1986-10-31

Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, in the next few days the Government of Canada will be making important decisions on a new comprehensive native claims policy. This is an opportunity to establish a more productive and mutually beneficial relationship between the aboriginal peoples and all Canadians.
The new policy must affirm aboriginal rights. It must enable the aboriginal peoples to protect and enhance their cultures. It must allow them to have decision-making authority over their own lives, lands, and resources. Self-government must be a part of the new policy.
These are the essential elements, the reasonable and just accommodations which the Government must make if it is serious about making the aboriginal peoples partners in our great Canadian Confederation.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the confusion and disarray among the Liberals on the importance of the freer trade talks continue to grow and spread.
There is the Leader who says: "It is no good but the talks must go on". Then there is the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) who says: "No way. We are fence builders".
That confusion was compounded when the marketing vicepresident of Canada's largest Great Lakes shipping group, the Canada Steamship Lines, called for a common Shipping Act and the putting of U.S. shipping protectionism on the table of trade talks. Then came the well-known Liberal leadership contender, Paul Martin Jr., president of the same shipping company, who told a Liberal fund raising dinner in St. Catharines a few days ago that the free trade talks with the United States are not the answer.
No wonder the rank and file Liberals look like lost sheep wandering around in the wilderness without a shepherd.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, of all the countries in South America, Honduras receives the most development aid from Canada. It receives almost $40 million a year. Considering this, Canadians must be very concerned about the growing militarization of Honduras. Today's Globe and Mail reported that the United States plans to establish Contra bases on Honduran islands off the coast of Nicaragua.
The Contra war is an anti-development war. The Contras have targeted teachers, doctors, nurses, and other development workers for murder and kidnapping.
If Honduras continues to be used as a military base to destroy development in Nicaragua, Canadians must ask about the value of our development assistance. Canada must protect the integrity of its development program by protesting to both the United States and Honduras against this crude attempt to force Nicaragua back into colonial status.


AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: This week, Mr. Speaker, I asked that the Canadian aerospace agency be headquartered in my riding. Indeed the riding of Longueuil has all facilities to accommodate this agency whose establishment will be announced in the near future. My riding already has the skilled labour force needed in this field, not to mention an industrial and transport infrastructure which is second to none and ranks among the most efficient. Longueuil and Greater Montreal are ideally suited to the needs of the aerospace industry. Earlier this morning the Government decided to

October 31, 1986
award the F-18 maintenance contract, further acknowledgement that the Montreal region is best for aeronautical and aerospace projects.
Establishing the Canadian aerospace agency in Longueuil is bound to revive the local economy, especially so if the agency's mandate is to oversee the applied research related to this new technology. The agency will also reinforce our sectorial economy development policy.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech at the opening of this session of Parliament the Government said that special emphasis will be given to diversifying the economic base of western Canada. Prior to this in my own region we had the cancellation of the NRC research station, the VIA maintenance base, and many of the transportation aid programs. Now we have the statement made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) that a western Canadian consortium is not capable of undertaking technology transfer in the interests of Canada. This is the effective program of economic development that the Government is offering to diversify the base of western Canada. Instead we have the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) saying that we are giving aid to farmers. This aid program is going to be distributed across the country.
The real question we have to ask is this. When is the Government going to understand that in order for western Canada to realize its economic potential it must have federal investment to enable it to develop its scientific, technological and industrial base. All the Government has done up until now is reduce, eliminate, subtract, and eviscerate that base. It is time that the Government understood that western Canada demands its fair share.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to all Atlantic Canadians that we in the P.C. Party are competely opposed to the current Liberal thinking as expressed at its annual meeting in Nova Scotia this past weekend.
The Liberal Party of Nova Scotia, short of ideas, sought the advice of National Sea President, Gordon Cummings, and of Bank of Nova Scotia Vice-President, Peter John Nicholson.
The Liberals were advised to concentrate economic development in Halifax at the expense of the rest of the Atlantic region. The idea is to turn Halifax into another Toronto. This may be the type of advice that the Liberals of Nova Scotia are seeking. These corporate people in their ivory towers will have a hard time justifying these ideas to the entrepreneurs of Middleton or the fish plant owners of Yarmouth. If the policy of the Liberal Party is to stifle business development in 99 per cent of the Atlantic region, I would like to state very emphatically that I am glad I am not a Liberal.

[DOT] (UlO)


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, less than a century ago over 90 per cent of the Haida population on the Queen Charlotte Islands perished from small pox and other diseases introduced by the white population. Thousands of Haida men, women, and children died in the South Moresby area in a few short months in the mid-1880s.
Yesterday the federal Government made it clear that a cash offer is on the table to compensate fully the loggers, communities and forest companies for the cutting rights on Lyell Island and South Moresby. The Haida have returned to Lyell Island and they are erecting a long house at Windy Bay. They have made it clear that these lands are their country, their spirit, their past and their future, and that they will be preserved.
Yesterday the federal Government warned of violence and even death if the logging continues. Mr. Speaker, the logging continues at the request of Premier Vander Zalm. Today the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) must call his friend and avert disaster. The process that will lead to the possible death of Haidas, loggers or others, must be stopped.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: In recent weeks, Mr. Speaker, we have been witnessing a rather peculiar phenomenon. Our Liberal Opposition colleagues are adamantly opposed to the construction of a prison in Port-Cartier in the riding of Manicouagan because, they claim, it will cost a little bit more. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, they would have us believe that every time the Government is prepared to spend a little bit more money to create jobs in regions which are far removed from major urban centres we ought to forget about it and
October 31, 1986

totally ignore these people who are up against high unemployment and its many attendant problems.
If this is true, Mr. Speaker, does the logic of the Liberal Party imply that we ought to neglect or simply abandon Canadians who happen to live far away from major cities, in regions where we might have to spend more generously to spur the economy?
Our Opposition colleagues would be well advised to reconsider their funnel-like approach to regional disparities in this vast country of ours, otherwise many Canadian men and women might make them regret it.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, South Moresby, in particular Lyell Island, continues to be the focal point of conflict between Western Forests Products and the Haida Nation. Yesterday in the House the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) said that "the Government of Canada would be very predisposed toward sitting down with" Western Forests Products "to negotiate the value of the timber licences and to reasonably compensate the company-".
The Minister left unanswered the legitimate question of why negotiations to stop the logging have not begun. If there is a disposition to negotiate, why are negotiations not yet under way in light of this near-crisis situation? I urge the Minister to proceed with all possible speed, because the situation is serious, and to demonstrate the Government's commitment to native rights in South Moresby and throughout Canada.


NARCOTICS
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the video messages which the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) unveiled yesterday are proof of the Government's desire to urge Canadian youth to resist drugs. Drug abuse, including alcohol abuse, does untold damage to our young people. Drugs sap the potential of young lives and can cause irreparable damage.
Along with drug enforcement must come drug education. We must do more to impress upon Canadians, especially youth, that taking illegal drugs is socially and personally unacceptable. We must reduce the demand for drugs, and we must do it early.
Professional and amateur athletes represent an excellent way to reach youth with a message to which they will listen. Athletes are role models and an inspiration to Canadian youth. When they talk, young people listen. The co-operative spirit between Government and professional sport means that everyone wins. Through continued support and hard work we shall reduce the demand for drugs among Canadian youth.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, only one hour ago the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) announced that the F-18 maintenance contract is being awarded to Canadair despite the fact that the Bristol bid was less expensive and that government people consider it to be of higher technological value. The reason of technological transfer given by the President of the Treasury Board was not even considered in the evaluation system of government officials.
This points out the problem we have with our tendering and bidding system. It is very important that citizens and corporations of Canada believe that they will be dealt with equitably in the tendering system. If the Government is going to award a contract on a basis other than price or technical evaluation, then that should be stated at the outset. It is a matter not only of the integrity of the bidding system, but of the integrity of the Government itself.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, today, the people of Montreal must be both proud and disappointed.
The Government's decision reflects honourably, first of all, on the workers at Canadair, the Canadair Survival Committee chaired by Mr. Cherry, all the members of the Board of Trade of Montreal, and on Robert Bourassa who managed to force the Government to make up for the mistakes it made in Quebec. Today, I think Montreal has reason to be proud and to rejoice.
It is too bad, however that Quebecers have to set up a survival committee and come all the way to Ottawa just to get their fair share.

October 31, 1986
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has joined the Auditor General in publicly praising the Government for its efforts in managing the public purse and the deficit. I commend the Government for its commitment and efforts to curb public expenditures. Guidelines for economic renewal have been stated, such as tax reform, enhanced trade, and increased employment. We are on the road to economic recovery and the foundation has been laid for sustained growth. Saskatoonians, and Canadians in general, will benefit from a Government which is prepared to face tough decisions related to reduced expenditures, duplication, and waste.
When you look at the Liberal Party you can see the flaws in their own financial management. At the time of the 1984 election they borrowed money and were in debt to the tune of $2.5 million. Now officials claim they must raise almost $22 million in the next two years to pay off the debt and get through another federal election without going into the hole. Shame on the Liberals who mismanaged the public purse and who cannot practise fiscal responsibility.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. RICHARD FRENCH, MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Mr. Speaker:: Order! I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Richard French, Minister of Communications of the Province of Quebec.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. Under the immigration levels announced yesterday the Government, for the third year in a row, froze at
45,000	the number of immigrants who can be reunited with their families in Canada. Why did the Minister choose to ignore the strong recommendation of the parliamentary
committee for an increase in the family class under our immigration rules?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when I responded to the standing committee report, I was able to respond favourably to almost all of their recommendations. There was only one I disagreed with. The five recommendations dealing with the assisted family and assisted relative class, which I described as the most exicting and far-reaching, needed more consultation and thought. I said we would go into that with the private and public sectors and the provinces. In the meantime I can assure the Right Hon. Member that family unification is the cornerstone of our immigration policy.


INQUIRY WHY SUFFICIENT PERSONNEL NOT FORESEEN TO PROCESS IMMIGRATION APPLICATIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister created false expectations when he promised to increase immigration to Canada without providing the personnel required to process immigration applications, especially for family reunification.
Why did the Minister not provide sufficient personnel to process immigration applications, especially for family reunification?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the quality and intensity of the work of all Members of Parliament who went around the world and provided me with an excellent report on procedures and practices gave me a good indication of the ways I can improve and cut out a lot of the bureaucratic red tape and ease the entry of immigrants to Canada. I have also looked at the quality of service in our country. We are going to look at state of the art technology, and the procedures and practices which have been in place for years and which we cannot rationalize. When we do all those things and become more efficient and cut down a lot of the struggles and frustrations people have been going through, we are going to be able to bring a lot more people into this country with the same resources.


DEPARTMENT'S EVALUATION SYSTEM
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that he followed the recommendations of the committee. He ignored one of the more important recommendations. Another one that he ignored is a change in the evaluation system for immigrants to allow more points for those people who have family members in Canada. Why did the Minister not accept that recommendation so as to facilitate the reunification of families and allow Canadians already in the country to have their family members join them here?
October 31, 1986


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, one thing is very clear. We have heard and understood the frustrations and what the communities have been going through. In the levels that I announced yesterday, we added some 32 new categories of independent skills in which immigrants do not need a relative or do not need a certified job offer in their pocket. While we withdrew 12, the 20 additional categories show our willingness to make movement in those areas.
We said that in order to open the assisted family class and assisted relative class we would have to understand the full implication and do so in consultation with the community, the provinces, the private and public sector, and indeed with Members of Parliament. That is what we will be doing. Furthermore, an indepth study under the Minister of National Health and Welfare is already under way, with the participation of my Department. We look forward to the results.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. In making the announcement of the decision on the CF-18 maintenance contract this morning, the President of the Treasury Board confirmed that Bristol Aerospace had the lowest price and lowest bid. When the original tenders were announced, price, not the question of technology transfer, was considered to be the primary criterion. When did the change take place? Why did you make the change, and why was that not part of the total submission so that all the companies would have an equal chance in that kind of application?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we had two excellent contenders at the final moment, through the bidding process. They were very close on technical merit and on cost. We looked very closely at the issue of technology transfer because it is an important issue for the country. The Government had a choice, and it made a very deliberate choice to favour Canadair because we felt that the downstsream technology transfer could be better done through the existing facilities of Canadair than by the competing consortium because Canadair is a producer of aircraft as well as being in the maintenance business. The bids were close and it was because of that overriding factor that the contract went to Canadair.


TENDERING PROCESS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, this being Halloween, it looks like it is a case of trick and treat. I suggest that we have to ask some serious questions about the way the process was handled.
Oral Questions
Without looking at the end result, the fact is that when the original tenders were put forward and the applications were sought, the question was basically one of the lowest bidder for that contract. Now that the rules have been changed in midstream, is it not proper that the Government should have made that very clear to those excellent submissions that were made so that there would not now be the suggestion that in fact the real question was one of interference, not one of confidence?


Robert René de Cotret: First, Mr. Speaker, there was no interference of any kind. Second, it was clearly indicated in the original bids that the Government, as in all bids-which the Hon. Member's deskmate can confirm-is never bound to the lowest bid. That is clearly outlined in those submissions. However, my colleague raises an interesting point and one that I would like to address seriously in the House.
Stating all of the national concerns that we may have in making a final decision is something that we would certainly want to consider in future requests for submissions. That has never been done before and my hon. friend has raised a serious issue that we would be happy to consider. However, I still stand fast by my word that this contract, on an economic and financial basis and for the future of Canada, was given to the best consortium that made a bid.


CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS FROM GOVERNMENT SOURCES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On February 12 in the newspaper La Presse, someone from the Prime Minister's Office clearly indicated that Canadair would obtain the contract. According to the newspaper, a source near the Prime Minister had said that Canadair could virtually rely on getting the contract.
The very next day in Winnipeg, the Minister of National Health and Welfare was quoted as saying: "I just know that from our Manitoba perspective, things will be okay". The Minister followed that up by another extraordinary statement. I hold the headline in my hand. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said in Manitoba he was confident the CF-18 contract would land in Manitoba. In a decision as important as this in terms of its regional reception, does the Prime Minister think it is appropriate for Ministers of the Crown to go around the country building up false expectations, with different things being said in different parts of Canada?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think, not unlike some other matters in the past, this contract has brought about a fair amount of comment from Members of Parliament and people who are not Members of Parliament. I do not think that is to be unexpected.

October 31, 1986
Oral Questions
I suppose in a country as diverse as ours that is something which has taken place and will take place in the future. I do not think there was anything untoward said in any of those cases. I think the reasons provided by the President of the Treasury Board indicate that the award was made in the national interest.


EFFECT OF MINISTERS' STATEMENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I find the Prime Minister's answer extraordinary. Is he saying it is his perception, not that of Members of Parliament, backbenchers, or even members of the Opposition, that Ministers of the Crown who will be involved in the decision themselves ought to go around the country in future acting as cheerleaders for their regions and leaving their regions with the expectation that an important decision which will be made is going to come down on their side? Does that not sow confusion in the country instead of promoting national unity which a Cabinet should be about?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will consult the statements my hon. friend has in front of him from some months ago. I would be happy to take a look at them. I did not hear that anyone was trying to provoke disunity in any way. Cabinet officers clearly from time to time are called upon to make comments on impending decisions, which in no way violates their commitment to objective consideration. I think that is probably a fair statement.
I, along with my hon. friend, recognize that from time to time certain issues will challenge national unity. Even with the best faith in the world, from time to time in Canada issues will arise which will be placed in that context. Decisions such as this are made with a sense of fairness and a realization of that historic difficulty in Canada, which is why I ask for the support of my hon. friend in this kind of decision which was clearly made in the national Canadian interest.


REQUEST THAT MINISTERS NOT MAKE CONFLICTING STATEMENTS PRIOR TO AWARDING OF CONTRACTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board in his announcement today said the decision was made in the national interest and I clearly hope that was the case. Will the Prime Minister give us assurances that, before any other major decision of this kind is made, he will give instructions to his Cabinet Ministers not to go around the country saying different things in different regions creating expectations that he knows inevitably will be frustrated in part because all regions, in a decision like this, cannot perceive themselves simultaneously to be winners? Will he give us that assurance?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in an ideal situationl think what my hon. friend is talking about is public men and women acting at all times with
a total sense of objectivity and a degree of dispassion in regard to their regions and their electors, of which they are from time to time incapable. I understand that. I hope that there is nothing in what my hon. friend has said which indicates that someone's judgment was flawed or compromised because of that.
I want to tell my hon. friend, as he knows, that a decision such as this is a painful and difficult one for all involved in a country such as Canada. I can only tell the Hon. Member that all members of the Government deliberated in a spirit of fairness and openness and arrived at a decision to complement the national interest. I hope that is the manner in which it will be viewed.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. The Minister will know that under the Conservative Government the numbers of family-class immigrants are a far cry from those under Liberal Governments in the 1970s and 1980s at which time the family-class category was the pillar of the entire immigration program. In freezing, for the second year in a row, the number of family-class immigrants, why is the Minister refusing the opportunity and right of more Canadians successfully to sponsor their relatives while increasing the number of independent and business immigrants who do not have family in Canada? Does the Minister not agree that having family in Canada deserves far greater recognition and priority than the Government is prepared to give?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: In
1982 your Government eliminated the independent skills-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask all Hon. Members to make their comments through the Chair.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, in 1983 the independent skills provisions were removed which resulted in a drop to 89,000 immigrants. In 1984 the figure was 88,000; and in 1985 it was
84,000.	This year is the first time in three years that the number of immigrants admitted to Canada will increase.


REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN FAMILY CATEGORY
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is being intellectually dishonest-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sergio Marchi: I am talking about family immigrants which, for the benefit of the Chair-
October 31, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Apart completely from the use of the word, the Hon. Member's comment is most argumentative. I know the Hon. Member has a question; will the Hon. Member put it?


