Joe Volpe

[Pearson International Airport, March 22nd, 1996]

I am speaking the truth. This is an open place and if we do not speak the truth we are very quickly found out.

The notable achievement of this special committee is that it heard more than 130 hours of testimony given under oath by 65 witnesses.

The public following this debate may be shocked to hear these kinds of things after having heard the rhetoric from the member opposite. From witnesses from both the public and private sector, those most knowledgeable on all the issues, all of the negotiations and all of the decisions made about Pearson, that committee saw an abundance of evidence including construction management contracts, architectural and engineering service contracts, other management contracts. Shall I go on?

The inquiry revealed to the public the role of lobbyists in the Pearson airport agreement. The report of the special Senate committee on the Pearson airport agreement is a very thick volume and I recommend it for the member's reading. This is a product of extensive inquiry which examined all of the relevant players and over 10,000 pages of documents, and which addressed all the motions put before the committee. I think that is very thorough.

An inquiry has been done. It has been open. It has followed the process of judicial inquiries. It has followed the process required by an open democratic system.

Given all the time and extensive consideration already devoted to such a comprehensive inquiry, I do not understand, but maybe other members do, how a member can demand that the government be expected to use millions more in taxpayer dollars to have yet another inquiry to come to the same conclusion. Need we go through this again? The answer is clearly and absolutely no. No further review is required.

Through the entire process, the allegations with respect to wrong doing have been substantiated by evidence that has been put forward. My colleague opposite is trying to score points in this political arena where we never take a partisan side. He introduces that element in this political forum.

I should advise him that some of these allegations attack individuals whose known service in the public domain at the provincial level such as the first individual who looked at the impartial agreement. We cannot cast aspersions on people who dedicate themselves to public service. They are under constant

scrutiny. If we want to cast aspersions, let us do so outside the Chamber.

The government has gone through the entire system as is required by the taxpayers and citizens of the country. It has acted responsibly, followed all the processes and it is being held accountable. All the procedures are maintained in their integrity and the public interest is first, foremost and always safeguarded.

[Pearson International Airport, March 22nd, 1996]

I guess I was letting the truth, the facts and the evidence that have come forward over the course of the last several months influence my approach to this discussion. It is unfortunate that my colleagues are not infected by the same kind of democratic disease.

My good friend from Kootenay West-Revelstoke admits the Prime Minister and the government were well within their rights to cancel this deal. He questions whether deals with governments can be considered legitimate because they are prone to be cancelled. Can anyone imagine that, in 1993 right in the middle of an election campaign in which the Pearson airport deal was a nationwide issue?

As one who comes from Toronto and was very much in tune with what was going on at Pearson, I see a colleague opposite refer to an issue that was of national significance, controversial to say the very least, and the government of the day proceeded, nonetheless, to sign a deal. Can anyone imagine that he would then be surprised that it would be cancelled because it had been advertised that it would be? He should direct his anger at the former administration, but unfortunately there are none of them any longer in this place to take some accountability.

I hope members will forgive me if I chastise or perhaps simply chide my colleague and ask him why he continues to defend the indefensible.

I am astounded that the member is asking for yet another review.

The first review was in the public context of the election. It was there for everyone to see, but it was not sufficient. Even though we followed through on our promises, the member asks for continuing expenditures of taxpayer money on an inquiry that has already been held.

We should not be considering a judicial inquiry or a Senate inquiry. That has already been debated in the Senate and it was decided the Senate inquiry would have the power to send for people, for papers, for records to examine witnesses under oath and heaven knows what else.

As the hon. member knows, on May 4, 1995 the special committee of the Senate on the Pearson airport agreement was formed with the following mandate: "That the special committee of the Senate be appointed to examine and report upon all matters concerning the policies and negotiations leading up to and including the agreements respecting the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport and the circumstances relating to the cancellation thereof".

That committee sat between July and November and heard testimony from over 60 people including all major private sector participants involved in that project, from former ministers and senior public servants who acted on the government's behalf to the people who were protecting their own private interests. That was fine.

In addition, the committee reviewed thousands and thousands of pages of documentation. The evidence demonstrated conclusively that the Pearson airport deal was not in the best interests of the country in terms of substance and process.

[Pearson International Airport, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I will not collapse to the same sort of seductive attraction that rhetoric holds for my colleague opposite. I hope we will be able to look at the facts rather than engage in disparaging repetitions of allegations from sources he well knows are suspect at the very best and at the very least motivated by self-interest.

We can address the issue in the motion presented by the member but we would also have to take a look at the premises he has cast forth in the House about the process. He says this has been an undemocratic system. He says that in the House where people get elected, where people have to go through a lot of trials to get the public to appreciate the position they will present in this place, in a place which is open and being televised today all over the country. Nothing is being hidden.

This is a House which authorizes committees both from the House as well as in the other for public inquiries that he requests. Then he says the system is undemocratic, it does not work. His colleague beside him says this place does not work. Why did you seek office? You come here to make it work.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government will not support motion No. 10 because section 50 of the act already allows for all information that is legitimately required to support transportation policy discussions be collected.

