saint-Viateur d'Outrement church to honour the tragically shortened life and the memory of Michel Trudeau.
His most unfortunate death hit us all as Canadians. We, as members of parliament, have a special place in our thoughts for Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who contributed so much of himself and his talents to parliament and to the country, a country he exemplified for many years.
Words always seem feeble and inadequate comfort in the face of immense tragedies such as the sudden loss of Michel Trudeau. But in the measure in which they can bring solace, I know I am expressing the deep feelings of all parties in offering to Mr. Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Mrs. Margaret Kemper and Michel's brothers Justin and Sacha our most profound sympathy.
The EnvironmentMr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last week I attended the global warming negotiations in Buenos Aires.
Little progress was made toward meeting the goals set down in Kyoto last year and one simply has to ask “Why?”
Could it be that many of the delegates to the Kyoto protocol arrived home in their respective countries last year only to be beat up because of the unrealistic goals they had agreed to?
The distinct lack of agreement in Buenos Aires on key issues such as inclusion of developing countries or emissions trading mechanisms makes it appear that many countries want to push negotiations well into the next century and then use that as the excuse for not meeting the global goals.
Why not have the political backbone and admit it up front. The goals that Canada agreed to in Kyoto are unrealistic and unachievable—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
Parti QuebecoisMr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the PQ has a very unusual conception of the referendum debate. A future referendum would be a winning referendum only for the PQ. This is a strange way to preserve democracy.
The PQ will use public funds to try once again to catch Quebeckers like lobster. This is a dangerous approach that smacks of intellectual fraud, of contempt for Quebeckers.
It is hard to be more biased than the PQ. We are talking here about the future of a society, not a PQ convention.
National Child DayMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1993, the Canadian government designated November 20 as national child day, to commemorate two major events in the history of the United Nations, namely the adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, in 1958, and of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in 1989.
On this day, my thoughts are with the children who suffer from hardship, violence and hunger. We do not have the right to betray these fragile human beings, nor do we have the right to betray their distressed parents, who can no longer meet their most basic needs.
Yet, this government continues to turn its back on poverty by contributing, through its political choices, to increasing the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor. Instead of indexing its tax system, this government prefers to underhandedly take money from the poor.
Let us hope that this child day will arouse the conscience of a government more concerned about its visibility than about putting children and their parents—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today is national child day and sadly there are still far too many children living in poverty in this country. Despite a unanimous resolution in this House in 1989 to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000, there are 1.5 million children living in poverty.
Each day in Canada millions of children roll out of bed in substandard housing or shelters with empty stomachs and empty hopes.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance had a revelation about child poverty. He finally discovered that there is third world poverty in the country and called child poverty a national disgrace.
Yet it is this government's cuts to social programs that have pushed half a million more children into poverty since the Liberals were elected in 1993. With only 14 months to go until the year 2000, New Democrats call on the finance minister to introduce measures to eliminate child poverty come hell or high water and end the national disgrace of child poverty.
Election Campaign In QuebecMr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, another twist from Lucien Bouchard: social union comes first, ahead of the referendum. A bit of an outlandish trick.
I have greater faith in the Quebec Liberal Party's improving the Canadian federation. The winning condition for Quebec's economic growth is a vote for the Liberals.
The Quebec government will be paralyzed for the next four years under the PQ, which wants to hold endless referendums.
Lucien Bouchard does not know what else to do, but hold referendums.
Transition To EmploymentMr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House an important program in my riding of Kings—Hants. The program is called Transition to Employment.
The goal of the program is to teach computer and literacy programs, financial management and basic life skills development to the aboriginal people in this area. The program is administered by the Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselling Association which is based in Indian Brook at the Eagle's Nest treatment centre. The program requires that all of its members are alcohol and drug free.
The program has been an overwhelming success to date and its program co-ordinator David Paul and instructor Holly McCulloch have played a big part in that success. I congratulate all participants of the Transition to Employment program and I offer my complete support and assistance to their efforts.
I would hope that this program can represent an opportunity for the federal government and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to implement it across Canada to ensure that our native population has an opportunity to participate fully in the type of economic and social opportunities that Canadians deserve.
Michel TrudeauClifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me permission to finish my statement.
I would like to express the deep feelings of members from all parties in offering to Mr. Pierre Trudeau, Mrs. Margaret Kemper, Michel's brothers Justin and Sacha, and all of their family our most profound sympathy.
If I may, it would not be out of place for us to salute in passing Michel's amazing and special friend, his dog Misha, who stayed by his side even when all hope was gone.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for your indulgence in this special circumstance to ask that we rise and pause for a symbolic moment in memory of Michel Trudeau.
Francophone CommunitiesMr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear the case of the parents of Summerside, who are trying to obtain a French school in their region under section 23 of the charter of rights and freedoms.
Right now, the children of Summerside are obliged to spend an hour on the bus to get to school in the Évangéline region.
This case reveals once again the courage and tenacity of francophones, who, surrounded by an anglophone majority in Canada, are forced to fight provincial governments to be able to exercise their most fundamental right to education.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage should recognize their strength and give them real support. She should substantially increase support to francophone groups across Canada and give effect to the commitment made in this House to increase the budget for the court challenges program.
