Debates of June 3rd, 1994

Government Services

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, rapid technological change is creating opportunities to deliver services in ways that are more accessible, responsive and affordable for Canadians.

Indeed, we are going through the exercise now of trying to integrate many of the systems in government services so that information will be more readily available and we will be able to get answers. The Minister of Public Works is doing the same thing and is involved in this exercise to make information more accessible to Canadians.

Certainly the human factor is a very important one and our frontline workers will continue to be very important in the delivery of such services. While people may be able call up information about government services on their computer or even their television screen, it is important they have the option of being able to contact somebody who can also provide that information.

We are giving Canadians the options. Certainly, one-stop shopping, the concept of not being shoved around from pillar to post when you need information about government services and want to access them, is very important. There will continue to be a human face in the provision of government services which we want to make more efficient and effective in how they are delivered to Canadians.

Presence In The Gallery

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, this is again a special day as I wish to draw to your attention in the gallery my brother Speaker from the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, the Hon. Stanley S. Schumacher.

Dear colleagues, since this week is National Access Awareness Week, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to you a group of young people who make a valuable contribution to the work of this House.

I am delighted to present to you the participants in the House of Commons work experience program. These students are part

of an ongoing partnership between the House of Commons and Ridgemont High School. The program is designed for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. These wonderful students work alongside our House of Commons staff to serve all of us, the elected representatives.

On behalf of members of this House, I thank each and every one of you very much. Please keep up the good work. Would you please stand and be recognized.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to petitions.

National Transportation Week

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, this evening I will be attending the launching of National Transportation Week, 1994 in Thunder Bay, Ontario. As a parliamentarian and minister of the Crown, I feel it is appropriate that I present to my colleagues in this chamber the most important elements of the speech I will deliver tonight.

This year, National Transportation Week coincides with the 50th anniversary of D-Day, the Allied invasion of Normandy. Transportation, and the fledgling Department of Transport, played a critical role in the war effort.

Since the beginning of our history, unique, visionary transportation policies have helped secure freedom and keep the peace. They have brought Canada prosperity and bound Canadians together.

Efficient, reliable, safe and affordable transportation systems to move people and goods are essential to maintain Canada's economic competitiveness. The current transportation system, despite many past successes and significant achievements, is becoming a handicap rather than an advantage to Canadian businesses and consumers. We must modernize quickly. That will require tough choices and difficult adjustments. The future will bring even greater challenges. Much of our system is over-built and we can no longer afford it.

That is not to criticize the past, but to recognize that we must not be held captive by it or to it.

Let me give you some examples: 94 per cent of all air passengers and cargo are handled at only 26 airports out of the 650 in this country; 84 per cent of all rail traffic is carried on only 33 per cent of our rail lines; and 80 per cent of our marine traffic passes through only 30 out of about 300 public ports.

Our system is not cost-free. Through the federal government alone, Canadian taxpayers are directly subsidizing the Canadian transportation system at a cost of more than $1.6 billion this year.

The challenge facing me as Minister of Transport is to develop policies that will foster and encourage our transportation industries to rise to the challenges of the 21st century.

Transport Canada must become the proponent of a broader national vision based on the needs of the nation from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the Arctic. We must become advocates for a modern, intermodal transportation system-one that is viable, efficient, safe, affordable, reliable and environmentally friendly.

The most realistic and viable policy thrust I believe must be based on what the 1994 federal budget referred to as commercialization. The budget called on Transport Canada to review the potential for commercialization of a number of our major activities. We intend to do that in consultation with affected parties, with the objective of improving efficiency and ensuring long term viability.

What does commercialization mean? It can be one of many approaches by which market discipline and business principles can be introduced to traditional government activity. Commercialization covers a vast continuum of options, from government agencies to not for profit organizations, to public and private sector partnerships, to employee run companies, to crown corporations, to privatization.

