1986-01-29

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter that has caused a great deal of frustration and alarm in the city of Hamilton. All past Governments regarded regular mail delivery as an essential service which was guaranteed to all Canadians. This is not the case with the present Conservative Government. The deterioration of postal service in my riding and throughout Canada is indicative of the Government's stop-at-nothing attitude when it comes to cost-cutting.
Over the past few months my constituency office has been bombarded with complaints about poor mail service in Hamilton and the increasing number of occasions when there is no mail delivery. In the past two years 80 full-time positions have been eliminated. This has resulted in greater delays, more complaints, and an intensification of the negative view of Canada Post. On any given day 600 to 700 households in Hamilton do not receive their mail. People like Dawn Walker, Patrick and Sharon Le Donne, and Cheryl Seth are frustrated when they do not get their mail, and become incensed when they are told they can pick it up at the post office. As taxpayers these people have a right to regular household delivery.
Mothers, pensioners, and families on welfare are literally living from day-to-day and waiting for cheques that do not arrive because postal service has been stopped. Does the Government have no sense of how critical the prompt delivery of mail is? I had initially planned to mail my complaint to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote). However, because the arrival of such a letter is no longer guaranteed, I stand in this House to call upon the Government to cease its neglect of Canada Post.
[ Translation]


IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the case of a woman, a landed immigrant since 1972, who is now being threatened with deportation.
Mrs. Weinroth still has permanent resident status, but an Immigration Officer in the Montreal area decided to interpret the Immigration Act and Regulations very strictly and is trying to have her status revoked.
Mrs. Weinroth was educated in Quebec from 1969 to 1979. Her family lives in Montreal. Her father teaches at McGill and her mother at Dawson College.
In 1979, she went to Michigan to continue her studies, and she had two children there. Since then, she decided to return to Canada but is now being threatened with deportation. Pending a decision on her case by an arbitration officer, I think it is unfair to threaten Mrs. Weinroth with deportation. She is now battling the U.S. courts for custody of her children, and 1 think the last thing she needs is to be worried as well about being prevented from taking up residence in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is of the utmost urgency to deal with this case and ensure that residents and permanent residents can feel safe and secure. At a time when family re-unification is the order of the day, I think it should be relatively easy to deal with Mrs. Weinroth's case.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in a recent interview with Le Devoir, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) presented his Government's blueprint for creating a society of "haves" and "have-nots". He said: "Canada must rethink its social philosophy."
The social philosophy we hold provides all Canadians with certain rights and services, such as medicare and old age pensions, and certain safeguards against the vagaries of a capitalist economy, such as unemployment insurance and

January 29, 1986
income security programs. It is not a perfect system but it is a good philosophy which most Canadians are proud of and support. Our Prime Minister now says we can no longer afford this philosophy. He would have us embrace a pre-Depression philosophy which offers programs, through a means test, to the deserving poor, and relies heavily on voluntary charities such as food banks. He wants quiet consultation, but no embarrassing public debate or political confrontation. He forgets that social policy consultants claim Tory consultation was a farce since their views were ignored.
Instead of listening to consultants and the Canadian public, the Prime Minister relies on the Nielsen recommendations to cut all programs except the military. He allows his hatchet man to develop a new social philosophy, not Canadians.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the derailment of a CP Rail train yesterday near Raith, not far from Thunder Bay, focuses the problems we face in ensuring safe train movement. The derailment, which fortunately occurred in a sparsely-populated area, was the result of a roller bearing burn out. This happened 45 kilometres past one hot box detector and 10 kilometres short of the next one. The technological problem is that burn outs occur more rapidly with roller bearings than with steel axles in brass seats. This means roller bearings fail with very little warning. One of the recommendations of the Grange Inquiry into the Mississauga derailment was that roller bearings should be installed on all tank cars. That recommendation is now in question.
The railway companies have sought approval to do away with cabooses and replace end-of-train crew members with an End-of-Train Information System which is to provide all the monitoring and supervision which crew members presently provide. That now appears more and more dubious.
I call upon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to institute a thorough investigation of these technological challenges. Derailment of trains, especially in the winter-time, appear to be inevitable in our rail transportation system. Let us be sure that on the trains and elsewhere we have all the means to deal with them as safely as possible.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, on January 22 the Public Service Alliance of Canada asked all their locals to picket the offices of their local Members of Parliament. The Lindsay, Ontario local of the Canada Employment and Immigration Employees' Union, and Revenue Canada Customs Employees' Union, instead of picketing
my office, chose to act in a very responsible manner and put their concerns in a letter to me. I am very pleased that they chose to put their faith in my efforts and the good will of our Government to assist them.
[DOT] (UIO)
In their letter they urge the Government of Canada to negotiate contracts in good faith for their respective groups. I too urge the Government of Canada to give this very sincere representation every consideration, and to acknowledge the very constructive input of ail these public servants.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the people who used to work in the shipyards in British Columbia must be wondering what they have done to incur the wrath of the Conservative Government. The reason given for the announced closure of B.C. Marine Shipbuilders was that the company could no longer wait for the federal Government to deliver on its campaign promises to provide the industry with a policy designed to foster its growth. In fact, if it were not for an accident with a Fisheries Department ship, the workers at B.C. Marine Shipbuilders would already be on unemployment and a padlock would now be on the gates.
Now, more bad news for British Columbia courtesy of the Mulroney Government. The Bell Aire Shipyard in British Columbia will close its doors on Friday. Sixteen months after its election to office, the federal Tory team can point to the accomplishment that at least 728 shipyard workers in three B.C. yards have lost their jobs or are about to pick up their last pay cheques.
Nationally the number of shipyard workers who have the Government to thank for UIC instead of a regular salary runs into the thousands. Why does the Government not do the proper thing and assist shipyards in British Columbia and elsewhere to build ships needed for Canadian purposes?
Unions and the shipyard owners across the land speak in one voice. They told the Government well over a year ago that the Canadian shipbuilding industry could put 40,000 Canadians to work if only the Government would announce the policy it promises so often when it is seeking votes.
Is it too much for B.C. shipyard workers to expect the Government to live up to its promises? Shame on the Tories!
January 29, 1986


INSURANCE
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, 20 insurance companies agreed to form a voluntary association in Ontario to provide liability insurance to small businesses and non-profit organizations that cannot otherwise get coverage. This group should be praised, but they cover a maximum of only a million dollars in liability insurance, which is not enough to help a Windsor, Ontario, machine tool manufacturing company with 300 employees needing $5 million liability product insurance.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) is not coming forward with any solution to this national crisis. We need Government action immediately. The pretext of provincial jurisdiction is a way to do nothing to help small businesses and institutions get liability insurance. When is the Government going to act? Is it going to act right away?


PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, this week I was very suprised to hear questions from the Opposition about the price of gas, and I realized how little these people know about the subject, or else they are putting up a good show.
I fail to understand why the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) are asking why the price of gas in Montreal is 59 cents a litre and in Boston, 43 cents. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I was talking to one of my friends in the State of New York, who has a child that has been ill for several years. He told me he would be glad to swap the U.S. price of gas for our Canadian social services, because his son's illness has already cost him over $200,000 in medical expenses.
Mr. Speaker, he has no money left, he has lost his home, his son is still sick, but his gas still costs 43 cents a litre.
The other point I would like to make about the price of gas is that anyone who tells Quebecers that the price of gas has gone up is wrong. Mr. Speaker, the price has gone down, and this will continue, thanks to the Conservative Party and its policies.
1 can assure the House that gas was selling for 59.9 cents a litre in September 1984 and even after the increase of 2.04 cents per litre in the Wilson Budget to pay for our social services. On January 28, 1986, the price of gas was 58.3 cents a litre. This means that the present price is lower than the price of gas when we were elected.
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, I therefore want to make it clear that we have been-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


AVIATION INDUSTRY
Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are proud of the accomplishments of de Havilland. The invention of the Dash-8 and the unbelievable potential of the stretched Dash-8 give Canada a world-wide lead in a highly competitive industry. That is why the Government of Canada wanted to guarantee the successful marketing of these aircraft by giving a new lease on life to de Havilland and enabling the company to prosper.
So far Canadian taxpayers have contributed $850 million to this Crown corporation. It would need hundreds of millions of dollars more just to survive, yet it would not necessarily be competitive.
As a result of the unbeatable alliance between Boeing and Canadian engineering resources, de Havilland will become Canada's jewel on the international scene. Thanks to the design, manufacturing and development of the Dash-8 and the stretched Dash-8, Canadians will crown their achievement by securing a significant share of the promising field of 20-to-50-passenger aircraft.

Fokker Corporation and the F-50: "Eat your heart out"!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Now that the evidence has been submitted to the parliamentary committee reviewing the de Havilland sale, it has become clear that in addition to the question of price the Boeing Corporation will also receive from Canadian taxpayers about $246 million-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I believe that this matter is still in committee. I do not know whether I should really interrupt the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, but questions about anything in committee should not be asked in the Chamber until it comes out of committee.

January 29, 1986
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the facts which are now on the public record indicate that Canadian taxpayers are contributing $246 million to the deal, in addition to the give-away price. In view of the fact that it is more than a give-away, that it is an outrage, giving away a priceless Canadian asset-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: You are right.


John Napier Turner: -would he stop the sale when there is still time, allow a postponement of the concluding date this Friday, and take a look at it himself?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I should like to remind him of what he said on May 9, 1984, in his leadership run in respect of Canadair and de Havilland. He said: "These are prime examples of what can go wrong when the Government gets into commercial businesses and fails to exercise proper supervision and control. Before these companies have stopped losing money, I venture to say that it will have cost us $5 billion". He concluded that the solution "lies in co-production with a few major manufacturers left in the world". In effect, that is what we are proposing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister refused to conclude that statement by saying that I felt the solution was in a joint venture with an international company but retaining the control and the technology in Canadian hands. He has not finished reading that statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTERVENE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, once again my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would he delay the conclusion and closing of the sale so that he can personally evaluate the evidence, make up his own mind about it, and give it the benefit of his personal attention before we sell away Canadian technology which took the country years and years to develop? Would he do it personally? That is my question to him.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if I may again reply to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I would say first on the question of technology that obviously the Leader has not read the testimony which has gone before the committee, because it has been made abundantly clear that de Havilland has a world mandate including all the technology which is now there. Second, much of that technology remains, titlewise, owned by the Government of Canada, not by Boeing.
The Leader of the Opposition is asking us to delay the closing, totally ignoring the fact that de Havilland needs $60 million this quarter. If the closing is delayed still further, the Government of Canada will be called upon to put up that $60 million of fresh capital. Boeing has agreed to do it. 1 think it is in the public interest that Boeing be allowed to get on with the deal.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER STOP SALE OF DE HAVILLAND
John Napier Turner: For
the last time, before the deal with Boeing is closed, I want to put a final question to the Prime Minister, before Friday.
Could he personally reconsider this dossier, to prevent the sale to Boeing of a first class Canadian company and irreplaceable Canadian technology?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, during the leadership campaign the Leader of the Opposition raised serious doubts in regard to this company. The finance critic was even more specific on behalf of the Liberal Party, indicating that he would dispossess the Government of that asset. The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice, who is trying to pretend that he is otherwise occupied, was very much in favour of taking action to change the relationship within the Government of Canada.
Another bidder who came here indicated that it was, in his judgment, a miracle that the Government of Canada had received such an outstanding offer. We are very, very concerned. What we are doing is we are saying yes to solid jobs in Canada and not to a Liberal boondoggle of billions and billions of dollars.


REQUEST THAT CLOSING OF SALE BE DELAYED
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: My question is also directed to the Prime Minister. We are not criticizing the decision of the Government to privatize the company. I want to ask the Prime Minister this. Since it has become clear that the method used to privatize the company made it almost impossible for any Canadian interest to acquire the company, 1 want to ask him again-they are not bound to close on Friday-will the Prime Minister agree to delay the closing and make an effort, as was shown in the committee not to have been made, to place the company into Canadian hands. Will he make that effort?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member for York Centre, who sat on the committee that we have been referring to, I appeared before that committee for six hours. In total there were 20 witnesses, and there were ten meetings. I do not believe we will ever get through to the Hon. Member the magnitude of what has happened with respect to de
January 29, 1986

Oral Questions
Havilland. The public treasury has lost $1,186 billion to date on de Havilland. If it is allowed to continue under public ownership we must accept ongoing obligations of a further $1,575 billion. Those ongoing obligations get reduced to five hundred and some odd million if we do the Boeing deal. I say let's close it on schedule on Friday.


ORDER IN COUNCIL
Robert Phillip Kaplan: My supplementary on the same subject is directed to the Attorney General of Canada. I have given him notice of irregularities in the Order in Council passed by the Government to guarantee the obligations undertaken in the Boeing deal. I want to ask him if he will step in on the grounds that I submitted to him, to prevent this deal from closing while the illegalities that are associated with that Order in Council can be examined and corrected.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the honourable gentleman from York Centre put all his legal knowledge together and came up with a definite red herring in connection with the legal authority for an Order in Council. There are no irregularities, and I am sure that the legal authority was there and everything was perfectly in order from the legal point of view. The hon. gentleman can cease his efforts in sabotaging this deal, which is a positive step forward for Canada.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTERVENE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister whom I remind that we had to fight like hell to even get that committee consideration. Since the Government promised not to be like the Liberals and to turn over a new leaf and have a new day in Parliament, will the Prime Minister undertake that Parliament will in fact be able to vote on the de Havilland sale, rather than hide behind a technicality in the Financial Administration Act that has permitted the Government to proceed with the deal so far without coming before Parliament in any way?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, how they like to change their ground: When I was questioned in December concerning what would happen at the committee proceedings that are just concluding, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre asked for a committee review so that he could hear witnesses and review documents. He got exactly that and now he asks: "Why can I not have more, such as a parliamentary debate and a vote on this issue?" We are at the point of decision. That decision requires a closure on Friday. This Government proposes to go ahead with that closure.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister on the same subject. The Prime Minister will be aware that the sale of virtually any Crown corporations belonging to the people of Canada requires an Act of Parliament, with the unusual exception of Canadair, de Havilland, and one or two other corporations belonging to the CDIC. If the Government is convinced that it is such a good deal, will the Prime Minister undertake that there will be a motion and a vote in the House of Commons relative to the sale of de Havilland before the sale takes place, rather than hiding behind the law in order to avoid having Parliament decide on the sale of this Crown corporation?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, what a strange partnership we have between the Liberals and the NDP. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, since you too were in the House when de Havilland was purchased, that the purchase went through under the Liberal Government that was then in power, with the consent of the NDP, as a $1 item in an appropriation Bill, with absolutely no debate in the House and without a committee review. Now when it comes time to sell the Crown asset, the socialists say: "How dare you sell it without months of debate and deliberation?" They have had their committee hearing. Now is the time for decisive action.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. While Hon. Members are standing, I think it would be an opportune time for me to recognize the Hon. Robert McCready, Minister of Transportation for the Province of New Brunswick.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] * *


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I would draw to your attention the fact that the Government has created a new national pastime: trying to reconcile the conflicting statements of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Finance on reducing the deficit. However, we need an additional piece of information in order to solve this mystery. I would ask the Minister of Finance if he would confirm the truth of the statement made by the Minister of Justice to the effect that there are disputes among cabinet Ministers to such a point where the Nielsen

January 29, 1986
Oral Questions
Committee, the committee chaired by the Minister's seatmate, is paralysed. Could he give us that additional information?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the only problem we are having on this side is reconciling the conflict between the statements made by Members opposite before they were in opposition and the statements they are making now. That is the puzzle with which we are faced, and that is the puzzle with which all Canadians are faced. Get your act together, boys, before-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The simple answer to the question that the Hon. Member has posed is that work on the committee headed by my seatmate, the Deputy Prime Minister, is moving along expeditiously and making good judgments and good decisions. The Hon. Member will see some of the results of those decisions in a very short period of time.