The Bloc Quebecois recognizes the work done by all parents in all the primarily anglophone provinces who are struggling for their children's rights—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince Albert.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is no disputing the historic facts of the residential school system and the harm it has done to many Indian families.
How was this allowed to happen? Canadian Indians were a people separated from Canadian society by law. They lacked the protections due as a right to all other people in the country.
Today many Indian people are reporting instances of mismanagement on reserves. Poor health, substandard housing and social dysfunction are endemic. This situation has come to pass under the Indian Act, the department of Indian affairs, and separate special status. Today, as in the past, it is anathema to point these things out without someone levelling charges of racism.
The minister has a huge bureaucracy with a budget of billions of dollars and responsibility for the welfare of all aboriginals and northerners.
We in the Reform Party will continue to point out their failures and weaknesses and to propose alternatives. Canada's aboriginals and indeed all Canadians deserve no less.
National Child DayMs. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of the caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, to recognize national child day.
On this very special day, we think about what children need, what they can teach us and how we can ensure they receive all the love and support necessary to grow into healthy and responsible adults.
National child day is a time set aside to listen to children and marvel at all they have to offer. It is also a time to delight in the special meaning they give our lives and the hope they create for the future.
Let us take this opportunity to express our love, respect and support to all those who are this country's greatest asset, our children.

Oral Question Period
Solicitor General Of CanadaMr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, newspapers from coast to coast scream for the solicitor general to resign. They say he is a dead duck on life support, that his credibility is in tatters, that it is time to say goodbye, to relieve him of his cabinet post and for him to resign.
The only person who finds his behaviour acceptable is the Prime Minister. When did the Prime Minister's ethics sink this low?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's ethics are certainly a matter of the highest level. We should be proud of the Prime Minister's actions. He has said that he continues to support the solicitor general.
I want to say that I never knew the Reform Party could not think for itself and had to rely on newspaper editorials for its ideas.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely absurd that the government allows the situation to continue. The fact is the solicitor general violated his oath of office by talking about an ongoing sensitive police investigation. He violated the trust of Canadians by compromising the APEC inquiry.
The Prime Minister is willing to let his cabinet minister get away with anything simply to avoid the embarrassment of having to fire him. Why does the Prime Minister lack the ethics to fire the solicitor general?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, why is the hon. member showing a lack of ethics by making these unwarranted insinuations and innuendoes? He is showing questions about his own ethics in asking this ridiculous question.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, only the government continues to defend the solicitor general.
Let us look at what the Prime Minister is defending: a cabinet minister who ducks journalists, runs from the House and the truth, stonewalls, covers up, and does not know when to keep his mouth shut in public.
What does it say about the Prime Minister's own judgment and character that this is what he holds up as acceptable cabinet behaviour?
The Speaker: We are bordering when we start judging our own or anyone's character. I think the language is getting just a bit too strong.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says it is okay for the solicitor general to publicly discuss sensitive matters.
We are wondering if the Prime Minister also now thinks it is okay for perhaps the justice minister to comment on cases before the court as long as she is not the one who writes the final judgment.
When did the Prime Minister rewrite these so-called ethical guidelines to allow this kind of behaviour?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, was this a public discussion or was it made public by an NDP member who created the unfortunate situation we are discussing right now?
Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, it does matter what cabinet ministers say, where they say it or whom they say it to. It is only the Prime Minister who does not realize that crystal clear fact.
I have a question for the government. As long as the Prime Minister continues to hang on to the solicitor general, does he not know that his historical record will read that he is the prime minister that had more arrogance than ethics?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member makes a personal attack like that it shows only one thing. He has a very weak case. He knows it and the country will know it.
When it comes to the ethics of the Prime Minister they are of the highest level. He deserves our praise and our support for the way he carries out his work on behalf of all Canadians.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, except for the Prime Minister, everybody knows it is high time the Solicitor General was relieved of his duties. It is the only way the government will be able to extricate itself from a major crisis.
In view of the fact that Canadians are unanimous on this issue, including those in the riding of Fredericton, why has the Solicitor General not been dismissed yet?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General still has the support of the Prime Minister and of his colleagues.
I wonder why the Bloc Quebecois does not have other questions for the government. Of course, it agrees with our position on social union and on the health transfer. Thanks again for that vote of confidence.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, demagogy is certainly not the Deputy Prime Minister's strong suit.
Everybody knows the Prime Minister has the nasty habit of keeping ministers who are at fault until he can find a useful excuse to get rid of them, such as a letter to the CRTC or to the immigration tribunal.
If the Prime Minister has not yet dismissed the Solicitor General, is it because he has not yet found an excuse to get rid of him or because he has not yet found someone to replace him?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, we already have a replacement here, namely the member speaking on behalf of her party. She may have already replaced everybody on the front benches in this matter.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general is on the political equivalent of life support. The Prime Minister's desire to keep him alive politically is the non-medical equivalent of aggressive life-support measures.
My question is a very simple one. How much longer is this going to last?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, during his official trip to China, the Prime Minister has confirmed that the solicitor general still has his full confidence, as well as that of his colleagues.
Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, we did indeed hear the Prime Minister defending the solicitor general this morning.
If he insists on continuing to focus parliament's attention and public opinion on the tragicomedy of the solicitor general, is this not because he clings to this as a diversion from his own involvement in the events in Vancouver?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, not in the least, absolutely not.
