Bill Casey

[Standing Committee On Transport, October 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, you are probably right, it is out of order because the minister is supposed to stay out of committee affairs. Committees are supposed to answer to parliament but the minister preordained the vote in a committee meeting.

I am asking the minister to commit to never doing that again, allow the committee to do its work—

[Standing Committee On Transport, October 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a week before the first meeting of the transport committee, the National Post and the the Globe and Mail reported that the Minister of Transport had selected the member for Hamilton West to be elected as the new chair of the committee, even though there had not been a meeting. Yesterday, right on schedule, all the Liberal members on the committee voted just like the minister predicted they would.

Will the minister commit to respect the committee system and honour the system not preordained—

[Parliamentary Committees, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, although parliamentary Standing Order 106(2) states that the chair of all parliamentary committees will be selected by the members of that committee, the Globe and Mail reports that the transport minister has already chosen the MP from Hamilton West to chair the new transport committee.

As well, the transport minister has established the agenda, which will include presentations by himself and Mr. Gerald Schwartz.

The minister has instructed his Liberal MPs on the committee on how to vote for the chair before the committee has even met. This violates the spirit and the process described in Standing Order 106(2).

Will the minister stop interfering and just allow the transport committee to function as defined in the standing orders?

[Petitions, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of the residents of Wynn Park in Truro, Nova Scotia.

These residents wish to draw to the attention of the House that the people of Wynn Park are opposed to the use of community mailboxes, the current method of mail delivery in their area. They contend that seniors must walk in very difficult circumstances and it presents a danger to them and their well-being. In a recent case an elderly woman fell and broke a limb and was laid up for a long time.

The petitioners urge parliament to call on the minister responsible for Canada Post to implement door to door mail delivery for the residents of Wynn Park.

On behalf of these 42 residents, I respectfully submit this petition.

[Air Safety, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wrote the minister for these documents and he wrote back to me on May 27 and refused to give them to me. He referred me to Nav Canada. It has also refused to give them to me. These are safety documents. They refer to an unsafe situation that has gone on for 10 years. It has never been addressed. They are trying now to hide it because they have never done anything about it.

Will the minister produce the documents? Yes or no?

[Air Safety, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport on behalf of the new fourth party.

A repeated request to the Minister of Transport has been denied by Nav Canada and the Minister of Transport to produce previously available safety documents. In particular two I am looking for are dated May 27, 1998 and they refer to the Kelowna air traffic control tower. Repeated requests have fallen on deaf ears. Everyone suddenly seems to have something to hide.

I want to know if the minister has these safety reports dated May 27, 1998 and will he produce them, or is he part of the safety cover-up?

[Amherst, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

In January I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister in charge of the millennium project requesting that a vacant public building in Amherst to be turned over to the town of Amherst. The building has been vacant and empty for 10 years. No other government agency wants it.

It is available. It would make a very appropriate millennium project to turn it over to the town. Will the minister approve that transfer?

[Health, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to compliment the member for Ottawa Centre for bringing this motion forward. It is a very timely and important issue. I would also like to compliment our critic for health, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, who is a strong advocate for health care for those who need it and an activist in the whole industry.

This motion asks that chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and multiple chemical sensitivities be recognized as illnesses by the federal government. It is not complicated. There should be no doubt that these environmental illnesses have the capacity to disable Canadians, to rob them of their livelihood and their ability to lead a normal lifestyle.

This motion will ensure that many Canadians suffering from these illnesses do receive equitable treatment when they apply for various disability benefits under existing federal support programs.

Motion No. 468 asks that there be a harmonization in the way eligibility criteria are applied to federal disability support programs. Currently federal programs apply different eligibility measurements from one program office to the next within a department. The result is a checkerboard of vastly different decisions for applicants who have the same degree of disability for the same illness. It also creates a tremendous amount of frustration and antagonism, and whatever the situation is, whoever the patient is, it just makes it a lot worse.

We continue to see that while some Canadians are rightfully accessing the various programs by the federal government, others with the same degree of illness are denied. To eliminate this grave injustice it is necessary to have standardized eligibility criteria to ensure that it is applied in an equitable fashion.

In my own experience as a member of parliament, the most frustrating part of the job is Canada pension disability applicants who cannot prove their disabilities. They have not got an X-ray, they have not got a blood test, they have not got any diagnostic system to absolutely without doubt say the person is disabled. It is all subjective and it is very, very frustrating because these people have very serious disabilities and are just as disabled as somebody with a serious physical illness or injury.

It is estimated that the three diseases we are talking about afflict up to 15% of Canadians. Six per cent of all Canadians are reported as experiencing allergic and sensitivity reactions every single day. Of these, up to 2% are severely debilitated and are unable to work or even leave their own homes. Through timely access to specialized treatments, most sufferers can expect to return to health, community involvement and employment.

It is hard to imagine the hardship and the stress created within a family when one of its members is stricken with one of these illnesses. Even though they are already ill with the physical illness caused by this, the emotional stress and frustration can make it far worse as they go through the Canada pension disability system.

At present there is no biomarker, no blood test that has been sufficiently tested and validated to assist doctors in the diagnosis of these three illnesses. However, we are hopeful that research which is being facilitated by the Environmental Illness Society of Canada will be validated by a larger study conducted by the Environmental Health Clinic of Women's College Hospital in Toronto. If this research is successful, Canada will have discovered a diagnostic and screening tool that will benefit millions of people worldwide and will eliminate those frustrations that I mentioned before.

