1987-02-03

Mr. Speaker:: Prior to calling Orders of the Day, may I make the traditional announcement to the House that, in recognition of the seventy-first anniversary of the fire which destroyed the Centre Block on this day in 1916, I would draw to the attention of Hon. Members the wooden replica of the mace on the Clerk's table. This mace was used for many years as a replacement for the original one destroyed by fire.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the annual report of the Department of Communications for the fiscal year.


ELECTIONS, PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES PRESENTATION OF SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedures which deals with Routine Proceedings on Fridays and suggests some changes to the time the House will sit.


PETITIONS
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I wish to present a petition signed by 133
petitioners from Val-d'Or, Amos, Preissac, Malartic, Barraute, Senneterre, Dubuisson, Val-Senneville, Duparquet and Sullivan, in the riding of Abitibi, and by myself.
Whereas the Government of Canada made flow-through shares in the mining sector eligible for the purposes of income tax; whereas 133-1/3 per cent of the value of the shares could be deducted; and whereas the people of Canada, as a result of this tax provision, were helping to develop mining exploration, reduce unemployment and develop our northern and remote regions, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the existing provision for flow-through shares in the mining sector at 133-1/3, for the years 1987-8889.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition, signed by the required number of people, and which has met the requirements of Standing Order 106. Whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act will affect directly all Canadians who are not protected by private and Government medicare programs, and whereas the federal Government's proposal will raise the costs, which are already high, of the provincial health care programs, and whereas the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies and will result in an increase in drug costs and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs, and whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act are another example of the Government's concessions in the free trade negotiations with the United States at the expense of ordinary Canadians, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 also have several petitions from people in Ottawa, Hull and Newfoundland, in fact, from all over Canada. The undersigned residents of Canada now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners. Whereas the decision regarding the closure of the 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, and whereas the closure of this attractive and tranquil park affects thousands of visitors to the Capital from across the country

February 3, 1987
Petitions
who hold Canada's uniquely accessible Rideau Hall as a symbol of the trust, openness and democracy of which Canadians are so justly proud, and whereas an area of residents from the entire National Capital region, who have used and enjoyed the grounds of Rideau Hall, recognize the security concerns which prompted the closure decision, but could not accept a blanket closure of the 120 acre park to public access, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to open that decision for consultation with a group of citizen representatives of the large and growing opposition in order that a modus vivendie be created which would satisfy both the Government and the public.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I also have a series of petitions signed by the required number of residents and which meet the requirements of Standing Order 106. The petitioners humbly submit that the Government of Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information and that the tariff has had little negative effect on the publishing industry of the United States yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, book-sellers, distributors and Canada's culture. The petitioners state that since rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and which compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect of free trade negotiations.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today a number of petitions which have been certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 106. The petitioners' concern regards the proposed changes to the Patent Act in relation to prescription drugs. They are also concerned that these changes will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They also state that the proposed measure will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by several hundred residents of Burnaby and other communities in British Columbia who call upon the federal Government to recognize that its 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
necessary prescription drugs. They note that the proposed measure will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. As well, they note that the proposals will result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans. The petitioners call upon the Government to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Svend Johannes Robinson: 
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of Toronto, North Vancouver and Burnaby who point out that at present low-level flight training of pilots of NATO countries at the Canadian Forces Base Goose Bay, Labrador, disrupts the way of life of many of the native people there. The petitioners note that hunting, fishing, tourism and mining can provide more stable, healthy and peaceful employment than the Canadian Forces Base at Goose Bay. The petitioners call upon the Government to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) end all low-level flight training at the Canadian Forces Base at Goose Bay and cease negotiations with NATO for establishment of a larger base there.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present petitions from residents of the Niagara Peninsula, Hamilton and Niagara Falls area as well as residents of communities in Quebec such as Pohenegamook and neighbouring communities who protest the Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs since these proposals will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers, severely restricting the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They protest that these changes will unfairly hurt Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. They will also result in higher costs to the provincial government drug plans. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.
February 3, 1987


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of British Columbians who are concerned that the federal Government's proposals to change the Patent Act related to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They call upon the Parliament of Canada to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 2, 1987, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Benjamin (p. 2756)
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, deals with a number of major concerns which certainly affect my constituency as well as the whole of the country. As is stated in the application clause of the Bill, it applies to transportation by railways, air, water, commodity pipeline and transport for hire or reward by extra-provincial buses and extra-provincial trucking.
Bill C-18 has been touted by the Government as its answer to regulatory problems facing the Canadian transportation industry. It flows from the Government's Freedom to Move document which, as pointed out by my friend, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), is in fact something quite different. In fact, it should be entitled "Freedom to Manoeuvre" since this is really not deregulation at all but reregulation.
On January 29, 1986, just more than a year ago, my
colleague from Regina West quoted in the House the following
words about the document Freedom to Move:
National Transportation Act, 1986
"a trial balloon of Conservative ideology which solves fewer problems for the transportation industry than it will create. Clearly there are no pressing issues facing the transportation industry which call for actions by the Minister like those proposed in his policy paper". These proposals are for sweeping deregulation where there is no apparent need, and that clearly indicates that the paper is only a knee-jerk regurgitation of similar transportation initiatives undertaken in the U.S. by President Reagan and President Carter.
We have gone over the matter with great care. There have been hearings held and a minority report brought forward by my friend from Regina West. As he has pointed out, Bill C-18 and its pal legislation, Bill C-19, are anti-safety, anti-competition, anti-service, anti-sovereignty and certainly anti-regional industrial expansion. What the House should be doing, and what my Party wants, is considering good regulation since that is the real choice, not this myth about freedom to move.
What is being put forward by government Members in various ways across the country is the myth of lower fares when, in fact, higher industry profits and lower fares were simply a blip in the United States in terms of the type of deregulation which took place in that country. Since 1980, when the U.S. administration brought forward a similar type of deregulation, 40,000 airline workers have lost their jobs,
150,000	rail workers have lost their jobs and one-third of the U.S. truckers have lost their jobs. In total close to 300,000 union jobs have been lost in the United States. Those who have been left in those industries have been forced to take lower wages, work longer hours, and to give up many of the hard won concessions they had negotiated over the last decades when dealing with the industry.
Bill C-18 will directly affect 750,000 Canadian workers, and will indirectly affect every Canadian. There is in the legislation an end to arms-length dealings, which exists to a certain extent in the existing legislation, and the beginning of the politics of the gravy train, particularly for large shippers who will be able to make special deals in relation to this legislation.
I wish to deal for a moment with a meeting I had on Sunday in Prince Rupert with representatives of the CN workers who had expected that there would be more jobs. During the election the Conservatives promised massive infusions of capital into VIA Rail, and that that service would be brought back up to what it should be, with new passenger cars, new locomotives, new stations, and many types of new operations. In fact, the Conservatives have gone exactly in the other direction. In Prince Rupert we expected, and were told by CN public relations people, that there would be new jobs created as a result of the development of the coal port, and as a result of the grain facilities. In fact, something quite different has happened. Now there are only about 100 CN workers left in Prince Rupert. It is now known that 26 of those positions will disappear between November 1, 1986 and May 1, 1987 with more lay-offs, terminations, transfers, and contracting-out to come. The old grain elevator used to handle 600 cars a week. The new elevator handles 1,200 to 1,400 cars. Now there are more and more terminations and lay-offs of workers. Thousands of CN workers have already been lost in this lead-up to


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to talk about two items in Bill C-18, the representation the Government has undertaken, and how it affects labour.
The suggestion has been made that the Government has been deaf to representations made following the release of the Freedom to Move policy paper. Nothing could be further from the truth. This legislation was developed in a co-operative effort with private sector carriers, shippers, users, and communities. More than 500 groups or individuals were consulted during development of this legislation, many on more than one occasion. The suggestions of those consulted resulted in adjustments and improvements to the original policy, and to the legislation.
In addition, the House, through the Standing Committee on Transport, had a very definite impact on the shape of this legislation. That Committee held two separate sets of hearings, one on the over-all policy, and one focusing on the northern and remote areas. The recommendations emanating from those hearings resulted in a number of improvements and adjustments to this legislation.
Perhaps the most notable provisions resulting from the Standing Committee are those governing the regulation of northern air services. Originally it was proposed that the same regulatory regime would govern all air services. However, representations and recommendations from northerners led to adjustments in this policy in order to provide a modified regulatory regime in the North.
This is not the only example of the effects of representations on Bill C-18. Also, the compensatory rate provisions for railways were added, based upon recommendations from the standing committee and following representations from Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Trucking Association. The terminal running rights provisions originated with Canadian
February 3, 1987

Pacific and were not part of the original Freedom to Move proposals. The details were worked out in consultation with shippers and carriers.
There have been few legislative reforms in Canadian history which have received such extensive consultation. The Government has listened and has adopted many of the suggestions made during the consultations. Whatever the Opposition may say, those are the facts.
I should like to talk about the effect of the legislation on labour. Concerns have been raised that the legislation will have an impact upon labour and employment, a negative one according to the critics. This is simply not true. The Bill will not cost us jobs. Rather, it will help create jobs across Canada.
The new National Transportation Act is a framework for regulatory reform in transportation. It will affect almost every part of the economy. It will stimulate growth and will provide jobs by helping make businesses across Canada more cost competitive. This is a good news Bill for jobs and employment. More than one million Canadians work in industries which rely heavily on rail transportation. These jobs will be more and more at risk if we do not introduce these reforms.
More competitive transportation means a more efficient system for mines, mills, factories, and manufacturers to ship their products to market. As these businesses become more competitive at home and in international markets, they create jobs in Canada. The key is efficient, competitive transportation.
We must be aware of the short and long-term benefits from reducing regulation which tends to stifly employment, restrict growth, impede our export efforts, and limit the choices of shippers, retailers, wholesalers, and consumers. Economic regulatory reform will bring important benefits, including lower unit costs, greater competition, a wider range of services, higher productivity, and new market opportunities. Greater efficiency in our industries will translate into more jobs for Canadians.
I recognize the concern raised about employment in transportation companies. In a more competitive environment, carriers, their employees, shippers, travellers, and Governments will all face adjustments. It will not be business as usual for anyone. The contribution of tens of thousands of workers to the development and operation of our transportation system has been enormous and will be crucial to future success.
In this regard the Government remains committed, as indicated in Freedom to Move, to monitoring the effects of change. Numerous adjustment programs already exist to ease any transitional difficulties encountered by workers. Beyond this, the Government has offered to consult with representatives of both employees and employers in order to determine the measures which may be required. This is a very fair offer, but I expect that there will be very little need for special assistance. The key point, however, is that the removal of
National Transportation Act, 1986
unnecessary regulation can help create new jobs in transportation as the demands of travellers and shippers for transportation services increase in a healthy, growing economy.
While our program of regulatory reform differs in many ways from American deregulation, it is worth noting that in the U.S. total airline employment increased by 9 per cent by 1985, that is, 31,500 new jobs in the U.S. airline industry. Similarly, the number of people working in the U.S. trucking industry increased by 285,000 between deregulation in 1980 and 1985. In both countries, Canada and the United States, the railway industry has been losing employment for over 30 years as railways adjust to technological changes and increased competition primarily from trucking.
This is positive legislation. It will help Canadian businesses compete more effectively for markets at home and abroad. The concerns over labour are misplaced, however sincere. The legislation will help create jobs across Canada in all sectors of the economy. It is good news.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the Bill and I am very happy to have an opportunity to talk about it. I thought I would say a word or two about the spirit in which Members of this place must approach the subject of transportation.
When the present Confederation was established in 1867 it was not the first attempt made to create Canada, to create a country north of the United States; it was the third or the fourth attempt. When the effort was being made, I suppose those who were aware of the failures which had already occurred must have been wondering how long the Confederation established in 1867 would actually last, whether it would be a 10-year wonder or less, as had occurred with some of its predecessors.
One thing which made the present version of Confederation so exciting and attractive that it has endured until today is that it contained a vision of the frontier. It did not just talk about existing colonies and rights and so on in relation to each other. It spoke to the larger vision of a Canada which would run from coast to coast to coast, meaning up into the North. It contained a commitment to those who lived outside the original boundaries of the nation, that they would be brought in and that a way would be found. That way was a transportation solution to bring them into Confederation.
That invitation to those outside, in terms of their opportunities to enter Canada at some point in the future, and to those inside, in the sense of opportunities for them to expand their horizons, to expand their businesses, to work, and to live in the frontiers of the new world, was exciting enough that Canada would hold together and Canada would grow from strength to strength.
As you know, Mr. Speaker-you are an erudite Member of the House-the transportation issue was a key issue. It was never put as a market-place issue. No one ever said that we would see whether transportation could help us in solving the problem and in pulling our country together. The philosophy

National Transportation Act, 1986
was that Canada would come to grips with the challenge of transportation and would solve it. No one knew what kind of engineering or financial investment would be required to lay railway tracks from the Atlantic to the Pacific, but they committed themselves to doing it. Canadians were inspired by that. The residents of British North America in this area were inspired by that to build a great country.
There is no doubt that when people look at a problem outside of any market considerations-and transportation policy was looked at outside market considerations-many inefficiencies can be built into it. Over the years we have seen a lot of inefficiency. We have seen some efforts to try to limit the inefficiencies, to try to develop a system which would work like a market and would have some of the discipline of the market even though its fundamental orientation was developed without any consideration of the market at all.
But we are now facing an ideology that really is against the philosophy which built the transportation system of the country, the ideology of deregulation that in the same way, as in 1867, was chosen to ignore the market-place because the goal was to try to build a great country. Today the ideology is the opposite, the ultimate solution being the market-place, and that all of the problems perceived to exist in our transportation system will be eliminated and resolved by a little bit of market discipline.
When you ask average Canadians what deregulation means, some will talk about the bureaucracy. They say we are in favour of deregulation because there are too many bureaucrats in the system, too many decisions being made in too many power centres and the market solution, deregulation, will clean all that out. Some say that, but most people in my experience have two things in mind when they talk about deregulation and say they are in favour of it. First is lower prices. Canadians who favour deregulation are largely under the impression that if deregulation comes into force it will mean that air fares, train fares, bus fares and the cost of shipping freight will go down. They are in favour of deregulation, not because they object to the bureaucracies that are implied by regulation but because they believe having deregulation will mean lower prices.
Second, I believe most Canadians favour deregulation because they think it will give them more choice. They say if we have deregulation then carriers denied access to our home town or our factory to carry our goods or to carry our families will now be able to do so and will not be stuck with just the CNR or Air Canada. These two goals, lower prices and more choice, are what I think most Canadians understand deregulation to mean. When this package is delivererd, if it does not give Canadians lower prices and more choice, then I do not think the kind of support out there for deregulation will continue.
Where did the idea come from that deregulation means lower prices and more choice? As you yourself know, Mr. Speaker, they come from the United States where the experience of deregulation has given those results, not to all Americans, but to a lot of Americans. They found that prices went down and that they had more choice. But, that is not an inevitable result of deregulation. When you look at Canada you see that our country is made up of a huge land mass with small population centres spread throughout it and large population centres clustered along the United States border, and you begin to see the wisdom of the commitment of the Fathers of Confederation and of those who put Canada together in the first place. Transportation is not something you can leave to the market-place if you want to hold the country together and if you want to keep Canadians in contact with their frontier. The sense that all Canadians have that the frontier is available to them in all the different senses of that term is a very important reason that Canadians feel such a strong commitment to their country. Transportation is a big part of it. Deregulation can threaten it.
I want to now look, and I know we do not have much time, at several of the specific provisions of the Bill and explain my concern to you, Mr. Speaker. The Government was asked for commitments as it was putting this program forward, that there would be lower costs as a result and, in the fine print and in the lower key features of the Government's presentation, it has admitted that air fares are already at the level they would be with deregulation. It is not very likely that the introduction of deregulation will result in lower airfares. Why will there be increased service and more choice? Again, there is no commitment at all that there will be increased service and more choice.
The one area that has to concern all Canadians is the question of safety. We know that the Government is not proposing to deregulate safety, although the logic of deregulation should probably lead you to that, but it is another reason that we are so cautious about deregulation as a subject. In the area of safety, unlike the area of fares or route approval where deregulation is to come, we are maintaining regulation, but having deregulation will put pressure on safety. That has been the experience in the United States where deregulation has been under way for a few years already and where we have seen a number of accidents. Some of the factors of those accidents include pressures that result from the market-place working on carriers, and on the membership of unions who make the system work. These kinds of pressures from cost cutting and cost consciousness have had an impact on safety. We in this Party are concerned about that, and we do not think the Government has shown enough sensitivity to it.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to participate in this debate on Bill C-18 because I have been listening to the Government's arguments on why we should support it. I am sure that Members in this House and those who have watched the House on TV recognize that this whole concept of deregulation and the panacea that deregulation brings had its genesis with the Liberal Party when it was in Government from 1980 to 1984. In fact, the Liberals started
February 3, 1987

this worshipping at the altar of setting rates in a competitive market-place. The Tories are now in power. In Bill C-18 which has 200 odd pages-a highly complicated Bill-the Tories are taking the Liberal idea to its ridiculous conclusion. I asked myself the question, why is this Conservative Government madly dashing, in a country with 25 million people, with a geography not to be found anywhere else in the world, with our particular climate and with the pockets of population that we have, to emulate American deregulation taking place south of the border? Why are we trying to copy-cat the Americans in this whole question of deregulation?
Then, Mr. Speaker, I saw the CTV Question Period on October 19, 1986 when the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), better known as General Custer, had the following response to a question, and that is when I recognized what it was all about. She said that transportation matters were in the ambit of the discussions during free trade negotiations.
That is it, Mr. Speaker. In an effort to get a free trade agreement out of the United States, the Government is prepared once again to put our transportation system on the table. Once again, before we have gotten to a final agreement on free trade between Canada and the United States, the Government is offering up, on the altar of free trade, our transportation system.
We do not disagree that there are certainly changes to be made to the Canadian Transport Commission. Surely we do not disagree that certain changes ought to be made to the administration of the transportation system. We feel we ought to make the transportation system more sensitive to the economic needs of the regions. Certainly there is a need to look at the transportation system in order to ensure that it responds to the needs of Canadians who live in communities like mine, Sault Ste Marie and others across the country. Surely the whole concept behind revamping the system ought to be one of improving service to the people, not only in passenger service but in freight service as well. Yet we find we have difficulty with specific proposals within the Bill.
We have difficulty, for example, with a clause in the Bill that allows for transborder competiton. American carriers would be allowed to come to Canada, do business in Canada and bid on business in Canada. Yet Canadian carriers would not be able to go to the United States to do the same things. To even think that there would be a level playing field in transportation is absolutely ridiculous. The reality is that the largest trucking company in Canada ranks about number 60 compared to trucking companies in the United States. That in fact means that Canadian trucking companies and railways are at a distinct disadvantage.
Already the railway companies are beginning to gear up for the implementation of Bill C-18. For example, the community in my riding in which I live, Capreol, was built on the development of the CNR as a switching centre for northeastern
National Transportation Act, 1986
Ontario. Today we have noticed that the CN has been cutting back on its workforce. In fact, it has been cutting back on its workforce in such a way that its commitment to safety is being called into question.
I just received a letter from a constituent who lives in that town. The letter reads:
Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
I am writing about the job cuts affecting the Car Department in Capreol on April 6, 1987.
As you will see in the attached form, on that date, Certified Car Inspectors will no longer be doing Roll-By train inspections in Capreol. This will be handled by Transportation employees.
He goes on to say the following:
Sir, I have spent four years learning my trade and have had to write an exam to receive my certificate (copy attached). Now, in one bold move, the Canadian National Railway will hand this work over to the running trades.
This is the same company, who, in March 1986, shortly after the Hinton wreck, sent out letters to each employee imploring us to work even more diligently in the area of safety. But, since March 1986, we are no longer allowed to do full inspections or Roll-Bys. I believe this severely hinders safety and shows us that CNR is not concerned at all about safety; the bottom line for them is profit!
I think the CNR is receiving that message from the Government. It is receiving the message that safety does not matter, nor does servicing communities and regional development. That will further erode the economic base and viability of communities in northern Ontario.
The same can be said of the airlines. Already Sault Ste Marie and London, Ontario, have lost their Air Canada links. In the Bill there is, for example, a provision for confidential rates. This means that larger producers will get the best rates from the railway companies. Those rates will be held in confidence and there will be no way for the small or mediumsized producers to get the same kind of rates.
The Conservative Government has said that one of the benefits of deregulation will be lower fares. History has shown that in a monopoly capital that is exactly how it works. In the short term, yes, there are lower fares. When there is no referee, everyone will get into the act. Anyone who can go down to the bank to borrow a few hundred thousand or a million bucks can buy a couple of airplanes and get into regional airlines. Then prices get lower in the dog-eat-dog competition. Then they all fall by the wayside and the big fish will eat the little fish. In the long run, prices will go up and up.
The Government must recognize that our railway and airline systems are tools for economic development and for distributing the population of Canada more evenly. The Government is sacrificing those carriers in the mythological proposal that we can compete south of the border and that competition will make us stronger.
I believe the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is a very wise one. We should send the subject matter of the Bill to the Standing Committee on Transport for further study and we should scrap the Bill for the moment.