TIMING OF INTRODUCTION OF BUDGET
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has said that we will see the results of those decisions in a very short period of time. Before interests rates shoot up, or before the now called "Brian-buck" makes the "Diefen-dollar" look like pure gold, would the Minister tell us when he intends to remove this uncertainty, confusion, and incoherence by bringing in a Budget? Will he confirm that it will be before the end of February?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that it would be in the latter part of February.


An Hon. Member:: What day?


PRICE OF GASOLINE-MINISTER'S TELEX TO OIL COMPANIES
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is reported that yesterday the Minister of Energy telexed the major oil companies regarding oil prices. Recognizing that this month alone the price of Canada crude oil has dropped from S37 a barrel to $30 a barrel, which is the equivalent of six cents per litre at the pump, did the Minister in her telex tell those oil companies that she expected a minimum six cent per litre drop in the price at the pump?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the House that I communicated with the oil companies to say that this Government expects, of course, that any cost decreases will be passed on to consumers.


An Hon. Member:: When?


Pat Carney: As the Hon. Member well knows, for me to order a company to make a specific price decrease would contravene combines legislation. I can no more order a company to lower the price of oil than I can order a company to lower the price of an automobile in Oshawa.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: We'll get to that.


OIL COMPANIES' PROFITS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question, does the Minister recognize that the reduction from $37 a barrel to $30 a barrel, without an equivalent decrease at the pump, means a $5 million per day windfall profit for those oil companies every single day that that is left in effect? Does she think that it is appropriate that they should be allowed to rip off the Canadian consumer at the rate of $5 million a day while she sits and complains that she has no power?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's arithmetic is totally amazing. How can the oil companies derive a benefit of that amount of money when, in fact, that oil has not even moved into the system?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).


Ian Deans: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: One short supplementary question.


Ian Deans: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My suppie-mentaries are always short.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INSTRUCT PETRO-CANADA TO REDUCE PRICES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to talk to the Minister about how it happens; but let me ask her this.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: How what happens?


Ian Deans: Does she not remember that the same oil companies which she now says should be left to let oil work its way through the system were found guilty by the Restrictive
January 29, 1986

Trade Practices Commission of ripping off the Canadian public by over $1 billion a year for 15 consecutive years? Why does the Minister not demand of Petro-Canada that it show leadership and bring the price down, forcing the others to do likewise?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how it could be in the national interest to ask Petro-Canada to sell gasoline at prices lower-


Ian Deans: Why?


Pat Carney: -than what it paid for the crude oil.


Mr. Frith:: How about increased market share?


THE ECONOMY
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that yesterday the Prime Minister denied that the Minister of Justice said what was attributed to him in La Presse, and that last night the tape of the interview was played on national television so that Canadians could hear the actual words, does the Prime Minister now wish to modify his answers of yesterday?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Rossi:: That's you all right, a bluffer!


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance-there was no 18-minute gap in that tape.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I am afraid I cannot hear the Hon. Member's question. She is one of your own. If Hon. Members would not mind, the Hon. Member for Trinity has the floor.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is an 18-minute gap in the question!


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the Minister make a statement under Motions to clear up the confusion and inconsistency in Government economic policy, including the blunder which allowed the International Monetary Fund to suggest that Canada is printing money at a rate four times higher than that of any other industrial country?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the Hon. Member is talking about. I know that we are creating jobs two and three times faster than other industrialized countries. I know that we are creating investment at one-and-a-half times the level of other industrialized countries. I know that the housing starts in Canada are increasing about three or four times faster than those in other industrialized countries. However, I am not sure from where the Hon. Member obtained that other statistic.


FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In a letter dated December 17, 1985, I asked the Minister to review the Atlantic groundfish quota split between the inshore and offshore fishing industries. As thousands of jobs in my riding are dependent upon the fair allocation of this stock, and the successful resolution of this matter is of primary concern to my constitutency, will the Minister advise the House with respect to any progress on my request?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the representations made by the Hon. Member, beginning with his letter of December 17. When 1 met with my Atlantic colleagues, the Atlantic Council of Provincial Fisheries Ministers, on December 11, we decided jointly on a proposal with respect to the split of allocations between the inshore and offshore sector of southwest Nova Scotia. That proposal was supported by the Minister of Fisheries for Nova Scotia. With my colleague from Nova Scotia I am now examining the possibilities of amending the distribution of these stocks. I would point out that, in fact, the landings last year were at unprecedented levels in Southwest Nova. I think, as in all other respects, there even appear to be more fish in the sea under a Tory Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It relates to an interview which the Prime Minister granted to Le Devoir in which he was reported, on Monday, in Le Devoir, to have said that he would be slashing social programs in the upcoming Budget, especially the Unemployment Insurance Program, even if the Forget Commission has not reported by then. Why would the Prime Minister make such announcements in the press even before receiving the recommendations of the Forget

January 29, 1986
Oral Questions
Commission? Is the Forget Commission just a front for the Government to put the boots to the Canadian people?


Martin Brian Mulroney: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I never made that statement. The Hon. Member says that I talked about "slashing Government programs and slashing this ..That is not the case. I never said that. The transcript shows that I said Miss MacDonald announced some major changes, the concepts of Unemployment Insurance Programs in Canada that came into effect on January 1. "There will be more; meanwhile, there will be a thorough reform."
"With due respect for Mr. Forget and his colleagues, I think we should wait for the report". "So there was an indication." "When you say there will be more, were you referring to new measures to be announced in the Budget, etc.?" I said: "I was."


FORGET COMMISSION REPORT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in light of fact that that is in complete contradiction to what was reported in Le Devoir, can-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McDermid:: That is the transcript, come on!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. If the Hon. Member has a supplementary question, would he please put it.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, I have a supplementary question. Again, the Prime Minister did not say it. Can he then categorically in the House say that there will be no slashing of the Unemployment Insurance Program before the Forget Commission has reported to the House?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the word "slash" was never used, either in English or in French, by me, at Le Devoir or anywhere else.


John R. Rodriguez: Give the commitment.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is a typical socialist stunt.


John R. Rodriguez: Give the commitment.


Martin Brian Mulroney: You raise a false accusation and ask me to deny it. Well, I won't do it because I never said it.


INDUSTRY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians now control only 20 per cent of the $1 billion annual book publishing industry. That is 20 per cent of an industry which forms our ideas, controls our attitudes, and which the Minister of Communications has stated is essential to our identity and cultural sovereignty.


John Carnell Crosbie: Speech.


Sheila Finestone: Are the cabinet policy guidelines for the publishing industry, which have as their objective Canadian control and ownership, still in force and in effect today as they were when the Minister announced them in Baie Comeau in July?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my hon. friend that questions referring to Investment Canada-and obviously, matters that concern investment concern Investment Canada-should be directed to my hon. colleague who is very competent in this area, the Hon. Member responsible for the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I will then repeat my question to the Minister of Divestment Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Finestone: Tell me, Mr. Minister, will you guarantee-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Boudria:: Will he. Will he guarantee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Would you just give us the supplementary question, please.


Sheila Finestone: Will the Minister guarantee to Hon. Members of this House and to the cultural communities listening that when he announces his decision shortly with respect to the take-over of Prentice Hall by the New York Giant, Gulf and Western, he will not transgress his own Cabinet's guidelines and subvert the Canadian publishing industry?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if I may have an opportunity to respond not only to the last question put by the Hon. Member but to the first one which was directed to my colleague, the Minister of Communications, the answer, of course, to the first question she put is "yes", and the answer to the second question she put is "yes" again.
January 29, 1986


INSURANCE
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question today is directed to the Minister of State (Finance). It involves the current difficulties in obtaining liability insurance by Canadian voluntary organizations, small businesses, and municipalities. This has been a problem for over a month. The Minister has met with business people and Government officials. Has she anything to report to the House on the resolution of these problems?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated both in the House and outside the House, while this is partly provincial jurisdiction we have taken a number of steps to deal with what we see as a matter of great concern to Canadians. We have urged the industry to develop the pooling arrangement which it announced yesterday for Ontario and which we have asked it to extend to all of Canada. I have asked the re-insurance people to give urgent consideration to an expansion within the Canadian sector of a private sector solution.
We have met with people with particular problems, such as municipalities, and we have an interdepartmental task force. Despite jurisdictional issues, we are co-operating with the provinces and we intend to move as broadly as possible to deal with this issue.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday in Montreal, I attended a meeting of the Montreal East Survival Committee, where people were concerned about the federal Government's dragging its feet on this issue. My question is as follows: The Committee would like to know whether the Minister will do what he promised on December 17 last year, when he announced he would very shortly be giving Montreal special status, to promote the economic development of this important Canadian city.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Montreal East Survival Committee asked me a number of things at that meeting. I followed up several of their requests. I was asked, first of all, to look into the possibility of having the CAMO expanded to more than nine members. Today, they are suggesting twenty-three members. This is one request I have already acted upon. The designated area question is being looked into as well as several other proposals made by the Committee at that time.
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POSITION


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
When is the Minister going to meet his commitments, Mr. Speaker? And secondly, workers at Bombardier would also like to know whether the Minister is going to meet the commitments he made to this company, namely that Bombardier would be receiving major contracts for the construction of locomotives, and if so, when is he going to announce this in the House?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think that the fact that 40,000 new jobs were created in Montreal in 1985 proves that we have achieved something.
We announced that Petromont would be receiving $55 million in grants. Fifteen million dollars last September. We have just announced another grant of $50.9 million for Cana-dair. More than 400 new jobs have been created in this sector. We have a whole list.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Bombardier?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, 1 simply want to give my hon. colleague and the House the assurance that in the weeks and months to come, there will be many new announcements that will once again give Montreal the place it deserves in Quebec and in Canada.


REQUEST FOR ANSWERS TO DEMANDS OF MONTREAL EAST SURVIVAL COMMITTEE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the President of the Treasury Board, and 1 was surprised at the answer he gave my hon. colleague. In fact, the Survival Committee also asked me to put questions to the Minister.
Contrary to what the Minister was saying, he did not meet the Committee's requests, which included putting a stop on the sale of Gulf to Ultramar; giving Versatile Vickers its fair share of shipbuilding contracts; giving Bombardier contracts for repairs to rolling stock, and the designated area issue which is still being considered-
When is the Minister going to respond to these proposals?
The Minister has given no reply whatsoever to the Survival Committee's four main proposals.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think we have already shown what we can do. We are working on case. A number of questions are being considered, and as soon as we get the results, we will announce them.
10284

January 29, 1986
Oral Questions
I may add that I am regularly in touch with the President of the Montreal East Survival Committee, and that he understands what is being done. We are keeping him informed on all developments in this case.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET CHAIRMAN OF MONTREAL EAST SURVIVAL COMMITTEE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister.
If he is regularly in touch with the President of the Survival Committee, perhaps he would agree to meet with him as he intends to come to the Hill next week and would like to see the Minister to discuss the Government's response to the Survival Committee's proposals.
Could the Minister inform the House whether he would agree to meet with the President of the Survival Committee?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, every time I was asked to meet with the President of the Survival Committee and his colleagues, I always accepted. And I shall therefore be delighted to meet him if he comes here next week. In fact, I have many times offered to meet him on a Friday when I am in Montreal to look after the Montreal Government Members Committee and various projects which are proceeding very well, I can assure you, at this time.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is time to act.


SPACE RESEARCH
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. All Canadians were touched by yesterday's tragic event over the skies of Florida. Can the Minister assure the House that Canada will continue its valuable contribution to the American space program despite the recent tragic event?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. It gives me the opportunity to express my personal regret at the events of yesterday.
There will be no interruption in terms of Canada's ongoing space programs. Many new efforts which the Government may wish to initiate into new space adventures are in a very preliminary evaluation and planning stage and I see no interruption in that effort.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday's Ontario Government's report showed, through the use of independent monitoring, what previous Government tests had not. Not only do residents of southwestern Ontario face the threat of inundation by dioxin-containing flood waters but they are drinking dioxin-containing waters right now.
When will the Minister announce his promised program for the control of chemical contaminants of the environment? Will the plan include a national safe drinking water act, and an emergency initiative to produce a federal-provincial program to improve the purification of water systems in municipalities, including the use of activated carbon filters?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that we will be introducing a new Environmental Contaminants Act that will address all the concerns that the Hon. Member raised which are within federal jurisdiction. Some of them, of course, are within provincial and municipal jurisdictions.
I should caution the Member, however, that even though we are very concerned, as is the Ontario Government, he should put this matter into perspective. It is not a matter of finding something in the water that was not there before. It is a matter, instead, of science reaching the point where it can detect certain things that could not be detected before. In fact, if one were to express the quantity of the substance found in terms of time instead of weight, it would be equivalent to one second in 32 centuries. In short, it is minute, it is sporadic, and it is not harmful.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


PRICE OF GASOLINE-MINISTER'S TELEX TO OIL COMPANIES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have recognized the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. I thought that the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville had asked all the questions that had to be asked about that particular question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: He asked for a supplementary question.
January 29, 1986


Mr. Young:: You don't know what he was going to ask.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys has the floor.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister has finally admitted, through her telex yesterday to oil industry executives, that her market sensitive regime is not working and that Canadians are paying too much for gasoline. What guarantees can the Minister give that oil companies will pass along their savings to consumers, and when will this happen?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Hon. Member is so negative about my attempts to assist Canadian consumers to receive full benefit of the world oil price decreases. I had looked for support from him on this issue.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, she has my support, if that is what she intends to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR PRICE GUARANTEES
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister said:
I have communicated with industry executives to ensure that consumers get the full and fair benefit of the price declines which are in the system now.
That includes, I assume, those which are coming into the system. It is not unfair to ask her what guarantees she has that this will happen. What are these assurances, and when are Canadians going to get them?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the assurances are built into our new energy policy which is fair to consumers as well as producers, and is the opposite of the rigid regulatory system imposed by the Liberals under which gasoline prices increased 80 per cent from 32 cents a litre to 50 cents.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and is on the same subject as previous questions. It is an extremely crucial subject for the communities of southwestern Ontario. Is the Minister aware that Washington environmental experts have concluded that no studies whatsoever exist that probe the long-term cumulative effects of octadioxin? Will the Minister, therefore, protect our frightened communities in southwestern Ontario by share-costing with the Ontario Government the upgrading of filtration systems that are crucial in those communities?
Oral Questions


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to downplay the importance of the announcement that Jim Bradley made yesterday in Queen's Park. However, if the citizens in question are frightened, I think the Hon. Member has contributed as much as anyone else to that fright.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Murphy:: Shame!


Thomas Michael McMillan: The Hon. Jim Bradley, the Minister of the Environment of Ontario, said yesterday: "Drinking water supplies for all of these communities meet health-related objectives. I have the assurance of medical and toxicological experts that the levels do not pose a threat to human health".
The Hon. Jim Bradley made the announcement yesterday so that the information could be shared with the public in perspective. I urge the Hon. Member to take his advice. The situation is of concern in the sense that for the first time trace levels of dioxin have been found in water. Again, it is not because those substances in question were not there before; it is because science has reached the point of expertise of being able to detect them. That is the difference.
[DOT] * *


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In 1981, the Liberal Government gave $500,000 per year, for a period of five years, to the Family Violence Information Centre. The Centre takes care of battered women and women who have been sexually assaulted.
Since the Conservative Government came to power, the Centre's budget has been cut by half, one-third of the staff has been let go, and the information bulletin is no longer published. Today, it seems that the Conservative Government is about to cut the Centre's budget altogether.
Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister would inform the House whether the Government intends to continue subsidizing the Centre or whether family violence is something we can afford to ignore.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the specific issue which the Member raises, that of family violence, including child abuse and the related conditions, remains a priority of the Government. With regard to the Family Violence Centre in the Department of National Health and Welfare, if she looks at the figures on a year-to-year basis for the next three years, she will find them to be quite different from what she said they were.

