Lee Morrison

[British Columbia Treaty Commission, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was a little bemused at the secretary's remarks with respect to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville's question on treaty cards and DNA. I would expect that a secretary of state could recognize a bit of sarcasm when he sees it.

The secretary must be aware that there is a stampede of people who have just a few drops of aboriginal blood trying to get their hands on treaty cards. If he thinks this is not a problem, he should consult with the band councils that have to deal with this and the problems created by Bill C-31. The secretary has to be aware that treaty cards have become articles of commerce. If he is not aware of this, he should not be secretary of state. If he is, he should not pretend to misunderstand the member for Yorkton-Melville.

With regard to the question of apartheid and who has it and who does not, it does strike me as curious that while South Africa is doing away with apartheid, the secretary of state advocates and applauds the establishment of homelands within the Dominion of Canada. I think we should be moving beyond all of that and be talking about one Canada, not a whole bunch of little enclaves divided on the basis of race and history. I know all that was irrelevant to Bill C-107, but it was a response to the irrelevant remarks of the secretary of state.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 17th, 1995]

So stand up and be counted.

[Employment Equity Act, October 17th, 1995]

This is Liberal logic. When I came to the House today I did not intend to speak to the bill. However I had to get up because I was so incensed by the remarks of some people opposite. I do not have a long, prepared speech and therefore having made my case I will return to my seat.

[Employment Equity Act, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when I read Bill C-64 for the first time I could not help but wonder if George Orwell might have had something to do with its drafting. Most people have read the book Animal Farm and would remember the pig who made the famous statement so often quoted: ``All animals are equal but some are more equal than others''.

That is the sort of thing the bill will create in Canada. The bill is not about equality. It is not about putting people on an equal footing. It is quite the contrary. It is about creating divisions among us. It is about creating different classifications of Canadians. That is wrong.

We have long had a public policy of hiring and promoting by merit. It is also generally the policy in private industry. A speaker earlier said if we do not hire by merit we will very quickly go broke. When we hire by merit and if the meritorious person happens to be within one of the designated groups in the legislation, obviously the person should and would get the job.

Rather than being about the equality of persons the legislation is about the Liberal propensity for regulating, controlling, creating bureaucracy and in general getting in people's faces. Why do we not leave people alone? Canada is working very well. Canadians are basically good people, people of goodwill. We are friends. We have a multiracial society. It is working. Why do we have to poke our finger in a wound that the government will create by itself? It is nonsense.

I worked overseas both in a private capacity and for several years with the United Nations on a large number of highly motivated, highly skilled technical teams. They were multiracial. They were not multiracial because somebody wanted them to be. They were multiracial because applicants had been selected from all over the world for these jobs and they took the best. We were the best and we were proud of it. If they had been created by affirmative action programs I would not have had anything to do with those groups. I would have slunk away and hid.

This will happen in Canadian society if affirmative action is enforced. We will see very good, capable people belonging to minority groups that have jobs either in private industry or in government but feel self-conscious, demeaned and patronized. There will always be a question hanging over their heads about whether they got their jobs because of qualifications and ability or a bit of tokenism. Were they hired because of colour, race, language, gender, or whatever? Government has no place getting involved in telling people who they can or should not hire. It is offensive. It is wrong.

I was probably campaigning for equality of races before most members of the House were born. I recall when I was a young teenager collecting the occasional lump because of my curious attitude on the matter. I find it terribly offensive that some members opposite who spoke earlier had a self-righteous and smug attitude toward me and my fellow party members. They inferred that because we opposed their racist legislation we were racists. They are turning sociology on its head.

[Canada Transportation Act, October 2nd, 1995]

In P.E.I.

[Canada Transportation Act, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion to refer Bill C-101 to committee prior to second reading.

This massive document is supposed to be the first step in moving toward a rail system that will survive into the 21st century. It falls a little short. The rail transportation system has undergone major changes in the past decades but nothing compared to what is needed to ensure its future contributions to Canada's transportation needs.

The end of the Crow signalled the end of federal government subsidization of the railway companies. The rail companies must now be wholly dependent upon consumers paying for their services which is a novel idea in a country that has historically fostered government dependency.

We commend the Liberal government for realizing that changes must take place in the rail industry, however there must be more than just a realization that changes must be made. Tinkering with the rail system will not get to the route of the problem.

In the spring session we saw a number of bills rammed through the House without proper analysis.

Bill C-89, the commercialization of CN Rail, was sent to committee directly following first reading. In theory this should have allowed the committee to seriously examine the legislation and make amendments prior to second reading. In practice, this was smoke and mirrors and referral to committee was a ploy to allow rapid passage of the bill by short circuiting debate.

