1987-02-10

POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker,
I wanted to see today's Hansard before I brought up a point of order which I think is of some importance to us on this side of the House, and I am sure the Government would concur.
Yesterday at the beginning of the sitting, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and House Leader (Mr. Lewis) rose in his place to move what we all knew to be a dilatory motion. He moved that we proceed to Orders of the Day. At the time, as far as I know, there was no question before the House to be debated, yet he was allowed to put his dilatory motion and it was voted on and, of course, carried.
I would like to make sure the Chair understands my point. I am not questioning the Chair's acceptance of the motion. What I do question was the Parliamentary Secretary's right to take the floor when there was nothing before us to move a dilatory motion which prevented many of us from tabling petitions and doing the regular things we do under Routine Proceedings.
I would give notice to the Chair today that I would like this matter to be discussed, possibly in the Chamber, so that we do not have a repetition of what happened yesterday, a dilatory motion being used by the Government to do certain things. We all know that the Government has many tools at hand to cut off debate, to adjourn the House or to do all kinds of other things. In my view, the Government is utilizing its powers to push too far the importance of its wish to get the Government's business done, and is using the rules badly in so doing.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think it is common practice that once prayers are finished, your remark is: "Let the doors be opened". I felt that that was an indication to the House that the business of the House could proceed. Under daily Routine Proceedings, I would suggest, Sir, that a motion to move to Orders of the Day is in order. There does not have to be a question before the House, so I moved at that time to proceed directly to Government Orders in order that the business of the House which had not been able to proceed on three preceding days might proceed.
A comment has been made about the ability of Hon. Members to present petitions. I know that my hon. friend who is a student of the House rules would be the first to tell the Chair that there are two ways to bring a petition to the attention of the Speaker. There is the method used when petitions are presented under the daily Routine Proceedings and there is also the method of tabling petitions, a method which does not require that one stand in one's place to make a lengthy presentation. Many Hon. Members, with the interests of the nation at heart, table petitions in this much more businesslike way. I suggest, Sir, that by moving to Orders of the Day, in no way were we preventing any Member from presenting a petition to the Speaker since there is another method of doing so.
In closing, I would simply say that in my copies of the Projected Order of Business and the Order Paper and Notices, it indicates this day's order of business. I think Routine Proceedings should include the right to make a motion. I suggest that if my hon. friend wants to make the same motion, that we proceed to Orders of the Day, we would be able to assist him in that.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the same point. First, I do not want to reflect on the decision the House made yesterday to move to Orders of the Day. It was a House vote and that is fair with me. I also believe the motion moved by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary was perfectly allowable, and that is what the Chair did, it allowed it to come to a vote. Where I differ with my friend across the floor is that I do not believe the motion was made at the right time. If we look, for example, at today's routine of business, it starts with Tabling of Documents. What I say is that no one should be able to make any motion under Tabling of Documents. It is there in the line-up to table documents. The next item, Statements by Ministers, is the same. It is meant for Ministers to make statements. I contend that yesterday, when the Parliamentary Secretary made his motion, he should have made it under Motions because there is such an item in Routine Proceedings.
I would humbly request the Chair to look at this whole area of when motions can be made under Routine Proceedings so we have clear guidelines. We are operating under new temporary rules and I think it would be useful for all Members to know exactly what the Chair considers an appropriate time to move a motion such as that moved yesterday. In my humble opinion the motion was moved at the wrong time. It was moved even before there was anything on the Orders of the

February 10, 1987
Tabling of Documents
Day, even before Mr. Speaker had called the first item of Routine Proceedings, even before Routine Proceedings was uttered by the Clerk at the table. This I believe puts us in an awkward situation, and I would ask the Chair to take it under advisement. I know it may take some time to come to a definite decision on this, but I think it would be appreciated by all members if the Chair conducted such an exercise.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) have an intervention?
Perhaps I could very briefly respond to the point brought forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I thank him for bringing to my attention earlier today the fact that he would perhaps want to raise it.
I listened to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary and the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault). The matter is not an easy one for the Chair. The Chair has been considering this especially since the use of the Routine Proceedings part of the day has been interrupted by both sides in the last while for purposes which both sides deemed necessary and appropriate. Members may remember that strictly speaking, once upon a time, the use of the motion complained of, if complained of at the time, may probably have been ruled out of order. Whether rightly or wrongly the Chair is not prepared to say at this point. However, there has been a practice going back a number of years which allows that.
The point made is absolutely correct, that the Chair had not called Tabling of Documents yesterday. However, the Parliamentary Secretary was up and the Chair felt he had to be recognized. Today the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier almost got up before the Chair said Tabling of Documents. Members may have noticed that today the Chair hurried with the calling for "Tabling of Documents". However, the matter raised is an important one.
I invited the House Leader for the NDP to make a comment and he may very well want to consider this intervention quietly over the next day or two and make some representations. However, as I say, the Chair is acutely conscious that dilatory motions, and this may not be a dilatory motion, have certainly been made from time to time. I am not imputing motives in any way to any member, but when it suited the convenience or particular tactics in the House, they have been used during Routine Proceedings. Members will remember that the use of dilatory motions in Routine Proceedings was used extensively, and I must say with great skill, some weeks ago, not necessarily by only one side.
I welcome the invitation to the Chair to consider the matter. Perhaps it would be appropriate to consider it in discussion with members of all three Parties. As the Chair has indicated in the past, if it ever came to the point where the Business of the House was too long delayed, which probably would not be in the interests of this place, then perhaps the Chair would have to find a way to rule appropriately and get on with the various matters listed in Routine Proceedings. Happily, because of the great good sense of all members and cooperation between Parties, the Chair has not had to make a hard ruling in that regard. I do not take the invitation of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier and the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques as an invitation to do so, but I do take it as an invitation to consider the practice and I shall do so.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I might just say in rejoinder, sometimes the word "Routine" Proceedings seems like a misnomer. There is far too much excitement to call it "routine".
I have two things to do. First of all, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I am pleased to table today two copies in both official languages of the report of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) to Parliament on commemorative statues to Canadian Prime Ministers and commemoratives to other eminent Canadians.

[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-461, 332-493, 332-498, 332-507, 332509, 332-511, 332-518, 332-560, 332-562 and 332-709.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has a point to make?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I have lost track of exactly where we are in the proceedings.


Some Hon. Members:: No kidding!


Philip Derek Lewis: That is all right, it happens from time to time.


Mr. Keeper:: Don't tell him.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to Hon. Members that there is a certain frankness in the comments of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary which are pleasing to this place. I called Presenting Reports from Committees. Petitions.
February 10, 1987


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have here a number of petitions from the ridings of Laval, Sainte-Marie, Saint-Michel, Jonquiere, Gamelin and Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, in which petitioners object to the unconscionable action taken by the Conservative Government when it cut unemployment insurance benefits for early retirees. Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are asking the Government to put a stop to this shocking situation and immediately reimburse 35,000 early retirees.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege of presenting several petitions which are, of course, correct in accordance with Standing Order 106. These petitioners from the ridings of Ottawa- Vanier, Ottawa-Carleton,	Ottawa Centre, Nepean-
Carleton, and Ottawa West would like to utilize their right to petition this House as follows. Whereas a decision to close Rideau Hall grounds was made by the National Capital Commission, the Department of Public Works, the RCMP and the office of the Governor General without prior notice, and whereas the closure of this attractive and tranquil park affects thousands of visitors to the capital from across the country who held Canada's uniquely accessible Rideau Hall as a symbol of the trust, openness and democracy of which Canadians are so justly proud, and whereas area residents from the entire National Capital region who have used and enjoyed the grounds of Rideau Hall, recognizing the security concerns that prompted the closure decision, cannot accept a blanket closure of the 120 acre park to public access, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to open the decision for consultation with citizens' representatives of the large and growing opposition in order that a modus vivendi be created that would satisfy both the Government and the public.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have some petitions to present with regard to the book tariff imposed by the Government. They are signed by petitioners from B.C. and Alberta. They say that whereas 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 whereas the tariff has little negative effect on the publishing industry of the United States, yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, booksellers, distributors and Canada's culture, and whereas rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and
Petitions
specialized libraries, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect to free trade negotiations.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of Canadian citizens who are indicating to Parliament that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and that the proposed measures will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis, and that these proposals will result in higher drug costs for Government programs. They say as well that these changes are another example of Canadian Government concessions to the United States at the expense of the average Canadians. These petitioners call upon Parliament to reject these proposals to increase drug prices.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of residents of the British Columbia coast who are concerned about Ministry of Transport directions to automate light stations. They believe that this will reduce the weather reporting capability of these stations and, more important, reduce the assistance in search and rescue on a very rugged and remote part of the British Columbia coast. They call upon Parliament to make a thorough and complete public inquiry in the Province of British Columbia into the need for these manned light stations on the West Coast.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of western Canadians, pursuant to Standing Order 106. They are suggesting that the Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy the necessary prescription drugs. They are asking the Government to reconsider its decision to proceed with this legislation.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour, under Standing Order 106, to present a petition which has been certified as correct. It is from people from a number of communities in northern Manitoba including Wanless and The Pas. The petitioners express their concern with the federal Government's attempt to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. They believe that this will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and that it will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

February 10, 1987
Introduction of Bills
pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have some petitions from Canadians who point out that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for consumers, will severely restrict the ability of Canadians to buy the necessary prescription drugs, and will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. They believe that it will also result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans. They, therefore, humbly pray and call upon the Parliament of Canada to reject the proposals to increase prescription drug prices for all Canadians.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, you have grouped the members who have Bills to present. However, I noticed that you called Mr. Robinson, for instance, only once, while the Hon. Member may have three Bills.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is perfectly right.



TELEGLOBE CANADA REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT


Hon. Monique Vezina (for the Minister of State (Privatization)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-38, an Act respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Teleglobe Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT, 1986 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE

Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there have been further discussions and I believe that there would be unanimous consent to pass the following motion. I move:
That the Order for the second reading and reference to a Legislative Committee of Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extraprovincial undertakings be altered to provide for reference of the Bill to the Standing Committee on Transport.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if you would be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 61,1 will read the answer into the record.



TRAVEL EXPENSE ACCOUNTS

Ms. McDonald: 1.	Is there a policy of the Government concerning the use by public servants of expense account money for the services of prostitutes or escorts, or the viewing of strippers and, if so, what is it?
2.	Are the services of prostitutes and escorts ever allowable business expense deductions under Revenue Canada assessments of personal or corporate tax?
3.	Are guidelines provided to public servants and politicians regarding the use of public moneys while travelling on public business and, if so, what are they?


Philip Derek Lewis: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of National Revenue as follows:
1.	and 3. Public servants are subject to a detailed set of guidelines called the "Treasury Board Travel Policy" which clearly establishes their entitlements when travelling on government business.
Travel expenses of Members of Parliament are governed by the authority of the Senate and the House of Commons Act and controlled by the administration section of the House of Commons.
Ministers of the Crown and Parliamentary Secretaries who travel are accountable for their travel expenses, which are reviewed and reimbursed by their department.
2.	Only reasonable expenses made or incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from a business and substantiated by vouchers may be allowed as business expense deductions pursuant to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Each case has to be determined from the facts available to the Department of National Revenue.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Jean-Claude Malépart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis), in
February 10, 1987

connection with our Standing Orders which provide that questions on the Order Paper should receive a reply within 45 days of filing-I have a question, No. 54, which is dated December 10-and I would like to know why the Government is dragging its feet about answering this question.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I take notice of my hon. friend's suggestion and shall review the matter and report to him and the House as soon as possible. This is the first indication I have had that we may not have been following the Standing Orders. I will get back to him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 9, 1987, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport; and the motion of Mr. Lewis (p. 3220).
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks on Bill C-19, the Government's proposed deregulation of the trucking industry, by pointing out that the Government is throwing out the baby with the bath water. The Government could have chosen a number of alternatives to deal with the trucking industry. It could abandon regulation, as it has done with this legislation; it could decide no change is necessary and keep the status quo\ or it could have taken a moderate approach to the regulation of the trucking industry and make constructive reforms that could benefit both the shippers and the trucking industry while modernizing the regulatory regime. However, the Government has decided to abandon regulation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the decision of the Government was to abandon the regulatory system. The Government had several options. It could have decided, as it did, to abandon the regulatory system, or else it could have maintained that the existing system was marvelous and did not require any change or Finally, it could approach the regulatory system as in need of reform. For my part, I believe that a constructive reform to update the regulatory system as it applies to the trucking industry would have been the best approach. However, the Government decided to throw away the baby with the bathwater. This is a destructive approach.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986

There are three aspects of this Bill on which I want to comment. They are safety, the impact of deregulation on Manitoba, since I am a representative of Manitoba, and the over-all economic impact of abandoning regulation in the trucking industry.
The Government has proposed to remove regulation of the trucking industry to make it a wide open free market in which the strongest will survive and the fastest will win the race. Consequently, truckers will push themselves to the limit and perhaps beyond because they will be living from day to day and load to load. This lack of security will cause them to continue driving even when they are exhausted.
In the United States this question of fatigue has been raised as a result of their experience with a deregulated environment. I have a report by a foundation study on truck driver fatigue and highway accidents which indicates a shockingly high number of fatigue related big truck accidents. Let me cite some of those statistics for the record. First, 60 per cent of the 231 accidents studied involved fatigue. Second, the fatigue factor was shown to be three times greater than accident reports indicated. Third, 49 of the 231 accidents studied involved fatalities; 16 truck occupants and 33 occupants of other vehicles. Fourth, 63 per cent of the truck occupant fatalities occurred in fatigue related accidents. Fifth, 6.5 per cent of the drivers of heavy truck are estimated to be driving more than 16 consecutive hours, which is the equivalent of two eight-hour work shifts. Finally, one out of every three truck drivers is driving beyond the limit of the Federal Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety which is recommended at 10 hours per day.
I am giving these statistics to show that fatigue plays a very significant part in the safety of the trucking industry. It will play an even greater role if the trucking industry no longer operates in a regulated environment. The competition will force truckers to push themselves further while attempting to survive on a day-to-day basis. The approach of abandoning regulation in the trucking industry raises serious questions about safety, which the Government should consider before it proceeds any further with this legislation.
Another aspect of the whole question of abandoning the regulatory regime in the trucking industry has to do with its regional impact. I am particularly concerned about what this means for Manitoba. Manitoba has been hit hard by the Government on a number of occasions. When the Government reduced the transfers for education and health care, provinces like Manitoba were the hardest hit. It is not the first time the Government has taken some action which hurt Manitobans. I would like to read an excerpt from an article in The Ottawa Citizen on October 22, 1985:
Manitoba stands to lose more than most provinces if reform of the trucking industry fails to safeguard domestic routes from competition by giant United States firms,-

February 10, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
That was said by Roily Painchaud, President of the Manitoba Trucking Association. Mr. Painchaud went on to say:
Eight of Canada's 14 largest trucking firms are based in Winnipeg and more than 400 local trucking firms employ about 10,000 Manitobans.
He noted that hundreds of jobs could be lost through imprudent regulatory change. We are talking about an industry which employs 10,000 Manitobans in a province with a population of one million people. This is a very significant industry for Manitoba. It affects the employment of a great number of Manitobans. The Manitoba trucking industry is telling us to watch out. It has put out the warning signals. It is saying, "Wake up. If you go ahead with this abandonment of the regulation of the trucking industry, you are threatening jobs which exist in Manitoba". They indicate that hundreds of jobs could be lost to Manitoba.
I wanted to bring those facts to the attention of the Government. While I have not much hope it will listen, we will have at least put it on the record. If the Government does not heed these warnings, then the responsibility is on its shoulders.
Another aspect of the approach of abandoning regulation is the over-all economics. The Government promises a sunny morning in a deregulated environment. It tells us that if we throw open the trucking industry to competition we are going to have a sunny day, the economy is going to boom and there will be more wealth created. However, the reality is quite different. The reality includes aspects of safety, the threat to jobs and a realistic look at what happens when we throw out regulation and leave the trucking industry to an open "Adam Smith" kind of economic environment. What we will have is a David and Goliath situation. David is the Canadian trucking industry and Goliath is the American trucking industry. What the Government is doing is not only putting David up against Goliath, but it is going to take away David's slingshot. It is going to leave David defenceless against the giant Goliath.
To illustrate, let me just say that the experience with deregulation in the trucking industry in the United States has been that large firms have gobbled up little trucking firms and there is increased concentration in the trucking industry. There are fewer firms dominating the market. We predict this will happen in Canada. We will have fewer and fewer large firms dominating the market and the little firms will go out of business and disappear.
At the same time, and this has actually started to happen, Canadians will have no barriers to Americans coming into the Canadian market while Americans continue to maintain significant barriers to the Canadian trucking industry entering into the American market. There is still competition legislation in the United States with which the trucking industry has to contend. In Canada we have very weak watered-down competition legislation. The structures of the American and Canadian industry work in favour of the American industry. There is a much larger population base in the United States and many more urban centres, so there is a vast network of communities which can be a strong base for a trucking industry, whereas in Canada there are only a few large cities
and our trade is spread out east to west. When it comes to facing competition in the north-south direction, we are going to be going up against a Goliath. With the Government taking away David's slingshot, we are in serious trouble. Therefore, the approach of abandoning regulation is a dangerous approach for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make three points about the decision of the Government to abandon the regulatory system for the trucking industry. This approach will increase the risk of accidents. In an unregulated environment and with open competition, there will be pressure on the truckers to work long hours until they become extremely tired, and tiredness can cause accidents. I have here figures which show that the number of accidents increases with tiredness, and these figures are contained in a document. I believe that an unregulated system will increase the danger of accidents.
In addition, the Manitoba Trucking Association has indicated that the approach taken by the federal Government will affect adversely many workers in Manitoba and that 10,000 jobs are involved in that province. This is therefore a major issue for Manitoba and I would like the Government to realize how this will jeopardize jobs in Manitoba. It is time that this Government realize that Manitoba exists. The Government should take care of the economy of Manitoba, not only of Central Canada. Mr. Speaker, I believe that you are indicating that I have only one minute left.