January 29, 1986
Oral Questions
Additionally, it is my view that we should have better information and a better approach than we have had to date. That is why 1 think it is my mandate, and that of the Department of National Health and Welfare, to give the very best information and to have a better system than that which was in place.


WOMEN'S REFUGE CENTRES-GOVERNMENT AID
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, women's shelters are writing us and describing their dismay at the fact that the Conservative Government is constantly cutting these budgets.
I therefore wish the Minister would give the House the assurance that he intends to continue to allocate decent amounts for operating these shelters, and otherwise, let him say he is only going to give them enough money to barely survive.
It is very important to provide protection for battered wives. After all, that was one of the Conservative Government's promises.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on that particular point, the response of the former Government was through the centre to which she referred. There were certain conditions and problems which were not resolved through the Canadian Assistance Plan which we have now resolved with the provinces. If the Member looks at the over-all program, she will find it to be quite different and a better situation today than when the Liberals were in government.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
The Minister is aware that St-Raymond Paper in Desbiens, Quebec, has been closed for fifty months and is trying to attract investor interest in this pulp and paper plant.
Although Cascades will open in Port-Cartier, does the Government intend to maintain its commitment to offer interested investors the subsidy that was to remain available until March 31, 1986?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this type of matter, I
am sure that the Hon. Member is well aware that our Department is constantly trying to interest investors in what will, hopefully, be viable enterprises in Canada. The project that he is referring to is one that we have had under study and review for some time. There is nothing to be announced at the present time, but I am certainly aware of the facts.


INQUIRY CONCERNING GOVERNMENT'S INTENDED MEASURES
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is not prepared to make a commitment in the House today, can he indicate any other measures he is going to take to save this company town of 1,500 people?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member had his supplementary question ready before he heard my first answer. I think that, if he reads my answer, he will see that his supplementary question is already answered.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, January 28, 1986, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Speech!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. 1 want to thank all Hon. Members, but let us have a little order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Anthony Roman (York North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-67 and Bill C-68.
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House has been pleased to appoint me as
January 29, 1986

102B7
Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-62, respecting employment equity.
I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the report on the Bill as amended. Furthermore I wish to thank Members of all parties for their exceptional co-operation, which made it possible for us to report the Bill back to the House much sooner than expected.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by almost all of the residents of Stewart, British Columbia, a wonderful little community. The petitioners humbly call upon this House to ensure that some part of the forest resource being logged in their area is processed in Stewart to create full-time jobs for the local economy.


James Ross Fulton: I also have a petition signed by residents of the Queen Charlotte Islands, Vancouver Island and other areas of British Columbia who are concerned that Jack Webster of BCTV has repeatedly aired shows which present only one side of a very complex issue, that being Lyell Island. The petitioners call upon this House to make sure that Mr. Webster's personal vendetta against native rights and environmental groups, his fomenting of trouble and creating an atmosphere of hostility, is brought to his attention.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are always blaming the press. [Translation]


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, today it is again my duty to table another petition from people in the Moncton-Memramcook area and from Westmorland-Kent. These people are still worried about the situation at the CN shops, and they are asking the Government to give them the assurance that the jobs will be safe.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege of tabling various petitions signed by a number of my constituents from the federal riding of Moncton, expressing their concern about the future of the CN shops in Moncton. They ask the Members of this House to put an end to all cuts in personnel at these shops.
Committee Reports



TRANSPORT


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moved:: That the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Transport be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, to make sure there is no misunderstanding in this House or anywhere else, I want to say that my motion of concurrence in this report is not what I want to do.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Explain!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: However, a rule which I have always considered to be very dumb says that the only way a report of a standing committee can be debated is by moving concurrence. This is true even if you disagree with all of it, some of it or none of it. I want to make it clear that my motion in no way indicates concurrence by my Party or by myself in the sixth report of the standing committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Abuse of the rules.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There are some items in the report we agree with. However, there are a number of items with which we profoundly disagree. As a result, we issued a minority report pointing out some of the areas where we disagree.
I want to say that I consider the time provided for the committee by this House, which really means by the Government, was not sufficient for the committee to hold hearings in other parts of Canada in order to hear all or even most of the witnesses who wanted to appear. Believe it or not, on an issue as large as this, affecting the entire economy and every region of this country, we did not have as witnesses the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association. The length of time provided for people to prepare submissions and give notice was inadequate, and that was not the fault of the committee. I want to say here and now, Sir, that all members of the committee worked diligently and long, hard hours trying to cover a subject of this size in the limited time provided.
The question which is really at stake here is that of deregulation or re-regulation or a new regulatory regime, whichever expression one chooses to use. I notice there has been much more use of the words "a new regulatory regime" over the last few weeks than there had been all last summer. Whatever you call it, we responded last August to the Government White Paper called Freedom to Move. We called it "Freedom to Manoeuvre", because it states it is:
"a trial balloon of Conservative ideology which solves fewer problems for the transportation industry than it will create. Clearly there are no pressing issues facing the transportation industry which call for actions by the Minister like those proposed in his policy paper". These proposals are for sweeping deregulation where there is no apparent need, and that clearly indicates that the paper is only a knee-jerk regurgitation of similar transportation initiatives undertaken in the U.S. by President Reagan and President Carter.

January 29, 1986
Committee Reports
Our participation in this process-


Mr. St. Germain:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt the Hon. Member on his excellent delivery, but it appears the Liberals have abandoned the House. Is there a particular reason?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would remind the Hon. Member that he should not reflect on who is or who is not in the House. I would like to say that there are Members from other Parties in the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And they are sitting with their natural allies, Mr. Speaker.
If I may continue, participation by members of the New Democratic Party in this whole process on the Government's White Paper has confirmed our long-held belief that there is some room for substantial improvement in Canada's transportation sector. The current regulatory environment is often cumbersome, inappropriate in some areas, and does not always produce the results intended. We recognize that in a changing world, in a changing transportation environment, regulations must keep pace. They must reflect the world of today and not of yesterday.
Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. Unless it has been changed and I do not know about it, under the House of Commons Act, the Constitution Act or whatever, there is still a regulation that while Members of Parliament are provided with free railway transportation, I am still entitled to check my horse in the baggage car. That is a regulation held over from before 1867 which I believe is still in place. However, if we continue down the slippery slope of deregulation, as this Government proposes, I may have to check my horse so I can get from Winnipeg to Regina in a couple or three days.
We agree that we have to propose transportation policies for the 1980s and 1990s in keeping with the nature and history of our country. Transportation policy is a policy that recognizes the important role of the private sector but that maintains the predominance of the public interest rather than private profit in directing the development of Canada's transportation sector. In essence, it has to be a policy based on re-regulation, not deregulation.
We believe the time has come for upgrading and updating our regulatory regime. We agree that the Canadian Transport Commission should be modernized and updated, its powers strengthened, its methods of operation streamlined, and that it should be more responsive to the consumer and the users of transportation in a shorter space of time than has been the experience in the past.
Much of the distrust or disbelief in the activities of the CTC over the last many years has occurred because there is a suspicion, not ill-founded, that whatever the railways or the airlines wanted they got one way or the other and sooner or later. There was not sufficient attention paid or response given
to the needs of shippers and receivers or to consumers who pay the final price.
We feel that the sixth report of the Transport Committee, the minority report which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), and I submitted, and I believe a report from the Liberal Party, should be considered only as interim reports.
We feel that the House of Commons, with the approval of the Government, should extend the reference to the Transport Committee for further study, including permission to conduct public hearings in northern Canada and other outlying communities in southern Canada, and that the Committee be allowed to travel to the United States to gather information with respect to the Americans' experience with transportation deregulation, the number one recommendation in our minority report. The Government of Canada should undertake to have a complete independent market analysis and impact study done of the expected results of deregulation in Canada, the known results and effects of deregulation in the United States concerning all modes of transportation, including the effect on safety, security and employment prior to the drafting of any legislation.
The Government should increase funding immediately, in fact even retroactively if necessary, to provide for more inspection services, not only for the inspection and supervision of regulations regarding maintenance, safety procedures and so forth, but also of their enforcement.
If I may illustrate, Mr. Speaker, the present Government is doing no more than extending what the previous administration started with its restraint programs in 1975-1976.
Let us just look at air mode person years. Specifically, let us take general technical inspectors. The number of them for 1985-86 is 390, down 23 from 1984-85. On technical inspection-the people out on the ground-the number for 1985-86 is 201, down from 223 for 1984-85.
With or without deregulation, there is a growing volume of people travelling, a growing volume of aircraft, trucks, buses and cars in our transportation system. With or without deregulation, Sir, you have to enlarge the capability of your regulatory bodies and of the Department of Transport to inspect and enforce the regulations that are there for public safety and security.
You cannot have it both ways. I do not know of a single taxpayer of any political stripe anywhere in Canada who says that we are spending too much in the area of inspection and enforcement of regulations. In fact, taxpayers would support an increase in expenditures in that area. This nonsense about across-the-board reductions in order to satisfy the hypnotic influence of deficits is, I think, a disservice and is false economy. There are some areas in which you do not, I repeat, do not reduce expenditures. There are areas in which they must be increased. That is an area in which no Government with any conscience or feeling of responsibility could either allow or stand for reductions.
January 29, 1986

In a new regulatory regime, a re-regulated regime or a deregulated regime, a comparison of Canada with the United States is odious, as the old saying goes. The drafters of the White Paper overlooked the fact that that country has 10 times the population and more than 10 times the volume of traffic, both people and goods to move, in a smaller geography and in a milder climate. That in itself speaks volumes as to the applicability of their experience or ideological bent in Canada. The only parts of Canada which are readily comparable with the United States are the Quebec-Windsor corridor, if we are talking about rail and trucking, and Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and once in a while Edmonton, Calgary and Halifax. They are the only ones which are comparable. This means that three-quarters of the geography of Canada is left out, that cities such as Lethbridge, Regina, Saskatoon, Thunder Bay, North Bay, Timmins, London and Moncton are left out. If we found out anything in Washington last week, it was that deregulation in 20 cities meant a return to mediocrity and that smaller centres receive a lower quality of service. Although they sometimes received increased frequency, we are now being told that they are prepared to take 100 of those 200 cities, put them under the new regulatory regime and add 100 different cities because of what they have experienced. What applies in the United States does not apply here because most of Canada, in terms of transportation economics, is uneconomical.
In 1867 we decided that we would be a nation and that the nation as a whole would share in an equitable manner from coast to coast, from the forty-ninth parallel to the North Pole, in the cost of providing a reasonable degree of quality, safe and equitable service, and that the routes which were uneconomical would be covered both by taxpayers and by those routes which were economical. For all the criticism about cross-subsidization, if there is one thing that has worked reasonably well, it is the fact that we had, and in most cases still have an economical degree of service. If we looked at only the straight economics of it, we would pull out and leave it to jerkwater, fly by night operators who enter and exit whenever they please. Taxpayers have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure, but under the freedom to move provision transporters can come in and pull out whenever they like. This is not only unfair to the transportation consumers who live in the communities, it is unfair to the airline or the trucking company which has built up the infrastructure and has serviced the communities for years. Such a company could have loyal customers and could have built up the business, but someone else can come in and out and skim the cream off the top. That is not free enterprise, that is not fair enterprise. It is nothing more than the worst kind of disservice to the people of the country and to our nationhood. If that is what the Government means by freedom to move-


Mr. Nowlan:: It is not in our report.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Freedom to move is very plain. If there is one thing sure about freedom to move, it is the freedom to
Committee Reports
enter and exit. I admit that even the minority reports are lacking because we did not have enough time to go into that matter. However, we heard evidence from witnesses who told us what would happen.
What applies to a smaller or middle-sized city in the United States of 300,000 to 600,000 people applies to a community in Canada of some 5,000 to 20,000 people. That is the proportion. In the name of free enterprise, those who promote it and want freedom to move say that we can have champagne ideas in a beer market, in a market which will perhaps allow one or two airlines or trucking companies to break even or make a buck and provide a reasonable service. They believe that anyone can come in, divide it up in four or five ways and take turns going broke, take turns entering and exiting.
I do not want Air Canada or PWA to exit from the Cities of Regina, London, Moncton or Gander. They have provided a service in good and bad times. I resent the outfits or the johnny-come-latelies that want to start up airlines or trucking companies coming in for a few months of the year, skimming the cream off the top, and then existing. The company or business which was there in the first place is then left holding the bag and is forced to exit. In that event we end up with another area where we return to mediocrity in terms of quality, quantity and service, which we should work at to provide for every region of the country.
If it were left to free market forces, we might as well vacate three-quarters of the geography of our country, move to Vancouver, Montreal or perhaps a couple of other spots, and let the rest of it sit there. That is not what we are about, and we never have been. I do not suggest for a moment that that is how the Minister feels, but it is inevitable if it is left to free market forces or to so-called will of the market. When something like transportation, which is an essential public utility, essential to the public good and the national well-being, is left to the so-called free market forces, a major part of the country and at least half of our population will not be as well served as they were in the past, despite the warts and things which were not as good as we would have liked.
I am not denying that improvements and changes could be made, but I hope the Government considers the minority reports as interim reports and lets us continue our work. The topic is too large for us to report on it in a matter of three months or four months. I am not suggesting six years or seven years, as was suggested by the MacPherson Royal Commission, but we should have a year or a year and a half at most. We need another year before a new national transportation Act is brought before the House so that the seven provinces and two territories will have a chance to be heard and to present their views. Then we can say that we did a full and a more complete job.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if I could ask my colleague if he could indicate to this House what he sees the ramifications of confidential rate setting to be on the move-

January 29, 1986
Committee Reports
ment of goods in this country as well as what the impact on the consumers will be.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, time did not permit me to get to every mode of transportation. I appreciate my colleague reminding me. Confidential rates are anti-competitive, antifree enterprise and anti-free market. Confidential rates fly in the face of the principles espoused by my hon. friends opposite. Confidential rates provide advantages for large shippers and receivers. They mean exactly that, small shippers and receivers, manufacturers and processors will not be able to find out what those rates are. In actual practice confidential rates leads to corporate raiding. They can lead to fraud and bribery. I suppose that to get a piece of a $5 million market, a $5,000 or $50,000 little bribe would get you the information from a freight traffic manager from your competitor. But it flies in the fact of our principles.
We suggest that we broaden the whole principle of agreed charges in which you require railroads and trucking companies to compete, that one railroad or one trucking company cannot have the same agreed charges as another, and that the small shipper should have has exactly the same opportunity as a large shipper under a system of agreed charges. Under a system of confidential rates that a small shipper, receiver, processor and manufacturer would not get the same kind of deal. The Freedom to Move provisions even propose that you could have a confidential rate if you are a big boy and a big railroad or a big trucking company, and they would allow for rebates. That is the same as kickbacks. Under the former provisions of the Criminal Code that was illegal, but that is allowed it is foreseen, under confidential rates. You allow a rebate, a kickback. If that is free enterprise, I do not want any part of it. If that is taking part in the free market forces, that is nonsense, that is piracy if I ever saw it.


