1987-02-11

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, while the scandals of Quebec Conservative Members are front-page news throughout the country, while these people get together only to try to define a strategy to improve their image instead of putting an end to these scandals, other Members in the Opposition deal with the day-to-day affairs which are of concern to all Canadians, and I am referring specifically to the 35,000 early retirees in this country. This is just another scandal which has prompted the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to raise the possibility of a repayment.
Mr. Speaker, the very questionnaire which the Minister is about to send to the 35,000 early retirees is a scandal. Four of the questions indicate quite clearly that the Minister has serious doubts about the word of older workers. I hope the Conservatives Members will stop listening to morale booster Jean-Marc Chaput and defend the interests of their constituents as we Liberals are doing, just so they might stand a better chance in the next election.


ANNUAL MEMBERS-PAGES HOCKEY GAME-&quot;GOOD TIME HAD BY ALL&quot;
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, last night the MPs won the annual MP-Page hockey game by a score of 3-0. The MPs had kept the Pages running errands all afternoon and they were tired out. However, the score did not really matter. From the harmonious singing of "O Canada" by the Pages to the finale when 10 Pages overwhelmed our goalie, the one and only "Moe" from Nipissing, sportsmanship and esprit de corps predominated throughout the evening.
The classic game was an excellent example of co-operative federalism at its best. Ministers, ex-Ministers, back-benchers
from the three Parties, and Pages from all parts of Canada, skated, stick-handled and body-checked with expertise, but with no malice or ill will. The culmination was a chili con came feast provided by Ms. Leger. The oratory of Pages Stephanie Windsor and Marc Gervais filled the Press Club with laughter and wit. Every MP went home feeling a new appreciation for the youth of Canada. With young people like our 1987 Pages, Canada is bound to have a great future.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government and the Province of B.C. are locked in a struggle over the boundaries for a national land and marine park in the South Moresby area of the Queen Charlotte Islands. The original owners and occupants of the area, the Haida people, last week adopted a constitution and sovereignty on the Queen Charlottes known to them as Haida Gwaii. They have tried in every way to accommodate the setting aside of South Moresby as a national park. At issue is continued logging on Lyell Island, in particular in the Windy Bay watershed.
In three consecutive federal elections all three federal Parties have endorsed the designation of South Moresby as a national park. The spokespersons on environment for all three federal Parties in this House endorse the inclusion of Lyell Island in the park proposal. Now is the time for Canada's Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to speak out and put forward the few dollars necessary to secure this area for all future generations to share. The will of the Haida people, the will of this House, and the aspirations of the future must be met.
I know you, Mr. Speaker, endorse South Moresby with the inclusion of Lyell Island. I hope the Prime Minister is listening and supports his own Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) in this sacred undertaking.


AIDS DISEASE-PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGES-SUPPORT FOR CBC APPROACH
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, an article appeared in The Ottawa Citizen last week stating that the

February 11, 1987
CBC intended to questio seriously any public service messages on AIDS which mention condoms if they condone or encourage sexual promiscuity and casual sex. I commend the CBC for taking such a responsible approach to this matter.
As I have stated previously in this House, education has an integral role to play in helping public awareness of this growing epidemic. This is contrary to what the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) stated that I said to this House. For the record, last week I did state that Bill C-7, passed by the Ontario Liberal Government of Premier Peterson, compounds this very serious problem facing Canadian society.
Again, I must reinforce to the House that we must now realize that 82 per cent of all AIDS cases in Canada originate from the homosexual community. Furthermore, we must do everything we can to help these groups, but at the same time try to convince them that homosexual relationships are unnatural and immoral. Their communities are suffering the consequences, as is all society. I say to my fellow parliamentarians, can we not learn from history that which is most obvious?

[ Translation]


ROAD SAFETY
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise the issue of lack of safety for backseat car passengers as a result of the design of seat belts.

I have a letter from Mrs. Marilyn Glazer from Vancouver. She says:
I am writing this informally before my anger recedes-I've just watched tonight s CBC production of The Fifth Estate regarding seat-belt injuries. My daughter sustained a broken neck in November as a result of being rear-ended by a drunk. She was wearing a lap belt in the back seat. Her sister and myself were wearing three-point belts in front and walked away from the accident. Chances are she too would have walked away had she had a three-point belt on. The doctor told us that just 50 lbs. more impact and she would have been paralyzed for life.
It disturbs me that the government feels such apathy towards upgrading seatbelt regulations in the back-If government regulations have already required sturdier car backs to accommodate shoulder straps-DO IT. Please help save our children and adults from leading less than a full life-
I have tried to have new seat-belts installed in my new car, but was told that it was against government regulations. Change the law and make it possible to make driving safer.


CHALLENGE '87 PROGRAM'S OBJECTIVE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I urge my constituents, business leaders, farmers and, of course, students to pick up the challenge of this employment program established by our Government.
I am referring to the Challenge '87 Program which is expected to create more than 90,000 summer jobs for students.
I hope my riding will benefit directly from the funds made available under this $180 million budgetary envelope, as well as from the various programs announced by our Government.
Under this program, Mr. Speaker, the business community is being urged to find suitable jobs for students and train them for gainful employment before they join the labour force. I remind Quebec employers that they have until early March 1987 to obtain application forms at the nearest Canada Employment Centre or Canada Student Employment Centre.
Challenge '87 was designed to help employers achieve this objective and is based on experience acquired over the past two years.


CANADA-U.S.S.R. HOCKEY GAMES-LACK OF GENERAL ADMISSION SEATS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing which stirs the emotions of Canadians so much as when our hockey superstars are pitted against those of the Soviet Union, and there is no doubt that millions of us will be glued to our TV sets tonight and Friday to watch this spectacle.
However, not everyone will be happy. There are thousands of those Canadians who would rather be at the games, but they cannot go because only 5 per cent of the seats are being made available to the general public.
What about the rest of the seats? They have once again been gobbled up by those with invitations. They are the elite, the wealthy, those with influence, those with corporate connections, and more than likely there will be a few cronies of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in attendance.
We have become accustomed to such a network of insiders infiltrating the operations of government, and we have seen them snap up the best tickets for the Olympics, but it is getting ridiculous when they try to take over our hockey games. Once again they are partially using public money for their own enjoyment, to the tune of $3.5 million. It is time that the
;-i

February 11, 1987

Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) stopped this kind of spending and turned hockey back to the people of Canada.


COUNCIL EXECUTIVES' MEETINGS WITH MINISTERS
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, this is "a taste of honey" day for Members of Parliament who should have received a sample of honey from the Canadian Honey Council of Canada.
The executive of the Canadian Honey Council are in Ottawa today for their annual meetings with various Ministers to ensure that their product is the best in the world. The consumers of Canadian honey are the beneficiaries of these meetings.
1 might add that about 30 per cent of honey produced in Canada comes from the constituency of Mackenzie.


REFUGEES
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, suffering in the world caused by man's inhumanity to man is often so widespread that at times we run the risk of becoming insensitive to individual cases and fail to take action which might go some way toward alleviating the suffering.
I want to draw to the attention of Hon. Members a situation reported in The Ottawa Citizen last Saturday. According to observers at the United Nations, refugees living in the Bourj el Barajneh camp under siege in South Beirut are starving and have been forced to consider cannibalism as a means of survival. If this report is an accurate reflection of the conditions in the Lebanese refugee camp, it cries out for action on an urgent basis.
I call upon the Government today to request that Stephen Lewis, our Ambassador to the United Nations, request an immediate investigation of this situation and ensure that the appropriate international agencies be provided access to determine whether civilians are starving, and to provide food if that is the case.
___________________________3319


S. O. 21 REFUGEES TAMILS IN WEST GERMANY-REPORTED INTENTION TO SEEK REFUGEE STATUS IN CANADA
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, there are reports that Tamils who reside in West Germany will be attempting another journey to Canada to claim refugee status. It should be made clear that these individuals are not legitimate refugees, for they already reside in a country which gave them first asylum. Consequently, the Tamils do not have the same status as individuals who flee to Canada directly from a country torn by strife.
There is strong evidence that the Tamils entered West Germany via the safety of Tamil Nadu Province in South India. Canada cannot have our immigration system open to such abuse that it is creating a state of anarchy in the system. Our ability to help genuine refugees is being threatened, since costly social support services are being used to help individuals who make bogus claims. I urge the Government to alter regulations to admit only those who are legitimate convention refugees. Those who lie and cheat do not deserve the humanitarian and compassionate consideration which distinguishes Canada from other nations.


INDUSTRY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the meat packing industry has played an important role in the economic well-being of the city of Winnipeg. Recently, as a result of the establishment of a hog processing plant in Neepawa, funded to a large extent by a federal government grant, Canada Packers has announced the lay-off of 450 workers at the Winnipeg plant. It is now considering closing the entire plant unless it can build a new one. That will require financial assistance from the province and the federal Government. I call upon the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) to give early and favourable consideration to federal support for the rebuilding of that plant.


ORAL QUESTION PERIOD-QUESTIONS ASKED BY OPPOSITION MEMBERS
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, for weeks if not months, we have had the same scenario during Oral Question Period. Around the wee hours of the morning, one of the Liberal Party's night owls pounces on the first copy of The

February 11, 1987
Globe and Mail so the Leader of the Liberal Party will know what kind of questions to put to the Government.
After two or three questions by the Leader of the Liberal Party, most of which are repetitive, his Liberal colleagues go on in the same vein.
Then come their kissing cousins. The Leader of the Socialist Party repeats more or less what the Liberal Party said, down to the same supplementaries, and so it goes down to the NDP.
Nitpicking questions, questions about personalities, questions about alleged scandals. Meanwhile, across Canada the deficit is going down, the unemployment rate is down, interest rates are dropping and inflation is under control.
If the Opposition wolves are after spicy revelations, they will have to seek them elsewere. We intend to continue governing this country.


RIGHT HON. LESTER B. PEARSON COMMISSIONING OF STATUE ON PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Commons we had the opportunity to witness a very rare and unanimous vote. Indeed, all Hon. Members joined in supporting my motion to erect a statue in honour of the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, a former Prime Minister of Canada.
I want to take this occasion to congratulate all Hon. Members who participated in the debate yesterday, including the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme)-we were celebrating the anniversary of his first election to the House of Commons at the same time-the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes), and all other Hon. Members on all sides of the House who contributed to making this debate one which was unanimous.
I hope the day will come very shortly when we can all join together outside on the lawn of Parliament Hill in order to unveil the statue in honour of the greatest Prime Minister this country has ever had, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, it is inappropriate when companies or individuals try to manipulate the tax system and take advantage of tax provisions that are clearly
intended for a different purpose. It is particularly reprehensible when other levels of government attempt to use the tax system so inappropriately. Thus it was with a great sense of disappointment that we learned last weekend that the Province of British Columbia had undertaken a public financing of their SkyTrain project, making unintended use of a special provision in the tax system and thereby striking at the very integrity of the tax system.
I was also amazed to learn that the Province of British Columbia had not followed normal procedures of consultation with the federal Finance Minister (Mr. Wilson) before proceeding. Certainly this leaves the impression of a provincial Government trying to pull a fast, one and demeans government in the eyes of the public. I applaud the Minister of Finance for his quick, decisive action in closing down this blatant misuse of the tax system.
Any similar schemes in the public or private sector must be dealt with severely if the public is to have confidence that our tax system is fair and is fairly applied. Provincial Governments, in particular, are partners with the federal Government in maintaining the integrity of the tax system and should govern themselves accordingly.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House and all Canadians the important testimony of witnesses before the legislative committee on Bill C-22. While the Government may argue that this Bill is in the interests of all Canadians many of the witnesses stated the exact opposite. For instance, the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens Organizations clearly stated in its brief:
Proposed changes to the Patent Act contained in Bill C-22 will reduce the availability of low-cost alternative generic drugs and that, without competition, brand-name costs are certain to rise;
Commitments made by multi-national firms for investment and job creation in Canada are unenforceable;
Canada will never achieve world-class research status in pharmaceuticals without a strong domestic industry, which this bill prevents;
The legislation can't effectively penalize brand-name manufacturers who fail to follow pricing guidelines;
Direct payment costs for drugs will rise-
I urge the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr Andre) to withdraw this Bill forthwith.
February 11, 1987


NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, with the signing a few days ago of the agreement transferring the Yukon part of the Northern Canada Power Commission from federal to territorial control and ownership an important milestone was reached in the assumption of provincial powers and authority by the Government of Yukon. This, of course, was in fulfilment of a longstanding policy of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Yukoners handled the negotiations expeditiously and well. They have wisely chosen to contract out the management of the assets to the private sector.
The federal Government is to be thanked for the generous way in which it wrote off much of Yukon NCPC's accumulated debt so as to leave a viable business operation.
It is important that the same issue as it affects the Northwest Territories be finalized with no more delay.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, with the active encouragement and financial assistance of the federal Government, Ontario Hydro is currently developing facilities to recover tritium from Canadian nuclear reactors. It is planning to market tritium internationally.
Most tritium that is produced in the world today is used for the manufacture of hydrogen and neutron bombs. The Government may claim that it intends to sell tritium only for civilian use, but, apart from the fact that it is nearly impossible to verify what is eventually done with a nuclear product, Canadian exports would certainly free up huge supplies of tritium for use in weapons production. If the Government allows Ontario Hydro to proceed and to export tritium to countries which have the capability of producing nuclear weapons, then Canada will be responsible for increasing the world's ability to produce nuclear weapons twentyfold.
The Government's policy on tritium makes its commitments to arms reduction seem hollow. It is a policy that can only fuel the arms race. The Government should listen to the majority of Canadians who oppose all nuclear exports, and bring a halt to planning for the production and export of tritium.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Today we learned that the Economic Committee of the French colony of St. Pierre and Miquelon has issued an order that no factory trawler from France be off-loaded beyond 100 tonnes of cod fillet in order to prevent overfishing of the Gulf waters by the metropolitan French fleet, and that larger vessels will be refused refuelling. In view of the action taken by the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon will the Canadian Government be prepared to allow those French vessels to refuel in Canadian ports after being refused by the colony of St. Pierre and Miquelon? Will he protect our fishermen in the same way that this tiny colony is protecting its fishermen?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the appropriate context in which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has posed his question. Of course Canada would not insert itself into the position taken by the French colony of St. Pierre and Miquelon with respect to the fishing practices of French national vessels. However, we will examine very carefully this precedent in the context of my discussions with my colleagues, the Atlantic Council of Provincial Fisheries Ministers, when I meet them next week, as one of the various forms of initiative that our Government might take to continue to maximize the advantage to Canadian fishermen, and those of Newfoundland and Labrador in particular, resulting from those resources which we believe to be ours.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we see a situation in which a small isolated colony of France has shown more guts than a sovereign nation called Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I want to know what action the Government will take to protect our own fishermen who are being overfished by the metropolitan French fleet through the acquiescence of the Government?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that we need take no lessons from the Government of which he was a part, or led, when it comes to showing guts. For the first time in decades the Government has raised fines, has agreed and undertaken to arm our vessels, increased our

February 11, 1987
Oral Questions
surveillance capacity, and even engaged in high seas pursuit of foreign fishing vessels in order to stand up for the rights of Atlantic fishermen. I can assure the hon. gentleman that in this case we will do likewise if such is required.


REQUEST FOR REOPENING OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRANCE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in view of the gumption of the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon will the Minister immediately reopoen the negotiations with metropolitan France and seek a renewal of terms from France on the fishing rights in the Gulf, and rehabilitate the Canadian fishermen from all four Atlantic Provinces who have been grievously harmed by the inappropriate negligence of the Minister and his colleagues?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition had partaken of the detailed briefings, which all Premiers did on Monday night in Toronto, and which other members of his Party have done, then perhaps he would see the question that he has just asked in a different light. The consequence of the Monday evening meeting was not a request from Atlantic Premiers that the agreement signed with France on January 24 be torn up. I believe that they know more than the Hon. Leader of the Opposition of the potentially more serious consequences for Canada if that were done.


OVERFISHING BY FRENCH VESSELS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the quotas for Canadian fishermen on the East Coast have been substantially reduced in certain sectors this year for the first time in our history, and there is restricted entry for Canadian fishermen to the south coast of Newfoundland. Today in the newspaper the Minister of Fisheries is quoted as saying, "6,400 tonnes (quota) is the historical share to which the (French) fleet is entitled". Is the Minister aware that, according to the official fillet figures of St. Pierre and Miquelon, that entire quota has been substantially overfished by the French fleet? What is the Minister going to do today to stop this overfishing by the French?


Thomas Edward Siddon: What we are doing today, and the process in which we are engaged as a result of the January 24 agreement, is to find a solution once and for all to the disputed boundary problem which was initially created as a consequence of a treaty that his Government signed in 1972.
I might point out that the historical entitlement of vessels based in St. Pierre and Miquelon is not to be confused with the fishing practices of large trawlers that come from metropolitan France which can only be arrested by way of an international agreement, or force.


NON-ARREST OF FRENCH VESSELS
George Baker: The Government is not interested in the prevention of overfishing by the French. It is more interested in the prevention of pouting in Paris. If a Newfoundland boat exceeds its quota, it is arrested. A Nova Scotia boat, a New Brunswick boat, a Prince Edward Island boat, and a Quebec boat will also be arrested. The same applies to the Americans, the Spanish, and the Portuguese. Why are the French boats not arrested for overfishing? Does the Government have Falklands phobia?


Thomas Edward Siddon: am sure that the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate must spend his entire mornings practising these neat little couplets that he loves to present, while totally obfuscating the issue in each and every case.
The Hon. Member knows, or he should know, and perhaps he should have another briefing to bring him up to date, that in the disputed zone, under international protocols which his Government entered into in 1984, we are not able to confront France in waters which they claim to be theirs. Until the boundary dispute is resolved by a civilized procedure, which has been set in motion, that practice will continue-unless the Hon. Member is suggesting that we send in the Canadian navy. I hope he is not suggesting that.


FRANCE'S POSITION ON COD ALLOCATION
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The French Government has again shown complete contempt for a Canadian Government that is unwilling to stand up for the rights of Canada. France has said that it will take four times the allocation of cod that has been granted to it by the Canadian Government. I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action his Government is prepared to take to stand up for the rights of Canadians, or is it simply prepared to let the French Government continue to kick sand in our face?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the action we are prepared to take is not unlike the action we were prepared to take on another issue, that dealing with the offshore energy problems of Newfoundland and Labrador, where we promised, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition indicated yesterday, a fair deal, a new deal, and a better deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can undertake to the House that if we do not, by the end of the process set in place, arrive at a fair deal, a new deal, and a better deal for the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador, there will be no deal.


James Douglas Manly: It had better be a better deal than what has appeared so far.
February 11, 1987


REASON FOR SIGNING AGREEMENT WITH FRANCE
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. When the Minister of Transport, Newfoundland's voice in Cabinet, was asked about the reasons this agreement was rushed through and signed, he said: "I want to find the answer to that myself; I intend to find the answer". Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House of Commons and the people of Canada why this agreement with France, which has so many unfortunate complications attached to it, was rushed through without proper consultation?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I might ask why it is that opposition questioners always focus on the negative and do not recognize-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: -a chance, once and for all, to solve a problem of historical dimension by taking a courageous path supported and totally encouraged and promoted in Newfoundland by the Minister of Transport and his colleagues who will ensure that this will be a better deal for the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador than anything achieved in the past.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Fisheries should know that there is a large negative sign in front of the entire Government and that it is bracketed by negatives.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CANCEL AGREEMENT
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Government has apologized to the Government of Newfoundland for the process involved in this agreement. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not recognize that a bad process cannot lead to a good conclusion? Recognizing all the wrong processes and conclusions in the agreement, will the Government now agree to cancel it and start over again?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, this "ostrich head in the sand" approach of the Opposition, particularly of my colleague who speaks for the NDP, is at the heart of our problems as a nation. It is high time they stood in the House and offered some positive suggestions, because it is only through making difficult choices, even with their imperfections, that we achieve progress on behalf of the people we represent.


REFUELING OF FRENCH FLEET
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister should know that a modern day "Boston Tea Party" is happening on the tiny islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. Every last one of the 560,000 people of Newfoundland stand in solidarity with the people of St. Pierre. We are standing up to France and standing up for their inshore fishermen. Will the Minister assure the House of Commons that large factory freezer trawlers which are turned away from
Oral Questions
St. Pierre will not be allowed to refuel in Canadian ports? Will he give us that assurance?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated in the House, I will be meeting with my colleagues, the Ministers of Fisheries for the Atlantic provinces, early next week. There is a lot of talk about the failure of the process. I am talking about following the process in an appropriate manner to achieve the kind of result for which the Hon. Member is hoping. However, in the process we are not about to do anything stupid just because the Hon. Member suggests it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: The expert on stupidity speaks. I am tempted to say: "Vive St. Pierre et Miquelon libre", but I will not say it because Charles de Gaulle would not like it.


CANADIAN POSITION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister telling the House of Commons that, when the people on the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon stand up to France and are counted and turn away factory freezer trawlers from those tiny islands, those vessels will be allowed to come into Canadian ports, refuel, and continue to overfish Canadian fish? Is that what he is telling us?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. When the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon stand up to be counted, we will see and we will probably be very, very appreciative of their action.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: When the time comes we will see just how firm the Government of Canada can be on behalf-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: I think, Mr. Speaker-


David Charles Dingwall: We want Mr. T.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Sit down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Stand up, John.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt for his help.


John R. Rodriguez: I am sorry, I was not attempting to take your place, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions MINISTER'S POSITION

February 11, 1987


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The French have clearly indicated that they will continue to overfish the stock. They will not abide by the quota we have given them. St. Pierre and Miquelon are small islands. They have clearly indicated the tough position they are prepared to take with the French. Could the Minister tell the House and the people of eastern Canada-the whole country-what specific action he will take, or will he substitute a wishbone for a backbone?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, when the time comes, the Hon. Member and all other Members of the House will witness appropriate and necessary actions on behalf of the fishermen of Atlantic Canada. I cannot help but speculate that opposition Members are somewhat fearful that we might indeed find a solution to this problem; then they would have no more basis for their irrelevant questions.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE ACTION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. We have already given him a proposal, a positive suggestion, to start over with the agreement. I want the Minister to be more specific with the House. Will he wait until there are absolutely no Fish left to be Fished by Canadian fishermen, or will he start delineating the action the Government intends to take and to send a strong message to France that they cannot overFish stocks belonging to Canadians?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Hon. Member would permit us to wait a day or two, because these French trawlers about which he is concerned certainly would not even contemplate coming to Canadian ports in the foreseeable future. The Hon. Member has indicated that they have offered options. Yes, indeed, Rambo, the Leader of the NDP, offered a solution the other night. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that we move into this disputed zone with a show of force by Canada? Is that what he is recommending? If so, I wish they would declare themselves now.

the Chief of Staff of the Minister of Public Works, the First tender was cancelled because Brodilaf, a Conservative company, did not legally qualify; that one Conservative was convicted of influence peddling and finally, that ofFicials with the Department of Public Works recommended Hama Inc., whose offer was $65,000 lower than the offer made by the Conservative group.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Public Works: What more does the Government need to realize this was not normal procedure and that a public inquiry is urgently needed?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, a recommendation was made by the public servants to me as Minister concerning this contract. The proposal was put to Treasury Board for approval and such approval was given. The result was the awarding of a contract to Brodilaf because it represented the best deal in the circumstances.


ALLEGED PRIVILEGED KNOWLEDGE OF CERTAIN FACTS
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary with some more facts for the Minister and the Prime Minister. I have here a document which originates from the office of the Hon. Member for Drummond, dated May 7, 1986, in which he refers to a meeting with Public Works and his scrutiny of studies prepared by their ofFicials. How can the Minister justify a Conservative Member having access to such documents four months before the Final decision and the signing of the contract? How can the Government claim everything was above board when there was this kind of political interference?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no knowledge of what documents any Member of this House had relative to this contract. I can say that the contract was awarded on the basis of the principles governing awards of contracts. It was for best value and it received Treasury Board approval. I have reviewed the File and am thoroughly persuaded that the appropriate course of action was followed.

THE ADMINISTRATION	THE ADMINISTRATION
BRODILAF-HAMA AFFAIR-NEED FOR INQUIRY	GOVERNMENT INTEGRITY


Jean-C. Lapierre: made it perfectly clear that they are getting sick and tired of the revelations every day of new scandals and corruption in the Government. I am tired of it-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Riis:: -and my colleagues are tired of it.
What concrete steps does the Government plan to take to begin the very difficult process of building credibility and public confidence in the integrity of the Government?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would think that the public are getting a little sick and tired of repeated questions. That question was put by the Hon. Member yesterday and his Leader asked precisely the same question the day before. I would invite him to read Hansard in case he has not done so.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MAKE STATEMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the Deputy Prime Minister does not one day say enough is enough, let us put history behind us and say we are going to turn over with a new leaf by setting an example of a positive approach in this House.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister of Canada, when he returns to the House, to stand in his place, and make a comprehensive statement outlining the precise steps that he and the Government plan to take to begin the slow process of building confidence in the Government?


An Hon. Member:: Eliminate the Opposition.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised at the Hon. Member who has distinguished himself in this House for a number of years as a fair-minded individual. I think if the Member really thought about his question he would simply ask himself whether it is fair, day in and day out, to hurl across the floor of the House unsubstantiated allegations, to take part in character assassination and innuendo such as we have witnessed-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Documented.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and contribute to a very poisonous environment. Where there has been clear evidence of any apparent appearance of conflict or wrongdoing, action has been taken by the Government. So far all we have had are a number of unsubstantiated allegations, with a different version emanating from the Opposition day by day. Every day a new story, a new revelation, and a new version.
Oral Questions THE ADMINISTRATION


DRUMMONDVILLE CONTRACT-AMOUNT OF TENDERS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and it concerns the Drummondville Public Works contract.
Yesterday in the House of Commons the Minister said, as reported in Hansard:
I should make it clear for all Members of the House that the Brodilaf group made the lowest tender-
How can the Minister reconcile his statement of yesterday with that of his Chief of Staff, Ron Lefebvre, who is reported in today's press as having said that the other bid, the Hama bid, was $65,000 cheaper? Whose version is correct, and why is there such a contradiction?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I indicated that the Brodilaf group made the lowest tender and the amount of its tender was $2,500 lower than the Hama group. But the Department said, as is the course and custom governing contracts of this kind, that it had to factor in the costs of moving from the Hama building to the new premises. Those additional costs had to be considered. Then we had to look at what was the real value for the Government-


An Hon. Member:: Tory value.