Sergio Marchi: Given that in 1975, 64,000 family-class immigrants were allowed into Canada; in 1980, 51,000 were allowed in; and that last year only 35,000 were allowed in, will the Minister not concede that his level for family-class immigrants is too low and ignores the frustrations Canadians experience in being separated from their loved ones? Will he not introduce immediate reforms to increase family immigrant numbers to a realistic and adequate level?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we know full well the value of the family, which is why family reunification has been the cornerstone of our immigration policy. Last year more than one-half the people who were admitted to Canada were members of that class. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that it has taken a while to rebuild what was undone in those years. We are now moving ahead, and moving ahead firmly so that we can assist those families who want to be together.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. If technology transfer was the basis for the decision with regard to the CF-18 contract, why was it not a part of the original 75-member panel process? Why were the rules of the game changed at the end of the game in the ninth inning? How does the Minister square his claim that technology transfer was the basis for the decision with the fact that the technology transfer was left out of the original panel process?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first, I have already answered the question. It is a little difficult to enhance my previous answer. Perhaps we should have said that in the original bids. I have instrmed my officials to talk with the officials of the Department of Supply and Services to ensure that we might mention that type of thing. However, technology transfer is not something that is within the purview of the bidding firm. It is something that is within its own composition.
When we saw that the final offers were very close to each other, we had a choice. We had a choice to look at how the technology would be transferred. In one case we felt that there was a compelling argument that technology for Canadians would be transferred more effectively than in the other case, and we opted for that choice. We had a choice and we made it. We stand by it.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. I note that the Minister has just admitted that he changed the rules at the end of the game.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister now ready to make public all the documents, including the report of the original panel on this bidding process, particularly in light of the doubt that has been cast on the bidding process and in light of the questions that have been raised about changing the rules of the game? Will the Minister refer the matter to the Auditor General for an objective study so that we can clear up the facts and clear up the process?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to tell my hon. colleague that there was no change in the bidding process in any way, shape or form, at any time, in any contract-


Rodney Edward Murphy: Just the evaluation!


Robert René de Cotret: There was no change in any way in the bidding process. It is well known that when we enter into a competitive bidding process and the bids are within 10 per cent of each other there are questions of national interest and so on that can be brought in perhaps to balance the scale in favour of one or another. We did just that. We went through a very legitimate bidding process in this case, as we do in every case.
Second, there is no doubt cast on the decision. It is a decision which was made in the national interest with respect to technology transfer. I wish to assure my hon. colleague that I will make all relevant information available, as long as it does not contravene the normal practices which are in place to maintain the confidential nature of information given to us by competitors. If they are willing to make the information available, then I am more than happy to give the Hon. Member all the information. This is a decision which is good for the country, and I am willing to stand by it. I will be happy to give the Hon. Member the information.


BANKS AND BANKING
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. It concerns the uninsured depositors of the Canadian Commercial Bank and Northland Bank who were paid nearly $1 billion out of the public purse. Since the Government refused to identify them and left the matter in the hands of Mr. Justice Estey as of October 4, 1985, and since the Estey Report is silent on the

October 31, 1986
Oral Questions
matter, will the Minister now undertake to release the names of those uninsured depositors so that the taxpayers may know where their money went?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question. As she knows, when the Commission was established the question of the names of the depositors was something on which Justice Estey was to decide. He has not seen it appropriate to release the names. It is not now our position to challenge Justice Estey's decision since it was his decision. He received the names and he has decided not to publish them.


SCRUTINY OF PUBLIC EXPENDITURES
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. On October 4 of last year the former Deputy Prime Minister said in this House: "Public funds are at all times subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. That is what this place is all about." How can the Minister justify this violation of the taxpayers' right to know the names of those who, having received $60,000 in deposit insurance, then received many thousands of dollars by way of unconditional gifts from the Government?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the categories of groups, associations and individuals that were helped in this regard were published very thoroughly, and that helps to meet in a major way, if not to the specific individual, the kinds of questions raised by the Hon. Member.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE ISLE OF MAN
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Jack Nivison, President of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of the Isle of Man.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question on the subject of the Estey Commission Report and on the pay-out of close to $1 billion to uninsured depositors upon which the Government decided but which was not dealt with adequately in the Estey Commission Report. Since
the Estey Commission made it clear that the failure of the two banks was due to their improvident lending practices in the early part of the 1980s and perhaps earlier, and since the information provided by auditors to depositors for their guidance was wrong but that was a normal commercial risk, can the Minister now explain why the taxpayer has to pay $1 billion when it is clear that those depositors took commercial risks and they should have paid for that themselves?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, clearly that particular judgment was looked at by Mr. Justice Estey. I do not think it serves any purpose for the Government to interpret the report or to point fingers. Out of respect for the report, we ought to use it to build a better future with a stronger supervisory system.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since the Government seems to be hiding behind Mr. Justice Estey's coat-tails when it comes to letting taxpayers know how the money was spent, will the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member made a very long preamble and it was received by the Chair because it set out the basis upon which the Hon. Member could ask a question. I would ask that the Hon. Member, when asking a supplementary question, get to the question.


Michael Morris Cassidy: My last four words, Mr. Speaker, were: "will the Minister agree". I will continue.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Will the Minister agree that the Government will refer this report to a parliamentary committee which may consider a number of areas that were not dealt with adequately in Mr. Justice Estey's Report and which relate to the responsibility of the House?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, all aspects of financial institution reform which the Government has been putting together for the last number of months and will be presenting to the House very shortly will be looked at by the committee.


IMMIGRATION
Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration and is a very simple one. Regarding the new immigration levels the Minister announced just yesterday, can he assure us that there are no limitations on the ability of families to reunite in Canada?
October 31, 1986


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the number of family-class immigrants cannot be frozen and depends upon the sponsorships emanating from Canada. There is no quota or limit. Levels were increased substantially last year as well. Today it is much easier for a member of a family to come to Canada than it was under the previous Government.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. A few days ago, we learned that the architectural firm responsible for the Port-Cartier project had been forced to use the Desseau, Dupont et Desmeules engineering firm by the Government, apparently because this firm contributed to the electoral funds of the Progressive Conservative Party.
Can the Minister explain why the Desseau, Dupont et Desmeules firm received $137,500 without any calls for tenders being made for the Port-Cartier project if not because they are friends of the Government?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to comment on whether or not this company donated to any particular Party. I am able to say with assurance that the company was recommended by public servants as having the best and most competent proposal of all competing bids.


AWARDING OF CONTRACTS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat the second part of my question. Can the Minister tell us why, according to documents provided by the Department of Public Works, the same firm was awarded $137,500 worth of contracts without tender? Why was it given those contracts without tender, according to documents from the Minister's own Department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Don Boudria: When will the Government stop playing trick or treat with taxpayers' dollars?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Bring in your brother-in-law.


Mr. Gauthier:: How about yours?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member has put a question and apparently has invoked another.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, it is almost redundant to repeat what has been stated in the House during the past 10 days and that is that, on construction projects, tenders are called if the amount involved is over $30,000. With respect to consultants' awards, there is a procedure of which I have given the details to the House. These procedures were followed and are Treasury Board directed. We followed that process.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who will know the extent to which the performance of Canada's national hockey team is a source of great pride to Canadians from coast to coast. Now that new regulations allow for players from the National Hockey League to be included on the Olympic hockey team, would the Prime Minister ensure, either himself or through the Minister responsible, that the President of the National Hockey League and the team owners will be contacted to seek the assurance that their players will be permitted to play on Canada's national hockey team?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that things haven't been the same since I hung up my skates.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Waddell:: No, that's two years from now, Brian.


Some Hon. Members:: oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I would like to thank my hon. friend for his observation. In the absence of the Minister responsible, 1 will be in touch and will report back to him.


NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE SCHEDULE FOR 1988
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. When the Minister responsible returns, would he also make an effort to contact the President of the National Hockey League to ensure that when the schedule for 1988 is drafted, a two-week period be set aside to enable all appropriate players to play on the national hockey team so we can beat the Soviets, the Swedes and the Americans?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Ouellet@: Another skater!

Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: It's a real skater.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am glad members of the Opposition recognize my many talents. Obviously the Minister is not in the House. I will take the Hon. Member's question as notice and will pass it on to the Minister.


WAR CRIMINALS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, substantial allegations have been made concerning the complicity in serious war crimes in Yugoslavia of the President of Austria, Mr. Kurt Waldheim. A cloud now hangs over the United Nations itself where Mr. Waldheim once served as Secretary General. Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise what special steps he has taken on my previous request that an impartial international tribunal be convened to investigate the serious allegations that have been made against Mr. Waldheim?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question and for her very keen and continuing interest in this matter. With regard to the question of Canadians who might have been involved in activities during that time, the Hon. Member should know that, for the first time, this Government has acted by establishing the Deschenes Royal Commission.
With regard to the question of the allegations respecting Mr. Waldheim, we have, as has been requested, checked with all of the available files that exist at the United Nations and elsewhere. We are consulting with other countries to see if there is action that would be appropriate for Canada to take or for others to initiate. Naturally, I have noted the most recent allegations. All I can report at this stage is that we have them under consideration.


RETIREMENT ALLOWANCE PAYABLE TO FORMER UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY GENERAL
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Has he acted upon my request that we withhold the retirement allowance of $81,650 to be paid to Mr. Waldheim by the United Nations until the investigation of the international tribunal is held? Surely the interests of justice require that the Minister instruct our United Nations Ambassador at least to move in that direction?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we are considering all the implications of that request. I am not yet in a position to respond definitively to the Hon. Member. As soon as I am aware of all the implications-and she would know that we would want to be sure of all of them-I will report to her and to the House.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. On Wednesday he promised that any cuts at the National Research Council which affect the health or safety of Canadians would be reviewed. In that context will the Minister review the chopping of the entire electromagnetic engineering section? It is involved in research on cancer, radiation safety, air transport safety, and blood plasma preparation. It has also done work for the Department of National Defence. All these activities involve the health, safety, and protection of Canadians.


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have said that there would be such a review if public health and safety were involved. Of course the review would also determine whether this critical work is not already done in some other agency of Government, some university, or even in the private sector.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has extensively set the basis for his first question. I would ask him to put a short supplementary question.


COUNCIL'S OPERATIONAL CUTS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, rather than us raising, one by one, the cases of irresponsible cuts at the National Research Council, would the Minister not agree that it would be preferable to terminate this cutting right now, so that the NRC can continue its work and its valuable portion of Canadian research will not be wrecked, as the Government is doing?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I happen to have the highest regard not only for the management of the NRC but for the Eminent Persons Council which advises management on the operations of the National Research Council. I think the Hon. Member is somewhat irresponsible when he calls that management structure irresponsible.
October 31, 1986


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The day before yesterday, the Minister stated that there would be no change in the Unemployment Insurance Plan in 1987. Can the Minister tell us whether he intends to take one year to reimburse retroactively the 50,000 early retirees who were cut off by his Government?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have repeated many times, and particularly to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, that we were waiting for the recommendations of the Forget Report on the issue of pensions and early retirees and that we would be considering the matter then, and my answer is still the same.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET REPRESENTATIVES OF INTERESTED PARTIES
Jean-Claude Malépart: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that the Coalition quebecoise pour les retraites et les preretraites has requested a meeting with the Minister on November 7. Will the Minister accept to meet these people? Second, to avoid this Committee having to pay to go before the courts, does the Minister not believe that he should tell them at that time that he will reimburse retroactively the amounts due since the Commission has a surplus of $174 million?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, 1 met last Friday with one of the coalitions involved in this matter. I shall be meeting the other group next week. However, if I have not yet had the report of Mr. Forget, I shall certainly not give such an answer.
Oral Questions
before, 13,000 more companies paid taxes last year than ever before. The Government's closing of tax loopholes and properly administering the tax system have made that possible.


MINISTER'S AWARENESS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. How can the Minister be aware of figures which are suitable and complimentary to his Government and be so completely unaware of figures which should be open to Canadians and to all of us?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, we are not unaware. We want to be precise, and I will try to get the precise answer for the Hon. Member.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have an interesting question for the Minister responsible for the Post Office. Recently Canada Post officials have denied second-class mailing privileges traditionally enjoyed by a number of Canadian church publications, thus increasing their costs fivefold. Will the Minister forthwith instruct Canada Post to review and to reverse these regrettable and unwarranted decisions?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. The Government is aware of the situation. Indeed Canada Post is actually reviewing the matter, and we expect an answer shortly.


FINANCE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of State for Finance indicated, as reported in Hansard, how many companies had paid tax last year which had not done so before. Would the Minister tell the House, in view of the 80,000 companies with profits totalling $13 billion which did not pay tax in 1983, how many thousand profitable companies escaped paying tax last year?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting and very detailed question. I will have to ask for some time to get the answer. However, what I was saying yesterday was that, compared with the year


INCOME TAX
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I will direct my question to the Minister of State (Finance). It deals with two aspects of the last budget, the capital gains exemption and the international banking centres.
A few days ago, the "Business Council on National Issues" tabled its report on tax reform and recommended the repeal of the $500,000 exemption on capital gains. Here is my question to the Minister: Is the Minister aware of that recommendation, and does his Government intend to respond immediately and

October 31, 1986
Oral Questions
remove that form of tax evasion that favours almost exclusively the wealthiest groups in our society?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of that recommendation. It is part of an interesting report they put together. We are encouraging groups across Canada to consult with us and to give us their views as we go into the tax reform process. This report is a good example of it.
[ Translation]


ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING CENTRES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that the Minister did not answer my question. I would like to try my luck on the other aspect now. Yesterday or the day before, the President of the Montreal Stock Exchange indicated the Government wanted to backtrack on the establishment of international banking centres in Vancouver and Montreal. Is that view as expressed by the President of the Montreal Stock Exchange accurate, and if not, when does the Government intend to table the legislation that will implement the formal commitments it made in the Throne Speech?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, on the question of international financial centres there has been no change in the policy of the Government. It has been stated time and again and has not changed.


DOMESTIC PRICE OF NATURAL GAS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he think it is fair that Canadians should pay more for Canadian natural gas than Americans living next door to them?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think this was answered yesterday in the statement of the Minister wherein he said that the principle that Canadian gas would not be sold on export markets for less than comparable prices on the domestic market can, I believe, be upheld but implemented with the flexibility appropriate to a less regulated market. As a result of that decision there have been major announcements to the benefit of Alberta and western Canada. We hope that there will be others.


ELECTION CAMPAIGN PROMISE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Given that the Conservative campaign policy handbook states: "We will adopt
market-sensitive pricing for exported natural gas, while ensuring that Canadians always pay less than their American neighbours-" it is patently obvious that people in Los Angeles will pay less for Canadian gas than will Canadians living in Toronto. Why did the Prime Minister break another campaign promise?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That question was asked and answered yesterday. There has been no deviation. The object of the exercise is one of fairness for consumers and hope for western Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EFFECT OF DEREGULATION
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns the agreement announced yesterday on the deregulation of natural gas prices. That agreement will help the western producers and the western economy. Does the Prime Minister believe that all consumers of natural gas in Canada are going to benefit from that agreement in the future?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for that interesting question. One of the things that has happened in the energy sector in western Canada is that the sector was crippled by government attitudes, which have now been substantially corrected. We hope that we can count on all Members of the House to support this type of initiative which frees up and generates new economic activity in western Canada, while providing for fair prices for Canadian consumers.


EXPORT PRICE OF NATURAL GAS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the removal of the border price test. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that under the $4 billion natural gas deal to 19 utilities in the northeastern United States over the next 50 years gas will not be sold at a price cheaper than that which is provided for gas customers in Ontario and Quebec?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that goes to the original answer. The Minister responded that he had asked the Chairman of the National Energy Board to advise him of the impact of recent developments in the Canadian natural gas market and to recommend actions which may be taken to ensure that federal regulatory procedures are compatible with a less regulated environment. That is the objective of the Government, which is based on fairness, and we hope to see that followed through.
October 31, 1986



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(1), I have the honour to lay upon the Table copies of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and a related Act together with technical notes pertaining thereto. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(2), I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of the said motion.


POINT OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is not a Statement by Ministers. Reference was made during Question Period to my brother-inlaw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister rises and I would ask that there be order in the Chamber.


Charles Joseph Clark: During Question Period reference was made by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) to my brother-in-law. I presume he means his constituent, my brother-in-law Jacques Martin, the coach of the St. Louis Blues. Mr. Martin is indeed a constituent of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. But he, sir has not a road built.


PETITIONS
[Stage Direction]
Privilege-Mr. Waddell
your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. Humbly sheweth whereas the Government of Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language-note not in the French language-which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information. And whereas the tariff has little negative effect on the publishing industry of the United States, but we shot ourselves in the foot, yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, book sellers, distributors-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thank the Hon. Member. All Hon. Members understand the point of the petition. Does the Hon. Member have any other petitions to present?


Sheila Finestone: I understood that you wished me to read the petition, Your Honouor.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the disposition of the House, and I so advise the Hon. Member, that the House has the import of the petition.


Sheila Finestone: May I now table it?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Sheila Finestone: I do so table. May I tell you that the petitions are from a number of provinces, Your Honour?


Mr. Speaker:: As long as you do not name them.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I rise again because my office is being flooded by petitions from people who are upset about the 10 per cent book tariff tax.
They are looking at Mr. Scrooge when Christmas is coming. [English] They want this book tax removed. This is a tax on reading which is offensive.
* *
*


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member read the prayer on the petition.


