John Duncan

[Pictou Landing Indian Agreement Act, December 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and I must say a bit of a habit to rise today to participate in a legislative debate on a bill that is a fait accompli.

Bill C-60, the Pictou Landing Indian band agreement, is another instance where statutory authority is being sought after an agreement has been signed and where the majority of compensation has already been paid out.

This debate will remind members of Bills C-33 and C-34 as well as Bill C-55. These were the Yukon agreements. Alas, we are getting good at passing legislation on behalf of the former Indian affairs minister and his department.

The circumstances behind Bill C-60 would suggest that this is a final step in the settlement of a specific claim brought by the Pictou Landing Indian band. In recent years there has been a great many such deals. In fact, information provided by the department indicates that by 1994, 632 such claims were received, 203 of the claims were settled and the rest are either in the process of settlement or have been rejected. About 20 of these claims have led to litigation of which the Pictou claim appears to be one.

Up to the end of 1992 the federal government had contributed $169 million and the provinces $39 million to specific claims, not including treaty land entitlement settlements which are a particular and separate type of settlement claim.

Specific claims arise from the alleged non-fulfilment by government of existing treaty or other obligations or claims arising from the alleged improper administration of reserve lands by the department. Bill C-60 would appear to address this latter category in that the Pictou band claimed breach of fiduciary duty because the department failed to obtain the band's informed consent before transferring riparian rights to the province of Nova Scotia on the Boat Harbour tidal estuary, which I presume is adjacent to the Pictou band reserve.

This transfer permitted the province of Nova Scotia to use Boat Harbour as a facility to treat effluent from the kraft paper mill owned by Scott Maritimes Limited.

The Pictou band commenced a lawsuit against the department of Indian affairs but a negotiated settlement gave rise to an out of court agreement to settle. This agreement was signed by the parties on July 20 of last year. The agreement provides for $35 million in compensation. As of April of this year, some $28 million of those moneys have been paid out and the remaining $7 million will be paid out by April of 1995. Twenty million of this money is to go into a trust fund to pay out claims to the Pictou band and to band members individually. The remaining $15 million of the total is to pay for band members to relocate "should it become necessary".

Allow me to look at these payouts more specifically. The cash settlements will be divided for purposes of compensation and mitigation as follows: $2,275,000 for band compensation and developments; $15 million for community development; $8 million for individual compensation, and $9.725 million for continuing compensation for a total of $35 million. As I stated earlier, $28 million of this total has already been paid out. There are two terms of the agreement that require parliamentary approval. The first is to provide that any claims coming forward from band members beyond those settled by the settlement payments to individuals can only be made from the $9.725 million portion which is part of the $20 million individual compensation and development fund.

The second requirement requiring parliamentary approval is to make certain that the settlement moneys are not Indian moneys within the meaning of the Indian Act. One might ask why this legislation was not tabled earlier to authorize moneys paid already not to be Indian moneys under the Indian Act.

I note from the agreement that the eligible use of moneys from the band compensation and development account are intended to provide and improve individual family and community self-reliance and include the following: resource rehabilitation and development to support increased viability of traditional and commercial resource pursuits and other resource harvesting; cultural and social support and development initiatives; business, economic and employment development initiatives; community infrastructure and housing development and reasonable, technical, legal and management activities in respect of the pursuit of band goals and objectives, including the implementation of this agreement.

Only time will tell how effectively these resources are used and if again $20 million of taxpayers money will help deliver the Pictou band to self-sufficiency. I understand there are currently 425 band members, 304 of whom live on reserve.

The individual compensation account breaks down as follows: $3 million has been distributed to all members of the band including those resident or non-resident before the effluent treatment system began which was away back, I believe in the 1960s. Another $5 million will be distributed among individual band members who were residents of the reserve for any period of time since Boat Harbour started to be used for treatment of effluent. This would suggest that in the latter case, the individual band member settlement amount would be approximately $16,500 per individual.

I wonder if this will improve the self-sufficiency of these individual Pictou band members. I sincerely hope it has had a positive impact and creates a new level of existence for these people.

This agreement has been a fait accompli for a year and a half, as I said before. The bill before us asks us to ratify two specific aspects of the deal which I would suggest is a couple of hundred pages long and excludes at least 10 other sections of the agreement. There are some basic questions to be asked that beg better understanding.