February 3, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on this very important Bill, a Bill which does not simply deal with the question of transportation but which, in its implications, goes far beyond merely transportation. The motion currently before the House has been proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). It suggests that the Bill be withdrawn and that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport. This motion is most important because it recognizes that there has been inadequate consultation by this Government with the parties, groups and individuals most affected by this important decision.
We have already seen other examples of the failure of the Government to consult with groups affected by decisions that touch their lives. Just recently, for example, we saw the debacle in Newfoundland in which the Government moved ahead to announce a new policy but forgot to consult with the people most affected. That kind of arrogance and insensitivity to the concerns of the people of Newfoundland has been mirrored in the approach the Government has taken in transportation. It is for that reason that at this time the Bill should be withdrawn and the Government should recognize that the people of Canada should be given an opportunity to discuss this issue before it goes any further.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this Bill is also connected with a program the Government is implementing in another area. I am referring to privatization. Yesterday, the Minister responsible for privatization declared that the Government was very actively considering the case of Air Canada. The Minister told us that she was taking a very close look at the privatization of Petro-Canada as well. Well, I suppose this is the Government's ideology at work in Canada's public sector. However, we in the NDP are not prepared to allow the Government to destroy Air Canada and Petro-Canada and the transportation industry in this country, an industry that is essential in a country like ours.
I mentioned that this is not just a transportation issue. It touches on a broad range of issues. For example, it clearly affects working men and women. Thousands of jobs are at risk as companies will be forced into throat-cutting competition. We need look no further than immediately south of the border to see the implications of this legislation. It will promote union busting and the destruction of jobs. We have just recently seen the elimination of Red Caps on VIA Rail. For many Canadians, particularly the disabled and senior citizens, the Red Caps provided important and essential service. Yet as part of its drive to cut costs VIA Rail has eliminated that vital service. As one who uses the trains on a regular basis, I find that decision not only heartless but absolutely indefensible from the point of view of service for those people who use the trains.
We are dealing with the issue of safety as well. When transport companies have to cut corners, obviously maintenance and safety are affected. I refer to employee health and safety as well as the safety of those who use the service. We know as well that the implications of this Bill will be particularly hard-hitting on women. Many of the jobs to be eliminated are presently Filled by women.
It is a free trade issue as well. The eventual domination of our transportation industry by foreign companies is a very likely outcome of this process. I might note that the process was initiated by the former Liberal Government. The former Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), was a chief architect of this proposal which would have such destructive implications for communities all across Canada. Small business will suffer from these proposals. Regional expansion will be affected. Certainly the bulk commodity shippers are concerned about captive shipper provisions which may drastically increase their costs.
Members of the NDP filed a minority report to the report Freedom to Move. My colleagues, the Hon. Members for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) raised a number of very important concerns. They noted that the Government should be planning to provide more safety inspectors in the transportation sector and not cutting back on an already inadequate number. As well, there must be an effective monitoring agency. I have touched on the question of employment. I would underline that we are talking about 750,000 Canadians employed directly or indirectly in the transportation sector. The Government has not done its homework. It has not adequately examined the implications of deregulation on jobs. There have been no impact studies whatsoever. At a time when unemployment in Canada is already far too high, that kind of negligence is completely unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, this measure will give the U.S. railways and trucking companies easy access to Canada, while there is no reciprocal advantage for Canadian railways and trucking companies in the United States. This is a flagrant betrayal of our independence.
It is not the first time, Mr. Speaker. Once again, the Government is happily selling off part of our national sovereignty, as it has so obviously been doing in the free trade negotiations and the softwood lumber episode.
Mr. Speaker, I just spent two days in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, where I met people from Chicoutimi, Jonquiere, Alma and several other towns in the region. They are afraid. If today, the Government is ready to cave in to U.S. pressure on softwood lumber, they wonder what tomorrow will bring. Will it be pulp and paper? What will it be, Mr. Speaker? This Government is prepared to give up our independence in all those sectors.
Mr. Speaker, if we leave the transportation sector open to free market forces, to free enterprise and competition, carriers
February 3, 1987

will automatically concentrate on the biggest and most lucrative markets, and who can blame them? In other words, peripheral regions and remote areas in Canada's North will have fewer services and fewer opportunities for economic expansion.

Because my time is limited at this particular juncture of the debate I am just going to touch briefly on a couple of other issues. There is a very real concern that the legislation could have an adverse impact on the disabled. I was a member of the Special Committee on Equality Rights which recommended that the Canadian Transport Commission enforce tough new regulations to ensure accessibility for the disabled to all federally-regulated modes of transportation. This legislation will move back from that important objective. As well, it could have a particularly adverse impact on my Province of British Columbia. The Government has already conceded that regulation is necessary in areas above the 55th parallel. What about the other isolated areas below the 55th parallel? Why does the Government equate Cranbrook with Toronto instead of other areas, for example, north of the 55th parallel? We recently saw Air Canada close its ticket counter in Victoria. We have to ask ourselves what would happen in a deregulated British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill ignores the Canadian situation. It makes no allowances for our geography, for our scattered population centres or the rigours of our climate, and it ignores our sovereignty and independence. This Bill wants to hand us over to the invisible forces of the free market, while everybody knows perfectly well these forces will have a very serious and even disastrous impact on the transportation sector across Canada.

For that reason, we in the NDP will do everything we can to prevent the Government from moving ahead with such a destructive piece of legislation. It not only has an adverse impact on transportation but could directly and vitally impact on the nature and character of this great country. The transportation sector is essential. We must not allow the Government to continue with the steps taken by the Liberals in an attempt to destroy it.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I do not see any other speakers rising, and I want to deal briefly with the Bill. In my remarks I want to deal directly with the amendment as printed in the Order Paper:
Bill C-18, An Act respecting national transportation, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Indeed, I intend to go a step further because, while no one even remotely suggests this amendment might pass, I am of the opinion that an attempt might be made to have the Bill referred to the Standing Committee on Transport instead of a legislative committee.
National Transportation Act, 1986
I was a member of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, better known as the McGrath committee. I can tell you that the recommendations having to do with legislative committees were carefully reasoned after a great deal of study, and in my opinion, at least, legislative committees to date have been working extremely well. In addition, standing committees with their new-found freedom have also, in my opinion, been working well.
I recently read in the press where the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport is reported to have said that his committee was breaking new ground when it dealt with the Port Authority. That is the role of the standing committees. The challenge for standing committees is immense. The possibilities for them are enormous. Why then refer this piece of legislation to a standing committee and break the new rules which have been working so well?
As is done in the normal course of events, there was a chairman appointed according to the new rules when the Bill was first introduced in the House. I am that chairman. While I do not particularly want to chair this Bill for my own sake, I do want it to go to a legislative committee. I have recently been given the job of chairing the legislative committee on Bill C-37 and that may keep me busy for a little while. I have, however, spent the last 14 years involved in the Transport Committee, sitting on it primarily when it was dealing with matters of air and rail, less frequently when it dealt with matters of water transport.
The clerk for the legislative committee on Bill C-18 was appointed at exactly the same time as I. The clerk who was chosen is one of the most knowledgeable in the Field of transport. The clerk and I met and jointly requested a researcher who is equally well versed in this field. The researcher has been working steadily since November on the subject matter, preparing material for me as chairman in readiness for the Bill going to committee.
Since the matter is spelled out by the Clerk at the Table each day in the Orders of the Day as follows, "Resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of Transport-That Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee", there has necessarily been a great deal of correspondence between persons who want to appear before the committee and myself. All of this correspondence has been answered and a list has been prepared.
Although this may be of no major significance, I, as chairman, have discussed the matter with the chairman of the comparable committee in the European Parliament which is dealing with the deregulation of transport. They are now making arrangements to come to Canada, at their expense, to discuss these very important matters on a joint basis with us.
The powers of the legislative committee are set out very clearly in Section 93(8)(a) which says that a legislative

February 3, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
committee has exactly the same powers as the old standing committees had in dealing with legislation. The rule spells out clearly what is to be done, how, and when, and when the committee ceases to exist. The persons involved in a legislative committee to deal with Bill C-18 would very likely be the same persons who normally sit on the Standing Committee on Transport who are knowledgeable and familiar with the subject.
Reform, from the election of the Speaker down to the finest detail, in my opinion, has been well received in this House. I think it can be proven by example that the reform conditions have done the House a great deal of good. I see no justification for not dealing with this Bill, which is of major significance to the country, in exactly the same way. I strongly suggest that this is what should happen to it.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some very brief submissions on Bill C-18. Bill C-18 is an extensive and comprehensive piece of legislation comprised of approximately 370 pages. The Liberal Party supports in principle the concept of deregulation. However, we do have some very serious concerns about how the Government is proceeding with Bill C-18.
As has been indicated by other Hon. Members in the House, deregulation will affect every Canadian. A number of interest groups, organizations and companies directly affected by deregulation have expressed some very profound concerns with regard to this Bill. I have a number of press clippings which address Bill C-18.
A story in the Montreal Gazette on Tuesday, October 8, 1985, was headlined: "Deregulation will hurt us, CP Rail says". The headline to an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press reads: "Deregulation dangerous". A story in the Winnipeg Free Press was titled: "Truckers warned province loser in deregulation". The Ottawa Citizen carried an article entitled: "Industry officials fear deregulation plan will run Canadian truckers off the road". The list goes on.
It is clear that the interest groups involved are somewhat concerned about the lack of consultation to date with regard to Bill C-18. The Transport Committee was allotted two months to study Freedom to Move. The committee was unable to visit Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Canada's North. More important, the Standing Committee on Transport has been unable to review airline deregulation in the United States which has been in place since 1978.
Given the implications of Bill C-18 and the effect it will have on Canadians, we believe that we should proceed more cautiously with it. The Bill is primarily designed to revamp the National Transportation Act which was brought in in 1967 by the Hon. Jack Pickersgill who was then the Minister of Transport in the administration of Lester Pearson. The stated purpose of Bill C-18 is to increase competition in the transportation sector by removing certain regulations which hinder the
ability to compete. The modes of transportation affected by deregulation measures in this Bill are rail, air and trucking.
Canadians are asking themselves how deregulation will affect them and their families. We are told that as a result of deregulation the prices will be lower. We are also told that consumers will have more choice in modes of transportation.
The United States embarked upon deregulation in 1978. It is important to consider the American experience in addressing some of the concerns which have been raised in Canada. At times there appears to be a desire by the Government to march lock-step with the United States and deregulations there.
With regard to employment, we are concerned that employees in the airline industry will face massive lay-offs and displacement. That seems logical since one of the effects of deregulation will be that transportation companies will be able to cut costs. It seems logical that one of the ways to cut costs is to reduce the number of employees in any particular industry.
Deregulation was introduced in 1978 in the United States. From 1980 to 1985, 40,000 airline employees lost their jobs. What impact will Bill C-18 have on the employment picture in Canada? If the American experience is one we wish to look to, we can expect in Canada a considerable loss of jobs. The legislation contains no provision whatsoever to protect employment in the airline industry. There is nothing in this Bill to bind airline companies to compensate displaced workers or to give fair warning before layoffs.
It is believed that increased competition will lead to the cutting of costs, a movement towards a "no frills" strategy, route abandonment and a greater propensity to failure, all of which will lead to reduced employment opportunities and layoffs. Bill C-18 offers absolutely no provisions to offset the probable negative impact that deregulation would have on labour in the transportation sector, despite the evidence in black and white of the dislocation problems encountered in the United States as a result of deregulation.
At committee stage, when the Freedom to Move paper was considered, we strongly proposed that safeguards be legislated and that new labour management agreements be encouraged. Agreements dealing with security, classification and retraining in the airline industry would also ease the impact of employment loss. The major concern of the Liberal Party is the potential loss of employment here in Canada. We all know that unemployment is one of the biggest problems facing Canadians.
We are also concerned with respect to the issue of safety. We regret that the legislation contains no safeguards preventing situations which would effectively reduce safety standards in the airline industry. The American experience has shown us that this is a real danger. Our position with regard to safety is based on four major observations. First, deregulation brings on a substanatial increase in competition which in lean and more difficult times leads to few remaining options in cost-cutting
February 3, 1987

strategies. In these stressful periods, a lesser managerial integrity will lead to cost-cutting in maintenance, monitoring, inspection and verification of aircraft. Second, deregulation strongly encourages new entries into the market by relaxing the regulations for entry. These new companies often enter with inexperience and improperly trained employees to maintain aircraft. Third, deregulation impacts on established and new carriers to demand concessions from their employees. These concessions often lead to longer working hours, stress, job insecurity, lower wages and fatigue, which are all causes of a higher risk of human error. Fourth, in the United States the Federal Aviation Administration in 1979 had 2,000 inspectors monitoring 237 air carriers. In 1984 it had 1,300 inspectors for 407 air carriers.
In closing, I would like to repeat our concerns. We support in principle the concept of deregulation, but we have some very serious concerns with regard to the method by which the Government is proposing to implement deregulation in the transportation industry in Canada.


Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on this Bill with very short notice because of all the games played by opposition Members. I was slated to speak as early as last December. Unfortunately, because of all the delays, I did not arrive until late last night after having been stuck in the North for a few days because of snowstorms and the lack of some alternative forms of transportation.
One of the reasons I participated in the Standing Committee on Transport is because I wanted to try and focus some attention on the Arctic regions of this country, which are very large, indeed. For example, my riding covers three time zones. It stretches from James Bay to the North Pole, from the southern tip of Baffin Island over past northern Quebec and then stretches over to the Beaufort Sea near the Yukon border.
Naturally, transportation is the key to the development or non-development of the Arctic regions.
I believe the North has the highest rate of transportation costs in the whole country, if not in the whole world. For example, I can travel from Ottawa to a place called Grise Fiord, the northernmost civilian community-there are other communities near the northern tip of Canada such as Eureka and Alert, but they are military-at a cost of $1,700 return. Because the scheduled airlines do not run for two more weeks, in order to visit a place like Grise Fiord I would have to charter back, because one obviously cannot sit for two weeks in a community of 200 in the winter-time with no daylight. I do not believe any parliamentarian would wish to spend two weeks in the northernmost community of Canada with no daylight at all. Therefore, I would have to charter back. It costs over $2,000 for a chartered flight from Grise Fiord to Resolute Bay.
The Northwest Territorial Airways run from Yellowknife, the capital of the Northwest Territories, to Frobisher Bay. Most people of Frobisher Bay-I suppose it is called "Iqaluit" nowadays-feel it might be the next capital of the new
National Transportation Act, 1986
Government of Nunavut. However, that is another story, Mr. Speaker. A return airfare from the capital of the Northwest Territories to Iqaluit costs $1,700. For that money one can go from Montreal to Finland, to Leningrad, to Moscow, with the airfare including accommodation, plus meals, I heard, in Moscow and Leningrad.
I have tried to bring to the attention of this House and to the Committee that perhaps it is time the Government took another look at the North with some vision. Quite a few years ago, in the years of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, the Government dared to have a vision about the North. Now we have oil develoment in the Beaufort Sea. In fact, most people in the North, politicians included, are fighting over control of the Beaufort Sea. They are all trying to get a share of the revenues. But there are at least three or four Arctic regions for which no one has a vision at all. One is needed.
In the speech I might have read, had I the time, I would have brought to the attention of Hon. Members matters such as the creation of transportation links other than air links. Other links are needed because the terrain is too rugged, too uncertain, too remote and too large for the building of roads. It is just not economical. I am not sure that taxpayers in the south of Canada who pay taxes to keep the North running because it is part of the country know that many people in the North appreciate that. People in small remote communities have told me many times: "If you have an opportunity to talk to southern Candaians, the taxpayers, the Government and its representatives, show them some appreciation for us".
With respect to alternatives to transportation in the North, there are track vehicles. Out of eight, nine and sometimes ten months of the year in the North we have frost, snow, ice and temperatures below zero. In fact, I was in Gjoa Haven this week and the temperature was hovering around minus 42 degrees Celsius. Some planes are not even allowed to fly at certain temperature ranges in the North. But there is an alternative form of travel other than air travel. It is affordable, low cost track vehicles. I do not know why the Government in these many years has not thought to invest perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars in track vehicles. In my region which is called the District of Keewatin there is a Bombardier track vehicle. It provides passenger transport and is owned by a local entrepreneur who operates from communities such as Eskimo Point to Whale Cove to Rankin Inlet, twice weekly at half the cost of air fare. A great many people use it. It is not very comfortable and sometimes it takes all day to get from point A to point B, but it is the only affordable method of travel. Many regions, such as the Baffin region which is mountainous, cannot afford the capital expense of buying vehicles such as this, but Governments can.
With the recent interest in sovereignty in the North and the interest which Canadians have shown regarding the North, transportation will be the key not only to the development of the North but also to the defence of the Arctic region.

February 3, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
1 will end my speech here, Mr. Speaker. Flad I the time, I would go into such matters as how good this transportation measure will be for Canada. But since I do not have the time I will not go through the motions of saying how good it is.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened with a great deal of interest to the Hon. Member's speech. He provided some very insightful comments about the situation in northern Canada. I know that I speak for my Party when I say that we would be quite prepared to give unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to continue, if he so wishes, in terms of his observations which have been an important contribution to the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member's motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Suluk: Mr. Speaker, I now have some speech notes which were brought to me from my office. First, perhaps I should ascertain how much time I have.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A reasonable amount of time.