I would like to sum up by saying that the Government has chosen to abandon regulation, rather than taking the opposite approach, which would be to examine the present regime of regulation carefully and find out where this system could be improved. In that way we would take into consideration not only the present needs of the trucking industry but the needs of the shippers as well.
We in this Party would not take the position that there is no need for change since, obviously, even the trucking industry and the environment in which it operates changes, including what goes on in the United States industry. In the future we hope that the Government will bring in a regime that will be supportive of our trucking industry, one that will better serve the interests of the shippers as well.
Rather than abandoning regulation the Government should be seeking to improve it. I call upon the Government to back away from the approach of throwing out the baby with the bath water. It should take a constructive approach rather than be blinded by its own ideological commitment to the "Adam Smith" model of the free market.
I hope the Government will take into consideration some of the implications of the approach that I have noted in my remarks, including the questions of safety, the negative impact on the economy of Manitoba and just what type of ruthless
February 10, 1987

competition it will be putting the Canadian trucking industry up against without adequate protection.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal very briefly with the three major thrusts of the Hon. Member's speech and invite his response to the points I hope to make.
With respect to the question of abandoning regulation, the Hon. Member says that we have an ideological commitment to the free market. I take it that is in reference to the Regina Manifesto. It has been a long time since that resolution was passed by the Party which the New Democratic Party succeeds. The fact is we do not live in the 1930s anymore. We live in an increasingly competitive world economy. If the people of Winnipeg cannot get their goods to market then they will not have jobs, their children will not have jobs and the garment industry in Manitoba, for example, will not be able to get its products to wherever it is they are sent. More than 80 per cent of the goods produced in Manitoba are sent to the United States. Many of the Hon. Member's constituents work in the garment industry. If there is not an efficient trucking industry in place to get their products to market then their jobs will be less secure.
Transportation is a vitally important matter for the people of Winnipeg and for those from all parts of Canada. We are trying to do something to make the trucking industry more competitive and more efficient. I remind the Hon. Member that six major companies have their headquarters in Winnipeg.
The U.S. experience, which I mentioned, earlier was that employment increased by 22 per cent after deregulation in 1980 and that trucking employees were 40 per cent better paid than the average private sector employee. With respect to what the Hon. Member was saying about Canadians not being able to compete, does he not realize that Canadian truckers have increased their share of total transborder traffic by 8 per cent and 12 per cent between the years 1980 and 1984? We are able to compete in that market. There are approximately 1,000 Canadian trucking companies which now compete south of the border. We can and will compete. We must compete better.
The Hon. Member mentions the old cliche about regulations. I am told that the CTC publishes regulations virtually as fast as they can be printed. There is a regulation in place which tells railways what their tickets must look like, what size they should be and what type of print they should have. This is the type of nonsense and weight on peoples' backs from which we are trying to get away. We are trying to get away from needless regulations that prevent newcomers to the trucking industry from getting going and providing more vitality to an industry that is vital to Canada.
With respect to the question of safety, the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray), as reported at page 3225 of Hansard for yesterday, spoke at length about the new uniform safety code. His points are summarized well at the bottom of that page. I assume the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) has not read the Hon.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
Member's speech or is not aware of what a uniform safety code would do.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, in the time that is left I will try to deal with the few points raised by my colleague. He made reference to the Regina Manifesto. I am proud of the Regina Manifesto, as I am sure are most Canadians. It is an historic document in terms of the evolution of our country. It is because of the people who were in Regina who drafted the Manifesto that we have the type of social policy network which exists in our country today, whether it be with respect to pensions, unemployment insurance or medicare. Those were the fruits of the labour of the Regina Manifesto.
Not only is there the Regina Manifesto to be considered, there is also the history with respect to national policy. In this respect we must consider Sir John A. Macdonald. The first Prime Minister of Canada had a vision of nationhood. He knew that if we were to become a nation and not be swallowed up by the Americans we would have to build an east-to-west economy. He had a national dream. He pursued it and built the railroad across the country from ocean to ocean. He was able to secure British Columbia for Confederation, as well as western Canada. He was a man of vision. What we have today is a so-called Conservative Party that is really a pale copy of the American Republican Party which thinks everything can be reduced to a free market. Members of the Conservative Party fail to put that into the context of nation building. Sir John A. Macdonald would be disturbed if he were to hear the types of speeches that we hear coming from members of the Conservative Party today. What needs to be done is to remind the Hon. Member and his Party that what we are trying to do in Canada is continue the process of nation building which Sir John A. Macdonald started.
The Hon. Member mentioned that we are able to compete with the Americans. Yes, I believe Canadian truckers can compete with American truckers. But we cannot just throw open our borders with no restraints whatsoever. If we do, then what will happen is that large American firms will come here to operate at lower prices. They will gain access to the market. They will drive our companies out of business. We will not have a trucking industry left. So we must have a policy that will support a Canadian trucking industry in order for the industry to be able to compete with very large American firms.
The Hon. Member mentioned safety and something about a uniform safety code. Codes are fine as long as they are effective. But we know that there are codes which are not worth the paper on which they are printed. What I am trying to point out to the Hon. Member is some of the experience with respect to the American situation. The Americans find themselves in a free-enterprise frontier where there is wide open competition. Truckers drive themselves beyond their limits. In this way they become tired and fatigued, and that impacts on safety.

February 10, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
I have tried to point to some of the realities that we would have to face if we were to follow the policies adopted by the Party of the Hon. Member.


Mr. Nystrom:: My friend for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) mentioned the Regina Manifesto. The Regina Manifesto had a positive effect on all three political Parties. It has helped to make us different from the United States. It has historically made the Conservative Party more progressive than the Republican Party in the United States.


Mr. Benjamin:: Until 1986.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is now trying to change that as he imports Reaganism into Canada. Historically the Manifesto had the impact of driving the Progressive Conservative Party to be more progressive in terms of bringing in CBC, the Canadian Wheat Board, supporting national medical care, supporting Petro-Canada. That has been the tremendous historical value of a democratic socialist party, and a socialist manifesto such as that which resulted in Regina in 1933, one of which all Canadians are proud.
The question I wish to ask is this. I too do not support needless regulations. One concern I have about deregulating trucking as proposed in this Bill is that it may discriminate against rural ridings like mine with small population centres, small towns, small markets, and many miles to drive between one town and another where at times it is difficult to get truckers in to make a profit. It is not hard to make a profit between the big centres, and the golden horseshoe from Windsor to Quebec City. But what happens with this type of Bill to rural Canada, and small-town Canada that does not have the same market clout, the same short distance, or the same short hauls? What happens to those areas with this type of legislation? Perhaps my big city friend from Winnipeg can comment on that.


Cyril Keeper: One of the advantages of coming from Winnipeg is that while it is a city, it is a city of medium size and does not fall into the category of Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. Obviously those cities will be well served in a wide open market because they have the population. They can take the risk of having a wide open market. Small towns in rural areas could lose their services if we do not have some system of regulation that indicates that there is not only a need to make a profit, but also a need to provide a service, then rural communities will not be abandoned in the same manner as the Government's move on post offices undermines rural community life.
This whole question of service impacts on Winnipeg in terms of jobs and in terms of service. We are not part of the big population centres of this country, so services for Winnipeg also could be detrimentally impacted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House today follows another stupid decision by the Government with respect to Bill C-18. Today we are considering Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings. Mr. Speaker, the Bill as proposed and also the provisions proposed and adopted through Bill C-18 go against the interests of truckers in Quebec and Canada. We know that under the combined provisions of Bills C-18 and C-19, our Quebec carriers will be subject to unfair competition in railway sector. With Bill C-19, however, the Government is also inviting every single company, even the smallest, across this country and across our regions as some Hon. Members said earlier, not just in our larger urban centres but also in remote areas where competition is already fierce, these people are being asked to compete with the U.S. giants in the industry and the giants in the larger urban centres who are trying to take over the entire trucking industry.
At first glance, the Bill looks very straightforward. It looks like the ideal solution to improve competition. People are being told this will bring prices down and that consumers will benefit. It is the law of the jungle, however. No more and no less. It means that steal a contract from another company, during the first six months the bigger company will lower its rates and make do with less profit. As soon as it has the contract and has eliminated a competitor, a smaller company, one of our remote areas such as Rimouski, for instance, will have lost an industry and lost the jobs of those truckers, and after that, the bigger carrier that will be operating nationwide will charge the rates it wants, which means an increase in the cost of consumer goods distributed by these carriers, and the consumer ends up paying the bill. Because of the resulting lack of competition and the monopoly situation for which the Government will actually be to blame, workers will be at the mercy of a couple of multinationals in the trucking industry. When these workers make demands for improved wages and leave provisions, they will be at the mercy of the people who have the monopoly and who will require them to work overtime without overtime paid. This will lead to utter anarchy, and by that time, thank God, we will have another Government, a Liberal Government, to pick the pieces left by the Conservatives.
Mr. Speaker, Conservative Members would be well advised to read an article that appeared in Le Devoir on Tuesday, March 18, under the headline: "Quebec Truckers Fear Increased Penetration of Quebec Market by U.S. and Ontario Carriers". I think Conservative Members from Quebec would do well, before they hasten to vote blindly, like sheep, in favour of this Bill, to read it first and to consult with the parties concerned like Mr. Jacques Alarie, Executive Vice-President of the Quebec Trucking Association. These people, who are experts and work in the industry, could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Conservative Government would be
February 10, 1987

making a terrible mistake by adopting this Bill and that the consequences would be very serious indeed for the trucking industry and for thousands of related jobs.
Mr. Speaker, do you realize that deregulation, in fact everything that has been happening in the last two years, everything this Government has been doing, has been aimed at abolishing every regulation, framework and protection that existed for our weakest industries? Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary and all those members and Ministers were saying proudly: We know our truckers. They can compete with the U.S. multinationals. We are not worried. These are the same people who said more or less the same thing with respect to the footwear industry, when the Conservative Government decided to move quotas on shoe imports. And what do we read in today's Journal de Montreal? "Our shoe industry is still in danger." Fourteen months have gone by since this Government did away with footwear quotas, and now the industry has just sounded the alarm. This is not quite what the false prophets of the Progressive Conservative Party had promised at the time, practically swearing on the Bible that the footwear manufacturers in their ridings-the Eastern Townships, Brome- Missisquoi, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Beauce-would be able to face competitors from Italy, Brazil or anywhere, no problem.
Liberal Members, the industry, employers and employees, labour leaders, and all trade unions that protect workers kept telling the Government that it was making a mistake. But the illustrious seer, our beloved Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who gets his marching orders from Washington, replied: No problem, everything will work out.
Fourteen months later, Mr. Speaker, and the footwear industry is reeling. These people do not have land for sale to make a profit!
Mr. Speaker, what we heard about Bill C-19 the day before yesterday and today is a series of rehashed speeches the Conservative Ministers and Members made when they told us they would abolish the footwear quotas. And now we are looking at the results 14 months later. Sheepishly and blindly, the same people are now going to pass this Bill and in another 14 months or two years-thank God, most of them will no longer be here by then-after two more years of the kind of mess we have had they will have harmed the people, plant shutdowns, companies closing their doors because of Bills such as C-18 and C-19, workers losing their jobs. A Liberal Government will replace this Conservative administration, but even with the best intentions in the world and unlike the Tories we will find it difficult to set everything straight and undo the damage. We need look no further than what has been happening since the session resumed, nothing but scandals. Who in this country benefits from this? Who is taking advantage of the economic situation? It would seem that the only ones who do are those who are in orbit around the Prime Minister and who belong to the Conservative Party. So who stands to lose in all this? People in the trucking industry, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is not alone saying this,
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
because I do not claim to be an expert in this field, but the information I have is that Bill C-19 as drafted is dangerous. Should the Government turn down the amendments which will be introduced by our official critic, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who is fully conversant with this issue, if the Government were to reject these amendments, then the people, road transport experts, transport companies, not only the representatives of the industry but representatives of the employees-
It is a fact that collective bargaining between employees and employers are often a source of conflict. But in the area we are dealing with today, as was the case with the footwear industry, employers and employees, management and unions-it is not everyday that Ti-Louis Laberge will sit together with the boss of such and such company. But in these cases, Ti-Louis Laberge, Gerald Larose and all the others were sticking together, and telling the Conservative Government to protect the defenceless, to stop supporting the strongest. Canadians do not endorse the principle that only the strongest will survive. They are proud and responsible people and in several instances they will even pay more for their goods if they know that they are providing jobs for Canadian men and women.
Canadians and Americans see things differently. I strongly urge Government Members to accurately reflect the views of their constituents. What are those views? Canadians voters feel strongly that Canada should not become another American state. They want to be different from the Americans. Also, they want to hold out what they have achieved which belongs neither to the Conservatives nor to the Liberals. Taxpayers' money belongs to the Canadian people as a whole and the Government must use it for wealth redistribution and regulation purposes. It has always been the understanding with regard to income tax revenues. They have fought for social security, health and medical services, old age security pensions, family allowances, and various regulations aimed at protecting those in need be they individuals, institutions, or industries.
And all the efforts of this Conservative Government over the past two years, namely with Bills C-19 and C-18, beside feathering their own nest, have been to destroy Canada's own identity, what makes Canadian men and women different. How could a Member representing a far away riding where a couple of small trucking firms have a major impact on its community, if only because of the seven or eight jobs they are providing, contrary to a major urban centre like Montreal where seven, eight or ten jobs mean-and the consequences for the development of the area, how could such a member, whatever his political stripe, be blind enough to adopt this legislation without checking first and getting experts' opinion?
I am not asking Progressive Conservative members to rely only on my remarks, but before voting on this bill, to seek the advice of the motor carriers in their areas, as well as employee representatives, and to return not with the status quo, but with amendments likely to improve highway transportation, while protecting of jobs in far away regions, as well as ensuring the survival of small and medium size businesses, making it

February 10, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
possible for them to make profits just like giant multinationals, and to create jobs. But at the point where we are now, this is the alarm as sounded by the footwear industry-14 months ago Conservative Members, the Prime Minister and the Government suggested the same thing that the Parliamentary Secretary will be telling me in a few moments, that our industries are capable of competing, that he has seen them and that they are in a position to do so. That is the kind of comments, of suggestions that were made 14 months ago. All Tory Members said our footwear industry was sound. It was capable of coping with competition. But today we have the clear proof that if the Government does not change the quotas, the footwear industry will go bankrupt, consumer costs will increase and thousands of Canadians will lose their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope, although I am more or less like any other Canadian-there are not very many people left around who expect anything good from this Government- anyway, even if I am the only one still to be optimistic enough to ask them to wake up and rally, not to indulge in the kind of antics we saw over the week-end, not to gather around Marcel Chaput to get their morale boosted, but perhaps to consult experts in those matters. If their morale is low and they need to have Marcel Chaput around, that is their business. But as far as we and Bill C-19 are concerned, go and talk to the industry. The Hon. Member for Rimouski has in her area people with expertise, ability and experience. Why does the Hon. Member for Rimouski not meet and sit down with two, three or four firms in her constituency, or even set up a regional caucus in order to get the people involved together and finally- not to rise in the House of Commons, I am not asking for that, but to go back to her caucus and her Prime Minister or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and tell them: Listen, Jos. Who, you are off the track, because what is at stake here is trucking, and the impact will be negative for us in our area. This is something that can be said, that can be done. I would remind Conservative Members that when their Government wanted to de-index, to cut the 3 per cent indexation of old-age security pensions, all of the Conservative Members were suggesting the whole people were in agreement. But they looked funny at the end when the Prime Minister admitted he had made a mistake. Stop following like sheep. Have some guts, stand up! Because if you do not stand up, there will not even be one of you left out of ten comes the next election. I think this is important. Although the Canadian people no longer have any confidence in anyone in that party, it is my hope that the comments made both by the Opposition parties and owner associations and employee unions will get this Government to listen, for once.


Mr. Edwards:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was saying that the Conservatives have been consulting with a certain Marcel Chaput. This is not true, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman in question was Jean-Marc Chaput who preaches hope and confidence, rather than despair like the Liberals.
I think it is important that all of us recognize the job-creation aspects of this particular Bill and the opportunity it allows us to pass on benefits to consumers. As an Albertan, I am intensely sensitive to the questions of job loss and job creation. Just this morning I received a letter, which is most appropriate, from the vice-president and general manager of Celanese Canada Limited, a company which employs 700 people in the greater Edmonton area. This gentleman, Mr. Ian Brownlie, says:
There is a real link between lower costs for the manufacturing sector, including transportation costs which is particularly high in Canada, and job creation.
I am convinced that the better services and lower freight rates resulting from this transportation legislation will benefit the manufacturing sector in job creation and substantially improve Canada's competitive position in the world.
I would appreciate hearing the comments of the Hon. Member on that particular point. Further, Mr. Brownlie suggests that the new simplified procedures for truckers to obtain operating licences will expand the scope of trucking services in Canada and will result in more competitive highway freight rates. The Hon. Member was complaining about truckers in remote areas. I would suggest to him that the simplified procedures for operating licences will give more flexibility and competitiveness to the small operators in small areas and that this reform measure would provide economic and efficient transportation services at the lowest total cost.
Finally, I would like the Hon. Member to comment on the question of safety. As Mr. Brownlie correctly points out, safety is a key requisite and long-standing commitment for his firm. He says:
My company would have been unable to support this legislation if more efficient economic regulation led to a decrease in transportation safety. But I am confident that will not be the case.
A new rail safety act and a uniform national safety code for trucking are two measures that will help to ensure that safety of the transportation system remains as the top priority.
The Hon. Member referred to experts in the field. I suggest that in this instance we have heard from an expert shipper. The ultimate expert in this case is the consumer who will know whether or not he or she is being benefited by this legislation. It is clear that the consumers of Canada are demanding the passage of this legislation.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to apologize if I referred to Marcel Chaput. The Hon. Member is right, Marcel Chaput was not the speaker invited to motivate, to boost troop morale. But knowing this man, I can guess what he told those people: "Listen, be optimistic, the Prime Minister could have moved two penitentiaries, but he only moved one. There could have been 15 scandals, but there were only eight or ten." This is about what he said, but that was the choice Conservative Members made, and I think the majority of Conservative Members were ashamed of that kind of thing.
February 10, 1987


An Hon. Member:: What about the Liberals? Francis Fox?


Jean-Claude Malépart: It hurts, does it not? Because when they shout, it is because it hurts. A good sign.
To answer the specific question concerning the comments of his expert who said this would increase, 14 months ago, the Hon. Member rose-the same kind of situation-to justify removing quotas for the footwear industry.
I would invite the Hon. Member to read today's statements which show that footwear imports jumped to 50 per cent, that
1,500	jobs were lost in 14 months in the Canadian footwear industry and that the market share has declined to 34 per cent. As far as I know, I am sure the cost of footwear has kept going up. Footwear is more expensive. But what we have are imports, and that creates jobs elsewhere while we are losing our own here.
Thus the speech which the Hon. Member has just made did nothing to surprise me, because he has been told by someone to read it. However, if he had gone to the trouble of checking what he said 14 months ago about what his Government has done about quotas on footwear, he would realize today that it was a failure and what he is doing today with Bill C-19 concerning trucking will have the same effects 14 months from now, and I mean a failure such as those we have noted in other areas.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. It is quite a serious one that is raised by many Canadians. When Members of the Liberal opposition criticize the Government, if they were in power, would their policy be much different? Or is it merely that because they are in opposition, they feel that they are there to criticize the Government. I should like to point out that the Liberal Government of Ontario is now also deregulating the motor vehicle transport industry.
I would like the Hon. Member to answer that question which concerns many Canadians.
At the policy level, would there really be a difference if the Liberals were in power or is it merely a matter of image and rhetoric?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the opportunity that is being given to me by the Flon. Member of the NDP to show the difference between Tories, Grits and New Democrats. Of course, if the Liberal Party were in power, a Bill would have been introduced to improve regulations in the trucking industry as in other areas. However, you can be sure that it would be a lot different from that of the Tories. It would not be aimed at removing every protection given to small operators to encourage the wealthier ones.
Moreover, I should point out that we would act quite differently from the New Democratic Party. We would not try to nationalize and to have everyone on the same standing, allowing the the poorer ones to improve their condition, while chopping heads to reduce everyone at the same lower level.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
Now, the difference between the Progressive Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party is that the Liberal Party keeps to the centre, assuming realistic positions which respect the citizenry and do not promote systems just for the sake of it.