Commercialization means users dictate what services they want provided and users can determine in large part how costs can be controlled. Commercialization means that whatever option is selected must allow market discipline to lead to more efficient service, greater flexibility and less dependence on tax dollars.

Commercialization means the goal must be higher quality and more efficient service to the user at less cost to the Canadian taxpayer. Commercialization will not dilute Transport Canada's highest priority ensuring and where possible enhancing the safety and security of Canadians.

Transport Canada is going to look at commercializing many activities. We will consult widely on how that might best be achieved. We will be looking at airport operations, the air navigation system, activities of the Canadian Coast Guard, and operation of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

We believe that carefully planned commercialization will mean major savings to taxpayers and better service to clients. We also believe that the role and structure of crown corporations such as CN and VIA Rail must be reviewed. Because of the great uncertainty in the rail sector and the concern raised by proposals for a merger, I intend to convene a meeting of industry leaders to

discuss the problems railroads are facing and seek solutions together.

Let me restate our fundamental commitments as we pursue our goal of a national integrated affordable transportation system.

The Government of Canada will continue to meet its constitutional, legal and fiduciary obligations with respect to transportation. The government will continue to ensure reasonable service to Canada's remote communities and for Canadians with disabilities. Transport Canada will not abandon its responsibility to ensure safe and secure transportation standards, rules and regulations. The government will promote a national integrated transportation system that respects the environment.

I believe it is possible to promote the national interest at the same time as we protect the interests of the taxpayers of Canada and I am determined to do both.

Canada is recognized as a world-class G-7 nation; indeed, we are at the top of the class according to the United Nations. The challenge is to remain that way. Maintaining the standard of living Canadians have come to expect will require hard work and many tough choices in the years ahead. It will require co-operation and compassion on the part of those who will be called upon to make those difficult decisions.

We must take into account those displaced by change; those abandoned by the travelling public, those communities, villages, towns and cities which will experience loss.

These are some of the challenges facing the Canadian transportation industry. I also want to take this opportunity to wish the hundreds of thousands of men and women who work in the transportation field, from coast to coast to coast, every success, as we launch National Transportation Week.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, as part of National Transportation Week, I too would like to pay tribute to everyone who works or has worked in this field.

National Transportation Week is a good opportunity to take stock of our transportation system and its importance for the development of our economy in Quebec and Canada. We must understand that transportation is an industry which has a major impact on the whole economy; even more, transportation directly affects people's quality of life. The transportation system is like the circulatory system in the body.

The transportation system has gone through great upheaval in the past ten years. Deregulation has had a major impact on transportation in Quebec and Canada. In some cases, our system is operating beyond capacity and in others it is underused. Federal transportation policies have something to do with many of the problems our transportation system is now experiencing.

The federal government systematically neglected rail transport in favour of air and road transport. As a result of this policy, our roads and airports are congested. Our rail system has been so neglected that today Canada has the oldest and slowest passenger rail transportation system of all industrialized countries.

Meanwhile, we must continually build new runways at our airports and our roads are deteriorating so much that the provinces can no longer repair them adequately.

We agree with the minister that we must acquire a truly intermodal system that is efficient, safe and affordable. For this, the government must not leave the field of transportation but instead invest in facilities that will put our transportation system at the leading edge of technology.

Having a modern transportation system provides tremendous benefits. Montreal's airports alone generated $2.2 billion in economic benefits for the region in 1992, according to a study by the École des Hautes Études Commerciales. Other transportation infrastructures certainly have a major economic impact.

The minister claims that his marketing plan is the answer to all our problems with the transportation system. The market forces are supposed to resolve all our problems. True enough, bringing the decision-making center closer to the users will increase the efficiency of the system, but it would be naive to think that market logic can be applied to the transportation problem across Quebec and Canada.

Some services, like port and airport administration, lend themselves well to being managed locally by non-profit organization. In other cases, like the Canadian Coast Guard, local management poses serious difficulties, but I will come back to this later.