Stewart Donald McInnes: -what value the Government was going to get, and after all those matters were taken into consideration we made a decision.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INSTITUTE PUBLIC INQUIRY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the kind of answer that makes Opposition Members ask some very serious questions about this matter. Considering the veil of mystery that shrouds this affair, considering the contradictory statements made by the Minister and his assistants, by other Ministers, by a Member involved in this matter and by everybody else, is the Minister, once' and for all, prepared to table in the House all the documents related to this matter, including the Public Works documentation? Finally, is he or is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to order a public inquiry into this whole affair so that Canadians will know who is telling the truth?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, three days ago the Hon. Member asked me that question. Three days ago I indicated that if he wanted any information relative to this file that I would gladly make it available to him. The invitation still stands and I am prepared to defend any decision relative to the awarding of this contract.


Mr. Rossi:: Table the documents.

February 11, 1987
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Post Office. Canadians want to know whether we have received from the Prime Minister not only a new Minister for the Post Office but also a new policy. Is the Minister now prepared to set aside the deadline of 1988 for financial self-sufficiency at the Post Office in the interests of good service, and is he ready now to put a stop to the plans of the Post Office to close hundreds of rural post offices?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, let me-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: I would find those congratulations more sincere, Mr. Speaker, if Members would not giggle.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: It is the kiss of death.


Harvie Andre: The Prime Minister has, indeed, given me a mandate to ensure that the progress made in the Post Office over the last few years is carried on, that we address the concerns of Canadians about the service they are receiving and that we do it in a responsible way. We cannot keep asking taxpayers, especially future taxpayers when we are in this deficit situation, to subsidize the cost of delivering the mail today. As I have indicated publicly, service is the first priority of the Government.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: A new beginning.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister on acknowledging that service must be the first priority at the Post Office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CORPORATION'S PLANS
Cyril Keeper: Does the Minister recognize, as was said yesterday, to clear up problems at the Post Office left by Michel C6te that we require-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that in this place we refer to Ministers as the Hon. Minister. Would the Hon. Member please put his question?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I was just quoting what the Minister said yesterday.
I just want to know whether he is prepared to acknowledge that in order to clear up the mess we require a change in the plans of the Post Office, and not just another pretty face in charge?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it has been a lot of years since I have been called pretty.
I must take exception to the comments made by the Hon. Member about my predecessor who did outstanding work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: I think it is necessary that all Members recognize that we have a responsibility to ensure that the public gets reasonable service at an appropriate cost, and that the Post Office is run as efficiently and effectively as possible. Great progress has been made in the last two or three years through increased efficiency and lowering the relative cost of delivering letters. I hope we will all be able to co-operate and see that this progress continues and that people get the best service possible as cheaply as possible. I repeat, we cannot keep asking future generations to pay for the cost of delivering our mail today.


SUPERMAILBOXES-REQUEST FOR ABANDONMENT
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. I want to extend my congratulations on his appointment and wish him good luck.
He said yesterday in an interview that postal services are more important than the reduction of deficits. In view of that statement would the Minister immediately abandon the new plan, deliver the mail door-to-door, and scrap the supermailboxes?


Harvie Andre: I thank the Hon. Member for his expression of good luck. I will need a lot of that, looking back on the political success of past Ministers responsible for the Post Office.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: I was looking at the other side of the House.
Over the years the Post Office had reached a deplorable state. I think considerable progress has been made in the last few years and we want it to continue. There is more to be done.
It requires the co-operation of all of us here who are, in the end, answerable to both the clients and the owners of the Post Office, the Canadian public. We cannot, for short-term political gains or headlines, make demands without taking into account the costs and consequences. I repeat: can we keep asking future generations to pick up the cost of delivering the mail today?
February 11, 1987


RETENTION OF RURAL POST OFFICES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, one might say the more things change, the more they remain the same.
In the same interview the Minister also said that rural postal services would not be reduced.
Can the new Minister unequivocally guarantee that rural post offices as they now exist will not be closed down?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as my predecessor indicated, changes will be made from time to time because of changing demographics, changing patterns and so on. Those changes will be made taking account of the interests of, and in consultation with, the people involved. I think it is very reactionary and wrong to make a demand that absolutely nothing ever change in the way things are done. To bring about improvements requires change. We will do it in a sensitive way which reasonable people can understand, appreciate, and support. That is particularly true in rural Canada.


TARIFFS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Has he given any further thought to the severe economic repercussions which will accrue to the substantial Christmas tree industry of regionally depressed Atlantic Canada if the Americans retaliate against his ill-conceived decision to impose a tariff on the puny number of trees moving from that country to this? What is he doing to ensure that will not happen?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. As he is very much aware, we have had a number of meetings with people from the Christmas tree industry, some of them from his province. We have explained what we are trying to do in the action we have taken. I think we are meeting with a good deal of success in achieving our objectives.


POTASH-UNITED STATES INDUSTRY'S ANTI-DUMPING POSITION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a serious question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
Yesterday the U.S. potash industry filed an anti-dumping petition against the Canadian potash exporters. The case is based on figures from the U.S. Bureau of Mines on the cost of production in Canada. In light of what happened with shakes and shingles and softwood, and since we have known about the potash threat for some weeks, can the Minister specifically tell the House what action the Government has taken to date in this case which is very important to Canada, and what action will it now be taking to protect jobs in the potash industry, an industry which is important to Canada and vital to Saskatchewan?
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for international trade I might comment on that. We were informed last night about the petition. It is no surprise. Senator Domenici of New Mexico has been threatening this for a long time. We expect to receive a copy of the petition very shortly and we will work as closely as we can to try to help the industry fight that anti-dumping petition.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the Deputy Prime Minister specifically what action we will take to fight that petition. In light of the controversy over the export tax on softwood lumber can he assure the House there will be no export tax imposed on Canadian potash producers? Will the Government get off its knees and stand up for Canada and this very important industry?
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, what has happened is just another indication of rampant protectionism in the United States. We indicated to the industry that we would be helping in any way we can. Consultations have already begun and we will take the necessary action to protect our industry.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the two Ministers responsible for immigration I will address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. It relates to the firing of John Quigley, an immigration officer in Toronto, after he conferred with a number of Members of Parliament. In his letter of dismissal the Deputy Minister of Immigration writes that one of the reasons for the firing was that "these actions contributed directly to the media attention and political controversy which ensued and which brought into public question the integrity of the Minister."
How can the Government condone the termination of this individual's livelihood in an effort to hide embarrassing

February 11, 1987
Oral Questions
information from the public? Why was this person fired when his information convinced the Government to revise its refugee procedures? How can he be fired for being right?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I can tell the Hon. Member that, under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, Mr. Quigley has the right to present a grievance against the Deputy Minister's decision. My understanding is that he is exercising that right. I am advised that a grievance will be heard later this week or early next week. I think in the circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail.


EXERCISE OF MINISTERIAL AUTHORITY-REQUEST FOR OFFICER'S REINSTATEMENT
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that Mr. Quigley is but the first victim of an investigative witch-hunt in that Department aimed at intimidating officials and certain members of the media. Will the Deputy Prime Minister not admit that the firing of this individual, who was cited by the Department as being one of the most effective officers in the Toronto branch, was a flagrant abuse of ministerial authority? Will he not do the honourable and moral thing and reinstate Mr. Quigley immediately?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, without accepting in any way the very serious allegations which the Hon. Member is implying in his question, I will simply repeat that there is a procedure in place. That procedure is very clear. He has exercised his rights under that and it would be inappropriate for me to comment while that procedure is ongoing.


REVENUE CANADA
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. He will be aware of concern expressed, particularly in Winnipeg in the last week or so, about plans which his Department had to contract out confidential word processing work from the tax data centres. Will the Minister confirm subsequent reports that this plan has now been abandoned by the Government? Will he confirm for the House that the Government no longer intends to carry out such a foolish notion?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I can in fact confirm what the Hon. Member has just suggested. In fairness I would point out that this was a
study which was contemplated to improve cost efficiency and service. It did not have implications for either security or job security as many people feared it had.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill for a short supplementary question.


DEPARTMENT'S SECURITY MEASURES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister and the Department show the same sensitivity for employee concerns with regard to the Department's plans for new security measures wherein they are contemplating widespread fingerprinting, credit checks, et cetera, of employees? Will the Minister undertake not to do anything unless mutual agreement can be reached between the Department and the union involved in this matter?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague realizes that our Department and other government Departments are sensitive to the concerns of their employees. At the same time we must achieve a balance. The Member will remember that there were some concerns expressed recently about the adequacy of security procedures. We will try to strike a fair balance and keep in mind the sensitivities of the employees.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-CULTURAL INDUSTRIES
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. As the Minister probably knows, Mr. Clayton Yeutter, the Chief U.S. trade representative, availed himself of a Canadian cultural institution this morning to say once again that he believes that Canadian cultural industries should be on the negotiating table if they have an economic impact.
Is the Government prepared to spend some of the money in its $12 million slush fund for trade information to buy some stamps and send a letter to Mr. Yeutter explaining that our broadcasters, publishers, and distributors are an essential part of our cultural industries and are not open to negotiation?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister made our position on that matter eminently clear in his reply to the House the other day when he said it was very inappropriate for Mr. Yeutter to have made those remarks. We have made our position very clear. I am sorry that the Hon. Member still does not understand it.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for a short supplementary question.
February 11, 1987


CANADIAN POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is not my understanding that is at issue, it is the fact that Mr. Yeutter has stated clearly that he wants the Canadian Government to define what it means by culture and clarify its position at the negotiating table. Is it not essential when negotiating a free trade deal that your counterpart at the table understands your purposes and position? When is the Government going to clarify its position so that Mr. Yeutter can clarify his ignorance?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications assures me that when she completes her information paper on communications and culture she will send the Member the first copy.


CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CANADA
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. On September 12, 1986, Correctional Services Canada signed a contract with Exodus Link Corporation to supervise 50 to 80 parolees in a privatized parole supervision facility in Parkdale, without prior consultation with the community or its elected representatives.
In view of the over-saturation of social assistance and rehabilitation facilities in the area, will the Minister respond to the representations of the community and terminate Exodus Link funding until a more suitable location is found outside the boundaries of Parkdale-High Park?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member well knows, as I have explained it to him on a number of occasions, the contract with Correctional Services Canada was for services only. The site selection was the responsibility of Exodus Link as determined by the City of Toronto zoning by-laws. However, notwithstanding that, as a result of the concerns expressed by the citizens in his riding, I took the initiative and reduced by 40 per cent the number of parolees who would be attending at that particular location in his riding.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Surely the
Oral Questions
Minister is aware of the fact that the maintenance workers of "La Cite de Montreal Apartments" have lost their jobs after these buildings were sold to private interests. Will the Minister rectify the injustice done to these workers?


Hon. Pierre Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this case, for I received Mr. Laberge's telex yesterday. We are now examining the situation because legal matters are involved in this case, but I can assure my colleague that I expect to propose solutions in the near future.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). One question, please.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: In
the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I have already asked a similar question and I hope to have an answer today. It has to do with the regulations and the Bill concerning repayments to the 35,000 Canadian early retirees. Can the Minister tell us whether legislation will be introduced very soon, before the 35,000 early retirees get this odious questionnaire? Secondly, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the Minister of Employment and Immigration or a Government official would accept to meet the representatives of Canada's early retirees who will be here tomorrow to explain their position?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the Hon. Member's question on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I will convey the information to him.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Drummond for the last question.


INCOME TAX
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. According to statistics released recently by Revenue Canada, 1,830 Canadians with annual incomes exceeding $100,000 did not pay

February 11, 1987
Tabling of Documents
income tax. Does the Minister intend to put an end to situations that create tax privileges and amend the Income Tax Act accordingly, so that all Canadians will be on an equal footing and contribute their fair share?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is the real reason for the tax reform I intend to announce shortly. It is also why I introduced the minimum tax a year ago. And it is also the reason why this Government has made so many changes in our tax legislation during the past two years.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation}

Mr. Speaker:: I draw to the attention of Hon. Members that it is my duty pursuant to Section 9 of the Representation Act, 1985, Chapter 8, Statutes of Canada, 1986, to lay upon the table a certified copy of the 1987 report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Alberta.
Pursuant to the Act, this report is deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, regarding the Quigley affair, I think this is a violation of the integrity of Members in their role as parliamentarians. If it is true that on Friday, February 6, Mr. Lussier, Deputy Minister at Employment and Immigration, fired Mr. Quigley because he had informed members of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration with respect to existing procedures, it is an act that casts doubts on the integrity of the members of this committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has the floor on a question of privilege, and I would ask Hon. Members to remain silent.