Mr. Grondin:: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has raised a very important point as concerns the danger that competition from the American giants represents for our trucking industry.
Can my colleague tell me why, in his opinion, the Conservative Government favours our neigbours to the South and tries to give away everything to them?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, if we look at the career of the Prime Minister before he came here, we find that he was working for an American company at closing down Iron Ore quietly. With this in mind, we find that, since September 4, this Government has bowed down in the case of energy, in the case of FIRA, in the case of lumber, and in the case of the agreement with the French Government on fisheries. We have here an individual and a Government with no backbone who are at the mercy and under the orders of Washington. It is not for nothing that the polls show the lowest rating ever for the Party in power. Canadians like people who can stand up for themselves. There is a good reason why people like Mr. Trudeau or Jean Drapeau had long careers. They were able to show some leadership; they had a strong will and the population was willing to follow their lead.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Government is proceeding in a fashion which, by comparison, makes Liberal arrogance look mild. It is trying to ram through legislation by way of an outrageous abuse of the rules. It is the tyranny of the majority. We had four days debate at second reading on Bill C-18 and we are in only the second full day of debate on Bill C-19 and the Government moves that the question be now put. That is another form of closure.


Mr. Friesen:: Should have done it sooner.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, transportation in all modes without regulation is a natural monopoly. The question is not whether we should have regulation, the question is what kind of regulation. As I and my colleague from Thunder Bay- Atikokan said in our minority report on Freedom to Move, entitled Good Regulation: The Real Choice, there is no argument that regulations need to be updated and modernized, obsolete regulations thrown out and new ones in line with today's technology be implemented.
Government Members have been ignoring with arrogance the facts relating to the current state of transportation in Canada and after deregulation in the U.S. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Kilgour) quoted employment figures from the U.S. which would leave the impression that the number of people gainfully employed in
3278

February 10, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
trucking there has increased over the past few years. No one we have spoken to can substantiate his claims unless you include in his numbers those of full-time jobs which have become part-time and the number of idle truck drivers who still claim some income from transportation. There has been a great deal of economic activity in the U.S. due to deregulation, but the ill effects should not be ignored because the smallest problems in the U.S. will be felt here in much greater proportion.
If the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to insist that the committee be allowed to travel to various parts of the U.S. in order to view the panacea which he says exist, I will be most pleased. We can look at what is happening in California, Ohio, and Washington, D.C., right now. They are trying to undo deregulation and finding it extremely difficult, in some cases impossible. For example, in California they are now holding re-regulation hearings to try and restore stability, viability, efficiency and economy to the trucking industry in that state. That state handles as much trucking as all of Canada put together. Trucking deregulation there has caused so many economic and safety related problems that it has had to resort to, would you believe, regulating rates in order to compel the industry to behave properly in matters of safety, predatory pricing, and a host of other areas. However, after the damage has been done they have been unable to go back to where they were. They find they cannot go backwards. As much as they want to, they cannot start regulating entry and exit after opening the floodgates. There are just too many licences and they cannot take them back so they have decided to regulate tariffs in order to gain some control over a very badly deteriorating situation.
There is a lesson in that for the Government when it promises to review the situation in three, four or five years. You do not get a second chance. It has to be right the first time and this Bill is dead wrong. I have many articles and studies about deregulation in the U.S. Does the Government side not have a single report which talks about the increase in crashes and traffic deaths? Is the Government really unaware of the bankruptcies and takeovers? It talks as though we were making this all up. Are government Members ill-informed or do they just not want to hear the bad news about what is happening down there?
Yesterday the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) was absolutely amazing. He said under the present licensing system trucking was a monopoly and this Bill would break up those monopolies, and new firms would appear because there is so little capital investment required to get into trucking; "Just a truck", he said. Then he talked about the availability of licences between Toronto and Montreal, as if that was a prime example of what he was talking about. I looked into his example and I wish to better inform the Hon. Member as to the reality of the situation.
I correctly told him yesterday that almost 90 per cent of licence applications are approved under the present regime. Hardly the basis of a monopoly. However, I was wrong when I
assumed that a licence for the Montreal-Toronto corridor, which he used in his example, would be just as easily approved. What he could not tell this House is that that corridor already has over 20 Class A licences. Some 20 companies with terminals, yards, maintenance areas and communications equipment are competing in a highly competitive market. To hear him speak one would think there was a monopoly. That shows how badly misinformed he is.
Those Class A licences he talked about are, in the main, less than truckload licences for that corridor. Those are companies which go to a manufacturer or retailer, pick up what they have and return to the yard for unloading, sorting and reloading. That requires a massive investment. For the Hon. Member to suggest that the investment required for that infrastructure is inconsequential is arrogant and ignorant nonsense. He would have any guy with a truck in there skimming off any gravy he could get. A licence between those two points would be opposed because it is so competitive that any more competition would risk the house of cards.
Government Members may be surprised to learn, when they talk about the great things that have happened in the U.S., that with all this claim of more competition there has not been one single less than truckload carrier start up in all of the U.S. since deregulation-not one. It is now concentrated in the hands of a few very large carriers. There have been new names, new takeovers, new logos, but not one single LTL general freight carrier has started up. How many, therefore, is the Government promising us when we start that here? Under cutthroat competition who is going to build those terminals, yards and maintenance facilities in the world envisioned by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South? The answer is no one is going to be stupid enough to do it. If the Government side doubts me, let them insist that the committee travel to the U.S. so they and I can be better informed, if they dare.
I have another example of the Government's Party line differing with reality. There was a comment yesterday about safety codes. There is no safety code, national or otherwise, in trucking. Because the Government has not set it as a priority, for all its talk, there may never be a national safety code.
I am informed that last week in Victoria a meeting of the Canadian Conference Motor Traffic Authority, which is the principal body of provincial, federal and industry trucking agencies, broke up in disgust as they were unable to reach any agreement on vehicle inspections and other safety issues. I am told that there were threats of legal action by some shippers in attendance. The federal Government also participates in CCMTA and, therefore, has no excuse for not knowing that what I say is true.
The Government knows that the trucking industry does not want this Bill with no safety code in place. It also knows that no safety program was to be in place until at least 1989. Now even that date is in doubt. The Government does not realize that if this Bill were delayed it would have more clout with the
February 10, 1987

provinces to standardize inspections. The Government does not understand that there will be a national safety fiasco. Has no one informed the Government that the Americans have already told the Province of British Columbia that they would ignore B.C. inspection regulations as well as those of the other provinces? Why would the Government proceed down such a slippery slope of economic deregulation without cleaning up this mess in advance?
If the Government policy is to deregulate, a national safety code which would be enforced and a national vehicle safety board with the participation of the 10 provinces, the two territories and the federal Government, must be in place before we proceed with this legislation.
I want to dwell for a few minutes on another serious matter. This Bill is not only seriously flawed, but constitutes a breach of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding on the reform of extra trucking regulation which was agreed upon by the former Minister of Transport and the transport Ministers of the 10 provinces and the two territories. With this legislation the Government has broken an agreement with the provinces and territories. It has violated the federal-provincial consultation which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government have raved so loud and long that they would enhance.
As one example, according to the Memorandum of Understanding, the question of the entire elimination of economic regulation in favour of fitness only entry tests was to be given further study. There was clearly no agreement to completely deregulate the system after three years, or at any time, nor was there any consensus that the new entry standard was intended to be transitional only. That was not in the Memorandum of Understanding and there was no consensus on it among the provinces and the federal Government. However, the Bill contains automatic sunsetting on this new shifted burden of proof of entry regime which Clause 30 imposes.
As another example of violation of the Memorandum of Understanding between the provinces and the federal Government, Manitoba agreed to sign the understanding on the basis that an interested person would only have to demonstrate that the granting of the application would be potentially detrimental to the public interest. This legislation leaves out the word "potentially". The entry standards document which the council of Ministers adopted provided that an application could be opposed on the grounds that the applicant is unfit, unwilling or unable to operate the undertaking. The Bill has replaced the words "is unfit" with a different criterion. This is like throwing a deck of cards up in the air and hoping that they all land in proper order.
The Memorandum of Understanding used the words "economic or social development", but in the Bill we see "the economic or social development of Canada". Manitoba signed the Memorandum of Understanding on the understanding that the impact of a proposed service upon the economic and social
Motor Vehicule Transport Act, 1986
development of Manitoba would be considered by the transport board. The legislation leaves out such words as "or a province" or "or a region of Canada". Those words do not appear in the Bill.
Another area which violates the Memorandum of Understanding is with regard to the national definition of fitness recommended by the CCMTA. The legislation proposes that fitness certificates or licences issued by one jurisdiction to a carrier domiciled in that jurisdiction be recognized by other provinces. That would mean that a carrier which got a fitness certificate in one province could operate in any other province or territory and in the United States. Due to the wording of the Act, a provincial transport board which simply recognized a licence from another province and made no independent assessment of the carrier's fitness would likely be found by a court to be illegally fettering its discretion. One province could have very slack rules on the matter of the fitness and quality of trucks and equipment, on maintenance standard and procedures, and with regard to the number of hours which a driver may drive without rest. The province with the poorest fitness standards could issue a fitness certificate to a carrier who could then operate anywhere else in Canada without having to worry. A province which has good standards could do nothing about that under this legislation. That is another violation of the Memorandum of Understanding. So much for the sound and consultative federal-provincial relations. That is another example of the betrayal by the Government of an understanding which was signed by everyone.
Another issue is that of international trucking and our relations with the United States. There is today a Bill before the U.S. Senate which provides for the levying of heavy vehicle user taxes on all trucks which use the interstate highway system, which is partially financed by the federal authority in the United States. In the case of Canadian truckers, the additional tax will amount to some $700 per vehicle. There is no provision in Canada for an equivalent tax on U.S. trucks coming here. It is another sell-out of the worst kind. The Government is prepared to allow the U.S. trucking industry, which is massive compared to our industry, to come into this country. It will be allowed to operate in this country under a regime that Canadian trucking and railroad companies cannot have in the United States.
Those so-called Canadians sitting over there, sit back and quietly acquiesce to this kind of betrayal of our sovereignty and independence over transportation with the United States. I hope the Government will withdraw this legislation and wait until the national safety code is in place, until there is a national safety board that is functioning with the full agreement of the provinces, and there is a uniform national standard of safety, equipment, maintenance, and work rules that provide for the safer operation of the trucking industry. That should be in place before the Government deals with this legislation which violates a federal-provincial agreement.

February 10, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
[ Translation]


Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. In his statement he made a few references to the difficulties or dangers which might result from an invasion of the Canadian road transport industry by the American giant, but his colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) raised the transportation safety problem. Surely my colleague is aware of the fact that State of California authorities are reconsidering their decision to deregulate and now want to restore regulations. This seems to indicate they have gone too far with deregulation, they now want to reverse the process and impose some rules to avoid problems, particularly with respect to safety in the transport industry. I should like to know whether my colleague might not see in this decision of the State of California a very timely lesson for Canada, an indication that we should at least weigh the pros and cons before endorsing a deregulation process which might seriously compromise the whole transportation safety program.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, let me refer to what Judge William A. Turkish of the California Board that is holding reregulation hearings had to say. He said:
-there is a great deal of evidence deregulation and partial deregulation in California have played a role in the increase of truck (accident) rates between 1981 and 1984.
When the truckers testify, as they did in the reregulation proceeding, that they are going out of business in huge numbers and are cutting corners by driving longer hours than is legal, at speeds that are illegal and in vehicles that are not properly maintained, then I'm concerned-and you should be too.
The evidence not only comes from California but a number of other U.S. jurisdictions, including Ohio, which is also considering the same steps. The federal authorities in Washington are also very concerned about what has happened in the trucking industry since deregulation,


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the Hon. Member. First, what is his opinion about the approximately one million Canadians who work in industries that depend upon transportation? Transportation in Canada is about 1 per cent to 2 per cent more than our sales competitors around the world. Obviously, distance is a factor, but it seems that we must become more competitive in the transportation sector.
With respect to California, it is my understanding that a number of other states have found that economic deregulation has worked very well. However, I will agree that California does have some difficulties.
Third, no one in the United States has dealt properly with safety. The Hon. Member knows that we intend to deal with safety first, within the safety code. That is a very important distinction to be made between our approach and that in the United States.
The Hon. Member mentioned the meeting in Vancouver of the Canadian Conference of Motor Transport Authority. I understand from someone who was there on behalf of the
Department of Transport that the meeting went very well and there was agreement on a number of items with respect to safety. He was not aware of any shipper who threatened legal action, and perhaps the Hon. Member could tell us the nature of that claim.
Finally, with respect to the American Senate, we completely agree with the Hon. Member that the $550 per vehicle would appear to violate the Brock-Gotlieb agreement. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has protested that matter. I understand there was an agreement not to add this type of penalty prior to hearing from the consultative committee, yet the Senate has proceeded, quite improperly. We agree with the Member fully on that point.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary agrees that the Senate in the United States has acted improperly, why not make a reciprocal provision in Canadian law that will serve notice on the U.S. administration and Congress that we will deal with their transporters coming to Canada in the same manner? I have not heard the Minister make a statement on government policy in this area. The Government can send all the letters of protest it wants, they will not be given any attention. The U.S. Congress will act as it pleases, no matter what the U.S. administration or the U.S. President says. It will override vetoes more frequently than before.
Let me comment on the safety code. I have heard intentions and statements that there will be no compromise on safety from the last five Ministers of Transport. There has been nothing but compromises of safety in rail, truck and air transportation. We have heard promises and declarations of good intentions on a national safety code, an accident investigation board, an air safety code, a trucking safety code and a rail safety code. Nothing is in place and there is no legislation before Parliament. The Government is still attempting to draft the legislation, but it cannot get a consensus on trucking from the provinces. I predict that there will not be any such legislation for the trucking industry, let alone air or rail, before 1990 or 1991.
The Parliamentary Secretary stated that there are some one million Canadians who work in industries that are dependent on transportation. I know very few industries that do not depend on transportation. In fact, I cannot think of one that is not dependent on transportation in some form or another. Even the local McDonald's restaurant depends on trucks to bring in supplies. Therefore, what is the relevance of that point?
It is in the worst interests of industry and businesses in Canada if we do not have a transportation system in all modes that is not only competitive, safe and efficient but also economically viable. When there is a system of fly-by-night operators who operate as they please, that will not provide reliable and economic service to shippers and receivers. Unless there are some standards and rules for the transportation industry, the shippers and receivers will be the first ones to suffer.
February 10, 1987


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.
important teaching specialists. If this conference successfully addresses the questions of funding and jurisdiction and provides a continuing vehicle for future input, it will have made an important contribution to Canada's most precious asset, our young people.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Last month Daniel Amstutz, U.S. Under-Secretary of State for International Affairs, said the United States wants sweeping and fundamental changes in how Canada's Farm Marketing Boards operate, in the free trade deal. Last week the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) refused to clarify whether farm product marketing boards were being negotiated in the free trade deal. Yesterday the Minister said that the Canadian system of marketing wheat was not a subject for the free trade negotiations.
However, the Minister has not said that supply management and marketing boards for poultry and dairy products will not be on the table for negotiation in the free trade talks. Meanwhile, reports persist that our Canadian marketing systems will be negotiated away by the Government to the U.S.A. I call upon the Government to make a clear statement that our supply management and marketing board system for the poultry and dairy industries will not be destroyed by free trade.
* *
*


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, this morning on CBC Radio the National Citizens Coalition was reported as opposing equal pay because: "The reason women are paid less is that married women are less valuable than their husbands. They drop out to raise children and their job skills slip". We deplore this kind of negative stereotyping which denies equality rights for women. Equal pay for work of equal value is a fundamental principle of Canadian justice which is upheld by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Despite this, married women continue to be exploited in parttime and low paid jobs. This is encouraged by the statements of the National Citizens Coalition.
Many enlightened employers find women who have been homemakers bring organizational and human relations skills to their jobs, and are often more reliable and motivated than younger employees. These qualities should be recognized on job resumes as is done by the City of Vancouver.
We call upon the Minister responsible for the Status of Women to challenge these kinds of discriminatory statements which encourage exploitation of women workers.
* #
*
* *
*


EDUCATION
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, the National Conference on Education mentioned in the Speech from the Throne is a major step forward in addressing one of the greatest problems facing our country. At our New Brunswick universities, lack of funding has created a critical situation for our libraries. We have overcrowded classrooms, outdated equipment, insufficient building maintenance, and staff shortages. It can also mean increased tuition fees which are already among the highest in Canada.
In New Brunswick schools we have seen French immersion programs moved from Grade 1 to Grade 4, and our educational system is not able to employ an adequate number of


OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY-RESTORATION OF DEPLETION ALLOWANCE URGED
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in Calgary rose from 10 per cent to 12 per cent last month. Thirty thousand people lost their jobs in Alberta last year because of the slump in the energy sector. Some 50 per cent of the geophysical contractors are out of work.
When the national energy policy was established, the oil and gas industry lost its depletion allowance. It is now the only sector-and I repeat-the only sector in the mining industry which does not benefit from this incentive to explore. To be seen to be fair, we have to restore the depletion allowance to the oil and gas sector of the mining industry.

February 10, 1987
[ Translation]


ACID RAIN
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Agricultural Producers' Union wrote the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), enclosing an invoice for the acid rain devastation of our maple forests. Then the group sent copies of these letters to the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and those of the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry to which the Minister belongs, of course.
Some 10,000 Canadians earn their living in the sugar maple industry. In recent years acid rains have been the source of deterioration of most sugar maples and of healthy trees in maple syrup producing regions. By the same token, the jobs of many Canadians are jeopardized and a major component of Canada's legacy is threatened.
Not only is the Government not prepared to take action and help maple syrup producers, but the Minister of Environment admits he is not aware of the producers' request for compensation to offset their losses.
Acid rains are indeed a problem which the ongoing devastation of Canadian maple forests makes even more obvious.
Time has come for the Conservative Government to assume its responsibilities by once and for all coming to grips with the issue of reducing acid rain producing emissions, and offering to compensate maple syrup producers for the tragic losses they have incurred.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Liberals and New Democrats took a step that may jeopardize our democratic system when they indulged in a series of unfounded attacks against members who are doing their best to attract investment and jobs to their ridings for the benefit of their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I want to warn the Liberals and the New Democrats against this approach and the methods they are using to destabilize the Government. They should realize that when things get stirred up, events once forgotten may rise to the surface.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should recall that the mother of a very active member opposite was appointed as a citizenship judge in June 1976.1 also see the sister of a prominent Liberal who was also appointed as a judge in July 1980, while the brother of another Liberal was appointed ambassador to
Mexico and another is a cousin of the former Prime Minister, and so on. These are very competent people whose reputations might be tarnished in the course of an escalating exchange of accusations in the House.
Mr. Speaker, in September 1984, I believed that it was a Member's duty to defend his constituents and improve the economy of his riding, and that the Opposition, through criticism, contributed to the debate on proposed legislation. Unfortunately, we are being stifled by a veritable psychosis of innuendo and partisan revenge. Outside, my constituents wonder what we are doing here and why we aren't discussing the problems of youth and homeless Canadians, all of which puts the political stability of this Government in jeopardy.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the vessel Scotia Cape and her seven-member crew remain missing at sea off the northern tip of Vancouver Island. The disappearance of the steel-hulled dragger last seen 13 days ago is a sombre reminder of the peril of the sea, the daily dangers faced by those in the Fishing industry, and the need for more search and rescue facilities on the West Coast.
Today, dozens of concerned British Columbians brave the winter Pacific in private aircraft and small vessels in a search for the Scotia Cape. They work with the dedicated people at Victoria Rescue Co-ordination Centre, 442 Squadron at Comox, and the Coast Guard, in this and other search and rescue efforts.
The search for the Scotia Cape is a reminder that decades of Liberal government neglect of search and rescue facilities on our coasts have not been addressed by the Conservative Government. The Coast Guard, Air-Sea Search and Rescue, and volunteers, need more commitment from the Government and more resources to prevent the loss of lives.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the House to the basic unfairness in the Canadian Wheat Board's recent statement that there would be no final payment on hard wheat sold during the 1985-86 crop year.
February 10, 1987

The growers who produced the higher quality wheat are particularly disadvantaged by this move, since the Canadian Wheat Board made a profit of S54 million on the sale of their wheat. Under the pooling system, this profit was transferred to reduce the loss incurred on the sale of lower grades.
Since the higher grade of wheat is produced in smaller quantities, these growers are being penalized twice-once for a lower yield and again by a price that was lower than the one received by the Canadian Wheat Board for their product. All western farm organizations are united in the view that there must be a change in the method of determining final payments made to grain producers in order to ensure that the producers of this high quality grain reap the profits of their labour.
I urge the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) to address this matter, not only on behalf of my constituents but on behalf of all western Canadian grain producers.