Thomas Suluk: I thank Hon. Members opposite.
I did not have the opportunity to elaborate on some of the ways in which air transportation has developed the northern part of our great country. There are still some companies in the North which rely on such outmoded planes as DC-3s, the old workhorses of the Second World War. I do not know if they date back to the First World War, but equipment such as that is still being used. There are a few airlines such as N.W.T. Air which use Electra four-engine aircraft. There are airlines such as Nordair which fly from Montreal to places such as Frobisher Bay, Resolute Bay and Nanisivik. Nanisivik is where one of the northern-most mines is located. It contributes to the economy of the North, regardless of whether or not some people from the North say that mining is detrimental to the environment. Their comments also apply to oil development.
Perhaps I should dwell briefly on the alternative forms of travel that are available to the North which have not been utilized over the last few years. In the first speech I ever made to the House I tried to convince parliamentarians and the Government that they should provide some form of subsidy, either by way of subsidy to the airline companies or to the people directly so that they could afford to travel in the North. Air travel is the only way of travelling in the North. 1 do not wish to say that Canadians, or anyone in the world for that matter, cannot get from point A to point B in the North. Rather, I would say that there are about 25 to 30 remote settlements in the Artie region, not including communities in northern Quebec, northern Ontario, Labrador and Yukon, which have modern airports and modern airstrips. They have all the necessary facilities. They also have regional airlines and charter companies. They do not lack any of those facilities.
They do not lack airplanes. What they lack is the ability to travel, and the freedom to travel.
When I was in Gjoa Haven last week I was talking on a local open-line program. One of the questions I received was about Freedom to Move, the deregulation of the airline industry. One of the questions people asked me was why southern Canadians have access to competitive airlines and air fares, but in the North this will not be available? The answer 1 gave, which is quite true, is that without exception all the northern airlines that made representations to the Standing Committee on Transport said they do not want change, they do not want competition, they do not want anybody else encroaching on their profitable businesses and the monopolies that they have. However, if you travel from Montreal to Frobisher Bay, or from Winnipeg to Rankin Inlet, or from Edmonton to Yellowknife, there will be competition. But there will not be competition within the northern region. That is the concern which I have tried to bring forward.
I know that Canadians and the Government are already paying a lot to keep the North operating. Family allowances are provided, welfare is provided directly and indirectly through the Government of the Northwest Territories. That Government receives its principal operating budget from the federal Government, and directly or indirectly from southern Canadian taxpayers. Not so long ago I expressed appreciation for that.
Canadians also are concerned about the sovereignty of the Arctic regions. Most of us in the North talk about who may be playing tag under the Arctic ice with Soviet and American submarines. Yet Canadian submarines cannot go under the ice because we do not have the long-range capabilities of other nations. The Arctic and the North belong to Canada, but we have to rely on other NATO countries to look after the Arctic regions for us. It is time Canadians woke up to the fact that the North is a very large region.
I do not know whether providing assistance to 17,000 people would be considered a major expense, but nevertheless there are many people in the North who feel that perhaps one day the Government or Canadians may stop looking at them with favour, and one day they might have funding cut off. That is the impression held by some people. They hear on the radio, they watch on television and in the news that governments are making cut-backs, and how they might cut family allowances, and things of that nature. I try to tell them that in southern parts people tend to exaggerate a little. However, that is the nature of politics.
I wish to return to the issue of providing subsidies to airline companies, or the people who travel. If those two are not possible, then perhaps we should turn to some companies in southern Canada, of which there are many, that have done research for defence companies, or for other companies such as those involved in the oil industry, and must have developed
February 3, 1987

vehicles that could operate efficiently, cheaply, and economically in the Arctic regions in the sea ice. Why not utilize what has already been proven to be capable of running in cold regions, and have those vehicles used as alternates to building roads?
Obviously, there are no great riches in the Arctic at the present time. Mines are closing. In my riding, for example, Cullaton Lake is closing, Pine Point is closing, Nanisivik maybe has two years left. In spite of the fact that many Canadians may hear about opposition to development, there are people who rely on employment from those few jobs that the companies provide. It is very expensive to build roads. There are only two or three months of shipping season open in the summertime. In some places ships cannot go at all. For example, a place called Pelly Bay on the north Arctic coast is a small community where, in most decades, the ice never leaves. Icebreakers may be able to go there, but all the houses, all the buildings, all the food,- everything comes by air all the way from Yellowknife. The people in those communities are expected to pay for canned goods, milk, bread, and vegetables, if they are available, with the income received from family allowances or welfare.
Some people may have heard about the high birth rate in the North. That is because people have learned to use family allowances as a means of income, because there is nothing else. The people used to be able to sell fur-bearing animals to the Hudson's Bay Company. In most cases now the Hudson's Bay Company will not take a second look at them. The seal industry in Baffin Island used to provide at least a semblance of independence and some pride, but that too is gone.
I know that Canadians are generous because they provide assistance to starving people in Ethiopia and in other parts of the world. I also know that if Canadians wished, they could provide the necessary services to the people up there.There are not many of them; there are only 17,000 people. In fact, there are about 20,000 or 25,000 people in the whole northern Canadian Arctic region. I know Canadians can be generous. I know the Government can be generous and can overrule some of the strict guidelines which prevent innovative development by providing transportation facilities other than through airlines.
I believe I have sufficiently expounded on what living in the North is like. Perhaps I should mention my experience in a little place called Whale Cove in southern Keewatin, just north of the Province of Manitoba. It faces some of the highest prices of any community in terms of canned milk and bread. I once visited there and proceeded to buy a small box of canned goods and a few other staples. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that I did not have enough money in my pocket at that time to pay for the box of groceries because it cost over $100? One has to be up there to believe it. One has to go up there to believe some of the unbelievable costs faced by the people there, especially welfare recipients.
National Transportation Act, 1986
I am not talking about territorial and federal Government employees. They have benefits coming out of their ears. In fact many government people are lobbying me now and saying "if you touch our northern benefits and our holidays to the south, we will have a very difficult time". It is very difficult to have any sympathy at all for people who say things of that nature, when one knows that there are people who are trying to live on welfare.
Just a few weeks ago I almost got into trouble with territorial civil servants because I lobbied on behalf of welfare recipients, so that they could receive a portion of their welfare cheques in cash to buy gas and oil to go hunting for a hundred pounds of meat rather than purchasing expensive canned food from the co-op or from Hudson's Bay.
It is difficult for many people to make a living up North, yet civil servants have northern allowances, isolation pay, housing benefits such as staff housing, and goodness knows what else. However, we hear them say that because the Government is going to tax them to make it equitable, they will have a very difficult time. I have a very difficult time believing something like this because I know people who do not have jobs. There are not very many jobs in that region. Most Canadians probably know that. It is very difficult for people who live on welfare, on family allowances, or on old age pensions. They cannot order food from the south as can government employees. They do not have the knowledge and they do not have communication with southern suppliers. Fortunately they can at least get some country food such as caribou and fish. Their livelihood from fur-bearing animals has already been destroyed. We are told that about "fur-made-Canada"; that fur traders who went from the East to the West, to the interior, and to the Arctic regions built this country. Unfortunately, I suppose, the lack of a market for the commodity which built the country is now destroying part of the culture of the northern region.
This is why I have tried very hard to convince the Government and the House to find it in their hearts to provide a small amount of equity and, at the very least, to start research into what alternative forms of travel can be provided for the North.
We all know that travelling by air is very expensive and very difficult, not only for people who must fly but also for those who operate aircraft in minus 40 degree temperatures. They have to heat buildings and to keep their airplanes running. They try to maintain a semblance of happiness for the small flying public who are disappointed many times when airplanes do not arrive because they are frozen solid or fuel lines have been frozen. Those are the kinds of conditions flying companies have to face. I am not saying that they are the culprits.


Mr. McCurdy:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt this eloquent portrayal of the North, which I think has done all of us good. I just remind my colleague that he has been accorded indefinite time. Given what my colleagues and I consider the very great value of this eloquent portrayal of the needs of the North, I hope he will
3022

February 3, 1987
continue until he has finished communicating all he wishes to communicate, and all that I think we need to hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Member is aware that he has unlimited time.


Thomas Suluk: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to find a way to end my speech, and I was beginning to find that I was digging myself deeper into a hole. I am glad that the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) raised a point of order. It woke me up and brought me back down to earth.
I think I have provided sufficient examples of the situation to Hon. Members. Frankly, my train of thought has been broken, so I will sit in my place and try to collect my thoughts. Perhaps, in a little while, I may be able to ask a question or make a comment. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for according me this time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, CN strikes again. I have just heard that more lay-offs have been announced by CN at the Moncton shops. One hundred and sixty-two workers have received their lay-offs effective immediately; 55 are eligible for early retirement, and 232 will be transferred. This makes a total of 449 jobs lost to southeast New Brunswick, and a grand total of 852 jobs lost since September, 1985. It is a darn shame. How can the Government allow this kind of action by a Crown corporation to continue? How can the Government even pretend that it is looking after Atlantic Canada?
[ Translation]
With respect to the Atlantic region, Mr. Speaker, the behaviour of this Government is shameful, and it has shirked all responsibilities.
Where are our Ministers? What is their role in Cabinet? Or are they quite simply inert puppets strung up by a heartless Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who could not possibly care less about regional development?



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, today we have unfortunately witnessed the tragic murder of yet another Canadian police officer, the second in less than 30 days. Therefore, in light of the 100 per cent increase in police killings since the last execution in 1962, and the 116 per cent increase in homicides for the same period, it has become imperative that Canadians be given the chance for open, honest dialogue on the subject of capital punishment.
The current statistics published on page 18 of a report from the Centre for Justice Statistics shows a comparison with the United States. While American murder rates, since bringing back the death sentence in 1976, have radically decreased, the number of murders in Canada is on the rise. In the United States in 1984 there were 2,320 fewer homicide offences than in 1982. In Canada there were 22 more homicides in 1985 than in 1984. Therefore, while it is obvious that capital punishment will not prevent all homicides, there is clear evidence to support the fact that it could have stopped some, such as serial killers, kidnap killers, hostage taking killers, and planned, deliberate, first-degree murderers.



BY-ELECTION VICTORY FOR NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATE

James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, all Yukoners can be proud of the election yesterday of Danny Joe to the Yukon Legislature for the riding Tatchun. Not only is this a victory for Danny Joe, a hunter and trapper and respected member of the community, it is a victory for the fine work of the New Democratic Government of the Yukon.
Since first elected, Tony Penikett and the New Democrats have reduced unemployment from 18 per cent to 9 per cent. Housing starts are improving, construction is increasing, and all economic indicators are up. This is what Yukoners can expect from a Government that took action to keep the Cyprus Anvil mine running and stepped in to save Watson Lake Forest Products for which it received 100 per cent support from the community.
Not content to rest on an already impressive record, the Government is working to settle land claims and has now embarked on Yukon 2000 to ensure continued economic prosperity.
By electing Danny Joe, the residents of Tatchun have selected an excellent representative, one who will stand up and represent their interests. They have also sent a ringing endorsation of the policies of the Tony Penikett Government,
February 3, 1987

policies that see the Government working together with Yukoners for the benefit of all.



INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, when are we going to get Section 31 of the Income Tax Act out of our legislation? It is discriminatory, a bane to farmers, an embarrassment to bureaucrats, and is interpreted various ways by the courts.
Farming requires capital. If a farmer borrows the capital from the banks in order to keep his farm going until it makes a profit, he may claim all expenses. But if the same farmer, instead of borrowing the capital, takes another job or position in addition to working on the farm, and then uses his earnings to keep the farm viable until it becomes profitable, he is not considered a farmer under this section and may not claim all of his farm expenses.
Farming, particularly where livestock is involved, is a longterm operation. It takes several years before a farm or ranch becomes profitable. Because of the harassment under this section by Revenue officials, some excellent farmers have become frustrated and sold their holdings, and agriculture has lost valuable farmers.
Yes, I am all in favour of tax reform, but let us clean up our own legislation like deleting Section 31 from the Act. That will be real tax reform.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, 71 years ago on this date a tragic event took place on Parliament Hill when a fire raged through the Centre Block, claiming the lives of seven persons and destroying our Parliament Buildings. One of those who died in the fire was a Member of Parliament. Although a plaque bearing his name is erected in the lobby in front of the House of Commons, there is no mention of the names of the employees who lost their lives.
Since I first came to the House as a Member of Parliament in 1984, I have several times raised the issue that a plaque should be erected to honour those employees who died, not only in order to honour them but to pay tribute to all
employees who have helped to make the Parliament Buildings work. As the only former staff member ever to have been elected to the House of Commons, I hope the day will come very soon when we may all join together to unveil such a plaque. Perhaps the same anniversary next year would be the appropriate time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ABORTION


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the number of abortions performed in Canada and I feel that not enough attention is paid to adoption as a solution to problem pregnancies. The number of infants available for adoption has fallen drastically and the average length of time prospective adoptive parents must wait is now five years.
In 1984-85 the Province of Saskatchewan placed only 137 infants for adoption while there was a waiting list of close to
1,000	families. In British Columbia, the province with the highest abortion rate, the adoption waiting list for the same year listed well over 2,500 families while only 147 healthy infants were placed by that province for adoption.
Clearly there are thousands of Canadian families eagerly awaiting to adopt children. I believe this option is not stressed enough to women seeking abortions. We should work to dispel the myths surrounding adoption and to promote it as the act of love that it most surely is, both on the part of the mother giving birth and on the part of the adoptive family.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that there are Canadians concerned about rural and urban post office service who are trying to meet with the Minister. For example, CUEPS, the organization that represents suburban Canadians who want fair service like their neighbours receive has been trying to meet with the Minister since last November when he cancelled his meeting with its representatives. These people have a right to have their grievances heard and the Minister has a responsibility to meet with them.
Yesterday the Minister said in the House that he would meet with Rural Dignity, the group concerned with rural postal service. He told the group to come in the next day, thus giving it less than 24 hours' notice. The group could not meet

February 3, 1987
that deadline and he has refused to provide an alternate date. It is time for the Minister to realize that he must have the input of the public if he is to run the Post Office in any decent fashion whatsoever.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government appointed Daniel Molgat as Ambassador to the European Community in Brussels. Mr. Molgat, who was Canada's Ambassador to Spain, will now perform a very crucial role for Canada because the international dispute between the United States and the European Economic Community over grain was settled on January 29, 1987.
Mr. Molgat, a 26-year veteran of Canada's diplomatic service, will bring a wealth of experience to the job, thus ensuring a solid reputation for and protection of Canada's interests. Members of the Opposition should be applauding the appointment of this extremely well qualified individual. Perhaps they are silent because Mr. Molgat is the younger brother of Liberal Senator Gil Molgat. This appointment, along with many others the Government has made, shows the Government's commitment to quality and excellence in selecting individuals to serve Canada.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the newspaper La Presse has just published five articles which clearly illustrate the catastrophic situation of poor people in Greater Montreal and Quebec generally. These articles indicate that more than half a million people in the Montreal metropolitan area live under the threshold of poverty and have to line up to get a bowl of soup. The articles also point out an 11-year life expectancy gap between the residents of Saint-Henri and those of Mont-Royal.
We are told as well about the appaling living conditions of younger people who, forced to make do with meagre social assistance benefits, must also queue up in bread lines.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and the Minister of State (Youth) (Mr. Charest) ought to read these articles if only to appreciate the fact that, contrary to what they claim, instead of slashing into job creation programs-such as community development or Challenge 87 projects-and
shifting them onto the private sector, they should continue to fund them in support of charitable organizations which help people get out of their misery.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, you can imagine my surprise a few days ago when I found in my Jonquiere mail box-as many of my constituents did in theirs-a letter entitled "Message from Ed Broadbent, MP for Oshawa".
Mr. Speaker, I want to denounce this initiative on the part of the Leader of the New Democratic Party who uses his privileges for partisan activities to make a phoney survey among Canadians.
Here is the kind of comment to which taxpayers are expected to respond: Yes, I think that a tax reform guaranteeing that each taxpayer pays his fair share is necessary. Low or average income Canadians should not have to bear an unfair tax burden. Can anyone be against that?
Here is another typical question, Mr. Speaker: Yes, I support you when you advocate fair taxation! Mr. Speaker, can anyone be against fair taxation?
This approach must be denounced. It is unbelievable that such questions should even be put to Canadians. It is a waste of public funds, altogether shameful. This phoney survey is so ridiculous that Canadians are not even given an opportunity to say no. I have a copy here, Mr. Speaker.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-DEMAND FOR CANCELLATION

Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), recently attended the national convention of the Canadian Paperworkers Union. The delegates asked him to take a message to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of Canada. I do so on his and their behalf.
More than 10,000 members of the Canadian Paperworkers Union from coast to coast have signed cards to send to the Prime Minister expressing their concern about the Government's free trade talks. The cards say: "No to free trade. Sir, you have no mandate to negotiate our way of life. You have no mandate to negotiate away the jobs of one million Canadian
February 3, 1987

workers. I demand you withdraw from free trade and fulfil your promise of jobs, jobs, jobs."
We in the NDP are proud to work hand in hand with these
10,000	workers and the thousands more they represent. Let us cancel the free trade madness now before we give away any more of our resources.



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, once again in northern Ontario sincere and determined efforts are being made to fashion a fishing agreement with the Indian people of that region. The reaction of some non-native persons to this process is disturbing and, in som6 cases, disgraceful. Aboriginal rights are recognized in the Canadian Constitution. The most basic and primary of these rights relate to hunting, fishing and trapping. Treaties did not destroy aboriginal rights but confirmed them, and provided for a sharing of natural resources with the newcomers.
The proposed fishing agreement in northern Ontario calls for co-management arrangements for the use and conservation of this resource. It is a reasonable way to proceed. Those who oppose the negotiated approach should consider that the alternative, court action, could lead to a decision upholding an unfettered aboriginal right to fish in traditional territories.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, it is a cruel irony that in a world where many people still go to bed hungry every night, many countries, including Canada, worry about how to market food surpluses. That is why I was pleased to hear yesterday that CIDA will spend some $450 million on food aid and development over the next two years and that most of the money will be spent on the purchase of grains and oilseeds from western Canadian farmers as part of our contribution to an international world food program.
This is an idea which is already supported by many farmers in the west and indeed all across Canada, who participate in programs like that of the Canadian Food Grains Bank. This particular organization was funded by the Mennonite Central Committee some three years ago and now is supported by six other church organizations. Farmers from across the country contribute grain and money and that is matched or more than matched by CIDA.
While some of CIDA's projects are occasionally and, I think, properly subject to public criticism, I do believe the vast majority of Canadians support this very practical program which ensures that some of our food surpluses are distributed directly to those who need them most.



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION BELL CANADA-RATE REBALANCING APPLICATION

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, recently the CRTC directed telephone companies to reduce their long-distance rates. Naturally the bulk of the benefits will go to large business corporations. Today, apparently, Bell is going to make an application to the CRTC to permit a rate rebalancing program. That would mean a minimum increase of $1 per month for every home-owner customer of Bell Canada. We oppose such an increase because it will mean the end of the universal telephone service which Canadians have enjoyed. We call upon the CRTC to reject that proposal of Bell Canada.



FORESTRY


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, forestry is of special concern to me. As a Nova Scotian, I am very concerned about an industry which directly and indirectly provides jobs for nearly 30,000 Nova Scotians. As a Canadian, I am concerned about an industry which puts $28 billion into the national economy each year and provides
350,000	jobs. With regard to exports, we are all aware of the large amount of money which forest products earn. Last year that amounted to more than $16 billion. According to the Financial Post, that will amount to $17.5 billion this year. That is impressive.
As an M.P. from Cape Breton I can say that we were very pleased that the federal Government invested $10 million in our forests in 1986. Cape Breton is the home of Stora Forest Industries, an important Christmas tree industry.
We are all aware of the importance of a healthy forest industry. The federal Government realizes the importance of forestry to Canadians. Since 1984 national forest renewal spending has more than quadrupled. This kind of commitment is essential if our forest industry is to continue to prosper. I urge the renewal of forestry agreements with Nova Scotia which are due to expire at the end of March.

February 3, 1987
House of Commons HOUSE OF COMMONS



ANNIVERSARY OF GREAT FIRE OF 1916

Mr. Speaker:: I would like to bring to the attention of all Hon. Members a matter which was raised at the beginning of proceedings this morning, that is, the wooden replica of the Mace which is on the Table today. I make this explanation in the interest of Hon. Members who did not hear it this morning and of the many members of the public who are present, on the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), following upon the very excellent statement made by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).
The Chair believes it is very important that we be reminded of the terrible events of this day, 71 years ago, when the Centre Block of the House of Commons burned. It is in memory of those who lost their lives in that Fire, and in memory of those who had the courage and vision to rebuild, that we place the wooden replica of the Mace on the Table on this day each year. I know all Hon. Members would want the Chair to bring that to the attention of the Chamber and the public of Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Last night on television, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs admitted that Senator Jean Bazin had approached him twice about the billion-dollar contract awarded to Oerlikon: first Montreal, on March 14, and subsequently in Vancouver, on May 1 at the opening of Expo 86. This revelation is a direct contradiction of the previous version of the facts provided by the Government with respect to the role played by this close friend of the Prime Minister. Why didn't the Government tell the truth to start with? Doesn't this convince the Prime Minister that a full public inquiry is necessary to bring to light all the facts connected with the contract and this whole affair?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I did not see the report in question, but I can inform the Hon. Member that on Tuesday, January 13,1 said that my principal secretary, Mr. Roy, met with Mr. Bazin, and on Wednesday, January 14, 1987, I was informed of the facts by Mr. Roy. That is the information I received and brought to the attention of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, and there is nothing in what was said that would lead me to contradict any part of any of my statements.