There should have been an opportunity to analyse the bill in detail but that never happened. The Liberal majority had no interest in even debating proposed amendments, much less giving them serious consideration. It now appears that Bill C-101 may be following the same fast track taken by Bill C-89.

Other bills that followed a similar process in the spring session were Bill C-64 on employment equity and Bill C-69 on electoral boundaries. There were some amendments on that one but they were only Liberal amendments and then it was fast tracked through. Another was Bill C-91, reorganization of the Federal Business Development Bank, and on and on.

The Reform Party will not be conned again into supporting this devious strategy. Bill C-101 has enormous implications for rail transportation in this country and it deserves serious assessment which it will not get if the government spirits it away to one of its neutered committees where the Liberals and the Bloc can, as usual, collude. They do not have to take seriously or even consider the smallest changes which we in the real opposition might propose.

The Reform Party has categorically stated numerous times that distortions in the marketplace caused by subsidies and regulations must be removed. Although subsidies to the rail companies ended with the death of the Crow, many of the regulations will remain in place.

I am going to briefly outline a number of concerns that Reform has with Bill C-101 with regard specifically to the agricultural sector. The legislation as it now stands calls for statutory review of the freight rate cap four years after the act comes into force. It will then be determined by the minister whether or not to repeal the cap and move toward a more market oriented system. It has been

suggested that because a cap is a double edged sword, rail companies will automatically charge the maximum freight allowed for as long as they can.

The Reform Party supports the move away from a regulated system toward a system where freight rates are freely negotiated between shippers and carriers. Having a maximum rate does little in the way of promoting efficiencies in the industry.

We accept the need for a transition period between regulated rates and those determined through competition. This should be accomplished in the shortest possible time. Four years as originally proposed is ample, more than ample.

A less regulated system will allow for more efficient rail transportation. Rail line rationalization of high cost, low volume branch lines will permit an overall reduction of system costs. Several grain companies and farmer owned groups are already preparing for this type of system by building high throughput elevators on economically viable rail lines.

With respect to the creation of short lines, these should operate without government funding in locations where they will provide a viable cost effective alternative to other means of transportation. Short lines must be allowed to compete with other carriers on a level economic playing field. If they cannot compete, then they should not exist.

There are competitive short lines in Canada. The line operated by Railtex between Truro and Sydney, Nova Scotia, the Cape Breton and Central Nova Scotia Railway, carries coal, steel and general freight. Last year it had a profit of more than $3 million which was shared among the owners and employees. A second success story is the 70-mile Goderich-Exeter Railway, also operated by Railtex.

Efficient cost conscious short lines work even when they are grain dependent. A couple of good examples are the little Southern Rails Co-operative in southern Saskatchewan and the 114-mile Northeast Kansas and Missouri line south of the border.

A glaring fault in Bill C-101 is that under the proposed process for discontinuance, a railway company abandoning a branch line will be able to stifle competition by refusing to negotiate seriously with prospective buyers who want to operate a short line, notwithstanding section 144(3) which is window dressing. Canadian taxpayers, having financed these branch lines through the rehabilitation program in the 1970s and 1980s, have a very legitimate stake in this process.

In order for a competitive transportation system to develop, cumbersome regulations and restraints must be lifted in all sectors. This is very evident in the marketing and transporting of grain. A large number of producers and shippers close to the United States no longer want to be held captive by Canadian rail companies. Many farmers in southwestern Saskatchewan want to see more Canadian grain shipped on the U.S. rail system in order to take advantage of the efficient and economical elevation and terminal facilities south of the border. This would indirectly result in a more competitive environment for Canadian railways especially where, as in my riding, one carrier has a monopoly.

In summary, there are a number of stakeholders with legitimate concerns about the proposed legislation. It is essential that these concerns be heard, reviewed and assessed accordingly. If the referral process to committee is just more smoke and mirrors on the part of the Liberals, then there is very little reason for the bill to go to committee.

The Reform Party wants the consideration of legislation to be meaningful and open to all stakeholders. It therefore opposes the fast track ploy.

[Energy Regulations, September 26th, 1995]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should move to streamline administrative and regulatory processes in the energy sector with the objective to minimize unnecessary regulatory burden.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak in favour of Motion No. 434 which states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should move to streamline administrative and regulatory processes in the energy sector with the objective to minimize unnecessary regulatory burden.

For an entrepreneur in the energy industry, negotiating the maze of government regulations is almost as great a challenge as overcoming the technical and physical problems of a program. Satisfying the demands of a multiplicity of regulatory boards and agencies, often at three levels of government, is like walking on fly paper; no sooner is one bureaucratic condition satisfied than the applicant's feet become glued to another sticky spot.

This is not unique to the energy sector. All phases of Canadian activity are mired in regulations and each successive government seems determined to pass more laws and make more rules. The old adage that the best government is the one that governs least has been all but forgotten. We are well on our way to terminal social and economic constipation.