RAILWAYS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, on the weekend there was a tragic traffic accident on the CN main line on Waverley Street in Winnipeg. This accident need not have happened if the federal Government had followed through on a commitment that had been made in 1984 to build an underpass. That was part of a program that was to spend $15 million across Canada. Underpasses were built in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec under the program, but in Manitoba the program was cancelled.
Once again this is an example of how the Government tends to treat those in the west as second-class citizens. Road safety should not be sacrificed as part of that attitude. I call upon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to reinstitute immediately that program so that we will not have future tragic accidents on the Waverley overpass of the CNR.

[DOT] (M10)


FORESTRY
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday I had the pleasure of joining with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) and the
Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau), in announcing a $38 million forestry agreement with Nova Scotia. Over the next two years the federal Government will commit $22 million as an investment in the forests of Nova Scotia. This is in addition to the $10 million Cape Breton forestry initiative of 1986.
Our Government clearly understands the importance of the forestry industry to Nova Scotia. A healthy forest is essential for a healthy economy. Thousands of jobs depend on the continued good health of the forest industry in Canada. Improved management techniques will result in more jobs per acre, and more money in our economy.
I wish to congratulate the Government for avoiding a lapse between the expiry and the renewal of the agreement. The last time the former Liberal Government caused serious injury to the forest industry of Nova Scotia because of its failure to act in a sensitive manner. We have responded.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I must point out the insensitivity of the Conservative Government to the concerns of our native people. Native bands throughout Manitoba and elsewhere are being forced to rush monumental and vital decisions about their futures because of bureaucratically imposed deadlines.
The federal Government has decided that native bands have until June 28 to discuss and implement regulations for future band membership. If this deadline is not met, the Department threatens to impose its own guidelines arbitrarily and remove all degree of choice and decision from the duly elected bands. We must recognize that such decisions are essential to the future of these bands, and cannot be unduly rushed. After the countless delays created by the federal Government, Parliament, and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs in regard to Bill C-31, it is entirely inappropriate for the Indian bands to be expected to meet this arbitrary deadline.
The actions of the federal Government in this case are especially offensive in light of the slow progress in the implementation of native self-government through our Constitution. The federal Government has abdicated leadership at this crucial time. With the federal Government neglecting its duty to provide leadership in this area, it is ridiculous for the same Government to impose artificial timetables regarding band reinstatement.

February 10, 1987


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Over the weekend, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the socialist Party stammeringly uttered a few incoherent words about his political Party's funding sources.
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the socialist Party should clearly tell the House where his Party gets its funds, and spell out the decisions and measures the socialist Party intends to take in connection with Ontario Supreme Court Justice John White's ruling that workers' dues which, in accordance with the Rand formula, are deducted from the wages of employees who do not belong to the union can only be used for union purposes.
Why does the socialist Party use these funds? It is a question of principle and forthrightness, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the socialist Party must shed light on his Party's nebulous sources of funds.
The morality of his Party is at stake. Will the socialist Party refund the money thus unjustly taken from the wages of Canadian workers?


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are in favour or closing tax loopholes, but it is essential for the integrity of our tax system that this be accomplished in a fair and orderly manner.
It is unacceptable for the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to legislate retroactively, in the form of a press release important changes to the Income Tax Act, which occurred last week in the case of the British Columbia SkyTrain offering. Canadians, and more particularly the residents of the Province of British Columbia, have a right to plan their tax affairs with the knowledge that the rules will not be changed once the game is over. Canadians also wish to know if-and I stress if- the British Columbia Minister of Finance was correct when he stated that this retroactive change was grossly unfair because the federal Minister of Finance had not objected to three previous uses of the same tax provision.
One can only add, so much for the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) empty promises of "national reconciliation". Surely the provinces deserve better treatment from this Government.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the plight of Canada's hungry is reaching alarming proportions. They are becoming increasingly dependent upon the generosity of food banks across the country. Last year food banks served over 300,000 Canadians.
In Toronto alone more than 61,000 people relied on the 2.1 million pounds of food distributed by food banks, agencies, and churches across the city. Hardest hit by this epidemic are those on welfare, the elderly, and the unemployed. However, it also includes single-mother households and the working poor who, with sky-rocketing housing costs and low wage rates, find it impossible to provide nutritious warm meals for themselves.
Today's line-ups are now as commonplace as the desperation of many in the mid-1930s. In an attempt to sensitize people to this national dilemma, last night the Liberal Party raised approximately $30,000 and 10 vans of food for the daily food bank of Toronto.
However, perpetual hand-outs are not the answer. To combat the crisis of hunger and poverty we need a comprehensive socio-economic policy which will eliminate the humiliating necessity of human beings lining up for their daily bread. Only then will we put the food banks out of business, which is the first priority.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Speaker:: I know Hon. Members would want me to bring to the attention of the House the fact that this is the twenty-third anniversary of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, one learns to survive.
February 10, 1987



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the Prime Minister in Newfoundland on June 14, 1984. I am using his words: "when Brian Peckford and other Atlantic Premiers sit down with Brian Mulroney to negotiate, they will get a new deal, a fairer deal, and a better deal". I ask the Prime Minister whether the recent deal on cod with France is the style of better deal he had in mind for Atlantic Canada. Doesn't last night's emergency meeting of provincial Premiers fly in the face of his commitment to the country for better federal-provincial relations?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I think it indicates the sense of reasonableness which exists even with tensions in our federal state. I think my right hon. friend was referring to a statement that I made in regard to getting a better deal for Newfoundland and Labrador on the offshore which had been paralyzed, the negotiations thereto, for some 15 years by the previous Government. I was making a commitment on behalf of my Party that, if we were called upon to form a Government, we would negotiate a better deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and by universal judgment that has been the case.


PREMIERS' COMMUNIQUE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks about the offshore. I ask him whether or not the fishermen of Newfoundland count equally in that particular purview of the Prime Minister. The emergency meeting last night of provincial Premiers seems to be slightly out of phase with the Prime Minister's commitment to national reconciliation. Does he agree with the words of the unanimous communique of the provincial Premiers last night in Toronto when they said on the cod deal that it "was concluded in a manner which is inconsistent with the basic principles of Canadian federal-provincial relations"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the first part of the question, my right hon. friend did not ask about the Fishermen. He was making reference to a quote from me that was made with regard to the offshore which we proceeded to deal with immediately, and I have responded to that.
With regard to last night's statement, the provincial Premiers are well entitled to their opinion. I have stated the view of this Government, that Parliament shall speak for the interests of all Canadians. But, in regard to the specific question of process to which this refers, my hon. colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, has already conveyed the regrets of the Government that that process was deficient, and has called
Oral Questions
upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reengage in intensive consultations with the federal Government and the provinces to ameliorate the situation.


FISHERIES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has yet to tell the country why the cod fishing accord is in the interest of Canada, is he prepared to accept the requests of the provincial premiers, either to revise or cancel the accord?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Again the Leader of the Opposition is mistaken, Mr. Speaker. They did not ask that it be cancelled, as far as I know, they asked that it be revised, but not revised in itself.
"-to review the terms of the Canada-France Agreement to ensure that it maximizes Canada's use of this vital fishery resource." My right hon. friend left out a very important aspect of it, thereby distorting the entire meaning of the Premiers' communique. In regard to this, we are indeed engaging with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Governments of other provinces that might be interested in steps to ameliorate the situation.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONCLUDING AGREEMENT
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have heard over the last couple of days the Minister of Transport, all alone, acting like Mr. T, confronting the self-confessed intellectual terrorist, the Premier of Newfoundland, and I dare say he has been wondering where the rest of his A-Team is. I would ask the Minister or his stand-in to confirm that the most guilty parties in this entire affair are the Prime Minister's Office and the Canadian Embassy in France.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend knows full well that when a decision is entered into, it engages the responsibility of the entire Government. While the Hon. Member may disagree with that and indeed question it at will, it represents a decision of the Government of Canada, freely arrived at. In response to my right hon. friend, we indicated that the matter he raised will be dealt with.

February 10, 1987
Oral Questions


CANADIAN EMBASSY'S INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the note verbale from the Canadian Embassy to the Government of France says that these quotas exceed the legal obligations of Canada, that the cod allocations in the Gulf, including those off the Prime Minister's riding, may now be fished outside the Gulf for this year, and that the prohibition against French fishing vessels on the Burgeo Bank has been removed. The last straw is that licence fees have been reduced this year over last year at the request of the French. Does the Prime Minister recall saying in Newfoundland in 1984 that he was not afraid to inflict prosperity on Newfoundland? Under whose direction is the Canadian Embassy in Paris now inflicting prosperity on France? Canadian fishermen are being French-fried.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Time, Mr. Speaker. I will not try to compete with that one. The Leader of the Liberal Party in Newfoundland is in the galleries and I think George is competing for something down there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, clearly, as I indicated in an earlier response, the action taken was in the interests of the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was our principal concern, as our principal motivation in regard to the offshore was the negotiation of an agreement that would allow Newfoundland and Labrador a fair share in the manner in which these resources could be developed. That is exactly what we intended in regard to this. We hope that the ultimate negotiations will not only result in my hon. friend agreeing that that is the case but will meet with the complete satisfaction of the Newfoundland fishermen whose interests we are deeply committed to protecting.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. We have learned today that the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister had direct discussions with local riding Conservatives about the possibility of a Liberal or a Conservative company being awarded a contract. According to the Prime Minister, is that the proper role of the Principal Secretary to a Prime Minister of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think the question of the Hon. Member is rather funny. It seems to me that the statement of Mr. Bernard Roy, who is well known for
his frankness and integrity, was clear, absolutely clear. If anyone is aware of facts likely to contradict a statement by such a man, go ahead!


PRINCIPAL SECRETARY'S DUTIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, part of the statement made by the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister confirmed he had discussions with Conservatives at the constituency level about certain contract possibilities. My question is straightforward and serious. Does the Prime Minister believe it is the role of the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister of Canada to be involved in discussions about the submission and resolution of contracts, or should such details not be left to the Departments which have responsibility for contracts in the Government of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP reveals the very shocking fact that my Principal Secretary had discussions with Conservatives. It is a comment on the poison which has been engendered in the atmosphere of this House that a distinguished parliamentarian would seriously raise a question of this nature. Of course it is the right of a Principal Secretary, or any other Canadian-I assume the Chief of Staff of my hon. friend can deal with members of the NDP and speak to them on a regular basis without there being anything wrong at all. If my hon. friend has anything against a man who has accomplished a great deal in his life I ask him to bring it forward, if he has anything at variance with what Mr. Roy has said.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the role of the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister. The contract I have referred to has already led to the criminal conviction of one person. That is not in dispute. The Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister has acknowledged being in direct discussions with local members of his own Party about contract procedures. Considering that, is it not the best standards of political leadership in the country for the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister to stay entirely away from such matters?
If such questions are put to the Prime Minister's Office should they not get a clear message that it is not the role of the Prime Minister nor of his Principal Secretary to deal with contracts, that it is the responsibility of another Department of the federal Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP has changed his tune again. My Principal Secretary-


John Edward Broadbent: It is the same question three times.
February 10, 1987


Martin Brian Mulroney: The last question dealt with his apprehension and concern that Mr. Roy talked "about contract procedures".


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He is, I suppose, as a Canadian citizen and as a member of the political process, entitled to talk about contract procedures-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: If there is anything shocking in anyone talking about contract procedures-


John Edward Broadbent: Nothing shocking at all.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If my hon. friend was consistent with the tradition he has long espoused in this House he would state that if Mr. Roy, in the absence of proof to the contrary, spoke about contract procedures, he did so in an entirely proper and correct manner.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO CERTAIN PRACTICES
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. So far, in the riding of Drummond, a Conservative has been convicted of influence peddling. Yesterday, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff admitted he had been involved in this matter at least 10 times during the year 1985-1986. We also know that there was political interference with the Public Works documents before the contract was awarded. I want to ask the Prime Minister why he doesn't ask for a public and independent inquiry so as to safeguard the integrity of the public tendering process.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is-it's really a shame to see a lawyer and former Minister make accusations of this kind. It must be a great disappointment to the two Members facing him. He is indirectly accusing my chief of staff. This is a tissue of lies, a base and gratuitous attack, and if the Hon. Member has any facts, I would ask him-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Yes.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He says yes. He says he has facts. Well, let him bring those facts to the attention of the House and the police right now if he feels there has been an infringement of the law.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Well, I would say to the Prime Minister that if he were to make his own enquiries to find out who was involved in this interference, he would be surprised.
Since his buddies are clearly involved in this mess, is the Prime Minister avoiding a public and independent inquiry just to protect his cronies?
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crosbie:: That's enough.


Miss MacDonald:: Come on, Jean.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question, but I assume it was as slanderous and malicious in English as it was in French.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's unparliamentary.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Finlay MacDonald: If you have charges to make, have the courage to get up and make them.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister said that he did not hear the question. As a consequence, he is imagining a question he did not hear. He says that if he had heard the question which he did not hear, it would be as he described it in unparliamentary terms. Under the circumstances, perhaps the Hon. Member could put the question in terms which are so very clear that the Right Hon. Prime Minister will not have to imagine what the question was, or describe what he imagines the question to be.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the Prime Minister can comment on a question he did not hear, we can also assume he glosses over facts he prefers not to see.
I want to ask the Prime Minister: Why not have a public and independent inquiry that will show to what extent people in his entourage were involved in this Public Works affair? I want to ask the Prime Minister: If he has nothing to hide, why not have this inquiry?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the sounds in the House prevented me from hearing specifically all of the first part of the Member's last question. I took the liberty of saying what I did because I think that fairness would reveal that a consistent pattern of vituperation and false and misleading statements which are designed to smear innocent reputations has been contained in all of his questions in this area. The Member nodded the last time and said he had facts. Let him produce the facts or withdraw his false and baseless accusations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DRUMMONDVILLE CONTRACT-ACTIONS OF PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is with regard to the awarding of a contract which was not awarded to the lowest bidder, a contract which was not awarded to the group which was recommended by the Montreal regional office.

February 10, 1987
Oral Questions
How can the Prime Minister justify the fact that his Principal Secretary, following a meeting with active members of the Conservative Party from the Drummondville region, personally contacted the Chief of Staff of the Minister responsible for one of the offices and asked that Minister questions with respect to the renewal of the contract for the CIDA building? Does the Prime Minister not recognize that his Principal Secretary has no business involving himself in such a contract but should, instead, be doing the business of the Prime Minister? He should not be getting involved in helping Tories get contracts from Liberals.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my Principal Secretary has made a pretty clear-cut statement which should banish any doubt in the Hon. Member's mind as to any improprieties and illegalities of any kind with regard to his conduct or that of anyone associated with him in this matter. If, however, my hon. friend has any facts at variance with what I have just said, I think it would be proper and helpful to the House and the country for him to lay them before the House so the public can consider them.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the facts given by the Principal Secretary himself with respect to his representations.


P C. CANADA FUND CONTRIBUTION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the concerns expressed by the Prime Minister and his Quebec colleagues on public morality, with particular reference to political party contributions, how can the Prime Minister possibly justify the fact that the PC Canada Fund includes $50,000 which was paid by Andre Hamel on the recommendation of Pierre Blouin in order to get a contract? Does the Prime Minister not think that public morality would insist that that kind of tarnished money be returned and not used for the Conservative Party of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that generally speaking, this is being investigated, by the police, and I will wait for the results, if any.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF U.S.S.R. MINISTER OF SPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Marat Gramov, Minister of Sport for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NOVA SCOTIA MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Speaker:: I would also like to draw to the attention of members the presence in the Gallery of the Hon. Laird Sterling, Minister of Environment for Nova Scotia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Speaker:: I am sure Hon. Members will also be pleased to know of the presence in our Gallery today of the Hon. Leo Barry, Leader of the Opposition in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is also with regard to the Public Works contract in Drummondville. Yesterday in the House the Minister of Public Works refused to give a commitment that the Public Works staff evaluations, the recommendations and the correspondence would be tabled in this House, offering, instead, to let me see some Treasury Board submissions.
Will the Prime Minister let the House and Parliament see that internal correspondence? Why will he not let us see that? Is it because the staff recommendations were changed, altered, or overturned, or is there something else to hide? Is that why we cannot see that information?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I should make it clear for all Members of the House that the Brodilaf group made the lowest tender in the Drummondville contract. There were other considerations such as moving and fit-up costs. There were additional considerations such as real value, the location and age of the building, and access for the disabled. With regard to all those factors, the Government made a decision to award the contract to the Brodilaf group which had the best tender.


ACCESS TO INTERNAL DOCUMENTS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the Minister's definition of a best bid and my definition of a best bid are the same. I ask him to table that documentation in the House so that we can judge it.
February 10, 1987



In the light of the admission that there was some involvement on the part of the Prime Minister's Office and considering the inside information from Public Works that was leaked previously, I want to ask the Prime Minister: What specific security measures were taken to ensure that only authorized officials of the Department of Public Works had access to all the internal documentation? Is he prepared to state that such security measures were taken, and if not, why not? Who saw them?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in the preamble to his question, the Hon. Member said there was involvement on the part of the Prime Minister's Office. That is utterly false.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister has confirmed that late last August he went on a fishing trip with the presidents of two airline companies.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Shields:: Scandalous!


Neil Young: Given that the airlines have a special relationship with the Minister's Department, will he not agree that this kind of association flies in the face of the Prime Minister's declaration that even giving an appearance of a violation of the conflict of interest guidelines-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Mazankowski:: Get serious.


Neil Young: For heaven's sake, I am trying to ask a question.


Mr. Cassidy:: This is serious.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Get serious.


Cyril Keeper: Get civil.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member has nearly completed his question.


Neil Young: I am trying to ask this question in the most civil way I know. I would appreciate if Hon. Members opposite would listen to the question rather than arrive at a conclusion. Would the Minister agree that even giving the appearance of violating the conflict of interest guidelines, as the Prime
Oral Questions
Minister has already stated, is not acceptable to the House or the people of Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, while I am glad that the Hon. Member has asked the question, I do not agree with the question that he puts. When we are appointed Ministers we do not withdraw from the human race. We are perfectly entitled to meet our friends on social occasions or go on fishing trips with our friends or acquaintances, or to meet people whether or not they do business with the Government. Those friends and acquaintances do not have to withdraw from business or the human race because they happen to know cabinet Ministers. What kind of nonsensical results would that lead to?
I was invited on this particular trip by a person I have known for about 15 years. He invites Liberals on trips and invites PCs on trips, but I do not think he invites the NDP on trips.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Maybe there is a message there.