Mr. Tobin:: I want to congratulate the Member who has just spoken for raising before the Canadian public his legitimate concerns about deregulation in particular on the air side. I want to say to the Member that he knows, as do all members of the committee, that one of the primary reasons there were minority reports on this government document called Freedom to Move, the Minister's white paper, was the fact that many members of the committee, and particular those in my Party and his Party, believed that the committee had not done its full homework. He knows that, for example, ignoring the U.S. deregulation experience south of the border, doing no research, making no visits, talking to no officials, doing no exploration was almost an act of extreme irresponsibility on the part of the committee, as was the presumption that and then presuming it could comment intelligently on deregulation for Canada.
Last week the Member who has just spoken, myself and a number of Members from the Conservative Party, who are also members of the Transport Committee, had an opportunity, through another vehicle, an exchange program, to be in Washington and to talk to many people who are experts in the field; Congressmen who are chairmen and vice-chairmen of various committees concerned, Republicans and Democrats,
industry people, consultants and so on. I want to ask the Member whether he came away from that experience with the kind of feeling that I had. Whatever my reservations about freedom to move and unfeetered deregulation being introduced in Canada on the air side, I was not prepared for the kind of horror stories we heard in Washington. I came away with one compelling desire, and that is, to ask the Minister and the Government to make provision for the entire committee to go back down to Washington and repeat the program, hopefully in more detail, that Members of Parliament who were there last week went through. I believe that all Members, regardless of Party stripe, can benefit greatly from a visit to Washington, and perhaps will come back with some very strong and clear signals for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) before he proceeds with this deregulation package, in particular as it pertains to the air side. I would like to hear the Hon. Member's comments, Mr. Speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I suppose the one feeling I had even before we left was it was that something of a sad commentary on our parliamentary system as it is functioning at present that we had to rely on an outside organization to see to it that some of us on all sides of the House got down to Washington for three days last week to the centre for parliamentary exchange, which was financed mostly by private contributions. I am sure my colleagues who were with me are as appreciative as I am of that opportunity. Three days was not enough time. We were only able to look at the air side. It did prove to me, Sir, that we need many days, not only to continue our study of the air side but also of the whole area of trucking, railroads, freight rates, marine. We have just scratched the surface, and that is why our main recommendation-I can remind my colleague in the Liberal Party-is that these be considered as interim reports, and that the House of Commons, at the behest of the Government, grant us an extended period of time to continue our hearings and bring in another report several months down the road in which we will have had an opportunity to look at the U.S. experience.
I recall what witnesses in Halifax, Stephenville and a few other places in Newfoundland had to say about the situation in Maine and Minnesota where the population is thin, there is a northern type of climate, and the communities are small, and what their experience there was. There are a couple of states, for example, the experiences of which are applicable to most of Canada. We need to have a lot more insight into and examination of those areas than we have had. I am not faulting the members of the standing committee, Sir, they all worked very hard, and so did the staff. We did not have enough time, and we all know it. We all need to go at this some more. I hope the Government will agree to that.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I would like to ask a question to the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). In view of the question from the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), two Members who were very involved in the Transport Committee, I have some comments to make about his interesting remarks that led off the motion to concur
January 29, 1986

in the sixth report of the Transport Committee, notwithstanding the fact that both opposition Parties walked out when the crunch came and we were supposed to vote. I will come to that later. My question is directed to the Hon. Member for Regina West: What hat was he wearing when he replied to the question from the Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe, the hat of Doctor Jekyll or the one of Mr. Hyde? In his remarks he talked about how the United States was so different. Then he got the set-up question from his friend about the American experience. So really, will he cut the wheat from the chaff? If the American experience is so different, and if in the American experience there is no CN and no Air Canada, nor are there recommendations from the sixth report, which are not even anywhere in the deregulation environment in the United States, why is he even wasting time in this House by talking about the American experience?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, it was not me or the New Democratic Party who used the United States as an example. We have been confronted continually from day one since the White Paper came down about the glories and the nirvana of deregulation in the United States. We have had it from Hon. Members in this House, people in the transportation sector of this country and the media. It was not we who started that. If the example that has been put to us time and time again since last July is such a good example, then surely it is incumbent upon the Government and the Parliament of Canada to see to it that if there is any validity to the American deregulation experience and if it is applicable to Canada, we should damned well look into it and report back to Parliament about it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for a relatively junior Member such as I to speak after an Hon. Member with the experience and the great oratorical skills of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has spoken. He was so articulate in putting the case. Indeed, the Hon. Member is absolutely correct. It is the Government of Canada that has been telling members of the Standing Committee on Transport and indeed the population of Canada over these last number of months not to worry about the negative effects of deregulation and to look at the success story in the United States.
We were led to believe that people in the United States were so excited and in such a state of nirvana about the great positive effects of deregulation, particularly on the air side, that they were flying without the benefit of wings. Reality was a sobering experience for Members of Parliament of all three Parties when they arrived in Washington last week.
Since many of us come from outlying regions, perhaps we had a bit of a regional bias about deregulation. Perhaps we were concerned that it would be beneficial to highly populated areas and not so beneficial to less populated areas. We went to Washington expecting to hear from American politicians and chairmen of aviation committees, both Republican and Democrat, that there is some dichotomy in their point of view. We felt that Democrats might be a little critical of deregulation
Committee Reports
and Republicans might say that it was a wonderful thing. That is not what happened.
Going to Washington was a frightening experience for Hon. Members from both sides of the House of Commons. The reality of the deregulation experience in the United States versus the scenario that has been painted for Canadians by the Minister and his officials are as different as day and night.
We have been told that fares have generally decreased throughout the United States air industry system and that consumers have been the big beneficiaries of deregulation. That is all we have been told. When we talk about safety, the Government says: "Don't talk about safety, we are engaging in economic deregulation, not deregulation of safety, so let us not talk about it". When we talk about the nature of Canada and the fact that it is a nation of 25 million people spread over the second largest land mass in the world, the Government says: "Don't worry about that. The free market will determine that Canadians are served somehow, some way no matter where they live".
What was the reality of the American experience? The United States is a country with a population 10 times the population of Canada. We heard some very frightening and alarming testimony from the people to whom we spoke in Washington. The American Government's own report produced by the Office of General Accounting on November 6, 1985, indicates that between 1979 and 1984, the airlines in the United States lost $4 billion. Listening to the horror stories of airlines popping up one day and disappearing the next, airlines going bankrupt and fly-by-nighters appearing and disappearing was akin to imagining a crap shoot. That is the way airline services were being provided to the people of the United States.
The same report indicated that more small communities will likely lose air services when federal subsidies end in 1988. Those small communities still getting air services are getting them because of federal subsidies. That is the American Government's own report.
American Congressmen did a wise thing. They went out into the country to hear from people who had been affected by the airline deregulation, the nirvana that has been described by Hon. Members opposite on occasion. What did the people have to say about it? I have a statement here from the mayor of a typical small American community. In the United States, a small community is one with a population of 50,000 to 200,000. Where I come from, when we talk about a population of
200,000	we are talking about the capital. When we are talking about a population of 50,000, we are talking about a city. When we are talking about a population of 10,000, we are talking about a good sized town. However, in the United States small centres have populations of 50,000 to 200,000.
Peggy Mensinger, the Mayor of the City of Modesto, California, when talking about airline deregulation, had this to say:
In a little over three years and six airlines later, we now have a pure jet airline service back and have hopes of restoring the market that the four bankrupt commuters destroyed. Our enplanements dropped from a peak of 57,000 in 1977 to just over 21,000 in 1982 as a result of deregulation.

January 29, 1986
Committee Reports
She talked about these great commuter airlines which are supposed to replace the jets, something about which the Minister speaks so fondly. It was supposed to be a new type of industry. This is what she had to say about those commuter airlines:
Public rejection of the small commuter aircraft plus fourteen schedule changes in the eighteen months, frequent cancellations, and little or no concern for the passengers caused our annual enplanements to drop from 38,236 in 1979 to 29,750 in 1980.
A U.S. Congressman appearing before the committee which was looking at the effects of airline deregulation spoke of the plight of small rural communities. He said:
We have had one airline after another, attempting to replace the service United abandoned, go bankrupt or get into severe financial difficulties so that service has been disrupted or reduced.
All of the newly-designated EAS carriers have started off well, but something happens to them after that-they begin expanding too fast, their management may have miscalculated their expenses, a recession hits. All of these factors have hurt, not only the airlines attempting to provide service but also the harried Valley air passenger.
Again, statistics provided by the General Accounting Office in the United States show us that in the smaller centres with populations of 50,000 to 200,000, 82 community airports have lost all service. Nothing is flying, propellor or jet. In several hundred more small communities, there has been a dramatic reduction in the level of service. One might say that that is a small price to pay for deregulation because there has been a reduction in fares for people who live in the larger centres.
Let me tell the House what else happened as a result of deregulation. While there was a reduction in air fares in the larger centres and heavily travelled runs of the United States, the runs that would be the equivalent of the Toronto to Montreal run, in the smaller centres and the less travelled routes, there was a corresponding increase in fares. There now exists the anomaly in the United States of one being able to fly on certain days of the week with certain package deals from New York to Los Angeles for $99, no frills, in a plane on which I would not sit, while one can fly from New York City to a town in New York State, only a couple of hundred miles away, for $300. There is now an anomaly which exists in the United States where there is a three-point system. On a carrier which flies from point A to point B to point C the cost of a ticket to fly from point A to point B is $250. The cost is only $150 to fly to points A, B and C. Thus people flying to the point B destination buy a ticket to point C, the farthest destination on the route, get off at point B and throw away the coupon. Where is the fairness in that type of system?
There is another big, bad word which the Minister and Hon. Members do not want us to talk about. It is safety. They say: "Don't worry about safety. Let's not talk about it".


Mr. Forrestall:: What are you talking about? It's the most important element of it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Every single individual we talked to in the United States, such as representatives of the major airline
carriers, in particular, the President of the Airline Association of the country, Paul Ignatius, the Republican Vice-Chairman of the Aviation Committee from New York, Representative Molinari, the Democratic Deputy Chairman, James Oberstar, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation in Congress, Congressman Mineta, people we heard in confidence at closed-door meetings, such as the Vice-President of one of the major American airlines-every single person we talked to told us that safety in the American airline industry has suffered. Nobody wants to advertise that fact. No one wants to tell people that it is less safe than it was before. An industry which used to operate far and away, above and beyond the standards set by the Federal Aviation Administration, operates, we now see, at the fringe of the minimum requirements on safety required by the FAA. Congressman Molinari from New York said that in his judgment the airlines are now operating below the minimum standards.
Just how strongly does he feel about this subject? On November 14, 1985 he wrote a letter to the President of the United States, a letter signed by 77 members of the House of Representatives of the United States. The matter about which he writes is one which is presently under review in the United States. In fact, there is now a Bill before Congress with respect to it. What does he say in the letter? He states:
As Members of Congress, we are very concerned that the safety of the air traffic control system is dangerously stressed because of the inexperience of a large percentage of our current controller force.
The problems in our air traffic control system are very real and they are to the point where passenger safety is being directly affected. We have a system stretched beyond its human capacity and an FAA unwilling to even acknowledge that serious problems exist.
That is what he says about the air traffic control situation in the United States. Whay I have just read from is a letter sent to the President of the United States petitioning him to provide immediately an additional 1,000 air traffic controllers in that country. The problem with respect to air traffic controllers was exacerbated by a strike of controllers who were later fired by the President of the United States.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A totally different environment, and you know it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Hon. Member said that it is a totally different environment.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, it is.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Government of Canada promised to bring in airline deregulation in this country this year and a month-and-a-half ago it laid off air traffic controllers at Pearson International Airport, the airport which is projected to have the biggest increase in traffic in a deregulated environment. I ask the Hon. Member: Is that a different situation?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I can tell the Hon. Member what everyone in the United States told us. They told us we cannot begin to contemplate going to a deregulated environment with anyone
January 29, 1986

who is fit, willing, able, daring enough and has a licence to fly an airplane until we have first made sure that we have adequate inspectors and the policing ability in our regulatory agency to look after that type of fluid environment. That is what we were told. They told us to hang on to our air traffic controllers and to hire more. They told us to begin to train more because we will need them. We were told that that was the experience in the United States and we should learn by it. It is not a totally different situation. We would be negligent as a Parliament even to consider entertaining particulars on the air side in terms of new legislation and new regulations in an unfettered free enterprise zone in the air industry in this country until we have gone to the U.S. and learned from the experience there, be it positive or negative. We have not done that. The Minister would serve Parliament and, indeed, Canadians well, were he to give all members of the committee an opportunity to examine that type of experience.
The Auditor General in a report to Parliament last June told us-and all Members of Parliament have access to his report-that there is not available in Canada today adequate inspection staff even to inspect every aviation company in Canada.


Mr. Mazankowski:: That is because of you guys. You hypocrite!


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is what the Auditor General said.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is because of you guys. He is not reporting on us; he is reporting on you.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I would like to say something to the Minister. Whatever the cause-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Take the blame and don't be such a hypocrite.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I would like to say something to the Minister. Whatever the cause is, and if that is the fact, then is it not in same to move into a deregulated environment where more carriers will spring up overnight-and applications are already flooding in-until we first provide ourselves with the ability to inspect the existing number of carriers? By his angry outburst the Minister confirms that that is a fact. Yet he persists in proceeding with deregulation at a time when he is cutting back staff in his own Department.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It's because you are misleading. That is why. Why don't you be truthful and honest?


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Minister ought to acknowledge that, since I don't particularly give a damn-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why don't you be honest?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I don't particularly give a damn why, how, when or where-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There will be an opportunity for questions and comments. I hope that
Committee Reports
Hon. Members will allow the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) to finish his speech. He does have two or three minutes remaining.


Brian Vincent Tobin: If the previous administration is at fault for not hiring enough inspectors, including this humble back-bencher from that administration, I apologize, while recognizing that that is the situation today. Nevertheless, the Minister wants to proceed with a deregulated environment. That, Sir, cannot be justified in any way, shape or form.
I have spent most of my time talking about airline deregulation, bursting the bubble of the U.S. example and providing Hon. Members with sober and serious fodder for contemplation in this House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why don't you be serious?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I wish to make a short comment-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why don't you be serious?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I wish to make a short comment about railroad deregulation. I want to tell the Hon. Minister that if he believes and suspects that he may give in to the pressure which is currently being exerted on him, his Government and his colleagues in Cabinet by Canadian Pacific to do away with joint line rights, which is proposed in the Minister's package, then he will find a huge body of opinion in the industry in the country which currently supports his initiatives which will now rise up and denounce this package.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I do not need your advice on that.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I hope the Minister, who has done the right thing in proposing joint line rates in his White Paper, will stand fast and refuse to bend to the pressure being brought to bear on him by the huge CP conglomerate which is exercising every means at its disposal to have the Minister change his mind. I hope the Minister will follow his original instincts with respect to joint line rates. I say that to the Minister by way of cautionary note.
Finally, I would like to say to Members of the House that slowly but surely the people of Canada are becoming aware of the reality of airline deregulation in the United States and in this country. Canada is not just a miniature model of the U.S. Our industry in this country is distinct. Canadians realize that transportation policies since the first days of Confederation were used to shape this nation. John A. Macdonald did not build a railway because it made economic sense. He built it because he knew he had to have a link from sea to shining sea. He did it because it was a measure by which to develop Canadian unity and continuity. If there is anyone in this place who believes that Canada has changed so much since 1867 that we can leave to the market-place a decision with respect to who will be served by what type of transportation service at what cost and expect to have citizens feel a part of what it means to be a Canadian no matter where they live, then those people are crazy. We cannot say to Canadians in the North that their service is uneconomical so they will have to be

January 29, 1986
Committee Reports
isolated and cut off. We cannot say to Canadians in Atlantic Canada that their numbers are so small and their industry so weak that they can take the next wheelbarrow to Toronto when they go on business. We cannot say to the people in western Canada, who depend upon branchlines in order to continue to be successful farmers, that their branchlines are closed because the railroads have decided they are not important compared to the bottom line of their statement at the end of the year. If that is the mesure this Minister is proposing- and indeed that has been the U.S. experience-then I warn him it is a measure fraught with great political danger for the Government.