Sheila Finestone: I would be pleased to so do, Sir.
To the Honourable House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to


NOTICE OF QUESTION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It relates to my privileges as a Member of Parliament. It is with respect to the release of press reports yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) in his speech in Calgary. A critic always has a relationship with the Minister's Department, which seems to make the House work. I had this relationship

October 31, 1986
Supply
with the Department of the previous Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) to advise the Chair if I have received this information correctly that this took place outside the Chamber yesterday. Under those circumstances, it is customary that notice be given. Perhaps the Hon. Member has attempted to give notice, but the Chair has not received any notice.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can give notice now for Monday and raise it then. It will be a matter of privilege with respect to releasing documents to the press and not releasing them to Members of Parliament, in spite of repeated attempts.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish all Members to know that I am in no way foreclosing on a question of privilege by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. The Hon. Member will know that the notice should be addressed to the Chair in writing. I take it the Chair will receive that notice later on today returnable on Monday.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau) moved:: That this House regrets that, at a time when thousands of workers in the transportation sector are looking for jobs; when the national rail transportation system is threatened with extinction; when the St. Lawrence Seaway navigational network is in complete economic disarray; when all major Canadian airlines have reported substantial losses in 1985-1986; when Canadian National is uprooting operations in Moncton and in Montreal that have contributed to those local economies for decades; when deregulation is threatening the future existence of the Canadian trucking industry; when established safety standards protecting travellers are in danger of disappearing in a deregulated environment; and when the uncertainty of privatization proposals hang over the employees of Canadian National, Air Canada and our national airports, the Government is addressing the problems of the national transportation system with insensitive measures based on frivolous ideological decision-making.
.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think there is no single area where the Conservative Government's failure to act has been greater and more obvious than in the area of transport.
In less than two years this Government has already had five Ministers at the Department of Transport, but no major legislation has been adopted by this Parliament.
During the first session, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski)-and I am glad to see him-the Minister of Transport at the time, tabled four major Bills: the National
Transportation Act, which was Bill C-126; the Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, which was Bill C-75; an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extraprovincial undertakings, which was Bill C-127 and an Act respecting rail passenger transportation, Bill C-97.
Now, we were expecting this Government, through one of the most important Ministers in the present Cabinet, to try and make some progress in this particular area. It so happens that only one of the Bills was considered in the House, while the other three were put on the Order Paper and were never examined by this House, much less approved by Parliament.
The Minister's colleagues, the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) and the Hon. Member for Roberval (Mr. Bouchard) made only a fleeting impression on the Department. The Hon. Member for Rosemont seemed to think that transport meant trips abroad, while the Hon. Member for Roberval promised to settle the thorny issue of Montreal International Airport, in other words, whether Dorval or Mirabel would become Montreal's major airport. A commission was appointed, the Hon. Member for Roberval left the Department, the Commission submitted its report and now, two years later, the Government still has made no decision other than to maintain the status quo, build a road to link the two airports and provide free bus service for Mirabel and Dorval users.
That is all the Government has managed to do on this major issue, and I say that it should not have taken two years to reach such a conclusion. This is a clear demonstration of this Government's incompetence in the area of transportation. I must say that the only things which have worked well in that Department are the political appointments, because the most massive and scandalous political appointments over the past two years under this Government have been made by the former Minister of Transport and his officials. All Crown Corporations have been affected. All of them, whether Via Rail, Air Canada, Ports Canada, or the CNR, are now overcrowded with PC bagmen, Tory organizers, former PC MPs, and even PC candidates defeated at the last election.
Competence or even knowledge in the area of transport has never been a selection criterion. Patronage has been the fundamental rule followed across the board by the Minister of Transport and his colleagues.
Transportation in Canada has always been and must remain a major instrument of economic development. This country has been established and developed thanks to our railway network and has witnessed a significant economic expansion from coast to coast brought about by the construction and operation of airports and seaports. Instead of using it as a tool for employment and job creation, this Conservative Government has managed in two years to create chaos and confusion among all companies involved in the transportation industry, the air carriers which have recorded losses as well as shipping companies which are experiencing difficulties and the railway and trucking companies which are really enraged by the Government's decisions.
October 31, 1986

Well, the Government somehow managed to antagonize all these people and create so much uncertainty in the transport industry in Canada.
The Government would have made a deliberate effort to ruin everybody that it could not have done better. But what is even more tragic are the consequences of this Government's incompetence which will result in thousands of jobs being lost for the workers in the transport industry.
This Government-need I say it-had promised to create jobs. What it has done in the transportation area is create more unemployment. Specialized workers, by the hundreds, have been laid off by Transport Canada which has cut its own personnel, by such Crown Corporations as Via Rail, Air Canada, CN Marine and the CNR, at the Government's request.
Thousands of workers involved in the manufacturing of rail rolling stock have been fired by Canadian corporations unable to secure Government contracts, while a simple and intelligent buy Canadian policy in the area of transportation could have saved hundreds of jobs in major companies in the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario and Western Canada.
And last, but certainly not least, hundreds and hundreds of workers in the various Canadian shipyards have already been or are about to be victimized under a ruthless industry rationalization policy imposed by the Government which is forcing shipyard company officials to unite and form a common front to streamline their operations and shut down a number of existing plants. While the former administration bent over backwards to secure contracts for all shipbuilders throughout Canada, this Government is telling them: If you want a contract you will have to convince one or two of your competitors to lock their doors just so we will not have to deal with so many of the existing shipyards. I cannot think of a more cavalier attitude towards these thousands of workers who thought the Government was on their side. The stupidity of the Government is unequaled, or perhaps it is surpassed only by its stubborn insistence on levying additional charges from maritime companies through its coast guard service cost recovery scheme.
The St. Lawrence Seaway shipping industry is in the midst of an economic crisis, as was so ably explained by the seaway president when he appeared as a witness before the parliamentary transport committee. And he is not the only one who is complaining about the negligence of the Conservative Government. All the witnesses, all those who gave evidence before the House of Commons Transport Committee concerning Bill C-75 attacked Clause 4, on the grounds specifically that the implementation of this Tory policy would result in a major traffic loss from ports on the St. Lawrence to alternative routes, especially to New Orleans and other American ports on the East Coast, and also a significant loss of competitivity for Great Lakes carriers and Quebec export companies. What has the Government done? Up till the last minute of the last session, it persisted in maintaining Clause 4 in Bill C-75. And
Supply
at this very moment, we do not know yet what the Government is going to do.
We suspect the new Minister of Transport, who may want to amend Bill C-75 is struggling against his colleagues from Finance and the Treasury Board who are bent on getting those additional revenues from an industry that is in serious difficulty. Now, a standing sub-committee of the Transport Committee has been set up to look into the serious problems of the St. Lawrence Seaway. It must be said that this Government has refused to agree to any resumption of the work of that sub-committee. Did the Minister fear he would be embarrassed? Is that the reason why he would not allow that sub-committee to carry on, and would not allow it to meet and work during the summer months and to call on American officials during the fall in order to get a better idea of the situation in the port of New Orleans, and especially to find solutions to those problems that confront us, at a time when those American ports are nibbling at our clientele, when rapid solutions must be found to the economic renewal of our ports on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence. That sub-committee has not yet been re-established, but I would like to read a letter I received from the President of the Dominion Marine Association.
The President of the Dominion Marine Association wrote to all members of the Standing Committee on Transport. He said:
We feel strongly that the work of the Standing Committee in this regard, only just begun in June, should be continued so that the House of Commons can, through the Committee, gain an appreciation of the severe implications that current problems pose for the Seaway's future.

Clearly, the situation along the St. Lawrence Seaway must be tackled head on by this Government, and I hope this Minister has the courage to accept that the Standing Committee on Transport look into that question without being gagged as it has been a few weeks ago.
The situation is hardly better in the area of passenger rail transportation. As we know, thanks to the efforts of Association Transport 2000, we finally could lay our hands on the famous Horner Report. That report, which has cost the Canadian taxpayers thousands of dollars, as I must say, recommends a 13-point plan of action to save VIA Rail and make it viable. Unfortunately, in a way that is typical with this Government, both the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazan-kowski) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) have decided to shelve it, because it did not agree with their narrowminded and inconsistent vision of what the future of that important Crown corporation should be. The Horner Report asked for an immediate and significant injection of public funds to make VIA Rail viable. Unfortunately, the Government did not have the courage to put its money where its mouth is. It made wonderful promises during the election
958

October 31, 1986
Supply
campaign, but since the election it has left VIA Rail go down the river, replacing seasoned directors with political friends. No wonder then that the recommendation made by the Task Force on VIA Rail asking for an important administrative review went unheeded. The Government denies that Crown corporation the necessary means not only to become profitable but also to serve Canadian travellers.
As I said earlier, the Bill has not even been considered in this House. It shows how sincere the Conservative Government is concerning railway passenger services. To this day, in the second session of Parliament, the Bill has not yet been reintroduced and we do not know where the Government will be going with that policy. Besides, they want to apply to transportation the old phrase which says: Use it or lose it. The Government is indeed saying to Canadians: "Let the market do what we do not have the political will to do ourselves". It is obvious that in the field of transportation, the trademark of this government is its lack of political will.
Of course, it is idealistic to ask Canadians to finance in a profitable way the operations of a passenger service. There is no country in the world which has railway passenger services that are profitable. One rail line in Japan between Tokyo and Osaka has become profitable while the rest of their railway operations are not. Even in France where passenger services are speedy and most comfortable, managers are unable to bring their operations out of the red.
Now how can a country as diversified as ours with such a small population ask Via-Rail to be profitable? It is absolutely unthinkable and unacceptable.
Since my time is running short, I would like to deal with another area of transportation which I feel is quite important, and 1 mean deregulation. Now this Conservative Government which likes to imitate, if not to copy stupidly, every decision made by the Americans and President Reagan has decided to go head on into deregulation. The move towards deregulation which has developed south of the border has become a craze in Canada which is epitomized in Bill C-126, an Act concerning the National Transportation Act. If this Bill is ever adopted by the House-and I am wondering about it because right now we do not know where this government is heading and the Bill was not even reintroduced this session-it could have serious consequences on the transportation industry, but also and mostly on regional development.
I think that all who have commented on this Bill recognize unanimously that it could have a negative impact on their industry, in particular on the trucking industry.
In conclusion, I would like to remind the house of the words of the chief executive of the Canadian Trucking Association who said:
I thought you might be interested in our critique of Bill C-126 and Bill C-127 with supporting documentation. While we aren't opposed to substantial
regulatory reform, they have taken this thing so far that it almost makes you wonder if they have a clue what they're doing.

I see that my time is almost up and I would like to conclude by saying that we, in the Opposition, feel compelled to force the Governement into action in the transport industry. Not only do we blame the Government for its lack of action but we want to make them understand that transportation is an important tool of economic development in this country and that instead of trying to cut costs, the Government should come up with the necessary funds to ensure the well-being of all of those who are in some way involved in transportation all across the country.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Madam Speaker, I am rather pleased that the Hon. Member has laid out the new Liberal transportation policy because it is quite a deviation from that of his colleague, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) or the position that the Liberals took when they were in government. They now seem to be directly and totally opposed to any form of regulatory reform. I find that rather strange.


Mr. Berger:: That is not what he said.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is what I interpreted. You can continue to confuse the science and technology issue and I will stay in the transportation field. I think we can probably separate those two issues quite clearly in our minds. The Hon. Member has said that the Government is moving too fast and too deep in terms of regulatory reform. I suspect that he is suggesting that this move should not continue.
The Hon. Member has quoted some members of the trucking industry in expressing their legitimate concerns. There is no question that they are legitimate concerns, but I think what has been outlined in the new National Transportation Act is a smooth and orderly transition to a less regulated environment. The provinces agree that there is far too much regulation in the trucking industry and there is a proliferation of regulations as they apply from province to province. It is a major impediment to interprovincial trade. I think it only makes good sense to try to resolve that.
The fact is that unless the federal Government attempts to co-ordinate this in a realistic and co-operative fashion, these kinds of impediments will continue. It is rather interesting to note that the for-hire trucking industry's share of the market has been on the decline while the in-house trucking has been growing.
Let me deal with air transportation. Of course, when his colleague, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, was Minister, he embarked upon a process of regulatory reform in the air sector. I think the results have been very good in terms of providing new and improved services to areas that did not have service before. For example, Air Nova is a carrier that is now providing service to Sydney, Halifax, Yarmouth and Charlottetown. Voyageur is a new entrant, as is City Express,
October 31, 1986

PropAir, Quebecair and Harland Aviation. These airlines are providing service to areas that were never serviced before.
I simply wanted to ask the Hon. Member if he can clarify once and for all the position of the Liberal Party with respect to deregulation or regulatory reform. We have never used the word "deregulation", but have called it regulatory reform. Are the Liberals backing off from the position they took when they were in government prior to 1984?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to point out to the former Minister of Transport that the problem lies with the Bill as introduced by the Government, which contains no safety measures at all. That is what concerns us, and we suggest that this shortcoming in the Bill is totally unacceptable.
The Bill was introduced in the wake of one of the worst years in terms of air safety throughout the world. Although 1985 was one of the worst years in the history of civil aviation, the Minister is going ahead with a deregulation Bill in which no provision is made for any form of safety for the travelling public. He knows very well that deregulation will bring about increased competition, that new companies will be competing. This might lead to a lack of integrity in the management and a reduction in the maintenance, inspection and control of aircrafts. That is what happened in the United States, and what happened there is bound to take place in Canada. What we are saying then is: Let there be more inspectors in the Department of Transport so that the job gets done. But the Government answers: No, there is no need to increase the number of inspectors, the companies themselves will selfmonitor their operations in these great times of deregulation. That is wishful thinking in my opinion, and we suggest that the Government is not assuming its responsibilities with respect to deregulation when it introduces a bill that has no regard whatsoever for safety concerns.
The Deputy Prime Minister referred to the Canadian Trucking Association and agreed that the Association had a valid point. There is even more to it, and I would like to quote another paragraph of that letter:

One would almost think that the future viability of the common carrier concept is no longer considered important in some respects.
Hopefully they will start over but in their present form, these Bills are a disaster for the private sector common carrier transportation industry and truckers especially.

Those are not my words, they are written by the representatives of the Canadian Trucking Association. That is what they think of the two little babies of the former Minister of Transport.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I was also rising for a question or comment, and as I understand it, it is the practice
Supply
normally to alternate between the two sides of the House. Is that right?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is indeed the practice to alternate. I had understood that the Deputy Prime Minister had a very short supplementary. I was going to recognize him and give you an opportunity to rise afterwards, which I still intend to do. The Deputy Prime Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: A short comment, please.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will be very brief, Madam Speaker. The Hon. Member suggested there was no provision for safety in the new piece of legislation. Safety is spelled out in very succinct and categorical terms. That is one of the first basic criteria upon which we base a sound transportation system. I wanted to make that very clear. Furthermore, Canada's record in the aviation sector is excellent. We brought in a new aeronautics Bill which tightened it up. We have brought on new inspectors and tightened up the security very, very much, certainly a lot more than was done in the days when the Hon. Member's Government was in office.


André Ouellet: I do not want to start an argument, Madam Speaker, on whether the previous Government took more to heart the security and safety of the traveller, but the fact is that since the Government took office there have been a lot of incidents at airports. Indeed, we have asked the Department of Transport to do more and it is still continuing to drag its feet. That is the reality.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister to explain or comment-


An Hon. Member:: Not the Minister; the Hon. Member.


David Berger: I am sorry, it was a slip of the tongue. I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), the former Minister of Transport, to comment further the issue of transport in relation with VIA Rail. I recall that, when we were in power, we made some cut-backs in service to enable VIA Rail to purchase more equipment. We wanted to increase the equipment budget because we thought it crucial that VIA Rail have modern equipment to be able to make its railway passenger service profitable one day. The Conservatives objected-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think the Hon. Member has put a question. Time is short and we want to allow the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) to answer the question.
[ Translation]


David Berger: If I may, I would like to finish my question.

October 31, 1986
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There will be less time for the Hon. Member for Papineau to answer, but go ahead.


David Berger: The Hon. Member has referred to the recent report published by Transport 2000, which states that the Government is killing the passenger service, and I was wondering whether the Minister, or rather the Hon. Member could make a few additional comments on this important matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) has the floor, but for one minute only!


André Ouellet: It is obvious that the previous Government had a three-pronged program aimed at restoring VIA Rail's efficiency. This program consisted of the following three elements. First, the purchase of new rolling stock, engines and passenger cars.
Second, the establishment of maintenance centers in the four regions of the country, namely the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario and Western Canada, in order to afford this transportation company substantial savings in the repair and maintenance of its rolling stock.
And third, the rationalization of passenger service, increased marketing efforts on certain profitable and important routes and abandonment of other routes which had been deemed useless and were not used by the travelling public.
Upon taking power however, the new government has completely bungled these priorities. It has restored unprofitable routes. It has refused to allow VIA Rail to purchase new rolling stock. As of now, VIA Rail still has no new rolling stock-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time alloted for questions and comments has now expired. Debate. The Hon. Minister of State for Transport.


