Steve Mahoney

[Petitions, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by approximately 80 members of the Mississauga Gospel Temple and deals with a request to pass Bill C-284 to ensure that the record of a sexual offence against a child for which a pardon has been given is disclosed to children's organizations when they perform a criminal record check on an individual applying for a position of trust involving children.

I am pleased to present both of these petitions on behalf of the congregation of the Mississauga Gospel Temple.

[Petitions, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first is signed by approximately 70 folks from my riding and the surrounding area, all of whom are members of the Mississauga Gospel Temple. The petition has to do with their concerns about prostitution. They pray that parliament pass a bill which would change section 213 of the Criminal Code to make prostitution a hybrid offence and enable these offences to be prosecuted as either a summary or an indictable offence.

[Railway Safety Act, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up where I left off which was on the issue of safety at rail crossings. As members know, at unprotected crossings there is a requirement for the engineer of an approaching train to warn, from a certain distance, anyone who might be at the crossing.

I was telling the House about the example in my own community where we were experiencing, in the middle of the night, very extended whistles that were disturbing entire residential communities. We discovered that there was one dirt or country road in the heart of the city not far from a landmark that many members may be familiar with, the Square I shopping centre. This gives members an idea of the density in the community.

This situation was caused because of an inability to acquire this particular piece of property when Highway 403 was built. It was left as an unprotected crossing and, as I mentioned, led to what is commonly referred to as lover's lane. This crossing was disturbing an entire neighbourhood.

It highlighted for me the importance of putting in proper protection at railway crossings.

I come from Mississauga. Recognizing that it is the 20th anniversary of the train derailment which occurred in our community which resulted in the largest peacetime evacuation in history, this is an issue which is very near and dear to my constituents and the people in our city.

I hope there is a vision for improvement to rail services. I think for example of the debate going on right now as to whether Union Station should be acquired by the city of Toronto, the province, the federal government, a private sector developer, or a combination thereof to ensure that the architectural structure of Union Station is preserved. While the history and the architecture is important it is the facility itself which I think is critical. I can see the day when Union Station would be connected to Pearson airport hopefully right through the heart of downtown Mississauga out to the airport. I could see a rail connection for charter passenger flights from the Hamilton airport connecting into Union Station and the downtown area of my community and perhaps even Pearson.

We could see in the future an expansion of rail services with high quality infrastructure in place which would allow commuters going to and from work and other people to access facilities such as Hamilton International Airport, Pearson, Union Station and everything in between. The future of rail I hope is not dead in this country. It is very important that we take a serious look at issues surrounding safety.

Short line railways have started up around the country as a result of the abandonment of certain sections of rail. We are winding up with private sector businesses getting together in some instances almost in the form of a co-op. I think of the short line that connects Collingwood, Stayner and Barrie in the south part of northern Ontario. It primarily serves the local businesses and allows them to interact with one another. It is vitally important if private sector railway companies are operating on these short line systems that safety be of prime concern.

I hope that one day the role of rail service in this country might be similar to the experience in Europe and in Japan. The bullet train in Japan, the Shinkansen, operates through the entire country. As our country grows and the infill of population occurs in urban communities, large populations are needed to make passenger service economically feasible, particularly when it is short line or commuter passenger service.

For example a subway system cannot work in areas where there are not large concentrations of people who can get on and off that facility. The same thing could occur in the area of rail. It is not a vision that exists today but I think it is one that we should be taking a serious look at.

There is a bit of history to show that this government is responding to safety in the area of rail services. I believe opposition parties are supportive of this. The government response to the report of the railway safety act review committee was tabled in parliament in June 1995. There were a number of amendments.

One was to streamline the administrative process, cut down on red tape, provide greater involvement for interested organizations in determining the rules which I think is a very democratic response.

Another was minimized disruption by train noise in communities. I referred to the unprotected crossings. It is not just the actual noise of the train that causes concern, but it is more the whistle as it extends to the broader community.