Iain Francis Angus: I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, is it not true that the move towards deregulation was started well before the Conservative administration took over? All we have really been doing is watching Conservatives, who are really Liberals in a hurry, accelerate the process.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, until a few moments ago I believed that, like his colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) was a serious member of the committee and one who wanted to make a contribution. I see now that this is not to be. I say that with great regret because I find him to be a very humorous fellow to spend time with.
The Liberal administration in May, 1984 issued new directives with respect to airline regulation which began a process of deregulation. It provided for a regulatory framework which gave airlines more flexibility. There is no question but that the Government of the day-and I would propose following that course-moved into a less regulated regime. The spokesmen for transport in the New Democratic Party indicated that the time to do that had come. Perhaps the Hon. Member ought to check with his colleague.
There is a large difference between cutting some of the red tape and loosening Government regulations, much of which were no longer relevant, and making a provision on the airline side-and I think the Hon. Member would agree with this- that exit and entry of airlines in whatever communities can be done with only 60 days' notice. In other words, if an airline wants to pull out of a northern Ontario town, a town in Atlantic Canada or a town in the Prairies, it does so by simply saying it is leaving on 60 days' notice, and there is absolutely no method of appeal. No one has a chance to say: "Wait a minute. What about the economy of our community? We as Canadians think we deserve some kind of basic service". That no longer applies. The Hon. Member knows very well that under the old requirements of Transport Canada, public necessity and convenience determined whether or not the licence was granted. Under the formula of the Minister, the Government takes the approach that transportation is a derived demand. If the market-place says there is a need for a service, there will be one, if they pay enough for it. If it does not, there is no aircraft. It is a fundamentally different approach and I think my hon. friend would acknowledge that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there further questions or comments? Debate.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I must say I rise today with mixed emotions. I am glad, in a sense, that we are debating a very important report of the Committee on Transport, of which I have the honour to be chairman, although the genesis of the motion does leave me perplexed. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) moved the motion and, as I understood some of the remarks by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), I gathered he sort of went along with the motion. The motion is to move concurrence in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Transport. The motion is not to dissect and define air deregulation in the United States. But until the very last few moments of the speech of the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, I did not hear a word on the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Transport. I will give full credit to the Hon. Member for Regina West. While I may disagree with him with all the passion I sometimes can muster, at least he is consistent in his direction. It may be a direction which goes down backside on a dead-end street, but at least he is consistent and he did talk about the sixth report of the committee.
That is why I am perplexed. Both of those gentlemen, spokesmen for their respective Parties, walked out when the crunch came in committee in camera, and did not vote one way or the other on the recommendations in the sixth report of the standing committee. Those Hon. Members know that the committee moved quite a way between the first draft report on October 15 and the report which was finally tabled in this House by myself on December 18. Notwithstanding, there was no opposition vote on any of the recommendations when the time for votes came. So I was frankly amazed to hear, out of the blue, a motion today to concur in a report which both opposition Parties did not find reason to vote on one way or the other.
We speak about parliamentary reform from time to time. We are on television now. I can understand the confusion of the public out there about this type of procedural hypocrisy in not participating in the votes and recommendations when the report is being written, yet, for whatever reasons-and I cannot impute motives to Hon. Members in the House of Commons, be they good or bad-out of the blue comes a motion to concur in a report which those Hon. Members did not have the guts to vote on behind committee doors. If I could say the words, that would be parliamentary hypocrisy-I guess I can say those words but I certainly could not say that those Hon. Members were hypocrites. Therefore, I will not trespass on the good graces of the Chair. That is why I cannot understand-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -their ironic, paradoxical position in talking about the sixth report.
January 29, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is a point of order from the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Here we go again, a lot of flurry with no substance.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, for whom I normally have great respect when he is in a more passive frame of mind, is, first of all, imputing motives to Hon. Members.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I did not.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Second, when an Hon. Member refuses to discuss the substance of airline deregulation and gets into technicalities as a response to some very good points made by two previous speakers, we know he is really a stick bouncing around in an empty barrel and makes a lot of noise.


Mr. Blaikie:: That's not a bad comment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member has been in the Chamber for a long time. I admire him and know how far he can go and how far he cannot. And I know he knows how far he can go, therefore, he was treading very lightly. But I would like to listen to the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan).


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I can get on the trail, the railway line or the airline, and get back to the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Transport. I must say that I do find it difficult as chairman of the committee to be critical of the remarks I heard from the two previous speakers because both of those individuals did contribute very constructively to the work of the committee in the examination of witnesses and in helping to write the report, and so on.
As I started to say before I was rudely interrupted by the Hon. Member, I remember an admonition from my sixth grade teacher, who did not have a university education and taught everything by rote. Every time I listen to the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe I think of her homily "empty vessels make the most sound". I must say I compliment the Hon. Member on the vastness of his vessel and, sometimes, the timber of his sound. But regardless of those rhetorical flourishes and parliamentary points on the floor of this august Chamber, I do want to compliment both the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe and the Hon. Member for Regina West, who did contribute in a constructive way to the production and recommendations of this report. Together with Members of my Party, they produced a report which differed from the Freedom to Move White Paper, and they were not all the bogeymen and men of straw which the Hon. Member for Regina West raised in his raving oratory in the earlier minutes of this debate. We produced a report that modified and restricted some of the demands of the market-place.
Committee Reports
Members of the committee, who are not complete imbeciles, regardless of which Party they are from, know that there are not true market-place areas all across the country. That is why the Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), in one of the key recommendations, wanted to make sure that low density areas which do not have market-places of Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, would be protected with regard to the services they presently have. The Opposition did not want to vote on one recommendation of the report. Members walked out of the committee room when it got too warm. However, this is not the time of truth for Members of the Government. We will wait and see what the Minister produces in his legislation. There may very well be differences.
That, quite frankly, is why I, and other Members of the committee, intend to speak on this motion, which has come out of the blue, almost by surprise, from an Opposition that did not even vote for a recommendation. Now they are trying to agree with all the recommendations or to embarrass the Government and the Minister, for whom individually they have respect, and tie his hands with regard to the legislation that he and his officials are now drafting as a result of this report. This White Paper Freedom to Move was released on July 15, and the Transport Committee was seized with it on October 15, I believe, and produced a report before Christmas. I was the chairman of that committee, Mr. Speaker, and it was a good committee. Frankly, we produced a very good report.
Once again with regard to parliamentary reform, one of the reasons I like to stay around here is to ensure that we have true parliamentary reform to allow Members to voice their individual thoughts, whether they are in Government or not, as long as they do not defeat the Government on tax Bills, votes on the Budget, or votes on speeches from the Throne. I hope to see the day when I will be able to stand in the House and rail against a Government, if I am a Government Member, as long as it does not defeat the Government. That is the type of reform that will make this place live.
However, I started to have some doubts about the full extent of parliamentary reform when I listened to the speeches of the two previous speakers today. They both took an emotional and ideological bent that they never fully expressed in committee, the proceedings of which are not broadcast on television. I do not want to impute motives, but the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) talked entirely about the American system and reflected on his experience of the Washington trip last week. He referred to the sixth report of the Transport Committee only in the last few minutes of his contribution. Members of the parliamentary reform committee, as well as Members of the House, must wonder if the televising of committees will be the be-all and end-all that some Members think it will.
Between October 15 and the time that we tabled the report in December, we had constructive criticism and penetrating examination of witnesses. There was not too much rhetorical dialogue in attempts to make points for the cameras rather than contributing to the substance of the debate at hand. The

January 29, 1986
Committee Reports
Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and others should ensure that parliamentary reform does not distort the system completely. I was a member of the committee on parliamentary reform which helped to bring television into this Chamber. I think we had to do that because it was part of the reality of the day.
However, I wonder whether television in committees will permit the serious and constructive contribution from all Members which we had in the deliberations on this issue, or whether it will distort the whole procedure. If the contribution of the Hon. Member for Regina West and that of the Hon. Member for Humber-Port and Port-St. Barbe are any indication, I certainly hope that television will be excluded from committees in order to maintain constructive criticism and contribution from all Members and to avoid trying to make points for the camera, to enable us to produce a proper report which will help the Minister produce a proper Bill.
I have the greatest of confidence in the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). I think that members of the Opposition did themselves a disservice by not repeating things they have said privately and in committee. During their contributions they could have taken a moment to compliment the Minister, regardless of whether or not they agreed with the Freedom to Move White Paper. They should have at least given him credit for not producing this paper behind closed doors. There were contributions and much individual involvement by responsible members of the transportation industry across the country. The Minister released this document on July 15 for public scrutiny and response, and there were responses.
I am not going to waste time giving credit to his officials. Mr. Keith Thompson had a dialogue with many people in the country on the Freedom to Move paper. I do not know everything that happened, but perhaps it was the dialogue with those affected in the industry which caused this to go before committee. There has never been any hesitation from the Minister in ensuring that the committee was seized of it at a certain time. To put it conservatively, our time reference was short, and I will come back to that.
I am glad there are a couple of Ministers in the House right now. The Government must stop saying that we inherited a mess. Of course we inherited a mess. That is why we got the crazy mandate that we did. The people knew that there was such a mess. I sometimes wish I could answer a question. After 17 months I would not always retort that our problems are due to the mess that we inherited. It is because of that mess that we got the massive mandate that we did get.
The way in which the Minister publicized the Freedom to Move paper and had the committee travel across the country, albeit in a restricted way due to the time reference, is much more positive, democratic, and parliamentary than unilateral 20 per cent chops of VIA rail, ignoring even the body that was supposed to look after it, the CTC. I had great respect for the Hon. Jean Luc Pepin, but he got carried away with his chopping without referring it for public discourse.
Despite the perils that he knew he might experience, the Minister threw this to the committee with no restrictions. In fact, as Members know, he wrote a letter to the committee amplifying the Freedom to Move paper and asking us to take on six other items which we touched upon in our report. He wanted to ensure that there was full discussion and full clarification of what he wanted to do, that is, to come up with a new national transportation Act. The majority of the witnesses whom we heard were in favour of the fundamental principles that we tried to reflect in our sixth report. The message was to get on with the job notwithstanding the words which the Hon. Member for Regina West coined, "yes, but". You are for the principle, but what about the implementation?
This, of course, is what amazes me about the motion today. The opposition Members did not even have the guts to stay in the room to vote on this. They moved the motion on the recommendations which, frankly, are very reasonable. Yet they walked out of the room and did not vote. They did not wait to see what legislation the Minister was going to produce.
There is no doubt that the committee operated under time restraints between October 15 an December 18. However, I give credit to the members of the committee, especially the Opposition Members, having been in opposition myself, along with the Hon. Member for Halifax-no, Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).


Iain Francis Angus: How long have you guys been in the House together?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We change our ridings every so often. We have been in the House for 20 years, and I do not usually have to talk to him officially. I can usually say "Mike" or "Mr. Forrestall", but that is not parliamentary. I know your riding. It is Thunder Bay-Atikokan, I think. I do not usually refer to my colleagues formally when I have been in the House with them for 20 years. That is why I got hung up on his riding. However, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East knows, as do I, the procedural hurdles opposition Members could have thrown in the committee's path between October 15 and the tabling of this report. That is why I accept a lot of the rhetoric today. I know we are in an adversarial debate today. I really want to compliment the Members.
The report talks about joint uses of track; goodness gracious, we would not even have been on the track had the Members thrown in all the procedural hurdles and short circuits they could have thrown in. We would not have produced a report at all. So I really want to compliment them for not throwing sand in the gears. They knew, certainly the NDP Members knew, that they were not going to be able to buy this report in total, but I was really amazed at Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
I want to say this to the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe and the Hon. Member for Regina West. Let us not blame deregulation on the President of the U.S. We all know that this started long before he came along. It started under a fellow named Jimmy Carter, if I remember.
January 29, 1986


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I said that.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If you read our report you will find that the first Act concerning deregulation was in 1978. There was another one in 1980. It is so easy to muddy the issue, to set up straw men and then knock them down. It is not Ronald Reagan who brought deregulation to Canada; it is the reality of the times.
I would like to point out that the committee heard from 95 organizations and 177 individual witnesses in that relatively short period of two months. We sat long hours. The chairman exercised his privilege and we eliminated lunch and dinner hours. We also found that Members' questions were inversely proportional to the length of time the committee sat. The longer we sat, the shorter the quesions. After six or seven o'clock the questions became rather short.
Are you indicating, Mr. Speaker, that my time is getting rather short? I am very amazed at that because I have not really got started. However, out of respect for the Chair I would not want to trespass too far. I will conclude by saying that I would have liked to have had a more relaxed time frame. It would have been nice to go to the seven provinces we could not get to. A deliberate choice was made to hear national briefs from Ontario and Quebec here in Ottawa. It was not a happy or easy choice. There were complaints from the Government side, especially from colleagues of mine from Quebec, who wanted to know why we were not going to Montreal. Colleagues from Ontario wanted to know why we were not going to Toronto. However, if Hon. Members look at the report, I venture to say after hearing from 95 organizations and 177 witnesses, that there is not one new thought or proposition left out there to be heard even if we sat for another six months. We heard from A to Z.
Are you getting impatient, Mr. Speaker? I am amazed at how fast the time went by.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No, I am not getting impatient. The Hon. Member's time has expired. However, there is a period for questions and comments.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be succinct in my question and perhaps the Hon. Member will be succinct in his answer so that we can hear from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).
I agree with the chairman of the committee that there was a good working environment in that committee. All Members from the three Parties were doing their part to achieve consensus in drafting the report. I think we were making tremendously good progress. I take some pride, as I am sure do members of the NDP, in having a role to play in the drafting of the report of that committee. However, the Hon. Member asked why I stood up and talked not about the report but only about my experience in the U.S. That makes the point precisely. The chairman of the committee admitted that time was restricted. He has admitted, in fact apologized on several occasions, graciously I might add, to provincial Governments because we could not go to their province. That is precisely the point. We
Committee Reports
did not have a chance to discuss the American experience despite all the claims that their experience was a great one. We were not given permission, much less the time and resources, to go to the U.S. That was denied not only to Liberal or NDP Members, but to Progressive Conservative Members of that committee. So if he wonders why I stood today and used the opportunity to talk about what I heard or saw in the U.S., that is precisely the reason. Until today no member of that committee has been available in this House or in committee to talk in any direct way about what we heard or saw of the U.S. experience.
I will tell the chairman that I am not holus-bolus opposed to changes in the current regulations. Changes have to be made. However, I want to make sure that we make changes which serve the country. We have to recognize the distribution of population and the geograhic differences in this country. We want to make changes which will not negatively affect safety. I do not doubt the Minister's best intentions in this regard. I do not doubt he means it when he says he will not allow a reduction in the level of safety in the airline industry or any other industry. I also believe that the American planners who brought in deregulation were equally sincere when they said there would not be a reduction in safety. However, there has been a reduction in safety, not because people are devious or insincere, but because they were not prepared for deregulation. There are some lessons we can learn from the Americans in that regard.
Given the spirit of the committee that we worked on together, given that the Minister has told us that legislation will not be introduced until April, does the Hon. Member not think that it would be appropriate for the committee to convene and spend perhaps two, three or four days in Washington in order to gain the benefit of their experience as we go through clause-by-clause study of the Bill when it comes forward? I ask that not in a confrontational way but with a genuine desire to improve the Minister's Bill.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will be even briefer. In the spirit of the committee, not in the spirit of the rhetoric we have all used here this afternoon, my answer would be this. The report of the committe, on page 41, repeats the clear admonition of the Minister that he would like to indicate unequivocally that the Government will neither propose nor present any regulatory reform which might be detrimental to safety standards. The Member well knows that it was as a result of the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Regina West and the contribution by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe that we beefed up Recommendations 42 and 43 in terms of safety.
However, I will want to see the legislation. There may be the proper opportunity once we see the legislation, especially if it deviates fundamentally from some of the recommendations on safety in the report, to go the United States. The Member knows, as I know, that the United States is very different. We have not had a president execute a presidential decree to fire