I would like to read part of a letter from Sandra Madray of Winnipeg:

At present, Canadians afflicted with Environmental Illness...have been placed in limbo because of the lack of support from virtually all government agencies at nearly all levels, the medical establishment, the workplace and insurance companies. The current lack of a definitive test to validate or disprove the existence of this illness and the fact that its etiology is not fully understood, further complicates the politics surrounding EI. However, this lack of understanding is no excuse for lack of action...the inescapable and horrible fact is that real people and their families are suffering while the medical community dismisses them as “psychos” having an imaginary affliction.

That is exactly what I deal with whenever I have appointments in my riding office. I deal with people who come in with Canada pension disability applications and are unable to get them through the system, through the series of appeals, the tribunals and further appeals because there is no system of diagnosis.

I hope a positive outcome will come from the motion. Canadians with these three diseases must be assured equal access to income support, tax relief and other already existing federal accommodation programs for the disabled. The Canadian government must take a leadership role and demonstrate a strong commitment to the socioeconomic well-being of those suffering from environmental illnesses.

On behalf of the member for New Brunswick Southwest, our caucus and myself, I urge the Minister of Health to refer the issue to the Standing Committee on Health.

[Division No. 454, May 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise again today to raise the subject of an unsafe condition in Kelowna, British Columbia, identified by the Department of Transport over 11 years ago.

My question is brought on by a puzzling situation where Nav Canada within the last few weeks announced a $90 million reduction in fees voluntarily. I do not understand why it has reduced its fees by $90 million and still refuses to replace the air traffic control tower in Kelowna.

Allow me to read into the record the operational condition report dated November 4, 1987:

Due to the location and/or the height of the control tower a portion of the runway and taxiways is not visible. A runway incursion going unnoticed is now a major safety concern. The margin of safety has been jeopardized. A restricted line of sight visibility has been identified as a major safety concern by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.

This report lists only two possible solutions to the problem. First, raise the present control tower two or three stories to a height that would ensure line of sight for all manoeuvring areas or, second, build a brand new control tower in a location which would ensure line of sight for all manoeuvring areas.

The manager in reply to this report by the inspector said line of sight difficulties had been recognized as a problem in Kelowna. The inspector identified it and the manager confirmed it.

How can this situation be safe now and how can Nav Canada refuse to replace the air traffic control tower or raise the present one? How can it be safe now when it was not safe in 1987? Why was the tower required to be replaced in 1987 but is not required to be now?

Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport please reply to that question and explain why Nav Canada is reducing its charges by $90 million and still refusing to replace the condemned tower in Kelowna?

[Criminal Code, May 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport again the Kelowna air traffic control tower which was deemed unsafe in 1984.

I would like to quote from the Department of Transport report: “Due to the location and/or the height of the control tower, portions of the runway and taxiways are not visible. Air traffic controllers are supposed to control the traffic on the runways that they cannot see”. The inspector went on to say: “A runway encouraging going unnoticed is now a major safety concern. The margin of safety has been jeopardized and restricted line of sight visibility is a major safety concern”. His manager said “The line of sight difficulties have been recognized as a problem at Kelowna and the problem must be addressed”. This is dated November 4, 1987.

Then we move to another Department of Transport report dated October 4, 1989. The Department of Transport then notified the manager of the Kelowna air traffic control tower that they were only allowed to operate on a temporary permit and that the waiver was conditional on tower replacement documentation being formulated.

Then, on September 21, 1989, another report was sent from the Department of Transport in Ottawa to the regional office in Vancouver, which brought up again the line of sight waiver at Kelowna airport and stated that it must be emphasized that clear lines of sight are of prime importance to the provision of safe air traffic control services and that this decision was being taken with much reluctance.

The Department of Transport was saying that it was allowing the airport to continue operation with much reluctance. It was saying that the waiver was conditional upon immediate action being taken to produce approval documentation for an appropriate tower replacement.

That was 11 years ago and still the tower has not been upgraded, addressed, repaired or replaced. Since then new buildings have been built. New hangars have been built surrounding it, blocking the runways even more, and traffic has increased dramatically. Not only has air traffic increased, but the planes are larger, creating more difficulties. If it was not safe 11 years ago and nothing has changed, it cannot possibly be safe now.

The minister has proposed a video system such as that used by the Los Angeles airport. This is the second time they will try this. The first time they tried a video camera they put it in and it failed, so they took it out. Now, because of the initiative of bringing up this old report, they are going to try it again.

I respect the effort to try to resolve the issue, but part of the reasoning they used in justifying the video cameras was that they are used at the Los Angeles international airport. They have said this over and over again. However, I talked to the air traffic controllers in Los Angeles and they do not use video cameras to see the runways. They do have them, but they are for reference only. At all times air traffic controllers at the Los Angeles airport can see the runways. They cannot in Kelowna. They are two completely different situations. The video cameras are for reference only and for parking on aprons in Los Angeles. In Kelowna they propose to use them for actual traffic control on the runways. It is not the same thing and it is not safe.

Considering the fact that video cameras have failed before, and considering that they are not used in Los Angeles for air traffic control, will the minister now commit that if the experiment with the video cameras does not work and the situation is not safe, as it has been deemed in these three reports, that a new tower will be constructed and the minister will take action to tell Nav Canada to stop the delays and to stop fooling around? This is a safety issue. Will he tell Nav Canada to put safety first and instruct it to build a new tower?