Lee Morrison

[Petitions, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour of presenting five petitions similar in content from Saskatchewan residents of the five following districts: Weyburn, Wapella, Rocanville, Oxbow, Macklin and Cut Knife.

The five petitions have a cumulative total of 694 signatures. This will bring to 1,291 the number of signatures on petitions I have presented recently with respect to Bill C-68.

The petitioners point out that Bill C-68, which was by the way promoted partly on the basis of falsified data, will not impede the criminal use of firearms and will impose a major unnecessary burden on law enforcement officers.

They therefore call upon parliament to repeal Bill C-68 and all associated regulations and to pass new legislation designed to severely penalize the criminal use of any weapon.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1998, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's dissertation by and large was motherhood. He is saying that we have to keep the world clean and protect our environment. I do not think anyone questions that.

I have a little problem, though, with his philosophy that it is only a benevolent and all powerful federal government that can look after the interest of the general public.

Surely in this day and age with the examples we have seen over the last 50 or 60 years in the world, or in Canada just within the last decade, of the results of federal benevolence we should go slowly in that regard.

However that is not the main point I picked up as a point of dispute. I really have a problem with people in certain branches of the environmental movement who use the argument that we can never be certain about anything before we take action, that we have to take a preventive stance even if we do not know what we are doing, just in case.

This reminds me to some extent of what might have happened in a medieval society where after a period of ongoing crop failures the finger was pointed at some poor old lady in a village and they said she did it, that it was her fault, that she cast an evil spell. They were not sure. They could not prove it so they played safe. The safest thing they could do was to burn her and not worry about logic. They did not worry about debate or, in the case of the hon. member's presentation, they did not worry about science.

What on earth do we have highly paid experts for? Why do we have universities? Why do we have research institutes if we are not to take seriously both the negatives and the positives of their work? Why must we get side tracked and say “It might be toxic. It might be dangerous. Therefore let's be sure. Let's get rid of it and do the science later?” That is a backward way of operating.

[Petitions, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of identical petitions bearing a total of 1,236 signatures from residents of west central Saskatchewan.

These people in rural Saskatchewan are very concerned about the imminent threat to their railroads which are in the process of piecemeal abandonment by Canadian National railway. They are at this time attempting to negotiate with the railroad to have piecemeal abandonment stopped and wish to buy all the track in the area, some 300 miles of track, from the railroad.

The petitioners ask parliament that CN be required to abide by the spirit of the law and make available for purchase the branch line in its entirety.

Second, they want parliament to review the Canada Transportation Act to ensure that railways cannot obstruct the creation of short line railways on branch lines that they intend to discontinue.

[Petitions, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have two more petitions with respect to the Trans-Canada death strip between Gull Lake, Saskatchewan and the Alberta border. There are 195 signatures from residents close to that piece of highway. This brings the total signatures to 2,119 that I have presented in this House on this issue.

The petitioners point out that although the maintenance of highways is constitutionally a provincial responsibility, the federal government has a responsibility to help with the maintenance of the Trans-Canada system.

The Government of Saskatchewan is about to proceed without federal help in twinning this highway. The petitioners call upon Parliament to instruct its servants to begin negotiations with Saskatchewan to jointly fund the construction of two additional lanes on the death strip.

[Canada Shipping Act, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was rather amused at the hon. member's long preamble in which he thanked everybody in sight for their co-operative efforts in this bill. He included the Standing Committee on Transport.

I believe the current standing committee had about as much input into this legislation as I will have into the election of the next pope.

There is an interesting coincidence here that we are debating Bill S-4, a bill relating to marine liability, just after the signing of a new international agreement on inter-regional action to eliminate substandard shipping. On March 24 and 25 delegations from 33 marine nations, European commissions, the International Maritime Organization and the International Labour Organization all gathered in Vancouver to discuss the tightening and control of safety, labour and environmental standards of merchant vessels

There was a remarkable degree of consensus on the need to continue stringent inspections and to control vessels, especially bulk carriers and tankers when they enter seaports. There was also agreement in principle on the international exchange of inspection data in order to establish black lists of consistently offending vessels which would then be barred from the ports of all nationals represented at the conference.