I reject the hon. member's assumptions on this matter. Once again I repeat, this matter is before the public complaints commission. So we should let the commission do its job.
Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister asks whether it was a public discussion. Indeed it was public discussion about a sensitive issue in a public place.
Yesterday in a radio interview involving both me and the Liberal member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, even he said he would find it difficult to defend the solicitor general.
The die is cast. What remains is for the deed to be done. Even members of the other caucus admit that there are problems. When will the Prime Minister do the deed and ask for the resignation of the solicitor general?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to repeat that the solicitor general continues to have the confidence of the Prime Minister.
I also want to point out that the NDP, with all its concern for social issues, unemployment, poverty and homelessness, has forgotten all these things. It cannot choose to ask a question in that regard. Again, it must be a vote of confidence in the way the government continues to tackle and make progress on dealing with these serious issues.
Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, since the Deputy Prime Minister mentions poverty and other concerns, let us talk about social justice concerns.
Listening to the Deputy Prime Minister defend the solicitor general is a little like reading the soliloquy of Hamlet , whether he should be or not to be. It is clear that the solicitor general has neither the confidence of the people of Canada or even members of the House.
When will the solicitor general end his agony for himself and the nation and resign?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is engaging in a soliloquy when he is talking to himself about these matters and avoiding important matters like the economic and social future of the country which the government is dealing with and making progress on.
The NDP has lost its historic vocation and should be ashamed of itself.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians sadly observed the first solicitor general in history to enter the witness protection program.
The APEC inquiry is mired in conflict, has a limited mandate and has now proven indiscretions by the solicitor general. The Prime Minister should simply pick up the phone and call the solicitor general and fire him. Apparently ministerial responsibility has also gone missing.
Is the government refusing to fire the solicitor general because it is afraid of testimony that he might give at the APEC inquiry? What is more important than ethics?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the government has already said that it intends to co-operate fully with the commission.
If the hon. member is so interested in the work of the commission then let the commission do its work and not try to derail the commission with the unwarranted insinuations and innuendoes in his questions before the House.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, we can understand the Deputy Prime Minister's sympathy for an incompetent solicitor general given his personal irresponsibility in the Airbus file two years ago.
The fact remains that the solicitor general's word has now been contradicted. He did in fact discuss sensitive government business in a public place.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister face the reality of the solicitor general's breach of office and personally urge for that minister's resignation?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to start asking for the resignation as House leader of the hon. member but I guess that would not be my role.
I want to remind the House that Mr. Toole in his affidavit said “At no time during our conversation did Mr. Scott suggest to me, nor have I learned subsequently, that he was a person who had a role in determining the outcome of the APEC commission. Nothing in our conversation suggested to me that Mr. Scott knew what the outcome of the APEC commission would be”.
I urge the hon. member to pay attention to these key paragraphs in Mr. Toole's affidavit.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when Sinclair Stevens was fired from cabinet in 1986 then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was abroad in China. After days of defending the indefensible the prime minister ordered his deputy to fire Stevens.
Why will the current Prime Minister not match the ethical standard of Brian Mulroney and fire the solicitor general?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the Prime Minister is very much aware of his responsibilities. The Prime Minister will be back in the country on Saturday evening.
He has already spoken about this matter in China. He is following it closely and I am sure he will have more to say about it when he is back in our country and he can deal with the unwarranted allegations of the hon. member.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today in the Telegraph Journal , the largest newspaper in the solicitor general's home province of New Brunswick, an editorialist wrote: “If the solicitor general truly takes pride in our policing he knows that he is honour bound to resign”. Where is the honour of this government? Where are its ethics? Why will the solicitor general not do the honourable thing and resign?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, if I looked through all the editorials of that same newspaper, I could probably find a number of editorials taking a position on other issues directly opposite to what the Reform Party thinks. I do not know why one would want to pick one editorial over another. It is their view and of course we have to give it due attention, but I am sure that we could find other editorials that would take contrary positions on other important issues.
Youth ProgramsMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning a coalition representing various groups of young people came here to ask the federal government to transfer to Quebec all the money earmarked for youth programs.
Since this request is very much along the same lines as Quebec's traditional demands and is the logical extension of the transfer of manpower training, does the minister intend to give it a favourable reply?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing: youth unemployment is such a serious issue in Canada that all of us must put our shoulders to the wheel.
A commitment must be made by the private sector and by all levels of government, including municipalities, the provinces and the federal government. Under the Canadian government's youth employment strategy, 12 federal departments are doing their share to help young people join the labour market. All levels of government, along with businesses, must help us.
Is the PQ branch telling us that we must stop providing 25,000 internships, that we must stop creating 70,000 summer jobs for—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rosemont has the floor.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, it is not the PQ branch that came here this morning to say that the youth strategy is not working. It is the consensus among young people and the minister should realize that.
Instead of trying to convince himself that everything is fine, could the minister give us just one good reason to keep youth training programs under federal jurisdiction, considering that he has already transferred the general manpower training programs, and that he himself said this was a better solution?
How come what is good for workers in general is not good for young Quebeckers?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that the member would dare talk about a consensus in Quebec, when the PQ branch here in this House is ignoring the fact that three-quarters of all Quebeckers do not want a referendum.
They are now saying “we will have a winning referendum”. The members on that side of the House have the gall to say that those Quebeckers who prefer interdependence with other Canadians are losers.
