Bill Casey

[Highways, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

One of the most controversial issues that has come up in the New Brunswick election already is the toll highway between Moncton and Petitcodiac, and rightly so. In 1995 the New Brunswick minister of transportation signed an agreement to pay for 50% of the total eligible costs of the highway and then he broke the agreement.

When the federal minister meets the provincial minister on Friday, will he help the people in Atlantic Canada and demand that the New Brunswick government finally honour the agreement signed by the minister himself, an agreement to pay for 50% of the highway?

[National Horse Of Canada Act, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the very distinguished Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

Just a few weeks ago the Government of Nova Scotia and Transport Canada arranged a meeting in Truro, Nova Scotia in my riding to discuss the emergency measure aspects of hazardous material transportation. The plan was to move radioactive material which originated in Russia.

The plan agenda said: “The sample of radioactive material which comes from Russia by ship will enter Canada in Halifax and be moved by road to Chalk River, Ontario early this summer”. This was an unequivocal statement. It was not a conjecture or a proposal. It was stated as a fact. This material would be transferred through Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec by road, presenting a significant hazard.

It obviously begs the question as to why we are bringing radioactive material to Canada in any case. We already have a waste disposal problem with radioactive material. Why did the government not respect the unanimous vote in the foreign affairs committee to not bring the material to Canada?

Another obvious question is if the Department of Natural Resources says there has been no request made for this transfer, and there are no plans to bring the material to Canada, why did they plan this meeting in the first place? Again, it was the Department of Transport in conjunction with the province of Nova Scotia.

For the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, there was no public consultation. Even more disturbing, the emergency measures organizations involved stated this week that they do not have adequate training and do not have equipment for this project.

We now know the meeting has been cancelled and the minister has stated that there is no plan right now to proceed. Obviously there was a plan. Obviously there is some intent here. Obviously there is some intention because the province of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada let the cat out of the bag by releasing this agenda.

Before any radioactive material is transported through Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, will there be public consultations and will the people affected along the route have the opportunity to register their objections and concerns? Will the federal government provide adequate training, equipment and protection for all the emergency measures organizations involved along the route of the transfer of radioactive material if it does happen?

[Nav Canada, April 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that does not address the problem that Transport Canada itself found, and I quote:

Due to the location and the height of the control tower, portions of the runway and taxiways are not visible.

The control tower is actually 22 feet lower than the end of the runway. Nothing is going to fix this except a new tower and not band-aid solutions.

Will the minister now make safety priority number one in Kelowna, like he does everywhere else, and instruct that a new tower be built in Kelowna?

[Nav Canada, April 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

When Transport Canada sold the control tower in Kelowna to Nav Canada in 1996, Transport Canada revealed that it had effectively condemned the structure in a September 1989 report that said:

Immediate action will be taken to produce...an appropriate tower replacement.

Did Nav Canada know that it had to replace the tower when it bought it?

[Air Safety, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if safety is the number one priority, let me read from the Transport Canada report on Kelowna which states: “Due to the location and/or height of the control tower, portions of the runway and taxiways are not visible. The problem is becoming even more serious. The margin of safety has been jeopardized. Visibility has been identified as a major safety concern”.

That is from a Department of Transport report and I believe it speaks for itself. We should have a new tower in Kelowna immediately.

[Air Safety, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Eleven years ago Transport Canada officials determined that the Kelowna air traffic control tower did not meet minimum safety standards because the air traffic controllers cannot see the runway and cannot see the taxiway. A temporary permit was issued to allow the tower to continue to operate on the condition that a new tower be constructed. Eleven years later, there is no new tower. Will the minister instruct that a new tower be built?

[Transport, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Recently the Government of Nova Scotia and Transport Canada arranged a meeting to discuss the emergency measures aspects of hazardous transportation of radioactive materials through Nova Scotia. The material provided said that the sample of radioactive material which comes from Russia by ship will enter Canada in Halifax and be moved by road to Chalk River, Ontario early this summer.

First, will the minister confirm that approval has been granted for this shipment? Second, will he indicate whether this meeting scheduled for tomorrow in Truro, Nova Scotia—

[Transport, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I got such an intelligent, capable answer from the Minister of Industry in the last question I asked that I am tempted to ask him if he would answer all my transport questions from now on. I want to raise the question about the air traffic control tower in Kelowna. I would like him to confirm. The first answer he gave me was such a good one.

[Transport, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting Minister of Transport.

Twelve years ago Department of Transport officials identified what they called a major safety concern at the Kelowna airport. The safety concern was that air traffic controllers cannot see the runways.

In 1989 the Department of Transport issued a temporary waiver to allow the airport to continue operations on the condition that a new tower be built. Ten years later there is no new tower, no plans, no nothing.

Considering that Kelowna is one of the fastest growing airports in Canada, will the minister now do whatever is necessary to stop the delays and address what his own department calls a major safety concern?

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, March 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would hope that the government of my country would use the tools entrenched in the agreement to seek the best possible terms under any agreement we signed. I take exception to the word bullying, or the attitude of bullying. I do not agree that the Americans are bullying. I think they are using the terms and conditions and if they cannot use them, they will be proven wrong.

Our minister and our Prime Minister are not showing confidence in their own positions. Again I refer to the story this morning about two top bureaucrats being dispatched to Washington to avert a trade war over a bill we have not yet voted on. The minister is already acknowledging and admitting we are in trouble on this issue. She has also previously announced that she will delay the implementation of the bill even if it is passed. Why would the government be doing this? Why would the minister be delaying and running scared if we were not in jeopardy?