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Transport)):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased with this opportunity to speak for a few minutes, but before giving Canadians the information I have prepared, I would like to suggest to the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who was talking about patronage just now, that perhaps he should talk to the Leader of the Opposition, who was a patronage expert at the time, and as for the political courage to which the Hon. Member referred to earlier, which, in fact, under the previous Government was pure arrogance, I think there is a big difference between a Government that consults before making decisions and a Government that was as arrogant as the previous one was.
Madam Speaker, I intend to address the Government's priorities in the transport field. The Government's highest
priority is surely to guarantee the safety of our transportation network. We cannot and will not tolerate any compromise for the sake of achieving other Government objectives in this sector. In pursuing this objective, the Government has taken some important initiatives with respect to our various transportation modes, and it continues to do so. Last year, Parliament approved a number of amendments to the Aeronautics Act, which gave Canada its best legislation on aviation security in 60 years. The regulations on the transportation of hazardous goods were adopted last year, and they are now being implemented with the full co-operation of all provinces. After consultation with the provinces, we also reached agreement on a uniform national safety code for the trucking industry.
Amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, designed to improve marine safety, were tabled in the House last spring and will be reintroduced for debate. As for the railways, we have had consultations with all parties concerned, prior to drafting amendments to the Railway Act that will promote the use of advanced technology.
The Government's commitment to economic reform remains firm. Very shortly, we shall be tabling the new National Transportation Act and the accompanying Motor Vehicle Transportation Act. Except for a few minor technical changes, these Bills will be identical to those tabled last June. We trust they will be considered without delay and given the attention they deserve.
The last major review of our national transportation legislation took place nearly 25 years ago. The Hon. Member for Papineau said earlier that his Government had done a great deal for transportation in this country, but it has been 25 years since they or any government even touched this legislation. In 1961, Madam Speaker, the MacPherson Royal Commission of Inquiry published a report on transport that was to form the basis for the National Transportation Act passed in 1967. Since then, the sector has developed and matured considerably. The trucking industry is buoyant, and the railways have concentrated their operations in bulk commodity transport.
Air transport has trebled and never before have such comprehensive services been available in this sector.
Intermodal transport services have expanded and the needs of shippers have diversified. The number of Canadians who prefer train or bus travel has declined, and the automobile remains the favourite way to travel in Canada.
The 1967 National Transportation Act and other related statutes stem from a regulatory approach which is no longer acceptable. Such legislation were adopted when transport markets were considered as being underdeveloped and when carriers were deemed to need protection.
In short, Madam Speaker, over the past 20 years the previous Government took a paternalistic view of people involved in transportation, and we intend to steer a different
October 31, 1986

course altogether. Similarly, users are subject to undue control by regulatory agencies which decide for them how they should deal with carriers. Such regulations have stifled the competitive spirit and more often than not have led to higher rates and fewer services.
As the transportation sector expands, regulations ought to become more flexible and simpler to enable the industry to meet the ever changing needs of shippers and users alike. We should eliminate restrictions which thwart competitiveness and keep prices high, and then promote diversity and initiative. The regulations and the agency which implements them should be more flexible, more readily accessible to Canadians, less procedure-oriented.
Madam Speaker, when I was responsible for small business-in the Department of Industry, if you will-my provincial counterparts and I signed memorandums of agreement to reduce red tape and simplify procedures. We will take similar action in the transportation sector. We should encourage mediation and less formal dispute settlements. As stated in the November 8, 1984 document entitled "A New Direction for Canada: An Agenda for Economic Renewal", the current economic situation calls for the removal of barriers which stand in the way of growth and competitiveness in Canada's transport industry.
A fresh policy and a new legislative framework have become imperative if we are to face the realities of the 1980s, the 1990s and beyond, and if we aim at building a sound foundation which will enable us to meet the challenges and benefit from the opportunities of the next century.
The new legislation reflects the commitment of the Conservative Government to five principles. First, transportation safety is our number one priority and we cannot over emphasize it. As you will recall, Madam Speaker, whenever there is an announcement or a press conference regarding new transportation legislation or policies, security always is and still remains the priority. The Canadian transportation network must meet the needs of shippers and travellers. Trimmed down regulations which would reduce the intervention of the state would stimulate innovation and entrepreneurship. Greater reliance on competition and market forces will result in a decrease of unit costs, more competitive prices and a greater range of services for shippers and the Canadian public.
Canadians want a regulatory framework which is both open and accessible without being excessively slow and costly as is now the case.
Madam Speaker, the reforms contained in the new legislation represent a made-in-Canada policy. The existing legislation provides only one way of dealing with complaints by shippers, carriers or the public: an investigation by the Canadian Transport Commission, which can include a public hearing to determine whether the public interest is involved.
This procedure has been criticized by everyone as too costly, too slow and inappropriate for settling differences about prices or services between a shipper and a carrier, for instance.
Supply
New provisions taking into account the particular situation of transport in Canada are proposed so that private differences between shippers and carriers can be settled quickly and economically:
A mediation service provided by the National Transportation Agency at the request of the parties involved.
An arbitration procedure will be established to settle differences when mediation fails. The independent arbitrator appointed by the National Transportation Agency will be able to choose only between the final offer of the carrier and that of the shipper.
The new legislation will also include an amended and more effective investigation mechanism for the cases where the public interest is involved.
Upon a complaint being filed, the national transportation board will be empowered to investigate any actions, omissions or rates of a carrier that could harm the public interest.
The various needs of different areas of Canada have been taken into account by the previous Minister of Transport, the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), following many consultations held across the country, and also by the Standing Committee on Transport.
To give but two examples, the results speak for themselves. The national transport policy statement, on which the new national transportation board based its decisions, does recognize that transportation is the key to regional development, as this Government has indicated on a number of occasions. Regional development is one of our commitments, and transportation is the key to that development.
The regulations concerning air services in Northern Canada, which the Deputy Prime Minister referred to earlier, will include other criteria that will safeguard the public interest, namely the maintenance of essential air services at reasonable costs in difficult and precarious conditions.
In Southern Canada, where most Canadians live, this increased competition between air carriers will lead to better fares and to services that are better suited to passenger needs. We have already witnessed the arrival of new regional air carriers such as Air Nova, as indicated earlier by the Deputy Prime Minister. In many cases those companies, as is the case with Air Nova, are using Canadian-designed aircraft, Dash 8's and Dash 7's-like City Express or others for instance-and this is good for our Canadian manufacturers and employees.
And when the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) said earlier-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. However, he should be aware that when the House resumes, he will have 5 minutes more if he wants to use them, after which there will be 10 minutes for questions and comments.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
Supply
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.

October 31, 1986


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House took recess at 1 p.m., the hon. Minister of State (Transport) (Mr. Bissonette) had the floor.


André Bissonnette: When we stopped for the lunch break, Madam Speaker, I was dealing with the interests of our producers and shippers.
You can rest assure that the interests of our producers and shippers will better coincide with those of our rail carriers and truckers in the very near future.
Our shippers will get better services at more competitive prices, and that is the purpose of this whole updating of the transport legislation. It is absolutely essential to make our producers and shippers more competitive, both in Canada and abroad, in a world where competition is increasingly strong.
Madam Speaker, let me tell you what is going on now and what had gone on for some years. Canadian shippers were taking advantage of the situation by shipping goods by other means of transport available in the United States, because American carriers were not required to publish their transport rates, while we had to, in Canada. The changes which we are making are therefore going to be beneficial both to the carriers and shippers.
It goes without saying, therefore, that carriers will have to become more efficient to meet the challenge of an increased competition. There is no doubt about that. However, we trust that our carriers will be able to meet the challenge and be up to the task. I should be misleading you, Madam Speaker, if I said that all the benefits would accrue without the people involved having to make a number of concessions. In many respects, however, the legislative reforms simply reflect the reality of a transportation network which has changed considerably.
We have sought the advice of all interested parties on the need of a reform and the proposed changes. They have all agreed that a major reform is essential; that they do not all agree on the details of the proposed legislation is quite normal. There are governments which do not consult, preferring to impose, as did the one to which the Hon. Member for Papi-neau (M. Ouellet) belonged and of which I emphasized the arrogance a while ago-well, we have consulted, and it is normal for people to express their views and sometimes disagree. One thing is sure; the measures which will be implemented will provide for a transition period during which each organization and province will be able to adapt.
To conclude, Madam Speaker, I should like to touch briefly on a point which the Hon. Member for Papineau raised a while ago, that is, the Saint-Jean Airport. I want the Hon. Member
for Papineau to remember that 20 years ago, there were 600 people working at the Saint-Jean Airport, and that there were not 50 left when we came to office in September, 1984. The Liberal MP who had represented the Saint-Jean riding for 20 years had never bothered to try and create jobs for Saint-Jean workers at this airport.
As elected representative for the Saint-Jean riding and as Minister of State (Transport), I can assure you, Madam Speaker, and the people in Saint-Jean that the airport will be enlarged to create jobs, and that this will happen soon.


Raymond Garneau: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few comments and ask some questions to the Minister who just spoke on behalf of the Government.
Madam Speaker, the motion introduce today by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) has considerable importance. In an area like the one 1 represent in the House, the Montreal area, transportation has always been, and will be for years to come, the main industry. Whether it is rail, air, or maritime transport, Montreal, due to its location, has always been a transportation hub, not only for the rest of Canada, but also for the United States.
The motion of the Hon. Member for Papineau reminds us of several aspects-companies and jobs-connected with the transportation policies of Canada. These policies were developed over time to build a country, because the Canadian geography was not as favourable as in other parts of North America, we had to bridge the distance between East and West, so that transportation was always the connecting link, the means to build the country we now have. However, in the last few years, several aspects being discussed today thanks to the motion of my colleague, the Hon. Member from Papineau, concern rail transportation.
I want to ask the Minister how he and his Government intend to deal with these problems, not just in terms of jobs but in terms of the importance of the Montreal region for the transportation industry and transport-related industries. In the past 18 months, the only Canadian company manufacturing locomotives, Bombardier-MLW Ltd., has practically closed down, and now, the only locomotive manufacturer in Canada as far as I know is a Canadian branch of a US company which, now it no longer has to compete, will probably be tempted to have its manufacturing done in the United States. And Canadians will no longer be able to build their own locomotives, either for VIA Rail or for CP or CN.
Bombardier-MLW Ltd. has been shut down, and another related industry as well, and I am referring to Hawker Siddeley Canada Ltd., with its welding shops and foundry. And what about the railway maintenance workshop in Montreal which apparently will be closed, with some jobs remaining to repair American trains if any come in for repairs.
I want to ask the Minister about this policy the Government is considering. Does it have an answer, not just for the people
October 31, 1986

who work there, does it have a plan to ensure that the Montreal region will continue to be what it has been in the last 100 years, a major railway transportation centre?


André Bissonnette: Madam Speaker, I shall be happy to clarify a few points regarding the transportation industry in Montreal, and in addition to railway transportation, I will also address what we intend to do about the industry in general, not just in Montreal but across Canada. But to get back to CN in Montreal and the points mentioned by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), when I looked at the CN dossier, 1 started to wonder what the previous Government had done in the last 20 years and what kind of guidelines it had given CN. When in 1978, CN was told to become selfsufficient, it had to acquire the means to do so and this meant rationalizing certain parts of its network and some of its repair shops. And today, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides has the nerve to insinuate that this Government is taking jobs away from the people of Montreal! When the Government gave CN those instructions, it did not tell them: if you decide to close certain repair shops, you will have to find something else to replace those jobs. They never did anything of the kind, and that includes the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who was very much involved and was part of that Government.
We asked the CN people to try and find contracts elsewhere. The previous Governement did not even have enough imagination to believe in private enterprise and to believe that a Crown corporation could go hunting for repair contracts in other countries, as we will be doing with CN in Montreal. I do hope the CN management has well understood the clear message that CN employees are important to us, that jobs in Montreal are important to us, and we proved it in the last two years. As I am sure you know, and it is worth repeating,
600,000	new jobs have been created in Canada, of which a little over 100,000 in Quebec, and they have been created by the private sector, contrary to what the Hon. Member for Papineau indicated in his statement today when he said that the state had to be a protective state, looking after everything.
No, this is not the Conservative Government's philosophy; ours is to create an environment in which private enterprise can develop and in which private sector enterprises will develop as much as possible and create jobs. And this environment we have created because we control Government expenses, interest rates and inflation rates. This is a good climate for investment, this is the kind of climate that creates jobs.


Raymond Garneau: Madam Speaker, if the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bissonnette) wants to take it that way, to be partisan-I thought I asked a forward-looking question, but he was looking backwards so, if you do not mind, we will both look backwards.
When the Liberals were in office, if that is the way you want to look at it, Bombardier-MLW employed over 1,000 people and was building engines for Canadian companies. The same
Supply
thing happened at the Hawker Siddeley foundries. When did those operations close? After September 4! Imagine, Madam Speaker, now they come and tell me that 600,000 jobs have been created! The Minister of State should consider what has happened since the impact of their last few budgets was first felt on the economy. There has been a loss of 17,000 jobs in Canada. Up to and including last August, 17,000 jobs had been lost in Canada. Last month, 35,000 were created. That leaves a surplus of about 15,000 jobs. You then have the gall to brag about the creation of 15,000 jobs in a year and to refuse to answer questions. What will you do about the transportation policy to allow Canadians to build-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) knows that he should address the member through the Chair.


Raymond Garneau: Right, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bissonnette).


André Bissonnette: Madam Speaker, this Conservative
Government believes in private entreprise. This is what we are going to do in the area of transportation and we are going to simplify these regulations. We will eliminate all red tape to give people a chance to develop in a country where shippers and carriers enjoy free entreprise.
Such is the policy of the federal Governement and the Conservative Party and I will never apologize to the Liberals for what they have done.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I think the Minister of State (Transport) (Mr. Bisonnette) should answer the questions put to him. This question is quite simple and I will repeat it for the third time because my colleague for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has already asked it twice. Twice we have heard platitudes but no answer was provided. Some 2,500 workers in the Montreal area have lost their jobs since the Tory Government has come to power.
They were manufacturing locomotives in the East end of Montreal in the Bombardier-MLW plant, in the Vickers shipyards, in ironworks and foundries. Those people lost their job because the Tory Government failed to provide contracts to those companies as was done in the past. Moreover, Madam Speaker, I would like the Minister of State to answer the following question: What is he doing for those unemployed people as a result of the Governments inaction?


André Bissonnette: Madam Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) that we are not going to dig ditches for the sake of building bridges. We are not going to have trains built if we don't need them. But we have created a climate that has made it possible to create over 100,000 jobs in Montreal. That is what counts, Hon. Member for Papineau! Thanks to deregulation, the transportation industry will continue to expand instead of being shackled by regulations that have remained unchanged for 25 years. You were never

October 31, 1986
Supply
able to adjust to change. We are going to adjust the industry to the realities of the 21st century.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of my Party to debate a motion that addresses a serious problem, to use its own words, in "frivolous ideological" terms.
The import of this motion is essentially to put all those federally-regulated means of transport in Canada out for debate. That is a worthy intent. The fashion in which it has been done does not reflect any credit on the movers of the motion. It is a fashion that suggests that we will have un dialogue de sourds, an interchange between two sides in terms of the failures of one and the achievements of the other. Into that debate 1 will attempt to inject, if I may make so bold, some measure of discussion of what the real problems in transport in Canada are, how they derive, and where the solutions may lie.
The motion that the Opposition has put forward covers almost every aspect of freight and passenger traffic in Canada. Reading the text of the motion, one could almost imagine that the Liberals had not been in power for a decade or held power for 17 of the last 20 years. Reality is different. Virtually everything that this motion complains about is the result of decisions taken, actions left undone or indeed done by the previous Liberal Governments. It is worthwhile to mention that while I have no cause or inclination to defend the Government, the fact is that many of the things that have happened in the area of transport over the past few years have their roots in the inaction or the budgetary shortcomings of the previous Liberal Government.
Airline deregulation began in the Ministry of Transport when the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) was Minister. He was pulling in people from right and left, overspending his budget by a factor of twice and breaking some of the rules which then constrained the salaries of his officials in order to gear up the public relations effort that went along with this. Presumably the Liberals are taking the position that their brand of regulation would not have gone as far as the present Government. Since the Government has passed no legislation of substance in this area up until now, it is clear where these trends and initiatives started. We must acknowledge that the idea of complete deregulation at the same time of all phases of federally-regulated transport in Canada is a folly which originates with this Government. I would dare to say that it is a folly which is encountering increasing resistance as the adverse consequences become evident. It is obvious that in the area of freight transportation, no matter how the freight is travelling, in a time when industry is suffering from low commodity prices, low returns on transport, and poor sales during this transition period, deregulation is being introduced at a time and in a fashion that can only aggravate some of the problems which now exist. We
have had contradictory statements from the Government and have not had it plain and clear as to the future role, if any, of the Canadian Transport Commission. Is it going to disappear from the scene, as has been suggested? Will it stay, as the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) in one of his parliamentary answers has replied?
The issue of safety is essential to an understanding of this debate and it is an essential part of the concern that all Members of Parliament should be demonstrating for Canadians. Here I would warn the Government and caution the Opposition. The caution is that the dramatization of safety concerns will obscure the very real concern that should be manifested. If we simply go around the country and say that safety is out of the window and there will not be a regulation that can be enforced-

This means there will be a free-for-all in the transportation sector.

If we do such a thing, we will be rendering a disservice to our fellow Canadians. Equally from the Government's side, if we were to go around and say that safety will not and cannot be compromised, then we might miss the reality of some serious changes in the safety regime which may have unfortunate consequences for Canadians.
I am referring particularly to the matter of air travel safety and rail transportation safety. We have at last the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. My belief is that the preliminary implications of the CASB are very good. I would also point out that recent studies indicate that the regulations on fatigue in flying, principally pilot fatigue, are among the least effective in the world. They are not widely and strictly enforced in the manner that they should be. In many cases they do not provide for adequate recuperation for pilots before undertaking their next flight. Like most Members of the House, I read the aviation safety reports and the accident reports. I also read the reports of minor accidents. The number of cases in which pilot error is indicated should be a clear warning to the Government that there is something lacking in the present system. Also the lack of ability to enforce the existing safety regulations is something that should concern every Member of the House.
The operating rules for railways which have been enforced for many years by the Railway Transport Committee of the CTC were not regulations introduced on a whim or a caprice. They were introduced over a period of years or decades in response to perceived needs. To say-

As the Minister of State (Transport) (Mr. Bissonnette) said, we are going to get rid of all that red tape and even tear up the rule book-I'm not quite sure about the context-but I think we should not forget that this so-called red tape consists of regulations that are there for a very good reason, namely to ensure our safety.
October 31, 1986



We should look at those safety regulations. The Government must take the utmost care in discarding any one of those regulations.
Turning to the situation of rail freight under this Government, we have seen over the last couple of years a continuation of the trend toward job cuts. I am very glad to see the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) sitting in the House. This is a matter that relates to the substance of this motion that I feel he should be taking up with his Department and on which he should be conducting a detailed scrutiny. When I read the press release on immigration levels I see that three categories of railway workers and the category of airline pilots, are designated as categories in which Canada has a shortage by virtue of being awarded 10 points in the immigration regulations. I cannot believe that that is so. In my riding many railway workers have been laid off or have been bumped to other parts of the system. Many pilots in Canada are unable to obtain employment, even though in some cases they possess the highest qualifications that our licencing system allows. The idea that we are effectively telling people in other countries that Canada has a shortage of people to fill those jobs is, to my mind, not only a slap in the face for those Canadians in those occupations who are unemployed, but is also cruelly deceiving those people who might come to this country under the assumption that such jobs are available.
We have already gone into the matter of privatization and the problems that this is causing particularly in terms of the CNR. I would be surprised to hear anyone on the government side deny the loss of employment that has occurred in the maintenance, the engineering, and the repair functions of the CNR. I am surprised that CN is not looking at those proposed job cuts with more appreciation for its potential liability should there be an accident which can be directly traced to deficient standards or defective maintenance. I believe the savings in eliminating these maintenance and overhaul jobs would look small compared to the possible liability involved in the companies being sued by someone who suffered an accident because of a failure of equipment resulting from lack of maintenance. Cabooseless trains is an example of the same problem. What will be the legal position of CN or CP in an accident where the injured party could claim that the lack of a caboose was a contributing cause to an accident? We have also heard in the last two months complaints from railway pensioners. In any debate on our transport system it is entirely legitimate that we raise those concerns. In many cases these people have given their whole working life to the railway system and now, because of a lack of indexation or inflation adjustment, they find their retirement incomes are totally inadequate. In examining the rail sector I think we have to harken back to reports issued some years ago which show the degree to which the railways' infrastructure costs and those of other modes of transportation are subsidized. If ever those costs were factored in to the cost of the transportation network as a whole, we know the rail mode would look a lot better than it does today.
Supply
Turning to air transport, the airport management strategy of this Government seems to have nothing to it but cut, cut, cut. The Government wants to slough off the responsibility for airports to municipal authorities. It seeks to cut back drastically the subsidies to municipal airports by something like 30 per cent next year. Where is it going to end? Are we going to have a national transportation system or are we going to have airports run individually by the municipalities, with a resulting lack of co-ordination? Perhaps the Government feels there is a better way to do things but it must realize that some airports will not be able to continue without these subsidies. It would also be unreasonable for anyone in this debate to talk about airports without mentioning the expenditures, some of them useful but much of them needless, on airports in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) riding. All Members of the House should be interested in this comparison. In Kenora-Rainy River there are presently 32 active airports, only four of which receive assistance from Transport Canada. The number of passengers passing through those airports far exceeds those of airports which are much less active but which have received capital works such as runway extensions for which there was no operational argument to justify them other than the need for paying someone to put down paving which probably has not had a wheel on it yet.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to comment briefly on the situation in Canada's shipyards, and especially in the Province of Quebec. It seems that today, about 70 per cent of skilled workers in Canada shipyards are unemployed, and this Government-need we bring this up again-met with the president of one of the shipyards to look at the future of the industry in Quebec, which is clearly a conflict of interest situation. On March 26, it was announced that a $130- million contract would be awarded to Versatile Davie for the construction of a super ferry for CN Marine, now Marine Atlantic Inc. It has now been six months and nothing has materialized yet. Why? The Government should explain, Madam Speaker.

