Debates of Sept. 17th, 1996

Nipissing And James Bay Railway Company Act

[Bob Wood, Liberal, Nipissing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on Bill S-7, an act to dissolve the Nipissing and James Bay Railway Company. This bill originated in the Senate and passed all stages of debate in one day.

Therefore I will be seeking unanimous consent of the House to pass Bill S-7. However, I would like to take a brief moment to explain the bill for those who are unfamiliar with it.

Nipissing and James Bay Railway Company was incorporated in 1884 under chapter 80 of the Statutes of Canada. It acquired land to build a railway. However, despite numerous extensions no railway was ever constructed. The last extension expired in 1908 but the company was never formally dissolved. The company failed to file any returns to the federal government, despite numerous requests, and relinquished all responsibility for the property.

No minutes of meetings remain regarding the business of the company and no stockholders could be located. Eventually the province built another railway which follows an almost identical route.

Bill S-7 was initiated by Senator Kelleher at the request of the Corporation of the City of North Bay in my riding of Nipissing. City council unanimously passed a resolution asking that the Nipissing and James Bay Railway Company be dissolved. The reason for requesting this is that this company holds title to approximately 4,000 square feet of land within the city limits. By

dissolving the company the land reverts to the crown whereupon the city can attempt to acquire it for its own uses.

I should note there was no public opposition to this action by residents of the city of North Bay. It remains that this House must dissolve the 112 year old act which created the Nipissing and James Bay Railway Company so that this small piece of land can be returned to the crown.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the primary purpose of Bill S-7, as my colleague has just reminded us, is to dissolve the Nipissing Railway Company. The request to dissolve the company came from the City of North Bay, within whose limits it owns land, which is therefore unoccupied and not used, since the railway was never built, as it should have been before 1908, the last extension.

One might wonder whether there are still, in Canada, other such pieces of land which are, or have been, unusable for long stretches of time because the government did not think to free them up.

In my riding, in Blainville, in any event, I know of one case. Camp Bouchard, which covers 20 per cent of the municipality, belonged, until a few years ago, to National Defence. The camp had been equipped during the war with the complete infrastructure of a small city, in order to manufacture munitions. All these facilities, which would have made a wonderful industrial park for the city, were scandalously neglected, to such an extent that in the end they had to be dynamited, before the land could be sold back to Blainville, of which I was the mayor. This is another example of federal incompetence like the one before us today.

We owe a vote of thanks to the senator and the member for Nipissing, without whose initiative the government would undoubtedly have taken even longer to realize that there was no reason to continue to hold land for a railway, when 88 years after the deadline for building it had passed, there was no railway in sight.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore in favour of Bill S-17.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on June 19, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources to inform the House whether her department was on target to deliver our red book commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions which cause climate change. Our red book promise is clear, a 20 per cent reduction of carbon dioxide emissions below 1988 levels by the year 2005.

As shown in Environment Canada's recent study, the Mackenzie Basin impact study, climate change is already having an impact in Canada. This six year study shows that the Mackenzie Basin in northwestern Canada has warmed an average of 1.7 degrees Celsius over the last 100 years. Scientists found historically low water levels for Great Slave Lake, localized melting of permafrost and increased erosion and landslides resulting from an historically high number of forest fires in the region. They also concluded that the area covered by Arctic sea ice decreased by 5 per cent between 1978 and 1995.

So far the response to climate change by the Department of Natural Resources has been the national action program on climate change and its voluntary challenge and registry program for industry.

The same department estimates that carbon dioxide emissions in Canada will be 13 per cent above 1990 levels by the year 2000.

It is clear that the voluntary challenge will not stabilize greenhouse gas emissions, let alone reduce them by 20 per cent beyond 1988 levels as indicated in the red book. Thus we have a long way to go if we are to honour our international commitment and our red book promise.

There are alternatives. The rational energy plan developed by the Sierra Club of Canada with Informetrica provides a model for reducing carbon dioxide emissions while increasing employment for Canadians. Informetrica concludes that if the plan were fully implemented employment would increase, adding more than 550,000 person years of employment between this year and the year 2000. In addition, the Department of Natural Resources concluded that the plan would result in Canada's secondary energy demand falling by roughly 13 per cent by the year 2010, reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 22 per cent.

At present we seem to be working at cross purposes. We have in place subsidies which continue our dependence on non-renewable

energy sources which, in turn, increase carbon dioxide emissions. In contrast, subsidies to the renewable energy sector, although slightly increased in the last budget, are insignificant next to those enjoyed in the non-renewable fossil fuel energy sector. It seems that little planning is going into the transition from non-renewable carbon dioxide producing energy sources to the renewable sources. That transition will have to occur because of climate change and eventual resource exhaustion.

In her response to my question on June 19, the minister emphasized the government is committed to stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 but made no clear commitment to the further reductions called for in the red book. Internationally we talk about the stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions and further reductions beyond the year 2000, but domestically we seem to be failing to meet even the first of these objectives.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources inform the House whether her department is on target in delivering on our red book promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent below 1988 levels by the year 2005?