SENATOR BAZIN'S ACTIONS
John Napier Turner: refer directly to the role of Senator Jean Bazin. On January 18 Jean Bazin issued a statement through the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations of the Senate with these words: "When the Gestion Farillon file was transferred by Oerlikon Aerospace to the firm of Byers Casgrain, Jean Bazin did not handle this file personally". The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has admitted he was approached twice by Mr. Bazin about the Oerlikon project, long before Mr. Bazin claims he became involved in this file.
Does the Prime Minister really expect Canadians to believe his close friend and political organizer of Quebec was not lobbying the Minister responsible for the awarding of this SI billion contract? Why does the Prime Minister not allow a full public inquiry so that Canadians can draw their own conclusions about what happened in this whole mess?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think that question was answered yesterday in the House. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs elaborated on it outside the House. It was a conversation en passant. When the defence critic for the Liberal Party was asked on the CTV Question Period program if he had any reason to believe, apart from the land scam itself, that there was anything questionable about the tendering process for the defence contract, he said: "No, I do not". What we are having here is the Liberal Party trying to cast a broad net so it can catch with innuendo, smear, and suspicion any parties which may have had any interest at all in this issue.


John Napier Turner: We are not basing these questions on innuendo. We are basing them on a statement given to a reputable journalist about the position and connection of Jean Bazin in this contract.


SENATOR BAZIN'S CONVERSATIONS WITH MINISTER
John Napier Turner: On
January 20 the Prime Minister said in this House: "Mr. Bazin is a lawyer, he is not a lobbyist". Could the Prime Minister, or the Deputy Prime Minister for that matter, tell us what legal issues about Oerlikon were discussed by Mr. Bazin with the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs both at the Tory Convention in March and at the opening of Expo in Vancouver on May 1? Why does the Prime Minister not admit that Mr. Bazin was not acting as a lawyer, he was acting as a lobbyist, and was aware of this file well before he admitted it in that statement from the Senate?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has attended a few cocktail parties in his day, as well as have other Members of Parliament and
February 3, 1987

other Ministers. Quite frankly, I understand the issue was raised as a conversation piece during the course of a cocktail reception. I am sure the right hon. gentleman has raised certain issues which interested him with other parties. What is the most important thing here is the fact that when the Prime Minister was made aware of certain irregularities, he took the position then and there to initiate a police inquiry, to relieve a Minister of his responsibilities, and in doing so he has acted in the public interest.


OERLIKON CONTRACT-TENDERING PROCESS
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister not agree that there are now sufficient grounds to call for a public inquiry, in light of the fact that during the Prime Minister's absence on his trip throughout Africa it has been learned that a former Minister of Defence of his Government had serious misgivings about recommending Oerlikon for the low-level air defence contract on the basis of security and supply, and that the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion for his Government, had serious concerns about the economic benefits package which the Oerlikon bid had put forward? In fact we now learn that the former Associate Defence Minister was personally lobbied by Senator Bazin long before he publicly stated he was involved in the Oerlikon file.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think all we know on this side is what the Hon. Member said on Question Period over a week ago. He said he knew of no irregularities whatsoever relating to the tendering process. If there is a serious question outstanding it is why the Hon. Member keeps changing his story. Are we to believe what he said yesterday and this morning, or are we to believe what he said a week or 10 days ago?
The Oerlikon system was best on price by $150 million. It was rated best technically and in terms of do-ability, and rated best in terms of Canadian content. If it is the position of the Liberal Party that Ministers should have overruled the recommendation of the officials who made those evaluations, and awarded the contract to someone else, let us hear that from them.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I have been very consistent with my side of the story, which is more than I can say for the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Why does he not have the courage to call for a public inquiry so that we can have all of the facts put before an impartial inquiry and
Oral Questions
so that Canadians can once again have their faith restored in the integrity of the political system which the Government is flouting?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Government has courage. It has acted. It has initiated an RCMP investigation, full and unfettered, notwithstanding the fact that Members opposite would like to interfere and have us interfere in the process.
I might add that yesterday, and last night on television, the Hon. Member made a very strong allegation about there being a short list with regard to professionals and employees that the Oerlikon firm had to hire. Last night when Oerlikon was asked in the company of its attorneys whether or not the Hon. Member was correctly quoted, he undertook to clarify and correct his allegations immediately. We have a news story emanating from this Member every day. As the Minister of National Defence has said, what story are we to believe from him today?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. However, before I ask it I would like to compliment the Prime Minister on his recent visit to the front line states of southern Africa.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I commend him for what he had to say there. In so doing I am sure I speak in this particular instance for the vast majority of Canadians who were pleased to see him doing what he did.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to come back to domestic matters, something a little different.
While the Prime Minister was away the Government of Canada and the Government of France jointly announced a totally unacceptable deal aimed at resolving the dispute over territorial waters off St. Pierre and Miquelon. I have a copy of a letter sent by the Premier of Newfoundland to the Prime Minister just before Christmas in which the Premier of Newfoundland states: "The Government of Newfoundland would be totally opposed to any proposal to increase the quotas being offered to France".
Given all the options that were open to the Government of Canada why did the Government choose the one option to which the Premier of Newfoundland was specifically opposed?

February 3, 1987
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his complimentary remarks. I promise him I will not hold them against him.
Earlier today I had a conversation with the Premier of Newfoundland. Senior officials will be visiting with him on Thursday. The Minister of Transport will be visiting with him as previously arranged on Friday, and we will have conversations later.
Our sole objective in this matter was to achieve a settlement that would improve the fishery for Atlantic Canada in all of its complexity. It is not a simple or easy issue. The spirit that motivated us was exactly the same as the spirit that motivated myself and the Government in regard to settling the Atlantic Accord with Newfoundland, a matter which had festered for some 15 years. We are interested in helping Newfoundland bolster its resources. That is why we have proceeded along these lines.


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not deal with the question. No one has questioned the motive. The motive was to get an accord. That is what the Government of Canada has been pursuing for some time. Giving the French additional Fishing rights off the coast of Newfoundland is a strange way of getting an accord.
Did the Prime Minister explain to Premier Peckford why the Government of Canada did just the opposite to what the Premier requested him to do in his letter before Christmas?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that my hon. friend is in error. This does not constitute a definitive document that will resolve the fishery dispute. What has been negotiated thus far is an undertaking to attempt to conclude an arrangement that may very well resolve the matter as an interim arrangement.
I point out to my friend that what we have achieved does not in any way constitute a definitive resolution of the fisheries dispute. In point of fact, I tell my friend in fairness that an analysis of the document will reveal that in terms of zone 2J+3KL we have not given up a single codfish. All matters are there for discussion by the principal parties. All substantive issues are to be addressed in this negotiation. We can do that consistent with the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador, which have always motivated this Government.


OVERFISHING BY FRENCH VESSELS-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CANCEL AGREEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Everyone in Atlantic Canada, and the Government of Canada, knows that the French have been overfishing the stock there for years. Everyone now knows that the Government of Canada has
offered an additional 15,000 tonnes of fish to the French. That is the offer.


Mr. Crosbie:: Completely untrue.


John Edward Broadbent: I wish to ask the Prime Minister this. Is he now in the process of revising this understanding or agreement? Is he prepared to meet with the request of the Premier of Newfoundland who today at a press conference called upon the Government of Canada to scrap this unacceptable interim agreement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when I was away I was surprised to hear the Leader of the NDP talking about gunboat diplomacy in regard to this issue. Maybe they will join NATO now.
We have taken a very constructive and mature attitude in regard to a difficult problem. The failure to begin the process of resolving this matter would mean the reversion to the 1972 treaty negotiated by the previous Liberal Government, which document gave the French the unquantified and perpetual right to fish in Canada's 200-mile zone. The French contend that that includes cod in the 2J+3KL zone. It is because of that disaster brought about by a treaty undertaken by the previous Government, and because of the problems in 3PS as indicated by my hon. friend, that a global solution is required.
There are serious problems in regard to that resource in Newfoundland. The option was completely unacceptable. We are now moving ahead to develop this properly in conjunction with the people and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER SEND DIPLOMATIC NOTE TO PRESIDENT OF FRANCE
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the same agreement that was signed by Canada and France on the fishery. It also has to do with the agreement that for the first time allowed the French access to the northern cod stocks. The Prime Minister has stated that this agreement of 1972 has done a lot of things. I wish to inform the Prime Minister, and all Members of the House, that the 1972 agreement ended in May of 1986.
In light of all the matters that have gone on in this deal, will the Prime Minister write a strong diplomatic note to the President and Prime Minister of France to inform them that Canada will not live up to the terms of the agreement that was just signed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says for the first time the French will be given authorization with regard to the northern cod. As I understand it, as a result of membership in the European Common Market the French have been fishing this northern cod for many years.
February 3, 1987

The Hon. Member is waving his head. But I think that is absolutely the case. The problem was brought about by an agreement undertaken by the Liberals. We did not give the French anything, the Liberals gave the French unquantified perpetual rights to fish in a 200-mile zone. It is your disaster that we are trying to correct.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES PRIOR TO SIGNING OF AGREEMENTS
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the frustration of the Prime Minister in this deal, because he has alienated every fisherman in Atlantic Canada, including all the Newfoundlanders.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Roland Henderson: My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the spirit of good, co-operative federalism, will the Prime Minister commit himself today that neither he nor his Government will sign any more bilateral agreements with any country without prior consultation and approval from the provinces where the people and the resources are affected by such agreements?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated the nature of the interim arrangement which allows us to consider the possibility of entering into an agreement. We have not given away a single codfish, not a single one.


Mr. Nystrom:: Not one?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Not one in the contested zone, as my hon. friend knows. He refers to frustration and embarrassment. If anyone is frustrated and embarrassed, it should be the Liberals who entered into this treaty with France which gave perpetual rights, and most embarrassed should be the Leader of the Opposition who was then Minister of Finance in the Government that approved this horrendous document.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE USE OF SANCTIONS BY CANADA
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it has to do with the same issue.
The Prime Minister's remarks confirm that neither the Liberals nor the Tories are prepared to stand up for the interests of Canada.


John Carnell Crosbie: On to the gunboats!


John R. Rodriguez: There is grave concern in Atlantic Canada and across the country that this Government has an inability to negotiate toughly when it comes to the interests of Canada. Canadians are well aware of the fact that when the EEC countries wished access to Canadian stocks offshore, they were
Oral Questions
prepared to threaten all types of trade sanctions. I want to ask the Prime Minister this. Instead of buckling under and giving away the store, did the Government consider using the type of sanctions which could have forced France to sit down and accept third party arbitration?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The NDP is
now suggesting in its solution to a difficult, complex, and sensitive issue that Canada declare war on France.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, come on!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That Canada indulge in recrimination-


Cyril Keeper: It is better than surrender.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That Canada indulge in thoughtless counteractions of this type.
We have said that the issue is complex. We have not surrendered a single codfish. We recognize the importance of this to Newfoundland, Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Atlantic Canada. We recognize the imperatives that exist because of the agreement negotiated by the Liberals, the treaty of 1972, to which we would revert in the absence of an undertaking.
I am sure my hon. friend would agree that in this matter the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Government stood up vigorously and strongly for the farmers of western Canada. We will stand up and defend the interests of the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTHERN COD STOCKS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister one simple question. Is he telling Newfoundlanders, and this House, that the French will not be allowed to take any northern cod stocks under this agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: There is no agreement yet.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am saying that the French are presently taking northern cod. They have been taking it for many years.


Mr.   de Jong@: And they will be continuing.


Martin Brian Mulroney: They have also been overfishing in 3PS. In our judgment there has been a serious depreciation of the stock because of the absence of an interim arrangement and a negotiated settlement. It is because of the extremely damaging consequences that are contained in a possible reversion to the provisions of the 1972 treaty that we have tried in a mature and proper way to negotiate a comprehensive solution to a very difficult matter.
I would hope that my hon. friend would give us support as we try to help the long-term interests of the fishermen of Newfoundland, rather than jingoistic slogans which ill-behoove a socialist who should be standing up for Canada as

February 3, 1987
Oral Questions
opposed to taking positions that are no longer acceptable to anybody.


REQUEST FOR RECALL OF CANADIAN AMBASSADOR FROM FRANCE
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I wish to correct the record, because the Prime Minister has misled the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: I want to quote from a document issued in 1980 by the Minister of Fisheries which says that the French vessels will be permitted to take, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, fish until May 15, 1986, and that beyond that date vessels from metropolitan France will no longer be permitted to fish in the Gulf. In view of the legitimate requests of the Premier of Newfoundland this morning as an alternative to this sell-out of the northern cod, will the Prime Minister accede to these four reasonable alternative demands for settling this important issue: first, recall the Canadian Ambassador; second, withdraw port privileges from the French; third, reconsider trade relations; and fourth, reconsider the Prime Minister's role and the Government's role in the Francophone summit? Will he consider those as alternatives?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about misleading the House. His colleague, the Hon. Member for Egmont, misled the House a moment ago by suggesting that the treaty signed by the Liberal Government in 1972 had expired. It has not-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Only the French fishing rights in the Gulf have expired.


Mr. Speaker:: I know all Hon. Members would want to give the Minister a chance to answer. However, I want to comment on the word "misled". There was no suggestion made on either side that anyone intentionally misled. There is a different view of circumstances and perhaps facts, although that is not as clear as it might be. The Hon. Minister will complete his answer.


Thomas Edward Siddon: To conclude my answer, the rights of the French metropolitan fleet to fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence expired in 1986. Their rights to continue to fish their quota under the EEC long-term agreement, as accorded by a previous Liberal Government, continue into 1987.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CANCEL AGREEMENT
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister of all Canada, including Newfoundland whose people are equal Canadians. Will he give them justice and will he give
them equal treatment? Will he now reject the pernicious deal his Government is proposing with the French and accede to the legitimate requests of the Premier of Newfoundland? Will he do that?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I see the Leader of the Opposition is applauding. He should be ashamed of himself, having been part of a Government which gave rise to this cornerstone of difficulty for the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I invite my hon. friend to abandon the rhetoric and the slogans, on behalf of the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador. He knows full well that it is a complex and difficult issue. He knows full well that we are in the process of resolving the matter properly. I have had discussions with the Premier. The Minister of Transport will be down there as well. I would be interested to know if what he said in his first question is official policy of the Opposition. I would be interested to know if that is what the Liberal Party stands for on this particular issue. We know the NDP's gunboat diplomacy. Now the Liberals are apparently talking about a total rupture of a relationship. What we are doing-


Bill Rompkey: What did you say to the Premier?


Martin Brian Mulroney: What will I say to the Premier? Exactly what I have said. The Government and its intentions in this file ought to be judged by our actions in others, including the resolution of an historic and difficult injustice for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador where, after 15 years of heartache and agony, the Progressive Conservative Government resolved the tremendously complex issue of offshore resources in favour of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will work with this same determination to help the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, who informed this House that he took immediate action to obtain the resignation of the Minister of State (Transport), in view of his involvement in the Oerlikon affair. We now know that Mr. Jean Bazin was involved in Oerlikon's business for almost one year, which made him very much aware of Oerlikon's dealings in Saint-Jean. Could the Prime Minister explain why he asked for the Minister's resignation, while Mr. Bazin has now been sworn in as a member of the Senate? Does this mean there are two

February 3, 1987

classes of Conservatives, those who are elected to Parliament and those who are good friends of the Prime Minister?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that question has been raised in the House on several occasions and it has been answered on several occasions, and the answer is the same.


ROLE OF SENATOR BAZIN
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. With great respect, that question has not been answered and is on the minds of many Canadians. Just how far is Mr. Bazin's immunity going to extend? The Government has refused to delay Mr. Bazin being sworn into the Senate while the Oerlikon affair is being investigated, in spite of his involvement. Can we take it that the Government will also refuse to take action against Senator Bazin if the RCMP establishes that either he or Oerlikon has acted improperly? Is that the position of the Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks how far Mr. Bazin's immunity extends. I suppose it extends to the extent, along with that of other Canadians, of freedom from slurs and presumption of guilt. He has made statements. There is nothing inconsistent at all in what he has said with what is on the public record. The police have been ordered to conduct a full inquiry. Why don't the NDP, in particular the Hon. Member, give people the presumption of innocence, as all Canadians are entitled to, and let the police conduct their full inquiry? If there are any charges or any problems to be dealt with or laid, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will deal with them properly.


CANADA GAMES
Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and concerns the Canada Games. The Games have never been done on a rotation basis, and an example of this was when New Brunswick lost to Newfoundland on a bid. Just recently the Canada Games President, Mr. Jack Pelech, stated that it has become a practice for interested communities to have their bids in before the preceding Winter Games. Indeed, the selection has traditionally been announced at the closing ceremonies of the preceding Games. Now Mr. Pelech has announced that there will be a two-month extension so that the community in Prince Edward Island will be able to enter a bid. I should like to know why the Minister is going out of his way to afford special treatment to P.E.I.?
Oral Questions
Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur
Sport)): Mr. Speaker, I assume the Hon. Member is referring to the 1991 Games, since the 1989 Games have already been awarded to Saskatoon.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jelinek:: The Minister of Justice is happy with that.
If that is so, let me assure the Hon. Member that there have not been and will not be any extensions given. All communities in Canada will have and continue to have equal opportunity to bid for the Games. In any event, a decision on the 1991 Games will be made in the very near future. In the meantime I invite all Hon. Members to come to Cape Breton in the middle of this month and share in the success of the Canada Games in that community.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the following fishing fleets were fishing just outside the 200-mile zone on the nose of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland-Mexico, Chile, Portugal, and Spain. France and the United States can come and go as they want. Only one country is not allowed to fish in that zone, on the nose of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, and that is Canada. Why did the Government bring in such a restriction this year against Canadian fishermen? Was it to impress the international countries of the world? Canadian fishermen are second-class citizens in this country.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, you know that Hon. Members in the House get tired of calling the kettle black. However, in this case it was the Government of which the Hon. Member was a part that agreed to extend Canada's economic jurisdiction only to 200 miles and not to encompass the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, a matter which we are trying to rectify.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get a sensible answer, so I will move from the fresh-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is moving to his question, and I know Hon. Members will want to hear it.


CANADA-FRANCE FISHING ARRANGEMENTS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, moving from the fresh fish of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland to the Prime Minister fresh out of Africa, does the Prime Minister recall writing a letter to the Minister of Fisheries dated August 29, 11 a.m., 1986? In part it reads:

February 3, 1987
Oral Questions
-in dealing with this sensitive issue, we must weigh on the one hand the interests of Canadian fishermen-and on the other our bilateral relations with France ... I would be grateful for an update from you and Mr. Clark prior to the next meeting with the French negotiators.
Did the Prime Minister receive that update? If he did, why did he keep it secret from the Minister of Transport and the provincial Premiers? Did he agree with the negotiators during that update?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the shame and the sadness that the Hon. Member must feel being a member of a Party that agreed to this document in 1972, which I table for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.
In regard to updates, of course we were kept advised on a regular basis. The complexity of this issue is known even to my hon. friend. He knows full well how difficult it is in trying to resolve all of the aspects of this in a comprehensive manner. What we have done, as an interim step, in no way compromises anything in Newfoundland and Labrador. Not a single codfish in the contested zone has been affected by the undertakings that have been made. That cod stock now is presently being fished under agreements-


An Hon. Member:: 1 5,000 metric tonnes.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -made by previous Governments.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The cod may revolt.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We are aware-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is "cod" awful.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I realize that the New Democratic Party does not view this matter very seriously, but we take the interests of Newfoundland fishermen very, very seriously. I regret the fact that Members of the New Democratic Party are laughing at a very sensitive issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam.


John Carnell Crosbie: Where are the gunboats, Pauline?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Sock it to Crosbie, Pauline.


Ms. Jewett:: My question is not for you, Crosbie.


An Hon. Member:: The old codfather himself.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Twenty-four hours ago I brought to the Minister's attention the existence of his Department's briefing note No. 50 dated April 21, 1986, concerning a project proposal for testing the Advanced Cruise Missile in Canada.