Fernand Jourdenais: Consequently, I want to ask the Chair to determine whether Mr. Lussier, the Deputy Minister, has infringed Members' privileges, and I strongly suggest that the matter be referred to a special committee of the House so that we can obtain further clarification.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the remarks made by my hon. friend. One of our responsibilities in this chamber is to the public that elects us, whether it is our constituents or Canadians generally. The ultimate master of this chamber and the bureaucracy is the Canadian public. If Members of Parliament cannot discharge their responsibilities for fear of some negative repercussions, as resulted in the case of Mr. Quigley who is losing his job and being forced onto the unemployment rolls, I humbly submit that that is definitely an infringement on the rights of Members of Parliament. The withholding of information that is valuable and necessary for the Canadian public contradicts the very reason why we are here.
I echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. friend and I hope Your Honour will deliberate on this matter very seriously and render a decision so that we can perhaps have a clear indication of how the Speaker and the House feel about this issue which goes to the very heart of representation in a democratic institution.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a circumstance that I hope you will take into consideration. It is that the two Members of Parliament who allegedly conversed with Mr. Quigley were at the time members of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. Therefore, we should take into account that Mr. Quigley was considering that he was giving relevant information to members of that committee who were concerned with the Department which he served. He was not spreading information far and wide, but speaking to those Members of Parliament who were specifically concerned with his activities. I hope that will be considered by Your Honour because it certainly affects the availability of relevant information to members of the committee.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that Mr. Quigley was dismissed as a result of allegedly divulging information to the Opposition. The grievance procedure has commenced. It is my submission that the privileges of Members of Parliament are affected because, as you know, there are a number of steps in the grievance procedure. In order for the Government to make its case, or in order for Mr. Quigley to provide a full and complete defence, the evidence of Members of Parliament may be necessary before the grievance committee. I believe it is a breach of our privileges and would affect the workings of Members of Parliament if we are required, either by the Government or by the person with a grievance, to give evidence before a particular grievance committee.
I think it is clear, based on the evidence we have, that the decision to fire Mr. Quigley was not an administrative decision by the Deputy Minister or the Assitant Deputy Minister, but a decision that came from the Minister himself and from the Government. The reason for that dismissal was that Mr. February 11, 1987

Quigley embarrassed the Government in a political way. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) pointed out, as a result of the public service that Mr. Quigley provided to the people of Canada, the system was reformed and made better.
We call into question the reason why Mr. Quigley was fired and ask you to consider the ramifications of this particular case on individual Members of Parliament being required to appear before a grievance committee.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it states at page 67 of Erskine May Parliamentary Practice, Nineteenth Edition:
The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers"(c). They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its Members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
I respectfully submit that if Members of Parliament are impeded in any way from raising issues in the House for fear that those who have, for good reason, given that information to Members of the House would be threatened with dismissal for reporting matters which are wrong, to those who are elected to govern in this country, then parliamentary privileges of this House could have been breached by the action taken by the Deputy Minister, and perhaps the Minister in this particular case.
I hope you will take the time to examine the situation and report to the House whether there is a prima facie case of breach of privileges of the House, as I believe there is, as a result of the action of Mr. Lussier against this employee of the civil service.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I enter into this debate with some hesitation because I think it is very important that Mr. Quigley be able to exercise all of his rights as a former employee of the Government. It is my understanding that he has exercised his right to present a grievance against the Deputy Minister's decision. I suggest, therefore, that it would be very inappropriate for the Government to comment at length at this time.
I suggest that you examine whether or not the rights and privileges of a Member of the House have been breached which, after all, is the purpose of the privilege grievance. As far as we are concerned, we do not believe there has been any breach of the Member's privilege.
Considering that a grievance has been lodged by the said employee, we do not wish to comment any further at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I think a matter of some importance has been brought to the attention of the Chair by the Hon. Member for LaPrairie (Mr. Jourdenais), the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) and the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Petitions
Boudria). Under the circumstances, I think it would be appropriate if the Chair looked carefully at the representations that have been made.
Of course, the Chair is cognizant of the caveat put forward by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary which was also expressed by the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) during Question Period, that the employee who forms the basis of this question of privilege is presently going through a grievance process. However, it should be noted by the House that the representations made in this particular matter cross party lines most definitely and there is obviously a strong sense of unanimity among Members from different Parties that this is a matter of some considerable concern to the chamber. The Chair will treat it as such and will report back in due course.
* *
*


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I admit once again to being involved in other things, but did my hon. colleague's question of privilege not come up immediately after the tabling of the electoral report for the Province of Alberta? If it did, have we passed by Tabling of Documents?


Mr. Speaker:: It may not have been clear to all Hon. Members. The Chair called Tabling of Documents and then recognized the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), but I am sure it would be the disposition of the House to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to go back to Tabling of Documents if he has documents. I do not see any objection to that.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have none. I just wanted to determine exactly where we were in the Routine Proceedings. Thank you.


Mr. Speaker:: We have been through Statements by Ministers, Presenting Reports from Interparliamentary Delegations and Presenting Reports from Committees.




Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions which all deal with the same subject matter. They have been approved pursuant to Standing Order 106. These petitions are from residents of such places as Regina, Saskatchewan, Toronto, Ontario, Manitoba,Alberta and British Columbia. There are several hundred names in all. The petitioners state that the federal Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely

February 11, 1987
Questions on the Order Paper
restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, again I have the duty and privilege of presenting petitions signed by about 1,000 constituents of the Ottawa region and elsewhere, visitors to the national capital, who want to utilize their right to present their grievance to this House, namely that the decision to close Rideau Hall grounds was made by the National Capital Commission, the Department of Public Works, the RCMP and the office of the Governor General without prior notice. The closure of this attractive and tranquil park affects thousands of visitors to the capital from across the country who want to have access to Rideau Hall, a unique institution, as a symbol of the trust, openness and democracy of which Canadians are so justly proud, and residents from the entire national capital region who have used and enjoyed the grounds of Rideau Hall and who, while recognizing the security concerns that prompted the closure decision, cannot accept a blanket closure of the 120-acre park to public access.
Wherefore the undersigned petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to reconsider this decision by consulting a group of citizens representing the large and growing opposition in order that a modus vivendi be created that would satisfy both the Government and the public.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present, under Standing Order 106, a petition signed by a number of western Canadians who are very concerned that the federal Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy the necessary prescription drugs. They believe the proposed measure will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. The petitioners feel the proposals of the federal Government will result in higher costs to various provincial government drug plans as well. Therefore, the petitioners simply call upon the Government to reject the proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the duty to present to the House a petition signed by many of my constituents and others from a number of other ridings. The petition relates to the Canada Post operational plan which, of course, has been strongly denounced.
The petitioners maintain that the new Post Canada operational plan creates two classes of citizens as a result of the installation of permanent superboxes in both urban and rural areas, that the closure of rural post offices deprive citizens from a unique federal presence, and reduces postal services in rural areas. Finally, the increase in postal rates creates a prejudice.
All petitioners humbly call upon this House to urge Canada Post management to withdraw their operational plan so as to guarantee rural postal services, which are essential.
I have another petition concerning the same issue and it has been signed by at least fifty Canadian taxpayers who again strongly denounce the Canada Post operational plan because it is prejucial to many people, particularly those who live in small rural communities.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, another petition signed by Canadian taxpayers from Laval-des-Rapides who also strongly denounce the Government's initiative aimed at closing down a number of post offices and reducing services.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions I would like to table today, both of which have been certified correct under Standing Order 106. The first petition is actually in two parts. It is from the residents of the community of Thunder Bay as well as Kakabeka Falls and Toronto and Willowdale. The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the proposals regarding the prescription drug Act and to ask the Government to change its mind with regard to that legislation.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the second petition was forwarded to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). The petition is in respect to the whole question of deregulation of the transport industry in Canada. I am particularly referring to Bill C-18. The petitioners are asking that it be withdrawn and that public convenience and necessity remain as a fundamental factor in the development of transportation policy in this country.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 11, 1987


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport; and the motion of Mr. Lewis (p. 3220).
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite delighted to rise and speak in this debate. The Bill that we are studying is Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings. Significantly enough Bill C-19 will replace the Motor Vehicle Transport Act of 1953-54.
I spoke on Bill C-18 just one week ago. I thought that the Government would have learned from that debate that there are many things wrong with deregulation. During that debate many concerns were raised with respect to safety. Concerns were also raised with respect to corporate concentration and foreign investment. Instead of having learned its lesson the Government has decided to go right ahead and do the same thing in the trucking industry. I think that is highly regrettable.
This Bill will impact on all the people of Canada, not just the Conservative government ideology which is frozen in the mentality that private is best. I strongly urge the Government to rethink this particular piece of legislation. It has taken similar steps with respect to Teleglobe. It should look at issues that are good for Canada, issues which are not necessarily confined to the private sector.
This is a vital and key industry to Canada. I would like to give Hon. Members an example of just how vital the trucking industry is to our country and to our Gross National Product. It is a constantly growing industry. It generates over 70 per cent of total service revenue. The for-hire segment of the industry contributes over $6 billion annually to our Gross
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
National Product. The industry pays salaries to over 90,000 men and women who work in the trucking industry. As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in his speech, which was so well prepared by the Ministry, there are between 200,000 and 250,000 people who are involved in spinoffs of this industry. As can be well seen, it is a big industry which touches the lives of many people.
I suggest that every Member of the House has constituents in his or her riding who are touched by every aspect of this Bill. Therefore it is essential that they stand up and speak about what concerns their constituents. Truckers in my riding have spoken to me with respect to this measure, just as people from the railways and airlines came to me to discuss their concerns. Their concerns need to be addressed. If we are to be fair and open spokesmen on their behalf, then we should bring their concerns to the attention of the House.
The meaningfulness of the industry is ignored as a result of the Government's motion which is now before us with respect to the question now being put. That would curtail the debate, something which I think is regressive and repressive. It is an unfortunate circumstance when we are faced with a motion which would muzzle the Members of this House who are supposed to have the right to intervene and speak up and be heard under the provisions of the new rules.
I suggest to Hon. Members that if they stay quiet with respect to this matter they will be counted on the negative side of the ledger. I remind Hon. Members that debating Bills in committee is not enough. In committees we deal with the nitty-gritty. But members of the Government have blocked ears with respect to proposals for amendments which members of the Opposition bring forward. They are nothing but a bunch of sheep who wag their tails and say yes to whatever the Minister wants. That is very sad, but that has been my experience when sitting in at committee hearings. I suggest that this House is the place where people who have concerns about the trucking industry should be expressing them.
Since 1984 regulations concerning the trucking industry have come under the jurisdiction of provincial Governments. There are different regulations in different provinces. There are different requirements with respect to entry for routes, for commodities and for safety precautions.
By way of example let us consider the problems with respect to safety. It is an area in which none of us wishes to compromise. It could be our children, our parents or ourselves who get hurt as a result of a lack of national safety standards. It is unfortunate that there is no clarity and no comprehensive legislation to cover the national safety code which we need. There is a definite and distinct connection between motor carrier deregulation and highway safety. I believe most Members of the House feel as I do, that there can be no compromise with respect to the issue of highway safety and that verbal commitments are just that, verbal commitments. They are not committed to law and they do not have the force of law.