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question of whether we are on track with respect to the climate change commitments outlined in the red book, let me assure the hon. member that we are making progress. I also acknowledge that stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 and achieving further reductions post-2000 will not be easy.

Climate change is a complex issue for which there are no simple solutions. Very few countries will be able to stabilize their emissions by the year 2000. The problem lies in the very nature of modern economics and consumer lifestyles. We must change many of the ways we live and do business. Turning on the lights, heating homes and driving to work all produce greenhouse gas emissions. It is a matter of making fundamental changes to the way we live. It will take time and no one government or sector of the economy alone can solve the problem.

That is why the red book commitment on climate change states that the federal government will work with provincial and urban governments and major stakeholders with the aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. We are doing just that through the federal-provincial initiative known as Canada's national action program on climate change. This program takes a sustainable development approach, that is, balancing environmental and economic imperatives.

The national action program encourages a mix of approaches: voluntary, regulatory and economic instruments. A key voluntary measure is the voluntary challenge and registry, VCR, program designed to engage the private and public sectors to undertake mitigative climate change plans on a voluntary basis. These plans are also registered for public scrutiny. This approach allows companies to undertake initiatives which make the most sense from their operational viewpoint.

Over 580 companies and organizations have registered with the VCR. They represent about 70 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions originating from industrial and business activities. We have made climate change an important item on the agenda of corporate Canada. CEOs know there is a problem and are initiating mitigative plans and actions.

Natural Resources Canada has a number of its own programs to address greenhouse gas emissions. It has implemented energy efficiency regulations on electrical appliances and motors; set up the autosmart and fleetsmart programs to teach fuel efficient driving habits; and implemented a range of programs to encourage energy efficiency in buildings. The last budget also announced changes to the tax rules to encourage renewable energy investments. Consultations are now in progress to examine improving the tax treatment of energy efficiency investments.

The federal government's actions can make a difference. For example, by the year 2000 our new regulations on commercial lighting will reduce emissions annually by an amount equivalent to the carbon dioxide produced yearly by one million cars.

The federal government is also showing leadership by getting its own house in order. It plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its operations by 20 per cent by the year 2005 through the Greening of Government Initiative affecting government buildings and motor vehicle fleets.

However, the federal government cannot do it alone. All Canadians contribute to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. All Canadians must contribute to the solution. Stabilizing and eventually reducing emissions will depend on the collective effort made by all governments, industry and business sectors and the general public.

When and how we stabilize emissions are very much the subject of the joint meeting of the federal and provincial energy and environment ministers scheduled for early December. At that time ministers will review progress to date under the national action program on climate change and recommend the next action steps.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 8, I put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concerning Victor Regalado, a Salvadoran national who was granted refugee status in 1982, status that was later taken away

from him by the government because he supposedly constituted a threat to the national security of Canada.

The processing of his case is a typical example of the negligence and lack of compassion shown by the successive immigration ministers and officials who dealt with it since 1982. How can we explain that an individual can live in this country for 14 years, study, work, start a family and raise children without having any kind of status? If that is not negligence and lack of compassion, I do not know what is.

Finally, thanks to numerous interventions on my part, especially in this House, and to those of many organizations and public figures, Victor Regalado, who had been deported, was allowed to come back to Canada to submit an application for permanent residence after the Government of Quebec issued him a selection certificate. I ask the minister to act as quickly as possible on this case. Mr. Regalado has suffered enough as it is.

I also hope that CSIS will apologize to Mr. Regalado and explain in what way he poses a threat to Canada. Holding secret files on individuals as peace-loving and law-abiding as Mr. Regalado is not the proper way to do things in a democratic country.

I would like to salute the courage, determination and perseverance shown by Mr. Regalado during the 14 years he spent in Canada. I take this opportunity to congratulate him for the great battles he fought for social justice, freedom and democracy in his country of origin, El Salvador. I wish him well in all his future endeavours and I hope he will at last be able to live a normal life with his family.

I also want to mention the invaluable work done on this case by the Quebec Civil Liberties Union.

Furthermore, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to condemn the unacceptable actions and behaviour of immigration officers posted at the Canadian embassy in Chile. Because as of June 5 this year, visas have again been made compulsory for Chilean visitors, Chilean nationals who want to come to Canada to visit their relatives, for business purposes or as tourists are faced with a lot of red tape. They have to fill out forms, be interviewed and present documentation, and then have to come back sometimes from quite far away, to provide additional documentation, pay costs and so forth.

On top of that, these immigration officers are incredibly strict about the way they grant visas. As a member of Chilean origin, I was asked to intervene several times, either with the minister or directly with the ambassador, to try and convince them to show more judgment and fairness, especially in the case of visitors who had obtained visas before to visit members of their family living in Canada. I can therefore say that the Chilean community in Quebec and Canada feels very uncomfortable about the situation.

This unbending attitude on the part of those who grant these visas fails to reflect the excellent relations that exist between both countries and the increasing amount of trade and co-operation between Canada and Chile.

I should point out that the President of Chile will visit Canada from October 1 to October 4. His activities will include signing a trade agreement aimed at facilitating investment and the exchange of goods and services between our two countries, but the problem of movement of individuals remains.