Is the only winning referendum one that is won by the PQ? In fact, a winning referendum is one in which Quebeckers express themselves freely, as they have done in the past.
Apec InquiryMr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what we have in this House is a double standard. We now find out that last year the solicitor general gave specific orders to the RCMP not to discuss the APEC inquiry.
Does the Prime Minister now support cabinet ministers breaking their own rules?
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am informed that at no time did the solicitor general give any such instruction to the RCMP.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general is the top law enforcement officer in the country. What kind of message is he sending to the police officers, prison wardens and judges across the country when he breaks the rules and gets off scot-free? When is he going to resign?
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, for a few weeks we have been working on the basis of innuendoes, hearsay and despicable lack of respect for fundamental justice for people sitting in this House. I refuse to answer this question in this fashion.
Intergovernmental AffairsMr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs a question, but got no response. The minister had obviously put in the wrong tape.
I would therefore like to ask him the same question again. If the minister is as great a consensus-producer as he claims to be, how can he explain that he was not trusted by the Prime Minister to handle the matter of social union, when it comes under his mandate? Why was he denied this responsibility?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member very much for showing such an interest in my political career. I would like to take this opportunity to explain further what social union is.
Quebeckers' view of it may be an abstract one. I shall define it very simply. Social union is Canadians helping Canadians, one of the most admirable forms of mutual assistance ever invented. We invented it, along with our fellow Canadians.
The difficult situation in which the province of Quebec finds itself, in large part because of the political uncertainty and the threat of secession, costs our provincial government $4.5 billion in revenue year after year, according to Georges Mathews, an economist with close ties to the Bloc Quebecois. Are we going to give responsibility for this social union to a premier who wants to destroy Canada, or to a Prime Minister who wants to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Témiscaminque.
Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers will soon be settling that debate.
Yesterday we saw the Minister of Immigration trying to score some political points for “Le printemps au Québec”, an event held in Paris, by brandishing the maple leaf on the international scene, and thus overshadowing Quebec culture.
Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs plan to continue to improve Canada by making every effort to eclipse Quebec on the international scene?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, one thing must be made clear. It is not traditional for the Government of Canada to send its Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs out to negotiate with the provinces on anything but strictly constitutional matters.
If the matter is a social one, a minister with a social mandate is sent. If the matter is economic, a minister with an economic mandate is sent, because what is of primary importance to us is to serve the people.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is there simply to help out his federal and provincial colleagues, and I am performing my duties to the satisfaction of the Prime Minister.
Apec InquiryMr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let me quote from page 91 of the Liberal red book:
There is evidence today of considerable dissatisfaction with government.... some have to do with the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political leadership.
This is not a headline from today's papers. This is right from the Liberal red book.
When will the Prime Minister stop the arrogant stonewalling and fire the solicitor general?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his endorsation of the Liberal program. I presume in that endorsation he also includes the entire red book. We will note that when his colleagues try to attack our efforts based on that red book. Thanks for the endorsation. We appreciate it.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, not even a Liberal can endorse their own red book these days. The fact is that the government is caught like a rat in a trap.
The Speaker: I appeal to members on both sides. Please cool down the rhetoric a little bit so we can get through this question period.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, we have two affidavits swearing that the solicitor general fingered Hughie Stewart to take the fall on this issue. There are two sets of lawyers who want the APEC inquiry shut down. Still the government continues to back its disgraced solicitor general.
Given the affidavits, given the breach of trust, given the damage done by the solicitor general, how on earth can the APEC inquiry do its job now?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is serious about the public complaints commission doing its job, then he would not attempt to derail it through his unwarranted questions in the House.
Why does the member not show some commitment to the process by not asking these kinds of questions?
2010 GamesSuzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, in Nagano, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said she could not do anything to protect francophones, because the Canadian Olympic Committee is an independent body.
Today, the Canadian Olympic Association claims to have met twice with the minister, who asked them to consider the impact that the outcome of the vote to choose the host city for the 2010 Games could have on the Quebec election.
Why did the minister ask the association to postpone until December 1 the announcement of the Canadian city that will bid for the 2010 Games, if not because the government fears that the choice made could have a negative impact on the Liberals in Quebec, on November 30?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Sports Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage are partners of the Canadian Olympic Association.
We had a duty to raise the concerns that had been expressed regarding that decision.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: This is not true.
Mauril Bélanger: That being said, we share the opinion of the Quebec premier and of the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party. This is a non-political decision.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mauril Bélanger: And this is how the decision will be made. The Canadian Olympic Association is an independent body and we respect its decisions.
Child PovertyMr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is national child day. The government has taken a number of steps to ensure that children in Canada do not live in poverty. Surely the best way to ensure that children do not live in poverty is for Canadians to have jobs so they can provide for their own children.
Can the Minister of Human Resources Development tell this House what steps he has taken to ensure that all Canadians can work and provide for their children?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, poverty is indeed an issue that has tremendously preoccupied this government since we took office, and child poverty in particular.
This is why with the provinces we have set up a new national child benefit in which we will invest as of the year 2000 $1.7 billion per year to fight child poverty for families with low income. We have in Canada a good economic climate that will help create jobs with the transitional jobs fund. We have implemented a family income supplement. I could go on and on.