The passion for filling out forms requiring the approval of platoons of bureaucrats is not new. This destructive waste of time and resources contributed mightily to the downfall of the Hapsburg, Ottoman and Soviet empires and was the leading cause of the collapse of the Manchu dynasty in which generations of China's brightest and best wasted away in an atmosphere of useless paper shuffling; thus the French word chinoiserie.

The curious aspect of energy sector over regulation is that almost everyone, including senior politicians, recognizes the problem. In April 1993 the Conservative government commissioned a review of federal regulations to "identify those that significantly reduce the competitiveness of Canadian industry" or impose needless costs on the consumers.

A report was released in October 1993 just in time for the election and some of the panel's recommendations have actually been acted on. Several sets of redundant regulations have been or are in the process of being revoked. These, however, were purely Natural Resources Canada regulations. It does not address the problem of the overlap of federal and provincial regulations, and regulatory conflict between various government departments is a much more serious matter.

Only the federal Minister of the Environment seems to be oblivious to the problem; witness her unseemly remarks and confrontational attitude during question period earlier this afternoon. This overlap, believe it or not, is most pervasive in her bailiwick in situations in which environmental protection is at stake. There is also overlap in matters affecting worker health and safety and the transportation of dangerous goods.

The multi-tiered environmental permit problem has been recognized by the Minister of Natural Resources. She has stated in an open letter to the Northern Miner that the government is committed to addressing this issue: "The goal is a single window approach".

Those words are music to every Canadian petroleum and natural gas producer and marketer and also to people in the mining, forestry, agricultural and transportation industries.

The Liberals, through their minister, have expressed a policy. Now I would truly like to see them act on it. Then we could stand back and watch the revitalization of our resource based industries.

For a classic example of regulatory overkill, I suggest we look at the Atomic Energy Control Board. Actually, I would rather not look at it since it is one of the few federal entities that continue to grow like a giant fungus in spite of the fact that its workload has been decreasing for a decade. Be that as it may, it is the major player in the regulation of the nuclear industry, all the way from mining to waste disposal.

Unfortunately the AECB is overlapped both provincially and federally. At the extractive level the provincial mining departments make regulations. The provincial environment departments make regulations. The federal environment department makes regulations and throughout the entire nuclear cycle various provincial occupational health and safety divisions make regulations.

When all other hurdles have been cleared there are still municipal zoning laws to contend with. I am aware of one instance in which a proposed uranium refinery facility in Saskatchewan was killed by the local government not on technical grounds but for purely political reasons.

Then we have review panels. They have no authority, no legal standing but they can delay projects for months simply by being in session.

In 1993 a joint federal-provincial environment assessment review board spent several months studying proposals for three uranium mining developments in Saskatchewan. It made three recommendations and the Saskatchewan government cheerfully ignored one of them with the blessing of the federal government. Why did it spend all that time doing the studies? Who knows.

It is time for the various provincial and federal departments to sit down together and develop a single window permitting system for uranium mines. Developers are entitled to know before the first shovel full of dirt is dug if in terms of economic benefits versus the social and environmental costs it makes sense to proceed with a project.

The second major national player in the regulation of the energy industry is the National Energy Board which controls all interprovincial movement of oil, gas and electricity. It also controls international trade in those commodities. Conflict exists to the extent that provincial interests are often contrary to what the National Energy Board considers to be the national interest. Who can ever forget the national energy program?

On the other hand, there is a good example of federal provincial co-operation in the offshore boards which regulate what goes on under the sea. These boards could serve as a pattern and a model for eliminating the problems caused by competing federal and provincial environmental agencies.

To get back to the environmental agencies, they are not energy regulators per se but they have a tremendous impact on the industry. There are instances of projects being environmentally approved at the provincial level only to have further studies and

interminable delays demanded by a federal department. I am sure other hon. members will have something to say about that.

The energy industry needs relief, not so much from taxes as from the ocean of paper it is required to swim through. An industry that accounts for 7 per cent of our gross domestic product and which directly or indirectly provides employment for 620,000 people is entitled to reasonable consideration and rational treatment.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 25th, 1995]

I would vote in opposition to the motion.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have one petition to present from residents of my riding, pursuant to Standing Order 36. It has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions.

The petitioners state that since the Bloc Quebecois has publicly dedicated itself to a disloyal objective, since it is comprised solely of members elected from one province and since the Reform Party represents constituencies in five provinces and has constituency associations in every province of Canada, the current situation is a travesty on the institution of Parliament. The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to preserve Canadian unity, parliamentary tradition and protect the rights of all Canadians by prevailing on the Speaker of the House to recognize the Reform Party of Canada as the official opposition.

[Treatment Of Municipal Sewage, June 20th, 1995]

They fixed up the rinks.