John Carnell Crosbie: Rambo Jewett.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: As the Minister is aware, "project proposal" is the term used to denote a formal, detailed U.S. request for weapon testing under the Canada-U.S. testing agreement. Now that the Minister knows of the existence of this request from the United States, of almost a year ago, will the Minister tell the House today what Canada's response was to that request? Did we say yes or, as I hope, no?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Or maybe.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, what I can do is repeat to the Hon. Member what I said yesterday, namely, that there is no current request before Canada at the present time to test the Advanced Cruise.


Pauline Jewett: That is not what I asked.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Hon. Member says that is not what she asked. She is back from re-reading The Washington Post. I think it is important for her to know that there is no current request before Canada nor are we aware of any prospective need in the foreseeable future by the United States to test the Advanced Cruise. If a request is received, we will consider it.


CANADIAN POSITION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, this is becoming Orwellian. The Minister is denying the existence of a document secured under the Access to Information Act. He is denying its very existence. It was dated April 21, 1986. He was not then the Minister. Has he consulted his predecessor about the Canadian response to that document since, under the Memorandum of Understanding we have with the United States, a response must be made within 30 days. Will the Minister table the request in the House and table the response?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, on a continuing basis the Canadian Government discusses with other allies various elements of defence policies. It is not appropriate for us to go into those in detail on the floor of the House of Commons.


James Ross Fulton: Testing a Cruise Missile is reasonably important.
February 3, 1987


An Hon. Member:: Boy wonder.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Here again, we get a case, Mr. Speaker, where a Member of the New Democratic Party poses a question and then the great believers in democracy try to shout down somebody giving a response.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: If they would listen, Mr. Speaker,-


Pauline Jewett: I am listening.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The next thing you know they will ask that we send the Coast Guard to Washington for gunboat diplomacy too.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Last week the Minister was quoted as saying that there was a good chance of Canada reaching an agreement with the United States this week for a clean-up of the Niagara River and Lake Ontario. The week is growing shorter, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister please advise the House on a scale of one to ten what the chances are of reaching an agreement this week and whether that agreement will include a clean-up of the chemical dumps on the American side of the Niagara River?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, pollution in the Niagara River is of vital concern to the Government of Canada. Something like 4.5 million Canadians derive their drinking water from that source into which something like a tonne to nine tonnes of highly toxic substances are discharged daily. Tomorrow, in Toronto, there will be an international conference bringing together top experts from around the world to discuss the matter, including the question of excavation along the American side, given that 90 per cent of the toxins are from the United States.
In connection with the conference, I am pleased to tell the Hon. Member and the House that there will be a signing of an international accord by Canada and the United States, the Government of New York and the Government of Ontario, which The Toronto Star, not given to hyperbole in describing the wonderful things that the Government of Canada is doing, has described as a break-through. I cannot tell the Hon. Member anything more than that before the signing, but I think he will share The Toronto Star's high esteem.
_______________________________________3033
Oral Questions


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He will realize that the Prime Minister has been attempting to foster what he says is better relationships with the United States. Why has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs issued a directive to Members serving on the legislative committee examining Bill C-22 to prohibit witnesses from the United States, namely, senior citizens' organizations and other groups from appearing and giving testimony on a piece of legislation which has far-reaching ramifications for Canadians from coast to coast?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I issued no such directive. The committee is in charge of its own proceedings. As the Hon. Member indicated at the end of his question, this is legislation which has tremendous impact for Canadians from coast to coast. I find it somewhat surprising that the Liberal Party is suggesting that we should invite American congressmen, American lobbyists, and American representatives of the drug industry to come to Canada to tell us how to frame our law. I would much rather talk to Judy Erola.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. Why is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs afraid to hear representations from various individuals and organizations, such as the United States chairman of the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry Association? What does he have to hide? Why can we not have those witnesses come before the committee, and give testimony so that Canadians can see the deplorable situation in the United States which this Government is trying to copy?


Harvie Andre: There is nothing to hide, Mr. Speaker. The legislation is there. If it is looked at objectively by Hon. Members they will see that it is very beneficial to Canadians. It will improve health care for Canadians, create more research jobs for Canadians, and it will enable us to participate in the exciting biotechnologies. Again, I wonder why the Liberal Party seems to think that you have to go to Washington to find out what we should do here in Canada for Canadians.

February 3, 1987
Oral Questions INVESTMENT CANADA


WEST KOOTENAY POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY-SALE TO UNITED STATES CORPORATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and it concerns a very serious sovereignty issue for Canada and Canadians. He will be aware that the West Kootenay Power and Light Company is being sold to an American company in Kansas City, Missouri. He will realize that the company is involved with hydroelectric generation and water rights on one of Canada's major waterways.
Recognizing the importance of this Canadian sovereignty and that selling the company will be an unprecedented decision on behalf of the Government of Canada, is the Prime Minister prepared to step in and stop this sale before it is too late, and stand up for British Columbians on this very critical issue?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, indeed our decision attests to the fact that the market place did work. The company accepted the best of a series of offers that had been made. I repeat, this has nothing to do with sovereignty, it is just a matter of letting the market place operate and making sure that our rights and resources will be used to the benefit of Canadians. This is precisely what is guaranteed in this decision.


UNITED STATES POLICY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister ought to know that Canada is not simply a big cash register. There are other major concerns involved. In communication with the American Embassy this morning, I was told that American policy prohibits a foreign company from owning a utility on a navigable waterway in the United States. Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why the Americans would feel it is so important to maintain sovereignty over their utilities when we in Canada are prepared to sell them out to the highest bidder at any time and at any place?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, again I repeat that the resources involved will remain in Canada and be developed for the benefit of Canadian consumers. The company which gained control will indeed honour this commitment. I want to assure the House that it will do so. Moreover, the regulations governing the use of these resources come under provincial jurisdiction and, right now, the provincial administration involved is determining to what extent Canadian consumers can be sure that the resources will be used in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similk-ameen on a supplementary.


REPORTED POSITION OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY ENERGY CRITIC IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs if he believes that Investment Canada was influenced in its decision by the fact that the energy critic for the New Democratic Party in British Columbia made a public statement supporting the sale to the American utility company.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, but unfortunately I do not have the answer. I can assure the Hon. Member that market forces-


Mr. Speaker:: 
THE ADMINISTRATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and again concerns the Saint-Jean land flip. On January 10, I asked the Prime Minister whether at any stage of the bidding process for the low-level air defence system, Mr. Jean Bazin, or should I say Senator Bazin, had lobbied the Government on behalf of Oerlikon or acted as its representative, and the Prime Minister answered that "he is not a lobbyist". Today, I want to ask the Prime Minister, considering the information we received thorugh the Hon. Member for Calgary-Centre, whether he is prepared to revise the answer he gave on January 20 and admit that a public inquiry is not only desirable but necessary to provide clarification of this whole affair and the involvement of Senator Bazin.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, lawyers contact Governments, other officials or other people on a continuing basis on a whole range of matters. It is entirely appropriate that they do so. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows full well that it is common practice for lawyers to do that. I am not quite sure why the Hon. Member is alleging some impropriety in a lawyer making a contact on behalf of a firm for which he was working.
February 3, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville was seeking to attract the attention of the Chair. I notice that he must have had to leave the Chamber. I wonder if someone could advise him that if he has a question of privilege or a point of order, the Chair will of course see him in a moment. However, I have for the moment recognized the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and he has a point of order which I will hear.


POINTS OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), rose on a question of privilege regarding certain activities that took place during a hearing on Bill C-22 involving amendments to the Patent Act. At that time a number of individuals made some brief interventions, and I wish to quote what you said, Sir, because I am looking for your direction.
As reported at page 2882 of Hansard of January 29, 1987, you said:
What members of the committee do when they reassemble is entirely their own business. However, perhaps something might take place which would make it unnecessary to carry on with this discussion.
I am going to adjourn this matter without prejudice to the Hon. Member who has raised it. If the matter is not settled, I will hear from Hon. Members later.
I emphasize that you said "Hon. Members", Mr. Speaker.
When we resumed committee meetings last Thursday, I raised a question of privilege about the conduct of Members opposite. I reserved my right until I had the opportunity to review first hand the transcript of proceedings earlier in the day. Now I have had an opportunity to do so. This morning, I raised a question of privilege which was put before all Members of the committee and it was ruled by the chairman that the chairman could not rule on a question of privilege. 1 thereafter moved the appropriate motion so that my question of privilege would be referred to the House of Commons for adjudication by you, Sir.
My concern is that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) originally rose on the question of privilege. Since it was voted down by the committee, I wonder if I may now raise this as a question of privilege on the floor of the House of Commons, or if there is some other route 1 must pursue in order to have my question of privilege at least heard and subsequently adjudicated by you, Sir.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this matter was raised last week by the Hon. Member and I understand his concern. In speaking to this point of order, I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the decision
Point of Order-Mr. Dingwall
of Mr. Speaker Jerome of April 6, 1976. I appreciate that it was not on exactly the same point the Hon. Member has made, but in his decision, Mr. Speaker Jerome said the following:
The Speaker does not have the authority to consider appeals made on procedural decisions of a committee.
Reasons given by the Speaker for this are as follows:
"Standing committees are and must remain the masters of their own procedure".
For many years in this House the Chair has refrained from sitting in appeal on procedural decisions taken in standing committees.
I appreciate that in this particular decision, the reference is to a standing committee. I know the Chair will realize that at that time standing committees also handled legislative matters. Under parliamentary reform we now have standing committees and legislative committees. We have moved to the point at which there is a panel of Members with expertise in matters of parliamentary procedure, drawn from all Parties of the House, and one would think that, as independence is given to standing committees, and legislative committees have been given the power to sit on a particular Bill, this would reinforce even more the decision of Mr. Justice Jerome, as he now is, who said that committees are the masters of their own destiny as far as procedure is concerned.
I once again raise the spectre of this House intervening as the final Court of Appeal for all procedural questions raised in committee. In saying that I do not shut the door on a very important question of privilege raised by a Member where, for example, he or she was not even allowed in the committee room, where there was a complete and absolute denial of the right of that person to sit and work on the committee. However, I suggest that Mr. Speaker Jerome's decision should be given a great deal of weight when you come down with a decision as to whether or not the Hon. Member should be able to proceed with his point of order.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I want to intervene briefly on this matter. I appreciate the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I would point out with reference to his citing the decision of Mr. Speaker Jerome that that was prior to the changes which have occurred in our committee system.
As you will recall, Sir, the McGrath committee made a series of recommendations concerning the activities of the standing committees of this House. This House then saw fit to create a new entity, the legislative committee. That is an entirely new and experimental approach. It has been recommended that you select a number of prominent and experienced parliamentarians to chair these legislative committees. I submit that these chairmen are in a sense an extension of yourself, Mr. Speaker. That is why it was suggested that you make the decision about who would act in these committees with the same impartiality that you exercise in your function in the chair.

February 3, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Dingwall
I know the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) well. I respect him. In fact, I have great admiration for his skill, knowledge and experience in this House. Knowing his great respect for our parliamentary system, I am a little bit surprised at what took place in the committee. I do not want to prejudge him because I was not in the committee when these events took place, but maybe his partisan approach to politics prevailed over his non-partisan approach.
Quite clearly those who are chairmen of legislative committees have to understand that they are to act exactly like you, Mr. Speaker, are supposed to act in the chair, in a nonpartisan way. Not only that, but with a certain bias, so to speak, in favour of the minority representation in this House. I think it is encumbent on you as Speaker to make sure that the Official Opposition and the third Party have a chance to express their views and make their points of view known and see that their arguments are heard in this House.
Quite clearly, if this is true for the House of Commons, it is equally true for committee, be it standing or legislative. I hope that in your good judgment you will reflect on that, because it is not the first time opposition Members have complained about some of the decisions arrived at in the standing and legislative committees of this House which do not take into account the proposals put foward by the McGrath committee. Certainly the intention is to allow back-benchers on both sides of the House, not just the Opposition, to play important and constructive roles in our committees. I regret to say that so far we have not seen evidence of government back-benchers taking advantage of the new rules. I do hope that in the near future they will wake up to this new reality.
Above all, I think it is imperative that those you select as chairmen of the committees, acting on your behalf, understand fully their role and their new mandate which is very different from that of previous chairmen of committees of this House. They must behave with more impartiality and independence from government Parliamentary Secretaries or Ministers' assistants who might be giving them orders. I believe this is a matter which should not be perpetuated, it should stop, and the sooner the better for all of us in Parliament.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I raised this matter some days ago. We have had our differences of opinion in the legislative committee concerned. We have had vigorous debates. However, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) and I realize the Government has a majority of the members on that committee, as it does on all committees, and that what it wants to happen will happen. However, we have always assumed that decisions would be made after all members of the committee, particularly those in the Opposition, were made conversant with what the procedure would be. We should have an opportunity to discuss the recommendations proposed.
The day before this committee met and made the decision to
which we are objecting the steering committee met and
discussed a number of possible witnesses. The Hon. Member
for Cape Breton-East Richmond and I each made suggestions dealing with the possibility of inviting to appear before the committee certain American witnesses who could help us in the discussions we were holding. This was not turned down in committee. The Clerk was asked to get certain information as to whether these people would be willing to appear and what costs there would be and report back to the committee. We did not get that report.
The next day the committee met in regular session to hear delegations. As I indicated when I raised this matter, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond left a few minutes early. I stayed. I accept the statement made by the chairman of the committee that he did not know this motion would be brought forward. Had the Hon. Member who moved the motion let me know that he intended to do so I would have stayed, we could have discussed it, and since government Members had the majority they would have passed the motion. We were not made aware that the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. White) intended to move that motion. That was wrong. I believe that when the Member for Dauphin-Swan River moved his motion the chairman of the committee should have stood the motion over to another meeting of the committee when members of the Opposition were present.
As I said the other day, I believe that the way the matter was dealt with in committee breached the rights and privileges which the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and I have as Members of Parliament.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take too much of the time of the House. However, I believe there are a couple of points which must be made.
Two themes have run through the interventions of Members. The first is that there is a reflection upon the chairman for the way in which he handled this meeting and the meeting flowing out of it where the votes were taken. The second is that the Opposition was suppressed through the handling of this in committee.
I do not believe that anything close to a question of privilege, or even a point of order, exists. It is possible that a grievance exists in this situation, but the House must be mindful of whose grievance it is. In my own committee we have held up meetings while waiting for members of the Opposition in order to get reports approved or motions passed. However, a committee can only postpone its business for so long. It is important to note that members of the Opposition did leave before the end of the meeting. They must take some responsibility for their actions. I do not believe that the committee should be held hostage. It should not have to wait for the return of opposition Members to continue with its business. It is the responsibility of individual committee members to attend committee meetings and conduct business accordingly.
February 3, 1987

In light of the changes which have been made to the rules concerning committees, it is important that that attitude is protected. All Members must be seen as active members of the committee and must attend meetings so that the committee can perform its work. In conclusion, I do not believe that this is a point of order or that members of the Opposition have a grievance.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the great province of Alberta. However, I was not raising a question of privilege. I was raising the issue of whether I have the right, as a Member of the House, to raise a question of privilege in view of what Mr. Speaker has said and in view of what has taken place in a legislative committee which is new to the House of Commons.
At the same time, my colleague raised a question of privilege on a previous occasion in this House. I am looking for direction from the Chair. Surely to God, on the substance of the issue, if all that is required for procedural matters at a legislative committee is a slim majority, and a legislative committee requires that one member of the Opposition be present when testimony and evidence is heard, you cannot logically say that the two are not linked and related. There is a consequential effect with regard to the procedure which relies upon and is directly related to the evidence which may be adduced from different witnesses. To me that is the genesis, if you will, of a question of privilege, if you say that I have, at least, the right to raise the question of privilege.
I would not want the Hon. Member opposite to have illusions that members of the Opposition were not present. We were present. We left about 10 minutes before the meeting adjourned, having given notice to the Chair and other members. One must keep in mind that that particular session was advertised solely and strictly as a meeting to adduce evidence from the various witnesses. As you know, as counsel, Mr. Speaker, at no time during the deliberations was any notice given that this matter would be raised, either to myself, the representative of the loyal Opposition, to the representative of the New Democratic Party, or to the chairperson of the committee. As I said earlier today in my remarks before the committee, the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) said in the press that he did not know of this particular matter.
There are two issues here. The first is whether I have a right to stand and present a question of privilege. Second, if we are to say that procedural matters are not linked to the substantive listening to evidence of various witnesses, it becomes very incredible.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank Hon. Members for their interventions. The Chair has heard sufficient on this issue to try to find a way through these difficulties.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is, in effect, on a point of order, as the Chair suggested that that was the proper procedure. He is seeking counsel from the Chair. His complaint relates to the same committee from which the complaint of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Point of Order-Mr. Riis
Orlikow) emanated several days ago, as was pointed out by the Hon. Member. After listening carefully to Hon. Members at that time the Chair decided to adjourn the matter for some time to see whether the committee could resolve the difficulties alleged by certain Members. The Chair must take these interventions as a suggestion that there are still some difficulties in the committee. The Chair will consider what was said a few days ago as well as what was said today and will try to give some guidance to the Chamber.
I would like to suggest-and this is only a suggestion because the Chair is not to interfere with committees-that, if there is a complaint, it should first be taken to the committee through the co-operation of the chairman. I believe that would apply to either a legislative committee or a standing committee. However, as the Chair indicated to the Hon. Member a few days ago, and some weeks ago, and as was pointed out by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), some of these procedures are new. The legislative committee concept is new. The Chair is concerned that we be very careful not to allow a situation to go from what might be called a strictly procedural point, which clearly would be a matter for the committee to settle itself, to a circumstance which might indeed be a breach of privilege. The Chair must consider that very carefully, because if something is taking place which strikes at the heart of a Member's right to speak, albeit not necessarily a Member's right to always get what he or she wants, that is a very serious area.
Therefore, I will consider the representations made a few days ago initiated by the Member for Winnipeg North, as well as those today initiated by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, who properly phrased his intervention as a point of order. Nonetheless, it touches the matters with which the Chair, and all Hon. Members, have to deal. Certainly, in listening to perhaps some of the comments concerning the very respected and senior Member of this House who has taken on the responsibility in this legislative committee as chairman, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot, the Chair did not take any of the comments made to be impugning in any way the good intentions or honour of that Hon. Member.
The Chair will take notice of the matter and will see what can be done to be of assistance to all Hon. Members.