February 11, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
I would now like to refer to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary as reported at page 3153 of Hansard. He stated:
The Bill also provides for further federal-provincial agreements, including the definition of the fitness test and a uniform national safety code.
He went on to state:
-I believe we have learned a great deal from the U.S. experience with the deregulation of the trucking industry. We have looked at what has worked well, what has not, and considered the profound differences between the two countries. We now have a truly made-in-Canada policy for our trucking industry.
He goes on in his remarks to illustrate how we have become sensitive to the need for the economic deregulation of trucking, to be followed by a reform of safety regulations, which was the American way. He stated:
-we intend to do quite the opposite because we believe that safety of the transportation system is the number one priority of truckers and all Canadians. The Minister has stated this on many occasions. Consequently, a uniform national safety code has been developed and approved in consultation with the provinces and the trucking industry. This code will be the cornerstone of the new fitness test. The other elements of that test will be insurance and bonding requirements.
I find the Hon. Member's remarks extremely interesting. [Translation]
I received a letter from Executive Vice President Jacques Alary of the Trucking Association of Quebec Inc. in which he tells me:


Sheila Finestone: Federal Minister of Transport John Crosbie met with his provincial colleagues in Toronto last October 2. The purpose of their meeting was to decide the future of transport regulations. Our provincial Minister of Transport, Mr. Marc-Yvan C6te, understood and defended the approach recommended by the Trucking Association of Quebec in this case. It is to shun deregulation unless a coherent policy has been implemented and includes:
1.	An enforced and enforceable standard highway safety code-

The letter is dated October 9, 1986, and there is still not a national security system or code in operation.
I would now ask Hon. Members to consider a meeting which took place during the week of February 6, 1987, in Victoria. This was a meeting of the Safety Committee of the provinces. It is interesting to note that the provinces seem to be all over the lot with respect to what the costs will be in terms of implementing a national safety code. Most of them do not wish to become involved with the regulations concerning hours of work which are intimately related to safety. If one drives 22 hours a day and sleeps only two hours, one cannot be a safe driver the next day. There is no uniform national vehicle inspection code. Hon. Members will know from the use of their own cars how important it is to maintain a vehicle.
What is not understood by the Government is that there has been a verbal commitment to a national safety code but no action has been taken. Ottawa has little juridical clout which it can use because this matter falls into an area of joint jurisdiction. Until a national safety code is in place it is reprehensible to even consider moving into this area.
I have a copy of an interesting study conducted by Dr. Glaskowsky on the effects of deregulation of motor carriers in the United States. This gentleman is a Professor of Management and Logistics at the School of Business Administration, University of Miami. He has much to say about safety, and I wish to mention a couple of his concerns.
On page 29 of his book he describes what the trucking industry is all about. For the listeners out there, many of us do not appreciate the type of life that truckers face, and the type of stress under which they live. It is not only the small individual trucks that are seen in your ridings in major cities or in small towns, we are also talking about national transportation, and major truckers. My grandchildren used to say, "Gee, grandmother, how many wheels has that one got?" The life of that trucker is very difficult. He is on the road away from home most of the time. There are women who are driving trucks these days. Drivers have to handle a 40 ton tractor-trailer rig in all types of traffic, weather, and roads. Meals are catch-as-catch-can; sleeping accommodations are either "up in the box" in the sleeper cab of the truck, or in a less than plush motel bed on the highway. Over-the-road driving is a very tough life. Those who have not experienced it should be very careful in their assessment of whether the wages are just, and what type of lifestyle it is. In contrasting the life of the trucker with that of the airline pilot or the train operator, the truckers' lives are very difficult.
It may be interesting to take a further look at the situation of safety deterioration as a result of the potential deregulation and increased competition in this field. There is trouble with regard to safety.
Over-the-road tractors in heavy use are driven about 2,000 miles a week, or 100,000 miles a year. In the history of this industry they have a life expectancy of about five years, with a major engine overhaul at the end of three years, giving them an additional life of two years or 200,000 miles operating life. At that point they are generally junked. The "junk it or use it" choice for aging large diesel tractors is today a Hobson's choice with respect to many carriers. Depending on the model, a new over-the-road tractor today costs over $80,000 U.S. That is a large investment. If some spare tires are thrown in, and you have a few trucks, this comes close to a million dollars. A motor carrier strapped for cash in an intensely competitive deregulated milieu or environment, looks for alternatives and ways to cut corners. That is not in our interest. If there are no national safety standards in place, we will have a great deal of trouble.
Pressures are growing for tighter and tighter administration, inspection, and enforcement of safety regulations in the United States. The Parliamentary Secretary who read from notes from the Department of Transport said that they had learned from the American experience. I would suggest that he goe back and look more closely at what is the American experience. Inspection and enforcement is costly. It will certainly cost millions of dollars to have the type of skilled inspectors we
February 11, 1987

will need for the increased numbers of small truckers to make sure that we have safe trucks on the highways under conditions that would be found acceptable. Where transportation operations are concerned, safety does cost money. Corners are being cut by financially strapped carriers, and accident rates are rising. In the United States that was a clearly foreseeable consequence, and one that we should take careful note of before we move into this field, helter-skelter, without giving careful reconsideration to the whole content of this Bill and its thrust. I am not saying that deregulation is bad. I am saying that we must have in place the proper standards of safety before we move. As yet, those are not in place.
According to the study that was done in Miami, highway safety is deteriorating. The motor carrier accident rate per million miles is rising. Equipment is getting older, as many carrier fleets age, and equipment replacement has become financially difficult for many of these carriers. Maintenance is necessarily deferred or skimped by financially strapped carriers. Over-all, many mature more experienced and more highly paid union drivers have been replaced by younger less experienced and lower paid non-union drivers. One symptom of this is the current clamour for a comprehensive national truck driver licensing and record maintenance system in the United States. What has been done here?
Another aspect of safety is the combined overloading and "speeding syndrome" that is clearly associated with this competitive milieu. Deferred maintenance, overloading, and speeding are not new phenomena in the motor carrier industry. It is an offence against common sense to claim that the extremely competitive pressures that will be brought about by deregulation will not result in some operators cutting corners where there is clear though improper, and in some cases illegal opportunity to reduce costs accompanied by a felt need to do so in order to survive. The wish to survive is the strongest of all human instincts. Whether it is personal survival or business survival it has to be taken into account.
The pressure for safe motor carrier operations on the road is less than perhaps it is in respect of air, ocean, or rail transport. But there is no denying that a bad truck accident is serious to the family of the individuals who are impacted upon. It does not matter if it is one person, 100 persons, or 1,200 persons who have been hurt because of poor standards that we are prepared to adopt in a badly perceived procedure toward the Bill.
With respect to the whole safety standard, I have an ongoing and abiding concern that I have tried to express in the House. I strongly recommend that this Bill not be brought to committee until the whole area of national safety standards has been determined, until there is resolution to provincial and federal jurisdiction, and until we know what the content of the national safety standards will be.
I wish to bring to your attention that California is presently re-regulating the deregulated trucking industry. I have an article here with the heading, "California re-regulation: Start of a trend?". Is it the start of a trend? The main reason cited
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
for re-regulating the golden state's trucking industry is that it is a source of concern, and the source of the concern is safety. In spite of continued, strenuous efforts by deregulation advocates, who argue that there is no real connection between economic deregulation and highway safety, California's actions which began in 1986 could be an early indication that it is just not working, and people are concerned. I can only say that I am concerned about the National Safety Code.
I would like to have address the whole area of foreign ownership and corporate concentration and the issues behind it. I think the American experience has something to tell us in that regard as well. Certainly I would like to have a look at the reverse onus of responsibility, which is a divesting of our responsibility. I strongly urge the Government to stop the Bill now and to do its homework. Then it could bring in some normal and proper procedures for the health and safety of the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: On questions and comments, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus).


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, you look good there, by the way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iain Francis Angus: Could the Hon. Member take a few moments in this question and answer period to give us an indication of how she feels the Bill relates to foreign control of our trucking industries by other countries, particularly the United States? Does she feel that there will be any impact upon our cultural sovereignty because of this move?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Hon. Member raised that issue because the Bill has absolutely no provisions for the setting of any limitation on foreign takeovers of Canadian transportation companies.


Don Boudria: It is unbelievable.


Sheila Finestone: It is unbelievable. The only guidelines are these. All mergers and takeovers over $20 million and over 10 per cent of the voting shares of a Canadian transportation firm will be reviewed by the Governor in Council. All those below those set ceilings will be reviewed in the normal procedure by Investment Canada. The guiding principle in this section is that all investments which have been found or deemed to have been found likely to be of net benefit to Canada will be approved. The major difficulty is that it leaves the acquisitions of over $20 million of foreign investors at the discretion of the Governor in Council.
Unfortunately we have been subjected to a large series of unpleasant events which perhaps allow for meddling and muddling in the affairs of Government. If we can close any loophole and not allow any Minister of the Crown any kind of opportunity to misuse his power, it would be in the best

February 11, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
interests of everyone in the House, regardless of which Party is in power. I do not like the idea of leaving that loophole, that there should be this kind of discretion, because there is a potential for patronage and ideology to become very important players in this vital sector of the Canadian economy. My Party and I find it totally unacceptable.
We have supposedly learned a lesson from the United States. Twenty-five per cent is its limitation on foreign ownership of American transportation companies. That is firmly in place. Could we not at least do that within our own Canadian perspective? Do we have no pride of self and no place to allow us to grow as Canadians in our own industry and on our own sovereign ground? It is becoming a little disgraceful.
There is potential for access saturation by American trucks into our country and very little legislation to stop that access. I thank the Hon. Member for asking his question because it is very serious and one of great concern.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the dignity which you bring to the chair. I can only describe the Hon. Member's presentation as excellent. She outlined the critical concerns about the legislation before the House. The Hon. Member will be aware that the legislation does not change a very peculiar situation which exists. When American bus lines come from the United States into Canada and their bus drivers are American citizens, they can drive to Chicoutimi, Banff, Calgary, or wherever. That is fine and probably as it should be. However, the Hon. Member will know that when Canadian bus companies with Canadian drivers go to the United States, they must stop at the border and take on American bus drivers to drive in the United States. Is it not rather one-sided; the Americans gain all and we gain nothing? Does that seem to reflect the general nature of the legislation about which she articulated this afternoon?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for that question. It seemed to me that the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that there was no change in the new Bill in respect of bus transportation. However, that was no answer. Essentially, if they have been allowed total access and freedom in the territory of our sovereign country, that is fine, but we should have equal access and equal rights.
The problem with the Government is that it has forgotten that we do not kneel down or play dead. We must stand and be counted when it comes to that kind of access.
While I am on my feet I should like to add, if I may, a serious concern, when we talk about foreign takeovers and corporate concentration, about which the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) asked earlier. My concern is best reflected in a study of industry concentration which should be a warning to us. I should like to refer to it, for the information of the House.
In 1978 in the United States, four of the largest interstate carriers had one-fifth of the market for freight. The 10 largest
had 39 per cent of the market, and the top 20 had 43 per cent. At that time the percentages already revealed a significant degree of economic concentration, considering that there were nearly 17,000 interstate motor common carriers of general freight in 1978.
Then came deregulation. What was its impact? By early 1985 the amount of interstate traffic carried by the four largest carriers had risen to 35 per cent. That was a 75 per cent increase over their previous 20 per cent share of the market. The 10 largest carriers had 60 per cent, which was a 70 per cent increase since 1978. The 20 largest had 67 per cent of the market, which was a 56 per cent increase since 1978.
The reason for these startling increases in concentration was that many carriers had to go out of business. They could not face the unfair competition and the cut-price rates which were being offered. There was just no ability for the others to survive. In addition, that is one of my concerns.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Kilgour), I should like to indicate that there is one minute remaining.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I may have erred yesterday. The reverse onus test will come into effect on January 1, 1988.


Sheila Finestone: That is no good.


David Kilgour: The fitness test will come into effect on January 1, 1991, a year after the safety code is in place.
Referring to the question raised by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) about bus drivers, I have been informed that it is an immigration matter. It varies with the company. For example, Voyageur has an arrangement where some of its drivers drive right into the United States. The drivers of other bus companies which have not made arrangements with Immigration Canada have to get off at the border.
I understand that it varies with the company and according to what arrangements they have with Immigration Canada.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary is new in his job, and I am fairly new to this dossier. He talked about reverse onus. I cannot help but respond with the following observation and a sense of caution, because I know he is a cautious man.
He said "I believe" and "as I understand it". He never once said that it was his opinion. It was always as he believed or as he understood. When he talks about reverse onus, whi-chremoves public convenience and necessity and replaces it with fit, willing and able, there is a great difference. First, one must prove the need to move into a territory and be competitive. The other is everybody for himself and dog eat dog, which leads to conflict with individual truckers, and we are in for real trouble. I think we must be very cautious before we move along that route.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to wrap up this part of the
February 11, 1987