There is no way for parliamentarians to know whether the department officials succeeded in negotiating a deal in the best interests of Canada or not. It is an act of faith on our part to believe that this is the best possible deal for Canada. As I said, it is a done deal. It is a specific claim, meaning that it is specific to the particular circumstances of the case, unlike a comprehensive claim that may set a precedent for other situations. It is a one time deal with strict compensatory parameters.

There is a series of questions that arise as a consequence of this agreement and subsequently Bill C-60. One issue that comes immediately to mind is why we are here at all today. Usually specific claims do not require special legislation. Why is this agreement different?

In the agreement it states that the department failed to obtain informed consent in the 1960s before proceeding with this project. Did the department just move unilaterally or did it at least get some kind of consent? It seems rather draconian to just move ahead on such a clearly obvious breach of rights.

Turning to the terms of the lawsuit I cannot help but ask how much the band asked for and felt it was entitled to. With this concern comes the obvious question of why the lawsuit did not go to trial.

The province of Nova Scotia and Scott Maritimes Limited obviously benefited and continue to benefit from using Boat Harbour. Perhaps these two parties should pay part of the compensation awarded to the band. Why should they walk away and have the Canadian taxpayer pay the full shot?

This brings me full circle to my concern regarding the best possible deal. It has always intrigued me how we come up with these compensatory figures. I look forward to our review of Bill C-60 at committee stage. Perhaps some of my questions could have been answered in a briefing which the department kindly offered. Unfortunately, schedules and time precluded this much valued courtesy last week.

[Members Of Parliament Office Inventories, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the debate we have heard, I think we are in general agreement on this motion with the exception of some of the debate from across the floor.

I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the question of furnishings, supplies and equipment in the constituency office and in the House of Commons office of every member of Parliament be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for consideration.

[Members Of Parliament Office Inventories, November 29th, 1994]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House,

1) during an election period but before the date of the election, every Member of Parliament should be required to certify the location and presence of their furnishings, supplies and equipment: a ) in the constituency office, which list should be attested to by the Deputy Returning Officer, and b ) in the House of Commons office, which list should be attested to by House of Commons staff;

2) after an election, the smooth storage and/or transfer of furnishings, supplies and equipment to the new Member of Parliament should be arranged: a ) in the constituency office, by the Deputy Returning Officer and b ) in the House of Commons office, by House of Commons staff;

3) if an outgoing Member of Parliament fails to deliver all furnishings, supplies and equipment, the shortfall value should be deducted from the Member's pay and/or pension, or compensation should be sought and, in extreme cases, criminal charges should be initiated.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to debate my private member's motion M-290 which seeks to address the current inadequacies and shortcomings surrounding the turnover of assets and inventory by defeated MPs to their successors.

Currently volume 2 of the member's manual of allowances and services, chapter G-3, is the only reference to the turnover of constituency assets of the House of Commons. The closest and most direct statement referencing the turnover is as follows:

A member who stands for re-election but is not re-elected is required to vacate the constituency office within 30 days of the date of the election. Thus the essential costs of maintaining the office for the 30-day winding up period, (e.g. office supplies, telephone rental, telephone answering service, utility bills, furniture and equipment rental) may be charged against the members' office budget.

This is the only reference to a time line, a 30-day winding up period, and it is not specific as to transfer of assets.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to read into the record the text of my motion. However, you have just done that.

I welcome debate, input and suggestions during this allotted hour and following on how to improve the transition for incoming MPs, particularly as this motion directs office inventory and assets.

The public has high expectations of its new MPs after an election. The goodwill component which is now the driving philosophy behind the orderly and timely turnover of assets can and has led to political abuse and interruption of the political and constituency response process.

I know this first hand. I know I am not alone, particularly after the last election which saw over 200 new MPs elected, 200 eager MPs who wanted to get down to business at the constituency level and in Ottawa but were precluded by outright refusal by some losing candidates who procrastinated in turning over government assets or in extreme cases could not be contacted at all or refused to return calls. Such was my case. Ultimately my entire office inventory was not in place until January. If it had been one day later it would have been February, more than three months after election day.

