Lee Morrison

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe we are debating the amendments and the hon. member is speaking to the bill.

[Petitions, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my final petition is signed by 724 residents of Saskatchewan, again from widely separated communities.

The federal and provincial governments are poised to raise the Canada pension plan's contribution rate from 5.85% to 9.9%, a $10 billion tax increase or $1,380 per year for the average taxpayer and his or her employer. Canadians cannot afford such a massive tax increase to support a pension plan that is unsustainable and will probably lead to further tax increases. A mandatory defined contribution, fully funded, privately managed plan or mandatory retirement savings plan would address the deficiencies of the CPP and negate the necessity of perpetual tax increases.

Therefore the petitioners request that parliament reject any further CPP premium increases and enact legislation that would abolish the CPP and replace it with an MRSP.

[Petitions, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have another petition bearing 1,048 signatures from many different districts in Saskatchewan which I will not attempt to name.

Because the financial statements of the Government of Canada have recorded annual deficits since 1970, which have led to a net federal public debt of over half a trillion dollars, because funding for public interest groups by the federal government is partly responsible for creating that public debt, and because these public interest groups further their own interests and force other Canadians to subsidize their causes, whether they agree with them or not, the petitioners call on parliament to eliminate all funding of public interest groups in each and every forthcoming budget of the Government of Canada.

[Petitions, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I also have two petitions from residents of my riding containing a total 71 signatures.

The gist of their petition is that whereas the majority of Canadians understand marriage to be a voluntary union of an unmarried male and an unmarried female, and whereas it is parliament's duty to ensure that marriage, as it has always been known and understood in Canada, be preserved and protected, therefore the petitioners pray that parliament enact legislation such as Bill C-225 to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Petitions, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions. The first two petitions are part of the continuing saga with respect to Bill C-68. The petitioners are residents of the districts of Nipawin, White Fox and Swift Current.

Basically these identical petitions express the opinion of the petitioners that C-68 will be a virtually unenforceable bill, that it will have no effect on criminal activity, and that it would constitute a breach of traditional civil liberties and be an affront to law abiding Canadians.

Therefore these petitioners call on parliament to repeal Bill C-68 and all associated regulations with respect to firearms or ammunition and to pass due legislation designed to severely penalize the criminal use of any weapon.

These two petitions are signed by 139 people which brings to 4,537 the number of petitioners who have contacted me recently on this matter.

[Division No. 265, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the member for Halifax West. I think he misconstrues the intent of the amendments in Group No. 2, which is to protect existing small businesses.

I fully concur with his remarks concerning the little restaurant, the great service he gets and how hard the owner works. Full marks for that lady and full marks for the business. These amendments are aimed at preventing somebody from moving in and setting up another restaurant right beside it and getting a government loan which would allow it to unfairly compete and put that poor woman out of business. We have seen that happen in Saskatchewan. It is not an uncommon phenomenon.

In my part of Saskatchewan and in that part represented by the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain the towns and villages are dying. The small businesses that remain are hanging on by their fingernails. When another business moves in to a place where there cannot possibly be room for two, and that business has a small business loan or a government grant, the business that is already there and just barely hanging on goes down first. Then the business that came in with government help usually goes down within a couple of years because it does not have the feel for the market nor does it have the skills of the business that had survived in that place for two or three generations. Instead of having one struggling business making it on its own, we end up with nothing, thanks to the beneficence of our government in backing these loans.

That type of interference with the marketplace is not good for society. I am not here to get into a long ideological harangue about the free market. We can debate that at another time and in another place. I am sure the hon. member for Halifax West and I could have a wonderful time debating that. We are debating a specific government bill and some proposed amendments to it which, in our eyes, would make it a better bill.

I know there are men and women in small business on the benches opposite. I have talked to some of them and they appear to be very reasonable folks. I think that in their hearts they understand what we are talking about in these amendments.

I would be surprised if there is a member in this House who has not had someone say to him or her “A new business has opened just down the street from an existing business providing a similar type of service in my hometown. It looks like the new business is going to put the old one out of business. We think it must have got a small business loan or a grant”.

There is this cynical outlook. Whenever anybody starts a business in a place where conditions do not look good, the public immediately concludes it was done with government help and by George, I think that 90% of the time the public is right. That is not the way to run a country. However when push comes to shove and the big shepherd holds up his staff, those people over there who understand this phenomenon and who are small business people all say “baa” in unison and the bill passes. This is not parliament as it was intended to be, which brings me to the matter of time allocation.

We are now debating with a gun at our heads. In the 35th Parliament the government used time allocation 32 times and closure three times. In this the 36th Parliament the government has already used time allocation nine times.

Instead of calling this the House of Commons, perhaps we should rename it the Dumas or the Reichstag because this is not parliament as parliament was intended to be. This is contrary to 300 years of tradition. It is contrary to the way that this parliament operated for the first half century or more of its life.