Canadian Wheat BoardGarry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, today is the closing day for voting in the Canadian Wheat Board election for directors. There are serious concerns about voting secrecy.
A farming couple from the minister's own riding applied and received ballots. After voting, they removed the numbers from the envelope and returned them. They then received a call from the consulting firm KPMG who questioned their eligibility.
With their ballots lying in front of them, why did KPMG phone this couple if it is to be a secret ballot? This sounds like democracy in a banana republic to me.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as in all such processes if somebody has complaints on the process there is a process to put in action. I would suggest that the hon. member tell his constituents or those he is referring to that they use that process.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, only eligible voters should have received a ballot in the first place. How could KPMG identify a secret mailed in ballot? This sounds more like a Cuban election where you either vote one way or you do not vote at all.
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, if someone has a problem with the ballot, there is a process in order to address that. That is the process that should be followed.
Health CareJudy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister says he wants to talk about social policy. Let me ask him then about the fact that the OECD has set a standard for all nations that 75% of health spending should be public spending. Canada used to meet that standard but not any more.
The president of the Canadian Health Association said “That seems to be what we had until the cuts started to take place at the federal and provincial levels. They sort of created a path towards privatization”.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with his wife that government cuts starting at the federal level pave the way to privatization of health care in Canada?
The Speaker: Does he agree with his wife? That is stretching it. If he wants to answer it, go ahead.
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the hon. member would frame her question in that way. If she were in the 20th century instead of the 19th century which appears to be the case in her question, she would realize that spouses are simply not emanations of each other. They have independent existences and independent ideas connected with their jobs.
The hon. member should be ashamed of her antediluvian 19th century question.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for the Deputy Prime Minister to share any pillow talk. I am asking if he agrees with his wife, who happens to be the President of the Canadian Health Care Association, that this government has contributed to growing privatization in our health care system today. We have a serious problem.
For the first time in the history of medicare 30% of spending on health care is private. When will the government stop contributing to privatization of Canada's health care system?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, she made it even worse in her question by bringing up the same idea that a spouse is only an emanation of the other spouse. I will give a direct answer.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Health have said that the next budget will be a health care budget, building on what we have already achieved. We will confirm that when the budget comes.
I ask my hon. friend to go back and take some training on gender sensitivity. She needs it and so does her party.
Business Development Bank Of CanadaMr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
The Business Development Bank of Canada has a mandate to assist in developing small business in Canada. Can the minister indicate if this bank is subject to any constraints on its behaviour with regard to its dealings with the business community in which it operates? More clearly, can the minister indicate if there is a code of conduct that governs the operations of the Business Development Bank of Canada?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Business Development Bank of Canada was the first of the Canadian banks to publish its own code of conduct and to establish an ombudsman who could deal with complaints as they arose.
With respect to the administrative responsibility of the government, the bank operates entirely at arm's length. I do not tell it what to do or how to do it. We established its mandate in accordance with an act of parliament. It is doing a very impressive job at meeting the needs of small business across Canada.
If we really want to meet the needs of small business across Canada, we will quickly pass Bill C-53 to ensure that the Canada small business financing act is there for the use of small business by April 1 next year.
Norman E. Doyle: Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware that I have written him regarding the company named Eyeland Optical in St. John's, a company that is being forced to move from a prime storefront location to make room for the expansion of the Business Development Bank of Canada. This will probably put Eyeland Optical out of business.
How does the minister square that action with the bank's mandate to assist small business? Does he not realize that the BDBC in St. John's is attempting to put a small business out of business?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I know there was a tendency in Tory days to direct right into the bank exactly what to do and how to do it, in particular transactions. We do not do it that way.
The bank operates as an independent commercial entity. I am aware of the situation the member has raised. I am informed that the bank was unaware that this situation would arise when it entered into an arm's length negotiation with the landlord in a particular situation. I am sure the bank is doing its best to deal in a sensitive manner with the situation.
HealthMrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health.
In a recent television documentary concerns were raised regarding the increased amount of caffeine that was being added to soft drinks and bottled water and how this would negatively impact our youth.
Could the Minister of Health tell the House today why Health Canada would allow this to happen?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the TV program that may have left a misimpression with some people. The fact this use of caffeine has not been approved by Health Canada and I can assure the member and everyone in the House that while we are conducting consultations we will not approve this unless we determine it is safe. Safety is always a priority for Health Canada.
Solicitor GeneralMr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in response to a question asked earlier by one of my colleagues, the parliamentary secretary declared that the cries for the solicitor general's resignation are based on innuendo and hearsay.
My question is simple. Is the parliamentary secretary saying that sworn affidavits by Fred Toole, by the member for Palliser and from the solicitor general are innuendo?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to take due account of paragraphs 21 and 22 in Mr. Toole's affidavit. They will indicate that Mr. Toole confirms, as far as he is concerned, he heard nothing that would indicate that the solicitor general prejudged the matter. If the parliamentary secretary is referring to innuendo and insinuation, he is referring to the questions of the hon. member and his colleagues.
When they ask those kinds of questions it shows they know they have a very weak case.
Icebreaking PolicyMr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the Atlantic groundfish strategy, the federal government has placed Quebec at a disadvantage compared to Newfoundland.
The government is doing it again on the icebreaking issue.
