Madam Speaker, this morning, I heard the minister praise Bill C-14, which is only Bill C-101 reinstated under that new name after the hearing in committee.
The minister presented that bill as something totally new, something we could never hope for, something never yet submitted. The bill as such is not a bad one. I think we must be honest and, even if we are the opposition, admit that the minister meant well when he created what we will now call the Canadian Transportation Agency.
But, we are conferring powers to that office and this is where the minister should have paid attention to the recommendations of the opposition. Members of the opposition, even if they are Quebecers and sovereignists, are well aware of the fact that rail transportation in Canada, as air and sea transportation, has a great impact on their daily lives.
For example, the Reform member just spoke about mining companies owning private railways, such as the Wabush Mine and Iron Ore Company of Canada in Sept-Îles which also serves Labrador through the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway. So there are railways in Canada that will be affected by the provisions of the bill and by the regulations which will stem from it.
On that point, the minister should have listened to members of both opposition parties who made recommendations, because the Reform members also raised serious objections just as the members of the official opposition did.
Since party line rules in these committees, none of the proposals of the official opposition, none of the some 35 motions that we introduced, were accepted. Yet, they would have improved the bill and the transport industry in Canada, whether it be rail, air or maritime transport.
Personally, there is one thing I would like to tell the Minister of Transport. In the old days, last century, an independent colony had been set up because of the vastness of the country and, at the time, settlers were promised a dreamland, a country where remoteness, for example, would no longer be a problem.
They wanted to build a country then. Therefore, those who agreed to go further north, farther into the cold or into difficult terrain, in areas barely accessible, were told that people in large urban areas like Montreal, long before Toronto, were going to help pay the additional costs incurred because of the vastness of the country.
That view of things prevailed until recently, I would even say until today, but at least until 1987. Consequently people in remote areas knew that, despite everything, they would be in constant communication with the heart of the country, that is Montreal, Toronto or Ottawa, at a relatively reasonable cost. Of course, the real cost of operation was not fully reflected in what they paid since the community as a whole had chosen to assume a large part of these costs because people in remote areas were opening up new territories.
We know that an east-west railway was a main concern of the British government which feared at that time that Americans would push into Canada, court the settlers, and try to create a huge American entity. That was the main concern of the British government.
As you know, following the Halsbury Treaty of 1843, the British government had clearly defined borders between Canada and the United States. However, that border was contested especially in the west. American presidents who had expansionist views wanted their rights recognized, precisely at a time when the French speaking population-the friends of the hon. member for St. Boniface-was rebelling.
Even then, the Fenians, Irishmen living in the United States, had extremely expansionist designs. They tried to convince the American president to push toward the west, toward the north-west. That is what prevailed during the establishment of our railway system, our railways and much later, of course, air transportation.
Today this bill might be an attempt to achieve greater effectiveness. It is understandable that because of the globalization of markets-it is one of its effects-in order to be competitive we must-to put it rather inelegantly-"flush remote communities down the toilet" because they cost too much. The cost of serving them is invariably or inevitably reflected in average administrative costs and our transportation costs are a little bit higher than those of our neighbours. This is reflected in our production costs and our products as well.
It is probably in order to respond to market requirements under all kinds of treaties, dictates of trading in the year 2000, of modern trade, that the Canadian government, through this bill, is making a clean sweep of its past, completely denying the very rationale for our railway system.
I want to talk about the more legal aspect of the bill, because my colleagues, the hon. member in front of me and my friend from Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, have amply demonstrated the flaws in this bill. Without underestimating the seriousness of their judgments, which incidentally I agree with, I would like, neverthe-
less, to talk about the perhaps more regulatory or legislative aspect of the bill.
The government is creating a commission or at least is transforming a commission that already existed with certain powers, giving it a new name. Then it says clearly in the bill that this agency will have the powers of a court. This is not bad in itself. In our parliamentary system, there are many agencies that have quasi-judicial powers. But, to reinforce these powers, the bill says that the agency's decisions may be approved by a superior court in a province, for example, the Superior Court of Quebec, the supreme courts of the maritime provinces, for instance, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, and the other Supreme Courts of British Columbia.
So, the agency was given teeth, was given the power to use its teeth and also the power to regulate, to legislate, a delegated legislative power. Where I have something against this procedure, which tends to extend to almost all government services at the present time, is that, once the agencies are created, parliamentary control is non-existent. Parliament does not have control over its agency any more.