The House of Commons materiel management group could not account for the inventory and was unable to locate the inventory because of its inability to locate the outgoing MP, because it was unaware of two of the four constituency office locations which he utilized, and because the MP had placed assets in storage facilities without notifying materiel management-totally stealthy and irresponsible behaviour on the part of an outgoing MP who refused to show goodwill, inconveniencing not only me but the constituents of North Island-Powell River.

Allow me to elaborate on the saga of my misfortune by quoting from my constituency assistant, my second employee at the constituency: "On my first day of work, December 1, 1993, I walked into an office that was sparsely appointed with borrowed furniture. Not one piece of equipment belonged to the Government of Canada. I brought my own computer from home so that we could reply to correspondence".

My staff frustration grew daily. My staff paid a visit to the office of my predecessor. It was locked and no staff was around. A call to Ottawa to materiel management proved fruitless. It also had no idea where the assets were and was spending considerable effort tracking down the MP without success.

Essentially, the problem could be summed up by the House of Commons materiel management official who stated that there were two MP phone numbers, each with an answering machine referring the caller to the other telephone and no returned phone calls. At this point I purchased a photocopier. I knew that an effective MP had to possess some investigatory skills. This was ridiculous.

Materiel management representatives indicated they were getting nowhere with the former MP and their hands were tied because they lacked power by statute or by decree to do anything. They floated the scenario at this time of trying to access the MP and influence his behaviour through the party constituency association or his party leader.

On December 8, 1993 my constituency office received a call from the House of Commons to say that the furniture and office possessions were located. Delivery was promised to my main office. On December 13 some basic furniture arrived. On December 17 more furniture arrived, but no sign of computers or photocopiers as listed on the inventory list. My office continued to supply the personally owned computer and borrowed a fax machine.

At that point considerable correspondence and filing had accumulated, not a good beginning on response turn around time.

On December 20 the House of Commons called to say it had no idea where the computers were. I decided at that time to purchase two computers from my member's office budget. The former member had four constituency offices, so possessions belonging to the government were scattered. We located some more inventory in storage with over a month owing on their storage because the former MP had paid for two weeks storage and indicated the House of Commons would pick up the remainder of the tab without further instruction and without informing the House. Again, not all the computers were present at this storage site.

Also I quickly found that the fax machine we located was in poor repair, forcing me to purchase a new one. I received further inventory on December 24, 1993. On January 5, 1994, I received delivery of a new fax machine. On the same day I took possession of two new computers, more than two months after the election.

On January 7, I found the inventory from the previous member's Sechelt office, far from complete after reconciling the inventory list. Computers again were missing. Included was a 386 and a lap top. With rent still owing to the storage facility of the Sechelt inventory, I personally paid the amount to solve the operator's frustration with the position he had been placed in.

On January 22, I received information that more inventory had been located in a Campbell River storage facility. The missing computers with the exception of the lap top were in the room. They were of the older 286 variety. On January 31, I did a formal reconciliation, the 286 lap top never did show. In May I was informed that it had been returned to Ottawa damaged and unusable and materiel management informed me that the former MP had been requested to pay and had paid for the lap top.

The sleuthing around by me, my staff and House of Commons staff was bad enough in order to locate government inventory. Because Parliament had not been in session for about seven months previous to the election, there was a large pent up demand for service and reasonable expectations by deserving constituents for attention to their needs.

The fact that I was without assets was a major distraction for me in fulfilling my duties as an MP. The previous member had been in office for 14 years. As a green MP and with the residual effects of a contested campaign still fresh in my memory, I did not want to go public with the inexcusable behaviour of the previous MP because I had taken the high road consistently when others had not and I did not want to appear somehow affected by my win.

The events I have described should not be allowed to reoccur. These assets had been bought and paid for by the taxpayers of Canada and we need better ground rules than currently exist. Materiel management did all it could do at long distance within it mandate. Even with that my staff was instrumental in its sleuthing and finding where some of the inventory was stored. Members can appreciate that my staff could not view the items once located in storage without authorization from the House of Commons. Even this was awkward and so was not done, adding further to our delay in reconciling our inventory.

We would all be much better off with clear lines of authority and responsibility to effect the transfer of assets. In my view the withholding of the entire office inventory was punitive and retributive and I should have had some recourse beyond good will to pursue the matter. I was the last member of Parliament in Canada to receive my assets. I know I was not alone in my grief and frustration and that is why I feel so strongly about my motion.