John Carnell Crosbie: He had with him as another guest, Mr. Carty, President of Canadian Pacific. That was the first time I ever met the gentleman. Several months later he wrote a letter to me asking for certain things he thought should be done in connection with a Flying Tiger-CP application. He made two requests to me and I turned down both requests, I suppose because he caught a salmon before I did.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister.


Jack Wendele Shields: I wouldn't if I were you.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Forget it.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Disgusting. It really is.


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be a lot of fishing going on, but the Hon. Member is more than entitled to ask his questions and be heard. The Hon. Member.


Neil Young: My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Will he not agree that when two companies which have dealings with the Department of the Minister of Transport, one to the tune of several billion dollars for building a third terminal at Pearson International Airport, and another approval of a takeover by Pacific Western Air Lines, it at least gives an appearance of a conflict-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Neil Young: -of a violation of-

February 10, 1987
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Come on.


Neil Young: This is not a humorous question.


An Hon. Member:: You are not even funny,


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, like all other Hon. Members, is entitled to ask a question in this place and is entitled to the courtesy of other Hon. Members so that the question can be asked.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I will not restate the question. I will simply say that there is something seriously wrong in the political life of this country in the last several months and Canadians demand an explanation, rather than the hooting and hollering from the other side. That is all I am going to ask.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not seem to be a question. The Hon. Minister may want to comment.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there is something seriously wrong in the political atmosphere in this country. No person who cares for his reputation is ever going to go into politics again if this continues. On this particular trip, incidentally, my two sons paid for our share of the trip because they had been so brutalized by the same kind of unfounded accusation earlier that they thought they would protect their old man.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: There is no conflict of interest in this particular trip. I have gone to a Christmas dinner with Pierre Jeanniot of Air Canada. I suppose I should resign because of that, according to the Member for Hamilton East. I went to the Beaver Club annual dinner with the President of CN. I suppose I should resign for that. When I was in Labrador fishing I saw certain members of the Liberal Party fishing there as well, including the Leader of the Opposition, with a businessman for Goose Bay-Happy Valley. I suppose they should be asked to resign for that. Why don't we all resign and give it all up?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Go on.


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to Mr. T, the Minister of Transport. It has nothing to do with his fishing trip. He will know that after meeting with the President of Canadian Pacific in Newfoundland last August, Canadian Pacific and U.S.-owned Flying Tigers filed a joint application before the
CTC for a common freight operation. Given that such an agreement will circumvent Canadian international agreements and allow American crews to replace Canadian crews, why did the Minister write this letter dated October 21, 1986, to the Vice-President of the Canadian Transport Commission, asking them to rule within a six to eight-week period? Will the Minister kindly explain that to the House?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in explaining to the House that this is a matter that should be decided urgently in the interests of Canadian air policy. I was actually requested by the President of CP to make the decision immediately myself and, if I could not do that, to make an interim ruling so that they could proceed immediately. I turned down both requests. I referred it to the CTC and asked them to try to make a decision within eight or ten weeks because this is a matter of urgency to Canadian Pacific. I acted on the advice and in accordance with the advice of my Department.
I do not act because I know someone or do not know anyone; the people who know me know that no matter how well they know me I will never do anything that I do not think is in the public interest or the best interest of the Department I administer.


COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am not questioning who the Minister knows or does not know. Will he confirm that a similar application was submitted on January 12, 1981, which was refused by the CTC? Will he also confirm that the CTC is not providing a ruling or judgment on this application that is before it? Will he explain why this decision is back on his desk for his immediate decision?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the matter is back to me for a decision because they wanted to buck the decision back to me. The CTC has recommended that we proceed positively with respect to the CP-Flying Tiger application. It is recommending it, but saying that the Minister has to make the decision. Therefore, it is back in my corner and I will make the decision based upon all the factors. I will weigh all the arguments put to me by my Department. I will make the decision that seems in the best interests of the Canadian aviation industry and this Government, believe you me.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. He knows that the
February 10, 1987

1985-1986 Wheat Pool account is in a deficit position, owing to losses incurred by the Wheat Board on sales of poorer quality wheat, and further, that a $54 million surplus on sales of higher quality wheat has been used to partially offset that deficit. Since it does not seem fair the the growers of high quality wheat be made to subsidize losses on the sales of poorer grades, will he consider making a final payment of $54 million to the producers of the higher quality grades, high protein and No. 1 and No. 2 hard wheat?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, this is a difficult issue with no easy answers. I should point out that the size of the over-all deficit in the three pooling accounts amounts to $200 million, which I think gives an indication to everyone of the very difficult international markets we face.
Second, we have widened the spreads to guard against the possibility of that kind of situation developing again in the coming year as well as in subsequent years. Third, I think the Hon. Member and most farmers would agree that the pooling system has served us very well, especially in these very difficult times.
With regard to the Hon. Member's specific question, I will be meeting, as I think the Hon. Member already has today, later on today or tonight with representatives of the wheat growers who are here in Ottawa to discuss this issue.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. During the last election campaign the Prime Minister made a great to-do about the abuse of the previous Liberal administration when it came to contract procedures and cronyism. Now, two and one-half years later, does the Prime Minister believe he has sufficiently improved the situation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think when people look back on the situation which prevailed in this House and this country politically in 1964-65, or thereabouts, most people would agree it was a profoundly deplorable and unfortunate atmosphere which prevailed. There was unfairness done. If one looks back 20 years one will see an atmosphere prevailing in this House which was characterized by unfairness. In many ways, back and forth, the charges made were baseless and needlessly damaging. They were spread around by the media, having been made in the House without the individuals involved having a chance to defend themselves.
Oral Questions
I refer my hon. friend to the same kind of climate which is developing in this House today. It develops fundamentally when we forget to give our colleagues, irrespective of the requirements of intense partisan debate, that to which they are entitled at all times, the presumption of innocence, under our statutes and customs.
If my hon. friend is referring to the climate, I would agree that the climate has deteriorated. I deeply regret that, because while politics has its imperfections-because we are all human beings with our failings-no one ever intended that politics would become a vehicle for political assassination, for character assassination, and for the failure to grant one another the benefit of the doubt, the presumption of innocence. Anything at variance with that is deeply deplorable and I share the profound regret of my hon. friend.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The question was about contract procedures and cronyism and the Prime Minister's condemnation of the previous administration, saying he planned to change that. My question was if he felt there had been a sufficient change.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: On the weekend the Prime Minister indicated he was concerned and has specifics in mind in terms of ways and means to improve the situation. Would the Prime Minister indicate to the House, and to the people of Canada, when he plans to make public those specifics, and how soon?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, obviously I made the reference to 20 years ago not to blame anyone. It was simply to point out that I think it was a genuinely regrettable time in our political history. The atmosphere was polluted and the reputations of people were needlessly damaged. My hon. friend asks about the climate which is giving rise to the same kinds of accusations, which no doubt will have the same kinds of hurt, and no doubt, in retrospect, will be viewed as having been needlessly damaging because of the absence of the presumption of innocence. In regard to that I say to my hon. friend that any action which is required to further strengthen our institutions will be endorsed and introduced by the Government.


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Ailmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last Friday we learned that the unemployment rate for January increased to 9.7 per cent, with the greatest increases in Alberta and Quebec and improvement only in Ontario. Considering this deteriorating situation, how can the Minister justify the cuts of $200 million
[Stage Direction]
February 10, 1987
Oral Questions
in employment programs which he announced on January 30 to the Federal-Provincial Conference of Employment Ministers? Will the Minister recommend that these cuts be rescinded immediately and that new programs to combat high regional unemployment be introduced?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleague had asked me this question during the four months before January because then the employment figures were rising constantly. Now referring to a specific month- he is wise and I am sure my colleague will want to wait a little longer.
As to the $200 million, well there was not a $200 million cut-back in the programs. If we take administration costs into account, it would be more like $100 million. I think our Government has shown what it could do over the past two and a half years, creating 675,000 jobs under a Canada-wide economic program. I do not deny that certain regions are experiencing difficulties, but with respect to western Canada more than $2 billion have been invested and this has a positive impact on job creation. Once again I would suggest that my colleague can only dream about having had this kind of results in the past.


INQUIRY IF GOVERNMENT WILL RECOMMEND PART-TIME WORKERS BE ELIGIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer my question. The average unemployment rate for last year was 9.6 per cent, and it now stands at 9.6 per cent. Since last week's figures indicate that part-time work is also rising on a continual basis, is the Minister now prepared to recommend that part-time workers as well be eligible for unemployment insurance, as advocated by several commissions?
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if my colleague is going to take this approach, let us do it right. The Hon. Member is referring to the Forget report which supports the payment of unemployment insurance benefits to part-time workers. The Liberal Party will have to make up its mind: either you endorse the Forget report and say so to Canadians, or you do not endorse it, but stop straddling the issue!


FISHERIES
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday evening
the Premiers met in Toronto. That in itself was a very unusual occasion.


An Hon. Member:: Not since 1966.


John R. Rodriguez: Not since 1966. The Premiers unanimously agreed that they should be fully consulted whenever the federal Government enters into an agreement with foreign powers on matters which affect their provinces. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Premiers? Will he pledge to consult with the provinces in the future before entering into such international agreements affecting those provinces?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend appears to be astonished at the meetings. Since this Government has come into office, we have annualized First Ministers' meetings. I think it is good for the country and good for the federation. So my friend ought not to be surprised that there are these meetings of Premiers from time to time. I think it is good. The Premiers have asked for a review of the terms to ensure that it maximizes Canada's use of this vital fisheries resource. We are in agreement that we meet with the appropriate provinces to maximize the resource and to be as helpful as we can to the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONSULTATION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I might point out to the Prime Minister that this was an emergency meeting called by the Premier of one province who felt that in fact his Government and the people of Newfoundland had been ignored completely and that the federal Government had sold out the shop. In the case of Newfoundland, cod is extremely important to the Newfoundland people. Will the Prime Minister not concede that the process was wrong and give a commitment now that in fact the people of Newfoundland will be consulted right up to the point where ink meets paper? That is what we want to know.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will answer that before my hon. friend expires, who says that we sold out the shop. The fact of the matter is that view is not shared by the Premiers. On the contrary, the Premiers called for the correction of any deficiencies in the process with regard to the terms to ensure that it maximizes Canada's use of this vital fishery resource. We are not in disagreement with that.
My hon. friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, has already conveyed the regrets of the Government in regard to any problems in the process. We will work to ensure that it never occurs again. With the co-operation of the Minister of Transport and the extremely able members of the caucus of the Government from Newfoundland and Labrador we will work intimately with the Government and the Opposition- and with all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador-to get the best possible deal for the fishermen of that province.
February 10, 1987


SPACE DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows that his Government has committed $800 million to the U. S. space station. There is great concern in the United States and abroad that this station may be used for military purposes. There was some confirmation of that last week. In addition, we have learned that the cost is moving from $8 billion to approximately $13 billion. Has the Government satisfied itself as to what the cost implications might be for Canada as a result of this extraordinary increase in the cost of the station? More important, is the Government satisfied that the space station will not be used for star wars research or for any other military application?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have already stated the position of the Government in regard to that matter. In regard to the first part of the Hon. Member's question, there are meetings ongoing at this moment. I will be happy to report to my hon. friend at the end of those consultations.


REQUEST THAT CANADIAN PARTICIPATION BE PLACED ON HOLD
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister undertake to put Canada's participation on hold until the confusion surrounding the purpose and mission of the space station and its cost is clarified?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are moving ahead in consultation to ensure that the objectives are clearly those that are fully endorsed by the Government of Canada. If there is confusion in the process, it is not in the objectives of the Government which we will pursue completely.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East.


REFUGEES
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Once again we are hearing of a possible influx of Tamils. In light of the rumours that there is a continuing influx of Central American refugees from the United States will the Minister please tell us what we are doing to prevent further abuse of our immigration and refugee policies?
Point of Order-Mr. Cooper


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an excellent question. All I can say about rumours concerning a boat load of Tamils is that it is the kind of constant rumours we get regularly from European countries. All we can do for the time being is keep in touch with German authorities particularly in an attempt to be aware of the latest developments. Now, if we hear about it when the boat has already reached Canadian waters or its passengers are on Canadian soil, the usual regulations apply, which means that we do not expulse citizens of Sri Lanka, we automatically give them a permit to stay, as we did last year. However, you know that the Government intends to introduce legislation-very soon, we hope to clear up this issue and eventually enable us to improve the procedure to handle such cases. I can even say that we are now working on temporary measures to help us get a handle on the problem to which the Hon. Member is referring.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of Question Period. It surrounds the issue of parliamentary immunity.
I refer Your Honour to Citation 55 of Beauchesne's. I will not read it because the Chair is well aware of it, as are other Members of the House. It deals with a Member's privilege of freedom of speech in the House of Commons and the reality that none of us can be held liable in any court in the land for any statements we make here in the House of Commons. It is probably the most fundamental privilege that we enjoy as Members of the House. It is one that I think all of us have to treat with a great deal of respect and a great deal of reverence since it is the principle upon which we operate in the House.
It is clear that that immunity was established so that we as Members of Parliament would feel free to come into the House and make any statements on any subject that we feel are necessary for the good conduct of the Government and for actions that may affect various regions of the country on issues that we feel are of significance. The whole concept is that we are free to make such statements.
As a result of that, and flowing from that freedom of speech principle, there also comes some responsibility. One of the things that I think is absolutely fundamental to the whole business of parliamentary immunity is that we as Members are responsible for our actions and words in the House of Commons. If Your Honour refers to Citation 359(7) of Beauchesne's he will see that it states:

February 10, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Cooper
A question must adhere to the proprieties of the House, in terms of inferences, imputing motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it.
The reason I rise is that I believe we as Members have a privilege and a right given to us in the form of free speech that protects us from legal action, but at the same time, as described in Beauchesne's, we have also been given responsibilities. The responsibilities are that we use the privileges with the utmost of caution.
What I ask you to do, Mr. Speaker-and I do not want to catch any particular Members in the net-is review the "blues" for today and have a good look at the facts that I believe were in some of the questions, which cast aspersions and which dealt in innuendo. I believe they are clearly in breach of the traditions as outlined and enlarged upon in Beauchesne's. We have been given a very fundamental privilege. When that privilege is abused and used for political purposes and is not based on fact, but is used simply for making points that can create a headline or score a political point, then I argue that what we are facing is an abuse of a rule that governs us. We are abusing a privilege that we enjoy.
I would ask that Your Honour review the "blues" taking into account Citation 359(7).
[ Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to this point of order. I wanted to refer to comments by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that accusations were being levelled against certain members of his staff or his entourage. The Prime Minister said it was a tissue of lies.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may refer you to the first questions I asked on Friday, February 6, when I asked whether the Deputy Prime Minister could advise the House concerning the role played-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member probably has something very important to say, but according to the Standing Orders, if a Member has a complaint, he must raise the matter immediately. The Hon. Member referred to something that happened last week.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, as far as the debate and the point of order are concerned, I am not interested in filing a complaint. I only want to say that today my question, which was quite straightforward, was about the Prime Minister's chief of staff who admitted to having been involved in the matter at least 10 times, and that I got this information from the newspapers which you problably read yourself this morning.
What I find hard to comprehend is the attitude of the Prime Minister and the Hon. Member who raised the point of order, claiming that we made accusations. Mr. Speaker, if we had received satisfactory answers, we would not have had to repeat the question five or six times. The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that it is our duty as Parliamentarians to obtain from the Government the real answers it has a responsibility to provide. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister
has a duty to reply to the House, and if they want to try to gag us by claiming that we are making accusations every time we ask a question, this is an infringement of our freedom to act as Members of this House. Consequently, I hope the Chair will take the time to read all the comments that were made during this debate. I would like to have the Chair's opinion. However, I think one thing should be clear and that is that we have a basic duty to get at the truth, which is an almost impossible task in this Parliament, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to the point raised by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper). If the Hon. Member would listen to his own words, they contain the answer to his concerns. I think that I recorded his words accurately when he was referring to the concept of parliamentary immunity. He said that it means Members should be able to come into the House and feel free to make any statements they feel are necessary. If that is the case, surely that freedom cannot be abridged such that Members can only make those statements which are satisfactory to the Government, or which are couched in language that is satisfactory to the Government. That is the clear suggestion with respect to the point he makes.
The citation in Beauchesne's referred to by my hon. friend is a set of guidelines which were set down by the Speaker in 1975 to assist the House in understanding the manner in which that Speaker intended to use the discretion he had with respect to Question Period. As recently as yesterday I pointed out that the guidelines in Beauchesne's have been superseded, not only by later guidelines but more particularly those stated in the House by your predecessor, and also by the hundreds of precedents established by the questions asked by the Conservatives when they were in Opposition, and which were fully accepted by your distinguished predecessors. The language in those questions certainly does not in any way meet a lesser standard, nor is it language that is less vigorous than the language used in the questions put today. I submit that the point raised by the Hon. Member for Peace River has been struck down by the hundreds of precedents established by the language used by the Conservatives when they were in Opposition, and which was accepted by your distinguished predecessors.
Furthermore, I respectfully submit that no guidelines that have been established by any Speaker to inform the House as to how that Speaker will use the discretion he or she may have with respect to which questions are accepted during Question Period can be used, even unintentionally, to limit the rights of free speech that members have in the House, and which have been established under the concept of our parliamentary immunity. This is what the Member for Peace River is inviting you to do. I submit to you that the concept of free speech encompassed in the concept of parliamentary immunity must rise above and supersede any guidelines set down by any
February 10,1987

Speaker with respect to the discretion that Speaker may wish to exercise with regard to questions to be recognized in Question Period, or during any debate in the House.
I conclude by saying that if the Hon. Member was as concerned as he appears to be about the issue, he would have risen and complained, not just about questions today but more particularly about answers given by his Leader. For example, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in answering a question that, as you pointed out, he said he had not heard, said that he assumed it was slanderous and malicious. In the list of words in Beauchesne's that have been ruled unparliamentary by previous Speakers is the word "slanderous". When the Hon. Member rose, I thought he was going to raise a point of order calling upon his Leader to withdraw the word "slanderous" because it was unparliamentary. If the Hon. Member had done that, then this point of order could have been approached with some degree of seriousness, and perhaps support. Not having done that, with all due respect, I feel that in looking at the merits, the precedents, what the Hon. Member said in his opening remarks that members have to feel free to come in here and speak their minds, and also noting what he did not say, I respectfully submit to you that his point of order is totally without merit.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper). I do not feel that there is any necessity to respond to the comments of the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre). I do wish to make two points with respect to the comments of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).
First, the House Leader for the Official Opposition has zeroed in on freedom of speech. The point made by my colleague was two pronged; there is freedom of speech in Parliament, but there is also a responsibility to use that freedom of speech carefully and responsibly as Members of Parliament. That was the point that my hon. colleague was making. It was probably inadvertent that my colleague from the Official Opposition zeroed in on the words "freedom of speech". My colleague was saying that you cannot have freedom of speech without using it responsibly. That is what we are after, the responsible use of that freedom of speech.
I would welcome comparison during our time in Opposition with the Official Opposition's line of questioning. You will notice that I do not draw the New Democratic Party into this. I welcome comparison at any time of our line of questioning, the breadth of issues, the dealing with regional disparities, and the dealing with social issues because, Sir, I tell the House that I kept records during those days. There is absolutely no comparison between holding a government accountable, which we did, and slander, which is what the Opposition is engaging in on a daily basis.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I rise on a point of order. It is very clear that the word "slander" is unparliamentary. I call
Point of Order-Mr. Cooper
upon the Hon. Member to withdraw that word, especially without your admonition, if he is serious about his remarks of a few moments ago.