The agency may edict regulations and determine whether they are appropriate or not. In short, an agency is asked to do the legislative work instead of the legislator. Within the bill, the minister still retains the power to intervene, perhaps in a slightly arbitrary manner, because he would not be called on to intervene by this House, but at his own discretion. He is the only judge of the appropriateness of the intervention; only he can decide whether the intervention is justified or not. He may, through the governor in council, make regulations or directions for the Canadian Transportation Agency, but without consulting the House in any way.
This is where it becomes sad. When we look at this, after the bills that were introduced last session-I am thinking specifically of Bill C-62 on regulation, and also Bill C-84, which amended the Statutory Instruments Act-we see that the government is showing great single-mindedness. All it is trying to do at this point is to push aside those who were elected to think, to discuss, to develop, to set objectives. It is faster to push us aside, thus allowing them to move forward without being tripped up.
Although this may sometimes be desirable, what will happen to Canada's railway system 15 or 20 years from now, for example? Even the minister would be unable to tell us, because he has no vision, no long term policy for developing Canada's railways. I think this government is showing us that it has thrown up its hands. It is selling off Canada's railways a little more slowly so as to save the best assets, but still moving inexorably toward their total dismantling. The government does not, however, have the courage to admit this to the people. The government goes all over the place boasting about this great country with communications from coast to coast, from east to west, from north to south, when it is in fact systematically shutting down our railway system.
I was looking at clause 25. Here we have a legal device of which we are becoming increasingly aware. The government creates an agency that is responsible for developing policies and regulations and, by virtue of its status as a superior court, judging those who could violate or be subject to these regulations. So, this court is no longer independent. It is losing its independence because it is responsible for both making legislation and enforcing it.
In our parliamentary system, we all know that when questioning the validity of a law, we can go before a tribunal that hopefully is independent. It is a bit like a divorce, where one party wishes to appear before the divorce court having jurisdiction in the area, while the other says: "Oh no. We will not take this matter to a common law court, but to my mother. She is the one who will decide who is right."
Can you imagine where this could lead? We could end up with decisions that would be legal monsters. This is precisely what we are about to do with this agency, with the new powers we are giving it, powers that are completely unlimited.
The Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations is specially appointed by the Speaker of the House and mandated by Parliament to study subordinate legislation. It acts as a watchdog for rights conferred by statute.
This committee has no interest in having a regulation quashed, replaced or enforced. Its only purpose is to verify compliance between regulations and the statutes that have been adopted and enacted by Parliament. For 20 or 25 years, this committee has reported regularly to the House, and the government has responded to its reports. Not so long ago, as we were submitting a report to the House, ministers wrote us saying: "Yes, we do realize that such subordinate legislation is justified, or is not justified".
Here, it is no longer possible. What monitoring power does Parliament have over an agency whose decisions are final and may not be appealed, as per clause 25? None. There is no such power left. Is the government trying to render Parliament ineffectual? Is it trying to transform it into an empty shell? Is it trying to turn the 300 or so members in this House into insignificant bystanders?
Everything will be decided by a few ministers who are close to the Prime Minister. From now on, these people will control practically all of Canada's economic, social and political development. We must put a stop to that. This can no longer go on. Where will this take us?
Earlier, we referred to Bill C-62. Public servants, we do not know which ones exactly-either at the top or the bottom-had the power to set standards that could be complied with, or not, subject to an exemption or a fee, or provided an alternative solution could
be found. This opened the doors wide to the lobbyists in Canada, and was unheard of.
Some weeks or months before, the Prime Minister had talked about introducing a bill. That was done with Bill C-41, which dealt with lobbyists on Parliament Hill. So, there is an incredible discrepancy between the statements made by ministers taken together, and those made by a minister alone. There is something wrong.
If government members will not do it officially, I ask them to at least tell their ministers, in caucus, that they have to shape up because the situation no longer makes sense.
In the end, we will hear about bills and acts of Parliament by reading about them in the newspapers, and the decisions will have been made by a handful of people. Consultation and democracy are on the way out in this country. So, as far as the regulatory powers are concerned, they will have to be reviewed, frankly, because we are in the process of making terrible mistakes.
I would like to deal briefly also with clause 104 and the following clauses of the bill. When the bill deals with mortgages, it is to allow mortgaging by SLR, the definition of which escapes me, but it relates to small, secondary railways.