I believe closure was first used in this House by Borden. It was used extremely sparingly right up until the Trudeau administration. Then they started to lay it on heavier. Even that administration did not use it as many times in the several incarnations that it had as this government has used it in the last five years. The Mulroney government used it more extensively and with a heavier hand than the Trudeau administration but it was still a piker compared to this administration which is now routinely using it. The government uses time allocation time after time after time, no pun intended, and for no reason.

If there is an extremely important bill in the hopper and the opposition is being a little obstreperous and the bill has to get through or the country will collapse the next day at six o'clock in the morning, then yes. The technique was put in for a reason, but it was not put in to be used frivolously or habitually.

This is an affront to the traditions of parliamentary democracy. It is an affront which is practised routinely by this government. That is wrong. We have to get back to the tradition that parliament, not cabinet, but parliament is the overall authority in the country. Regardless of what the cabinet wants, parliament should be free to debate the issues of the day for as long as parliament wants and in any way it wants.

The heavy-handed manipulation has to stop. The whole institution is falling into disrepute. Unfortunately, people outside this place do not take us very seriously any more. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you have run into comments of this nature in your riding.

About three or four years ago I was severely taken to task by a clergyman in my riding for having made a comment to the effect that under the system of parliamentary democracy as it has evolved in Canada, we now have a system of an elected dictatorship somewhat akin to what there was in certain periods in ancient Rome. He was irate. He said that was disrespectful of the country and its traditions. A few weeks ago I met this gentleman at a function and he said “You were right”. And I was right. This place is decaying because we no longer observe the democratic traditions.

It is a sad thing for me to have to stand and make these remarks about an institution of which I am a part, but I think it is time for a little honesty and a little truth. I am not alone in my views. This view is widely held outside this place. It is hurting us, it is hurting the institution, and it is severely damaging Canada.

[Railway Safety Act, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to address this bill which I am sure everyone here finds extremely fascinating.

Bill C-58 was introduced on November 5. Now a mere 15 days later, which happens in this case to be only six sitting days, we are debating it at second reading. The Standing Committee on Transport may consider this bill as soon as next Tuesday which is eight sitting days after its first reading. Do I smell a whiff of prorogation in the air?

When I gave a few stakeholders a heads up as to what was happening, they were quite astonished and not at all amused. I understand that some of them are already prepared to appear on short notice and that they have contacted the committee clerk. The minister has been sitting on this legislation for several weeks, like a hen sitting on an egg and now suddenly it is full speed ahead.

This is reminiscent of what went on a year ago with the marine act, Bill C-9, essentially a good piece of legislation that was seriously flawed in a couple of places with regard to financing. There were stakeholders who were extremely upset about it but they were not heard. Now, a year later, the flaws in the bill are already coming back to haunt us, specifically relative to the port of Halifax.

This is a safety bill. Safety is a relative term. It means different things to different people. In the transportation sector the word safety is often used and has been used to promote some dubious proposals, demands and schemes. There are people who do not understand that there is no such thing as absolute safety.

If we wanted absolute transportation safety, I suppose we could all travel by foot, however we would still run the risk of breaking a leg. A less drastic but equally unacceptable measure would be to lower speed limits for all modes of transportation and make such things as airline tickets and automobiles beyond the purchasing power of most people. Certainly we would be safer but modern society with its emphasis on convenience, time and cost effectiveness would never tolerate such restrictions. The question then becomes one of what level of safety we are prepared to accept.

The Railway Safety Act is a relatively new piece of legislation. Bill C-58 seeks to legislate amendments recommended by the statutory five year review committee, as has been explained by the parliamentary secretary.

The review committee's report was tabled in parliament in February 1995. It recommended 69 amendments to streamline railway safety and to reduce the bureaucratic burden. The government introduced Bill C-43 in May 1996 incorporating 60 of the 69 recommendations, but the bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called in April 1997.

The 1995 report described the railway mode as an extremely safe means of moving freight and people in this country. Indeed the report found that Canadian railways have a good safety record when compared with other modes of transportation and when compared to other countries' rail operations. The report also noted that work related safety of railways and the manner in which their operations are carried out have clearly shown improvement. The picture painted by the Transportation Safety Board however is a little murkier.

Main track train derailments increased by 75% over the last nine years, from 101 in 1988 to 177 in 1997. We seem to be running tracks along the right of way instead of on the rails in this country. Occurrences of train collisions on main tracks have increased by 44%.

There is some good news. Accidents at road crossings have decreased by 39% over the same period. More good news is the total personal injury accidents for all types of rail related incidents have decreased by almost 80% since 1988. The number of total fatalities is quite low and it has not changed much in the last nine years.

In response to the 1997 fatal derailment of a VIA passenger train at Biggar, Saskatchewan, the minister announced that he would delay reintroduction of these amendments to the Railway Safety Act in order to further study other possible improvements.

Unlike its predecessor, Bill C-58 will now require railway companies to draw up and implement safety management systems. These systems will have to be vetted and approved by the minister. The minister may also order a railway company to take necessary corrective measures if he believes that the safety management system is deficient.