Another was to strengthen and clarify federal powers at grade crossings, something municipalities are very concerned about. To go under or over the tracks at a grade crossing I believe costs $7 million or $8 million in today's terms for a fundamental, simple grade separation. Municipalities are concerned with the interaction of the automobile and the train and would prefer to have those grades separated but obviously not at their expense.

The other amendment was to simplify and improve provisions for ensuring that appropriate safety measures are in place and finally to clarify and strengthen the power of railway safety inspectors.

Following that, Transport Canada immediately proceeded to make a number of other modifications which I would like to share with the House. One is that the new section on testing exemptions be amended to include immediate exemptions for a limited application of short duration; second, that the new section on whistle cessation be amended in order that any relevant association or organization be advised of the municipality's intention to pass the anti-whistling resolution. Once again, the importance of an unprotected grade crossing without a whistle would endanger public safety and is not something that any of us would like to see.

The bill came back to the House in 1996 but unfortunately, or fortunately as some of us would not be here if this had not occurred, the House was dissolved, there was an election and the bill died on the order paper.

However, I am pleased to note that amendments in Bill C-58 improve even further on the earlier amendment put forward and accepted by the government that were originally in Bill C-43. I will just share those with the House: a new policy statement and new definitions and, very important, the authority to require railways to implement safety performance monitoring. I refer the House to my earlier comments about the identification on the actual train cars that may be carrying chemicals that could be dangerous and this will help to improve that; a new safety compliance order targeted at safety management system deficiencies and increased authority even further for inspectors.

I think we can all take some pride in this bill because the reality is the government is recognizing the significance of safety in the rail system not only in rural Canada in western and eastern Canada and northern Ontario but indeed in the heart of our hustling, bustling cities where citizens are impacted both in terms of noise and in terms of safety. Municipalities can also be impacted tremendously in terms of their fiscal responsibilities.

I think it is great to have this bill here. It is about time. I agree with members that it would have been good if we could have done it quicker, but better now than not at all. I look forward to this going to committee and coming back to the House for third and final reading with the support of all members.

[Railway Safety Act, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in a debate on a bill where we seem to have some agreement on all sides of the House. I think it is fundamentally because of the importance of rail safety.

Members opposite may be aware that this is the 20th anniversary of the train derailment in my city of Mississauga which resulted in the largest peace time evacuation in the history of our country. We moved a quarter of a million people out of our city in stages in about four or five days and did it quite successfully actually.

There were no deaths and no serious injuries caused by the train derailment but the actual derailment and subsequent investigation and involvement with CP rail and the hearings that went on really brought out some major improvements led by the municipality.

When that train derailed, I had an almost out of body experience of laying in my bed and seeing the entire sky light up. I thought it was Consumers Gas that had exploded or something like that. I jumped into the car and drove over toward the light, which shows how bright I was. I arrived at the corner of Dundas Street and Mavis Road just in time for the second explosion, an explosion that shot chemicals and chlorine gas into the air.

The proof that was later found, in a somewhat frightening way, was there were hundreds of dead birds around our city because of the chlorine in combination with the explosion.

Chlorine is carried in great abundance across this land on our rail system. A lot of those cars that we see trundling through our residential communities are not carrying milk. They are carrying dangerous chemicals. Chlorine is a low seeking gas that will actually go into the river and sewer systems and wind up in peoples' homes. It is a very serious safety concern.

What I think saved our community from catastrophe was the fact that the explosion went straight up and took the chlorine mushroom cloud straight up into the air. It killed some birds but fortunately no people.

I was actually the acting mayor, which is a hard thing to be when Hazel is the mayor, but she was out of town at the time this accident occurred.

There is apparently no truth to the rumour that Hazel was seen jumping on the car going through Streetsville in an attempt to derail it because, as we all know, she has become extremely famous right across the land.

