David Anderson

[Pearson International Airport, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party, the fourth party-Reformers must thank their lucky stars the Bloc Quebecois did not run a candidate in Hamilton or they would have been fifth.

The position of the government is clear. The contracts were entered into in the middle of an election campaign when it was indicated by one of the major political parties that if we were elected the appropriateness of the contract would be reviewed. It is appropriate to compensate the parties for their out of pocket expenses but not for profits they have not earned. That is our position and we will do whatever we can in the future.

The hon. member can stay tuned for our decision in the future and he will find we will be taking further steps to protect the Canadian taxpayer, whom he from time to time seems to have some concern for.

[Pearson International Airport, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot in recent days about the right getting together, but there is something thoroughly unpleasant in the way

the Reform Party is cosying up to a group of people in the other place trying to provide the developers of this proposal with money they have not earned.

This party should recognize that in its efforts to get the right together, it is perhaps cosying up to the wrong people.

[Pearson International Airport, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government's position has been put many times in the House and elsewhere, not just since this government was formed but also during the election campaign when this infamous deal was signed by the previous government 10 days before the election date.

We wish to protect the Canadian taxpayers by all the means we have available. I assure the hon. member we will make available to him and to other members of the House our decision in due course as to how we will proceed.

All I can say further is that what happened last night by the Mulroney appointed senators, unelected members, was a vote in favour of granting hundreds of millions of dollars of unearned and undeserved profits in an unacceptable deal done in the dying days of a federal campaign.

[Pearson International Airport, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the contradiction between one member of the Bloc's not wanting to have a commission of inquiry proceed but to have it discussed on the floor of the House and the next question coming from a member who would prefer to have a commission rather than discuss it on the floor of the House is very striking.

I agree with him that we have a concern here. The government will not allow the Conservative senators to put the Canadian taxpayer at risk to the tune of some $600 million of unearned and undeserved profits.

That is why the bill was introduced in the first place. We are now examining our options for our next steps. We are looking at all options before us. None is ruled out. There is one consideration paramount, that we protect the Canadian taxpayer from this attempt of the Conservative senators to provide $600 million or more of unearned profits to the developers.

[Transportation, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is simply in error in his facts. We have not put forward any invitation to bid to any producer group, railway, insurance company, finance company or any other company.

We are at the present time, with the assistance of CIBC-Wood Gundy in Calgary, working out possible ways of approaching the issue of disposal of the hopper cars. We have made no requests for tenders to the public. His assumption upon which his question is based that we have done so is simply a false one.

[Transportation, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that is not the policy of the government. It may be the policy of the Reform Party but it is not the policy of this government.

[Standards Council Of Canada Act, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to answer a question from the hon. member for Levis. I thank him for this opportunity to make a few comments on railway safety.

First, I can assure him that there are figures to prove there is no significant difference between the number of accidents and problems in the railway system of Quebec and in other provinces. I could give him the exact figures but unfortunately I do not have them with me at this moment.

It is most unfortunate that people are losing their jobs in Charny but the House may rest assured that there is no problem linked to safety. The CN decided to centralize the main operations for repairs to track maintenance equipment, but routine maintenance will be done in the field. Finally, CN will step up routine equipment maintenance. Track maintenance, which is essential to ensure safety, will continue to be ensured using equipment in good repair.

Transport Canada works together with railway companies to provide Canadians with the highest standard of rail safety. Railways are required to comply with the Railway Safety Act and it is up to Transport Canada to ensure that safety standards are complied with in accordance with the law.

Transport Canada railway safety officers will oversee railway operations as well as the maintenance of tracks, equipment and railway crossings to ensure railway safety.

The act enables them to limit railway operations when and if they discover unsafe conditions and to impose penalties on the companies in the event of a violation.

The decision made by CN to centralize equipment maintenance is merely a business decision that does not affect safety.

[York Factory First Nation Flooded Land Act, June 17th, 1996]

moved that Bill C-39, an act respecting the York Factory First Nation and the settlement of matters arising from an agreement relating to the flooding of land, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Farm Debt Mediation Act, June 17th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I move:

That Bill C-38, an act to provide for mediation between insolvent farmers and their creditors, to amend the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Farm Debt Review Act be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, June 17th, 1996]

I move:

That Bill C-34, an act to establish programs for the marketing of agricultural products, to repeal the Agricultural Products Board Act, the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.