ALLEGED INCORRECT STATEMENT OF MR. KING
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, with reluctance I rise on a point of order to clarify a very serious issue which was raised earlier today when the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King), through an interjection, indicated that the energy critic for the provincial New Democratic Party did not oppose the sale of the West Kootenay Power and Light Company to an American firm. I want to say that that is blatantly incorrect. It is a falsehood. I

February 3, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
simply assume that it was an inadvertent falsehood stated by the Hon. Member in the House at the time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) rises on a matter of debate. I would imagine it is an argument over something raised in a question by the Hon. Member toward the end of Question Period today. I think 1 should indicate to the Hon. House Leader for the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), that, generally, with the consent of the Opposition, the Chair is prepared to hear Hon. Members from the government side. The Chair would expect and prefer, and I think all Hon. Members would also, when the Chair recognizes someone from the government side, a legitimate question to be raised and not a statement of fact thrown into the debate. I know all Hon. Members would think that this is the appropriate way for the Chair to view these questions. I hope the Hon. Member will accept the Chair's statement that I am determined, as much as I possibly can, to maintain that approach. As I said, sometimes the Chair cannot always predict what the question will be.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Benjamin (p. 2756).
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset express my disappointment that the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) will not continue his discourse of this morning. For my part, and I am sure I am speaking also for all members of our caucus, I consider it to have been a very significant exposition of the character of the North, far beyond the mere issue of transportation.
The Hon. Member talked about how difficult it might be for southerners to live during the winter in the North under circumstances of perpetual darkness. I must say that this must be an experience in a political winter which his Party shares. Perhaps some light was shed upon the Hon. Member's Party, as it was shed upon all of us, with respect to the particular and unique problems of the North. I would like to note, for example, that the North is a part of Canada which bears the same characteristics as the rest of our country at the time it was decided that in order to ensure that, for the sake of east-west communication for the development of this country, there needed to be a transportation system. That transportation system necessitated regulations to ensure that all parts of the country were equally served. What the Hon. Member said was certainly consistent with the need for continued regulation in
order to ensure that the public need and convenience of those in the North is indeed served.
Parenthetically, during his discourse, the Hon. Member, I thought, made the imaginative proposal that the character of the North demands a different kind of transportation. He alluded to the need and, indeed, the appropriateness of industry in the South committing itself to some degree to research which would be directed to appropriate forms of transportation in the North. I hope the Hon. Member's Government was listening carefully to this very strong protest in favour of expanded research to meet Canadian needs.
I stand before you, Mr. Speaker, willingly admitting that I, like very many Canadians, do not quite understand this huge piece of legislation in all of its ramifications. The system with which it deals is complex. Beyond all things, it is necessary that the Canadian people have an opportunity to understand the legislation. I think it is most unfortunate that the opportunity in the form of authority to travel for the committee, which would have given the Canadian people an opportunity to understand this legislation, has been denied.
It seems to me to be hurried legislation, legislation that is being rushed through. Perhaps a partial explanation for the rush in getting this legislation through, the reason for refusing the committee an opportunity for adequate consideration, is that the Government does not want the public to understand what it is doing. That is difficult to understand because it claims it is acting in the best interests of Canadians. Surely, a part of acting in the best interest of Canadians is to keep the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to ensure that on every subject on which the Government acts there will be adequate consultation.
When one considers those facts, one wonders whether this is a Bill introduced for the purposes of serving the needs, aspirations and concerns of Canadians or whether it was introduced on the basis of some ideological agenda. We have identified that ideological agenda and it consists of a troika: free trade, deregulation and privatization. On the surface, I think these things are all understood. However, when one considers the pattern of action of the Government, it may very well be that the most fundamental ideology of the Government is Americanization. Without adequate arguments for what is being done, one must look for some model which is being emulated by the Government. Surely, it is clear that what we are doing once more, instead of finding our own way, is to emulate the Americans.
I do not stand before you, Mr. Speaker, to suggest in any way that regulatory reform is not necessary. Like all Canadians, I have had from time to time experiences with our transportation system which I found objectionable. 1 have seen effects of regulation which I think ought to be changed. I have seen evidence of implementation of regulations which suggests a degree of archaism. We are not suggesting there should be no change. However, we must be concerned about the nature of the change which is occurring, the motivation for those changes and what will be the implications.
February 3, 1987

The ideology of Americanization must find its models in the United States both for what we should do and what we should not do. When we consider this legislation we must consider the effects deregulation has had in that jurisdiction. When we consider the twin ideological contexts of the free enterprise imperative and Americanization, let us not forget that among the things that those who support the Conservative Party pursue is the maximization of profits and the minimization of costs.
In looking at the implementation of this approach in the United States one will see that one significant element in the equation, called "labour" by economists, is "people out of work" as a consequence of what has happened in the United States. What has happened in the United States has been a vicious attack on ordinary people. There has been a vicious attack on those working in the airlines. Some 40,000 jobs have been lost as a result of airline deregulation. The trucking industry has lost some 150,000 workers as a result of deregulation. One finds a similar number of people have been thrown out of work in the railways. Even those still working have been victimized by a horrendous pressure to concede to the corporations operating the airlines, the trucking system and the railways of that country. There have been tremendous concessions in wages. The first victims in this regard have been women. Unions have found their voices muted on behalf of the working people in many American airlines under deregulation.
Canada is a different sort of country from the United States. We tend to be a little more concerned about the equation involving profit, labour and the consumer. We want to see consumer needs satisfied. Profit is not inappropriate. But it becomes vicious in the way in which it has been pursued under deregulation in the United States.
In examining the present situation I must ask the following serious question. What will be the implications in Canada? The answer has already been provided by CP and CN. They have each suggested that between 10,000 and 15,000 Canadian workers will lose their jobs before 1990. I see nothing in this legislation which addresses that issue. We are not talking about remaining in the dark ages of regulations or even archaic regulations. We are not resisting change where it is appropriate. It is significant to my Party and to the vast majority of Canadians whether or not people will be considered in terms of this legislation. Will people who depend on these industries for their livelihood be considered?
In returning to the reference for the need for regulation in Canada because of the character of our country and the character of the transportation system we need, if one looks to the United States one Finds that there are all kinds of people enjoying cheap trips between Detroit and Florida and between New York and Los Angeles. However, if one wishes to fly between Lansing and Grand Rapids, they will have to pay a pretty penny to do so.
National Transportation Act, 1986
We understand that in the North some provisions have been implemented to ensure that regulation establishes that public need and convenience are served. The Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq indicated that these were not sufficient to meet the needs of the North. This raises an additional question. What will be the cost involved in travelling from the North to the South as a result of this legislation?
There are many elements of this Bill about which I have questions. I am not a technologist in the field. I raise these questions as an ordinary citizen and not as a politician. They are questions which have not been answered by the Government. The legislation should cease in its process until the Canadian people understand what the Government is doing.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment to withdraw Bill C-18, a motion which if passed would prevent it from seeing the light of day.
There are two main issues in the Bill. The first is that the Government brought in the National Transportation Act whose main intent is to make the user-pay. The Government said in Clause 4 of the Bill, which has now been removed, that anyone making or having use of an ice-breaker, or anyone who employs the federal Coast Guard or the federal Department of Transport in any way, should have to pay for that service. The Government has now said that it will take out this clause for the time being. That is the first thing that the Minister (Mr. Crosbie) has said that is unacceptable to members of the Official Opposition. Some of the transportation organizations have said: "That is fine, as long as we are a part of the negotiating process to come up with a new user-pay system".
Obviously what will happen is that those groups which are part of the process in terms of this new user-pay philosophy for the Department of Transport will be the very ones who will be excluded from the rates. In other words, what the Government of Canada has said is: "All right. We will pull back a bit now and we will go into a consultation process with the industry". Who is the industry? Is it the fishermen up on the north coast of Newfoundland? No. Is it the person who lives up in the Northwest Territories? No. Is it someone living in some small community who might need the ice broken out by an icebreaker or need an ice-breaker to come in to get out his long-liner to go fishing or seal hunting? No. It is not these people. Who are they? Of course, they are members of well-organized groups, the people who have all the money in the world to be able to pay the new rates but who do not want to pay the new rates. Therefore, they say: "We want to be a part of the process so we will agree with the Government's imposition of user-pay as long as it consults". That is not acceptable to members of the Official Opposition. There should be no user-pay in the federal Department of Transport. The Coast Guard should not be allowed to charge people for the use of its icebreakers and boats for search and rescue, as the Government wants to have it charge a fee. The new system that will come out of Treasury Board as a result of the exclusion of Clause 4 of the Bill will say that anyone who orders a Coast Guard boat for his own personal use or assistance will have to pay a fee.

February 3, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
That means anyone who is 100 miles off the coast of Labrador, say in stormy weather, and whose engine breaks down, will hesitate to phone the Coast Guard to have someone come and tow him in because he will be charged a fee. Safety should not be at stake as a result of the imposition of fees.
The Government has introduced a fee schedule with respect to phone calls to the weather office. In November of 1984 the Government announced that it would institute a charge with respect to placing calls to the weather office. A mariner who wants to check the weather before going out into the Atlantic Ocean will have to pay for his call. Now it is the ice-breakers and the search and rescue boats. The Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for St. John's West, has declared to everyone that the charge will still be brought in, although it has been taken out of this Bill, but "we will consult before we bring it in". Mr. Speaker, that is not acceptable.
What else is not acceptable? The entire Bill is not acceptable. The philosophy of the Bill is not acceptable. The philosophy of the Bill is user-pay. The hon. gentleman behind me from the New Democratic Party-and I do not know why they call it new, it is not new any more, it should be called the old Democratic Party-


Mr. Belsher:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does the Hon. Member realize that he is talking about Bill C-75 and not Bill C-18? The Hon. Member seems to be rambling all over creation. Maybe he should return to what we are talking about which is a motion to hoist this Bill for six months.


George Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I was explaining, and the Hon. Member was not listening, just like all of the PC Members. They never listen. I was explaining that when the Minister introduced this Bill he said he was taking out that clause to have it referred to a committee to re-do it and introduce the same charges through consultation. That is what the Minister said.


Ross Belsher: That is what you asked for.


George Baker: No, Mr. Speaker, we did not ask for that. We asked that this silly, stupid, ridiculous idea be dropped by the Government. What is it going to do? It is now going to charge for ploughing the street, or ploughing the roads? Is that what it is going to do? It is the same thing as charging somebody by the back door, which is what the Minister of Transport said-


Mr. Benjamin:: And breaking your ice.


George Baker: -and breaking the ice. To break the ice in front of a boat is just like charging for a snow-plough in front of a car.
Under this new Bill what will happen? If CN Rail does not break even, just like the Post Office, then the routes will be discontinued. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, if it does not break
even, they will discontinue the rail routes. Using that measurement, airports will be cut out because they do not break even, if the cost is added up. That is the declaration of the Government, if it does not break even-here is Freedom to Move now-"what we will do is to save $20 million a year through CN Marine on the East Coast of Canada". This is a new Crown corporation called Marine Atlantic which this Government created after it came to power. The Government said that through this Crown corporation it will save $20 million on transportation, ships at sea, covered by this Bill. On whose backs is this $20 million being saved? On the backs of people who have to travel from one province to another, and on the backs of those people who have to pay the freight charges from one province to another.
Never before has there been a Government with the audacity to question the Constitution of Canada. At this very minute it has appealed to the Canadian Transport Commission to have the rates increased beyond the ceiling established under the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and the Government across the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In other words, it has applied user-pay. It does not care where you live in Canada, it is user-pay in everything right down the line.


Mr. Fennell:: Get on to Bill C-18.


George Baker: That is the philosophy of this Bill presently before the House.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Which Bill?


George Baker: That is the philosophy of the Government. That is why it is the lowest in the polls, and that is why it will stay there. That is why it will form the Opposition after the next election, because people are sick and tired. It does not mind bailing out a bank with a couple of billion dollars for its friends. It does not mind doing that. But at the same time it will sock it to the man living in Newfoundland, and tell him that he has to pay for his ice-breaker service. It will cut this out, cut that out, and cut back on the schedules across the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It will not get away with it. No, it will not. If the government Members were honest, I would not doubt that when the vote is taken on this motion, the six month hoist will be approved, not only by the Opposition but by the government Members.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), to have this Bill referred back to the legislative committee rather than dealt with and approved by the majority in the House.
The reason I support that particular amendment is, broadly speaking on the philosophy of the Bill itself, that I disagree with it for many of the same reasons that have already been stated. But for no other reason, I would oppose this Bill because of the way it has addressed the problems faced by the disabled community. This Bill consists of some 179 pages. It is full of legalese, legal clauses, and fancy words. In the entire
February 3, 1987

Bill there is one small section with a total of 14 words dealing with the problems that a disabled person may have with the transportation system. The clause that I am referring to is tacked on, almost as an afterthought, to the national transportation policy as it is spelled out in the legislation. The clause that I am concerned about is Clause 3(l)(g) where it states that the national transportation policy will exclude or make it discriminatory to place:
(ii) an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons including those persons who
are disabled,
That is all it states. In effect, it is ignoring everything that has been said before 1980, and particularly since 1980, when an all-Party committee of the House of Commons conducted one of the most extensive studies of the problems faced by disabled people in Canada. It came up with a report called the Obstacles Report. The Obstacles Report has been referred to by many disabled organizations in Canada, and around the world this report was acclaimed as being the Magna Carta of the disabled in the 1980s.
In that report the committee made no less than 10 recommendations dealing with the transportation policy for disabled persons. Ever since we have talked about those recommendations dealing with disabled issues, both in the House and in the committee. We have tried to impress upon both the previous Government and the present one that these recommendations were given a lot of thought and a tremendous amount of input from the disabled community and people who shared their concerns, not only about transportation, but a host of other matters of equal concern to a person who is disabled. Both Governments have totally ignored everything that has been said.
Apart from the fact that the Bill does not deal adequately with discrimination against disabled people in our transportation system, it raises a number of other serious concerns. The legislation eliminates the Canadian Transport Commission. In the place of that commission another agency will be set up. It raises a number of questions in this respect. It is my understanding that those concerns have never been addressed by the Government.
What happens to the decisions which were previously made by the Canadian Transport Commission on issues affecting disabled people wherein the commission ruled in many cases in favour of the disabled person? What happens to all those decisions? Will the new board or agency recognize those decisions and consider them to be enforceable? That question has been asked but it has never been answered. No one seems to know the answer.
There is another question to which I would like an answer. This is about all we can ask because we know that the Government has a sufficient number of Members to pass the legislation despite anything the opposition Parties have to say. However, these two questions demand answers. At least 10 per cent of the population in Canada is considered to be disabled
National Transportation Act, 1986
in one aspect or another. Not all of them have physical disabilities, but they certainly are disabilities which cause problems for them when they are faced with the Canadian transportation system. For example, the Government has said that it intends to deregulate the air transportation system in Canada. I know what that will mean.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It already has.


Neil Young: To some extent, not fully. I was in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in the month of December and I got the surprise of my life. There were no longer DC-9s or other large jet carriers travelling between Fredericton, Halifax, and Sydney, Nova Scotia. The main means of air transport now are Dash-8 aircraft. In a wheelchair on a Dash-8 aircraft one has terrible difficulties in terms of mobility. The size of washrooms is an important question. If a disabled person is trapped inside an aircraft for an extended period of time, the washroom takes on a different significance than it does for able-bodied persons.
I understand-and it is not spelled out in the legislation- that the regulations flowing from the legislation will make absolutely clear that the discriminatory parts of the legislation will not apply to aircraft with fewer than 60 seats. As we go through the whole process of deregulation, and as air-carriers decide that some routes are not profitable for larger aircraft and replace them with Dash-7, Dash-8, and smaller aircraft, which make it difficult for disabled persons to have mobility on board, disabled persons will no longer be able to claim discrimination against them simply because of their physical disabilities. That troubles me.
What bothers me even more is that the advisory committee on disabled persons, associated with the Minister's Department, is not being listened to when it raises those concerns. As I understand it, for the last two years it has been trying to persuade policy makers to change the regulations so that persons who feel they may be discriminated against under the new legislation would at least have the right to make a presentation to some quasi-judicial body to have the discriminatory clause amended or to force air-carriers to treat such persons as though they were able-bodied Canadians. I think that makes eminent sense.
The present Government has made nice statements about disabled persons, and the previous Government did the same thing. We had the Obstacles Report. They were nice statements which made them look as if they were really concerned about how attitudes are developed toward the disabled Canadian population. Unless something concrete is done about it, all the words are just empty promises and do not mean a thing. This does a real disservice not only to the disabled Canadian population but to the able-bodied population also, because the decisions made by the Government are about the kind of society in which we want to live in Canada. The vast majority of Canadians want to live in a society which treats all of us equally, whether we are disabled or able-bodied.

February 3, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
I see my time is up. I will have a further opportunity to talk on the Bill after the amendment is disposed of.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Bill, and 1 would move:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(a), the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of consideration of second reading stage of Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will those Members who object to the motion please rise in their places?
And fewer than 25 Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Fewer than 25 Members having risen, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(b), the motion is deemed to have been adopted.
Motion (Mr. Lewis) agreed to.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Could the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) have a chance to make his speech? Thank you.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this very important debate. I think this is a very important matter, and I wish to join the previous speakers in supporting the amendment, namely that:
"Bill C-18, An Act respecting national transportation, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Transport."
I support this motion without reservation, and I do so for a number of reasons.
First of all, I am not in favour of opposing measures aimed at improving the situation in the transportation industry in Canada. I agree wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker, that we must modernize and provide a framework and regulations aimed at making the market more competitive. However, I submit, with respect, that the manner in which the Government is trying to achieve this objective is entirely unacceptable, for several reasons.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, the way this Government has been reacting in recent weeks is surprising, to say the least.
First of all, when faced with the fact that it had become impossible to negotiate a decent agreement with the United States, it willingly accepted, without further argument, whatever the United States wished to impose on us. That seems to be the way the United States and in fact this Government are approaching Canada.
Second, this Government seems to be saying that what is
good for the United States will be good for Canada. What has
produced results in the United States, will, always according to the Conservatives, have positive and beneficial effects on Canada.
I may point out to Hon. Members opposite that this is not, in my opinion, a very sound philosophy and that it is certainly not the way to deal with the administration of this country. I could name a number of reasons, but there are a few that are painfully obvious. Canada's territory is larger than the United States, but on that territory we have only twenty-five million people. There are 300 million Americans, Mr. Speaker. I think this point is particularly relevant to any regulations or legislation like the Bill before the House today. There are other facts and factors. Suppose we consider the situation in the United States, which has over thirty cities with a population of over one million. How does that compare with the situation in Canada? We have only three cities with a population of over one million, so that in Canada, transportation not only has a strategic importance in providing for the movement of goods and people, it is a matter of survival.
Regional expansion depends closely if not exclusively on transportation. Any suggestion aimed at improving this sector gets my full support, but certainly not the way our friends opposite are going about it. It stands to reason that the adoption of this Bill will soon be followed by a price war, which in turn will inevitably lead to lower rates. The free market system will prevail, which is another way of saying that major shippers will undoubtedly expect to make a handsome profit. But at the expense of what or whom? My riding lies in a semirural region where transportation is a key factor and whose economic future is closely linked with transportation issues. Smaller carriers will bear the brunt of this change, they will have to pay the higher prices which will automatically flow from the reductions which major companies will get from trucking firms.
In recent weeks I held consultations with a number of interested people who, I suggest, have every reason to be concerned about this measure, and it is interesting to note how much the views vary from one individual to the next. Still these consultations enabled me to draw two conclusions. First we have the major companies which rely on the transportation system for doing most of their business. They are unanimous: any endeavour aimed at the outright deregulation of the transport industry gets their immediate and full support. Ask them why they endorse complete deregulation and you will not have to wait for the answer: There will be drastic cuts in transportation costs, and this can only be a boost for most companies.
But go and ask the same question to small carriers and small manufacturers, and of course the answer is not quite as definite, a lot more confusing. These people are extremely worried, worried about the next day, worried about the future.
I should think there is no inconsistency in the two attitudes, the two answers, or the two reactions I have just described.
First of all, in the case of companies which would not stay in business for long if it were not for the transportation system,
February 3, 1987

the rates they pay now are bound to go down. However, Mr. Speaker, to be economically viable, these companies will have to consider raising their rates to the levels prevailing for other types of transportation, and unfortunately, the people who will suffer will be the men and women who make far less frequent use of those carriers. If we assume that in future, deregulation will be the norm, competition will be fierce and the big guys more likely to survive than the little guys.
But what is the price we will have to pay? What will be the price of this fierce competition among carriers? We can assume there will be lay-offs. Hundreds of employees will be laid off. There will also be an impact on an equally important area, and I am referring to safety. Transport companies will do whatever they can to deliver, regardless of the safety of goods and passengers. What we cannot accept is that this Government appears to be taking its inspiration from what has been done in the United States, while systematically turning a blind eye to the consequences of that policy in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, give an example that says it all. In the United States, deregulation of the air transportation sector took place in 1978. Between 1978 and 1982, full-time employment with U.S. airlines dropped six per cent. Between 1980 and 1985, 40,000 workers lost their jobs in this industry. That is the obvious result of deregulation, which will lead to unbridled competition, where the big guys will have the best chance of winning, at the expense of the little guys. What will happen in the regions? I think that in the short term, we will see small companies closing or going bankrupt, when they are no longer able to face up to the pressures of competition from the big carriers. This will have a disastrous impact on essential jobs in remote areas and on our regional development policies. Not only will there be no improvement, but we will see a deterioration of the situation which will have a further impact on all jobs related to the industry.
Mr. Speaker, there is another situation that also gives cause for concern. Many carriers have had to invest enormous sums of money to obtain the licence that gives them the right to cover a specific territory. Now this legislation will challenge the whole question of the underlying value of these licences, the result being to undermine considerably the assets of these companies which, I think, should have some protection so they can recover costs incurred when servicing remote areas.
Mr. Speaker, there are other considerations as far as jobs are concerned. In addition to the jobs directly related to the transportation industry, there are also jobs in small and medium-sized businesses that depend on that industry. In concluding, I would like to quote from an editorial that appeared in La Presse, which I think quite accurately summarizes the situation. It reads as follows:
We have embarked on an era of deregulation in every field; an era of privatization, in Canada and in Quebec; and an era that celebrates free enterprise and free market competition. Granted, we Canadians who depend on the giant next door are not likely to reverse this trend.
However, we will have to make a choice between what is good for the consumer and what is good for society. Savings to the consumer does not
National Transportation Act, 1986
necessarily mean that society will benefit. Let us first see the price we will have
to pay.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly on the amendment now before the House, an amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). The amendment reads as follows:
"That Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Transport."
Mr. Speaker, I agree that the order should be discharged and the Bill withdrawn now because it is not good for Canada. We do need a study by the Standing Committee on Transport to assess the impact of the proposed deregulation advocated by the Conservative Party of Canada. This Bill is not good for Canada because our country is made up of many regions which are far removed from urban centres and major markets. I am talking about Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver which are Canada's main markets. It would be difficult to implement deregulation. Besides, I am concerned about questions of service and safety.
-of safety. As I said, I have two major concerns about this Bill before us. My number one concern is safety, and my second great concern is service to Canadians.
I come from the riding of Yorkton-Melville. It is a farm riding and there are a number of small villages, towns, communities and farms there. One of my concerns about a law that would deregulate transportation is that the least populated areas, ridings like mine, will not enjoy the same kind of service that Canadians in large central market-places like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal enjoy. I believe that Saskatchewan, and particularly ridings like mine, will be the losers if transportation in Canada is deregulated. I believe that once again it is an example of the Government across the way following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan and the American administration.
I am concerned about deregulation from a service point of view because, year after year, I have seen the CNR and the CPR applying to the CTC to abandon rail lines because some towns are small and their elevators may not be very large compared to those in larger centres. The railways have been doing this in an attempt to centralize things. I have also seen the railways campaigning very hard for deregulation and to get rid of the Crow rate so that they may charge a variable rate or a rate the market can bear. Time and time again, I have seen people in small communities having to band together to fight very hard to keep their grain elevators and rail lines and now even to keep their post offices. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you have read recent articles in the press, such as the one this morning in The Globe and Mail, which indicates that 188 rural post offices are to close.