In all seriousness, that fame is due to the hard nosed efforts that she, the members of council, the staff, the city and the residents put forward in demanding improvements to safety.

One of the issues in safety has to do with labelling of the cars going through. I am sure members would agree that is extremely important for fire departments. One of the real frightening aspects of dealing with that train derailment 20 years ago was that our firefighters had to go into the fire not knowing what was there. They were completely unaware because there was no labelling system. They had no idea whether there was another gas filled car ready to explode as they went in.

Frankly, our firefighters in Mississauga were heroes on that night and the next day as they fought the fire. They had tremendous difficulty in putting it out and they did so in the face of tremendous personal risk.

Rail safety is critical to all of us. We think of it in the terms the former speaker talked about, the two rail lines going through Manitoba. We think of it in terms more today of hauling grain and perhaps freight. But the reality is there is a proposal that is always kicked around, it seems from election to election, to put a high speed train in the Windsor to Quebec City corridor, where we have the population that could justify such a high speed commuter passenger trail, something that would surpass the VIA Rail service.

If we are to go this route then safety is clearly a critical issue and it is the quality of the beds, the quality of the actual infrastructure these trains go across. If members have ever had the experience of travelling on the Shinkansen in Tokyo, they will agree and realize that the nature of the infrastructure has to be at such a high level to accommodate the high speed of trains of that nature that frankly I do not think our infrastructure would suffice today. So we need to address safety from that point of view.

Whistle blowing is interesting. I have heard members talk about that. Anyone who might be familiar with my part of the world would know that the provincial government several years ago built a major highway right through Mississauga and connecting up at the 410 in Brampton. It is called Highway 403.

In the acquisition of land to accommodate the road right of way and all the allowances required, there was one farmer who was a holdout. For years we could never figure out why a train was travelling right through the heart of communities like Erin Mills, Medowvale and Deer Run in my riding. We could never figure out why the train was blowing its whistle at all hours of the night and seemingly with some joy. The conductor would sit right on that horn and the noise of course would result in a number of rather dramatic phone calls to my office, since I was the councillor of the day, people complaining about that.

We found out there was an unprotected crossing as a result of not being able to acquire the land. It was a bit of a lovers lane apparently and that is all it was used for. Know the blowing of the whistle is important for safety.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants to look for the root of the tragedy, in Atlantic Canada particularly, he need look no further than the former minister of fisheries, the hon. John Crosbie. That is where the root of the problem lay in that particular industry.

In relationship to health care—

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted that I seem to have at least engendered some anger over there. Frankly, that is what I was trying to do.

Tommy Douglas must be turning over in his grave.

If the member wants to talk about sadness, how about talking about the day his leader stood in this place and actually said that Lucien Bouchard cares more about health care than Jean Chrétien?

Can the member imagine a federal leader of the New Democratic Party, a party whose members have the right to stand in this place and say they were a major player in the founding of medicare in this country, the party of Tommy Douglas, of principles gone past, actually supporting a separatist premier? That indeed was a sad day in the House of Commons of this great country and a sad day for that party.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I never suggested those members were imbeciles. I suggested they were separatists. I do not have a problem with his taking my remarks as insults, but they were not directed at the people of Quebec. They were clearly directed at the Bloc.

It is the Bloc members who continue to pontificate in this House as if they represent a province that believes in its entirety in the nonsense they bring to this place. It does not. The majority of Quebecers are Canadians. They are proud Canadians who understand fiscal responsibility. They share this government's belief that eliminating the deficit, paying down the debt, reducing taxes and funding health care will be the top priorities of this government.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would say the question the member is asking me is whether I agree. No, I do not agree.

In a press release on October 28 the Reform Party stated that it wants the government to put $7 billion into health care transfers. But wait a minute, it is also demanding reductions of $7 billion in EI premiums. On July 30 it promised that 50% of any surplus would go to an agenda of tax cuts and the other 50% would go to debt payment. Let us do the math. We have a $10.4 billion surplus. That is $5.2 billion for each of those initiatives. Then the Reformers want to take $1.1 billion out of the Department of National Defence. They are all over the map. Spend, cut, no responsibility.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

My colleague says we became more efficient. That is absolutely true and we required them to do the same and they have done so. We have seen efficiencies at all levels of government.

