Werner Schmidt

[Petitions, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I present to the House a petition on behalf of our young children. It is a petition signed by 65,000 people. The petitioners ask the House to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit pardons for those convicted of sex offences against children.

They also ask that the Criminal Code be amended to prohibit for life all those convicted of sexual offences against children from holding responsible positions of trust and or great responsibility regarding children.

I ask the House to take seriously a petition from 65,000 citizens from British Columbia.

[British Columbia Treaty Commission, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests this is efficiency. Is it efficient to do things with two people who have elected representatives to represent them and make the legislative proposals that ought to exist there? If that is the argument, what is the point of electing people? What is the point of having a Parliament? What is the point of having laws if one person can decide what happens and the person happens to be the person who runs the privy council?

Apparently the commissioners are running around the province representing Canada as a result of an order in council passed by the federal cabinet. That is how they run the country. It is not a democratic process and I object very strenuously to it.

It goes beyond that. I want to go into the details and responsibilities of the commission. What is it supposed to do? It is supposed to do at least four things that I will draw to the attention of the House. It is to assess readiness in accordance with the agreement of Her Majesty in right of Canada and in right of British Columbia and one or more First Nations to begin negotiations. The commission is to assess whether or not a particular band or tribe is ready to start negotiations. That is its responsibility and it is a major responsibility. We should all have had input into that debate before the commission members went around talking to various people.

It is to allocate funds. This is the authority that gives to the treasury the right to allocate funds. However, what has happened? It says to allocate funds that have been provided. By whom? By the finance minister to enable First Nations to participate in negotiations in accordance with the criteria agreed to by the principals. Is this not an interesting provision?

We now have these people spending money, travelling around the country, being paid and incurring expenses on behalf of the Government of Canada. They are to divide moneys among the persons who are to participate in the negotiations. In accordance with what? In accordance with criteria agreed to by the principals, which are the summit, the legislature of British Columbia and Canada.

Finally, they are to encourage timely negotiations. Are we to suggest then that this commission is not to do the negotiations? We are getting into the details of the bill, which I said I would not do and I will not.

I will simply say that I object strenuously to this method of retroactivity, this business of presenting to the House legislation after the fact. We have asked this of the people who have briefed us on this. We have asked them if this is really retroactive legislation and if they have already begun the process. The answer was yes. I object strenuously. I hope every member will make every effort to make sure this never happens again in the House.

[British Columbia Treaty Commission, October 23rd, 1995]

Yes, arrogance and presumption is exactly what it is up to.

I want to look at the purposes and powers of the commission in rather significant detail. The purpose of the commission is to facilitate in British Columbia the negotiation of treaties among one or more First Nations, Her Majesty in right of Canada and Her Majesty in right of British Columbia. The Westbank Indian band is already in step three of the process, yet the legislation has not yet been passed in the House.

[British Columbia Treaty Commission, October 23rd, 1995]

Indeed there were discussions. Of course there are discussions and negotiations. What else would we expect? We need discussions to negotiate. What kind of comment was that? Is that the way the government runs things, with arrogance and presumption? That is not right.

[British Columbia Treaty Commission, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the debate on Bill C-107 to raise a couple of objections with regard to the way the bill has been presented to the House.

What we have here is enabling legislation that sets up the British Columbia Treaty Commission. At this point as we are debating this position in the House we have a British Columbia Treaty Commission. On the commission are certain representatives of the federal government who are making statements on behalf of the federal government. Yet there is no legal authority for them to do so.

My purpose this morning is not to debate the particular details of the bill but to draw to the attention of the people of Canada-and those listening to us this morning will recognize it-that the bill is based on a recommendation of the Governor General of Canada who recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances and the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled an act respecting the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty Commission. Then the summary of the bill reads:

This enactment, together with an act of the Legislature of British Columbia and a resolution of the First Nations Summit, establishes the British Columbia Treaty Commission. That commission will facilitate in British Columbia the negotiation of treaties among first nations, Canada and British Columbia.

That is a major undertaking, a very serious and a very necessary issue that needs to be dealt with. I make it abundantly clear to everyone in the House this morning that my purpose in rising to speak against the bill is not the business of negotiating land claims and treaty settlements in British Columbia. That is not my purpose.

My purpose in rising concerns the issue of people going around the country without the legitimate authority of an act passed by Parliament. We should have settled the treaty business a long time ago.