What does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have to say to all ferry service users, particularly those in Rivière-du-Loup, Tadoussac and Baie-Comeau, who will have to bear the brunt of this new tax?
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I thought that by this time the member opposite, given all the minister's answers over the past week, would be standing to congratulate the Government of Canada for what it does in the province of Quebec.
The hon. member should be praising the Government of Canada for its support of the fishery, increasing the value of the landings by 39% as compared to an 18% increase in Atlantic Canada. The minister already indicated to members opposite that we are spending $36 million on bridges across the St. Lawrence—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.
DevcoPeter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the member for Scarborough East and the Minister of Human Resource Development discuss jobs today. It bears on a question I asked in the House two weeks ago today to the Minister of Natural Resources. I asked what plans the government had for the hundreds of workers who have been laid off by Devco, a crown corporation in Cape Breton.
The chairman of that federal crown corporation has said it may not be able to meet its December 1 payroll. What plans if any does the government have to deal with the payroll commitments of Devco to the miners who work there?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, production has resumed in that operation. I commend the United Mine Workers of America for their constructive participation in that. We will go forward from there in a positive way to work with everyone to make a greater success of Devco.
AgricultureMr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, farmers in Atlantic Canada are also feeling the crunch from the government.
We have grain in abundance because of a bumper crop and the market is flooded, which drives prices down. Yet the government is allowing grain from Europe into the port of Halifax and the port of Saint John.
If the minister is as much of a Canadian as he feels he is, is it not time that he took care of Canadian farmers instead of farmers from Europe?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, after the completion of the feed freight assistance program that was wound down with support to the producers over the last number of years the producers in Atlantic Canada wanted the availability to buy their inputs and their grain where they could buy them the cheapest. They have that availability.
Public Service Alliance Of CanadaMr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The government has announced a tentative agreement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada on the first collective bargaining agreement since 1991.
Can the President of the Treasury Board inform the House on the contents of the collective agreement and tell us when employees can expect to receive their raises?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to confirm that we have reached an agreement with 90% of our civil servants. It lasted 18 months and it was difficult, but it is an excellent agreement.
I am also glad to say that in that same agreement we have put into place now the pay equity for the future, the structure necessary to implement it, so that there will no further gender bias against women in our pay scales for the future. This is an extraordinarily important achievement.
This agreement is to be ratified between December 6 and 16. We will be able to pay the amounts within a few weeks after the ratification.
Solicitor General Of CanadaBill Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that politics and perceptions are what people see. The Canadian perception now is that there is a bad apple in the Liberal barrel, namely the solicitor general.
Prime Minister Mulroney got rid of Sinclair Stevens, yet this government does not do anything with the current solicitor general. How far are the Liberals prepared to let the rot in that barrel expand? When are they going to get rid of the solicitor general?
John Manley: What a great country, Mr. Speaker. If you wait long enough you too can be acting Prime Minister.
The very comparison being drawn indicates an inability on the part of the Reform Party to make a judgment as to what is in fact an ethical issue. What is clear in this case, and the affidavits tabled yesterday make it clear, is that the solicitor general did not in any way direct or prejudge the inquiry. That is the issue that really is germane here. That is all.
Aid To Victims Of Hurricane MitchMrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, hurricane Mitch is the worst natural disaster to hit Central America. The Prime Minister must show compassion in view of this tragedy.
Since the social and economic infrastructures of Honduras, Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua have been all but destroyed, will the Prime Minister make a commitment here and now to write off these countries' debt to Canada and support the Chirac plan for a reconstruction summit?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have already done a lot in response to this devastating storm. We have announced that $9 million has been set aside for emergency humanitarian assistance. National Defence has deployed troops who are providing direct assistance to the people of Honduras.
Last Sunday, I had the honour and privilege of announcing that $100 million has been set aside for reconstruction assistance for Central America. We have declared a moratorium on its debt and hopefully we will be able to do more for Central America in the near future.
Health CareJudy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, the Alberta legislature is debating a bill as we speak about allowing for a hospital to operate on a private for profit basis. This opens the door to American style corporate hospitals in this country.
At the same time private spending on health is skyrocketing due to an ailing, hard hit public system covering fewer and fewer medical needs.
I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary what specific steps the government is taking to prevent the increasing privatization of health care in Canada.
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, specifically the government and the minister are very aware of Bill 37 before the Alberta legislature.
The position has been made very clear that this government supports absolutely and unequivocally the principles of the Canada Health Act and will not tolerate a move to two tier medicine in Canada.
Solicitor General Of CanadaRick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, as members of this House recognize, I am a relative newcomer to the parliamentary system.
I was very pleased with the way the parliamentary process worked until recently and generally with the solicitor general. When I came to the House I brought with me the integrity I had learned before coming here.
Liberal members were quick to call for the resignations of federal ministers for relatively minor indiscretions when they were in opposition. Could the parliamentary secretary tell me if his government will do the right thing and ask the solicitor general for his resignation?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to review the record of the last Conservative government and look at the nature of the incidents that led to scandal after scandal and resignation after resignation of ministers of that party.
We can well understand the desperate case of scandal envy the hon. member suffers from as he tries to raise this incident to that level.
Central AmericaMr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in light of the humanitarian catastrophe caused by hurricane Mitch, could the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence tell the House what the contribution of the Canadian forces has been in bringing relief to the populations of Central America?