We are not nearly done in those areas. The work of the government after we get the debt reduction plan in place will be to look at tax reduction. We have already effected $7 billion in tax reductions, but there will be more. I hope these are targeted to areas that will boost the economy. I would like to see it in areas where we can see a return on that investment.

The kind of spending opposition parties should be talking about is how can a government spend to effect a return on its investments. We should eliminate the word spend and replace it with the word invest. At that time we can then look toward a return for our young people, so that we have some confidence that our young people will indeed continue to have a health care system with the five pillars that are so important to Canadian health care and that they will continue to have access to education.

We hear the criticism of the millennium fund “Give us the money but stay out of our way; we want to spend it; don't you do it”. This kind of parochial bickering should stop so that we can continue to build what truly is recognized around the world as the greatest country in which to live.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

I never claimed to be a brain surgeon. That coming from the Reform Party, I am not sure that a surgeon would even be needed. One might have trouble finding it. The hon. whip can rest assured that I have some points I wish to make about the Reform Party's position and on the fact that it just flips and flops depending on what happens to be in the newspaper.

I believe the entire research department of the Reform Party consists of the Globe and Mail , the Toronto Star and maybe one or two papers from out west from where Reform members all hail. They read the paper in the morning, find out what the issues are and then stand up in question period and say to spend more money and cut taxes. That is all they want to do.

The reality is that this government in being a responsible federal government understands the dynamics of a working relationship with the provinces. I will not deny for a minute the fact that the transfer payment floor was reduced from $12.5 billion to $11 billion. It has since been put back to $12.5 billion. I will not deny that, no question. Why did that happen?

The solution from opposition members is simple: spend more money. Where do we get the money when we are running an overdraft of $42 billion? I know they are tired of hearing about it but the reality is that something had to be done. This government along with the people of Canada had the courage to suck it up and do it. We had to make changes.

I find it astounding that a government like the Tory government in Ontario would not simply applaud the moves of this government. Even though that government has yet to eliminate its deficit, it is still running a deficit in handing back a tax cut to the taxpayers. How does that work? It is the same as saying to our kids that we are going to run a family overdraft but we are going to increase their allowance. At a certain point in time it is not possible to do that.

The message finally came from this government under this Prime Minister and this finance minister that we just simply had to cut the suit, we had to cut the cloth to fit the body. We had to start living within our means. That is exactly what this government has done. We have clearly stated what our priorities are. Debt reduction.

I believe that the vast majority of Canadians agree that debt reduction should be the number one priority of this government and any future government. We are saddling our children with a debt that is simply too large. We are all to blame for it, even those in this place who have never been in government and who have constantly pushed, prodded, lobbied and demonstrated—and I refer mostly to the NDP—for governments to spend more and more without any sense of responsibility.

All of us, the past Liberal governments, past Conservative governments and the opposition have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer to be more responsible with what we spend their money on. We are all culpable, liable and responsible for the size of the debt. It cannot continue.

If members opposite really want $2 billion—and I do not know why they are putting a limit on it by the way. It is entirely possible by the time the budget comes down that there could be more than that spent in health care. I do not know why they would do that, but I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time. Time will tell.

Should we do it in midstream? Sure we have a surplus and we acknowledge that it appears the surplus is in the neighbourhood of $10 billion. And we should be blamed for that is what I hear members opposite saying. Okay, fine, we will accept the blame for running a $10 billion surplus. Bad, bad Liberal Party. It is terrible. How did we get there? Of course we made adjustments in transfer payments. Of course we worked with our partners in the provinces, including the province of Quebec to see how to restructure the financial status of the country.