International control of the safety of ships received its greatest impetus just 20 years ago with the grounding and break-up of the Amoco Cadiz off the coast of France. This led to stringent European port state control under the Paris memorandum of understanding of 1982. The Paris memorandum of understanding provided the pattern for the Tokyo memorandum in 1993, a memorandum of which Canada was a founding member. Canada subsequently joined the Paris MOU in 1994. Canada and Russia are therefore members of both groups, the only two countries that are.

Under these memoranda any ship which has not been inspected by a co-operating state during the previous six months, most bulk carriers and tankers and all passenger vessels are subject to inspection upon arrival at a seaport. The inspection target for each country in the Paris memorandum is 25%. For the Tokyo memorandum it is 50% of ships in the entire region with most inspections taking place in the wealthier countries, very few in the less developed.

The number of substandard ships plying the seas is mind boggling. Of 29,700 ships subjected to port inspections in 1996, 8% had to be detained in port until they remedied deficiencies. In Canada the rate of detentions for the last two years has been 10%. Deficiencies may range all the way from substandard crew accommodations through defective or inadequate firefighting or lifesaving equipment to structural defects so severe that a vessel is quite literally unseaworthy. The latter of course are disasters waiting to happen.

The names of detained vessels are published quarterly as a warning to other port authorities to give them special attention. These reports are also available to shippers who might wish to be somewhat selective of those to whom they entrust their goods.

Unfortunately rogue vessels operating below standards or at the thin edge of acceptability may offer rates as much as 15% below those of legitimate carriers.

An ongoing problem referred to by almost every national delegation at the conference is the failure of flag states to enforce adequate standards at their end. One delegate compared flag state control to the fence at the top of a cliff and port state control to the ambulance sitting at the bottom. If states offering flags of convenience were diligent or even interested in marine safety, receiving ports would not have to be nearly so diligent and the necessity to detain vessels for repair would be much less common.

However, with most trading nations now subscribing to port control of vessels, it is becoming increasingly difficult for unsafe ships to find a berth. Moreover, the practice of naming and shaming ships that have been detained points fingers at the flag states with the lowest standards and will tend to discourage insurers and responsible shippers from doing business with ships carrying those flags.

On the whole the conference was one of those rare international frolics that actually reached some useful conclusions and which should contribute to greater co-operation and information sharing to the general benefit of all countries.

A cursory overview of the new maximum liabilities set out in Bill S-4 clearly indicates that the minor costs of port inspections compared to the costs of major marine disasters, not to mention the preservation of human lives and protection of the environment, make inspections one of the world's best investments.

With the ever increasing co-operation between maritime nations with respect to safety and marine liability it is important that our liability legislation be harmonized with that of other countries. Bill S-4 accomplishes this. Increased liabilities will add a little to the cost of marine insurance but commercial vessels insured in mutual protection and indemnity associations will probably see no substantive increase in insurance rates because coverage already provided by mutual associations is unlimited. Their rates are already proportionately high. Pleasure crafts are mostly already insured to the levels of liability set forth in Bill S-4, much as private automobiles usually have far more coverage than the minimum required by law.

There is no question that commercial shipowners not covered in mutual associations will have increased insurance costs. The new rates based on the size and frequency of claims will be an encouragement to commercial shippers to maintain a decent safety record. If all major maritime states subscribe to the new regime the costs of insurance which are ultimately borne by shippers through higher rates should be evenly and more or less equitably distributed among the trading nations.

One of the most important features of this bill is that the limit of liability on an oil spill by a tanker not covered by a mutual association will be increased from $120 million per incident to $270 million. That may not be too relevant because I believe that most tankers are in mutual associations and therefore have unlimited liability. For the few cases where there are ships with nothing but their individual insurance policies, that very large increase in the limit of liability is very significant. The oil spill liability limits for smaller ships will also be increased but these increases will be proportionate to their gross tonnage.