We must also ask ourselves what impact if any, this will have on transportation services provided to remote areas. The minister views the role of his department as ensuring transportation safety. That is to take a very restrictive view to its responsibilities. As it was so aptly put in the Liberal policy on VIA Rail developed by the Liberal caucus in November 1989, the government must provide an efficient and affordable transportation system to people living in remote areas. It sounds like market logic could not be applied to the transportation problem in remote areas.

Air deregulation resulted in substantial increases in fares to regional destinations. Also, the withdrawal of several of VIA Rail's regional lines has resulted in depriving regional communities of an important development tool. The government cannot decommit from regional transportation, because of the severe impact such a decision would have on regional economic development.

With his privatization plan, the minister is trying to free himself from his obligations towards remote areas. He is also refusing to hold any public hearings on transportation in remote areas. In so doing, he is acting like a cold-blooded policy maker who does take into account the interests of the public.

If the Coast Guard were to be privatized, this would seriously affect the competitiveness of ports along the St. Lawrence River vis-à-vis those in the Maritimes. Any measure as a direct consequence of which shipowners would have to pay higher tariffs in ports along the river than in the Maritimes is an all-out attack against fundamental economic development tools of Quebec.

It is totally unacceptable. The federal government has been trying for over ten years to pass the cost of operating the Coast Guard onto shipowners and thus, to the public. This is not to say that we are against any form of privatization in the Canadian transportation system. In some cases, privatization can be a powerful tool to promote the expansion of transportation systems. Transfer of airports to local non-profit organizations has been successful. Harbours are another kind of services that could easily be transferred to local non-profit organizations.

Montreal harbour would lend itself well to such a project. Also, if we could give VIA Rail more flexibility to implement projects in cooperation with local interests, it would probably be able to provide better service on existing lines and even restore several of the abandoned lines.

Freight services on branch lines could also help to keep several lines in operation and could be affected by CN and CP streamlining policies. Remember that remote areas consider these lines as vitally important for their economic development strategies. What policies does the minister support in this area? None, for now. I will have the opportunity to come back to these issues some other time and indicate to the House our position on this matter.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in response to the minister's speech on National Transportation Week.

Transportation affects Canadians economically, socially and culturally. It provides Canadians with links to one another and to the outside world. Increasingly these links are under pressure through high taxation and outdated practices which are slow to change.

Canada more than ever must adapt its transportation system to the needs of Canadians and to the rest of the world. It is no longer acceptable that every province have different trucking standards for instance or that railways pay for Canada's highways through fuel taxes.

Changes must be the theme of this new government.

The minister has outlined efficiency, reliability, safety and affordability as the keys to his mandate as the minister of transportation. Thus far commercialization is one of his focuses. Commercialization is a noble notion which deserves support. It is not however going to solve all the problems that Canadian transportation companies and their customers face.

For too long governments have put up too many obstacles to transportation and their customers while trying to move them in directions that are contrary to the best interest of all people in Canada.

More than anything, this government should be addressing transportation problems with an eye toward reducing regulation and taxation. This applies at both the federal and provincial levels.

The failure of federal-provincial co-ordination manifests itself in the different transportation standards, subsidies and taxation structures among provinces and the federal government.

Canada still has time to improve its transportation links through federal-provincial co-ordination. However, the government is slow to address this problem. It is no longer adequate to blame one another for failure to achieve agreement.

It is important to note that the minister did not mention highways once throughout his speech. Canada's highways are for the most part in disrepair. They are in disrepair because of the failure of government to recognize three things. First, the federal government's co-operation is the key to an integrated Canadian transportation system. Second, users must pay for the services they receive. Third, the private sector is more efficient at providing transportation services.

Canada's economic deficiency in large part is directly tied to its efficiency in transporting goods and people. A clear example of this is when Canada entered into trade agreements without making the necessary improvements to our transportation system to compete with the Americans, the Mexicans and the rest of the world.

How can Canada compete if it is unable to transport its goods and its people to markets which are looking for the services? Now is the time to make the necessary changes to improve our transportation links and the barriers which stifle growth. We cannot wait any longer.