Robert Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, Canada and the Canadian forces have a long tradition of rendering assistance to populations in need following natural disasters. We have deployed to Honduras the disaster assistance response team and four Griffon helicopters. We are also involved in the transport of humanitarian aid to the Honduras and Nicaragua.
Approximately 300 Canadian forces personnel are now stationed in Honduras, including doctors, nurses, engineers and security personnel. The Minister of National Defence will travel to Honduras on Sunday. He will visit our personnel in La Ceiba and Sonaguera and assess the situation in the region where our Canadian forces are deployed.
Point Of OrderSuzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, yesterday you asked the Deputy Prime Minister to honour the tradition in the House of not referring to members present or absent.
Today, he did not answer the second question I put to him, but alluded to the fact that all the first row seats between you and me were empty.
It is unfortunate that the Deputy Prime Minister has already left, I would have liked him to retract—
The Speaker: Yes, I asked him and I ask all members of the House not to refer to those who are or are not here.
I missed that, I am sorry. I will check the “blues”. I hope this will not recur this session.
Chief Electoral OfficeThe Speaker: I have the honour to table the report of the chief electoral officer on the byelection in the riding of Sherbrooke on September 14, 1998.
This document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Routine Proceedings
Canadian Tourism CommissionMr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Canadian Tourism Commission's annual report for 1997-98 entitled “Achieving a Critical Mass”.
Government Response To PetitionsMauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
PetitionsRose-Marie Ur: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present petitions signed by residents of Grand Bend, Parkhill and Dashwood who note that all studies show that the manganese based MMT in gasoline has been proven to foul emission control devices, resulting in higher smog levels which will devastate our Kyoto climate change commitment.
The petitioners call on parliament to ban the use of the gasoline additive MMT.
Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of my community who reside in the Spruce Woods Housing Co-operative.
It is a petition that has been taken by the residents of that co-operative. It deals with the hope that this government will give serious consideration to the proposal put forward by the co-operative housing sector to administer the federally assisted co-operative housing portfolio through a new non-profit, non-governmental organization established for that purpose.
With great respect, I present this petition to the House on behalf of those residents.
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents who pray that parliament will enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act. I present it on their behalf.
Questions On The Order PaperMauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House was interrupted for question period the hon. member for Mississauga West had 13 minutes remaining for his remarks.
Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up where I left off which was on the issue of safety at rail crossings. As members know, at unprotected crossings there is a requirement for the engineer of an approaching train to warn, from a certain distance, anyone who might be at the crossing.
I was telling the House about the example in my own community where we were experiencing, in the middle of the night, very extended whistles that were disturbing entire residential communities. We discovered that there was one dirt or country road in the heart of the city not far from a landmark that many members may be familiar with, the Square I shopping centre. This gives members an idea of the density in the community.
This situation was caused because of an inability to acquire this particular piece of property when Highway 403 was built. It was left as an unprotected crossing and, as I mentioned, led to what is commonly referred to as lover's lane. This crossing was disturbing an entire neighbourhood.
It highlighted for me the importance of putting in proper protection at railway crossings.
I come from Mississauga. Recognizing that it is the 20th anniversary of the train derailment which occurred in our community which resulted in the largest peacetime evacuation in history, this is an issue which is very near and dear to my constituents and the people in our city.
I hope there is a vision for improvement to rail services. I think for example of the debate going on right now as to whether Union Station should be acquired by the city of Toronto, the province, the federal government, a private sector developer, or a combination thereof to ensure that the architectural structure of Union Station is preserved. While the history and the architecture is important it is the facility itself which I think is critical. I can see the day when Union Station would be connected to Pearson airport hopefully right through the heart of downtown Mississauga out to the airport. I could see a rail connection for charter passenger flights from the Hamilton airport connecting into Union Station and the downtown area of my community and perhaps even Pearson.
We could see in the future an expansion of rail services with high quality infrastructure in place which would allow commuters going to and from work and other people to access facilities such as Hamilton International Airport, Pearson, Union Station and everything in between. The future of rail I hope is not dead in this country. It is very important that we take a serious look at issues surrounding safety.
Short line railways have started up around the country as a result of the abandonment of certain sections of rail. We are winding up with private sector businesses getting together in some instances almost in the form of a co-op. I think of the short line that connects Collingwood, Stayner and Barrie in the south part of northern Ontario. It primarily serves the local businesses and allows them to interact with one another. It is vitally important if private sector railway companies are operating on these short line systems that safety be of prime concern.
I hope that one day the role of rail service in this country might be similar to the experience in Europe and in Japan. The bullet train in Japan, the Shinkansen, operates through the entire country. As our country grows and the infill of population occurs in urban communities, large populations are needed to make passenger service economically feasible, particularly when it is short line or commuter passenger service.
For example a subway system cannot work in areas where there are not large concentrations of people who can get on and off that facility. The same thing could occur in the area of rail. It is not a vision that exists today but I think it is one that we should be taking a serious look at.
There is a bit of history to show that this government is responding to safety in the area of rail services. I believe opposition parties are supportive of this. The government response to the report of the railway safety act review committee was tabled in parliament in June 1995. There were a number of amendments.
One was to streamline the administrative process, cut down on red tape, provide greater involvement for interested organizations in determining the rules which I think is a very democratic response.