All in all, Bill S-4 is useful legislation. The Reform Party supports Bill S-4 even though we are going to have hold our noses with regard to its origin in hog hollow, that other place down the hall.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would hasten to let the speaker know before I begin that I do not intend to follow the pattern of the member for Verchères and to address my remarks specifically to the concerns of one province. I will speak to this bill as a Canadian.

I am pleased to stand as the official opposition critic to address Bill C-36, the budget implementation act.

Part VIII of the legislation addresses the phase-out of the air transportation tax levied on air travel as a percentage of ticket prices. Coinciding with this phase-out is the commencement of NavCan's user fees for large aircraft and for the reduction of federal funding for this not for profit corporation which was created to provide air navigation services on a commercial basis.

The air transport tax will be completely off the books by November 1, 1998. At that time NavCan will be cut off as planned from government funding and will have to operate on its own. That is the way it should work. Once a government service has been commercialized and is financed by charging fees to those who use it, the taxes previously collected to pay for the service should be reduced. Otherwise the result is double taxation.

Unfortunately this is what we may see happening to operators of light aircraft. Although November 1 is also the date for the commencement of NavCan user fees for small aircraft, there is no plan to ease the tax burden on the general aviation sector.

The Reform Party is a great supporter of user pay, but operators of light aircraft are already paying and paying and paying increased Transport Canada charges and new airport user fees, for example, the infamous fee to pee that so many pilots talk about.

Particularly galling is the excise tax on aviation gasoline which is poured into the government's general revenues. Aviation gasoline is taxed at a much higher rate than jet fuel. Jumbo planes fuel up and pay 4 cents of excise tax per litre while the tax rate for aviation gasoline is 11 cents, a full 7 cents per litre difference.

It is not in our national interest to charge and tax general aviation into the ground. Commercial aviation needs a healthy general aviation sector to be its pilot recruiting and training ground. That is the way it has always been. However, in the face of spiralling costs in the form of taxes and fees the number of licensed pilots in Canada has been steadily decreasing for years. Double taxation of operators of light aircraft will only make matters worse.

Canada must not follow the example of some European countries which have killed private flying by overregulating airspace. These countries are now forced to seek foreign pilots to fly commercial aircraft.

I have noticed a good omen. The finance minister has received a letter from NavCan's president proposing a solution to the problem. NavCan has requested that the 7 cents per litre difference in excise tax rates levied on jet fuel and on aviation gasoline be eliminated, and that NavCan be permitted to collect a similar amount from aviation gasoline sales to finance air navigation services for smaller aircraft.

I urge the finance minister to carefully consider NavCan's proposal. It is only fair to offer a revenue neutral, user pay system to the operators of small aircraft similar to the deal being given to major operators of commercial aircraft.

It is also solid common sense to tie fuel consumption to financing the air navigation service. This way there is not only no double taxation of light aircraft operators but heavy users of light aircraft would automatically pay more than infrequent weekend flyers. Equally important, NavCan would not have to waste money and effort tracking down and invoicing individual pilots.

As air transportation taxes are the sole transportation issue deemed worthy of a mention in Bill C-36, I would like to use my remaining time on a more general issue. I have to admit that I am somewhat encouraged by the budget being balanced for the first time since 1969. However, my enthusiasm evaporates when I consider how the Liberals managed to do it. It was not done by cutting wasteful spending. Of this I can assure the House. The Liberals continue to spend money, coddling their corporate darlings such as Bombardier and Power Corp, not to mention simply squandering money on things like the free flag program.

The Liberals brought the balanced budget into being by increasing taxes 37 times, by slashing health and education transfers to the provinces and by hoarding big UI surpluses so that they could disguise an ongoing deficit. It is truly the Canadian taxpayers who dislodged the deficit as increased revenues actually counted for 69% of deficit reduction.