proceedings, that is, the 20-minute maximum for speeches, by saying that I assume later today we will have a vote on the particular Bill.
What I want to do in the time available to me, because I have already had the opportunity to make the lead-off speeches, is to deal in a partial way with some of the reaction, comments and questions that have been raised during what has been a short debate on a very important piece of legislation. First, there is the suggestion that there will be unequal treatment between Canada and the U.S. We are opening up our border to the Americans but they are not doing the same for us. Let me quote from a piece of U.S. legislation:
(1)	Whenever the Secretary of Transportation determines that the government of any country contiguous to the United States, or any political subdivision or instrumentality of any such contiguous country, has engaged in unfair, discriminatory, or restrictive practices with a substantial adverse competitive impact upon United States motor carriers of property with respect to motor carrier transportation within such foreign country or political subdivision or between such foreign country and the United States, the Secretary shall seek elimination of such practices through consultations or other appropriate methods of representation.
(2)	Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when consultations or other methods of representation fail to result in the elimination of the unfair, discriminatory, or restrictive practices specified in paragraph (1), the Secretary may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the United States Trade Representative,-
We all know who that is:
-suspend, modify, amend, condition, or limit operations by motor carriers from such foreign country or political subdivision in interstate or foreign commerce within the United States, if the Secretary determines such action is in the national interest.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, that indicates that if the U.S. Government wished, and if it felt our truckers were taking undue advantage by getting more than what the Americans consider our fair share of the haulage, particularly the backhaul, they could move very quickly to prevent us from having that access. That is one thing I wanted to point out to Hon. Members who have suggested that we have an even playing field. Quite clearly it is not. It is another reason that we should not move forward with this legislation and why it is important that the Bill be sent to the Transport Committee, not just to deal with it in terms of the Bill itself but to re-examine the whole issue.
During the opening remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Kilgour) there was reference to a study, Cubukgil I believe is the name of it. That study confirms what the Canadian Trucking Association and what we have been saying all along. The Canadian trucking industry is highly competitive. The existing regulatory system has evolved to an open system, and rates and profit margins in trucking are as low as they can go without getting into destructive competition. In the meantime, Mr. Keith Thompson, who is the bureaucrat behind this, has been running around telling shipper groups how inefficient for-hire trucking is. It was certainly implied throughout Freedom to Move and ministerial statements that they had to deregulate to save
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
Canadian commerce because of the inefficiency of the transportation system. Having sold Freedom to Move on the basis that the regulated transport sector is inefficient, they now rely on the Cubukgil study to say that the trucking industry is so efficient and so competitive that it will not even notice deregulation and an open border. That is convenient, to say the least, but that does not stop the Parliamentary Secretary from jumping up periodically during the debate shouting "what about the shipper?" In terms of our ability to export et cetera he is trying to have it both ways.
On the question of the reverse onus test, we have said in this House that it is useless and goes well beyond the MOU with the provinces that we will have total deregulation as of January 1, 1988 and the so-called National Safety Code will not be in place for at least another two and probably three years, never mind whether it will be uniform or amount to a code. The assurances of the Parliamentary Secretary that we have learned from the American experience and will avoid the same pitfalls in safety is, in our opinion, quite meaningless.
The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 did not totally deregulate. It also contemplated a reverse onus test. However, that is not what happened because the ICC, Interstate Commerce Commission, lacked the will to use it and was swamped with applications by truckers desperately trying to protect their flanks by getting broad-based authority first, never mind new entrants. There is no reason to expect that the same thing will not happen here.
Another disconcerting note is that just a few weeks ago we were advised by a leading spokesman for the CITL that it had received assurances, from the same Mr. Thompson I spoke about earlier, that the reverse onus test language would not work and was only there because of the pressure from CTA and the MOU requirement.
As for the intervention of the chairman of the Committee on Transport claiming the committee was independent and under the new rules would bring in an objective report, let me add the following comments. The drafters of Bill C-127 and now Bill C-19 did not pay much attention to the standing committee's report on Freedom to Move with respect to the trucking aspect, let alone other areas. For example, the committee recommended strongly that there be something done with respect to international, and went so far as to suggest some sort of bilateral approach. Bill C-19 is silent on that, never mind that the former Minister of Transport had promised the CTA board the same thing. If the committee is independent, how can the Government dictate that it will not travel on such important legislation?
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, about specific reactions to comments from Hon. Members in this debate, and perhaps I will for a few moments.
Last spring while the Committee on Transport was still reviewing the general question of deregulation, a letter was sent to the chairman of the committee from an individual in Middleton, Nova Scotia. In the letter he refers to a study done

February 11, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
in the State of California, basically warning the chairman as follows, "I can tell you the general consensus you get here is a mirror image of what is already happening in many parts of this country with or without any more deregulation."
Let me read the excerpt from the California study:
A three year study by the California Public Utilities Commission on the condition of the state's general freight and motor carrier industry since the Motor Carrier Act, shows an increasingly over-aged infrastructure. As a consequence of rate-cutting, carriers are no longer able to maintain their equipment or replace it with new, more efficient equipment. Investment funds are no longer attracted to the industry making adequate financing scarce. Drivers are working longer hours and overloading their vehicles. Safety standards have declined and trucking related accidents are on the rise. As a result, the Commission concluded that regulation of carriers engaged in the transportation of general commodities remains in the public interest and is required to reduce or eliminate the destructive impact of rate-cutting.
That was contained in the supplement to the Ontario Trucking Update. We have been saying that all along, Mr. Speaker. We have been warning the Government and the people of Canada that deregulation is not the panacea that people would like to believe. It will not bring about a safer operating environment. Clearly the American experience shows the opposite is true. As we have many more companies in the field and we have that kind of cutthroat competition, looking for that extra nickel, we will see trucking companies stretching their resources to the limit, stretching their drivers to the limit and stretching the equipment to the limit. At some point something will break. Sometimes it will be the rig itself, sometimes the driver, but a lot of times it will be the people in the cars.
The foundation for traffic safety in a memo to the AAA Club executives/safety directors dated October 30, 1985 indicates the results of a study which it conducted. The report is on the foundation study of truck driver fatigue and highway accidents. This is post-deregulation. It says:
The long-awaited report on the shockingly high role of fatigue in big truck accidents is now complete and ready for national distribution. Copy of the report entitled, A Report on the Determination and Evaluation of the Role of Fatigue in Heavy Truck Accidents, is attached for your information.
Several highly significant findings appear in this report:
1.	60 per cent of 231 accidents studied involved fatigue
2.	Fatigue factor was shown to be 3 times greater than accident reports indicated
3.	39 of the 231 accidents studied involved fatalities-16 truck occupants and 33 occupants of other vehicles
More than twice as many, Mr. Speaker-the innocent. It continues:
4.	63 per cent of truck occupant fatalities occurred in fatigue-related accidents
5.	6.5 per cent of heavy truck drivers are estimated to be driving more than 16 consecutive hours (that's two eight-hour work shifts)
6.	1 out of every 3 truck drivers is driving beyond Federal Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety 10 hour per day recommendation.
One of every three is being pushed to his or her limit. That is the kind of environment the Government wants to inflict on the highways of Canada. It is being done in the name of free
enterprise and less Government, but quite frankly it results in less safety.
It is also being done in a way which will separate the big from the small and the strong from the weak. It will be the small shippers who will not get the big deals. It will be the smaller communities in the regions and hinterlands of this country who will not get the service. The Torontos, Montreals, and perhaps in some cases the Winnipegs and Vancouvers, will benefit, but only in a very narrow sense.
In the air industry we have gone from a multiplicity of carriers to little more than two, and the same thing will occur in the trucking industry. Ultimately the Vancouvers, Winnipegs, Torontos and Montreals will lose because there will be less competition with less rules. There will be nothing to protect the ordinary citizen, the smaller shipper and transporter, from the results of this Bill.
I call into question as well the manner in which the administration, I assume with the sanction of the Government, has handled this. I have a memo dated "1986 07 08" addressed to The Coalition of Concerned Shippers from R. T. Beckwith. He
says:
Yesterday, at Keith Thompson's suggestion, I met with him to discuss strategies related to the next move of the Coalition and, at the same time, the CITL.
This is the individual who has the responsibility first to produce Freedom to Move and second to produce the legislation. It now seems he is out there instructing people how to lobby the Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent). These are the suggestions he made:
1.	Mr. Thompson suggested that letters should be sent to the Honourable John Crosbie from (a) The Coalition, (b) from each Association and (c) from as many individual companies as we can persuade to do so; similar, but not exactly the same as the one attached hereto, outlining our support in general for the three bills and reiterating our support of the Government in the passage of the bills through parliament.
2.	A meeting should be set up at a relatively early date for Coalition members to meet Mr. Crosbie. Realistically, he felt that this can not be done prior to August, as Mr. Crosbie will not be back in Ottawa until July 21 and will want to establish himself in his new portfolio. This in no way should discourage individual associations from arranging meetings with him as well.
3.	The Coalition should arrange for a further meeting with the Honourable Don Mazankowski in early fall, possibly in September or October.
4.	Meetings should be set up with the Honourable John Turner, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and the Honourable Ed Broadbent, emphasizing the sales dollars which we represent, as well as job statistics and the fact that we represent both large and small businesses throughout Canada. It will be further necessary to diffuse some of labour's arguments in such a meeting.
Who is running the show? Is the Government so confident about this Bill that it is leaving it open to full and comprehensive review by all and sundry? No, not at all. The Government has the whip out drumming up support from one sector of the country. Is it doing the same thing with the trucking industry?
I do not think so. The Government is pitting shipper against trucker and creating a conflict in our economic system. I do not think that is right. If anyone is out there flogging the Bill it should be the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary. If they
February 11, 1987

have that much confidence in its value let them get out there and talk to truckers, shippers, the small communities, and the provincial Governments who are becoming more and more aware of the Bill's concept and its problems.
Let the committee travel. Let us hear from people in the places affected. Let us go to Moose Jaw, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay and Montreal. When we dealt with Freedom to Move we only went to three communities, Halifax, Winnipeg and Vancouver. We never went to Quebec. We did not go to a total of seven provinces. That is not the way to consult.
The last time a Bill of this magnitude, dealing with transportation, was brought in was 20 years ago. That was after a Royal Commission spent two years studying the concept. Apparently a year of that was on the road hearing from specific interest groups and people who cared about the issue. As a result of that full public consultation the legislation was drafted and brought to the House. There was of course no need for an ongoing debate. We have argued time and time again that there is no need to re-invent the wheel. However, we are not giving the same priority to this legislation and Bill C-18. We are not giving the people of Canada the same opportunity to understand how this Bill will affect them. We may find they might agree with the Government. They may think it is the best thing since sliced bread. However, we will not know until we try. It is regrettable that we are not going to have the opportunity, from what I understand, to get out there, but I encourage the Government to reconsider that element, give us a chance to move across the land with the Bill so that more than just the national organizations have a chance to participate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my friend a question. Before doing so I would like to make a comment. During 20 years as Minister of Highways in Alberta, which also included the motor vehicle branch and transport and highways, I had a lot of experience with trucking hearings and the concept of convenience and necessity. The thing I did not like about convenience and necessity was that if a trucker got a licence to operate on a particular route and the business increased, he would add another truck. If the business increased again, he would add yet another truck. He soon had a monopoly of the business on that route. If an applicant tried to gain entry on that route, the first operator could show that he was already providing the service. I did not like that aspect of convenience and necessity because it kept the new, young drivers out of the business.
Another point about extra-provincial traffic was that if a trucker who received a licence in Alberta to operate extra-provincially wanted to go into Saskatchewan, he had to have another hearing in Saskatchewan. This was costly and time consuming. If he wanted to move into Manitoba he had to have another hearing there. Each of these hearings are
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
expensive because one must bring witnesses and take the time to attend them. Hearings were costing up to $5,000 or $10,000. In order to operate in Ontario or Quebec they had to have additional hearings.
This became so expensive that our truckers could not operate on that basis. We asked the other provinces whether they would permit our trucks to pass through their provinces if we allowed their trucks to pass through Alberta. They said no. We could not get an agreement. Therefore, we went to the American states along the border and secured an arrangement with them which allowed their trucks to pass through Alberta without picking up loads, because many of them wanted to go to Alaska, and our trucks to pass through their states without buying a licence.
Consequently, we were able to build a tremendous business hauling meat, as an example, to Montreal. We could not have operated such a business economically without that agreement. There were no more accidents or safety problems. The truckers did not operate longer hours. They had more work, but it did not operate in the way which is now being suggested.
In summary, the operations were costly. The trucker had to add that to his costs and the shipper had to pay. The shipper had to add that to his costs and the consumer had to pay. It increased costs all across the board. Is it sensible to have all that duplication which will put increased costs on the shoulders of the consumers of Canada?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention and the question of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). I, too, have some history in regulation of the trucking industry. As the Member knows, I was a member of the select committee in Ontario which spent at least six months studying the issue in the mid-1970s. Therefore, I speak from personal knowledge as well.
No one says that every regulation makes sense. We have admitted that. We admitted it in discussions on Freedom to Move as well as in discussions in this House. Quite frankly, there are some dumb regulations.
If a trucker is going from point A to point C, passing through province B, I would say that there is no need to have a licence to travel through, at least in terms of permission to haul. That kind of change makes sense and we would support it. However, my caucus and I are concerned about the impact on the stability.
The Member referred to small companies which get bigger and bigger and have a monopoly. As long as there are rules in place to protect the interests of the consumers, it is a good thing. However, we are worried about something which we have seen happen in the United States. That is, as a result of this Bill and others like it at the provincial level we will end up with such monopolies anyway. In a situation where there are two small operations feeding one town, which can only realistically support one operator, the weaker of the two will go out of business. The stronger operator will still have the monopoly, but this time there will be no rules to protect the