I would like to turn now to the situation of VIA Rail. That corporation was established by the previous Liberal Government with great fanfare and shortly thereafter left in orphan status. The present state of affairs is that the companies dedicated personnel, particularly the operating personnel, are doing their best with ancient equipment. The Government announced several times that there would be new engines and new rail cars to replace the creeking 30 year old and 40 year old equipment on VIA Rail. Again-

As in the case of the super ferry, except that this has been going on for a much longer period, nothing has been done. There have been no announcements whatsoever.

October 31, 1986
Supply

The CN and CP charges, which never seem to have been submitted to a proper examination by an outside authority, are of course dragging VIA Rail down into a deeper deficit position. What the people of this country are looking for in the matter of VIA Rail is simple honesty. The Government should either say it will cure VIA Rail, or stand up with some dignity and belief in its principles and say it will kill VIA Rail. It makes no sense, from either a management or political point of view, to keep VIA Rail in this state of limbo. The Government has to be clear on where it stands on the future of VIA Rail. The uncertainty is far worse than any precise move the Government could make, be it positive or negative.
Finally, I would like to talk about some of the consequences within my own riding which flow from the Government's drift and lack of initiative. We have had lay-offs in the divisional points of Sioux Lookout, Rainy River and Kenora. We have seen lay-offs of CN personnel in Fort Frances, not just in the running trades or the equipment department, but also in the maintenance-of-way and other ancilliary areas. We have seen contracting out of bunkhouse operations and of course our railway workers have faced the threat of job elimination, which is surely at the end of the agenda in the cabooseless train hearings.
We know, in spite of the transitional provisions, which I think were indeed wise, concerning deregulation of air traffic, that airlines in northern Ontario are basically on a hit list of the majors. In the last couple of days we have seen Air Canada moving to take over Air Ontario and Austin Air. We know that in the past this has led to predatory practices directed at the smaller airlines and their elimination. My constituents fear that this will happen again.
The Government has continually stalled on the matter of extending the Loran C network to cover the whole of Canada. I have risen on more than one occasion and pointed out to the Government the very useful improvements in navigation and therefore in air safety available through installation of this system. Indeed, within the last couple of days it has come to my attention that the American Government may be interested in the construction of a Loran C station in Canada which would also improve coverage in the U.S. because of unique locational factors. The Government should be grasping at that sort of possibility instead of ignoring it. For the Government to say that the global satellite positioning system is an effective substitute is to ignore the realities of the difficulties in the United States space program and to ignore the responsibility for creating jobs and improving air safety in Canada in this decade rather than waiting for the next. In conclusion, the Government must give the entire area of transport much more attention.


Mr. Henderson:: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member's speech on this motion. He mentioned what a good system the Loran C is for navigation,
for aircraft as well as ships. The Canadian Owners & Pilots Association publishes a monthly newsletter. They qualified what the Hon. Member said about the Loran C coverage. The newsletter says that by 1990 the United States will have coverage for the entire continental U.S. Saskatchewan is a preferred site for such a station.
In the same newsletter there is a little note with regard to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) riding of Manicouagan. It says:
According to press reports, the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney has announced that ILS installations, costing $7 1/2 million, are to be made at airports within the boundaries of his constituency of Manicouagan. It was pointed out to us that his particular riding is bathed in marine Loran C signals which may be used by aircraft having functioning Loran C receivers to conduct non-precision approaches at no additional cost for ground transmitters.
Is the Hon. Member aware of this? When Hon. Members have asked for a few dollars to create part-time employment in their ridings, members of the Government have indicated that we are extremely short of funds. Is the Member aware that this is occurring in the Prime Minister's riding? Does he think that those dollars may be better spent elsewhere? This is what the Canadian Owners & Pilots Association are pointing out to us.


John Edmund Parry: Madam Speaker, I must thank my hon. colleague for his question, which I could not have phrased better myself. Members on the government side may not appreciate the utility of the availability of the Loran C signals in the riding of Manicouagan or in most coastal districts of Canada. As reported in the newsletter from which my hon. colleague quoted, the use of such a system enables a pilot to split the numbers. In other words, he may land accurately at the end of a runway through the use of that navigational system only. I understand that a company in the United States uses that system to keep track of its delivery vehicles within a city. This is a system of great accuracy. That is of obvious benefit to non-marine areas of Canada. Pilots in central Canada could derive great use from it.
The Hon. Member's question illustrates very well the double standard which the Government applies with regard to the funding of projects. Money is available to gild the lilies in the Prime Minister's riding. A good system is already in place there, yet there is $7.5 million available to enhance the instrument landing system when neither accuracy nor safety is available in many other parts of Canada.
This is not a criticism which I make lightly, Madam Speaker, but I thought it was the most disgraceful manipulation that I have ever seen when the Prime Minister produced a widow from his riding to say that she would not be a widow if this system had existed previously. That is disgraceful because many people from remote ridings in Canada would be able to make the same claim and twist the public's collective heartstrings in that very way. For the Prime Minister to suggest by implication-


Mr. Forrestall:: He can't say that with impunity.
October 31, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think the Hon. Member has made his point.


Mr. Belsher:: Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised to hear the Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry), who seems to be in cahoots with the Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), saying that the Government seems to be forgetting about the safety standards which protect travellers. He made very little reference to the Aeronautics Act which was amended last June. I would like to put a couple of points on the record.
The Aeronautics Act provided for an independent civil aviation tribunal system to be created to hear and determine appeals from penalties assessed by Transport Canada quickly, fairly and informally. Challenges could be made to suspension or cancellation of a licence, an assessment of fines or refusal to renew a licence. Doctors and optometrists will be required to report conditions of patients holding licences who may have medical problems which could affect flight safety. Licence holders will be required to identify themselves to any attending physician or optometrist and are deemed to consent to the disclosure of medical information.
Coupled with that are the safety measures in our airports in which each of us take part every week. There are X-ray machines in place. Since last October baggage has not been allowed to precede a passenger on international flights. By next year this safety measure will be in place on domestic flights. There is now more RCMP presence in the airports in addition to the regular security personnel.
In light of all the things which the Hon. Member himself has seen taking place in the past year and the various regulations which have been put into effect, would he not agree that the setting of standards and their diligent enforcement is a logical means of protecting the public interest? Instead of telling people that the Government is doing nothing, why does he not report that which has actually happened and been put in place through law?


John Edmund Parry: Madam Speaker, I must thank the Hon. Member for the opportunity to address those concerns. He is talking about security. I did not have the opportunity to discuss airport security in my speech. Although the methods that are being used are cumbersome and irritating to many travellers, I agree that they make a great deal of sense in view of the world-wide increase in terrorism against aviation. In Canada we have mercifully experienced only one instance, although that was indeed a terrible instance.
1 was talking about regulations and the ability to enforce them. While the improvement of an appeal system for people accused of offences against the Aeronautics Act is desirable, 1 cannot see how that, in itself, will enhance safety.
The Hon. Member does make some legitimate points about security and a good point about the appeal system. However,
Supply
these do not address the safety concerns. He will know that the number of near miss incidents reported by air traffic controllers in Canada has risen by an uncomfortable amount in spite of the measures he is talking about.


Mr. Taylor:: Madam Speaker, I want to make two points. The opposition Parties appear to be denouncing deregulation, yet every one of these incidents that have been mentioned have happened under a regulated society. How can they blame these incidents on something that has not yet come into force? It is beyond me and simply does not make sense because these happened under a regulated society.
My second point concerns truckers. For many years regulation has been the downfall of our trucking industry. In fact, I am surprised that we have a national trucking industry in Canada at all. If a trucker from Alberta wants to haul goods into or through Saskatchewan, he first must get a permit in Alberta which costs approximately $1,000 and then get another permit in Saskatchewan for another $ 1,500 or $2,000. If he wants to go through Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, he must pay another $2,000 or $3,000 in each province. In other words, these regulations have created ten separate states in Canada, and in order for a trucker to haul beef from Alberta to Montreal, he had to go through the United States. We had to make arrangements with the Americans for our truckers to go through the United States. I wish I had more time because these regulations are destroying the trucking industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry, I must interrupt the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). I will allow a few seconds for the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) to answer, then we will resume debate.


John Edmund Parry: Madam Speaker, I would simply say in reply to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) that his observations reflect indeed today his apparent stance against any form of regulation with the industry. Our stance is that what is needed is not deregulation on the basis of simply following an ideological perspective from our south, but reregulation. Regulations are as much in need of rewriting as they are in need of abolition.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate.


Mr. Kilgour:: Madam Speaker, I believe there was an understanding that one of the Liberals would speak next. However, if I am in error and they do not wish to speak, I will proceed.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) on a point of order.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I simply wanted to draw your attention to the fact that my colleague from Newfoundland was about to enter the House and take the floor, at the suggestion of our friend.

October 31, 1986
Supply


Mr. Tobin:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was responding to a page's summons, and when I heard the Member finish his speech I immediately rushed back into the House.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The Hon. Member can feel very fortunate that we were not debating Bill C-75.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. I was prepared to give the floor to the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) but he was not in the House. If I have the permission of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Kilgour), and there is unanimous consent, I will give the floor to the Hon. Member.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, we on this side play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Yes, indeed he has our permission.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I apologize to the Speaker and my colleagues for not being in my chair. However, I had been summoned by a page.
What is most disconcerting about having to be recalled in such a way is that not only have I upset Madam Speaker and my colleagues in the House, who 1 know were waiting with bated breath for my comments, but I find myself rising to speak having just been the beneficiary of a kind gesture from Members opposite. You do not know how it pains my heart, therefore, to have to proceed with the comments I must, in good conscience, make.
Today we have set aside a period of time in the House to debate what is really an urgent and pressing matter in this country. It is the insidious, slow and almost invisible manner in which the Government of Canada has completely changed the way in which Canadians and, more importantly, the Government views the role of transportation in our nation.
I believe it is important to look at the history of transportation in Canada. From the days of John A. Macdonald, that great Conservative Prime Minister who I am sure Members opposite will applaud-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: They are so predictable, Madam Speaker. From the days of John A. Macdonald, transportation has always been a vehicle for building this country. John A. Macdonald did not propose and support the notion of building railways from sea to shining sea because it was a good free enterprise idea. He did not want to have a railway that ran from one end of this country to the other because an enormous profit could
be realized. He wanted a railway from sea to shining sea because he understood that in order to reconcile the differences between the various regions and people in this country he needed a way to unite them. The railroad was built from sea to sea, primarily from his initiative.
That is but one illustration of the role that transportation has always played in this country. Time does not permit me to give many other examples of the role of transportation in Canada.
Let us examine what has happened in the last couple of years. The Government has decided through its deregulation initiative that transportation is no longer an essential element of nation building. Furthermore, it has decided that transportation is no longer an essential ingredient in ensuring regional opportunities and regional equality. It has adopted a user fee policy in this country by which it implies that transportation facilities are no different from a McDonald's or a grocery store. Such stores are placed where there is enough demand and enough volume of sales. If you live in the tiniest town on the eastern shores of this great nation overlooking the Atlantic Ocean, there will be no McDonald's. According to the Government's user-pay policy, it is saying for the first time in our history that where there is a huge population and a demand, there will be transportation services.
Where there is not a huge population and where there is no market-place demand, where the free market sector will not give it, Government will no longer provide transportation services. That is a radical departure from Government policy in a country of 25 million people, a country which has within its boundaries the largest land mass, notwithstanding the Soviet Union, on the planet earth.
For the first time we are denying transportation services to the people who live in the province of my good friend, the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson), the Province of P.E.I., an island province. For those people the ferry system is not a scenic route by the sea. They do not wake up in the morning and say: "I think I will go out today and ride the ferry so I can enjoy the fresh air and the sunshine". They ride the damn ferry because there is no other way of moving themselves or freight onto or off that island. Yet the Government is now saying to P.E.I. that the ferry service shall be provided on a user-pay basis. There was a 15 per cent increase last year, and there were more increases announced last week, which means that ultimately we will essentially cut the umbilical cord, transportation, which keeps the island of P.E.I. viable and it will shrivel and die because the free market did not say that P.E.I. should live.
In my own Province of Newfoundland, which is separated from the rest of the country by 90 miles of water, that same kind of philosophy is applied with exactly the same kind of contemptible results. The Government wants to spend $600 million to build an ice-breaker to patrol our northern waters. Because the Government has such a friendly relationship with
October 31, 1986

the American administration, it now needs a $600 million monolith to keep the Americans from ploughing through our territorial waters. What is the best way of establishing one's ownership of something? What is the best way of proving one owns something? It is to be there, to have possession, and the way to demonstrate possession is not with a $600 million icebreaker. It is by supporting the people who live in the North, by giving them a transportation policy which allows them to live in the North and have a quality of life while they live there.
Rather than putting money into northern transportation systems, into getting rid of the high air fares for people who live in the North and allowing people to get goods, food and all the necessities of life at a reasonable cost so they will live in the North and hold up Canada's flag, we are going to put $600 million into an ice-breaker. That is the kind of irrational, knee-jerk, non-people oriented, free market balderdash being promoted by the Government.
There are a number of examples of the shortsighted doctrinaire and philosophical wizardry which this administration wants to impose upon the people of Canada. In Moncton, New Brunswick, a thousand jobs are now at stake because Canadian National-sea to shining sea-is no longer going to be a presence in New Brunswick. It is being moved out because the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) says he wants to get Candian National lean and mean and thinned out so he can privatize Canadian National.
A thousand jobs are going to disappear, but the answer of the Minster for Transport is that those people are no longer viable. I wrote down what he said. He said: "We are not going to dig rivers so we can build bridges". That begs the question. Is the Government going to manufacture prisoners to fill prisons? It cannot have it both ways.
The hypocrisy of the Government is appalling. It is not the hypocrisy that bothers me. It is not the fact that the Government talks out of both sides of its mouth that bothers me. It is not the fact that this kind of deception is being perpetrated that bothers me. It is the glibness with which the Government attempts this deception that bothers me. I do not mind having tall yarns spun but I mind very much when the person who is spinning those yarns has a grin on his face and actually believes that myself or the Canadian public is foolish enough to believe them. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, the people of Canada are not swallowing the double standards or, I should say, lack of standards of this administration.
The Canada Shipping Act was an Act which was in great need of overhaul. It desperately needed to be reviewed, modernized and updated. All of us in Parliament who are interested in transportation matters participated in that upgrading with Bill C-75. Members of all three Parties did a good job. But at the eleventh hour, the Minister of Transport of the day, the man who is currently Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), slipped in an innocuous sounding clause, Clause 4. I am sure Madam Speaker is beside herself wondering what is Clause 4. Why would it raise the ire of the Hon.
Supply
Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe? Sit patiently, Madam Speaker, and I will tell you.
Clause 4 is a clause which allows the Minister of Transport to impose user-fees. "What for?", Madam Speaker asks, "What user-fees?" User-fees for Coast Guard services, navigational aids and ice-breaking services. Madam Speaker asks: "How can that be? We are a marine nation. We have the largest coastline of any nation on earth". Surely the Government of Canada would not contemplate telling people who are in need of search and rescue services that they have to think before they push the panic button because they may have to pay regardless of whether they can afford it. That is precisely what the Government is now attempting through Bill C-75.
That Bill died on the vine because we in the Liberal Party opposed it. We are now waiting to see how the new Minister of Transport, who comes from Newfoundland, feels. I would like to say of the Minister of Transport that he is an assembly line politician, body by Fisher and tongue by Gillette. I hope his brains are as sharp as his tongue and he will see the light of day and drop Clause 4. We are waiting for the answer with bated breath.
I issue a warning now that if Bill C-75 comes back to the House containing Clause 4, it will meet the most severe resistance this Party can mount to ensure that the little people of this country are not sacrificed.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: You would not know about those kinds of people, the people who live in our towns and villages-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The Hon. Member should know he should not speak directly to other Hon. Members but through the Chair, please.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Of course, Madam Speaker, you make a good point. I should not speak directly to other Hon. Members. I speak through you. I should never respond to unintelligent comment but, of course, other Hon. Members should not comment while I am giving a speech. I would never do that when in my chair.
Bill C-75 is another example of the kind of nonsense in which the Government is involved. There is another Bill pending called the National Transportation Act.