Spending days are back. First there was redbook two in which tax relief and debt reduction were given second billing to spending. Now the budget makes it abundantly clear that the Liberals have not learned a thing. What we are witnessing now is a foolish rush to spend any surplus to maintain unity within the Liberal caucus: pork, pork, pork.

Rather than basing its spending plans on contingency reserves, the government has displayed its contempt for debt reduction by essentially arguing that it is not necessary: don't worry, be happy.

Rather than consolidating the budget balance so that it stays balanced during the next economic downturn, the government could not wait to start spending again. Thus we have more than two dozen spending increases, totalling over $10 billion over the next three years.

Liberals seem to feel that they have to be big spenders even though Canadians would be happy with a responsible government that provided stable funding for the things Canadians count on, those things that governments do best such as health care, a national highway system and education. The Liberals cannot resist grand gestures like the new millennium scholarship fund.

I hate to be cynical but I am afraid this place eventually makes all of us a bit cynical. When considering spending projects, the government's number one concern is to get the lion's share of any glory to be gained. I wish the government would think of how it could best help Canadians rather than how to use taxpayers' money to boost the its political profile. How else can the millennium scholarship fund be explained, except as a gesture to boost the government's profile?

First, the fund is not about post-secondary education. It will not restore slashed education funding or provide students and parents with tax relief so that they can better afford to save for tuition and repay student loans. It is the same old malarkey, the tax and spend approach. If the Liberals were so concerned about education, why do they not just return some of the $7 billion they took away from the provinces in transfer payments?

If they are such defenders of post-secondary education, why did they do away with the Mulroney scholarships program which was really the same as the millennium scholarship fund? It was another political ploy like the one we are getting now. I predict that the ultimate fate of the millennium scholarship program will be the same as it was for the Mulroney scholarships as soon as that one time political benefit has been exhausted.

I am heartbroken. I could have gone on for another 20 minutes on the millennium fund.

[Petitions, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition bearing 567 signatures from residents of Saskatchewan has to do with firearms control and specifically with Bill C-68 which the petitioners say would be a major unnecessary burden on law enforcement officers.

The petitioners further state that the search and seizure provisions of the bill would constitute a breach of traditional civil liberties and an affront to law-abiding Canadians.

Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon parliament to repeal Bill C-68 and all associated regulations with respect to firearms or ammunition and to pass new legislation designed to severely penalize the criminal use of any weapons.

[Petitions, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. Two of them are very similar in form and content. They follow several other petitions that I have previously presented on this subject.

There are 681 signatures from residents of my riding who live adjacent to the infamous Trans-Canada death strip. The Saskatchewan government has recently announced plans to do some upgrading on the death strip and to start twinning. So far the federal government has not offered to contribute its share.

The petitioners say that, notwithstanding the constitutional division of powers, the federal government has a responsibility to assist provinces with upgrading sub-standard sections of the Trans-Canada Highway.

The petitioners humbly pray and call upon parliament to instruct its servants to immediately commence negotiations with the Government of Saskatchewan to jointly fund the upgrading of this vital national transportation link by constructing two additional lanes.

[Firearms, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has tabled 142 pages of firearms regulations just in time for April Fool's Day. We can all breathe easily now because violent criminals are going to be lining up to get possession licences and to register their guns which, once registered, will be non-lethal.

The $85 million price tag forecast by the previous minister has already been exceeded by a multiple of three with nothing to show for it. There is plenty of money for this idiocy but nothing to upgrade the national highway system. That is something that would really save lives, but it would not give the pleasure, the rush, that Liberals get from stepping on the necks of their fellow citizens.

Safe highways are unaffordable but there will be hundreds of millions of dollars for this useless bureaucratic exercise in people control.

[Railways, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of Canadian taxpayers who cannot help but wonder if the ministerial musings of the Minister of Transport about the need for public-private partnerships to revitalize the passenger rail system might be just another excuse to scratch the back of a Liberal friendly company.

I would like to know just what the plans on the table are for a sweetheart deal for that perpetual Liberal darling, Bombardier.