Similar activities as perpetrated by my predecessor would be tantamount to theft in the private sector. We must untie the hands of the materiel management people of the House of Commons and allow new MPs to do their job effectively. Good will is not enough. Accountability must be introduced. We must put teeth into the rules and procedures for the turnover of assets and initiate ramifications for those who do not prescribe to the rules.

My motion calls for the involvement by the deputy returning officers at the constituency level. They would be charged with the responsibility of reconciling inventory of the former member and co-ordinating the transfer.

In Ottawa the materiel management staff shall ensure storage and/or transfer in an orderly fashion. If the outgoing MP should fail to deliver, the shortfall value would be deducted from that former MP's pay or pension or compensation sought and, in extreme cases, criminal charges should be initiated.

During my trial surrounding this debacle and the senseless behaviour exhibited by the former MP, various strategies emerged including, as I previously mentioned, contacting the former MP's riding association and party leader. The other option was to pursue the issue through the Speaker which was complicated because this was also a time of transition for that office.

In the final analysis, materiel management of the House of Commons has no power to initiate the transfer of assets and in the final analysis again must rely on the good will of the former MP who in this case had none.

My situation may be a dramatic example, but as my colleagues who will speak later will attest, I am not alone. If we do not do something about it now it will get worse. I will tell members why. Currently we are dealing with stable and existing ridings. We all know we are considering the adoption of a bill which would see ridings actually change their boundaries every five to ten years. Therefore, the frequency in which members inherit intact ridings is going to reduce and the frequency when they inherit changed ridings is going to exacerbate the problem. The new MP will not know which former MP or constituency office he or she will be inheriting because the boundaries will have been shifted.

Clearly it is incumbent upon the House to take a look at the current turnover of assets procedure. We cannot have a situation where the legislators of Canada are found incompetent due to a lack of legislative authority governing their own activities in areas so common sense as transferring MP furniture, supplies and equipment. If the House allows this injustice and waste of taxpayers' dollars to continue it is not serving its function.

I would like to submit one further option to make my case. While I have not spoken to the chief electoral officer, it may be that this individual through some amendment or addition to the Elections Act can be empowered by statute to initiate and ensure the turnover of these government assets in an orderly and timely manner.

This is a serious issue and one I would implore the House to deal with even if I had not experienced this frustrating, time consuming delay. As it is now, the House is powerless, materiel management is powerless and sheer good will is not enough.

I thank the House for the opportunity to debate my motion.

[Petitions, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by 2,318 constituents of North Island-Powell River. They respectfully request the government enact stronger legislation to deal with young offenders of all crimes, to make them more accountable for their actions.

I endorse this petition. It was signed by 11.5 per cent of the people who live in the Powell River region and a higher percentage of the adult population.

[Westray Mine Disaster, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Westray mine in Nova Scotia was the scene of an explosion accident on May 9, 1992. Twenty-six men lost their lives, 11 of whom are still entombed in the mine.

During the five day rescue operation conditions were present for another explosion. Roof falls had to be crossed. Lethal carbon monoxide gas which is an after product of a coal mine explosion was heavy in the mine. Miners put aside their own safety in the hopes of finding their fellow workers.

In an unprecedented presentation 195 individuals of the rescue crew are receiving the Governor General's Medal of Bravery in Stellarton, Nova Scotia, today. Fourteen of these individuals now live in my hometown of Campbell River, B.C., and work at the Quinsam coal mine 25 kilometres out of town.

I know my colleagues will join me in applauding these brave individuals who were involved in a tragedy which affected Canadians from coast to coast.

[Light Stations, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday during the Senate standing committee meeting on transport, Liberal senators defeated a planned fact finding mission to British Columbia next week to hold public consultations on the future of light stations.

The mandate and terms of reference were granted long before the coast guard announced the destaffing initiative. This is flagrant political initiative by Liberal senators to block input by concerned citizens and associations into the future use of light stations on the west coast.

An ad hoc parliamentary committee on light stations, jointly chaired by Senator Pat Carney and myself, was struck today. It will undertake this initiative and hold public hearings next week in Richmond, Sidney and Campbell River. The hearing group will be composed of two other senators and MPs.

We welcome participation on this committee from other federal parliamentarians.