J. Michael Forrestall: A great one, too.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Hon. Member opposite says it is a great Bill but I never heard him. I just anticipated what he might say. There is nothing wrong with any Government attempting to modernize, refine and respond to technological change by presenting a piece of legislation which keeps this country current in a competitive world. There is nothing wrong with that. We do not object to it.

October 31, 1986
Supply
However, there is something desperately wrong when accompanying this idea of deregulation is the concept, as espoused by the Government and contained in the Bill, that transportation is no longer something born out of public necessity and convenience, as we have always defined it in Canada, but is instead something that is market-driven. There is something wrong when the Government says, for example in the case of airline transportation, that as of the date the new Bill is passed airlines will be able to enter and exit markets at will with only 60 days' notice to a regulatory agency and with no basis of appeal.
Let us try to understand what that means. Currently, airlines in the country are licensed on a route system. They are allowed to fly some of the money-paying routes, some of the gravy runs, but they must also by law take some of the lesser-paying routes in the rural and northern parts of Canada, both on the East Coast and in the western parts of Canada. By law they must, in financial terms, take some of the bad with the good. That is the way that we ensure that Canadians are given some minimal level of service no matter where they live.
Under the new legislation, airline companies will no longer be licensed on a route system. They will be licensed to fly to each and every individual stop in the land. If they want to abandon a northern community, they are required to give 60 days' notice and then they are out. There is no appeal possible or available to members of the local communities involved. There is no regulatory agency to pass judgment on what is a public necessity and convenience. If that is not treating the public's airways in the same fashion in which McDonald's treats it franchises, then I do not know what it is. The impact will be that in the far-flung regions of the country many of our citizens will be left with a third, fourth and fifth-rate service, or no service at all. That is the nature of deregulation.
With respect to the air side, we know that in the United States deregulation has led to huge losses and bankruptcies. Finally, it has led to mergers. Instead of a competitive environment, we are ending up with an industry which is more monopolistic than ever before and which is deeply in debt. That is the model that Canada is following. We know that in the first six months of this year CP Air has already lost $26.5 million. We know that in the first quarter of 1986 Air Canada has already lost $46.2 million. We know that Pacific Western has already lost $4.6 million in its first quarter. We know that every major company is losing money.
In that environment this administration wants to impose a U.S. model. I can only say this. If the user-pay philosophy continues, then the people of Canada will not have it. They can stand, in the interest of deficit-cutting, having a bit of fat cut. In the interest of deficit-cutting they can stand having a bit of muscle cut. But what they cannot stand is when the Government cuts through the fat, the muscle and down into the bone and begins to bleed away the marrow which is the life-blood of Canada.
It is time for the Government to wake up, conduct a complete review of its transportation policy in order to understand what it is doing to people who live in areas where the primary resources are produced. The Government must get back on an intelligent, compassionate and Canadian track, the kind of track proposed by John A. Macdonald, someone whom members of this Government claim to revere.


Mr. Gray (Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine):: First,
Madam Speaker, I should like to comment briefly on the debates heard in the House earlier this morning and this afternoon. Considering all the speeches we got from the Opposition benches, NDP or Liberal, and everything we have experienced in this country in the last 25 years, I think we simply have to say that if this country has transportation problems in 1986, as we do back home in the Gaspe area and the Magdalen Islands, we owe them to others, and particularly to the Liberal Party.
Ever since September 4, 1984, Madam Speaker, we have tried with the former Minister and the new Minister of Transport to solve the problems about which Members of the Opposition failed to do anything at all during at least two decades. This is why we were enthusiastic about the National Transportation Act, Bill C-75 or any other. Transportation is the kind of issue which this Opposition did not want to tackle when they were on the Government side because they did not have enough courage. Indeed, Madam Speaker, prior to 1984 the previous Government had one principle, which was to stay in office. Do nothing, but hang on to power. We have no such principle, Madam Speaker. We are quite prepared to tackle these problems so that our fellow Canadians back home will be able to travel out of the Gaspe area just as easily as the people of Edmonton in Alberta, Newfoudland or anywhere else can travel from their place of residence. That is the problem we had to face in 1984. Regardless of the oratorical circumlocutions of our colleague from Newfoundland, our former Minister of Transport did not have the nerve to come to grips with transportation issues. As Canadian men and women, transportation to us means that all people should be able to travel throughout our country, visit other lands, exchange ideas, and communicate. That is what we want.
Madam Speaker, I want to refer to a few points which I think were raised this morning by my colleague from Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), especially patronage. However one may feel about patronage, I was first elected in 1984,1 have been in the House for two years, so I cannot pretend to be aware of everything that is going on, except that-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member ought to relate his remarks or his question to the speech we have just heard. I will again give him the floor if he has a question to ask, otherwise I will recognize the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) so he might comment on the remarks of the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray)
October 31, 1986


Darryl L. Gray: Madam Speaker, in terms of the debate this morning concerning patronage and transportation, the point I was trying to make is that after 25 years of making appointments the Liberals said that Conservatives were not eligible because we were not competent. When we talk about our national transportation legislation, and I notice that the Hon. Member-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but he is getting into debate now. He is not rising on a question or comment.


Darryl L. Gray: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought I was entitled to 10 minutes in which to make comments and then ask questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I remind the Hon. Member that the 10 minutes following debate is for Members from all Parties to comment or to ask questions of the Hon. Member who has just spoken. I now give the floor to the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Brian Vincent Tobin: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would have been happy to hear a speech by the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray). I served with him on the Transport Committee and know that he is capable of arousing himself to his full height for 20 minutes on occasion. However, let me address what the Hon. Member has said. What the Hon. Member essentially said when he got up is: "We have the courage to make the hard decisions". As a Member who comes from Iles-de-la-Madeleine, I was surprised. I was expecting the Hon. Member to stand up and say that, yes, as one who comes from one of those parts of the country which is isolated and which is not a suburb of Toronto that he-


Darryl L. Gray: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I would ask you, Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) would give me two minutes so that I may ask him two questions. Then I will let him address those questions.


Brian Vincent Tobin: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: That is not a point of order but it is a reasonable request. If the House is-


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House agrees.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to the point of order. First, it is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I did say that.
Supply


Brian Vincent Tobin: Second, if I can give a short answer, the Hon. Member may exercise his right to use up the remaining 10 minutes. I would like to answer his first question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The Hon. Member will rise to speak if the Chair says so and so will he give an answer. I will allow the Hon. Member to complete his short comment, and then, with the consent of the House, give the floor to the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray).

Order! The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), on a point of order.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I believe that according to our Standing Orders, after a Member's speech we have questions and comments for a period of ten minutes to be shared as fairly as possible among Members of the parties on both sides of the House.
If the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) takes the whole ten minutes, this means there will be no time left for other Members to comment on what was said by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) must realize that no one from the New Democratic Party asked to be recognized, and the Hon. Member himself did not rise, because I certainly would have noticed.
I will add a few minutes to the period for questions and comments so that everyone will have a chance.
The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, as I was saying before I was interrupted, the only thing the Hon. Member had to say in response to the statement I made is that we had courage. I was wondering if he had the courage to rise and represent the people who sent him to Parliament. No doubt he will tell us in a minute.
The Hon. Member makes the argument that there are problems in 1986 and that is the fault of the previous administration. There are problems in 1986. There were problems in 1976. There were problems in 1966 and in 1956. There will be problems in 1996. No one is suggesting that the world is stagnant. No Government is perfect, whether it be a Liberal, a Conservative or a New Demoratic Government. We are suggesting that the measure of a Government is how it responds to problems.
Any Government that takes the position that if it had been in power for 20 years, the world would now be perfect and everyone would be looking at each other through rose-coloured glasses is foolish. It does not work that way. That is the Utopia

October 31, 1986
Supply
preached by members of the NDP and look where they are. It is not the Hon. Member's fault that there are problems and it is not the fault of past or future Governments. What the Hon. Member will be judged on is how he responds to those problems.
The Hon. Member speaks of courage. He should find the courage to reflect the views of the people who sent him here. He should not sit silently as prisons are built in a pork-barrel fashion across the land at a time when his people cannot be served because they live on the Magdalen Islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. That is the kind of courage he ought to find within himself when he rises in this Chamber, not the courage required to play to the applause of the majority. If the Government continues to mistake the applause of the majority for the approval of the people of Canada, the Government will be short-lived.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. friend from Newfoundland, who spoke with great eloquence about the concerns of the people of the Maritimes, which concerns the tabling of a Bill by the Minister of Transport to amend the National Transportation Act.
Is the Hon. Member aware that the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission made the following statement: "There is a large body of opinion in the Atlantic region that considers that the confidential contracts suggested by the Government in its Bill will harm the interests of businesses in the region, especially of the small- and medium-sized businesses that are the mainstay of long-term employment". Would the Hon. Member care to comment?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Papi-neau (Mr. Ouellet) has raised an excellent point and that is to the extent that public hearings were held on this Bill which is forthcoming-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) on a point of order.


Darryl L. Gray: Madam Speaker, if I understood correctly, once the Hon. Member has concluded, I will be allowed to ask him a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member will ask his question when he has the floor.
The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) with a brief answer, please.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I would like to answer the [DOT]question. I would be glad to stay for as long as Madam
Speaker would have me stay to answer all the questions. I simply want-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry. I will say it in English. I am giving the Hon. Member the floor to answer the question, but I would like that answer to be short.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I understood it in French, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Your comment to me did not indicate that.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member wishes to advise you that he finds it difficult in the face of constant interruptions-


Mrs. Mailly:: Poor baby.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The problem is that the House is not able to remain silent for 30 seconds so that I may give intelligent answers. I will wait for a further question. Obviously Madam Speaker is in a difficult position. Other Hon. Members wish to ask questions and I will wait.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: This is totally out of line. I know that from now on, the Hon. Member will want to refrain from making such comments on whatever decisions are made by the Chair. The Chair will keep the House in order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe wants to make it perfectly clear that he is in no way commenting on or making any remark whatsoever with respect to the competency, the judgments or the rulings of the Chair. The Hon. Member is merely pointing out that, under the Standing Orders, the Hon. Member has the right to answer or not answer questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: That is not a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It certainly is. It is in the Standing Orders.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The comment was not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) has said that he has two quick questions to ask. I will allow the Hon. Member to ask them very quickly and I will allow the Hon. Member for Humber- Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) to answer them very quickly.


Darryl L. Gray: Madam Speaker, very briefly, the question I would pose to my hon. colleague from Newfoundland is about transportation. Is it not true that in the past two years, safety under our new deregulation-and it is not deregulation but economic regulatory reform-has not been compromised by what has been done in the past two years?
October 31, 1986

Second, with all the changes that have had to be made to the three modes of our transportation system and with the airport security required to combat acts of terrorism, would the Hon. Member-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair was wondering if there was a question. Could the Hon. Member come to it right away? The question and comment period has been going on for too long. That is enough. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Clifford).


André Ouellet: On a point of order, Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) on a point of order.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, in all fairness, 1 believe we have agreed that the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) could ask a short question. And I think that in the same spirit of fairness, you should allow the Hon. Member who had the floor to answer. The time allowed must be shared fairly between the Hon. Member making a comment and the Hon. Member who answers it. And I submit that the Hon. Member's time has not expired, and that he is entitled to answer before we resume the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Papineau will realize that the time for questions and comments had long expired. The Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) kept making comments and questions were not forthcoming. I had said that I would allow two quick questions, and those questions did not come. As there were no questions, I decided to resume debate, and the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex now has the floor.


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I should like to set the record straight-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I simply want to say that I understood the Hon. Member to ask me about safety. He was about to ask a second question about security and terrorism when he was cut off. However, he asked one clear question, which I understood and which I think all Hon. Members of the House understood.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) is now debating with the Chair. The decision has been made, and the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex has the floor.


Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Madam Speaker, the motion indicates that the Government has not been very active when it comes to airports. I should like to set straight our actions with regard to
Supply
airports. However, I should like to establish some background; to talk about the importance of airports; and to talk about Government actions in this regard, recommendations which have been made, and what the future might hold.
I will proceed by giving a little background for Hon. Members opposite. By way of profile, Transport Canada is involved with 213 airports across the country through direct ownership, operation, or financial support. Some 77 of the largest and busiest airports are operated and managed by the Department. Approximately $51 million has been invested, with 51 million deplaning and emplaning every year and with 4 million landings. It is a huge area of activity.
The capital value of investment in our airport facilities excluding land was $8 billion, and the revenues generated were around $600 million. Capital expenditures amounted to $214 million, and maintenance costs amounted to $398 million. We even found time to spend $36 million on non-federal airports. One can see that there has been a tremendous scope of activity with regard to airports in Canada. Indeed it is very important.
In addition to the approximate 4,500 employees, there are 500 Corps of Commissionaires and 400 RCMP officers. The retention of the RCMP was a major commitment of the Government to airport security. The Canadian airport system is recognized throughout the world as a leader in safety, security, and technology. Transport Canada is second only to the Soviet Union as the world's largest manager and operator of airports.
The contribution of airport activity to the national economy is significant. Airports are the focal point for regional and local economic activity resulting from direct expenditures by the airport aviation industry and associated commercial services, tourism, related transportation industries, and from many other direct and indirect expenditures.
In May, 1985 our Government initiated for consideration a new management structure for the federal airport system, one which would provide for a self-sustaining system and allow for the independent operation of local airports. That position was enhanced in June, 1985 with a position paper entitled Freedom to Move. The paper indicated that the Department of Transport would make every effort consistent with safety and security requirements to reduce the administrative burden of its operations, to ensure that existing facilities were being efficiently used before new capital expenditures were made, and to conduct operations and activities in a more commercial manner.
Hon. Members opposite indicated that we had no concern for the safety of Canadians, that we were sloughing off. I hope that I have made two points in what I have outlined thus far- first, that the Government has a tremendous commitment to the entire scope of airports in Canada and, second, that even though we want to look at new ways to manage the enterprise-and we are embarking upon those new ways-at no time has the safety of Canadians and indeed citizens of the world ever been given anything but the highest consideration.

October 31, 1986
Supply
In October, 1985 a task force on airports was established. Its goals were to examine alternatives to the present management structure of Canada's airports and to take the first step in a consultative process designed to gather informed opinion on the subject. The task force was comprised of individuals from industry, the community, and Government. The task force report entitled The Future of Canadian Airport Management was released by the Minister of Transport as a basis for discussion with key groups and interested individuals as we continue to explore options for an improved airport management structure.
1 refer Hon. Members to some of the basic principles which the task force concluded were essential to ensure the wellbeing of Canada and Canadians under any new system and therefore, were necessary elements of any future management scheme for Canada's airports. The safety and security of the flying public and the airport property will remain paramount. I think it is important to reinforce that. The provision and operation of air navigation services, such as air traffic control, and of regulatory services, such as certification and enforcement, will continue to be the responsibility of the federal Government. As our task force travelled across Canada, we listened to Canadians from coast to coast who were concerned about those two items. We indicated-and certainly the task force report reveals it-that the Government was committed to the safety of the travelling public.
Transport Canada will maintain a national airport system plan. Any transfers should be subject to negotiations on a commercial basis. Any new owners shall have the freedom to design, construct, and operate site facilities provided that they adhere to the safety and security regulations. Finally, in the case of an imposed public duty not directly related to a commercial operation of an airport, new owners or operators shall be reimbursed for the related costs.
With those principles clearly before it, the task force went about its study and concluded by making the following recommendations to the Minister of Transport:
1.	retain the responsibility for safety and security within Transport Canada and ensure that the present high standards are not jeopardized.
2.	retain the responsibility for air navigation, air regulation and certification of airports within Transport Canada as a separate entity from airport management.
3.	be receptive to the establishment of local authorities by responding favourably to requests from local groups that have the support of their respective provincial and municipal levels of government.
4.	ensure that, where no immediate local interest exists to establish authorities, airports are transferred to Crown corporations.
5.	facilitate the changes already under way in Transport Canada to streamline the operation of airports and increase their commercial orientation.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) intends to use the task force report as a basis of further consultation. He has urged that this consultation procedure be a very active one. In my area of London-Middlesex some action is already under way. The municipal governments and the Chambers of
Commerce have committees in place and they are proposing recommendations to the Minister. I am sure that this is happening all over Canada. When given the opportunity to react to the recommendations of this task force, there are many Canadians interested in this new venture to revitalize the airports of Canada, and their recommendations will be coming forward to the Minister.
Safety and security continue as the highest priority within Transport Canada. The October 1 national security enhancement procedures for passengers and baggage have already been implemented. At the local level at the airport in London-Middlesex, over $200,000 has been spent on new security systems to make sure that passengers can travel without fear. New fencing systems have been put into that airport, as they have across Canada. Our record is impeccable.
Expo 86, the most successful world exposition in history, proceeded free of incident at the Vancouver International Airport. The same priority is being given to the preparation for the 1988 Olympics in Calgary.
The management of airports has been separated from the regulatory and navigational services within Transport Canada since October, 1985. One of the mandates given to the airport authority group in Transport Canada is to increase the commercial viability of airports and to close the gap between airport costs and airport revenues. A number of major thrusts are under way to stimulate revenue generation and encourage cost reduction with the overriding objective of having airports operated on a more business-like basis. Many local groups supported by the provincial and municipal governments have expressed interest in becoming more involved in the operation and promotion of their airports. This type of activity is alive and well in my part of Canada.
It was the Progressive Conservative Government that established the Montreal Airports Advisory Board and asked for local input to the resolution of the Mirabel-Dorval airports issue.
Representatives from all interested groups in the industry, business community, and provincial and municipal governments were brought together to make recommedations to the Minister of Transport.
Recent statements by the Government of British Columbia attest to their appreciation of the importance of airports to local and regional economies.
Local participation in the management of airports would promote not only the operations of the airports, but also the needs of local public and businesses, and permit greater potential for realization of private sector opportunities. That is one of the exciting new venues in airport development that will take place. The Minister of Transport recently announced the Department's intention to seek private sector investment in a third terminal at the country's busiest airport in Toronto.
The objective is to achieve a solution to the overcrowding of passenger processing facilities by getting the maximum
October 31, 1986