February 3, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
[ Translation]
We now have a Minister responsible for Canada Post who is anxious to close down a number of post offices throughout Canada. Mr. Speaker, most of these are in small villages and small towns in Canada. There is a parallel to be drawn between post offices and the transportation system in Canada. As a Member from a rural area I am afraid this Bill will lead to a lack of services, and this is why we must fight tooth and nail to prevent the Minister of Transport from pushing this measure through.
And that is not all, Mr. Speaker. The former Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, the former Member for Yukon, Mr. Erik Nielsen, has been appointed Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission. I am afraid Mr. Nielsen might not remain neutral in his position because he is the man who led the fight for deregulation in Canada. He is the man who forced the Prime Minister of this Government to introduce the Bill. I am wary of Mr. Nielsen acting as referee in a case like this. I am wary because he believes in the private enterprise system, the private sector, and that spells trouble for people of modest means. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) agrees with me, Mr. Speaker, but I happen to know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is a redTory.

He is a progressive, red Tory from Manitoba. If he were Minister of Transport, I am sure he would not present a Bill on deregulation under which some of the small centres in his riding would suffer.
I have here in my hands today an application made to the Canadian Transport Commission by Pacific Western Airlines to suspend services on a temporary basis to Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory, effective March 2, 1987, to April 26, 1987. With the abolition of the Canadian Transport Commission under deregulation, we will see more and more of these moves by airline carriers to abandon services to major regional centres.
Coming from Saskatchewan, I know that people complain that Saskatchewan is getting fewer and fewer flights and fewer and fewer choices because the population is not large. If we have wholesale deregulation, there is a concern that seat sales will not be applicable to places like Regina and Saskatoon in the same numbers proportionally as they will be applicable to Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto because there are modes of competition in the larger centres that do not exist on the Prairies. That will be one of the consequences of deregulation. The service in rural Saskatchewan, northern Canada, the Atlantic provinces and throughout much of Quebec will suffer, but that is the kind of vision the Conservative Party has in mind.
When the Canadian people voted for a change in September 1984, they did not vote for a change that would take us on a wild ride in right-wing Conservative politics imported from the United States of America. They were tired of a Liberal Government and a Liberal Prime Minister but they did not
want this Party to go galloping off with Reaganism lock, stock and barrel. Members of our Party will do whatever we can to stop this wholesale deregulation Bill that is before the House
today.
I am also concerned about safety. The experience in the United States has been that airline companies and companies in other modes of transportation are trying to cut services and are trying to cut corners in terms of safety as well. They are doing this because they are trying to save money in the dog-eat-dog world of private enterprise. We should not run the risk of jeopardizing safety in airline services or any other services. My twin concerns are service and safety, but I would like to mention one other thing since I have only two minutes to go.
As a prairie Member, I am concerned as well that as we move down the road to deregulation, we will be moving down the road to variable freight rates across the Prairies. In fact, the CNR now has an application before the CTC to move on variable rates. This is a very important issue for western Canadian farmers. If there are variable freight rates, the railways themselves will determine which communities get services and which communities do not. They can charge rates of 20 per cent or 30 per cent higher for communities where they wish to abandon rail lines. If they charge 20 per cent or 30 per cent more to haul grain to a small community, farmers will haul their grain a few extra miles to a larger community, there will be more and more centralization in larger communities and there will be more and more inland terminals and large through-put elevators, thus leading to the abandonment of rail lines in small communities.
I do not think the railways should make that choice. The CPR and the CNR do not run this country. I think we need regulations that will provide service for ordinary people in Canada, whether they live in Toronto, Ontario, or Kamsack, Saskatchewan.

Mr. Speaker, I would hate to see any discrimination against Canada's rural population, against the people who live in the Abitibi region in Quebec or in Kamsack or Yorkton or Kindersley in Saskatchewan. With deregulation-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Aylmer, Quebec!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is rooting for Aylmer, Quebec, for a community located within a large urban area. And I know why, because the Progressive Conservative Party is in favour of centralization in this country. They are in favour of large urban centres in Canada. I am afraid the Minister, my hon. friend from Saskatchewan, has forgotten his rural roots, because a bill on deregulation would be a bad thing for the people of Saskatchewan, for any town or village, for any riding, for my riding and the riding of the Minister of Justice. And I hope he will soon close ranks with us on this Bill.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to take part in this debate on Bill C-
February 3, 1987

18 concerning transport deregulation. First I want to say that ever since Confederation the various Governments have used the transport systems and regulated them because they were considered as an essential element of the nation. We need only think about the expanse of this country, the many regions, the myriad of small towns and villages. Without a transport system regulation policy it would be difficult to have a cohesive and united country.
The Liberal Party is aware of the fact that our transport industry is not static by any means and that we cannot allow ourselves to disregard the evolution of transport services elsewhere in the world, more particularly in the United States, our major trade partner. However we condemn any move towards hasty deregulation of the Canadian transport industry which would be pushed through Parliament without due public consultation and adequate study by the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Speaker, I was told that during the two months the Standing Committee on Transport was allotted to study the White Paper Freedom to Move it did not have time to travel to Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Northern Ontario. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Transport could not find time to study the deregulation of the air transport industry which began in the United States in 1978. It is unwise in our view, not to say remiss, to proceed with deregulation in Canada on the basis of a so scanty data base.
Mr. Speaker, despite the objections raised by Liberal Members and indeed a number of Conservative Members, including the committee chairman, because of inadequate time allowed the Transport Committee, Conservative Members supported the report and now we have this Bill. Mr. Speaker, this reminds us of the scenario when the Committee on Government Operations studied Canada Post's corporate plans. The Minister referred them to a committee in order to bring them into full light so that Canadians could understand what those plans were all about, but after one single witness, Canada Post President had appeared for a few days only, Conservative Members in the Committee voted to stop calling in any further witnesses and to submit a report.
Mr. Speaker, that committee was to delve deep into the affairs of the Post Office, and in this case another committee was to lay bare our Canadian transportation system. The conditions were identical, Mr. Speaker-this Government acted in one and the same way, and if we consider the importance of mail delivery in Canada and the importance of transportation, we can conclude that this Government believes in rapid centralization-it wants to make Canada a country of three cities- Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept this kind of legislation and the way the Government is ramming it through.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote a few extracts from an article which appeared in the June 27, 1986, issue of the
National Transportation Act, 1986
Journal de Montreal. That is the date on which the Bill was introduced and presented as a major economic Bill. I quote from this article written by journalist Jean-Denis Girouard.
The new legislation is "one of the key elements of the Government's economic agenda", according to Mr. Andre Bissonnette, Minister of State responsible for Small Businesses.
Mr. Speaker, it was the Minister of State for Small Businesses who was reported as saying that such a Bill was a key element of the economic agenda. In the same article, and I quote again:


THE LEGISLATION IS NOT UNIVERSALLY PRAISED
[Stage Direction]
The new national transportation legislation is not universally praised. Far from it. It is considered by many as being simply a deregulating legislation which will cause several small transport companies to go bankrupt.
Mr. Speaker, such is the situation. What is the reality of this Bill? First of all, it will jeopardize our small businesses and favour apparently the whole transport operation of a few major corporations; also, in such a great country as Canada, there will be only three cities, that is to say, three major centres of activities with a population of over a million, which will benefit from this transport deregulating program, while all our small communities and towns will be deprived of a service which is essential in our Canadian communication and transportation system.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is as follows: Mr. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Orlikow, moved the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
The question is on the amendment. 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 please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.

February 3, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Gauthier


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.
Allmand	Gagliano	McDonaldAlthousc	Garneau	(Broadview-Angus	Gauthier	Greenwood)Axworthy	Gray	MitchellBaker	(Windsor West)	NicholsonBenjamin	Grondin	(Trinity)Blackburn	Heap	Nunziata(Brant)	Henderson	NystromBlaikic	Hopkins	OrlikowBoudria	Hovdebo	OuelletCaccia	Isabelle	Prud'hommeCopps	Jewett	Riisde Jong	Kaplan	RobichaudDingwall	Keeper	RodriguezEpp	Killens	Rompkey(Thunder Bay-	MacLellan	RossiNipigon)	Marchi	Young -47Finestone	McCurdy	Fulton Belsher	NAYS Members Girard	MazankowskiBertrand	Gormley	McCainBinns	Gottselig	McCrossanBlais	Gray	McKenzieBlenkarn	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	McKinnonBouchard	la-Madeleine)	MerrithewBourgault	Greenaway	MinakerBradley	Grise	MooreBrightwcll	Guilbault	NickersonBrowes	(Drummond)	NowlanCadicux	Gustafson	OberleCaldwell	Halliday	O'NeilChampagne	Hamilton	Oostrom(Champlain)	Harvey	PietzClark	Hawkes	Plourde(Brandon-Souris)	Hnatyshyn	RedwayClinch	Horner	ReimerCollins	Howie	RicardComeau	James	SchellenbergerCook	Jardine	(Wetaskiwin)Cooper	Jelinek	ScottCossitt	Jepson	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Joncas	ScottCrosby	Jourdenais	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Halifax West)	Kempling	ScowenDarling	Kilgour	SparrowDella Noce	King	StackhouseDomm	Ladouceur	StevensDuguay	La Salle	SulukEdwards	Lawrence	TardifEllis	Layton	(Charles bourg)Epp	Lewis	Taylor(Provencher)	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TowersFontaine	MacKay	TremblayFraleigh	Malone	(Quebec-Est)Frctz	Mantha	TremblayGagnon	Martin	(Lotbiniere)Gass Gervais	Mayer	Tupper


PRIVILEGE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Many Members were present at the meeting of a Standing Committee in room 371 of the West Block this afternoon. I see many Members who were there with me. We were not informed of the vote. We did not hear the division bells because there are no bells in that room to inform Members of upcoming votes. I think that this problem could be corrected by the Chair and that this should be done immediately so that Members will have enough time to come to the House when there is a vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is right and the Chair will see to it that this situation is corrected as soon as possible.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   SPACE DEVELOPMENT ADVISABILITY OF PROMOTING A TREATY FOR PEACEFUL USE OF SPACE
Pauline Jewett: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of drafting and promoting a treaty for the peaceful and non-military uses of space and space based technologies.
She said: Mr. Speaker, when I proposed this motion last fall I was already well aware of Canada's increasing involvement in space activities and shared the growing public concern about the possible uses of space for military rather than peaceful purposes. I have felt strongly for some time that Canada should take a lead in maintaining the frontier of space for peaceful purposes. We have already taken a few steps. For
February 3, 1987

example, there was Canada's participation in the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space; Canada's own admirable space related accomplishments; and our longstanding dedication to international co-operation and the strengthening of the body of international law, for example Canada's long and leading role in the Law of the Sea. These provide a real opening for Canada to take further initiatives in securing the peaceful development of the last frontier.
The time is right for someone, and Canada is an ideal candidate, to propose-indeed, to draft and promote-a treaty for the peaceful and non-military uses of space and space based technologies.
Since last fall we have all become aware of U.S. Defence Department plans to use the NASA International Space Station Project for military and, particularly, SDI purposes. Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine reported the following on December 22:
The U.S. Defence Department has decided to draw formal plans for use of the U.S./intemational space station for military research-Defence Department officials-assert their right to station based research in light of SDI requirements and Defence Space Policy. NASA officials think the Defence Department will use the station for at least basic research related to SDI as well as other military areas.
I repeat the words "at least basic research related to SDI as well as other military areas". This is dreadful news. It is news that raises the real possibility that Canada will become directly involved in the militarization of space, and directly involved in SDI through our participation in the space station. Therefore, there is now a real urgency to address this question. The Government at the moment is being naive, at best, in failing to recognize what is going on both with the space station plans and with the urgent issue of militarization of space.
In responding to this alarming news of United States military/SDI plans for the space station, the director of Canada's space station project buried his head in the sand and said that Canada would continue to participate "until a possible change in policy regarding its use is substantiated". Certainly, a more decisive approach than this is needed.
The United Nations has already decided "as a matter of priority" to seek ways and means of maintaining outer space for peaceful purposes. Its committee established for that purpose is working for, among other things, the banning of weapons in outer space, including anti-satellite weapons; international co-operation in space exploration; the strengthening of international law and institutions for such exploration; the establishment of a World Space Organization; the development of space law and international agreements; greater governmental co-operation; prevention of growing militarization in space; and high level bilateral negotiations between the superpowers, and multilateral negotiations to prevent an arms race in space.
Space Development
Canada should take a lead in drafting and promoting a treaty that would draw on the work of this important com-miteee of the United Nations. Such a treaty would prohibit weapons in space; it would forestall the deployment of antisatellite weapons; it would prevent other types of militarization such as military training, research, and experimentation; it would secure space for exciting, challenging, truly international co-operative ventures designed for the benefit rather than the destruction of humanity.
I would hope that such a treaty would create a world space organization that would concentrate on using space technology for peaceful international activities. Such activities would include communication, navigation, and search and rescue-it should be noted, of course, that Canada, the Soviet Union, France, and the United States are already co-operating in the highly successful SARSAT-remote sensing for agriculture and resource management, meteorology and disaster forecasting, and energy, medical, and biological research. These are some of the activities that a world space organization would undertake.
As well as promoting an urgently needed treaty to prevent the militarization of space, Canada should give careful consideration to a three-stage program, which was discussed at the United Nations last fall, for securing international cooperation and the peaceful uses of space, starting with a special United Nations General Assembly not later than 1990, and leading to co-ordination of national space activities, and ultimately to internationalized direction of the peaceful uses and exploration of space by the year 2000.
Last week, with sadness, we marked the first anniversary of the United States space shuttle tragedy. In December, I had the honour of meeting and having a long discussion with the distinguished Austrian Foreign Minister, Peter Jankowitsch, who for some time was Chairman of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. I wish to quote from his final statement to that committee before he left New York to resume his position as Foreign Minister of Austria. He said:
The vast benefits that mankind has reaped over past decades from space science and technology, and even more, the tremendous possibilities that still lie ahead, can only lead to one overriding conclusion: the doors to outer space have been thrown wide open and a tremendous job remains to be done. We have created instruments that work, as well as a sense of mission that is quite unique.
We should re-dedicate ourselves, not only to the peaceful conquest of outer space through human beings and through their minds, through ever newer and ever richer technological accomplishments, but also through an increased measure of international co-operation. If we proceed in this spirit, hardly any sacrifice will have been made in vain.
I hope that other Members will join me in calling on Canada to take the lead at the United Nations, and elsewhere, in this mission of knowledge, international co-operation, and peace.
Space belongs to us all. It is not something that a single nation has a right to exploit for its own purposes, particularly military purposes. All nations must work toward the internationalization of space, and we must direct our efforts to the peaceful and non-military uses of space.

February 3, 1987
Space Development


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion presented by the Hon. Member on the other side of the House.
We know that for a number of years, the international community has become increasingly concerned about the possibility of an arms race in outer space. Mr. Speaker, this growing concern reflects an increased awareness on the part of decision-makers and the general public of new technologies of every kind that are making the possibility of using outer space for military as well as for peaceful and beneficial purposes less and less remote.
In fact, since the beginning of the space age, a host of military applications have been developed, mainly for surveillance and communications. The Soviet Union has been one of the leaders in the use of outer space for military purposes. Growing international concern was heightened by President Reagan's announcement in 1983 about a major research program that would examine the feasibility of an ABM defence system, including weapons based in space.
President Reagan's announcement was not the cause of the concern about the military use of outer space although it did much to increase it.
The main multilateral forums before which this issue is dealt with in the context of disarmament and arms control are the First Committee of the UN General Assembly and the Geneva Conference on Disarmament. In 1981, the UN General Assembly started discussing ways to prevent an arms race in outer space. Ever since, this matter has been on the agenda of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly.
During its 1985 session, the Conference on Disarmament agreed for the first time on the terms of reference of a special committee charged with discussing prevention of an arms race in outer space. Mr. Speaker, those terms of reference, which did not include negotiations, were renewed and only slightly modified at the 1986 session.
Canada played an active role in the discussion and debate on this issue at the First Committee and the Conference on Disarmament. At the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, non-aligned countries have traditionally been the most progressive.
At the 1985 and 1986 sessions of the First Committee, the Canadian delegation worked closely with the Western delegations and members of the group of non-aligned countries to achieve a consensus on an appropriate resolution. These efforts have been largely successful so far, and Canada was able to join the other delegations in supporting a resolution that was adopted without dissent.
Whereas the debates of the first commission reflect, at the political level, the significance of various concerns and the national interest, the disarmament commission was the forum for more serious discussions on different legal, technical and
political aspects of the use of outer space. Canada's contribution to these debates ranks among the best.
At the 1985 session we presented a working paper which was an in-depth study of current international legislation concerning arms control and outer space. During last year's session we produced a document dealing more specifically with the use of terminology.
Undeniably, our contributions gave a sense of direction to the commission debates and made it a lot easier to make the participants more aware of the complex process involved in drafting international legislation governing military and nonmilitary use of outer space. Canada is hopeful that during the 1987 session which will open soon it will be possible to reach early agreement on a mandate which will pave the way for further studies in this field.
The activities of Canada within these two multilateral key forums attests to the Government's firm commitment to promote the peaceful use of, and the prevention of the arms race in, outer space. The efforts made to this end within these forums should, we believe, support and complement the bilateral discussions held by the United States and the U.S.S.R. in the course of their Geneva negotiations on nuclear and space issues which, as you know, have the same objective. Mr. Speaker, we are confident that Canadians endorse our approach.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the spirit of the resolution put forward by the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) and to take serious objection to the gobbledegook we have just heard.