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, several issues were put forward. If high speed rail in this part of the world, as opposed to the west where I am from, is a very good proposal, then I would suggest that if the private sector wants to carry it out, that is fine.

It has to be recognized that government can no longer do these things. It has to be recognized that the federal government is now borrowing money from foreign lenders in order to maintain the operations of government. The country cannot afford these large projects.

Where can we go with our national rail system? We have an example of what happened in New Zealand when it privatized its railroad. The railroad went from being the least efficient in the western world to the most efficient. That changes the economics of many of the branch lines and so on. It does not necessarily mean that every remote branch line will become economical.

As a matter of policy, in a country such as Canada we are in all likelihood going to continue to want to have some of those remote lines. We can do that through incentives or through negotiation.

Whether we are going to do this under the umbrella, whether it will be one large rail system or whether it will be broken up I suggest is more a matter of private sector economics than it is a matter of government policy, or at least it should be. It is very difficult to say which is the better way. It will be a matter of financial accident in a sense as opposed to a master strategy.

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the business community seeks many things. One of the things they seek above all else is certainty. Also, they need the ability to work in an environment where they know the rules and where those rules will allow them to clear up any conflicts, particularly through the last court of appeal which is the federal and provincial court system. That is what we call justice and is what our society is built on.

In my view the whole question of the Pearson contract is controversial right now. It is going to create uncertainty in that sphere. The only way we will get to the bottom of it is to settle it through a public inquiry. We need to clear the air, to create fairness and transparency. That is really what we want in asking for the CN task force as well.

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in debate on the opposition day motion concerning the inaction and lack of transparency of the government with respect to the potential restructuring of Canada's railways.

I look upon this as an opportunity to speak about the vision, history, and fabric of this great nation. It is difficult not to be nostalgic and perhaps a bit sentimental when one speaks of a symbol of our heritage, a simple yet binding line of steel that forged the country and tied a fledgling nation together over 125 years ago.

What child of our generation can forget running to a window to watch the train or the haunting late night blast of its steam whistle belching clouds of smoke? The steam, coal and smoke may be gone, replaced by diesel turbines and electric motors, but the memory lives on. Or, does it? And if it does, for how long?

In preparing for this speech I could not help but recall two formative pieces of Canadian literary work, The National Dream and The Last Spike . Pierre Berton's comprehensive works on CP Rail and the line of steel that brought my home province of British Columbia into Confederation are enduring. It is hard to forget the concluding paragraphs of Berton's work as the last spike is driven at Craigellachie and the tiny engine rolls through the mountains, down the escarpment to the Fraser Valley meadows, off to the blue Pacific and on into history. This is the legend, the lore, and what brought the country together.

Nothing is static. While one can reminisce about the past, its simplicity and fragile beauty, a country marches on and not always as it should. Change is not always improvement. Motion is not always progress. Simple men sometimes lack the vision of our forefathers and choices are not always the right ones.

We are here today to question and debate where we are going as a country not in all dimensions but in one fundamental basic dimension: rail travel, be it CN, CP or VIA Rail. We are here to question our vision, our progress and our choices.

Despite what the current administration thinks sometimes money cannot buy vision. It cannot, as in this instance, buy decisiveness in our rail policy for the country. The fact remains that the government has shown complete disregard for a rail policy for Canada.

As in the 1860s times have changed. The solutions we used to forge rail policy in the 1960s and 1970s are not compatible with today's problems, including the movement of freight and people. While an enlightened rail policy could forge new dynamics in transportation in Canada, the current government holds any mention of vision or change in contempt. Worn out political hacks at CN headquarters in Montreal work in secret. Their vision parallels that of the Bloc's motion of unrealistic $7 billion to $10 billion rail corridors bordering the St. Lawrence River. These are monuments to the greed and largesse of better days, not sensible alternatives to the inertia that really grips these people.

This is not 1860. Government and the public sector are not masters of all. There is no bottomless pit of inflated dollars for high speed rail corridors. The torch has been passed and the notion that the government or the public sector can do it better does not pass the litmus test of the 1990s. So-called privateers like the Bombardiers who like to innovate as long as government dollars are there are not solutions but drains, and no more so than in rail policy.