There is unfortunately no avenue to appeal a ministerial order to an independent tribunal, a tribunal similar perhaps to the Civil Aviation Tribunal. There is a rumour that Transport Canada is planning a Canada transportation tribunal for rail, aviation, marine and pipelines. I sincerely hope that the rumour is true.

One curious change from Bill C-43 was the omission of an amendment which would have explicitly given railways the right of way through road crossings. I am not a rail safety expert but it seems to me to be plain common sense that road crossing users should yield to a train. Trains are bigger.

Bill C-58 goes further than its predecessor in that it increases the powers of railway safety inspectors, particularly over road crossings. This includes broadening the inspectors' access authority and their authority to obtain documents in order to enforce the act. There are concerns again that there is no established independent venue to appeal the decisions of railway safety inspectors.

Another new amendment will insert a policy statement itemizing the objectives of the act directly into the legislation. These objectives include: promotion and provision of safety for the public and employees; protection of property; stakeholder collaboration and participation; the recognition that railway safety is primarily the responsibility of railway companies. Flexibility, efficiency and modernity are the new catch phrases for Canada's rail safety regulatory system.

In its 1995 report the review committee recommended that Canada's rail safety system be made non-prescriptive and industry driven. It advocated improvements to the overall safety framework but recommended leaving the details to the appropriate authorities. Bill C-58 therefore contains a number of technical amendments to streamline the regulatory process and reduce red tape.

The streamlined safety regulatory system proposed by Bill C-58 can be summarized as follows: the government continues to set rail safety standards; the railway companies decide after consulting with other stakeholders what safety rules are necessary and how best to meet those standards; and the government approves the rules, allows for exemptions, monitors for compliance and when necessary, enforces.

The new regime will also provide temporary regulatory exemptions to railway companies for the purpose of conducting tests related to rail transportation. The proposed regulatory regime will also require that the railways consult interested organizations as part of their process for creating operational safety rules and also when applying for exemptions from them.

Bill C-58 seeks to improve the provisions for the security of railway property. It includes a new designation, screening officers to screen persons or goods before they are taken on board a train or into a restricted area such as a freight yard. The terms of reference for screening are very similar to those currently practised by airlines and in airports.

With respect to road crossings, most MPs are probably already very familiar with the whistling issue. Many constituents and municipalities have sought help from their federal representatives to shepherd them through the whistling removal process.

Whistling through road crossings is an important safety tool, but the noise can torment people living close to a railway line. The new legislation is still somewhat convoluted, but any simplification of the removal process will be welcomed by communities requesting the cessation of whistling through residential areas, provided of course that other safety requirements are met.

Bill C-58 will also strengthen and clarify federal regulatory powers over road crossings, including legislating ministerial authority over the construction, alteration and maintenance of such crossings, and making regulations respecting the control of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on road approaches to crossings. Cabinet will have the power to require railway companies, road authorities or persons who have rights to a crossing to conduct a safety review of that crossing following an accident.

One significant change to existing rules is the section of Bill C-58 which will authorize road authorities to enter onto any land in the vicinity of the crossing to cut down overgrown trees or brush perceived to be a hazard to safe railway operations. However, the government has neglected to tie up some loose ends pointed out to it by stakeholders in committee the last time around. Specifically, municipalities expressed concerns over potential liability. They also wanted to know who will pay for brush clearing, the local taxpayers or the railways. Good question.

In conclusion, although Bill C-58 is necessarily limited in scope, in fact most of it, if we cut through all the thickets, seems to apply in one way or another to road crossings and is a step in the right direction toward greater railway safety. Although the proposed amendments appear to be good ones, the bill is highly technical. I want to hear from the stakeholders in committee before passing judgment. I do hope that we will be given the time to do that.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I was just getting going. Actually, I have no question. I just wanted to get a few things off my chest.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Yes, mother government knows best.

If the Liberals would look at their rather checkered record, if I may use a more polite term, in their relations with the provinces, they would realize why that anger is out there. He said that in spite of the massive cuts—

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga went on for great lengths about the hostility of Canadians toward Ottawa and toward his government in particular. He seems to be mystified by this. If he would just listen to his own condescending bombast he would understand why the rest of Canada hates this place so much and why Canadians feel the way they do about Ottawa. He is the epitome of what is wrong. He almost turns me into a separatist when I listen to him.

The member spoke about the relationship between spending and responsibility. He used the analogy of youngsters leaving home and wanting to hang on to their allowance. I would submit that he has it completely reversed because what has happened in the relationships between this government and the provinces is that the Government of Canada entered into solemn agreements with the provinces. It was going to contribute 50% of the cost of health care and in return the federal government would have a very strong hand in managing and organizing the direction of Canadian health care. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Now it has cut contributions down to roughly 11% or 12% of the total cost yet it still wants to keep its heavy hand on the provinces and control, control, control, and that is spelled L-i-b-e-r-a-l.