February 11, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
consumer from exorbitant rate increases, reductions in service, etcetera. That is why we are taking the position which we are on this legislation.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, during his intervention the Member quoted a letter from concerned shippers. Could he give us an indication of who are those concerned shippers? Is that the group responsible for the few letters of support for this Bill?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I can advise my colleague and other Members of the House that the Coalition of Concerned Shippers lists as its members the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, the Canadian Export Association, the Canadian Fertilizer Institute, the Canadian Industrial Transportation League, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian National Millers Association, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Coal Association of Canada, the Council of Forest Industries, the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada, the Mining Association of Canada, the Propane Gas Association of Canada and the Retail Council of Canada.
In my mind those groups represent the larger sectors of our economic society. They are not the mom and pop corner stores which we are all concerned about protecting. They are the big folks and they are the ones who support this Bill. They have the volume business. They already have a chance of getting breaks beause of the vast amount of goods which they ship, unlike the smaller concerns which operate less than truckload all the time. We know who this organization represents. We are receiving letters from both small and large truckers and from individual Canadians who are concerned about this legislation.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue one further matter with the Hon. Member. He mentioned that monopolies are possible. It is not only possible, it happens. I can cite the example of the bus service between Calgary and Edmonton. Greyhound operates a bus every hour for 10 hours each day, both ways. No other bus line can possibly get in. Greyhound simply adds more buses and has acquired a complete monopoly. There is no longer even a railway to compete. I have nothing against Greyhound, but I know of two or three other firms which would like to operate as well. They could give equally good service, but they cannot get in because, for one thing, they cannot afford the hearings.
The Member says that it is okay as long as we protect the shippers. I believe that truckers are very responsible people. When they are starting up a business to operate, intra or inter, they must spend a lot of money. A truck is not bought with peanuts today. They must make a big investment. They will not go where there is no business. They will go where there is ample business for two. They will carry out their own feasibility studies before entering that market to determine whether their business will survive. Obviously, no one wants to go bankrupt, but there seems to be a suggestion that truckers will
be irresponsible. I believe they are very responsible and will conduct their business accordingly.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, let me give the Hon. Member an example. The National Energy Board just approved the construction of a parallel pipeline to a plant in southern Ontario. If the Hon. Member compares that to allowing two buses to run in a community that is already served well, I think he will understand the point I am trying to make. We need efficiency of service and quality of service; we do not necessarily need competition to obtain that. We simply need the service and the controls to make sure that people are protected.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The floor will be given on debate to the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins). It will be the last speech with a 20-minute maximum.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19, unlike many Bills that pass through this House, is much more complex than can be seen on the surface.
I believe that monopolies can also exist under deregulation. The well-heeled businesses will survive. It will be very difficult for the smaller firms to combat the larger trucking firms from the United States in a deregulated system under Bill C-19.
Bill C-19 should not be passed into law until Canadian tax reforms have been established. Tax reform and deregulation in the United States took place at the same time and it is believed that the U.S. tax reforms have given the U.S. for-hire trucking industry a competitive advantage over the Canadian industry. The U.S. trucking industry has cost advantages due to less government intervention in labour-management relations, higher tax write-offs related to depreciation, lower taxes on fuel, and lower taxes on the trucking industry as a whole. This already puts the Canadian trucking industry on the defensive.
The Government should not implement this policy unilaterally without giving the Canadian trucking industry some support through lower taxes and lower fuel costs.
Bill C-19 should not be passed until a national safety code is completed, as has been pointed out by almost every Member who has spoken in this debate. Those who say that deregulation is the ultimate achievement of private enterprise are not being straightforward. If we are to operate under a regime which allows anyone to operate a trucking business, we need a safety code and it will be necessary to have an army of officers to enforce the safety rules once they are put in place.
A national safety code would prevent the situation which presently exists in the United States. Since 1980, when the U.S. Motor Carrier Act was passed deregulating the trucking industry, seven out of ten trucks have been taken off the road because of unsafe equipment. Accidents involving trucks have increased by 18 per cent in the United States since 1980. I suggest that it is not simply a trend, or that drivers are more careless, but that it is rather a reflection of the condition of the

February 11, 1987

motor vehicles themselves. This Parliament should look at these statistics very seriously when considering the passage of this legislation.
The competition in the trucking industry will be very severe. Provisions relating to predatory or discriminatory pricing have a limited application to transportation. Bill C-19 is silent on the question of predation. The Canadian for-hire trucking industry is simply being thrust into the continental marketplace that is increasingly being dominated by a handful of billion-dollar U.S. general freight carriers, with absolutely no safeguards and certainly no assurances that those dominant continental truckers will provide a significant number of jobs in Canada while tapping key industrial markets at the same time.
Let me make a comparison between some of the major companies. In 1984, Brazeau Transport in Canada had an income of $165 million. Kingsway Transport Ltd. of Rexdale had $250 million in business in 1985. Roadway Express in the United States had a business turnover of $4 billion in 1985. The deregulation of the trucking industry will allow Roadway to come to Canada to compete against Canadian trucking firms like Brazeau Transport which had an income of $165 million in 1985. What chance will it have to compete?
There is nothing in the legislation to prevent major American trucking firms such as Roadway Express and others from coming into Canada with lower freight rates to drive smaller, less competitive Canadian firms out of business. We have not heard whether the Government will have safety regulations in place to control the major American firms that will come here. We heard what a tremendous thing it was going to be for the Canadian shoe industry when protection was taken off Canadian shoes and the shoe industry was left to compete with everyone on the open market. But what has happened? Over half those businesses have gone down, others are in serious trouble and over half the jobs in the Canadian shoe industry have been lost since that took place.
I have a letter here from a small van line company. It is a family business. It has another major concern. Its concern is what compensation the Government is going to give to existing Canadian businesses when it takes away some of the things the industry now has, some of the assets of the company such as a major name which has been on its doors for years. That name was worth something. The owner paid for that name when he bought the company. Is he going to be compensated for that? We do not know. The letter states:
As you are also aware, such legislation will severely affect trucking companies across Canada.
This is a family-owned business and the owner is concerned. The letter goes on:
A critical problem raised by the National Transportation Act is the destruction of value of operating licences and good will which will be caused by the introduction of deregulation.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
The money invested in operating licences over the last 60 or so years since the industry has been regulated represents a sizeable investment in a trucking business. This investment is critical especially in the case of small and medium-size (and largely family-run) companies which represent the majority of the industry in Canada. In these the investment often represents the pension capital of the owners in terms of selling the business. Another problem is that financial planning by the industry will be suddenly and significantly disrupted.
It is unfair to change the game's rules without compensation when so much capital has been invested by businesses in good faith. In the United States, where deregulation was initiated, tax relief was established along with deregulation.
Similarly, if the Government is proceeding with similar legislation, we should also receive similar relief.
The existing tax structure was not formulated during a time when deregulation was a consideration and does not provide for the severe impact which deregulation will have on the value of operating authorities.
Under the current system, the majority of the industry would have little which could be depreciated despite the great losses it would be expected to take.
Such an oversight would both strike deeply into the heart of the entrepreneurial community the government is trying to foster, and erode its competitiveness with the U.S. carriers especially in a freer-trade economy.
What we are really talking about in this transportation Bill is free trade in the transportation industry. I quote again from the letter:
The Canadian Trucking Association has presented a number of solutions to the Finance Department. Despite this constructive approach, the industry is having difficulty resolving this matter with Finance.
The industry is having trouble with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). It is obviously not getting a very good hearing, ifhese are the Canadian businesses which are going to be expected to compete with major American companies which already have been given their favours by their own Finance Department in Washington.
I mentioned the fact that trucking accidents in the United States have increased by 18 per cent since 1980. We have to chalk that up to deregulation and the lack of safety enforcement, severe competition among companies operating on small profits, running tires a little longer, letting brakes go a little longer, and who is there to pick up this inefficiency in the industry in the way the company runs its vehicles? This is extremely important, particularly in a country like Canada which has rail lines which have been serving Canadian communities and regions for years. With trucking firms going in and taking away rail traffic, the next thing we know the railway will be gone. We are throwing all that extra traffic onto the highways of Canada. The trucking industry would not be allowed to enter into confidential contracts and would, therefore, be made subject to unfair competition. Industry representatives fear that pressures to reduce rates would greatly weaken several Canadian trucking firms, rendering them vunerable to foreign takeovers.
There is another very important item which must be considered. Since 1981 the costs to a Canadian trucking company have increased by 28 per cent. At the same time, its shipping rates have gone up something like 5 per cent. Today on average, across the Canadian scene, trucking firms are running about a 3 per cent profit spread in Canada. At the
3342

February 11, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
same time in the United States, and largely because, as I said, the tax system was changed to accommodate deregulation of the trucking industry, there is a 10 per cent profit spread with trucking firms. That base alone, that is, a 10 per cent spread of profit in the United States, as opposed to a 3 per cent profit spread in the Canadian industry, automatically indicates that the U.S. has greater financial resources to move into Canada and put on the kind of competition against Canadian firms about which I have been speaking.
What about the road system in Canada? We are going to get more trucking firms competing, more trucks on the road. They will be competing against CN and CP. Competition is good as long as it does not destroy the goose which laid the egg in the first place. Here in Canada we have a situation where CN and CP are now about the only facilities which serve some of those communities out there in the regions. If the regions lose the rail service, they lose transportation. Are we going to throw away the capacity of 4,500 railway cars per year which go into one pulp and paper plant in the Ottawa Valley on the Quebec side of the river? Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, those
4,500	carloads of paper going out of there by truck? There are 1,800 carloads of chemicals which go into that same plant. Are we going to put that 1,800 carloads of railway traffic into trucks instead and take it over the roads of Ontario and Quebec?
I think the two provincial Governments will be in a position where they really have to take a very close look at improving the roads at the same time as they are considering deregulation of the transportation industry. I can imagine what would happen in eastern Ontario and western Quebec if that kind of traffic-and I am only talking about one plant here-were thrown onto the roads which are now in existence.
The Consolidated Bathurst Paper Mill receives approximately 4,500 railway cars per year. The company ships out paper in those cars. Out of the number I have mentioned nearly 1,800 of these cars carry chemicals which include chlorine, caustic soda, and bunker oil, to name just a few.
My concern is that if the railroads are allowed to abandon the rail line servicing this mill because of a lack of traffic then we face seeing these chemicals being transported over our provincial highways. Our local fire and police departments would have to be equipped to handle major spills. As traffic would increase, the fire departments would have to take on a different role. No longer would their role be just that of firefighting, it would be to handle major chemical spills on highways.
Our roads are already congested with heavy transports. I mention that in regard to the roads in eastern Ontario and western Quebec, which are a perfect example of this. We would be looking at another approximately 14,000 transports a year carrying these goods if the rail line is closed. The CN is talking about closing this rail line.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) is in the House today. I am glad he is here. In answer to a question one day he said to me that no Government would close the main line of the CN, say, from Montreal to North Bay, and that he would be looking into the matter. I will be holding the Minister to that. As these companies come in from the United States, hopefully, Canadian companies will be able to survive and grow bigger to compete with freight rates on lines in Canada. As this happens, we will see the CNR and the CPR before the new transportation authority looking for an opportunity to close up more rail lines. I think it is bad to put all this traffic onto the highways of Canada when the situation can be handled more safely by rail.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. There has been a considerable amount of discussion with respect to this matter. If one reads through Hansard and the Freedom to Move document one will see that there has been much said about a national safety code. At present there is no such code. Regulations with respect to safety and licensing are different in every province. Does the Hon. Member think it is possible to have a safety code in place by 1989, when this Bill is supposed to come into effect?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) for his question. It is an important question indeed. What he is really talking about is the co-ordination of safety measures across Canada. Where regional safety measures have been developed over a number of years it is natural for there to be differences in terms of safety precautions in the different provinces. Sometimes the very geography of a particular region of the country causes more emphasis to be placed on one type of safety measure than another.
If one is to co-ordinate the regulations and pick and choose from those which have already been developed by the 10 provinces, then one is talking about a long period of time. I think the Hon. Member has asked me his question tongue-incheek. We have seen-and I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) knows very well today although he did not at first-how easy it is to deal with 10 provincial Governments. That is precisely what will have to take place. Not only will 10 provinces have to be dealt with in terms of reaching some type of agreement, but that will have to be preceded by hearings in order to find out what type of safety measures one is looking for. Witnesses will have to be heard before a committee, be it a bureaucratic committee or a parliamentary committee. Presumably such regulations would be reviewed by a parliamentary committee in the end.
By the time we get around to carrying out all these procedures, and we have been talking about having them in place by 1989, I think that someone in the Government will have to be more decisive and really get on the ball to complete these regulations in short order. We all know how long hearings of this type take. We all know that the matter cannot be settled in one federal-provincial meeting between Transport Ministers
February 11, 1987

at the provincial and federal levels. Undoubtedly, they will all want to meet to review these matters because there is a lot at stake in it for each of them.
Once safety measures are in place, what is the next big issue? It is enforcing them. How will we enforce them? It is something that would be beyond the capability of the present police forces across the country. They are already overloaded with work. There will have to be new officers appointed to handle transportation matters. A new group will have to be created to work with local authorities, or safety inspectors will have to be appointed. There will be many matters to plan and put in place even after we know what it is we have to do.
The Hon. Member's question certainly provokes a great deal of thought. It brings to light many points that have not really been thought of. We can stop and think to make up safety regulations since we know pretty well what is required. However, we all know that administering the laws that are passed in Parliament is quite another kettle of fish, if I may use that expression.
I thank the Hon. Member for his question. It is an important one. Like him, I will be interested in watching the process over the next two years with respect to what will unfold in the area of safety regulations in terms of the deregulation of the trucking industry in Canada.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned the costs of trucking in Canada being more than double those in the United States. He mentioned that they were 10 per cent in the United States and 28 per cent in Canada. I am not quarrelling with the Hon. Member's figures. One expense which interprovincial truckers have today, which in my view is unnecessary and which adds to the cost of shipping, something which is passed on to the consumer and accomplishes nothing, is the cost of hearings which a trucker has to attend in order to operate. Instead of operating like one nation, we operate like 10 Balkan states. Having one hearing is understandable, but having four, five or six is not. Each one costs thousands of dollars. Each one consumes a great deal of time. These hearings create unnecessary expenses on the part of the trucking industry, costs which are passed on to the shippers and the consumers. This is one area in which we can certainly cut down costs.
Convenience and necessity do not involve safety. The Hon. Member mentioned the Figures with respect to safety in the U.S. What are the figures today with respect to safety in Canada? We cannot blame that on deregulation. No one will go out deliberately to have an accident. In my view convenience and necessity have nothing to do with safety. It is the safety rules generally across the nation that will determine the safety and the safety requirements demanded by insurance companies because they have to pay through the nose when truckers do not operate safely. Those are some of the things that will have to be considered.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act. 1986