The Reform Party promotes a vision that promotes privatization and spinoff of federal transport operations into private hands. The Reform Party supports the Bloc's motion condemning the government's shoddy if not non-existent rail policies. Who knows what the future holds for CN or CP Rail?

The Reform Party supports CP's recent offer to purchase CN's eastern operations. How has the transport minister reacted? It has been with scorn, hesitation and indecisiveness. Is this a rail policy? What is he waiting for, a better offer? No, he is content with the status quo. In many ways this attitude is as dispensable as the steam whistle and the clouds of smoke. If the minister is devoid of solutions or visions why not open the process to public review and scrutiny?

A ribbon of steel from east to west has become an ever decreasing concentric circle where we end up meeting ourselves. We are going nowhere. Let us look at VIA Rail, the sinkhole of inefficiency. It is one of the biggest money losing, overbureaucratised entities in Canadian transportation. This is not because of rank and file VIA Rail employees. No, it takes a special public service background and mentality to run a railroad into the ground and make six-figure salaries while doing it.

Without question putting VIA Rail in private hands would cut costs, revitalize the corporation and its people, and allow it to return many passenger routes that have been abandoned or are in danger of being cut. It does not take any vision to keep cutting and make a few dollars, but in the case of VIA it does take a special touch to cut and still lose money.

If VIA were to be turned over to private entrepreneurs marginal routes could once again be viable, but not as long as VIA is publicly owned. Complacency and debt endure forever. VIA Rail has exhibited no marketing strategy, business plan or a scintilla of vision in its current operation.

Talking about government funded, billion dollar, high speed, government run rail corridors ensures more of the same. Why are the Bloc and the government afraid to pass it on to those better suited and able to run a railroad?

If private investors were given annual funding to the tune of $330 million, as VIA will receive this year, do we really think they would squander it on high salaries for their executives? Why is VIA receiving these kinds of grants and still losing money while cutting routes and service?

Speaking of management, in 1992 CN cut 10,000 jobs and lost $1 billion. That same year CP applied for abandonment of all lines east of Sherbrooke. Just where are we going? Do we know? Eventually the Reform Party could see the government abandoning its stake in CN Rail by turning it over to private investors. Governments should no longer be in the business of directly subsidizing our national transport system.

The government is unwilling to admit its policy flaws and clings to the good old days of decades ago where throwing money at a problem was solving it. In reality we have no rail policy and a debt ridden CN Rail still at the trough.

However the Reform Party feels that government cannot simply abandon its financial stake in the transport industry without having the sense to recognize how much revision needs to be enacted to bring transport legislation into the 1990s. Present legislation harshly though unofficially penalizes the rail industry through the present federal tax structure. It behoves the government, particularly the Minister of Transport, to rewrite rail policy, clear up the anomalies, and set a strategy in place to allow investors to enter the arena with clear parameters.

To encourage and support this new policy regime, the Reform Party suggests the following measures. First, we would encourage through tax reforms and low interest loans the development of short line rail operators in regions of the country where major rail companies are no longer viable or willing to provide the amount of capital needed to recreate a viable rail transportation industry.

Second, we would negotiate the reform of the provincial component of the property and fuel tax structure for both main and secondary rail operators to bring these costs more into line with their U.S. counterparts.

Third, we would formally recognize through federal tax reform the environmental safety and infrastructure benefits provided by rail transport as opposed to modes such as long haul trucking.

Finally, in relation to the last point, we need a thorough and fair revision in the overall taxation structure for the nation's trucking industry to bring it more fairly into line with the costs now being incurred by rail companies.

Currently the government gives with one hand and takes with the other. Since taking power last year the government has done an inadequate job of protecting Canada's rail industry. It is mired in the past with no clear vision or policy direction. Unlike the Bloc, we feel there should be less and not more public participation. Governments should set guidelines and step out of the way. Right now no one is pleased with the situation and the rail industry is suffering as a consequence.

In the 1860s we completed our rail link to the Pacific. In the late 1930s and 1940s we tied the country together in transcontinental air flight. In the 1960s we completed the trans-Canada highway system. Let not these statements of vision, courage and capacity be diminished by a lack of coherent rail policy in the 1990s.

[Petitions, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by 101 individuals, the majority from my riding of North Island-Powell River, calling for a public inquiry into the need for staffed light stations on the west coast.

Safety will be jeopardized by the destaffing of these stations.