The government made some changes toward these goals. It has entered into agreements with Mexico to improve transportation links between the two countries. This process must contin-

ue. The first step toward this goal is the re-opening of the open skies negotiations with the United States, an agreement that is of vital importance to my constituency.

The minister must realize that the 1974 federal-provincial bilateral air agreement with the United States is inadequate and must be updated. The efficiency of Canada's air transportation system is dependent upon it. If airline customers demand a direct flight from Ottawa to Washington why is it not provided?

The Association of Canadian Airport Communities estimates that an open skies agreement costs as much as $10 billion in annual economic benefits and would create as many as 250,000 new jobs. The announcement earlier regarding the 90,000 government-created infrastructure jobs in my opinion pales by comparison.

The government's failure to move forward on an open skies agreement is very costly to Canadians.

It is not unusual that the minister makes reference to the need for an efficient and reliable transportation system. Ministers of Transport have been using that line for a long time but we have seen very little action to bring about such a transportation network. In particular the movement of grain has proven to be inefficient and unreliable. A strike at the west coast, ever-increasing demurrage charges and a shortage of hopper cars has shaken what little faith Canadian farmers had in the grain transportation system.

The Grain Transportation Agency which falls squarely within the purview of the Minister of Transport and handles the allocations of grain cars was shown to be completely incompetent before joint committees of agriculture and transport. Indeed the committee recommended that in the short term the GTA be scrapped in favour of a single person working to allocate grain cars.

The minister has taken no action with respect to the GTA and it is now this minister working toward an efficient and reliable transportation system. Is this how he plans to accomplish it? Far be it from me to question the $14.7 million budget of the GTA.

The present inaction of this sector of transportation is damaging to our global reputation as a leading and reliable exporter of grain.

I would also like to take issue with the minister's remarks regarding the department's assurance that it will uphold safe transportation standards, rules and regulations. The Transportation Safety Board is a major player in formulating and revising transportation safety regulations. However, two months ago a review of the TSB found its operations to be less than adequate. Indeed, the review suggested that serious flaws were evident as a result of internal bureaucracy, excessive secrecy, and a reluctance to question government regulations.

By way of example the review found that in 1992 a ferry loading accident and a CN derailment both should have gone to a public review. Further, on May 18, 1994, the TSB recommended the wearing of flotation devices in float planes during all phases of take-off and landing, a recommendation described by industry officials as futile, unenforceable and even dangerous to the occupants of the float planes.

Evidence continues to mount that the Transportation Safety Board established to help ensure the safety of travellers is actually unable to carry out its most important mandate.

This government has yet to overhaul the Transportation Safety Board. How many more Canadian travellers will have to be put at risk before this government establishes reforms to the Transportation Safety Board? Reform should be forthcoming if this minister is serious about his responsibility to safe and secure transportation standards, rules and regulations.

The challenges are formidable and the changes needed are numerous. Transportation in Canada has done well in spite of the barriers and taxation levels of the federal and provincial governments. Canada must find new ways to adapt to a competitive world and transportation will lead the way.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-sixth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the list of members of committees.

With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later today.

I should say that the 26th report simply adds to the list of associate members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs two members of this particular party.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House, following consultations, to present the following motion:

That this House, taking note of the courage and valour displayed by war veterans of all religious faiths, urge the Royal Canadian Legion to reconsider its recent decision to allow individual branches to deny entry to members wearing religious headgear, including the Sikh turban and Jewish kipa, and that pending such reconsideration all branches of the legion be urged to respect the

fundamental principle of religious freedom in Canada and permit equal access to all members, including those wearing religious headgear.

I seek unanimous consent of all members to put this motion before the House today.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to Standing Order 54 regarding notices of motions, I invite the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway to give notice of his resolution on the Order Paper so that the House might give due consideration to the matter he wishes to raise.