Finally, I may point out that Chile does not require visas for Canadians who visit this South American country. I would ask the minister to review the situation and take the necessary steps to facilitate the movement of persons between our two countries.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration I consider it a privilege to respond to the question from the hon. member for Bourassa.

I find it somewhat puzzling that the hon. member has asked this question be addressed as part of the adjournment debate. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was very forthright in her initial response to his inquiries. Her position and the position of her department is clear.

The actions taken are in accordance with the law and regulations laid out in the Canadian Immigration Act. It is just that simple. There is nothing draconian or mean-spirited about the government's actions in this case. It is simply carrying out its duties by the rules. We have a good immigration system. It has served this country well over the years and it continues to do so.

We have a duty to defend the integrity of this system. This means respecting the laws and regulations that govern it. I do not see why in this specific case we would ignore the acts and regulations relating to immigration. It is not up to the government to pick and choose which laws it enforces and which it disregards.

I know that the hon. member for Bourassa would like me to get into more details of this case but I cannot do that. The Privacy Act simply does not permit me to do it.

As the hon. member is aware from his own meetings with Mr. Regalado and from reading the newspapers, I can say that Mr. Regalado complied with the legal requirement to leave Canada and has now re-entered Canada on the basis of a minister's permit to allow him time to apply for permanent residence. Like anyone else

who applies for permanent residence in Canada, Mr. Regalado will have to meet all immigration requirements if he wants to be landed.

The government has acted with compassion, understanding and fairness in this instance. It has fully respected both the spirit and the letter of the Canada-Quebec accord.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 29 1996, I asked the Minister of Transport a question regarding Aéroports de Montréal's responsibility to, and I quote: "co-operate with the minister in responding to any questions, complaints or comments from the public regarding the airport".

Following that question, the Minister of Environment wrote in a letter that he was open to impact studies on the issue of transferring international flights from Mirabel to Dorval.

The minister only has to use his power under the act, namely to ask ADM to co-operate with the minister in responding to any questions, complaints or comments from the public regarding the airport. Thus the minister has full responsibility. The minister cannot bury his head in the sand. He must obtain from ADM clarifications on the economic and environmental impacts of the present situation.

All stakeholders in the Montreal airport area as well as those of Quebec as a whole want this situation to be clarified because this is a major economic decision.

This is the thrust of representations made by the hon. members for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, Laurentides and Argenteuil-Papineau. Recently, there has been evidence that the inaction of the Department of Transport has contributed to the legal mess we are now in.

Representations made by the Coalition pour le maintien des services à Mirabel were received favourably by the courts. Increasingly in the future, unless the minister takes the political solution, that is to allow hearings on the Aéroports de Montréal decision, we will be bogged down right where we are, because the courts will take a long time to reach a decision. This will have harmful effects on the future of the Montreal airports, both Dorval and Mirabel.

After all these months have passed, will the minister finally get around to implementing the recommendation made by the Minister of the Environment: an impact study, an overall assessment of the situation and public hearings to enable the public to find out what the best solution for international flights will be?

Will the somewhat clandestine decision made by Aéroports de Montréal be maintained, or will we be able to find out exactly what the impacts of that decision will be?

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, I consider it a privilege to respond to the question of the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup regarding the Aéroports de Montréal.

Procedures have been put in place by Transport Canada to ensure that ADM respects the terms and conditions of all the agreements which it has entered into with the department.

With respect to what the hon. member views as a lack of co-operation on behalf of the ADM concerning its project for changing the role of Dorval and Mirabel international airports, to the best of our knowledge ADM has made available to the general public all of the studies on which it based its decision to reorganize operations at Mirabel and Dorval airports.

Aéroports de Montréal has also held many information sessions with the different municipalities surrounding these airports, the ones named by the hon. member. The general public was invited to attend these sessions and voice their concerns.

Transport Canada has responded to each and every complaint or question received and where required has provided the name, address and telephone number of a suitable ADM contact who could provide information. Any information which has been requested to date has already been made public and generally available by ADM.

At this point in time, to the best of our knowledge and based on the information that ADM has made available, there does not appear to be any violation of the terms and conditions of our agreements with them.

If the hon. member has evidence of any non-compliance on the part of ADM we would be happy to receive it and examine in immediately.

With respect to the environmental impact of ADM's decision, the Minister of Transport does not hold under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act the authority to undertake or require an environmental assessment of Aéroports de Montréal's plans for Dorval and Mirabel.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does not apply to all projects regarding airports operated by local airport authorities. It applies when there is a project, as defined by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, involving a federal authority and a trigger under section 5.0 of the act. Triggers would include things like federal funding, federal licence or a permit or a decision under a lease.

The transfer of international flights from Mirabel to Dorval does not involve any of these.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before we adjourn for the day I would remind the House that, during the adjournment debate, both the members of the opposition and the parliamentary secretaries replying on behalf of the government must comply with the rules, which are that hon. members asking the question may speak for a maximum of four minutes, and parliamentary secretaries replying on behalf of the government are limited to a maximum of two minutes.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6.03 p.m.)