Another was minimized disruption by train noise in communities. I referred to the unprotected crossings. It is not just the actual noise of the train that causes concern, but it is more the whistle as it extends to the broader community.
Another was to strengthen and clarify federal powers at grade crossings, something municipalities are very concerned about. To go under or over the tracks at a grade crossing I believe costs $7 million or $8 million in today's terms for a fundamental, simple grade separation. Municipalities are concerned with the interaction of the automobile and the train and would prefer to have those grades separated but obviously not at their expense.
The other amendment was to simplify and improve provisions for ensuring that appropriate safety measures are in place and finally to clarify and strengthen the power of railway safety inspectors.
Following that, Transport Canada immediately proceeded to make a number of other modifications which I would like to share with the House. One is that the new section on testing exemptions be amended to include immediate exemptions for a limited application of short duration; second, that the new section on whistle cessation be amended in order that any relevant association or organization be advised of the municipality's intention to pass the anti-whistling resolution. Once again, the importance of an unprotected grade crossing without a whistle would endanger public safety and is not something that any of us would like to see.
The bill came back to the House in 1996 but unfortunately, or fortunately as some of us would not be here if this had not occurred, the House was dissolved, there was an election and the bill died on the order paper.
However, I am pleased to note that amendments in Bill C-58 improve even further on the earlier amendment put forward and accepted by the government that were originally in Bill C-43. I will just share those with the House: a new policy statement and new definitions and, very important, the authority to require railways to implement safety performance monitoring. I refer the House to my earlier comments about the identification on the actual train cars that may be carrying chemicals that could be dangerous and this will help to improve that; a new safety compliance order targeted at safety management system deficiencies and increased authority even further for inspectors.
I think we can all take some pride in this bill because the reality is the government is recognizing the significance of safety in the rail system not only in rural Canada in western and eastern Canada and northern Ontario but indeed in the heart of our hustling, bustling cities where citizens are impacted both in terms of noise and in terms of safety. Municipalities can also be impacted tremendously in terms of their fiscal responsibilities.
I think it is great to have this bill here. It is about time. I agree with members that it would have been good if we could have done it quicker, but better now than not at all. I look forward to this going to committee and coming back to the House for third and final reading with the support of all members.
Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I know the original plan had been that we were going to put up one speaker, and I am not going to keep hon. members for very long, but I could not end the day without passing some comments on Liberal rail safety.
As far as the bill goes, we are supporting it to move to committee where any bill can be improved. We certainly hope to discuss it openly with our colleagues on the other side and find ways to make the bill even better so that Canadians truly have rail safety.
I thought it appropriate at this time to talk about the other plan of the Liberals for rail safety. The Liberals are killing the economy in this country. They are making it so that we produce fewer goods, we sell fewer goods, we employ fewer people and we tax and suck the money out of the economy. If they keep doing that they will have rail safety because there will not be as many trains running. They are putting more impediments in the way of business every day, and that includes the railroads. We will have the ultimate rail safety, we will have the ultimate highway safety and we will have industrial safety because we will shut everything down.
I hope the Liberals can come up with a better plan for rail safety and all the other types of safety than continuing their chaotic economic forage into taxpayer pockets and come up with rail safety and other types of safety that work in a thriving, vibrant economy.
I also find it very ironic that the government would introduce a bill on rail safety at a time when it is derailing the APEC inquiry in Vancouver. A cabinet minister, the solicitor general, made public statements after specifically forbidding the RCMP to make any type of public statement which would derail the APEC inquiry. That is an interesting point which I think the Liberals have overlooked.
Recently in the United States there was a huge scandal, but the outcome of that scandal was not what the president had done to initiate that scandal—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. member, but this bill is about rail safety. Political derailment may mean a lot of things to a lot of people, but when the bill deals with rail safety I am sure the member would want to address his remarks to something relevant to rail safety rather than derailment in a political sense.
I know the member would not want to get derailed in his remarks, so I would invite him to get back on the track and stick to the bill.
Jim Gouk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for putting me on the right track. Being as how you wield such power from your position, I am sure you also use it to get the Liberals on track with their national agenda.
When we talk about a government bill, be it rail safety, a tax bill, a justice bill, any kind of bill, I think it is appropriate to examine and review the credibility with which the various ministers bring forward these bills because each bill is brought forward in the name of a minister.
The rail safety bill was brought forward in the name of the Minister of Transport. There has to be credibility or those bills automatically suffer. Right now the Liberal cabinet lacks credibility because of its failure to take action in one particular area and that taints everybody. It does not matter which party. When we have a problem that we ignore or try to cover up it automatically taints everyone.
We have said, in the case of this rail safety bill, that we will go along with it. We will help to move it to committee. We will support this bill. Our critic said that this morning. We will deal with it openly and honestly when it gets to committee.
But it already has a black mark attached to it because it is presented in this House at the very time when the government is lacking credibility because of its failure to act on a real problem inside cabinet.
I am not going to continue. I am sure that hon. members want to reconsider their position on how to deal with this particular minister.
I will end my remarks by saying that we want the government to bring in good legislation. We want it to be credible and we want to be able to support it. However, it is hard to support government cabinet ministers when there is a bad apple in the barrel.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could call it 2.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that we call it 2.30 p.m.?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2.30 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12.25 p.m.)