Philip Derek Lewis: At no time today, or at any other time, did I claim that any particular member of the Opposition engaged in a slanderous comment. I said that type of conduct is slanderous.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Hon. Member was talking about the conduct of the Opposition.


Philip Derek Lewis: In general.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the Hon. Member. I was about to recognize him, and if I do not his words will be lost to us.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I draw your attention to page 110 of Beauchesne's. According to the debates of the House of Commons on August 8, 1960, p. 7777, the Speaker of the day ruled that the words "slanderous accusations" were unparliamentary. I submit that that seems to be on all fours with the remarks of my hon. friend. If he is so concerned about setting standards in the House, he will set an example and withdraw those words.


Philip Derek Lewis: One of the oldest maxims at law is you cannot suck and blow at the same time. Earlier in my hon. colleague's comments we were to dispense with all precedent because today was today.
N0W-just now-we are to refer to Beauchesne's in support of an argument. My friend cannot have it both ways. I agree that we should be making new precedents now, but let us make them on a level with which we both can agree. Let us not dispense with precedent at one moment and turn around in the next minute and wheel a precedent into the Chamber in defence of our accusations.
All of us must try-and perhaps we are doing it through this debate-to raise the level of debate. We are prepared to go back to look at our "blues", if my hon. colleague is prepared to go back and look at his "blues", to try to raise the tone of debate in the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise to add some comments to a debate which I think is unfortunate. A growing number of Members of the House-perhaps most but not all of them-as a reflection of the people of Canada have been very disheartened at the way in which things have developed over the last number of days and weeks. At times it is impossible to ask the kinds of questions the Opposition ought to be asking of cabinet Ministers, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) because of the need to raise questions regarding abuse or perceived abuse of privileges and of contract procedures by people in the Prime Minister's Office. This does not enable the House to function

February 10, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
as it ought to function. It does not enable the Government to function as it ought to function. Quite frankly, we are becoming very concerned.
Things were going very well today. We had a very productive morning in terms of debate. We were looking forward to a productive afternoon. However, a representative of the Government had to rise on an extremely spurious point of order, which I found surprising, because I know how knowledgeable is the Hon. Member when it comes to rules and procedures, and the seriousness with which he normally approaches these matters. But not today. The arguments put forward are not appropriate ones in my humble estimation. I would like to think that we could end this silliness and get on with doing the business of the House and of the country.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has listened carefully to the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, to the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), and to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).
Perhaps I should deal with the complaint of the Hon. Member for Windsor West during the course of debate in respect of the word used by the Parliamentary Secretary "slanderous". The Chair has not had a chance to review the "blues". It would seem to the Chair that that word was not used against any single member in the Chamber but was used to describe in a generic way some of the questions which have been asked, perhaps some today, perhaps some days ago. I suppose technically it is not a use of the word in an unparliamentary way. However, I note-and I hope the Hon. Member for Windsor West would accept this-that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary made very clear that he was not referring to any particular Member.
Hon. Members will understand that there are issues being aired in this Chamber which are well noticed by the public, matters of public importance and of importance to every Member of the Chamber. The Chair has tried to ensure that freedom of speech, of which Hon. Members have spoken, especially the Hon. Member for Windsor West who can be quite eloquent on the subject, has in no way been diminished in the Chamber. Perhaps the complaint might be that there has almost been an excess of latitude.
The Chair is part of this Chamber and is bound by the practices to which the Chamber is accustomed. However, the Chair would ask Hon. Members to do the following. As the Chair indicated yesterday, there are appropriate ways to ask searching and vigorous questions. Doing so, those questions may imply criticism and may imply at times grave concern or even outrage. To the degree that skill is used, those questions can be asked in such a way that they do not offend the rules of the House. Nor do they have to invite a reaction which is such that disorder is then in the Chamber and the Chair must intervene. I must thank Hon. Members for having used considerable constraint. Yesterday the Chair had to admonish
both sides of the Chamber, yet for the most part those admonishments were accepted.
However, I must come back to one point made by the Hon. Member for Peace River, that is, without in any way infringing upon the right of free speech, this place will only function with a sense of fair play. I do not think I need add anything more to the conversation this afternoon, but I must assure the Hon. Member for Windsor West that under no circumstances is the Chair likely to move in a direction which would in any way, as I think the Hon. Member for Shefford put it, muzzle freedom of speech in the Chamber.
The Chair would ask all Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, no matter how important the issue might be, to try to live by something that is not necessarily written in the rule books, that is, fair play, for which we look to guide us in our deliberations.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport; and the motion of Mr. Lewis (p. 3220).
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, it seems evident that the Government is anxious to push Bill C-19 through Parliament with rather unseemly haste. I enter the debate to protest that action on the part of the Government.
Bill C-19, respecting the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986, replaces a very old Act of Parliament, one going back as far as 1953 or 1954. It is quite understandable that an Act of Parliament from the fifties needs to be altered, changed, and updated to meet the demands, requirements, and needs of the eighties, nineties, and into the next century. It probably is, in respect of the needs of the trucking industry, time for a change. However, if it is time for a change, surely Parliament needs time to consider fully all the implications, effects, results, and consequences of this change.
To move that the question be now put is a signal from government Members that they may know enough, or think they do, and that they may have heard enough or think they have. Perhaps they are sufficiently convinced about Bill C-19 to think that no more debate is required. However, Hon. Members of Parliament on this side of the House are saying that that is not so, that we need more time to consider, reflect, examine, and debate the principles of the Bill.
I remind Hon. Members that the Canadian Trucking Association decided it was time to take a new look at the position of the industry regarding motor carrier regulatory
February 10, 1987

reform sometime ago, and it took them a lot of time to arrive at a new policy. In fact, Bill C-19 reflects the culmination of a full three years of tug of war among different interests-the shippers, the truckers, and the Government. It took three years to achieve the policy goals which are now reflected in part in Bill C-19, yet the House began to consider Bill C-19 only last Thursday. On Monday, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, speaking for the Government, rose in his place after speaking for four minutes to move that the question be now put. Does it strike you, Sir, as being fair that we should be allowed one hour and 28 minutes to debate a Bill whose policy took three years to develop, three years to consider an important issue that has not been changed since the 1950s?
I must make a plea to you, Sir, and to all Hon. Members: we need more time too. Take the pressure off. This House is not a rubber stamp nor is it a sausage factory that drives out Bills on an assembly line. When arguments like mine are made, some Hon. Members say that we should let the Bill go to committee where it can receive in depth treatment and perhaps even be amended. There will be a time, of course, when this Bill will go to committee, but in my view it should not go to committee until its principles are fully understood, fully comprehended and fully appreciated or rejected by the House.
We call second reading of a Bill a routine proceeding, but it should never be so routine that when a major shift in policy occurs and when a new direction is charted, we should not have the time to debate it. I am not opposed to the charting of new courses, far from it, but surely we as parliamentarians must not deal with the underlying principles of the Bill in some kind of a routine, reflective, hurried or pressured fashion. Is it unreasonable for me to propose that, Sir?
Parliaments go back to the time of the Anglo-Saxon kings. Even though they were not as representative as Parliaments are today, we know that the earliest of Parliaments saw themselves as being supreme legislative, administrative and judicial assemblies, and no ancient British king would attempt to legislate without the advice and approval of that assembly. All I am saying is that we need time to consider this Bill. We must remind ourselves in asking for that time that this honourable House has very ancient foundations.
The Crown today is the executive branch of Government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Ministers. However, any Member of Parliament may rise to tell the executive branch that it is not to be allowed to take Parliament for granted or to abuse its rights and privileges. Paramount among those rights is the right to debate fully important pieces of legislation such as Bill C-19. I ask you, Sir, does it not sound rather abusive to you to have the first day of debate last Thursday and then on Monday to have an Hon. Member move that the question now be put? It sounds abusive to me.
By putting this motion forward, the Government is preventing a major decision of Parliament from being at least
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
considered. I would like to explain what that major decision could have been, not that it would have been taken by Parliament but at least it could have been considered. That decision is that this Bill be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time six months hence. It is no longer possible to move such a motion. We have been excluded from putting before Parliament that possibility.
A Bill based on a new policy approach which took a full three years to develop by the industry, its clients and the Government working together to replace a policy that goes back as far as the 1950s may very well require at least six months of study. During the February recess of Parliament and the Easter break, we may very well want to talk to shippers and truckers in our regions to ask them if Bill C-19 as they understand it does what they hope it will do. There is very good evidence to suggest that Bill C-19 does not fit the bill of fare and that the degree of consensus that was reached after three years leaves much to be desired, at least insofar as that consensus has been translated into legislation.
The Canadian Trucking Association recently took another very careful look at its position, the position it reached after three years of active consideration. It went through some very serious soul searching and concluded that Bill C-19 is a disaster in terms of a meaningful transitional approach to regulatory reform. It concluded that Bill C-19 does not meet any of the industry's primary concerns. At first the industry thought it did but now it sees that it does not.
The message is clear. This question should not now be put. It should be debated and debated more, and perhaps it should even be set aside for a short period of time. Surely a Government which is as shaky, inexperienced and insecure as this one would not want to force upon the trucking industry an ill-considered package of reforms which may not achieve what is hoped for. There is no disagreement on this side of the House about what is hoped for. What is hoped for is an easy, helpful passage from the excessive regulation we have had in the past to full deregulation. However, we cannot do that without much careful thought.
Would the Government really want to push through this House a Bill which could very well give U.S. truckers an important competitive advantage over Canadian truckers? The U.S. trucking industry already enjoys certain advantages because of U.S. tax reform which we do not have yet and because of lower fuel taxes. Despite Bill C-19 which is now being pushed at us, the industry has already drawn up a new policy position. Parliament needs time to consider that new policy position, so the question should not now be put. We should consider more carefully what has taken place in very recent weeks and days.
The industry is convinced, for example, that Bill C-19, in bringing in a totally new test, will lead to a deluge of early applications. This will swamp the process even before it has been fully tested. The industry is convinced that there will be numerous court challenges drawn out of Bill C-19, and the industry is concerned about problems associated with safety.

February 10, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
Hon. Members will know that in the U.S. motor carrier regulatory reform concerned itself mainly with the economic aspects. As important as they are, the U.S. failed to consider the safety aspects in a comprehensive manner at the same time. They are now paying the price. If we fully deregulate by January 1, 1988, will a new and comprehensive national safety code also be in effect? I doubt it, but Members of Parliament want an answer to that question. No, I say to you that after only one hour and 20 minutes of debate, after only six speakers from this side of the House, it is not the time to move that the question now be put. Bill C-18 requires full and very extensive debate. Following that, rather than sending it to a committee, we may want to put it aside for six months so that Parliament can keep up with developments in this important public policy area.
The industry believes its concerns could possibly be satisfied if Bill C-19 were amended in certain clauses. Particularly bothersome to them is Clause 7. However, the industry has reported that when it approached the Ministry of Transport it received the answer that it was too late to redraft the Bill, it has to accept it the way it is now. So much for the advice we received from Hon. Members that we can send it to committee where it can be examined in depth and perhaps amended. We know the Government's mind is already made up and there will be no amendments. What you see now in Bill C-19 is what you will get at the end of the process. No, this question should not now be put and the Government, in my view, disgraces itself by making such a proposition after such a short time in debate.
The parliamentary committee which examined the Government's document Freedom to Move made certain recommendations. Let me deal with but one area where committee members made recommendations. For example, the committee said that the international aspect of trucking should be treated somewhat differently from the domestic. Nowhere in Bill C-19 will you find that recommendation incorporated. The question should not now be put. We should know why that recommendation was rejected. The Bill calls for deregulation in the trucking industry by January 1, 1988. Many of the provinces, led as they often are by Ontario with two-thirds of the trucking market, want a longer period, up to five years, before the industry is totally deregulated. If they want such a period of grace, I ask all Hon. Members and the Government, why should the question now be put? Surely we want to consider and reflect much more deeply than we have in little more than two hours.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


Mr. Parry:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member's observations on the procedure the Government is using and the turpitude which gives rise to that procedure. The Hon. Member represents a riding which has, with the possible exception of mine, the largest continuous stretch of single trunk highway, and I would like him to comment on the
ramifications of this Bill for his riding, in particular the impact on the various communities.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for that question. When I spoke to the House about this Bill I said that what bothered me about deregulation was reflected in Bill C-18. The same principle is in Bill C-19. The outlying regions of the country may find themselves suffering when a position or policy is being pushed which places the emphasis on competitiveness. Sometimes that competitiveness causes those who are in a position to compete to prosper and do rather well. However, if you are out of the mainstream and somewhat apart from the main channels of transportation, you are not in a competitive position and you may suffer.
To support my contention I want to call upon no less a person than the Premier of Manitoba. The words he used could very well be applied to the region of the country I represent. In a speech he gave to an important gathering in his province he said that the federal Government's proposal to deregulate the industry relies too much on competition. Then he made this telling comment. If changes are not made, that is changes in the legislation, the federal Government will reduce the opportunity for economic growth and accelerate the growing opportunity gap between the have and the have-not provinces.
I would simply have added between the have and the have-not regions because they exist within a province, and because we have provinces which will be benefactors of a deregulated environment and others that will not.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the Member knows I have a great deal of respect for his thoughtfulness and integrity. Is he aware that the subject matter of this Bill has been studied for the past seven or eight years? Why does he not have more concern for the men and women who work in the natural resource industries within his constituency and across Canada? Do they not have rights, too? Do they not have the right to have a more competitive and efficient trucking industry to get their products to increasingly competitive international markets?
As the Member knows, there are many jobs involved in our resource industries. Why does he, and members of the NDP, constantly appear to ignore the legitimate interests of the people concerned? Why, for example, have a lot of shippers themselves got into the trucking industry? It seems to me they have done so because they cannot get the efficient trucking service they need right now, which is what we are trying to achieve with this Bill. The present regulatory system is not meeting the needs of shippers. In summary, I am really asking the Member why he says we should continue to abandon the shippers who depend on efficient transportation to get their products to market.
Finally, I said before that there are over 1,000 Canadian carriers competing successfully in the U.S. trucking industry now. Of course, many American companies are competing here. The point is clear that we can compete. Thanks to the Brock-Gotlieb agreement we cannot be banned from the U.S.
February 10, 1987

and we are able to compete in that market. If he could comment in the available time on some of those matters I would be most grateful.


B. Keith Penner: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary knows that I, too, respect his judgment and integrity as a parliamentarian and spokesman for the Government. I would just say to him that he did not listen very carefully to all I said. He may want to go back later when it is in printed form and read it. At no time did I ever say we did not need to change a policy that goes back to the 1950s. I said we do need to change it. In fact, he contributed to the argument I was making. He asked whether I was not aware that there had been seven to eight years of study which had gone into the policy that lies behind this Bill. I know, and I stated it in my remarks, that the industry itself, the shippers and the Government had taken a full three years with a lot of tug of war to bring out a policy position. I am only asking whether Parliament should not have a decent period of time to debate this. My hon. friend and I could debate what a decent period of time would be, but surely he would not disagree with me that the question should not now be put on a Bill which was introduced only last week. Surely he would want to hear more about the concerns, such as, for example, what the effects will be in underdeveloped regions like northern Ontario. We can only learn such things during the process of debate. That is what Parliament is all about.
If the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary will look at my remarks very carefully, he will see that I was not opposing the Bill in total. I was simply saying that on such a major new policy direction it is the right, prerogative and need of Parliament to give it full, serious and adequate consideration. I do not think my hon. friend will disagree with me on that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin) for a question or comment.


Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has said that the Government had already made up its mind on what the Bill would contain and on the fact that there would be no changes made. What I want to ask is this: In his opinion, why is the Government refusing to allow a normal debate on this Bill? Has the Government already made a commitment to the American Government or to the American giants? Does the Government have a special interest in shortening the debate?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I hate to admit it, but I think the Hon. Member has asked a question which I, as a member of the Opposition, cannot answer. It is a good question. It is the kind of question which should be put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). What lies behind the Government's decision to force a Bill through Parliament as quickly as possible without any likelihood of amendment in committee? What is the Government's motivation?
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
If I were to speculate on the Government's motivation, you, Mr. Speaker, would probably be on your feet very quickly and say that I was imputing motives and that that is unparliamentary. I would have to agree with you. I honestly do not know why the Government is pushing this Bill through Parliament with such unseemly haste. It makes one suspicious. It worries Members of Parliament and citizens of the country.
We are sent here as representatives to consider fully the implications of legislation which is finally approved by this House. If there are to be negative impacts on certain regions of the country or on certain segments of the industry, particularly the smaller entrepreneurs, surely parliamentarians ought to know all about them before we decide to agree on the principle of the Bill and send it to committee.
I do not think we yet fully understand the principle of this Bill. We do not know what lies behind it. We are quite incapable of learning that in less than two hours of debate. I think the Government is unfair to want the question put so quickly. Much more debate is needed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco)-Medical care- treatment of victims of brain damage; the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus)-Olympics-tickets for hockey final, b) Request that Minister intervene with Olympic Committee; the Hon. Member for St. Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano)-Canada Post Corporation-Anticipated increase in postal rates, b) Inquiry why all plans of Corporation not referred to committee.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport; and the motion of Mr. Lewis (p. 3220).
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise to participate in this debate on Bill C-18 with regard to the fundamental reform of transportation in this country. I listened with a great deal of interest to my friend,