January 29, 1986
Committee Reports
all the air traffic controllers. As I understand it-not having been in Washington last week but having been there before and having studied domestic air traffic policy with the Hon. Member for Regina West a year before and having read a little-the domestic air traffic control problem in the U.S. is part of the problem of safety in the U.S. more than deregulation.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part question for the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) who has treated us to his usual variety of creative syntax, innovative arrangement of concepts and words and his usual convoluted logic.
He said that opposition Members on the committee-and this is a very curious phrase-did not have the guts to vote behind closed doors.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is a very strange concept indeed, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that what would take guts would be to vote out in the open on the recommendations of the committee. That is exactly what opposition Members of the committee wanted Government Members to do. They wanted them to be on the record as to what they voted for and what they voted against. Government Members on the committee prevented that.
Could the Hon. Member explain how he could have the nerve to say that somebody did not have the guts to vote behind closed doors? Where does he get that kind of logic from?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: And I am not finished yet, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Then he said that the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) was waxing eloquent and was ideological about the debate. It is an ideological debate, whether the Member likes it or not.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I said consistent.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I think it is quite unfair. He knows the Member for Regina West as well as I do. He has worked with him over the years. He knows that the Member for Regina West did not say anything here today that he has not said in committee, on the hustings or in this House. It is quite unfair for the Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants to imply that somehow the Member for Regina West is surprising the House with his views. These are views that he has consistently held. I do not know anybody who knows more or cares more about the transportation system in this country. I would like the Member to clarify that remark.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, that will be very easy. The Hon. Member wants to hear from the Minister and other Members of the committee who can give another perspective to this
ideological debate. In terms of the second question first, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill or birdie hills will-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Birdie Hills, Winnipeg-Winnipeg-Birds Hill, that is the riding.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You are making my point.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is the convoluted syntax on which the Hon. Member complimented me. Therefore, I decided to use it in response, in reciprocity.
In terms of the second question first, Mr. Speaker, that was my very point. I was not complaining about the Hon. Member for Regina West. I said he was consistent. It was a back-handed compliment. Of course, he was ideological. It did not surprise me. I know him better than the Member in a parliamentary way. That was not a complaint so I will not waste any more time on that. It was a back-handed compliment.
The members of the NDP contributed very constructively to the committee report when there was no television, but when television was close by the closed door, I knew they would have to take their walk. I knew that would happen because of ideology. That was my only point. That is what surprised me about the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe. He went completely against the Axworthy doctrine but why should that have surprised me? Anyway, that is the first question.
The second question is the guts behind closed doors. The Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill of all people, a reputed and a very constructive Member of the Parliamentary Reform Committee knows quite a bit about parliamentary procedures, knows that when a committee under our present rules goes in camera that the committee produces a committee report. Members are not there to produce individual reports. You are to produce a report of the committee that heard all the evidence not a report of the Member from Annapolis Valley-Hants or the Member from Fraser Valley or the Member from Bow River or even the Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill. It is a committee report. It is a definite procedure. Instead of partisan politics, let us have constructive philosophy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. Questions and comments are now terminated.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants knows full well that committees can decide to reflect minority opinions. This committee decided not to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is debate and not a point of order. Order, please. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus). There will be enough time for more questions and comments before the day is over.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today. As a new Member of the House and someone interested in transporta-
January 29, 1986

tion for a number of years before coming here, I found it a privilege to sit on the Transport Committee as a full Member and to work with Members from all Parties on this subject and others.
I want to be clear at the outset of two things. Both are in terms of procedure. At the end of my comments in the debate today I will be moving a motion that this report not be concured in but referred to the standing committee for further consideration.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iain Francis Angus: Because of the existing rules of the House, Members such as the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and myself who, for very fundamental reasons, disagreed with the committee report had no other mechanism but to bring the matter before Parliament other than waiting for a Government Member to move concurrence.
With regard to the motion of concurrence, it should not come as a surprise to Government Members because the motion was placed on the Order Paper a day after the sixth report of the Standing Committee was tabled in the House. It is my understanding that our House Leader gave notification to the Government House Leader and the House Leader for the Official Opposition some time last week that we were planning to use the procedure of the House to bring about a debate today.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It was not out of the blue.


Iain Francis Angus: We decided as a caucus in December to no longer paticipate in the process of completing that report because Government Members would not allow us the opportunity to record our dissent to a number of the recommendations. We felt in all good conscience as New Democrats that we could not have our names aligned with the White Paper Freedom to Move. Change, Choice, Challenge without having some kind of clear indication as to where we stood on the recommendations made within it. We asked, as did the Liberals in committee, first to have the votes recorded, when that failed we asked for an opportunity to have a dissenting report as part of the majority report by Party and finally, to allow individuals to include dissenting opinions. Those three options were turned down, even though, in terms of the latter two, there were precedents in Parliament of standing committees making those kinds of provisions. I say sincerely that it was with great regret-and we said it at committee-that the Hon. Member for Regina West and I withdrew from the Standing Committee on Transport. Immediately after we made that decision, the Liberal Party decided to follow suit.
The report is a report of Conservative Members. Granted there was a lot of movement, a lot of discussion and a lot of good debate about the principles contained within the report along with the recommendations. I give credit to the Conservative Members of the committee who in many cases were prepared to listen with open ears and open minds and to be
Committee Reports
convinced that something was not appropriate. However, when it came down to the recommendations, we just felt that we could not play any more.
In the time available to me, I want to deal with some of the specific items in the report and to respond accordingly. So far today we have heard many times about the question of safety. The Government was very consistent in saying that safety was not negotiable. As far as the Government of Canada was concerned, safety was not an item on the table. We heard witnesses who suggested otherwise because when it comes to economic reregulation or deregulation there has to be an impact upon safety. I will give two examples. Currently in Canada there is some ongoing testing for an end of train unit to replace the caboose. This device would monitor certain functions of the railway to determine the safety of the train. The railroads argue that that is an economic decision, that they should have the right to make those kinds of changes in their operations because it is cheaper for them to operate. On the other hand the unions and those who provide the human service of monitoring the movement of trains, as well as others in Canada including the New Democratic Party, believe that it is a safety consideration. Under deregulation there would be no mechnanism. If a railroad decided that it would make an economic change, it could do it without having to consult or without having to apply to a regulatory body to ensure that proper hearings were held.
During our hearings in Vancouver we heard that safety was a matter of negotiation between unions and employers. We heard from Ms. Douglas, general chairperson of the Canadian Air Line Flight Attendants Association. She said:
It pains me even to say it, but we have a proposal on the bargaining table; we are trying to negotiate smoke detectors in the washrooms. We have to try to negotiate it, because they cost money.
Also we heard in the testimony that in the negotiations flight attendants were asked by collective agreement to work longer shifts, perhaps to work as long as 18 hours continuously. Ms. Douglas responded as follows:
Contrary to popular belief, flight attendants are not there just to be friendly and serve meals. That is certainly part of our job, but the basic premise for having flight attendants on the aircraft at all is safety ... Other than in-flight problems which might arise, the times when flight attendants should be at their peak-when there are most likely to be problems-are on take-offs and landings.
After a 14-hour duty day, your efficiency certainly drags. Pacific Western also has a proposal on the table to take away or substantially reduce the meals provided for flight attendants on the aircraft, so we work 14 hours and do not have meal breaks and have less in the way of meals and then be called upon at the end of a 14-hour duty day to perhaps have to evacuate an aircraft. That depends-in our training, we have 90 seconds in which to evacuate an aircraft safely before the possibility of smoke and fire makes an accident unsurvivable. So seconds count. Exhaustion at that point in time will cost lives.
Even when we talk about economic deregulation, it will have an impact on safety. All the inspectors and safety regulations which we can provide will not change that aspect. We heard from a number of charter groups which were concerned about the impact of economic deregulation on their operations. Questions were raised about a marginal airline or small feeder line which has not had a real good go at it. I am talking about lines which are close to the wire in terms of bank managers

January 29, 1986
Committee Reports
knocking at their doors and of running marginally for the last month or two. What can the last passenger on the last flight expect? What kind of shape will that aircraft be in? What corners will the company have had to cut in order to continue to operate? The reality is that we will probably not know until the first accident what part was not replaced earlier, what part was kept until the so-called standard date but was really stretched to the limit and failed when it was needed the most. We have to look at those questions.
I should like to turn briefly to the impact of deregulation on the trucking industry. I will particularly focus on northern communities which depend almost totally upon trucking for receipt of their consumer goods or perhaps the movement of products out of there in small volumes. We heard from the trucking industry-the Canadian Trucking Association, the British Columbia association and the Ontario association. One after another they indicated clearly that what would happen under a deregulated environment to smaller, isolated communities would be that service would go down and prices would go up. In British Columbia we were told that some of those communities would not get service because it would be uneconomical for them to continue to provide once or twice a week service to some B.C. communities. Right now it is uneconomical, but because of the regulatory regime there is a trade-off, what we call cross-subsidization where a company obtains a licence to travel from point A or point B, which is the bulk of the market, to larger centres. As a condition of the licence it has to provide a decent level of service to the smaller communities in between. The community of Atikokan in my riding relies totally on trucking for consumer goods. That community is already hard pressed because of the closure of mines and a downturn in their economy. Communities such as that will find themselves paying even more for the goods they need for their daily lives.
Let us take a look at employment. What is the impact on the industry as a result of deregulation? Currently close to three-quarters of a million Canadians are working in this sector. Any change will affect a large portion of the population. Eleven labour organizations appeared before the committee. Each expressed fears that the deregulation proposals would result in substantial job loss and reduced wages for their members. From the Canadian Labour Congress we heard that it was not confident that it would be able to escape being the chief victim of transport deregulation in Canada.
We have, as of yet, very little evidence for the Canadian scene. However, there is a fair bit of knowledge about what happened in the United States. Since 1980, 40,000 Americans in the airline industry lost their jobs. One hundred and fifty thousand jobs disappeared in the railway industry. The best guess for the trucking industry in the United States is that between 250,000 and 300,000 union members were put out of work in this sector and not replaced.
Earlier we had a discussion about confidential contracts and their impact on the transportation industry. One of the realities of American confidential contracts is that potash from the Canadian Prairies can be railed right through to Chicago via the United States lines at a cost cheaper than railing it on CN or CP to Thunder Bay, using Canadian workers, having money stay in Canada, and then shipped by boat to Chicago, again using Canadian workers, returning profits to Canada. If we allow ourselves to move in the direction of confidential contracts we are going to see more and more of that. We are going to see more north-south traffic and less east-west. We are going to see products moving from British Columbia by rail through the United States and back up through Detroit and Windsor, bypassing Canada almost entirely. We do not accept that. We do not think we can allow that kind of change, because we are such a big country. We must have our own environment. We have to ensure that Canadians can work and transport our goods and services across Canada. We should not be setting up a regime that will allow us to bypass most of this country and create the jobs south of the border.
I want to deal more with the air transportation side. I believe ordinary Canadians who feel that deregulation is a great thing are seeing it from the perspective of cheap seats, of the ability to fly from community A to community B at a reasonable price. I cannot blame them for wanting reduced prices. What the Canadian public does not realize is that those cheap seats are only available for consumers in the major transportation corridors. They are not available for those small theatre routes. They are not available across the North. They also are not aware that the bottom has been reached in terms of cheap seats. We heard testimony from officials of Air Canada and Canadian Pacific that prices are as low as they are going to go. There may be some adjustment for some first class or full-fare passengers, but not to any great extent. We want to see those advantages given to all Canadians.
In our Halifax hearings the Harmon Corporation of Ste-phenville, Newfoundland, presented us with some evidence from the United States. I just want to very quickly quote from it. This was a statement by a Richard B. Keinz, Assistant Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division before the Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Public Works and Transportation, House of Representatives, on June 9, 1983. They spoke about the experience in the State of Minnesota of deregulation. With regard to air fares he stated:
Deregulation has introduced an opportunity for airlines to offer a variety of air fares. In the monopoly or single carrier markets, the variety appears to be mostly of the high variety.
In other words, after you clean out the competition and you get it down so that you are the only carrier, you decide what the market will bear and you boost the costs. We recognize that economics is a factor in setting fares. However, we have a difficult time rationalizing why it costs 4 cents to 20 cents per mile to transport a passenger from New York to Los Angeles as compared to 14 cents to 20 cents per mile to carry a passenger between Boston and Los Angeles, or 17 cents to 21 cents per mile to carry a passenger between Minneapolis and St. Paul and Los Angeles. In some cases it goes up as much as
January 29, 1986

$1 a mile. Clearly, there is a lot to learn from the United States experience. History has always pointed out that we should learn from our mistakes. We should also learn from other's mistakes. When, at the end of my comments, I move a motion, I will do so because 1 think the Standing Committee on Transport needs more time. We need time to travel to northern Canada. We need time to travel to those other provinces we did not have an opportunity to visit. We need time to visit the United States to speak to people who are key players in the aviation industry, the trucking industry and, the rail industry to learn from them how we can do better in a deregulated environment.
In conclusion, I would like to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the sixth report be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee of Transport for further consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is in order. Questions and comments?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Did I hear the last words of the Chair that the motion is in order even though it appears on the face of it that it is completely contradictory to the motion that we started with at 3.10 p.m.? We have been debating several hours since then. I know other Members want to speak on the substance of whether the NDP are moving a motion to concur or whether they now want to go to and fro and get out of the ballpark without a motion to concur. I know some of the parliamentary procedures, with respect, and I must say I expected the wording of the motion to be in a little different style, that the motion to concur totally in the report not be concurred in but certain elements be referred back for further reconsideration. That I would not object to too much, but to have the motion from the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) to go completely opposite to the motion that was moved just after three o'clock is totally out of order. I know I cannot challenge the Chair and I do not want to really prolong the debate on the procedural matter, because I know there are many other Members who want to speak on the issue now that it is finally on the floor, even though it is on the floor through the schizophrenic procedural procedures of the NDP-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I rise on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have the floor birdie hill Winnipeg on a point of order. I really cannot appreciate the ruling of the Chair that there can be a motion at three o'clock to concur and one at five o'clock to not concur. It is like interring a body at three o'clock and disinterring it at five o'clock. It is like burying a body at three o'clock but exhuming it at five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: How can we have the vampires on procedure from the NDP completely destroy any parliamentary procedure?
Committee Reports


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has found the motion to be in order. Are there questions or comments on the speech made by the Hon. Member? If not, we will resume debate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to say how pleased I am to enter this debate, notwithstanding the fact that the issue has been brought to the floor of the House in a rather convoluted and unorthodox fashion. First members of the NDP moved to concur and then moved not to concur. Notwithstanding that, 1 think it is a timely debate and a good one and I will try to stick to the thrust of the motion and cover some of the elements of the sixth report, the subject before us.
I have heard from various speakers that we have not had enough time to deal with this important issue and that it is such an important issue that it should be considered in detail. I would have thought that the House would have been packed today but most of the time there have been three or four Liberal Members and three or four NDP Members present. One wonders sometimes and has to question the sincerity of their bringing this motion forward when it seems to be filled with more rhetoric than genuine concern.
Notwithstanding that, I wish to begin by paying tribute to all Hon. Members who served on the standing committee. I know that this report does not necessarily reflect only the opinions of Progressive Conservative Members. I know other Members had a part to play in drafting the recommendations and I know they worked very hard under a very tight time frame. The report that has been brought forth is realistic and thoughtful and I must say that it is very valuable to those of us who are charged with the next phase of this process, the drafting of the legislation. I believe this is another clear step in the evolution of a new transportation framework. By all accounts, we recognize that the transportation framework needs to be overhauled.
I would like to compliment the chairman of the standing committee on the very eloquent and well reasoned speech he made today putting into context the proceedings at the standing committee and describing the events that took place. I also want to compliment him on the fact that never before have there been such a number of witnesses heard in such a short period of time and their evidence digested in such a comprehensive fashion. Something in the order of 95 witnesses were heard and 172 briefs were submitted. As the Hon. Member pointed out, after looking at that many briefs and hearing that many submissions, things become somewhat repetitious. I believe the views that were presented were presented quite clearly right across the country.
As has been pointed out in the committee report, the committee's deliberation was only one phase of this process. I find this debate to be rather strange, particularly since Liberal Members are criticizing this process. I have been around here for a long time and this is the first time I have seen a policy document come before a standing committee of the House for a full-fleged debate and a comprehensive analysis before the drafting process began.