The integrity of every kind of confidential reporting to government depends on the circulation of data being kept to the essential minimum to ensure against risks of intentional and unintentional disclosures.

As members know, some provinces already operate transportation enterprises that compete or negotiate with the federal carriers and would have at least the appearance of being in a conflict of interest if they would receive confidential data in the manner prescribed by this motion.

The government does not support motion No. 11 because, as I said earlier, section 50 allows for the collection of all information that is legitimately required. The proposed authority under motion No. 11 to separately specify the collection cost data for railways is obviously redundant.

Similarly, for motion No. 12, I refer to what I said with respect to motion No. 10. The government will not be supporting motion No. 12 either.

What I said about motion No. 10 applies to motion No. 13. Already there is a section in the act which allows for the collection of all information, and as responsible representatives of the people, we are required to ensure that there is a reduction of risks of intentional or unintentional disclosures of data that would put people in an embarrassing situation or in a conflict situation.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, after an impassioned plea by the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke I have to remind the House that on clause 27(2) and his Motion No. 6 there was a lot of testimony before the standing committee. There were a lot of deliberations. After much debate the committee came to a unanimous conclusion about the best way to amend this section.

It is incumbent on the government to respect the unanimous decision of that committee and to incorporate it in the bill. I think all of his concerns are already incorporated in the bill. Therefore the government will not support Motion No. 6.

On Motion No. 8, keeping in mind what I have already said, we are talking about an unnecessary expansion of detail. Three of the existing criteria well known in legislative language are taken verbatim from section 5, whereas these proposals have no history of court interpretation and therefore lead to introduced legal uncertainties.

Long lists of criteria tend to be treated as check lists and increase the likelihood of rejections simply on the basis that an applicant does not meet the majority of criteria. This is something that was discussed as well in committee.

The legal obligation then to put forward evidence against a long list of technical points as required by this motion can be both costly and burdensome to the applicant and in the end acting as, if I might use a phrase, a chill against the availability of relief. For those reasons we will not be supporting Motion No. 8.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Kootenay West-Revelstoke for his support not only of the government but of the standing committees of the House.

Motion No. 4 proposes sharing with the provincial governments the power to designate the members of the agency to act as the chairperson and vice-chairperson of the agency. The proposal would mean that a provincial impasse could block the management and day to day operations of the agency. Accordingly, the government cannot support this motion.

This also applies to Motion No. 9. It would introduce considerable procedural delays in the powers aimed at enabling the federal government to intervene quickly and effectively in the event of a transportation emergency.

Motion No. 14 proposes giving an official role to the provincial governments in decisions on the way federal legislation is reviewed and the choice of persons to review it. This proposal would simply complicate and delay the review provided for by the act. Therefore, the government cannot support this motion.

As regards Motion No. 15, the wording of the clause as it stands already provides for the consultation with the provincial governments my colleague would like. There is, accordingly, no need to mention the provincial governments separately. Therefore, the government cannot support this motion.

Motion No. 17 proposes limiting Parliament's ability to declare by act that a particular work is for the general advantage of Canada, in other words, that it comes under federal jurisdiction. We cannot support this motion.

With respect to Motion No. 27, the existing railway companies have stated clearly that allowing secondary provincial railroads to operate on portions of federal lines would discourage the selling of tracks for secondary lines. This would go against one of the prime objectives of Bill C-14. It would simply cut the traffic and revenues of federal railway companies and deny them the opportunity to access other markets through the principle of competition. As you will understand, we cannot support this motion.

As regards Motion No. 68, mutually acceptable commercial arrangements between federal railways and provincial secondary lines are vital to the successful operation of the secondary lines. Accordingly, an arrangement imposed by an outside arbitrator on the federal carrier and the secondary line would not promote long term co-operation. The government cannot support this motion.

Motions Nos. 72 and 73 propose an official role for the provincial governments in the process of determining whether expropriation is to come under federal legislation. Existing legislation on expropriation already provides procedures for parties with an direct interest in the matter to be heard. These motions are not necessary, in our opinion, and the government supports neither Motion No. 72 nor Motion No. 73.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that you were confused by those of us who were eager to enter into the debate. Just take it as an indication that we wish to represent our constituents with the kind of enthusiasm they have come to expect, at least from those on this side of the House.

If I may, I would like to express the government's position on Motion No. 31. The government cannot support this motion. This requirement would unreasonably restrict the railway's ability to change its activities.

After hearing the witnesses in full deliberations, the standing committee reached a conclusion about amendments to the conveyance provisions of the bill including the time periods that the committee member considered appropriate. This side of the House values the deliberations of the committee and must agree with its decisions. Therefore, we cannot support this motion.

On Motion No. 2, the section sets out a definition that differentiates between main lines and branch lines of the railways. The distinction provides the basis for a different treatment of main line and branch line tracks under other motions. There is no practical reason for treating main lines and branch lines differently. The government does not support this motion because a different treatment will discourage the formation of short line railways. I thank our colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke for supporting the government's position on this because it reflects the committee deliberations on the matter.