involvement of the private sector's innovation, entrepreneurial initiative, and commercial experience. The Department expects that this challenge will be accepted and that a new era of co-operation and partnership between the public and private sectors in the airport activity will be launched.
All the foregoing initiatives represent a reasoned, sensitive approach to seeking improvements in the management of the Canadian airport system. All these initiatives are being taken with full recognition of some basic principles. This is worth being repeated so that Members opposite and all Canadians will realize that safety and security are paramount. They are paramount in all of our planning on this side of the House and with our Minister of Transport. Our actions in the past two years have indicated our deepest concerns for this. In an era of world-wide terrorism and fear for the flying public, Canada has moved forward with new innovations in safety and new procedures for passengers and their baggage. We are internationally recognized for our achievements.
Better ways of operating the system are being sought while ensuring that equity of access is guaranteed and that a national system is maintained. There has been much talk that this Government will allow a fragmentation of the airport system of Canada. The point may certainly be made here today that we are going to maintain that national system of airports that we are so proud of. Indeed, we are recognized around the world as being a leader in the airport system.
Airports are an integral part of the Canadian economic fabric. Airports are essential for social transportation needs such as medical evacuation, resupply depots, and relief from isolation. When the standing committee travelled to the far north of Canada, we learned first-hand how important transportation is to the people who live north of 60'/3. We listened to them, and I hope we listened to them well. The Government is going to ensure access for those people to the south, and for them to visit their friends, relatives, business associates in the North. The Government is proceeding with the utmost regard for the economic and social well-being of all Canadians in its review of the airports system.
I think it is important that we say that airports have been vital to the development of Canada. Airports are today what railways were in an earlier time. Our Government recognizes that. We are committed to the development of new innovations in airports. I have cited one or two of them here today, our move to the private sector of terminal 3 in Toronto. There are other initiatives underway which will be reported to the Minister as a result of his task force on airports. The future bodes well for airport development and Canadians should know that this Government is committed to improving that service for all of us.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) on debate.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Madam Speaker. As the Member for
Supply
Vancouver East, I am very pleased to be able to speak on the whole question of transportation problems. There have been problems and concerns from my constituents and also from Canadians as a whole.
I agree with the presenter of this motion, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), who said that thousands of workers in the transportation sector are looking for jobs. That certainly is the case in Vancouver East, on the West Coast, and across Canada. I agree with some of the points raised by the Member, but I must say that there is a noticeable lack of concern about the transportation problems of western Canada, particularly of the shipping industry in British Columbia.
I want to concentrate a number of remarks in this area. First, there is the question of the policy of both the Liberals and the Conservatives on deregulation. We have always opposed this policy for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it undermines services to less populated regions of Canada. It also undermines jobs, particularly women's jobs. It should be thoroughly evident to Members shouting across the aisle that the whole process of deregulation throws the airlines, particularly Canadian-owned airlines such as Air Canada, into cut-throat competition. As we know, larger airlines like Air Canada or CP Air tend to use regional carriers for other routes.
I think we will find that the airlines, in order to be competitive under this new regime, will cut back on expenses. The main expense they will cut back on is staff. I would like to point out that it is particularly women's jobs which are at great risk. As usual, women in the service type of position, such as flight attendants, ticket takers and maintenance staff are the ones most likely to be affected. I recall last year hearing from some women connected with airlines in the interior of B.C., for example, who were being forced to either lose their jobs or move as massive changes were occurring in their industry.
A couple of Members on the Government side mentioned that there was no concern about safety at Canadian airports under deregulation. The Canadian Aviation Safety Board apparently disagrees with this position. A recent clipping from The Globe and Mail said that more rest for flight crews is urged. Canada needs to radically strengthen regulations proposed for January to control flight crew fatigue in the country's sky. No other nation is as lenient in its regulations, the CASB said in a report to the Minister of Transport. There we have the view of flight crews who surely are in a position to know.
As to security at airports, I would like to remind Government Members, and the last speaker in particular, that the Government was committed to removing RCMP from airports. It was our Party which questioned this very strongly. As a result, the Minister reconsidered, after the Air India disaster, and we finally got a decision to keep the RCMP in supervisory positions at airports. Since that time the Government has refused to take over total responsibility for airport security.

October 31, 1986
Supply
Security at airports is tendered by the airlines and we think Transport Canada, not the airlines, should tender, supervise and train security personnel.
Having said that, I would like to use my time primarily to concentrate on transportation issues and policies which have come to my attention over the last year or two as a result of my contacts as the Member of Parliament for Vancouver East. Our concern primarily was shipping and shipping-related industries, and the Port of Vancouver. What happens to the Port of Vancouver, of course, reflects what is happening to the West Coast generally.
First of all, we were concerned and continue to be concerned that Bill C-25 provided for increased charges for Coast Guard services or use of Government wharves and other services. We continue to be concerned that such charges will increase the cost of shipping. It is already difficult to compete in the shipping business and this will make us less competitive. This is of great concern and could be a considerable burden on smaller boat owners, and operators of fishing vessels.
I want to raise another point which has come to our attention. I believe it was the Liberals who terminated the weather ships off the West Coast. I know people who worked on those ships and it was very important that we had them off the coast to warn small boat owners of coming storms, as well as providing marine research services. Now we have the threat that lighthouse keepers off the B.C. coast will be replaced by computers. I would just like to point out, if Members do not already know, that lighthouse keepers do much more than turn on lights.
I have a very strong letter from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers on this issue. They are very concerned that the Department of Transport plans to do away with the manning of seven lighthouses and cut staff by half or more in five others. These lighthouse keepers play a vital role in helping to make the waters off the B.C. coast safer for mariners, both commercial and pleasure. There have been numerous cases where lighthouse keepers have saved the lives of fishermen when their boats floundered. Many other cases go unreported where, by way of a timely bit of information about the weather, a boat and the lives of the crew are saved.
The waters off the B.C. coast are among the most dangerous in the world. Seven fishermen have died since the first of the year. Lighthouse keepers are an integral part of the already too-thinly stretched safety web on this coast, so we appeal to the Government to reconsider and make sure that the lighthouse keeping service is preserved.
My concerns, as I said, are particularly related to other matters affecting the Port of Vancouver and other West Coast ports. First of all, I would like to point out that we heard earlier this year about the rather insidious trend developing, and there was no Government intervention at all to prevent this, whereby shipping from Central Canada to the West Coast and from there to ships to go across the Pacific Rim is deliberately being cultivated along U.S. routes rather than
Canadian routes. I refer particularly to CN which I understand has increasingly been using routes which connect from Central Canada down to Chicago, from there across American railways, and from there through the Port of Seattle or other West Coast American ports rather than Canadian ports.
These are Canadian goods leaving Canada or coming to Canada. I think that is a disgraceful situation. There are a number of reasons for this. I understand that the U.S. has favourable tariffs to encourage this. They also have double decker carriers for containers. These are problems that we should be looking into in Canada and, if necessary, we should improve our technology. However, we should have some kind of intervention by the Government which prevents a Crown corporation from shipping Canadian goods through the United States and out through American ports rather than on Canadian railways through Canadian ports.
I would also like to talk about other issues such as a current concern which I raised this week with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) about the Port of Vancouver and the fact that longshoremen were locked out by the Maritime Employers Council and the tremendous danger this is to the shipment of grain and other cargo out of the Port of Vancouver.
I was very pleased when New Democratic Members raised this in the House. Several weeks ago the Minister intervened and the employers' council agreed to a 30-day cooling off period. The lock-out provision was withdrawn, the people went back to work and the grain was allowed to flow through the Port of Vancouver. It was very upsetting to learn this week that, although there were nine days left in the 30-day cooling off period, the employers had stopped negotiating. On Monday the Minister said that he would intervene once again. We certainly hope that he will and that these disputes can be resolved in order to allow shipping to continue through the Port of Vancouver. The union has assured us that grain and bulk cargo will continue to be handled if there should be a lock-out. However, we want to prevent a lock-out.
Another issue of great concern to Canadians, and particularly British Columbians, is the death of our shipbuilding industry. I am sad to say that that word is not too strong. The West Coast was an outstanding centre for the building of ships throughout and following the war. It is regrettable that we lost our merchant marine after that period. I blame the Liberal rather than the present Government for that. I was glad that the Member for Papineau recognized the particularly bad situation in British Columbia.
Three major British Columbia shipyards have closed since the present Government has been in power. This is a very tragic situation. We have among the most skilled shipbuilders in the world. These tradesmen, who are getting older, were laid off and, since there has been such a decrease in this industry, young people have not been trained. The doors are closing. The only thing which could help us in the interim is for the federal
October 31, 1986

Government to approve the building of the Polar 8 ice-breaker in B.C. shipyards.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why don't you tender for it?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Versatile Marine and other industries in Victoria have the capacity to build the Polar 8 as they have documented. I implore the Government to get on with this contract.
One of the Liberal Members implied that this ice-breaker was a frill and not needed. I checked this out because I wondered about it myself. However, I was assured that this ice-breaker is a means of keeping the North and the Port of Vancouver open for many more months of the year and would benefit that area.


J. Michael Forrestall: The Port of Vancouver really freezes over, doesn't it?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I wish the Member across the way would listen for a little while. I know he is interested in transportation issues.


J. Michael Forrestall: When you talk to me about an ice-breaker to keep the port of Vancouver functioning, I have to wonder.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would allow the Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) to finish her remarks.


J. Michael Forrestall: She doesn't have to listen to me. She doesn't as a rule. I'm surprised I'm getting to her.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I think this is a new era of civility. I would like to take this opportunity to praise the Conservatives. I thought the Member would like that. He will recall that just before the 1979 election the Conservative Government had a very sound shipping policy. It was interested in re-establishing Canadian shipping and a Canadian merchant marine. The policies were good and a number of people commended them. Unfortunately, none of these policies have been implemented. The Conservatives have not introduced incentives to help the shipbuilding industry. Our shipbuilding industry is dying.
I am also concerned about dangerous goods. I cannot help but condemn the former Minister of Transport who allowed the transfer point for dangerous goods to be moved from Vancouver Centre into Vancouver East instead of moving it entirely out of a densely populated area. This is of great concern to my constituents. We have had a number of meetings. I request very strongly that the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) review this situation and take steps immediately toward the relocation of the transfer point so that the very dense population of my riding is not threatened. I have received many petitions on this issue. A waterfront coalition is working on it. We ask that something be done about this now. It is unfortunate that money was invested in that transfer arrangement.
Supply
In the time I have remaining, I would like to refer to a very nonsensical proposal made by the Premier of British Columbia and the Minister responsible for economic development to take over the Vancouver International Airport. This was a fantastic idea of the Premier's, spouted on impulse during the election. It was not based on any research or rational planning. Of course the Premier wants control of the only money-making airport in B.C. However, I noticed that he was not interested in taking over any of the money losers. He seems to think that the taking over of the Vancouver International Airport will be a great job creator and a solution to the economic problems of B.C. It is a mystery how this will happen. I trust that the federal Government will have more sense than to consider releasing control of this federal airport. We do not need another fantasy land in British Columbia.
In conclusion, the issues which I have raised are tremendously important to all Canadians and particularly to British Columbians and my constituents in Vancouver East. I urge the Government to take action.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on some of the remarks made by the Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) this afternoon. I applaud the concern she has shown for the port of Vancouver. However, I believe the talks broke down this past week because the unions left the table rather than the employers. I am very pleased to note that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) is closely watching the developments in the port of Vancouver.
The Member spoke about the transfer point for dangerous goods. I suspect she believes that Fraser Valley East may be the most logical place for dangerous goods to be in the shipping mode. I hope she was not implying that in her remarks.
With regard to pollution and dangerous goods, the Member did not allude to the fact that in the Bill which was proposed in the last session to amend the Shipping Act, there was authority to provide for and prescribe interim standards for the carriers of dangerous goods in bulk and in the case of new substances. It also provided that it be within the power of pollution officers to board ships which are being modified to conform to the inspection provisions of the pollution convention. It also provided for authorization to delineate emergency zones and regulate traffic within such zones and, on occasions when there is the likelihood of a spill, order any ship to moor or proceed as directed and also to obtain, for prosecution purposes, samples of pollution from ships without search warrants.
These are some of the things which were in the Bill. The Member's Party should have been more helpful in ensuring that that Bill was passed and proclaimed.
In her opening remarks the Member spoke of the deregulation of the airline industry and about how it is cutting back on services. It has been my experience that there have been more flights per day from smaller points to Vancouver than ever before in the history of aviation in British Columbia. Perhaps

October 31, 1986
Supply
she could indicate the various communities that she knows have less service now than they had three or four years ago.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, first I want to return to the point raised by the Hon. Member concerning the Port of Vancouver and the controversy that led to a lock-out. I do not think the Hon. Member is correct in his assessment. I will not argue the point here but it was my understanding that he was not presenting the situation correctly. The fact is that the talks did break down and it is important that they resume. That is why I was asking the Minister to intervene in my question and statement on Monday in the House.
As far as deregulation is concerned, I know that the Hon. Member is very knowledgeable about airlines. We recently visited almost every airport in Canada during our tour with the Special Committee on Child Care. I might say that we have some very fine airports and we were quite impressed with them. However, he knows more about airlines than I do because he travels on the smaller airlines.
My point was that we do not want any jobs lost through deregulation. I feel very strongly that this is a likelihood and I would appreciate if the Hon. Member would check into it and help me obtain more data about whether or not this is the case.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). This motion not only concerns transportation and the difficulties in that sector, it relates to the general policies of the Government with regard to regional development.
When the Government came to office two years ago, it seemed to adopt a trickle-down approach by which it would make the successful areas of our country grow rapidly so that eventually some benefits would trickle down to the outlying regions of our country. The Government pursued this policy for almost two years, until the uproar in its caucus was so incredible that it abandoned that policy last July 7.
In fact, in the Speech from the Throne the Government for the first time talked about an economic opportunities council in Atlantic Canada and diversifying the economy in western Canada. It is interesting for Liberal, Conservative and New Democrat Members from northern Ontario to note that the Throne Speech did not say anything about setting up an economic diversification council or anything else for nothern Ontario.
Perhaps if the Government's other policies were successful, it may have had an opportunity to let the trickle-down theory work. It has been said that if one feeds the horse enough oats, the sparrows will have some. Obviously the screams from the sparrows in the Tory caucus from Atlantic Canada, western Canada, and northern Ontario became unbearable for the
Cabinet because when it met in Saskatoon in the first week of July, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) suddenly discovered regional development. In the meantime, however, he had drastically reduced the budget of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and reduced subsidies for transportation and other programs in eastern Canada.
The Prime Minister launched a privatization program which may be quite successful in Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe, but does not do much for the regions of the country. That background and the introduction of the privatization legislation during the last gasp of the last session in June has led to this debate on transportation policy today.
This debate is very appropriate because it allows Members on all sides to describe how the transportation policies and general approach of the Government with regard to privatization is working. In terms of general economic growth in the regions of the country, I am suggesting that the Government's general economic policies have not been successful. Clearly, between 1983 and 1986, under both Governments, we have seen a dramatic 3.5 per cent to 4.5 per cent growth in the southern Ontario area, but I contend that the growth in the regions of our country, whether we are talking about forestry, or mining in northern Ontario, has not been spectacular.
This is particularly true in the energy field. The former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), said that she would create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the energy sector. We can see that at least 55,000 jobs have been lost in the energy sector alone.


J. Michael Forrestall: What does this have to do with transportation?


Maurice Brydon Foster: That is why the deregulation of railroads and airlines is such a disaster. The Government's economic policies are having a disastrous effect on the regions of the country. Obviously the Government is not feeding the horse enough oats because there is not enough left for the sparrows in the regions of this country.
There is no area of our country where this is more apparent than in Sault Ste Marie. The Minister for International Trade, who is going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs as a result of a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States, must face the prospect of the tube mill at Algoma Steel being shut down, thereby laying off some 800 people. A $375 million new tube mill is not even running.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I be so presumptuous as to inquire whether relevancy with respect to the matter in front of us is of importance? I have listened to this great debate and in the last 12 minutes I have heard transportation mentioned once.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I note that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Forrestall) is very concerned about transportation and
October 31, 1986

the disastrous effects of the Government's policies on the entire country. I am simply pointing out what privatization is doing to the transportation sector.