Now the British Columbia legislature has passed legislation. The summit comprised of bands and various tribes among the aboriginal peoples has established a resolution that appoints certain people legitimately. However the House has gone beyond letting people go out there and do something without the legislative authority to do so.

This process disenfranchises the representatives of the House, of the people of Canada. It is wrong in principle and I object to it. I am not alone in that objection. Sitting on either side of me this morning are representatives of the constituency to the south, Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, and the constituency to the north, Okanagan-Shuswap. They too find it objectionable that the House should engage in the process of doing business in this manner.

The purpose of the act so clearly stated is to establish the British Columbia Treaty Commission as undertaken in the agreement. The agreement refers to the agreement reached by the summit, the province of British Columbia and Canada.

What does it do in terms of establishing the commission? Established by the joint operation of this act, an act of the legislature of British Columbia and a resolution of the summit, is the British Columbia Treaty Commission consisting of a chief commissioner and not more than four other commissioners.

There was nothing until now. Yet they are travelling around the province of British Columbia setting up meetings. There was a meeting in my constituency last week. They are acting as if they were representing and negotiating on behalf of the Government of Canada. According to this act they could not commit the government to anything.

[Canadian International Development Agency, October 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the third petition petitions Parliament to act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Canadian International Development Agency, October 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the second petition asks Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Canadian International Development Agency, October 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, consistent with Standing Order 36, I wish to present three petitions from my constituency.

The first petition asks and petitions Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.

[Canada Transportation Act, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to be able to enter the debate on Bill C-101, a rather large omnibus bill.

I was interested to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary suggest that it was a straightforward, simple and small bill. This is not a small bill. It has at least 120 pages and it is a rather far reaching and overarching bill that covers the three modes of transportation in Canada.

The bill makes some progress toward levelling the playing field, especially in the railway sector with the United States. It makes it easier to abandon some short rail lines, which is an important issue. It also makes it easier to establish short lines under provincial control.

There are some positive developments taking place in the legislation that we need to recognize. However it seems the chief purpose of the bill is not so much to enhance the investor interest in the particular railways but rather to facilitate the selling of CN Rail or the privatization of the Canadian National Railway.

The bill continues to treat railways as a service rather than as a business. The bill is clearly not about rail renewal. Canada remains 15 years behind the American system. Instead of levelling the playing field for the U.S., the federal government has chosen to deregulate in a piecemeal fashion rather than in a consistent, logical pattern.

Bill C-101 fails to ensure true competition between the railways. The competitive line rates and final offer arbitration provisions only highlight an artificial competition that benefits neither shippers nor the railways in the long run. Under both these options the ultimate arbiter of freight prices is the National Transportation Agency rather than the marketplace.

In other words, competitive line rates and final offer arbitration are actually a hidden form of price regulation or managed competition. The bill has no guaranteed access provision or even study regarding the rail infrastructure in terms of further development and competitiveness in the industry.

In spite of these sorts of statements the whole business of transportation and shippers needs to recognize they need each other to sustain the economy that is there. The railway business exists to support shippers and shippers need the railway to send their materials and products to market. Each needs the other to be successful.

Let me list a couple of the major shippers that use the railway system rather extensively. I refer in particular to the Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition, which includes companies like Agrium Inc., Alberta Forest Products Association, the Canadian Oilseed Processsors Association, Canpotex Limited, the Council of Forest Industries, Luscar Ltd., Manalta Coal Ltd., Novacor Chemicals Ltd., Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, Sherrit Inc. and Sultran Limited. These companies are significant customers of the Canadian railroad system. The products shipped tend to be bulk in nature and must travel substantial distances to distant markets.

For many products highway transport does not present an effective, competitive alternative to rail transportation and water transport is not a practical alternative. Hence for the majority of the transportation requirements of industries like the ones named the only economical way of accessing the markets is through the railway.

There is a need for the railroad system to be reformed. There is excess track. There are impediments to the productivity improvements and there are too many threats to the profitability and long term viability of the railroads.

We must admit there have been improvements in the last couple of years in the productivity of railways and the net revenues of both CN Rail and CP have increased. These rationalizations, however, should not jeopardize the benefits of competition in the railway industry. I will refer to that in just a moment.