February 10, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). I was prompted to rise today because the Member for Cochrane-Superior is one of the more respected Members of this House. He has many years of experience and, at one time in his career, was Chairman of the Canadian Parliamentary Association. In that capacity he was able to visit England from time to time and see the mother of parliaments at work.
He is one of the more restrained Members on the opposition side in terms of rhetoric. He very rarely indulges in hyperbole. He is not like the more dramatic Member for Gander- Twillingate (Mr. Baker) who has been resurrected in opposition. He was quiet as a church mouse at a communion Christmas for years in Government, but has really come alive in opposition with his scintillating questions and sometimes interesting contributions to debate. This is almost a second life for the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate. The Member for Cochrane-Superior is pretty consistent and thorough and fairly steadfast.
I am Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport to which Bill C-19 will, depending upon the will of the House, eventually be referred. Bill C-18 is already before the committee. Being an objective and non-partisan chairman, I am not going to get into the fundamental issues with which that committee will deal. I was, however, rather bothered by a couple of the comments of my hon. friend for Cochrane- Superior. I will develop the chronology of the time taken for debate on Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 and comment on the perhaps unintentional insult by the Hon. Member who is a member of the standing committee.
The Member suggested that because this Bill received second reading in the House there will be no change made to it in committee. As all Hon. Members know, as a new Government we may have had some problems and made some mistakes. However, in this new Parliament there has been a consistent desire for fundamental parliamentary reform from the top to the bottom, including in committee work. I am not going to debate all the areas of parliamentary reform, but for the Hon. Member to suggest that passage of second reading in the House means that the Bill will not be changed in committee flies in the face of his conviction and that of all members who support parliamentary reform.
The Government wants this Bill to be moved from the floor of the House into committee where the meaningful work, with respect, will be done through the presentation of briefs, the hearing of evidence and, based on that evidence, the submission of meaningful recommendations for change. After all, in its report Freedom to Move the committee produced the report entitled: Change, Choice and Challenge.
1 agree with members opposite and members on the government side that there are presently aspects of this Bill which must be examined very closely. Members on both sides have pointed out areas in which there should be change when the Bill reaches committee. There will not be one thing changed in the House. There has not been one new argument on this issue since the debate began.
Let us get down to the facts and not stir up a myth that this Bill is being forced through the House. Debates which continue day after day in which everything is repeated ad nauseam turn the public off. The public is not educated by that. Meaningful work in committee will educate the public. My friend knows that the longest debate in the British House of Commons in recent history was a two-day debate on the admission of England to the European Common Market.
With respect to debate on these two Bills, admittedly the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) spoke for part of the day on Friday, December 19. Debate on Bill C-18 was launched on December 19 before the House recessed for Christmas. We resumed the debate when the House reconvened on January 19. The opposition spokesman spoke for a meaningful part of that day. Following the debate on the softwood lumber legislation, we resumed debate on January 27, 28, 29 and 30, as well as on Monday, February 2 and Tuesday, February 3 when there was a motion to extend the hours. The question was finally put early on Wednesday morning.
As the chairman of the committee considering this legislation, let me state candidly that I did not see the necessity to extend hours until four o'clock in the morning in order to put the question. While it was an interesting debate, until that time there had not been a deliberate attempt by the Opposition to prevent the second reading of the legislation. However, the fact is that there had been eight days of debate on Bill C-18. Admittedly, some were not full days of debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Eighteen hours.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Perhaps some government Members should remember from whence they come because it is obvious that when there is a procedural ambush when the Opposition is not trying to impede the Bill there would be retaliation. We were experts at it when we were opposition and we would have responded similarly and put up obstacles in proper debate. During those extended hours we heard about the great desire to debate and discuss the principles of the Bill.
When we came to Bill C-19 on Wednesday, February 4, the Opposition naturally struck back. After Question Period on Wednesday, there was a motion to concur in a report on the Post Office. On Thursday, February 5, there was a motion to concur in a Public Accounts report in spite of what members said about getting on with debating the principles of the Bill. On Friday, I watched Question Period from my riding in Nova Scotia. At the conclusion of that lively Question Period, lo and behold, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) moved concurrence in a motion on the energy report from some two years ago. This was done by the Opposition which said we must get on to debate the principles of the Bill.
When I was in opposition I believed that the Government House Leader of the day should have invoked time allocation on many more occasions than the Government was inclined to do because of some mythological fear that the public resented
February 10, 1987

closure on Bills. I suggest that the public resents Bills being debated ad nauseam in this Chamber, when the real work is essentially done in committees.
We want this Bill to go to committee, but the Opposition cannot complain about its being forced through Parliament. There have been three days on which to debate Bill C-19, but on each of those days there was a concurrence motion by the Opposition. That uses the time for the debate on the principles of Bill C-19. Obviously, the Government House Leader would feel thwarted because the opposition tactics were more than retaliation to the extended hours on Tuesday, February 3.
Perhaps I am being too frank in admitting that I thought debate on Bill C-18 was proceeding smoothly. I know that there was almost agreement to proceed with Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 if some conditions were met, so that perhaps we would not be debating that Bill today. I am not responsible for House business, but I am chairman of a committee and do not want to have to deal with a Bill about which there is much bad feeling.
The fact is that after the extended hours on February 3, we were faced with concurrence motions on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, and finally debated Bill C-19 yesterday and today.
There were eight days for debate on Bill C-18 and three days, supposedly, for debate on Bill C-19. However, the majority of that time to debate Bill C-19 was used to debate concurrence motions. Obviously the Opposition showed by its concurrence motions on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday that it was really not interested in debating the principles of the Bill. I understand why the Government House Leader, on this occasion, moved his motion on Monday to get this Bill into the committee.
I have put those chronological facts on the record because this is a very important debate concerning the most fundamental transport legislation since its predecessor in 1966-67. I was a Member of Parliament at that time, and I am glad to see the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) in the House because I heard him refer to that previous great national debate on transport.
When I heard Members speak about the time it took to put Bill C-18 through the formal second reading phase, I referred to Hansard of 1966 and 1967 and the debate on Bill C-231, which was the then National Transportation Bill introduced by the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Pickersgill. That Bill was introduced for first reading on August 29, 1966. Second reading debate began on September 1; debate resumed on September 6 and September 7, and the question was put on September 8. There were four days of second reading debate on Bill C-231, the predecessor to the transportation legislation we are debating today. That vote referred the Bill to the Transport and Communications Committee. The next sitting was not until October 2, due to a parliamentary recess, and the committee eventually reported the Bill on December 6, 1966. During that period from October 6 to December 6, there were
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
33 meetings of the committee, hearing 73 witnesses and accepting 36 briefs. The committee did not travel. When the committee reported the Bill, it went into Committee of the Whole where, at that time, the meaningful debate occurred. The Committee of the Whole considered that report for 15 days between December 20, 1966 and January 26, 1967. On January 26, 1967, the Bill passed third reading on division. It went to the Senate on January 31, 1967, and after four days of debate it passed third reading. It was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and was given third reading on February 8, without amendment.
The point is that it took four days to debate the principle of Bill C-231, the National Transportation Act of the day. I have already stated that in our modern technology of the 1980s, we have already taken eight days-	[DOT]


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No. Eighteen hours.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You can use your figures, I will use mine. So the Hon. Member can play with figures. The fact is we have taken parts of the whole eight days on debate on Bill C-18 and we had three days slotted for Bill C-19. There were motions to concur and we were into debate on Monday, February 9, and today. In total, there have been 13 days devoted to Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 and we still have not finished. Twenty years ago they finished in four days. That certainly is an indication of why the Government House Leader can get a little impatient. Frankly, I do not believe he is being unreasonable in moving certain procedural motions in order to move the Bill along.
All Hon. Members who were involved in transport, especially the Hon. Member for Regina West, is aware that the issues in this matter have been around for years. This Bill was not snuck in under cover of darkness so that it caught the Opposition by surprise.
The then Minister of Transport, the now Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), in a memorable speech on February 21, 1985, set out the parameters of reform to the transportation sector of which he wanted Canadians to be aware and respond to. That speech was really the manifesto of this Bill. The gestation period was not carried on behind closed doors. It was done in the public domain, in the light of day. The then Minister of Transport threw out the challenge to Canadians on February 21, 1985, and we are now into 1987. There were consultations after his speech and, finally, on July 15, 1985, the Minister released his Freedom to Move paper, which was the consolidation of many of the things he had heard from interested parties. That Freedom to Move paper was released publicly on July 15, 1985, so that again the public could be involved and they could see how the Minister of the day had distilled the public input and they could see where we were going with the impending legislation. The Freedom to Move paper was not sent back to the bureaucracy behind closed doors. It was referred to the Standing Committee on Transport in October or November of 1985 and the standing

February 10, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
committee had hearings across the country. We did not go to every place but we certainly had hearings in Ottawa, Vancouver, Winnipeg and Halifax. We heard from 95 organizations and received 152 submissions in a very active two-month period.
We then perused our report and reported back on our Freedom to Move paper in December. We then went to the North in the spring of 1986, and in June 26, 1986, the Bill was tabled. We then went home for the summer, and the Bill percolated in the public domain. Again there were representations, submissions and consultations. In the new Parliament on November 4, 1986, the Bill came back and, as I mentioned earlier, the present Minister of Transport made the initial speech on December 19, just before we adjourned for Christmas.
I just cannot get too excited, as even the most objective chairman, to the charges from the Opposition that this Bill is being rushed through in unholy haste when the previous Bill, in a Parliament 20 years ago, took four days on second reading. We have already taken parts of eight days and then we had the other five days on Bill C-19, which makes a total of 13 days. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. If it wants to debate the principles of the Bill, why did it, for three days in a row, move concurrence motions? Those Hon. Members stand convicted on their own procedural ploys. That is another reason that this Bill will be better off in committee so that meaningful work can be done.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in terms of the reform of Parliament in general, and especially in terms of the composition of the standing committee, anyone who suggests in this House that things are not going to change in committee, is insulting the members of that committee who are very conscientious and who will be looking at this Bill with a critical eye. They will be aware of the concerns of Hon. Members, and they are legitimate concerns. I am sure we will present an interesting Bill back to the House and Hon. Members will again be able to speak about principles.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have three brief questions to ask the Hon. Member. First, with respect to his chronology on the amount of time given to this debate, is the Hon. Member not aware that Bill C-19, which was first debated last Thursday, is a Bill which contains a very distinct set of issues? These issues have to be considered by Parliament on their own merits. Is the Hon. Member not aware of that?
Second, is the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport aware that when the trucking industry approached the Government of Canada concerning certain changes it thought were necessary, it received, according to its own words, three answers about amendments; first, it is too late to redraft Bill C-19 substantially; second, it is not even worth considering unless there is a consensus at the provincial level in favour of same, and that will not happen; and, third, it cannot consider treating international deregulation separately from domestic out of concern for offending U.S. sensibilities? By
the way, that latter recommendation flowed from the committee which looked at the Freedom to Move paper. What credence does the chairman give to that response from the Government of Canada to the industry?
The Hon. Member is obviously very close to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary. In his defence of the work the committee will do, is he now telling the House that there is a very good chance, in fact a likelihood, that Clause 7 of Bill C-19 will be significantly amended because that is the most troublesome part of it? And is there a good chance that Clause 26 will be amended so that it will be extended to the year 1990? Is the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport today making certain announcements which are in fact rather newsworthy in nature?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Because the Hon. Member for Regina West may want to ask me a few questions, I will not be too long in answering. I will take the last question first. Obviously, I am not going to try to anticipate amendments to specific clauses in this Bill. That will depend on the representations we hear. I am saying in a general way, knowing that committee and having participated in the Committee on Transport for many years, that never have I known that committee, especially under the new aegis of reform which has percolated to a point and, frankly, percolated quite a way to this committee, to be immune to very constructive suggestions for change revision. Only time will tell just where all that comes from.
Obviously, I know Bill C-19 is a little more specific than Bill C-18. The fact is that they are both in a deregulatory environment. I heard the Hon. Member say in his own speech that the trucking industry has changed its mind in several ways and has a new proposal. Gosh knows what it may bring in before the committee. It has done a real flip. We could have a debate on principles ad infinitum in the Chamber and, who knows, perhaps the trucking industry will flip again. Let us get it before the committee and pin it down.
The Hon. Member asked three questions but I think, frankly, the three questions are all wrapped up in one issue. I am fully aware that Bill C-18 is a little different from Bill C-19, but the fact is it is reform and change. I think the example of the trucking industry is one of the best examples. The trucking industry itself has done a pretty fundamental switch.
I was going to rebut, in an objective way, a couple of comments made by the Hon. Member for Regina West, since I am the chairman of the committee which has to hear this. Certainly the Hon. Member has raised some very good points. For example, the competitive line rates is a very contentious issue. If it appears that the American railroader is going to come in here and adversely affect the Canadian railroader, obviously the committee will respond positively.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the chairman of our committee which deals with transportation matters. Is my
February 10, 1987

hon. friend deliberately ignoring the actions of his colleagues on the Government side? On the one hand he says that he did not like what happened last Tuesday.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is right.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He then proceeded to spend most of his time justifying what happened. What I want to know is what choice the Opposition had after his colleagues, the Parliamentary Secretaries, two of them, on the instructions of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski)-the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) was not even around-moved motions with respect to the House sitting extra hours and that the question now be put which, in effect, cuts off debate. I want to tell my hon. friend that we had 17 hours and 58 minutes of debate at second reading on Bill C-18, which is equivalent to four days.
The Library of Parliament has informed us that in 1966 the debate on second reading was eight days and that the committee travelled to 16 locations. If the Library of Parliament is wrong, then so be it, the matter will rest on their heads. But I want my hon. friend to check the figures again.
Will the Hon. Member quit trying to have it both ways? Can he guarantee us that the committee will travel? Does he have any assurance from the Minister of Transport and the Deputy Prime Minister that the committee will hear witnesses? He has told us that the committee will do so many great things. We will not do much just sitting here in Ottawa listening to the big shippers, the bull shippers and the big transportation companies.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much time I have to respond, but the Hon. Member has posed some interesting questions. The real one is the last one. I was candid enough to volunteer that I did not like what happened on February 3. I do not think it helped the progress of this important piece of legislation through the House. If I had my druthers I would not have done it that way. I am only the chairman of the committee. I do not run the business of the House. I do not know what else I can say in that regard. I quite agree that it has not helped the atmosphere in the House.
I come to the second point my hon. friend made. I have also used the Library of Parliament in this respect. We had better find out which research person in the Library was used by my hon. friend. He cites the figure of 18 hours. With respect to the transportation debate back in 1966, there were only four days in total spent on second reading. My friend admits that an 18-hour debate is equivalent to four days. I say that it is almost eight days. But that is just playing with figures. Let us assume that his figures are correct. We still have had four days on debate at second reading on Bill C-18. We are now on the fifth day of debate on Bill C-19.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, no.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We are only on the fifth day of debate because members of the Opposition moved motions to concur in reports
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
of committees for three days in a row. If members of the Opposition had been more selective, I do not know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) would have moved the motion that he moved. At any rate, that is the state of the nation in terms of the chronology.
I was hoping to have a meeting of the steering committee today-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And you cancelled it because the Department and the Minister did not want you to meet.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I cancelled it because one of the spokesmen from the Official Opposition could not attend. My hon. friend had better restrain himself because we want him to be able to participate in the committee.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why don't you resign as chairman?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The Hon. Member sometimes participates very constructively. He often makes a great deal of input into the proceedings of the committee. As far as I am concerned, the sooner we get this matter off the floor of the House of Commons, the better. We cannot have a meeting of the steering committee on such an important piece of legislation without the spokesman for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. That is the reason there will be no steering committee meeting today.
I hope that I will be able to have a one-on-one talk with my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Regina West, from whom the only real opposition to getting this matter into committee comes. My friend has a great deal of talent and he is very credible. But he can only hold up the Parliament of Canada so long. I think he had better realize that if he hopes to have the committee travel. The Hon. Member for Regina West knows what I think about the business of travel. There is no way that a committee will travel if we are procedurally ambushed in the House. Where is the give and take?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You guys ambushed us.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Let us get this matter out of the House. Hon. Members might be surprised at what we can produce.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) had not taken so long to respond to the questions of my hon. friend. I wanted to ask him the following question in his capacity as Chairman of the Transport Committee. What does he need to make a commitment that the committee will in fact travel? This is a critical piece of information.
I remind the Hon. Member that he reminded us of the length of debate when a similar matter was discussed some time ago. That was after a royal commission had studied the matter for more than one year. No royal commission has

February 10, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
studied the matter which is now before us. As a matter of fact, there has been a document produced entitled Freedom to Move. Some people felt that this put down the framework for transportation regulation upgrading for the next few decades and that it would be appropriate to take this document to the people of Canada and hold hearings on it. That is what governments have done over the years on critical matters such as this. In years past governments have actually given matters such as this to royal commissions to travel with around the country and hold dozens and dozens of hearings in every province and every territory and every major metropolitan area. But what did the Government do when it had the opportunity to show how committed it was to receiving public input?
I ask the Chairman of the Transport Committee: Did the committee travel across Canada and hold open public hearings? Well, technically, yes, it did. It held hearings in three centres other than in the capital city. It ignored seven of the 10 provinces of Canada and both of the territories of Canada. In other words, most of Canada was blanked out by the committee. Were the hearings held in two of the largest metropolitan cities in North America and the two largest metropolitan cities in Canada, Montreal and Toronto? No. When a concerned and effective Opposition looks at the track record of the Government to see how committed it is to receiving decent input from those who will be most affected by this legislation, I have to say to the Chairman of the Transport Committee that the track record looks very poor. There has been no indication that the Government is actually serious if we consider the precedents that we have seen thus far.
On many occasions in my position as House Leader for the New Democratic Party I have asked the Government House Leader and his Parliamentary Secretary if the Transport Committee is prepared to travel. After weeks and weeks of asking this same question I have received no answer. Based on what I have seen the Government do in terms of its willingness to travel on critical pieces of legislation, I must say that I do not have any confidence that the Government is serious at this point.
The Chairman of the Transport Committee is a man for whom I have a great deal of respect. He has indicated that we have been dragging out this debate. I want to remind the Hon. Member that I am but the fourth speaker from the New Democratic Party to speak on legislation that will touch every part of Canada, every resource sector and every major manufacturing company in the country.
To give Hon. Members an idea of the scale of the operation we are discussing today, I looked back to see to what extent this industry touches the lives of Canadians. How large an industry is it? If one considers just the for-hire trucking companies, I found out that in 1982, the last time we had a specific figure for the number of trucks and tractors for for-hire trucking, the figure came to 50,600, with an additional 83,000 trailers and other related equipment. That is a massive operation, and that is the for-hire trucking only. The private
trucking firms with their own subsidiaries have 481,000 trucks and tractors and another 83,000 trailers. That does not include the hundreds of companies that move household goods across the country or within large metropolitan areas. This massive undertaking includes hundreds of thousands of trucks moving goods in excess of $6 billion in terms of gross operating revenue.
Surely the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport does not feel that having four or five speakers from a political Party is excessive. Surely in his position as Chairman of the Transport Committee he does not think it is unreasonable to entertain the idea of travelling and holding hearings in critical parts of the country. Yet no answers have been received. It perplexes and concerns us, and it makes us feel that perhaps the Government is less than serious about giving sufficient opportunity for the people to be heard who will be most affected by this Bill, and its associate Bill C-18, the deregulation of the transportation industry generally.
At the end of my short presentation during the question and answer period, perhaps the Chairman will take that opportunity to indicate to the House, and to the people of Canada who are concerned about this matter, what his intentions are with regard to receiving input on this critical issue through open hearings in different parts of Canada.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan (Mr. Angus), made an excellent point in the introduction to his speech last Thursday when this debate started. He indicated that often there is an association with what is happening in our trucking industry in terms of reregulation with what has happened in the United States. This recognizes that over the past few years the United States has gone through the process of reregulation. Yet it is folly to compare what happened in the United States with what happens in Canada. When the United States changed and reregulated its trucking industry, it knew that in the northern part of its country there is a country called Canada which had a relatively insignificant transportation industry relative to that of the United States. It is quite a different matter for Canada. The boundary between Canada and the United States is the longest undefended boundary in the world. When we open it up and welcome American carriers carte blanche, we are inviting a giant into our household. Their ability to move in and take over from existing Canadian systems is obvious. It is inappropriate to compare what has happened in the United States with what is happening in Canada, and assume that what has transpired since the introduction of reregulation will be the same in both countries.
I wish to focus on a number of critical points. Of course, one of them is safety. A number of representatives of the Government, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Kilgour) has mentioned that there will be a made-in-Canada national safety code that will be in place to bring some comfort. We all agree that if the trucking industry
February 10, 1987