January 29, 1986
Committee Reports
This process started last February when I invited everyone in Canada who is interested in transportation to engage in the debate and the process of regulatory reform. I invited them to engage in the process of rewriting the National Transportation Act and putting in place a new legislative and regulatory framework. I said: "Let us have your views and thoughts. Either see us personally, send in a formalized brief, give us a telephone call or write it on the back of an envelope, but we want to hear from you". We heard from people from coast to coast. We sent people across the country to listen to special interest groups, to provinces and to labour groups. When we put the Freedom to Move paper together and released it in July for further public debate. We released it to the Standing Committee on Transport and now we are engaged in the process of writing the legislation.
This is a new process and I think it is working. 1 find it rather strange that Hon. Members would be complaining about time. They will still have all kinds of time when it comes to dealing with the actual legislation. However, surely there comes a time when we have to stop consulting and start drafting the legislation. We will certainly be entertaining the thoughts, suggestions and proposed amendments of Hon. Members when we deal with the legislation.
Surely now is the time to act. If Hon. Members want another mandate to study the legislation, I am sure that can be arranged. I believe that we all want to have the best piece of legislation that can possibly be delivered, legislation that is in the best interests of the Parliament of Canada and Canadians as a whole and indeed in the best interests of transportation.
A great many recommendations were made and I will not be able to touch on all of them. Some of the more important issues such as service to northern and remote areas are matters we are considering very seriously. A modified non-compensatory rail rate scheme, the role of transportation as a tool for economic development and the issue of foreign ownership in the transportation system are all items that are under active consideration.
On balance, I can say that the recommendations that are contained in the sixth report of the standing committee can be accommodated in a general way. There may be some details on which we may not agree but generally speaking we agree with the thrust of the recommendations and I think that Hon. Members will find many of the recommendations woven into the legislation when it is introduced to the House.
Hon. Members want more time. Perhaps we need more time to deal with some aspects of the issue but the fact is that it is time now to bring on the legislation. Canada's transportation network has reached a critical junction. We believe very firmly that we must overhaul our legislative and regulatory framework in order to achieve the kind of economic development we need. At the present time, we sense that the regulatory transportation regime that is in place represents an obstacle and indeed it is a burden on the economy. Quite frankly, we believe that it stifles growth and innovation and has prevented the system from providing the best service to the Canadian people. In fact, the other day I heard an airline executive say that
under the current regulatory system, they have been more preoccupied with satisfying the regulator rather than the customer. Surely that must change and that is what we are trying to do. This will not be a revolution. Much of this has already taken place and what we are doing now is putting in place the regulatory and legislative mechanisms to authorize what has already been taken place for wuite some time.
In a recent report entitled The Canadian Common Market, the Canada West Foundation stated this regarding trucking:
-"the chaotic welter of provincial trucking regulations make it an administrative nightmare to move goods by truck across provincial boundaries and therefore impede the movement of goods".
That is not a political statement. It did not come from us. It came from a study team from western Canada. There are a myriad of regulations regarding trucking. There are 10 different regulations in each province and then there is another set of regulations thrust upon the trucking industry by the federal Government. There must be a move toward greater uniformity in the regulatory mechanisms covering the moving of goods from province to province.
I am sorry that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has just left the Chamber. He knows the effectiveness of the current appeal mechanisms under the National Transportation Act and, in particular, the captive shipper clause. For example, one appeal under Section 23 of the NTA took seven years to hear. Another case launched under Section 278 of the Railway Act took nearly eight years to be acted upon. I would like to say that there was only one such case in 20 years. That is clearly not satisfactory. Clearly, the desire and demand for reform is there and we are acting upon it.
I would like to point out other regulations to Hon. Members. Section 230 allows the Governor in Council to make by-laws governing spitting on trains. Nothing is wrong with spitting; but if one misses the spittoon one could be fined $40.


Ms. McDonald:: At least.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is right, at least $40. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for that addition.
Section 366 states that railway companies which fail to provide notice written on a blackboard with white chalk that a train is running late are liable for a fine not exceeding $5.


Iain Francis Angus: That's better than the PA system!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Those items are still part and parcel of the Act. I say it is time to move into a new era, and that is precisely what we are doing.
I know that my hon. friend from Regina West will concur in many of the ideas that have been talked about. He will not disagree with everything we have done because there are a great many factors in the Freedom to Move document with which I am sure he agrees but which philosophically he cannot embrace. I accept that. There are a great many ideas in the document which have been talked about for quite some time.
January 29, 1986

Sure, we will learn from the experience of others. There is no question about that. We are not talking about massive deregulation; we are talking about regulatory reform. We are talking about changing the legislative framework and the regulatory framework in such a way that it will take into consideration the uniqueness of Canada, our economy, our social infrastructure and our demography. These are factors which we will try to harmonize with the real facts of Canadian life. We are not copying the United States holus-bolus. We will learn from the American experience, and from the experience of others. However, that will result in a uniquely made-in-Canada transportation Bill with a corresponding regulatory framework which will meet and suit the needs of Canadians from coast to coast.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We have heard from a great many people and we have talked with a great many others. Personally, I have gone out across the country. I must say that I have not found any antagonism toward the basic thrust of Freedom to Move. I have spoken to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Summit Conference and the Traffic Club of Montreal Inc. I spoke about this topic during National Transportation Week in Toronto. I have spoken on the topic to the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Roads and Transportation Association of Canada, the Alberta Aviation Council, the Toronto Board of Trade, the Ontario Trucking Association and the Air Transport Association of Canada. I participated in a seminar at Concordia University on the subject. Monday last I spoke to the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association. I have engaged in many panel discussions and many federal-provincial meetings on the topic. Our officials have also engaged in many federal-provincial meetings in which the basic points of contention were dealt with. We have tried to find a way to resolve them together in a consultative fashion.
The Hon. Member for Regina West talked about this being an ideological knee-jerk reaction. I must say that I find nothing more knee-jerk, in terms of an ideological reaction, than the comment which I suspect he is the author of found at page 26 which states: "We are philosophically opposed to confidential contracts". And he talks about us being philosophically hooked and reacting in a knee-jerk fashion! How can he say this when the CTC has gone out across the land in a very comprehensive fashion and has examined the issue of confidential contracting? As a matter of fact, the Commission examined the issue of confidential contracting, both on transborder traffic and, indeed, on domestic traffic. The Canadian Transport Commission's extensive deliberations and reports into these matters took some 18 days of public hearings. A second hearing held on the same subject yielded 77 submissions and
3,000	pages of transcript. It turned out to be a 19-day hearing.
I failed to mention that in addition to the debate which has been taking place here, and in other places in the country, not to mention within the industry, there has been a rather interesting debate ongoing with the CTC. It was the instigator of this process. The CTC has engaged in a number of hearings at
Committee Reports
which this matter was studied. Many of the recommendations of the CTC have been incorporated into this document.
We have all heard about the near unanimous support for the main thurst of economic reform. Even the Hon. Member for Regina West in a radio interview had to admit, and I quote: "I'd say a majority of the briefs so far have been in favour." Right on. There is no question about that.
Members of the Liberal Party brought down their own report. I had a chance to reread it last night. I have never seen anything so hollow, so inconsistent and so blended with contradictions. It is really quite consistent with what we are hearing from Members opposite. I would just like to touch briefly upon a couple of items because they make one chuckle. First, at page 9, they state that the Liberal Party does not support deregulation of the trucking industry at this time. That is strange since I have in front of me a number of quotations from the former Minister of Transport. One of them states:
The next deregulatory salvos will be fired at the end of the month when Axworthy meets with the provinces to look at trucking. These talks follow meetings in January when Axworthy and provincial officials discussed ways to establish uniformity in trucking regulations-
That is a quote from The Financial Time of May 21, 1984.
In front of me I have another article entitled "One trump" which states:
But Axworthy does have one trump card he can play if necessary. In theory, the National Transportation Act gives Ottawa control over trucks that cross provincial boundaries. In practice, Ottawa has allowed provinces to regulate trucks. "The provinces are acting on borrowed authority," says Axworthy. "This is not saying that we are going to take it back. But the message is there. If it is not taken up-well-we will just have to be at our persuasive best."
In a speech to the provincial Ministers, as reported in The Citizen of Ottawa on June 1, the former Minister of Transport said that the federal Government was prepared to regain control over interprovincial trucking, if the provinces did not agree to speed up his regulatory reform.
What has changed? Hon. Members opposite want to talk about unilateralism. There was no debate like this one. The former Minister of Transport was going to move in one fell swoop. He was going to take over control of interprovincial trucking. And Hon. Members opposite call that consultation! Complaints, primarily from members of the Liberal Party, have been to the effect that we need more time, more debate and more consultation.
I would now like to move to another item having to do with Air Canada. In it the Liberals talk about not privatizing Air Canada-I know I will find the reference somewhere.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Do not adjust your set.


Iain Francis Angus: And he is supposed to be organized.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: One becomes disorganized listening to Hon. Members opposite.
If I recall correctly, the recommendations in the so-called Liberal minority report stated that members of the Liberal Party would not propose to privatize Air Canada but, indeed, that they would entertain some partial ownership by the

January 29, 1986
Committee Reports
employees. What the former Minister of Transport said was that the Tories must sell Air Canada. I do not know for whom he speaks, but he is a leading front-bencher. He must have some clout.
They also state in the report that they want to maintain the CTC. When this was written in April of 1985 the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) had this to say about control of policy.
In truth, civil servants, crown corporations and regulatory agencies are involved intimately and powerfully in the business of policy making. Their near monopoly on information gives them disproportionate influence in the policy process; elected officials are often poorly equipped to control the system. The civil service moreover is often closely aligned with an influential elite-in this example, the major airlines-creating a very powerful network of protection.
What he is really saying is that it should be the legislators, the elected people, who make policy rather than the regulator, and that is what we are proposing to do.
I have to say one more thing in conclusion, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member from Newfoundland who just spoke has again added to the discredit of the Liberal Party when he talks about Terra Transport. He has condemned Terra Transport in his own province of Newfoundland as being dangerous and in poor shape. There are two things I want to say about that. The Hon. Member does absolutely no service to the railway by these kinds of alarmist statements. The fact is that in Newfoundland, Terra Transport's derailments are down by 75 per cent since 1983. Personal injuries are down by 19 per cent, axle bearing failures are down by 43 per cent and couple failures are down by 42 per cent. Therefore the railway is not as bad as the Hon. Member suggests. That is another clear example of the way in which the Hon. Member tends to discredit himself and the Liberal Party not only on these kinds of issues but on major issues, and today was no exception.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the Minister, even if I do not agree with them all. It is too bad he and I and others did not have more time to get into more areas of transportation, but I want to ask him two questions. First, can the Minister assure us, and many organizations and individual shippers-and I am not asking him to disclose what will be in the legislation-that as a matter of Government policy the protection for captive shippers will remain in any regulatory reform? Second, again without trying to nail him down to any specific date, can the Minister give us a reasonable time frame as to when he intends to bring in his legislation on an amended National Transportation Act? When he does, can he assure us that once the legislation is brought in for first reading, the Standing Committee on Transport will have no problem in getting an order of reference to hold hearings and to report appropriate amendments back to the House? I understand that under the new rules, legislative committees are not to travel. Therefore, it means that in order for the Standing Committee on Transport to do the job, we would have to get the legislation after first reading. That would mean that the subject matter of the legislation would have to be referred to the committee. Can the Minister give
me an approximate date when he intends to bring in the legislation and can he assure us that the kind of opportunity he himself spoke of a few minutes ago will in fact be there for the committee on transport? We should have adequate notice of several weeks so that interested organizations and groups will have time to prepare some submissions and so that the committee will have sufficient time to hear the submissions and make recommendations on each item of the legislation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I could speak on the subject for 40 or 50 minutes rather than 20 minutes. First, may I say in terms of the process that we have heard from close to 200 groups, organizations and/or individuals. They have all had some input into either the document or the drafting process. With respect to captive shippers, I think the Hon. Member knows that one of the very important features of the Freedom to Move paper is to get a greater degree of protection for captive shippers. I think we have moved a considerable distance with respect to a number of items such as the mandated joint line rail rates, the inter-switching, the joint running rights and, particularly, the dispute resolving mechanism which involves mediation, arbitration, final offer arbitration, and the revised Section 23.
What I have been impressed with is that most of the customers, shippers and people who are going to be the major beneficiaries, support this piece of legislation because of its balance. I think we all recognize there is a balance which has to be maintained. We want to have a framework which will be fair to the shipping community as well as to the transportation industry because I think we all recognize that we need a healthy transportation industry. I am pleased by the fact that those who have come forth in support have recognized that we have tried to establish a clear balance which will be fairer to the transportation industry and to the shippers. With respect to a time frame, the date of April has been bandied about. That would certainly be my goal but I have no way of knowing whether we can achieve it.
With regard to hearings, I am not totally familiar with the new rules, or what sort of rules we will function under, but I can say without trying to weasel out of the direct question that I would naturally be interested in the kind of parliamentary committee hearing process which is customary in these kinds of massive legislative undertakings, unless the piece of legislation is so perfect that everyone will agree we can move it forward very quickly. It is a bit of a hypothetical situation but the fact is that if there is any way we can find an appropriate mechanism to engage in the kind of hearing process to which the Hon. Member refers, it will certainly have my support.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Minister made a rather frivolous remark in his speech about regulations regarding spitting. I want to raise a much more serious matter. There has been plenty of talk about freedom to move but there has not been any talk about freedom to move without danger to one's health. I wonder if the Minister would comment on the regulations as they currently stand, which are terribly inadequate. He will know that in railway transportation there may
January 29, 1986

be non-smoking areas for passengers, and if they are violated there can be a fine imposed. However, the company has no obligation to provide a non-smoking area. In fact, companies do not at the present time. There is one experiment on one line where no smoking will be permitted. Otherwise, we have this phony situation where there is a sign saying "No Smoking" but, of course, polluted air circulates nonetheless. The air does not obey these signs.
In the case of airline carriers, there are no no smoking rules in Canada as of yet and there is no regulation in the case of buses. I have received representations from people across the country who are extremely concerned about their health. There are no non-smoking waiting areas in the terminals. I wonder if we could have some action on this matter. Will the Minister agree that it is a serious matter that 35,000 Canadians die per year as a result of smoking? When are we going to see some action for the protection of the travelling public?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I certainly take the Hon. Member's question seriously. I hope that she will not take my example of "spitting" as being frivolous. I was simply trying to point out the fact that we have some rules and regulations which are rather archaic and it is perhaps time they be modified or removed completely. It was in that spirit that I used that example, albeit it was somewhat extreme.
I am not an expert with regard to the Charter of Rights. I suspect people have a right to smoke or not to smoke. That might be something that-