In the meantime we need to indicate as well that the Canadian railway system is not like the American system. The American system has many more railroads, to begin with. The distances to market are shorter. They have an extensively developed highway system and inland water routes. Therefore it is not valid to argue that Canada should have a regulatory system directly comparable to that of the United States.

We should recognize that rails are not like the trucking industry. Trucking regulations restrict vehicles by the availability of trucking services and limit shippers' freedom of choice. Accordingly the deregulation of major carriers has a pro-competitive result. We should also recognize that the capitalization required in that area is not nearly as great as it is in the railway business.

Railway regulation protects captive shippers against the excessive monopoly power of the railway. Herein lies the crux of the issue. The imposition of statutory provisions which limit or deter

accessibility to the competitive access provision will be anti-competitive by permitting the railroads to more rapidly and more extensively exploit their monopoly power.

We come back to the business of competitiveness. Are the railroads competitive? The conclusion of the group of industries we referred to before is:

It has become apparent to railway customers during the past eight years that Canada's railways have refused to compete for rail traffic which would become available by virtue of a customer's utilization of the competitive line rate provisions.

Page 131 of the National Transportation Act Review Commission report states:

CN and CP Rail have effectively declined to compete with each other through CLRs and as a result the provision is largely inoperative in Canada.

It is suggested that the failure of railways to compete through CLRs should now be shifted and, rather than be treated under the Transport Act, should now become subject to the provisions of the Competition Act.

There is a provision in Bill C-101 that there be an appeal to the National Transportation Agency. However shippers will have to prove that they suffer from significant prejudice. It is interesting that significant prejudice is not defined. Neither is suffering.

If this phrase is not defined in the bill it lends itself to all kinds of problems. First, it is difficult for shippers to be able to prove what is happening. Second, because that is difficult there will be a defence and the result will be extensive litigation proceedings that mitigate against the expeditious and objective determination of relief. That is precisely what is needed to get this business going and to get the economy rolling along smoothly.

Those terms are not defined in the bill. They have never been used in transportation legislation before. Consequently there would be very little, if anything, to go on in the way of precedent. The agency serves as a price regulator.

Another part the agency deals with is that the rates shall be commercially fair and reasonable. These words are used in the bill but are not defined. Hence they are likely to result in uncertainty, delay and contention which reduce the effectiveness of the level of service and competitive access provisions.

A further provision in the bill states that the clarification of these kinds of terms would come from the governor in council and does not help at all. It will introduce into the decision facing the council the politics of the day in preference to the economic considerations existing in the marketplace.

A further development is that a complaint, if one is issued by a shipper against the transportation agency, should not be vexatious or frivolous. These terms are not defined.

It is a very difficult situation. It is all very well to talk about the agency as being able to act as the final arbiter and to get agreements in place, but the result will be that litigation of one kind or another will come into play and the courts will become the arbiter.

There are two other parts of the bill that also need to be looked at: the idea of the interchange and the interswitch. These words have to be defined as well as the words limited running rights.

While the provisions of the bill go far they do not go far enough. Neither do they create a regulatory system which will provide an economic system that will look after the interests of transportation and shippers, so that together they can both meet their needs and we as Canadians will benefit from sound transportation and manufacturing systems that can deliver their products easily to the marketplace.

[The Late Dr. Charles Willoughby, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the memory of Dr. Charles James McNeil Willoughby who passed away September 5 of this year in Kamloops, British Columbia.

Dr. Willoughby's life was a life of service to others. It is clear from his history that he with the support of his wife Marjorie recognized the full responsibility that comes with citizenship and actively sought to make his community a better place, a selfless characteristic we would all do well to emulate today.

From all accounts he was committed to Kamloops and her people as a physician and surgeon with the Burris clinic for 40 years, as a member of the Kamloops school board, as chairman of the United Appeal, and as the member of Parliament for Kamloops during the 26th Parliament. That commitment has now become his legacy, a legacy which has influenced many including his children, Marjorie, Lorene, Ann and John, his 20 grandchildren and his 33 great grandchildren.

During these times when outside forces pull against our families and our communities, people like Dr. Willoughby provide a strong and quiet leadership that inspires us to draw together.

To his three surviving children, Marjorie, Lorene and Ann, and to his daughter-in-law Berte, I send on behalf of my colleagues our deepest condolences. I hope they will find comfort in the knowledge that their father will be remembered as a courageous man who embraced the responsibility of making this place a better one.