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I know that the Hon. Member is a pretty good hockey player and he is very good at stick handling. But the Hon. Member lost the puck when I was speaking. I stated that since 1981 there has been a 28 per cent cost increase to trucking firms in Canada. The 10 per cent that I talked about in the United States was not in relation to cost; it was a 10 per cent profit margin that the trucking industry is enjoying across the United States. In Canada there is only a 3 per cent profit margin within the trucking industry.
The Hon. Member said that safety and deregulation cannot be related. Many people, including myself, would disagree with him. There will be severe competition when there are no regulations in place, and there will be more people competing in the field. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as safety regulations are in place, and as long as they are enforced. It must be admitted that when deregulation was introduced in the United States, there was an increase of 18 per cent in accidents. We have been told that some of those are related to the lack of safety of vehicles. The start of this whole business is only the beginning when we talk about deregulation. As I mentioned to the Hon. Member for Prince Albert, it depends on how those safety regulations will be administered, and how well they will be administered. We will have to be on top of this situation when it happens.
The Hon. Member spoke about costs. One thing that has not been sacrificed in the Canadian system to date is the safety measures. The Hon. Member mentioned hearings, and they do cost a lot of money. But when a person has established a trucking firm and has spent a lot of money on equipment and on his business, then at least he has a little security. He must still compete with many other businesses in Canada. That is also good. As far as the deregulation measures are concerned-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I ask the Hon. Member to conclude. There is a further question to be put from another Member.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I will conclude by saying that in the past the transportation industry in Canada has been well served by regulations. I do not think that they should be thrown out the window holus-bolus. When people have spent a lifetime building up their company, they deserve at least some compensation from the Government if those regulations which have served the industry well over the years, are going to be taken away.


Mr. Nowlan:: I wish to ask the Hon. Member for Renfrew- Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) a question. The Hon. Member is a very throughtful Member. The question of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who is a very active and consistent member of the Transport Committee, raised what he has brought up in the hearings on Freedom to Move, which is the objective of removing these 10 regulatory

February 11, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
environments and trying to get some type of national environment in order that traffic will be able to flow across the country. At a time when we are having discussions with another country to increase trade and facilities between the two countries, we have the interesting anomaly that in this country we still have the 10 jurisdictions which impede traffic. I do not wish to talk about the safety matter. I know that the Hon. Member did not intend to do it, because he is an even and responsible Member of the House, but the safety bogy is always raised like the goblins at Hallowe'en.
Every Minister of Transport, this Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister who brought in the Freedom to Move paper in the initial Bill, states, and it is also stated in the Bill if the Member would read it, and I know that he has read Bill C-19 from stem to stern, that safety will not be diminished at all. There is a different type of environment for regulation, but there will still be safety.
In terms of the American situation, it does cause concern. Regardless of the profit differential between the two countries, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that the interesting fact is that since deregulation in the United States, there are a thousand licences in the United States from Canadian trucking firms that are doing business there, and they have increased their market there by 8 to 12 per cent since deregulation in the United States. Would the Hon. Member answer this question that he has addressed, as have other Members? If that has happened in the United States with us competing in that larger market-and perhaps because of our dollar differential of 35 to 40 per cent, which certainly is quite an interesting advantage, we have been able to break into that market and increase our share-why should we be extra-concerned that we will not be able to keep our share in our own country?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I thank the Hon. Member for his question. He is a long-time Member of the House and has served very well many of these transport items.
In my talk I mentioned some of the inequities of the system as it is planned to be introduced into Canada. Why are Canadians doing so well in the United States? One, I mentioned fuel costs. They are already competing down there on a level with the same fuel costs. There is a larger volume of traffic in the United States, and there is more room to manoeuvre. Canadian companies are used to operating in a difficult climate with a greater overhead. When they go to the United States with more traffic, cheaper fuel costs, they are able to compete on an equal basis.
In Canada there are higher fuel costs, competition is in smaller communities without the volume of traffic. Rail lines are now serving Certain areas well. When the competition starts in Canada, there will be regional development which is more poorly served by rail lines and by the trucking industry, because they will all try to get into the more crowded urban market of Canada. They will be in much the same environment there to compete as they are in the United States where there is exceptionally heavy traffic.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. Is there unanimous consent to give the Member two more minutes to complete his answer?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: In conclusion let me say that I hope that I have given the Hon. Member some food for thought. We can end this debate by saying that, given half a chance, Canadians can compete with anybody. If I were the Hon. Member, I would not put too much emphasis on the free trade talks. If this legislation does not go any better than the free trade talks, we will be in serious trouble.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on Bill C-19. Probably a good place to start would be with the statement made the other day by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse). He suggested that the Government was adopting a laissez-faire philosophy. Obviously that is what the Government is doing in this Bill, in Bill C-18, and in a number of other Bills which it has brought before the House with the intention of opening up a variety of industries to the free market. Basically that is the philosophy of the Government. It is actually returning to a previous structure which existed in the country, that is, a sort of dog eat dog market. The Government is removing protection by deregulating the industry. It will look the other way while industry fights with itself, eliminates itself, and eliminates service to Canadians. It is moving toward having less involvement in the distribution of goods. In doing that, the Government is condemning certain industries in certain parts of the country to a gradual but inexorable death.
If we do not have a transportation structure which allows the hinterland or the more remote areas of Canada to ship whatever goods they produce to market, particularly the central markets of Canada and of the United States with which we do considerable trade, those areas gradually shrivel up and die. A certain amount of this is already going on in remote areas.
Truckers are very concerned about Bill C-19, respecting motor vehicle transport, because they have seen what happened south of the border. Some of the larger and more able companies went into the United States. They have been watching what happened there. They know that there is a possibility, or a fairly good chance, that the same kind of thing will happen in Canada, since we are following the lead of the United States in deregulation. They have watched the devasatation of that trucking industry in many ways and the concentration that has come about to save companies which could be saved.
There have been massive lay-offs in the United States. A large group of truckers or people related to that industry have
February 11, 1987

been laid off. Also there has been a large number of bankruptcies and increasing concentration with small trucking companies being picked up by larger ones and an elimination of competition as a consequence. Also there has been in the United States-and it is likely to happen here-a loss of service to the hinterland.
Although initially there were generally lower prices in the United States, those lower prices have only continued in the corridors between larger centres. More remote areas are being faced with either no service at all or more costly service.
The industry in Canada has developed a great pride in service over the year. It has been proud of the fact that it reached into every nook and cranny of the country and provided service to small communities. With deregulation it will no longer be required to do this.
The present structure is such that, for example, a trucker will go into a smaller community in northern Saskatchewan once or twice a week even if he does not have a full load. Everyone knows that that service is there. It has been suggested that if deregulation is put into effect, there will be no necessity to provide routine service-in other words, service when one needs it-regardless of whether or not the truck is full. I recognize that Canadians pay for that extra service, but they are glad to do it, just to be sure it is there when needed.
That effect of deregulation bothers me most because my constituency is a northern one. Many small communities along the northern portion of my constituency depend upon truck service for their supplies. Having lived in the far North a great deal of my life, I know what can happen if there is no routine service and small communities must depend upon someone deciding to service them when they have a full load. These small communities either end up ensuring that they have supplies on hand at all times or that they have an alternative service in place upon which they can call when regular service, which exists under the present system, disappears.
The effects of the Bill will be felt by many communities which would not mind, at the present time, a little cheaper service but are happy because they have service. If we say to truckers who want to develop a service into a small community that they may do so if they are willing and able and they make a little money, there is always an opportunity to skim the cream. If the industry is deregulated, a trucker can go into such areas to haul large loads and therefore eliminate effective service to persons who have traditionally been served in those communities. This happens even now and it will happen even more if the basis of the trucking industry is ready, willing, and able. It is dangerous.
We should not let the Government reduce service to Canadians as it has done with the Post Office, air travel, and railway service, by the abandonment of rail lines and the elimination of terminals, and as it is now doing in trucking.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-19, especially after certain comments heard in the course of this debate, and I am referring to what was said by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) to my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). These comments concerned the position taken by the Liberal Party, and the question arose whether the Liberal Party was opposed to the legislation because that was its duty as the Official Opposition or whether the Liberal Party was really taking a stand against the deregulation proposed by the Government. I would like to inform the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) that the Liberal Party's position is quite clear compared with positions of the Conservative Government and the New Democratic Party. While the Government side favours privatization, the NDP often takes the middle-of-the road view, which does not necessarily reflect a socialist outlook or a social democratic philosophy.
In the course of my speech, I would like to talk about a rather special situation that exists in the riding of Saint-Maurice, where trucking companies systematically object to deregulation because to them, it means a net loss in the value of their operating licences. On the other hand, our riding has a number of pulp and paper companies which look very favourably on the kind of deregulation proposed by the Government. And that brings me to the issue of the consultation initiated by the Government, which was not complete and very superficial, and on the basis of which the Government introduced a Bill providing for practically unfettered deregulation, which does not sit well with a number of the transportation companies in our area.
Mr. Speaker, I referred to a number of trucking companies that have a problem with deregulation as proposed in the Bill. We have a group here in the riding of Saint-Maurice which in 1986 had a turnover of $18 million, and employs 125 regular employees and 25 casual or part-time workers. Ninety-eight per cent of the company's business consists of bulk shipping and 2 per cent is general shipping. Of course the company has several other branches and one of the companies leases tractors and semitrailers, and here again 98 per cent of tractors and semitrailers are leased to the Asselin group, the name of the company involved, and 2 per cent to other firms.
As I said, the sales figures for 1986 amount to $18 million, and one of the concerns expressed by this company during an address to the Chamber of Commerce is that the most disturbing aspect in the transport industry is deregulation as advocated by this Government. The license value will drop. The Trucking Association of Quebec asks the Government to consider compensation amounting to 1 cent a litre on fuel used by public trucking firms during the five years immediately preceding the year when the new regulation system will be implemented. This way each licensed trucker would be able to submit an annual claim of up to 20 per cent of the tax credits

February 11, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
as of the base year, with a limit of seven years. These recommendations were made but the Government did not act on them because there were other recommendations from pulp and paper associations and a number of other very important organizations and groups. They pointed out that the pulp and paper industry strongly supports the early deregulation of interprovincial motor transport and the enforcement of standard provincial standards designed to promote a flexible and profitable interprovincial motor transport industry in Canada.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, when the Government was confronted with these situations it could have found a formula which would have been an acceptable compromise between extreme positions and which could have led to the kind of deregulation which most Members of the House could have endorsed, but it drew the line and introduced the legislation now being debated in the House. There is a real possibility that deregulation will reduce the value of the operating licences, and hence the book value, of these companies. When we know that many Canadian carriers depend on the value of their licence as security for obtaining bank loans, it means the value of the company will drop with that of the operating licence. Loan opportunities for all Canadian trucking companies will be sharply reduced, and without federal assistance, they will be less able to compete with the big American carriers.
Mr. Speaker, if we look at the Bill before the House today, there is a major problem facing those transportation companies that are not one of our big Canadian carriers. The very basic point being made by these companies is that eventually, they may go bankrupt when the American giants appear on the Canadian market and compete directly with them. The latter companies may take considerable losses for one, two or three years, but they have sufficient assets to be able to absorb these losses, because in any case, they are working from a financial base that is far stronger than that of any Canadian carrier.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government to postpone consideration of this Bill and to do the consultation that is needed. We know that as far as Bills C-18 and C-19 are concerned, the Government's consultation process was inadequate. Intervenors from the transport sector were ignored or, if they were heard, their claims or comments were not necessarily taken into consideration.
If this Bill is adopted in its present form, one serious consequence will be a substantial reduction in the safety standards applied to the trucking industry. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you realize that if these standards, which were not a major issue in the consultations conducted by the group that travelled across Canada to hear the various intervenors, if these standards are not observed and are not made an integral part of Bill C-19, transportation companies that must cut costs to survive will start cutting back on preventive maintenance. If that happens, we may have a situation practically identical to the one existing now in the United States, especially in the
State of California where the number of accidents has increased by 18 per cent in recent years.
Mr. Speaker, I hope consideration of this Bill is postponed and that the Government does not now approve the provisions of Bill C-19.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is as follows. Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Fennell, moves:
That this question be now put.
The question is on the motion of Mr. Lewis.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more that five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I think there could well be a disposition on the part of the House to apply this vote to the next one. Perhaps you might want to see if that is the case.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there agreement that we apply the vote we have just taken to the main motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think there would be a disposition to do that, and also add the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) to the voting Members as voting with her Party, and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards), as voting with his Party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, February 12, 1987