Lynn McDonald: ; They have no right to make other people sick.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That perhaps is a good point for debate. I think that one of the real advantages of the thrust of this legislation is that there will be more freedom for airlines to do the kinds of things the Hon. Member wants them to do. I understand that in the United States there are some airlines that prohibit smoking altogether. That is part of the competitive spirit. If customers demand no smoking on their airlines in a free, open, and competitive market such as we are discussing here, they are quite likely to get it. That is exactly what has happened in the United States, and I suspect that it could happen in Canada as well.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I think the truckers of Canada are going to have a period of prosperity with deregulation which they have never had before. I want to make a comment first and then ask the Hon. Minister a question. At the present time, and for many years, the trucking business has been retarded because of regulations. If a trucker from Alberta wants to haul materials from Alberta to Quebec, he must have a hearing in Alberta at a cost of $3,000 to $4,000, a hearing in Saskatchewan which costs $4,000 or $5,000, just to pass through that province, one in Manitoba, one in Ontario, and one in Quebec. That makes it almost impossible for truckers to operate. As a matter of fact, a few years ago we had to route our trucks through the United States in order to build up a
Committee Reports
market for Alberta beef in Quebec. It is a shame when we must go through another country.
How are matters proceeding and what are the prospects for the possibility of having one hearing to ensure that truckers have the necessary insurance and finances to be permitted to operate? What are the prospects of that with the provinces?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the point which the Hon. Member has just made is proof positive that the utopian ideal of attempting to regulate everything to perfection is a pretty distant ideal. That which the Member has pointed out has not been in the best interests of the trucking industry either. I have before me a table which shows the tremendous growth in the private trucking industry in the Province of Ontario. In 1971 the private in-house trucking industry handled 42 per cent of the intra and extra-provincial movements. That has risen to 55.2 per cent in 1983. At the same time, the for-hire trucking industry declined from 58 per cent of the business to 44.8 per cent of the business. This really indicates that the shippers are finding it more attractive, profitable and reliable to own their own trucks and put their own trucks in-house to provide that service. This is to the detriment of the for-hire trucking industry.
There has been a memorandum of understanding signed between the federal Government and the provinces to move toward a uniform set of regulations and to apply the reverse onus test, that is, shifting the burden of proof from the applicant to the respondent and, within a couple of years, phasing in the fitness test-fit, willing, and able-rather than that of public convenience and necessity. I hope we can continue in that time frame with the provinces.
I did not get an opportunity to touch on the safety issue, but at the same time we are working in concert with the provinces to establish a national safety code for the trucking industry to provide one set of regulations regarding safety right across the country.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister well knows, the National Transportation Act, particularly in Section 3, has a major omission, that is its refusal, if you will, to make reference to regional economic development. The committee has rightly made a recommendation that that be made a thrust of the new transportation act.
I am not asking the Minister to give secrets of the state, but could he elaborate for the House on what he believes the parameters of that phrase, "regional economic development", means from his perspective? Does it refer, for instance, to employment opportunities in the various regions as well? Does it refer, in his mind, to the role of Crown corporations, both from a fiscal point of view and a long-term economic perspective?
We have heard a lot of comment from the Premiers and other individuals that Crown corporations in transportation are certainly not living up to the spirit of their mandate, if not the law, as it reflects on the issue of regional economic development. I cite CN Marine and other Crown corporations which are playing a role in the economy, particularly of

January 29, 1986
Committee Reports
Atlantic Canada, but 1 also think of British Columbia and the prairie provinces. Could the Minister elaborate on that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I understand that we are short of time, Mr. Speaker, so 1 will try to be as brief as I can. Naturally, I am sympathetic to the point that the Hon. Member has raised with regard to regional economic development and transportation being a tool. I am guided to some extent by the agreed positions of the Government of Canada and all the provinces of Canada with regard to the ninth principle of the regional economic development paper. That principle states that transportation is recognized as a key to regional economic development. As it points out, all regions of Canada are highly sensitive to the use of transportation as an instrument of economic development. Therefore, regional development policy must take into account the types and adequacy of transportation systems, the levels of service, and the role which transportation facilities and infrastructure play in each particular region.
To deviate from that, when there has been agreement among all the key players, would perhaps be asking for trouble. 1 hope that we will be able to reflect the thrust of that adequately in the legislation. We are working at it and hopefully we will be able to do that.
With regard to Crown corporations, one of the things that really surprised me in this debate is the attack on Crown corporations with respect to both Air Canada and CN.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Not from us.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I think we all recognize that while Crown corporations may be seen to have an advantage in terms of being backed by the federal Government, at the same time they are asked, from time to time, to engage in duties which are not necessarily duties which would be performed on the basis of a straight market discipline. Somehow or other that debate did not develop fully enough. Our position is that because we have a mixed economy, Crown corporations should be regulated and legislated in a similar manner so as to prevent any major distortions within that particular sector. I also firmly believe that if Crown corporations are asked to engage in an activity as an imposed public duty, they should be so compensated for it and that should be identified.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate which has been waging for the last several hours on the deregulation of our transportation industry. Toward that end I would like to focus the bulk of my remarks on the airline industry. We all know that the policy of deregulation is based on the report produced by the Government entitled Freedom to Move. I think it is very crucial, significant, and relevant to point out that this document took 15 months to prepare. It took 15 months to put the themes, proposals, and philosophies guiding this document on to paper. By comparison, this document has only been in the hands of the Transport Committee, which was asked to examine it and call public hearings on it, for two months.
I suggest that from a logical point of view, and from the point of view of Canadian tradition, that that somehow does not wash. I admit, as does my Party, that the airline industry and the transportation industry in general is in need of reform. It needs reform to cope with the new and evolving aspirations that we see around us. However, I suggest with all due respect that one cannot embark on a new and bold initiative which took some 15 months to put together, and then have only two months to examine it from a public opinion point of view. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) alluded to that when he said that the committee had a very short time to deal with this issue. There were some 92 interventions and 150 submissions to the committee and if there is that much interest, and there is, then two months is not sufficient to deal with it.
Another point I want to make concerns the statement that deregulation is going to benefit the consumer. The consumer will be paying less to move from point A to point B. That is an attractive feature. Obviously all Members have to be concerned over what it means for the consumer. If it means reduced airline fares, then we have to be very cognizant of that fact. However, we also have to be fair, honest and truthful and really look into this report. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) indicated the problems consumers have been having in the U.S. under deregulation. That country moved in 1978 to deregulation and up until 1984 U.S. airlines lost some $4 billion. Service in some remote areas has become irregular or non-existent. As well, the cost of air fares in those more remote parts of the country have increased.
We have seen companies in the U.S. go belly-up because they tried to expand too quickly or because they misread their own capabilities. Other companies, with an eye on their bottom lines, stopped serving a given community with only 60 days notice. How does that help the consumer? Those factors have to be taken into account before we can honestly say that the consumer will win or lose under deregulation. As well, a lot of the larger airlines in the U.S. have bought up smaller airlines which got into trouble under deregulation. How has that profited the consumer?
Deregulation was supposed to mean a greater opportunity for more airlines to create more competition. What is happening? In some markets these airlines are creating monopolies. We have seen that in our country even without deregulation. Canadian Pacific has purchased Nordair and Eastern Provincial. Air Canada owns a portion of Air Ontario. Under deregulation we can expect more such takeovers. What started as an attempt to loosen up the system, to provide more flexibility, more opportunity and lessen the monopoly some carriers have, has evolved into something worse, and it can happen here.
As well, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the problems of service to remote areas in the U.S., we can expect even more of a problem in Canada. Canada is a very large country with its population centres spotted irregularly across the land. We have to look beyond the sixtieth parallel at the people in Yellow-
January 29, 1986

knife, Cambridge Bay and Coppermine. Those people do not look to air carriers only for transportation, they look to them to bring in their food and carry out the goods they produce.
If we look at the Toronto-Ottawa or Toronto-Montreal routes, that is one question. But if we look at Toronto-Yellowknife, then it is a totally different matter. We are talking about what this country is about. We are talking about the contact that each and every Canadian has with his country. Our carriers have a responsibility to serve the smaller communities and sparsely-populated areas of our country. However, if we go head first into deregulation what is going to happen to those communities? Is it the bottom line that will dictate whether an airline serves a particular community? If so, we will not have the same kind of country we have now and let's make no bones about that.
We have to learn from the U.S. experience, which brings us to another issue, that of safety. How often do we get up in this House to mourn a tragic accident after it happens? How many times do we say we should take precautions and try to avoid the accident in the first place? Well, here we have a golden opportunity to avoid asking ourselves that question repeatedly. The Hon. Member from Newfoundland pointed out the erosion of safety measures as a result of deregulation in the U.S. Many smaller companies, looking at the bottom line, do not have either the capital or human ressources to do the things they should be doing. In the U.S., as was done recently in Toronto, air traffic control operators were fired or laid off.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is wrong.


Sergio Marchi: There is also the issue-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not normally rise to interject but a Member speaking in debate should state the facts, not falsehoods. Either inadvertently or deliberately the Hon. Member just made a grave error.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I do not stand in my place to mislead anyone in this House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You sure as hell are.


Sergio Marchi: I know the Minister follows the same policy.
Before he stood up I was going to look at the number of inspectors we have. The Minister rightly pointed out that perhaps the previous Government did not have enough inspectors. He said it was the Liberals' fault. That could be true. However, that is no reason to sit back and be smug and smile and at the same time move to deregulation without addressing the issue. This is not simply an opportunity to talk about what happened in 1982 or 1983.
If they wish to move on deregulation, the issue of inspectors has to be taken into account. If the number is not sufficient, it is not good enough to say it was the previous administration, the Clark administration or the Diefenbaker administration.
Committee Reports
Canadians want safety now. If safety is to be enhanced by an increase in the number of inspectors, Mr. Speaker, that is an issue we have to talk about courageously and out in the open.
There was also mention by my colleague that when the group went to Washington, a number of elected representatives and a number of airline officials indicated that the Americans are on the fringes of safety. Some went so far as to say they are below the standards of safety that Americans would like.
A recent poll suggested there was a 50 per cent reduction in confidence concerning travel on the part of Canadians. When we hear that the consumer is going to profit from a system of deregulation, it has to be balanced and tempered by the question of safety. It is fine to say that consumer A wishes to spend less money going from Toronto to Montreal-and that is valid-but consumer "A" is also worried about getting there safely.
If we cannot convince consumer A that deregulation is going to be safe, if we cannot convince him there are enough inspectors to inspect planes and if we cannot convince him that there are enough control tower operators to operate the traffic at the airports properly, then I suggest consumer A would rather pay more to have safety while he is going from point A to point B. It is not only a question of the dollar for the consumer, but a question of safety.
That brings us to the other issue. When we are talking about consumers and safety for consumers, we are talking about listening to consumers. The Government was elected on the grand declarations of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that the Government would be one of openness, one to consult broadly and one to govern for Canadians by Canadians. That is great rhetoric, but when it comes to consulting, that does not happen. Look, for instance, at the de Havilland situation. It was such a great deal, the Government did not want anyone to see it. It was a struggle to get the committee we did to study the situation for a couple of weeks.
I went to a meeting last night in Toronto hosted by the Council for Canadians. There were 300 people all wanting more consultation. They were not happy about a committee studying a situation cocoon style in Ottawa. They said they, together with 25 million other Canadians who are shareholders in this company, have not had a meeting, have not had an opportunity to participate to give input or to ask questions about their vision and future for their company. This Bill has the same problem.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is not a bill.


Sergio Marchi: This report or the suggestion we are discussing today. The Minister hopes to bring in legislation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is the point.


Sergio Marchi: Therefore, it provides the groundwork for the legislation the Minister wants to bring in.
How can the Minister be honest about saying the Government has consulted broadly when the committee has gone to

January 29, 1986
Committee Reports
only three of the ten provinces? How can the Minister say that in my Province of Ontario Canadians have been consulted, when the only city that had a public hearing was Ottawa? There is more to Ontario than just Ottawa. One of the busiest airports in the country is located in Toronto. Was there a public hearing in Toronto? Was there a public meeting in Toronto? Were there discussions with consumers in Toronto? No, Mr. Speaker. Are Tories prepared to say that they wish to consult, to listen and to move prudently? They cannot have it both ways.
This particular committee has not exhausted the avenues of bringing Canadians into a discussion. That begs the question why the rush, why the hurry? What is it that the Minister and the Government are facing with respect to deregulation? Before the Government moves on legislation it can, with the Government's parliamentary and absolute majority, pass anything it wants. What is so wrong with going the extra distance, with going to Toronto, to the other seven provinces and the smaller remote communities to discuss the matter openly, not behind closed doors in some committee room in the West Block in Ottawa? What is wrong with going out there on the street? Why has that not been done?
We have suggested in the House today and we have suggested all along that while we are prepared to have reform of our transportation industry, reforms must be cautiously done, they must be prudent and in concert with the wishes and aspirations of Canadians. Those wishes and aspirations have not been received in the way that they should.
We call upon the Government, particularly the Minister of Transport, who is a fairly competent Minister in his portfolio, to allow the committee the extra time. If the Minister can take 15 months to produce a document, surely to God we can have equal time to analyse the document with Parliament and with Canadians. That is our message, Mr. Speaker.
We are not against reforms. We are pro reform as long as Canadians have a say in the process and as long as Canadians can be assured that the airline industry will be delivering a system of which they can be proud, but more important with which they can feel safe.


Mr. Belsher:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment about the safety aspect. I must remind the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) instituted the Dubin inquiry in 1979. The findings of that report are now being carried out. The Aeronautics Act of last year is a part of that report. Safety issues are uppermost in the Minister's deliberations.
Talking about what happened in the U.S. over the air traffic controllers is another issue. It is not part of the deregulation problem. Last week only one organization condemned deregulation, namely, the machinists union. Even the President of the Airline Pilots Association said deregulation had benefited the majority of people. It had been detrimental to his union but to the majority of people it was of benefit.
With deregulation in the United States, employment has increased while ours in a regulated society has gone down. Even the aviation consumers action group headed by Ralph Nader told us there were 200 communities which had lost service prior to 1978. That was in a regulated environment. When we start talking about what is going to happen, the Hon. Member for York West should tell us in a balanced perspective way what it is he is talking about. The Minister has brought in regulations and has brought in a method of input even before the legislation is introduced. What more can the Hon. Member ask for?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member.
It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.﻿10309
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, January 30, 1986