J. Michael Forrestall: A steel mill?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Right now, Algoma Steel faces a prospect of the Algoma Central Railway shutting down because of the policies of the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will answer the Parliamentary Secretary by saying that the motion has been presented in a very broad manner, therefore, I believe the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) is still within the relevancy of the motion. However, I will caution the Hon. Member to reread the motion and to stay as close to it as possible.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to congratulate you both on your appointment as Deputy Chairman of Committees and on the wisdom of your rulings because you really are making very wise decisions. I know the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East is very sensitive about the Government's economic and transportation policies. Those transportation policies really permeate the entire country.
I will eventually get to the problems the Government is creating in air and surface transport, but I would like to now deal briefly with the whole question of rail transport in the Algoma district. For 80 or 90 years the Algoma Central Railway has been operating in the Algoma district. This fall, because of the Government's energy and industrial policies, we face the danger of that railway shutting down. Because of the volume of sinter which has to be moved from Wawa to Sault Ste Marie, it is not economically viable any more. There is a shortfall of $5 or $6 a tonne in the moving of that sinter.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) will be able to reassure the House and the people of Algoma district and Sault Ste Marie that they have a transportation policy, that there is a proposal in the Bill which will provide financial guarantees and assistance to ensure that railways serving the regions of our country like the Algoma Central will be able to continue to operate. In fact, if there is not an arrangement made in that regard, we face the prospect of the shutting down of the iron ore mines in Wawa which employ some 300 or 400 people. It provides something like 60 per cent of the revenues of that rail line. Therefore the viability of the rail line itself is being called into question, not only the rolling stock, the crews, and so on, but the shops in Sault Ste Marie.
If the mining operations in Wawa are shut down, the rail lines for the transportation of ore and goods and so on are called into question, and the viability of the Algoma tour train, the Agawa Canyon tour train, which is the most important tourist attraction in our area is affected. Some 100,000 passengers a year are carried on the Algoma Central Railway line. Therefore it is essential that we find out from the
Supply
Government whether its policies on energy are going to be supplemented with deregulation policies on the railways. We do not know where that stands because Bill C-126, which was introduced in June, has not been reintroduced.
If the whole thing is a case of hand-wringing and no action, as we see in the reduction of the transportation subsidies and assistance in Atlantic Canada, then we could face not only the destruction of our mining community, but the operation of the Algoma Central Railway and the tour train, with the resultant impact on the City of Sault Ste Marie. We could be facing the prospect of the loss of some 2,000 jobs.
I do not believe this will happen. I do not think even this Government is callous enough to wash its hands of the whole thing and say: "We are for deregulation. If the regions of the country have a tough time, that is their problem". I do not think this Government will do that. However, we have no commitment yet. It is important we find out exactly what the Government's policy is in that regard. We already face the prospect of the loss of 1,500 jobs in the steel operations at Sault Ste Marie. If we had to face the prospect of the loss of
2,000	jobs in the operation of the Algoma Central Railway because of the Government's policy, it would have a devastating impact on the community. It is incalculable. It would be totally devastating.
I certainly hope the Parliamentary Secretary, who is very good at heckling, is equally good at listening and carrying the message to the Minister and to the Government. This is of the utmost concern to our district. The Government has provided subvention of some $3.2 million for the Algoma Central Railway for the maintenance of the passenger service. I believe that is justified and a good subvention. However, equally important will be the maintenance of that railway with regard to the transport of sinter, ore and raw materials to the mining operations, and to the operation of the Algoma central tour train as well. If that whole operation were to shut down with the loss of 2,000 jobs in transportation, mining, tourism and in related hospitality industries, it would be one of the most severe blows to ever strike that section of the Algoma. Clearly, it would be a most severe blow, coming only two and a half years after the Conservative Government came to power.
I want to speak as well about the impact of the privatization which is going forward with the proposed Bill C-126, which was introduced last spring, and the deregulation relating to that Bill, as well as the general policies of the Government with regard to deregulation. Just a couple of weeks ago Air Canada pulled out of Sault Ste Marie. The Government's explanation was that it had to pull out because of the Government's policy of deregulation. I think it was more contrived than that. In fact, what it did is reduce the number of Air Canada flights into Sault Ste Marie to only one. It was positioned so that it was a very inconvenient time to fly in.
Air Ontario provides air transport in at a very convenient time. We ended up with the pull-out of Air Canada, and the national air carrier no longer serves a city of 82,000 people and a general population of about 120,000. The unions protested as

October 31, 1986
Supply
well as the city, but in the end the airline pulled out and we no longer have the national air carrier providing service to that community. We will be moving down to 20-year old aircraft. Hopefully, Air Ontario will provide something better. However, it is a general vote of non-confidence by Air Canada and by the Progressive Conservative Government in the City of Sault Ste Marie at a time when it has lost literally hundreds and hundreds of jobs. We needed that type of moral boost, that vote of confidence that maintaining Air Canada, the national air carrier, would have provided.
It can be argued that there were only 21 Air Canada jobs; but when a community has already lost several thousand jobs, every job becomes precious. The people who lost their jobs had the choice of either taking early retirement or being shipped off to Toronto which is the central air transportation centre of the province. The people who chose to stay in Sault Ste Marie had their wages chopped from $13.60 per hour to about $6.50 per hour. So, when the Minister of Transport stands up in the House and says that he will look after the Air Canada employees, he certainly will have to look after them. They just took a 50 per cent cut in wages or else they moved to Toronto and took on mortgages of $75,000 or $100,000. What we have is a Government which speaks in a very general way about looking after the employees.
We are very unimpressed with the Government's move toward deregulation. We are very unimpressed with its economic policy. We are not very certain how its general commitment to the regions of the country will work out. We see that in the first two years of its mandate it is not working out very well.


Mr. Lesick:: Madam Speaker, I listened with keen interest to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). He talked about transportation, but spent most of his time on the subject of the general economy. It seems that the transportation business is in good condition. The Government will propose a new Bill dealing with transportation which is not yet before the House. Our plans will be progressive. Our plans for the general thrust in transportation are open. No longer will we be constrained by Government regulation. No longer will we be constrained by regulations that do not allow freedom of movement and that do not allow one company to compete with another. It is competition that will give us the best value and the best service for our money. The general economy has been allowed to free-up. This has allowed it to be more efficient than it was under the constraints of the previous Government.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member this. Does he want change for the better or does he want to stay with the old and be suffocated by regulations and by antiquated methods of movement? Does he not wish us to be progressive? We are a caring Government. We watch over what is best for the people. How can the Hon. Member talk of the old and not give in to the new which is better?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick) in terms of transportation. Clearly, the Government of the Hon. Member when it came to power talked about allowing free market forces to decide everything. Under the present Government we were supposed to really see the economy grow. There was supposed to be a natural development in all regions of the country without any direction or assistance from the Government. Clearly, if one travels around Canada today and looks at the policies of Government in Atlantic Canada, in particular, one will see that there are user fees. Where there has been a reduction of assistance for transportation, one will see very concerned regions of the country. I doubt that most regions of the country, apart from the Golden Horseshoe of Toronto and its environs, are really seeing much growth at all, probably not even 1 per cent or 2 per cent. Clearly in the mining areas of the country there does not seem to be any policy for development.
The Hon. Member talked about plans for progress. Well, if he were to talk to the Air Canada workers who were in Sault Ste Marie earning $13.50 per hour three weeks ago and who are now trying to feed their families on the $6.50 per hour they earn at Shell, then he would clearly see that the Government's policies concerning deregulation and pulling out of Air Canada are not very convincing. If the Hon. Member were living in the community of Wawa and working for Algoma Ore Properties and if he were to hear the Government saying that, well, its policy is survival of the fittest, then he would wonder whether there would be any existing jobs.
I think the fact that the Government tried its policies for two years, saw that it was disastrous in the energy sector, saw that its whole thrust in free trade has been fraught with difficulties and is likely to collapse over the next year, then he would understand that when the Prime Minister came out of the cabinet meeting in Saskatoon last summer he was not talking so much about free market sources but about regional development as if he had just discovered it. In the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister talked about an Atlantic Canada Opportunity Agency and then he talked about regional diversification in western Canada. This did not happen because he had a divine inspiration. It happened because back-benchers were screaming loud and clear every Wednesday morning.
Suddenly, the cabinet Ministers were screaming loud and clear in Saskatoon. Suddenly, regional policies concerning transporation and other issues were giving a new aspect to the Government's policy. The Hon. Member talks about there being no constraints on transportation and the general economy being freed-up. In many areas the general economy has not only been freed-up, it is not growing at all.
I hope the Government will get concerned about how transportation relates to those regions because transportation
October 31, 1986

is a vital instrument and part of the regional development policy in Canada.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, in view of the transportation policies implemented by the Liberals, I consider this motion to be a bad Halloween trick. For instance, just before the 1984 elections, when the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) was Minister of Transport, he had a staff of 127 officials, and believe it or not, the now Deputy Prime Minister reduced this number to 30. As a second example, there were the cutbacks made to VIA Rail services under the Liberals in 1981, I believe, and the fact that we re-established those services. In other words, we have no lesson to learn from the Liberals in the area of transport.

Time is limited and I have much to say. I will have to go quite quickly.
In reply to the motion before the House, I would like to speak on Freedom to Move, the Government's plan for economic regulatory reform in transportation. Please note that I did not say deregulation. We have only made plans for regulatory reform. In some cases, there will be much less regulation; in some cases, more; in all cases, better regulation. We are not simply following models in other countries by deregulating everthing.
As I said earlier, we plan to have more regulation in some cases, particularly regarding safety. I would point out 13,000 person-years are involved in safety programs on which $1.2 billion is being spent. Many of these programs will expand because safety was, is and always will be the prime issue of importance to the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Kilgour: We do believe that the existing regulatory regime needs to be improved. The transportation system must be run for the long-term good of all Canadians. The regulatory regime must be open and responsive to the needs of Canadians from St. John's to Nanaimo. We will have a made-in-Canada policy, recognizing Canada's unique characteristics and transportation requirements.
The policy has been refined through extensive consultations with business, transportation companies, users, labour, the travelling public and provincial and territorial Governments. The main thrust of it will be to bring economic reform to transportation in Canada, to encourage competition, to improve the price and range of transportation services and to support the growth of key economic sectors in society. For once, the tilt will be in favour of consumers, not the shippers and transportation companies.
If I may, I would like to give the House a summary of how Freedom to Move came about. For at least five years and in some cases 10 or more years, various groups and inquiries have
Supply
suggested that Canada's regulatory policy and process should be modified and updated to fit in with the late 20th century. For example, the Economic Council of Canada, university transportation centres, shippers' and consumer groups, government studies and various consultants have frequently documented the case for less regulation in air; different, more uniform and less regulation in trucking; improved, speedier and fairer regulations for rail shippers and especially for captive shippers; and a leaner regulatory agency with a capacity for faster and fairer regulation. These and other pressures including ones from south of the border have led many to the conclusion that we should undertake not a piecemeal but a comprehensive reform package.
The then Minister of Transport, the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), officially introduced the idea of comprehensive regulatory reform in a speech he made to the Canadian Industrial Traffic League in February, 1985. He suggested that all regulatory legislation ought to be updated and modified at about the same time and within the same framework. There was a country-wide process of meetings, discussions and consultations and the inquiry got under way immediately.
The rationale and the basic elements for regulatory reform were introduced in a document entitled Freedom to Move in July, 1985. Once again, there was extensive consultation with all on many occasions. Where the feedback was persuasive, several modifications to the proposals have been made. Such modifications have been made in northern air travel, trucking regulation and the recognition of a legislative link between transportation and regional economic development.

The Hon. Member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) spoke about this basic question this afternoon and we recognized this point of which many have already spoken.

The proposed Transportation Act and Motor Vehicle Transport Act were introduced in Parliament on June 26 as Bills C-126 and C-127. With the proroguing of the House of Commons, those two Bills died on the Order Paper. The legislation has been accorded the highest priority by Cabinet and I am happy to announce that the two Bills will be reintroduced to the House of Commons on a priority basis next week.
The four main components of the legislation on which I will touch today if there is time are air, rail, trucking and marine. I will deal with aviation First.
Those of us in southern Canada have been receiving the benefits of a reformed and less extensive regulatory environment in the air industry for a number of years. This has come about by various Ministerial policies and by Canadian Transport Commission regulatory changes on entry and exit rulings, tariffs and licensing conditions. Freedom to Move actually brings the legislation more into conformity with the way the southern Canada air transportation environment

October 31, 1986
Supply
currently operates and at the same time eliminates much of the existing obsolete and unnecessary regulatory authority. The obvious general support given to the adoption of the principles of Freedom to Move relative to all air services in southern Canada proves the point.
The actual reform proposals for the airline sector in 1985 were the following: first, entry to any class of domestic commercial air service would be based on a "fit, willing and able" requirement as opposed to the current public convenience and necessity test. Again, it is the consumer we are trying to help, not the carriers. Compliance with the Ministry of Transport's safety regulations-and the Minister has constantly said that this is our first concern-for operating certification and proof of adequate insurance coverage with be required to meet the new entry requirement. Second, withdrawal would not be impeded except by a requirement for advance notice. Third, there would be no ongoing regulation of domestic tariffs but there would be provisions for the agency to review unreasonable fare increases. Carriers would be required to make their schedules of tariffs and tolls available at their business offices for public information purposes and to retain a record of such tariffs and tolls for a minimum of three years but would not be required to file them with the new regulatory agency which would replace the CTC.
These regulations were originally intended to cover all of Canada but that most invaluable tool, the consultation process, came into play. We received many submissions on regulatory reform as it applied to northern air transport including submissions from the Governments of Yukon and NWT. Travellers, shippers, communities and individual carriers all made their views known.
Three major reports indicated that air services to northern and remote areas were essential. We accept that. The areas are sparsely populated with small communities, meaning small markets. Carriers depend upon a mix of passenger and freight to remain viable. Charter operations make up a significant proportion of revenues. Freight flow is unidirectional, meaning that freight revenue must also cover return trip costs. It is more expensive to operate in the North, as we know, and traffic is very seasonal with less prosperous times during large parts of the year.
All these factors had an influence upon government thinking. They told us that for now, and for a considerable time to come, some degree of economic regulation was needed to ensure the stability and adequacy of air services in the North. They also made us realize that the immediate application of the fit, willing and able entry standard may not provide enough regulation to ensure the goals of adequacy and stability.
At the same time, maintaining the status quo is simply not a tenable proposition. It is unduly bureaucratic. The regulatory burden is too heavy. It limits the ability to serve markets
efficiently. It is not always responsive to needs, and it means higher prices for the often neglected consumer.
A new modified regulatory reform initiative is proposed for air services to, from, and within northern Canada. It is designed to assist the transition of carriers into a more competitive environment, to be sufficiently flexible, and to gradually bring the benefits of increased competition to northern travellers and shippers.
The key aspects of this modified regulatory regime are as follows. First, applicants who wish to start a new air service will be required to meet the safety and insurance requirements. There will be a new reverse onus public interest entry test whereby entry would be granted unless those opposing the application can establish, to the satisfaction of the new regulatory agency, that allowing such entry would lead to a serious decrease in the level of air services provided at regulated communities, or would create significant instability in the provision of essential air services at protected communities. There would be a more pro-competitive entry test than the current public convenience and necessity test.
Licence conditions will continue in the North to limit aspects of the activities of carriers such as the type of service- scheduled versus charter-routes, points to be served, and schedules. Anyone wishing to leave a market would only have to give 60 days notice to the agency. There would be no requirement to maintain service beyond the notice period.
As for southern Canada, tariffs in the North will no longer have to be filed with the agency but simply maintained at their business offices for public inspection and kept for a period of three years to comply with potential agency needs. Unreasonable fare levels and increases will be reviewable upon complaint, and confidential contracts will be allowed. No subsidy program is intended, but the Minister will have the authority to grant a subsidy in cases of urgent necessity.
I should now like to turn briefly to the subject of rail transportation where we will again have a mixture of regulatory reform. In some cases it will be less; in several cases it will be more. The new legislation will allow shippers to negotiate confidential contracts with Canadian railways for the first time. Shippers and railways will have the flexibility to negotiate the services and other conditions appropriate to a shipper's circumstance and to tailor rates more closely to the competitive situation of the shipper. To protect against abuse, confidential contracts will be filed with the agency, and summaries of the non-confidential components will be published.
The existing provisions on agreed charges, which are essentially open public contracts, are continued in the new National Transportation Act primarily as a transition measure since a number of shippers currently benefit from them.
In the interest of fair competition between railways and between truckers and railways, the new legislation retains the essential requirement that all rates be compensatory. Modifications will focus on the prohibition of rates which are
October 31, 1986

predatory-and we in western Canada know about those-or designed to drive a competitor from the market.
These changes affecting rail freight tariffs will allow shippers and railways more freedom to adopt a commercially innovative approach to rate and service negotiations. Shippers will benefit from specially negotiated rates and conditions which reflect their own particular situations. Railways will be in a position to compete effectively with U.S. railways for transborder traffic. That is a very important factor today. The role of the new agency will be that of a watch-dog, acting only on complaints.
The new legislation also zeroes in on what has been described as Canada's No. 1 transportation problem-the captive shipper. Captive shippers fall into two general categories. To some extent they can be found in major metropolitan centres on the lines of a single railway carrier but beyond the four-mile interswitching limit, such as major oil refineries in the Montreal and Toronto areas.
Captive shippers may also be those resource shippers located in the more northern or remote areas of the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and certainly in various parts of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. They are essentially captive to one railway without the possibility of enjoying a real, practical, and cost effective choice of either intermodal or intramodal transportation to move their lumber, coal, potash, or other mineral or petrochemical products.
Our Freedom to Move legislation will get at the heart of these problems by introducing competitive line rates, terminal running rights, and increased interswitching. They are all designed to give the captive shipper a competitive option and to provide competition through regulation.
I should like to make three main points. Competitive line rates is a fairly simple concept. Captive shippers who are local to just one carrier will be able to have access to another carrier at the closest interchange. This means that captive shippers will have competitive options, services, routes, and very likely competitive rates. This is something which they do not enjoy under current legislation. It is something about which we in western Canada have been shrieking politely for many years.
Competitive line rates will only be available to those shippers who cannot benefit from the new interswitching limits or from terminal running rights. Also, the common carrier responsibility will be on the connecting carrier, not the originating one.
Supply
I should point out that this will not necessarily result in short hauling or a diversion away from the local carrier. It will result in that situation only where the local carrier cannot or refuses to respond to or match the competitive rate being offered by the other carrier. As in any other industry, it is only lack of competitiveness which may result in traffic loss over a part of the route to destination. For domestic movements, including import and export traffic at Canadian ports, shippers will have to designate a continuous Canadian route if more than one continuous, cost effective Canadian route exists. This is designed to protect domestic traffic for Canadian railway carriers.
Shippers have embraced this concept as an answer to their problems. It is supported by the CMA, CITL, Coal Association of Canada, Canadian Fertilizer Institute, Council of Forest Industries, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Retail Council of Canada, Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada, Mining Association of Canada, Propane Gas Association of Canada, Canadian Chemical Producers Association, and several others. These groups represent billions of dollars in railway freight rate revenue annually.
Despite objections from CN, CP, and several labour unions, we think that with the conditions attached to competitive line rates, this proposal will not seriously affect their returns. We also recognize that we must allow the railways to reduce their costs, that is, more freedom to manage their affairs with fewer legislative and regulatory hurdles.?
The second measure designed to increase competitive access for captive shippers is the issue of terminal running rights. Originally proposed by CP Rail, it will allow one railway to run over the lines of another railway within a 50-kilometre radius of a railway interchange.
The third measure will substantially increase the present four-mile limit for railway car interswitching in urban areas to 30 kilometres. Canadian cities have grown rapidly, and the limit should reflect today's realities. Flowever, the new interswitching charges will have to be compensatory.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 82(12) the proceedings on the motion have expired.
Accordingly the House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.

*
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 3, 1986