-of the Government spokesman who has uttered a number of meaningless words.

The fact of the matter is that it is embarrassing and deplorable that a Government could respond to such a resolution with fluffery and without addressing the central issue about which people around the world are deeply concerned, that is, the ongoing development of the Strategic Defence Initiative and the clear determination on the part of the Reagan administration to deploy that system in space at the earliest possible opportunity.
For the Parliamentary Secretary to stand in the House for 10 minutes and not deal with that central issue and pretend somehow that it was an intelligent and rational response could only bring the most anguished cry of shame that the Government ignores a compelling imperative which the country must address-the fundamental problem of how we control that clear determination of our close ally.
February 3, 1987

I believe this Private Member's Motion represents the concern felt by many Canadians. I see that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary thinks it is a joke. There are millions of Canadians who do not think the SDI is a joke, but they may think that the Government is a joke. Certainly the polls show that most Canadians think the Government is a joke. The fact of the matter is that this issue is nothing to laugh about. It goes to the very heart of what we as a country are prepared to do to provide a different response to the arms race.
The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam was quite right in saying that we are at a very important turning point and that all the work done in committees of the United Nations and by others stands as a very feeble defence against the determination of the Reagan administration to proceed.
It was frightening to read the speech of Secretary of Defence Caspar Weinberger as reported in The New York Sunday Times indicating that the intent of that administration was to move toward deployment of the SDI before its term of office is over and to so develop this crazy and wild scheme that successive administrations will not be able to turn it back. I only regret that the chief spokesman for our Government did not try to come to grips with that issue in some sensitive way rather than present the silliness we heard.
For the moment I want to address my remarks to the Hon. Member who presented the resolution before us. I think there is a flaw in the resolution, which does not in any way distract from its spirit or purpose. The resolution itself talks about the militarization of space. We must be careful and clear in recognizing that it is important to maintain certain of the present military aspects of space as a form of detection, surveillance, and verification. If the resolution had talked about the elimination of weapons in space, I think it would have been much clearer.
When the Hon. Member refers to the military use or application of space, I do not believe she is promoting the abolition of various forms of satellites presently used to gain information and which could be and must be used as a way of maintaining stability. In this terrible, maniacal world with the nuclear genie out of the bottle, one of the forces of stability is the capacity of both major nuclear powers to have a fairly clear sense of information about what the other side is up to.
I pose a question which I believe I heard in the Hon. Member's remarks: how do we go from an exchange of the satellite technology which is now used for surveillance and verification into a kind of controlled management outside the capacity of the military, into an internationalization of it, or into space agencies of a domestic kind which must maintain that form of gathering information and therefore must maintain the technology?
For example, in the case of Canada it may be a realistic proposition that we as a country want to develop our own satellite technology as a way of protecting our own sovereignty and of providing an independent form of detection of the various machinations of the superpowers in our own space.
Space Development
Satellite technology may be used as an adjunct to do that. We would not want to give that away, just as I think it would be important for us to contribute. I fully endorse the spirit of the Hon. Member's resolution toward the internationalization of that kind of control. However, it is in a sense a military use of space. The proper definition would be that we do not want to weaponize space or use it for its offensive capability or capacity.
I draw that to the Hon. Member's attention because she was not at a meeting which we had a week or so ago with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). At that time we said it would be very important for the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade to examine carefully the arms control questions relating to space.
For example, it would be very important for us to decide what is the definition of "research" as defined by the Americans when it comes to the ABM Treaty and its use of SDI. We need that kind of expert advice. I think we as a Parliament should proceed with a very careful study of the arms control aspects of space technology as it applies to our own purposes, as it applies to the developments of the superpowers, and as it applies to the potential that we would have to employ this technology in the United Nations or through an international space agency.
It is a case where one must marry the technology to politics. One must marry the philosophy or the morality of the use of space to the increasing and highly complex technology which is being employed. Certainly the thrust of the Hon. Member's remarks that this is not something which must be confined in a secret or covert way inside the Pentagon or the Kremlin is something that other countries can abide or tolerate.
We must have a much broader and open control of management of space technology and use it to provide both stability in the arms race and, hopefully, its eventual elimination. That may mean that we will have to use technology in space and we should not be attempting to eliminate or abolish it. I suppose in a perfect world it could be, but unfortunately once we develop a technology, someone will try to use it. The best way to offset that is to ensure that we have adequate capability of detection, surveillance, or observation of what other countries are doing.
I agree fully with the Hon. Member that the way we do it now is wrong and leads to instability. Where it is particularly wrong is in terms of the initiatives to turn the technology of space into an aggressive offensive weapons system. That is something to which the Government must say no, but it refuses to do so. It must say no to the efforts of the United States to broaden the interpretation of the ABM Treaty, to wit, as we heard President Reagan, after the Reykjavik meeting, say that the United States intended to test and develop space weapons. That was clearly a break with the proper rules and laws of the ABM Treaty.

February 3, 1987
Space Development


Pauline Jewett: And AS AT weapons.


Lloyd Axworthy: And the ASAT weapons, as well, I agree with the Hon. Member. Why does our Government refuse to speak out on this issue, why does it tend to say that the Americans really are not talking about a broad interpretation? It comes to me as a great regret that we seem to be avoiding coming to grips with the issue, something about which there would be total agreement in Canada. I do not know of any Canadian who wants further weaponization of space. What is the Government hiding from? Why is the Government not prepared to take a firmer, clearer stand on this crucial issue? What is it that we have to lose? Are we afraid that somehow we will once again run counter to the wishes of the Reagan administration? Is that what is holding us up?
Surely, Mr. Speaker, in an issue as crucial and as universal in its application, this is an area where the Mulroney Government can afford to say no for once. It is important that it do that, because as we saw in Reykjavik on this one issue alone, on the ability to come to some decision to halt the development of an SDI program rests the opportunity to move toward the abolition, elimination or reduction of offensive nuclear weapons, if we could get our American allies to agree with us. I think it is important that a country like Canada speak out to provide that persuasion. We can make then a breakthrough for which the world has been yearning for four years. I think we should support the spirit of the resolution, even though I think the wording of it is something that leaves some questions in mind.


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome heartily the introduction of this motion, partly because it focuses the attention of the House on an area of Government that for years has received scant attention, namely, the whole area of External Affairs and the relationship between this country and the rest of the world, and more particularly because it focuses our attention on space. This is surely the avenue for the human race to follow in the future, especially as we approach the 21st century when, as possibly never before, the human race will see an opportunity for the expansion of our life.
I am delighted that the House has a chance to debate the subject of outer space, I hope not, as in the course of the rest of the day, as Government and Opposition, but recalling that this is Private Members' Hour. We are not here speaking as members of the Opposition or members for the Government but, rather, as Members of Parliament sharing concerns that we have as Canadian representatives.
I support the principle of the motion, but I, like the previous speaker, have reservations about the wording. One could infer that there was no such treaty, that there was nothing now in existence and having an effect upon the way in which nations conduct themselves vis-a-vis outer space. The fact is that we have 17 treaties and covenants to which this country has been a party. Canada has given leadership since 1959 when the
Committee for Peaceful Uses of Outer Space was first formed by the United Nations and to which since then for almost a generation Canada has been a party. During those years the various countries participating have produced such treaties and covenants as these: the Outer Space Treaty, the Moon Treaty, the ABM Treaty, the two SALT Treaties, the Threshold Ban Treaties, the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, the Partial Test Ban Treaty and the Environmental Modification Treaty. We have had an extraordinary, impressive list of international agreements by which the nations of the world have come to grips with this unprecedented challenge, which indicate how Canada and the various Governments are endeavouring, in a responsible, co-operative, way to face the challenge that the development of outer space presents.
I would like to see some attention in this debate focus upon the positive way in which the peaceful uses of outer space can be developed. Let me tell the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) to keep listening. I fully concur with the concern about the demilitarization of space and about the deweaponization of space, but I would like the record of this debate to show some fuller attention given to the technological, scientific, productive development of space, because peace is not simply a matter of excluding conflict, but also a matter of developing the opportunities for the human race to lead a fuller life.
I believe that is what we are doing now and what Canada has in the past two years, endeavoured to do through its international negotiations and activities. We have, for example, entered into a partnership with the United States manned space station project which can be a very productive, salutary, positive development for the U.S. and Canada. We have reached out to Europe in a co-operative venture, being a partner in several programs initiated by the European Space Agency. We have invited other countries to co-operate with us, particularly in the RadarSat remote sensing project which is the chief Canadian effort, the one in which Canadian expertise and leadership can have the most positive, lasting contribution to the world.
Important as the prod, the stimulus and the inspiration of this motion can be to the House today, I believe it is vital that we recognize what Canada has been doing and build on that foundation. I believe that the advent of the Canadian Space Agency announced in the Speech from the Throne that began this session offers us the promise and the expectation of that. That agency can co-ordinate the existing programs. It can initiate new endeavours and thereby offer us an opportunity to develop and progress, which is much needed.
In the remaining time available to me, Mr. Speaker, I want to focus attention on the other dimension of this motion, which is concern about the peaceful use of outer space with particular application to demilitarization and deweaponization, the avoidance of conflict and the avoidance of the use of outer space as a way by which new military power can be asserted by one nation or a group of nations over others. It is vital that we recognize that already in the absence of clear, comprehensive
February 3, 1987

treaties, such as this motion would call for, there is nonetheless some basis in international law that seeks to achieve the objectives which I would believe would be the purpose of the treaty to which the motion refers. For instance, certain military activities in outer space can now be held to be inconsistent with international law, such as interference with space based remote sensors that could be used for military purposes as between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.; the placement of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in orbit around the earth and on celestial bodies or in orbit around them; hostile acts through the use of force on celestial bodies and the orbits around them; the placement of military bases and conduct of military tests or manoeuvres on celestial bodies and in orbits around them; the testing of nuclear weapons in outer space; the development, testing, and deployment of space based ABM systems or components; and the military or hostile use of environmental modification techniques in outer space.
It is true that this corpus of international law does not meet all the needs. It certainly does not exclude the challenge which the motion and its proponent addressed namely, the hazard that has been brought before us anew by the possibility of a strategic defence program. We will not be unmindful in debating this, but Canada has decisively refused as a country and a Government to be a party to the research dimension of that Strategic Defence Initiative.
Let us recognize that. We have not refused to recognize the potential validity of SDI in the hands of the United States but we as a country have not participated actively in it. Let us therefore recognize that as we contemplate the possibility of a Strategic Defence Initiative by the United States or its equivalent by the Soviet Union, something which we should not refuse to recognize as being a serious possibility, the world at large faces a previously unknown hazard, and this must concern the House as it must concern the nation. Therefore, I would welcome the prospect envisioned by this motion of focusing anew on the need for further and fuller agreements between nations with respect to the use of outer space for military purposes.
I do not assume that one treaty can be like one magic wand that will remove the danger. Rather, I would think in terms of future agreements building on the foundation I have outlined in these remarks. Whether we are talking about one more treaty, a series of them or amendments to existing agreements, I would hope that we would be committed to the removal of the hazard of destruction to the world that is now before us through the technological use of outer space. I would hope that we would recognize that we have a new frontier and a new opportunity and that we as a human race should be prepared to use it for the future life of man rather than for future destruction.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have an opportunity to speak on this motion, which asks that
Space Development
we give consideration to enacting a Bill in Parliament that would deal with the peaceful uses of outer space. As the Hon. Member who spoke previously said, as did the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), the motion is useful because many Members on all sides of the House agree with it. I believe it is also needed to enable Parliament to clarify a policy. I believe that that policy has not been clarified. In fact, we need legislation that will follow on such a discussion as this in order to make that policy both clear and firm.
Even with the 17 treaties to which the previous speaker referred, we do not have any democratic control of space. It may be thought that space is too far away from us for democracy to be at issue. However, I would like to give a major example of the way in which our lack of democratic opportunity to control space policy is very destructive.
Last year, the Government undertook to give $800 million to the construction of the space station that was being promoted for $12 billion by the United States. There was no consultation with the people about that. There was no way that Parliament was able to debate that decision on its merits. There was no democratic decision made by the country. In effect, there was a dictatorial decision made by one man, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and those whom he pleased to have with him in his Cabinet. They followed that up by cutting budgets. They slashed the budget of the National Research Council and, after having promised to restore the previous Government's cuts, they slashed the budget for post-secondary education. They slashed money from all kinds of research projects in the arts and sciences, money that would have gone for peaceful purposes as most university funding would go. The decision to do this was made largely without any consultation. There was a discussion of the slashing of the budget for post-secondary education.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: It was not slashed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I hear an Hon. Member saying that it was not slashed, but he knows full well that in terms of actual spending dollars, it was slashed and it was one of the slashes that was made-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minsiter, on a point of order.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to remind the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) that he is going completely against our standing orders at this time. I think that will be obvious from the blues. Even if this is the period set aside for Private Member's Business, normally the Hon. Member should rise to speak either for or against the issue at hand. I fail to see how what he says is relevant. He was talking about cutbacks in education. I let the matter pass for a while,

February 3, 1987
Space Development
but I think we ought to remind the Hon. Member to get back to the subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member will make his comments relevant to the motion presented by the Hon. Member of his own Party.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with the mover of the motion on this point. The point I am trying to make, if the majority Party will not, in an undemocratic fashion, take away my right to speak, is that those budget cuts were made to established programs used for peaceful purposes in order to find $800 million for the space station. What is the purpose of the space station? We were told at the time that its purpose was peaceful research. There was an understanding that it would not be used for military purposes. Now the cat is out of the bag, and that undemocratic decision to give $800 million to the space station has been exposed by the American decision to use the space station for purposes of war. In other words, the Americans practised a little deceit for a year, and this Government accepted at face value their vague statement that it was to be used for peaceful purposes. Therefore, because these things have been done in an undemocratic way, the effect is that research for war and SDI in that space station has taken $800 million away from peaceful programs in Canada. That action is highly undemocratic.
If the Government had bluntly told the Canadian people that it wished to give $800 million to star wars by contributing it to the space station, the Canadian people would have objected even more strongly than they did when the joint committee heard people all across Canada tell the Government to stay out of star wars. If the people had been told that star wars would take away money from the NRC, universities and research in the humanities and science, they would have reacted much more strongly.
My point is that we need legislation such as the legislation for which the mover of the motion, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), has asked. We need legislation democratically based and passed by this Parliament so that the Government is obliged to follow the principles of it. The Government would not then, I would hope, imagine that it had the freedom to take such an autocratic action as it has taken in the funding of the space station.
As has been pointed out by all three previous speakers, there are many important peaceful uses for research into peaceful activities in space. We need those peaceful activities and the entire world needs them. Yes, I agree with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry to the extent that one of those activities should be surveillance since there are still warlike activities to be surveyed. However, that should be done through the United Nations. If the space station is to be used for surveillance, it should be directed and controlled by the United Nations, the only international authority that has any standing between the two superpowers that may be engaged in space warfare or war-related space research. Again that should
be legislated in this Parliament. That is to say, it should be legislated that our contribution to any space station should be based only on a clear agreement that it would be under the direction of the UN. Therefore, any surveillance of military activities, on the ground or in space, would be carried out for the benefit of all the people of the world. It would not be just for the benefit of the U.S. military, who will of course keep secret any results of military surveillance, military testing, or military uses of the space station they expect us to help pay for. Under the UN a space station would be capable of pursuing to the benefit of all peoples in the world both the broad range of peaceful uses which the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) has read out and the other two speakers have agreed to, but also any necessary surveillance of potential warlike activities. However, that will not happen unless in Canada and other countries democratic legislation such as this motion proposes is adopted in order to control the Governments and their representatives, military representatives above all, who engage in other kinds of adventures in space.
I hope the House will accept in due course the position put forward by the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam and bring this matter to fruition through discussion and a vote in this Parliament.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to the motion presented by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). This is indeed a serious matter, and I am surprised that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy)-unfortunately he is not in the House to hear what I have to say, and I hope he will be able to read this in Hansard tomorrow-should come here to tell us that the Canadian Government has not taken seriously the issue of the peaceful use of space. I would call that not bad faith but at least gross negligence. Often the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry has given us such a variety of opinions on Canada's role in space agencies or on Canadian defence policy that there is something for everyone. It is difficult to know exactly where he stands or in fact where his party stands on issues of this magnitude. In fact, this lack of focus should not be surprising. We have seen how this kind of attitude put a crushing financial burden on this country, which in thse difficult times makes decisions often far more difficult. Because we have to live with a problematic financial situation, it becomes increasingly difficult to make decisions that require a financial commitment from the Government. I think it was with this in mind that in the past the Government reacted as it did to the issue of the peaceful use of space.
Suggesting, as the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam did just now, that Canadian diplomacy be engaged in vast U.N. manoeuvres-with all due respect-practically
February 3, 1987

ignores the progress accomplished by the community of nations in developing a law of space and especially the problems raised by the use of outer space for peaceful purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I think this underestimates the role of the committee on the peaceful use of outer space and the relevance of the issues it is considering at this time.
Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of our colleagues who sit on the Opposition benches on the other side of the House, allow me to recall briefly how the United Nations have evolved over the nearly 30 years since they first got involved in the great space exploration adventure, the most recent and undoubtedly the most challenging human epic.
Back in 1958, after man put the first artificial satellite Sputnik into earth orbit, the General Assembly of the United Nations established an ad hoc committee of 18 nations which a year later, pursuant to Resolution 1472, became the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.
So today we are being urged to launch a new study or finalization process which should eventually lead to a treaty on this issue. This may sound just fine at first, but why ignore and forget what has been done in the past and what is still being done today? As I see it, Canada has always been directly involved, and later on in my remarks I will quote a supportive statement to that effect. Members of this House-indeed the Member of our Party who had the floor a few minutes ago raised this issue before the United Nations last year.
Since 1961 the standing committee-now made up of 53 member countries-has represented the interests of humanity and now includes countries which have the technical know-how required to send satellites into orbit or can produce the systems and subsystems carried aloft by modern communications or earth observation satellites. I might also mention the ever larger group of nations anxious to share in the economic, scientific and humanitarian benefits which the peaceful use of outer space has put within our reach.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to make a brief review of these questions which are being dealt with by and are of particular interest to the committee. First, the review of the impact of international cooperation in the peaceful use of outer space; the establishment of international co-operation programs which might be carried out under the auspices of the United Nations; the promotion of applied research and the peaceful use of space; the distribution of research information; and the study of legal problems created by space exploration.
That committee is already committed and the Hon. Member would like us to recommit ourselves into another process-but we know how much time and energy are needed to take part in international agencies and how difficult and costly it can be, but just the same we should not hesitate to do so. It is very difficult to reach a consensus, as everyone knows. Imagine what waste of time it would be if we launched into a new crusade to reach the same goals. Of course, we should not
National Transportation Act, 1986
neglect, nor forget the Hon. Member's good faith in this process, in the idea she had for putting the motion forward, but I feel that at this time we already have another agency, a committee and we should follow on the course already taken.
The work of the committee in the area of space law is extensive, and it is because of this that we have negotiated and submitted to the U.N. Assembly the following treaties. The treaty dealing with the principles governing actvities of states on atmospheric space exploration and utilization, including the earth and other celestial bodies-I am quoting rapidly, Mr. Speaker, I know my time is going fast, I am already in the atmosphere at least-agreements on astronauts' rescue; the return of astronauts and the return of objects launched into space; the convention on international responsibility for damage caused by space objects; the convention on the registration of objects launched into extra atmospheric space; the agreement on activities of states on the moon and on other celestial bodies. A whole series of treaties on which we worked as a member country of the United Nations, and on which we will keep on working.
It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that Canada has amply done its part, and that this Government's commitment to international agencies and to the Canadian people are in line with what Canadians want.


Pauline Jewett: It is not enough. Question!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

Pursuant to the Order passed earlier today, the House reverts to Government Orders.