Some time ago a motion that my colleague brought forward was denied unanimous consent by the House and she was encouraged to follow the usual proceedings. With that alternative in place, I would not give unanimous consent to the motion.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I seek the consent of the House to move concurrence in the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Accordingly, if the House gives its consent, I would move that the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there have also been discussions among the parties and I believe Your Honour will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be authorized to travel to Kingston, Ontario, from June 9 to June 10, 1994 in order to visit penitentiaries in the Kingston area and that the necessary staff to accompany the committee.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 1 standing on the Notice Paper today under motions is a motion for concurrence in the 24th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on Wednesday, June 1. The report concerned technical amendments to the standing orders consequent on recommendations made by the committee concerning the publications of the House.

I think hon. members who are interested in this fascinating subject have had an opportunity to review the report of the committee. I believe Your Honour will find unanimous consent today to proceed with concurrence in that very important report, and I so move.

(Motion agreed to.)

Ways And Means

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have another request of the House and I appreciate the indulgence of all hon. members in this regard. It is seeking to clean up the Order Paper to avoid unnecessary printing costs.

I am wondering if the House would give its consent to withdraw notices of ways and means motions listed on the Order Paper under Government Orders Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12.

I am informed in respect of those ways and means motions that all have been incorporated in Notice of Ways and Means Motion No. 14 which was concurred in by the House on May 24. Therefore they are redundant, unnecessary, and could be withdrawn without any inconvenience to hon. members and at a saving of printing costs to the House.

(Government Orders Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 withdrawn.)

Petitions

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present three different petitions from my constituents. The first one deals with the serial killer cards. I place the petition on the table.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, my second petition deals with the reconstituted BST, Bovine Somatotrophin, a chemically produced drug injected into cows to make them produce more milk.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, my final petition deals with the topic if VIA Rail, and I place it on the table.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and honour to rise in the House to present a petition, duly certified by the clerk of petitions, on behalf of 84 constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands and individuals residing in Canada.

The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide remain in force.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present a petition signed by over 700 Crowfoot constituents.

The petitioners draw our attention to the fact that a natural and fundamental relationship exists between grandparents and grandchildren. However grandparents as a consequence of the death, separation or divorce of their children are often denied access to their grandchildren by their guardians. They believe that the denial to see their grandchildren constitutes elder abuse and can have a serious detrimental impact on both the grandparents and the grandchildren.

Therefore they call upon Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include a provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec Civil Code which states that in no case may a father or mother, without serious cause, place obstacles between the child and grandparents.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex and surrounding area, I am tabling today a petition which has been duly certified by the clerk pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The petitioners ask that Parliament ensure the continuing enforcement of the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicides and euthanasia.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I also have the pleasure and honour to table a second petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 in which the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex and surrounding area call upon the Parliament of Canada to maintain the present exemption on the excise portion of ethanol for a decade, allowing for a strong and self-sufficient ethanol industry in Canada.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling two petitions today. The first one is a petition signed by hundreds of Quebecois who are asking Parliament to completely abolish all tests and experiments conducted on animals under the pretence of applying the findings to human beings. The petitioners claim that such practices are not only cruel, unnecessary, unjustifiable, inaccurate and morally unacceptable, but they also invariably lead to misleading conclusions and dangerous results which are extremely detrimental to the health of Canadians and people throughout the world.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a second petition signed by residents of my constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway and in particular signed by many members of the Burnaby detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as well as civilian employees.

The petitioners note that under section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada convicted murderers sentenced to life imprisonment without a chance of parole for 25 years are able to apply for review after 15 years and that the murder of a Canadian citizen is a most reprehensible crime.

Therefore the petitioners request that Parliament repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of some British Columbians who urge Parliament not to legalize doctor assisted suicides or euthanasia.

It is my pleasure to present it on their behalf.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am delighted to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of Comox-Alberni.

The petition states that the rural communities mainly of Merville, B.C., should not have to suffer any form of discrimination with regard to the quality of their postal services.