With Motion No. 28, the proposal is redundant. The opening words of the section already allow for an "interested person" to present applications to the governor in council. Again the government cannot and will not support this motion.

On Motion No. 29, I have already indicated that separate treatment of main line and branch line tracks for the purpose of sale or abandonment is unwarranted. The government again supports the standing committee's reflections and amended versions of the conveyance provisions and therefore will not support the motion.

On Motion No. 30, this would potentially require railways to have a plan available for inspection in every office since every line will be included in the plan, even those the railway intends to keep operating. In our view that would be excessive and an unwarranted burden on the railway. Again, I make reference to the standing committee's amended version of the conveyance provisions. Since the government supports the standing committee's deliberations, it will not support this motion.

I now turn to Motion No. 32. The hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke made reference to the government's or Parliament's concern for the Atlantic provinces in terms of linking them with the rest of Canada. That has been a tradition of policy development with this government and this party ever since Confederation. We keep those considerations very much in the forefront whenever we make pronouncements on legislation like this. I would not want the member to think or to attempt to convey the impression that members of the Liberal Party have forgotten their roots. The reason we are still very much acceptable in Atlantic Canada is precisely because we consider its needs and its interests first and always.

After hearing witnesses on Motion No. 32 and after full deliberations, the standing committee reached a conclusion about the amendments on the conveyance provisions of the bill which I mentioned earlier. It did not support renewed regulation by the agency. Therefore, in support of the standing committee's amended version, the government will not support this motion.

The government does not support Motion No. 36 because property negotiations generally occur on a case by case basis in the commercial world and are not placed in any uniform, regulatory scheme that the utilities propose to apply to the railways. Utilities face the same problems in their dealings with municipalities and other property owners. The utilities as property owners are under no similar obligations as to the timeliness or quality of easements that they must provide to other parties.

If there are problems with the genuine transportation dimension to be addressed, the agency should assess them as a matter of course in its annual review and with any amendments carried out at the time Bill C-14 goes through its final review.

On Motion No. 37, I can offer the same kind of rationale. Therefore I can advise the House that the government will not support this motion.

On Motion No. 38, the government cannot and does not support this amendment because it runs contrary to one of the main thrusts of the bill, which is to allow railways to rationalize their network as commercial transactions. The best way to assure the continued

operation of the CN Halifax to Montreal line is to allow an unfettered rationalization of underutilized track.

I consider Motions Nos. 39 through 55 as one in the interests of time and offer the comment that would apply to all of them. I hope that members of the House will accept that the government does not support any of Motions Nos. 39 through 55 because Bill C-14 recognizes, as I said earlier, that railways are commercial enterprises and must have the freedom to adjust their networks under change of conditions. I can further add that these motions would require the railway whose lines are uneconomical to operate them without being compensated for losses. This would be in direct conflict with the existing national transportation policy. I repeat that the government will not support Motions Nos. 39 through 55.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government cannot and will not support either of Motions Nos. 1 or 69.

Concerning Motion No. 1, the national transportation policy already recognizes there should be no undue obstacle to the movement of all persons. The motion does not add to that and there will be no need then to make specific reference to elderly persons.

With respect to Motion No. 69, we cannot support this motion. The government feels there is no need for a regulation which specifically addresses the mobility needs of elderly people. As I mentioned when I spoke to Motion No. 1, provisions are already in place for that kind of requirement.

With respect to Motion No. 25, while we commend the concerns of the member, the government cannot and will not support this motion because there is already a non-legislative alternative available to resolve the problem.

Specifically, the New Brunswick Southern Railway could put into effect immediately provisions that would overcome all problems the railway has mentioned to date and which the previous speaker has indicated. The Eastern Maine Railroad Company, an affiliate of the New Brunswick Southern Railway, could enter into an agreement with the New Brunswick southern to use the Saint John connection with CN. That would result in two federally regulated railways, CN and Eastern Maine Railroad Company, connecting Saint John. This would create an interchange that satisfied the eligibility requirements for competitive line rates which would then address all the concerns of the member.

[Reproductive Technologies, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the rhetoric is helping at all. What the department has done and the minister has reiterated in the House is to pursue a line that allows for the re-establishment of public confidence in our blood supply system, in maintaining the process, and in ensuring that all the principles of the health act are maintained, observed and respected by everybody.

The minister indicated in the House on several occasions that inquiries such as the one to which the hon. member has referred have been proceeding according to the mandate of the commission.

We are allowing the commission to go forward. It has already presented an interim report. The government has acted very quickly and decisively on all seven recommendations that related to the federal responsibilities.

[Reproductive Technologies, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

The Department of Health has taken the position that is consistent with the expectations of all Canadians. In all cases we will deal with solid research that is well analysed and properly evaluated. The health of Canadians will come first and foremost in all decisions, and every principle of the Canada Health Act will always be maintained. That is our position and we continue to hold it.