is to be deregulated, many of us have raised concerns that this may mean that the highways will be less safe. Does it mean that trucking companies will be pushed beyond the endurance of their drivers and the reasonable safety of their vehicles? One might ask if we have evidence to suggest that. I say that we have a considerable amount of evidence.
A recent study, which was funded by the American trucking companies, found that about 60 per cent of all the heavy truck accidents involved a fatigued truck driver. The comprehensive study of 231 accidents in six western states involved 39 fatal accidents which claimed the lives of 16 truck occupants and 33 occupants of other vehicles.
The study goes on to state that:
The surprisingly high percentage of fatigue-related accidents is three times greater than actually reported on the regular accident report forms. A fatigue-related accident was determined when the truck operator drove more than 16 or more consecutive hours per trip.
It is incredible to think that truck drivers would be expected to be responsible for a major rig on the highway for a period in excess of 16 hours. It is not surprising that fatigue would settle in and danger on our highways would be the result.
The report further states:
One-half of all the truck accidents studied were single vehicle accidents. The second most serious cause of truck accidents was mechanical failure (18 per cent). However, of all mechanical failure accidents, 63 per cent also involved driver fatigue. Thus, fatigue probably prevented the professional drivers from possibly overcoming or safely reacting to a mechanical failure.
The report further states:
Fatigue accidents are reported to result from deliberate violations of hours of service by truck drivers.
The operative term there is "deliberate violations of hours of service by truck drivers". The report further states:
One out of every three heavy truck drivers on the highways is estimated to be driving beyond 10 hour per day standard recommended by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. It was also estimated that 6.5 per cent of all heavy truck drivers are driving more than 15 consecutive hours per trip. A small percentage, but if extrapolated to 1.2 million heavy truck drivers on the highway, this is a sizable figure warned the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
It is no secret that one of the spin-offs of the process of deregulation of the trucking industry will be to bring a great deal more competition to our highways. At first glance I suspect that people will say that this is obviously in the best interest of shippers, the Canadian economy, and that it is good news for us all.
The result of this enhanced competition will mean that large, small, and medium-sized trucking companies will be pushing and cutting back on maintenance costs, and perhaps on the concern that they have for their drivers. It is for this reason that we are particularly concerned when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport states that a made-in-Canada national safety code will be put in place.
In looking at the situation that was in effect in November of last year, for example, the safety initiatives that include the procedure for audit of employers' records, I notice that the Canadian Trucking Association's position is still to be
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
developed. The National Council of the Motor Transportation Authority also states that the procedure is still to be developed. The position of the Canadian Trucking Association and the CCMTA is that the policy for record systems for operator profile or driver profile still has to be developed. I also consider such things as the Interprovincial Record Exchange, and find that that also has to be developed in terms of the view of the Canadian Transport Association, and similarly with the CCMTA which says it still has to be developed.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that these safety codes and the understandings, which would result in enhanced safety as a result of deregulation, will be determined sometime in the future. They will not necessarily be determined this year, because the dates here indicate the year 1989. We are concerned about these situations when they are brought to our attention. Why does it appear that the Government is so intent on getting this Bill into committee and back into the House of Commons and passed into legislation prior to real consideration being given to the safety factor? I have here a letter that was recently written by the Minister of Highways and Transportation in the Province of Manitoba to the Minister of Transport in Ottawa. In the second paragraph it states that, "I remain of the view that the Bill is seriously flawed and constitutes a breach of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding on the reform of extra-provincial trucking regulation agreed upon by your predecessor and all provincial and territorial transport Ministers on February 27, 1985."
This raises some serious concerns. Does it mean that once again when it comes to provincial-federal government dealings there seems to have been a breakdown? Here is a Minister responsible for the highways in one of Canada's western provinces saying that in his view the Bill is not only seriously flawed, but also constitutes a breach of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding that the province and the federal Government had entered into. Then he went on to explain it in some detail. Quite frankly they were quite complicated details upon which I am not in a position to expand. Presumably more learned Members of the House will be able to explain them when the Bill is before the Standing Committee on Transport. I simply use them to point out that again there seems to have been a breakdown in co-operation between the federal Government and the appropriate provincial Government.
Over the course of this very short debate some people have asked why New Democrats seem hesitant about rapid passage of Bill C-19 and why we are listing our concerns very carefully at second reading stage.
I asked myself, as a Member of Parliament, the following question: Who opposes the Bill and who supports it? At the top of the list of organizations opposing the legislation in its present form-and I emphasize that because I assume we can make significant improvements-is the Canadian Trucking Association. If this piece of legislation had been thoughtfully

February 10, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
designed and drafted, after appropriate consultation, to improve the lot of transport in Canada, I do not think it would be surprising that the Canadian Trucking Association would support it. However, that Association is opposed to it. I also notice that provincial transport associations are opposed, as is the Province of Manitoba. Other provinces have indicated serious doubts once they had a chance to look at some of the fine points in the legislation. Perhaps that is one of the reasons the Government has decided to proceed with some haste in terms of getting through the legislation. When I find out that all major participants oppose it, I suspect there is a lot more here than what simply meets our eyes as parliamentarians.
I should like to refer to a November article which appeared in The Globe and Mail in which it was reported that United States trucking companies were expecting that Canadian trucking deregulation would mean a continental bonanza by giving them unrestricted access to the Canadian market, thus allowing them to offer non-stop Los Angeles to Vancouver or Miami to Toronto service. The article went on to note that one area where United States carriers were expected to make inroads was in the business currently going to private carriers. In 1984, Canadian companies did about $5 billion worth of business with their private fleets, but with rates falling they could be encouraged to shift to the four higher carriers. United States carriers also expect to take business away from Canadians by signing deals with U.S. parent companies to transport the goods of the parent and its Canadian subsidiary.
We are a Party which has always been concerned about the extremely high level of foreign ownership of our economy, particularly our manufacturing economy, as well as the cash flows and dividend flows which move out of the country as a result of subsidiary branch plant economy in Canada. We now find that trucking companies in the United States will take advantage of the parent company being in the United States and a subsidiary being in Canada to lock up, in a sense, the movement of goods back and forth between the parent and the subsidiary by using their own trucking companies, thereby using American trucking companies.
Mr. Cope, Executive Vice-President of the Ontario Trucking Association, indicated that that would settle the fate of a lot of things in Canada without Canadian companies getting a kick at the cat. This individual in charge of a trucking association in Canada's industrial heartland is concerned that American companies will have advantages which will not exist for Canadian companies.
The end result of the process will inevitably be concentration of ownership in the trucking business. That is what happened in the United States. The Executive Director of the U.S. Independent Truck Owners and Operators Association, a strong proponent of deregulation prior to 1980, testified before congressional oversight hearings in 1983 and said that the effects of the Motor Carrier Act, 1980 on the trucking industry and labour force had been disastrous. The process of deregulation in the United States has been disastrous, in his terms. Both the truck load and the LTL sectors were ravaged
by deregulation, with medium-sized carriers forced out of business through the destructive practices engaged by large carriers through the use of discounting tactics. He cited studies which predicted that after the initial shake-up of the industry had been completed there would be four or five giant nationwide LTL carriers, approximately 20 medium-sized regional LTL carriers, and little else.
It is one more step in the process toward more concentration of the economy being in the hands of fewer players. If the Bill is designed to assist small Canadian trucking companies, and knowing that the experience in the U.S. has resulted in large multinational trucking companies becoming dominant in the market-place, it is fair to think that Bill C-19 is not in the best interests of small Canadian carriers.
I encourage the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary to give the matter a great deal of thought when it reaches committee stage, at which point we will have a chance to bring forward appropriate witnesses to indicate, from their point of view, the effects of the legislation on them.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with some of the matters raised by the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis).
Dealing with the question of consultation, I should like to indicate that over 500 groups or individuals were consulted during the development of the legislation, many on more than one occasion. For example, there were meetings with the Canadian Trucking Association, to which the Hon. Member just referred, on six occasions and correspondence was exchanged on eight occasions.
Just before Bill C-19 was tabled, my understanding is that the Canadian Trucking Association in effect asked us to go back to square one. As the Hon. Member said, it is opposed to the legislation. The point is that it was consulted over a long period of time, along with many other organizations.
The following highway carriers were consulted: Alberta Gravel Truckers Association, Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association, B.C. Motor Transportation Association, B&M Carriers Ltd., Canadian Association of Movers, Canadian Freightways Ltd., Canadian Council of Motor Transport Authorities, CP Trucks, Canadian Trucking Association, Cavalier Transportation Services Inc., Cement Cartage, Day and Ross, Drury's Transfer, DunSmith International, Edward Lang, Esquire Livery, G.M. Armor and Son, Gardner Expressway, Garfield Systems Incorporated, Greater Ottawa Trucking Association, Interamerican, John Gunn Motor Express Inc., Kingsway Freightliner, Lindsay's Cartage & Storage, MacKinnon Transport, MacNeil Transport, Maritime Forwarding, Motorways Direct, Ontario Trucking Association, Reimer Express, Thompsons Transfer, Transtario Bus Lines, Trimac Transportation, and United Parcel Service Canada Ltd.
We must not lose sight of the fact that the 10 provincial Governments and the two territorial Governments signed an agreement supporting the principles of Bill C-19.
February 10, 1987

It is true that there has been a change of heart on the part of the Government of Manitoba. Motivation is not a matter in which we get involved here, but it is true that the Government of Manitoba has changed its position. However, I understand that the Bill incorporates the agreement of February, 1985 which was signed by all 10 provincial Governments and the two territorial Governments. Consultation is something on which we cannot be criticized in terms of Bill C-19.
Referring to the question of safety, the Hon. Member referred to a sheet. The sheet from which he was quoting-and I also have it-was provided by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). It is dated November. I understand that significant progress was made last week on some of the matters, not all of them. The important point is that the safety code will come into force in January, 1990, a full year before the Fitness-only test comes into effect. Many other things in terms of safety, which is all important, will be done beforehand. There is no comparison between what we are doing in terms of safety and what the United States has done or has not done, I should say.
The Hon. Member comes from a part of the country, as do I, which is resource-based. Many men and women in his constituency earn their livelihoods from shipping timber, mining or other natural products. Who will speak for those men and women? With respect, no one in the NDP spoke for the shippers or for men and women working in the resource industry. Certainly the Hon. Member is not doing it today. I would appreciate hearing his comments.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's last comment was not accurate, but I will not get into debating the inaccuracies or nuances in the comment. However, I should like to provide for the Parliamentary Secretary a letter which was written on February 10, 1987. The letter is from the Canadian Trucking Association and says the following:
The point that doesn't seem to be getting across in the debate so far is that the reverse onus test is useless so we will have defacto deregulation by January 1, 1988 and there is in fact no National Safety Code. We had people at a meeting of CCMTA last week in Victoria on this along with all other interest groups. Even the shippers agree with us. The fact is that there is a huge lack of consensus as to what should go into a National Safety Code.
Various provinces want to have different vehicle inspection standards and it is not clear they are prepared to recognize the vehicle inspection standards of adjoining provinces or states. Also, there is no consensus on a national approach to regulating hours of work for extraprovincial truckers. Under the current Canada Labour Code there is minimal enforcement and certainly none for smaller truckers, which is the group that will proliferate after deregulation. Any attempt to suggest that there is presently agreement on a National Safety Code and its contents is extremely misleading.
I think that letter speaks for itself. The whole matter of safety is of grave concern not only to the shippers but to the companies that will be involved in the movement of goods.
I understand that this legislation requires that Canadian buses driving in the United States have American drivers once they cross the border. I understand as well that American buses coming to Canada do not require the same thing. Is
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
there such a difference? Second, could the Parliamentary Secretary, who has been stick-handling this Bill through the House of Commons, indicate if any decision has been made on whether or not the Government plans to allow or encourage the committee responsible for this to travel across Canada to hold hearings in appropriate places?


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I wonder who is asking the questions. I am happy to note the reversal of positions.
My understanding is that there are 1,000 Canadian trucking companies doing business in the United States and for the most part they employ Americans. The American companies doing business in Canada employ Canadians. The Hon. Member has said that when Canadian buses enter the United States, American drivers get on. My understanding is-and please correct me if I am wrong-that it works both ways.
The question of travel for the committee is one that is open to negotiation. Given all of the consultation that has occurred and knowing that the New Democratic Party will oppose this Bill today, tomorrow and six months from now, the committee will not travel and we have yet to be persuaded that it needs to travel given the fact that, as I understand it, something like 60 or 70 people have indicated that they want to give evidence before the committee. As of now, the likelihood of travel is not great. I do not want to encourage the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap into thinking otherwise.
I hope the Canadian Trucking Association did not mean to tell us that the reverse onus test will go into effect immediately. In fact, the reverse onus test will go into effect a year after the safety code comes into effect, and that will occur in 1990.
I have just been handed a note indicating to me that the bus regulation is not being changed by this Bill. The same provisions that are in the present legislation are merely repeated in Bill C-19.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, that is the point that I was attempting to make. Canadian bus drivers who want to go to Florida, Ohio or wherever have to stop and bring on American drivers once they cross the border. An American citizen must drive a Canadian bus in the United States. However, when buses from the United States with American drivers come to Canada, they continue on their merry way into Alberta, Quebec, Ontario or the Northwest Territories. Something is wrong there.
This is simply one example of the point we have tried to make on many occasions. Why is it that Americans can have access to our highway systems but we cannot have the same access to theirs? Again, the Americans come out the winners for whatever reason.
The fact is that large American trucking companies will have full access into Canada in order to compete with our trucking companies, which are by definition significantly smaller. The operations in the U.S. can use parent companies to make deals with subsidiaries in Canada to use only American carriers. We will be blown out of the water, and that is the point we are trying to make.

February 10, 1987
3308________________________________
Parliament Hill
When we compete head-to-head with a giant and when we have legislation that is biased in favour of that giant at the expense of Canadian carriers, competition will be such that it will simply be impossible for Canadian carriers to compete in this very critical industry. That is why at this stage of the Bill, we are seriously concerned that it is flawed and the Government has not thought it through carefully enough. We want to make the point that when closure is eventually forced upon us and the Bill goes into committee, we will need to hold hearings across Canada so that those affected adversely by this legislation can and will be heard.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a procedural question. It seems that this question and answer period turned into a debate between the Hon. Member and the Parliamentary Secretary. It would seem to me that that is a departure from past practice. I wonder if you would consider that and perhaps at an appropriate time make a ruling as to the appropriateness of such activity.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is in fact correct. The Chair was trying to accommodate the House Leader of the New Democratic Party who had made comments and the Chair allowed the House Leader to make another comment, but the Chair recognizes that that was at the expense of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus).
Is it the wish of the Hon. Member to call it five o'clock?


Mrs. Finestone:: I was just going to suggest that we call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall we call it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   RIGHT HONOURABLE LESTER B. PEARSON STATUE TO HONOUR HIS MEMORY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from January 19 the debate on the motion of Mr. Boudria:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of honouring the memory of the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson by commissioning a statue of him to be placed on Parliament Hill.
Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in the debate on this motion which I would like to read once more to the House:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of honouring the memory of the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson by commissioning a statue of him to be placed on Parliament Hill.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes), my colleagues of the majority party and myself support wholeheartedly the notion of commissioning a statue to honour the memory of this illustrious Canadian. On January 19, the last time this motion was debated in the House, there was a slight misunderstanding as concerns the position of the members of the majority. I believe that this has now been cleared up and that my hon. friends opposite have had an opportunity to examine the report on statues honouring prime ministers of Canada and other commemorative works, which the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) tabled on behalf of the Minister today.
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) has himself pointed out, he requested this report last fall because, in his opinion, an analysis of the policy and the tradition for such works could assist Parliamentarians in the examination of future commemorative projects, especially statues on Parliament Hill. As no new statue had been erected on Parliament Hill for many years, the experience acquired recently in the successful project to erect a statue honouring the memory of Prime Minister Diefenbaker was also an excellent opportunity to initiate a new process for such projects and make an objective examination of the existing situation.
One of the complaints most commonly heard is that often necessary information is not available to Parliament to make enlightened decisions concerning issues it is sometimes called upon to deal unexpectedly. The report tabled by the Minister of Public Works provides information, observations, useful data which, in my opinion at least, deserve our full attention.
Mr. Speaker, we must deal with the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). I have every intention to support his motion as moved, if such is the desire of Hon. Members opposite. Partisanship should not enter into the consideration of a motion of this kind. The government Members have never intended to stoop to such low tactics.
In view of the information now available, I believe, however, that Mr. Pearson would be bestowed an honour still more worthy of his name if, during the next few weeks, we took the time to ponder upon all the aspects of this project of a commemorative statue. This is not an attempt at delaying or filibustering this project; quite the contrary, as you will see today. However, it is intented rather to consider the matter with all necessary information available for the best possible results.
One of the first points to consider is that Prime Minister St. Laurent's statue was erected, at Prime Minister Trudeau's, own suggestion in front of the Supreme Court building rather than on Parliament Hill. The selection of that particular location is obvious in view of Mr. St. Laurent's fame as a jurist, lawyer, law professor, president of the Quebec Bar and Minister of Justice. Prime Minister Trudeau did not feel at the time, I am sure, that the Supreme Court location was any less prestigious than any other spot on Parliament Hill. He had no
February 10, 1987

intention either, I am sure, of showing disrespect for the late Mr. St. Laurent who was universally cherished.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pearson had enjoyed a long and prestigious career as a diplomat, first as Under Secretary, and then as Secretary of State for External Affairs. He was also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because of his immense contribution to world peace and prosperity after World War II. In view of Mr. Pearson's career and the consequent tribute paid to Mr. St. Laurent, I urge Hon. Members opposite to reconsider the idea of dealing rapidly with the motion to put the statue right on Parliament Hill, exclusively. All Members will agree that we should not reject offhand the possibility of having a statue at some other location that would be just as suitable if not more, in front of the Lester B. Pearson Building for instance, the headquarters of the Department of External Affairs which is so capably headed by the Right Hon. Joe Clark.
Mr. Speaker, this is only one example of the aspects we should be looking at. It would seem normal to me that Hon. Members would want to look at all the facts before taking such an important decision. However, were the decision to be made immediately, it would be wise if it did not prevent further consideration of this issue as the Hon. Lester B. Pearson's statue project.
It would be useful, without entailing endless delays, to refer all those questions to a committee of the House. Although it has no direct mandate, the Committee on Internal Economy for instance could in my view be required to look into this or again a special committee might be better suited.
Mr. Speaker, that motion would be greatly improved and much more relevant if the words:
"or in some other suitable location"
-were added to the motion for the obvious reasons I just mentioned. The decision remains with the sponsor, who is here in this House. If the only solution is to pass the motion as it now stands, I will support it and accept this uncompromising situation as I believe will all my colleagues on this side. I would leave the decision to the good judgment of the Hon. Member and his colleagues, who, no doubt, will want to support the motion which is quite sensible, relevant and in keeping with the high ideals of this Government's policy which are now expressed by unreservably approving the motion to commission a statue of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on the motion of the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). I am pleased to have this opportunity because this motion follows on the motion I introduced just two years ago to erect a statue in honour of John Diefenbaker on Parliament Hill. John Diefenbaker and Lester Pearson were great political rivals. Their debates here
Parliament Hill
on the floor of the House of Commons and across Canada on the campaign trail form a lively and colourful part of our nation's history. Their rivalry touched almost every aspect of our politics, Parliament and society. I am told that it even extended to who caught the largest fish in Lake Harrington. As all members know, of course, Lester Pearson was never able to match the four and a half pound trout which Mr. Diefenbaker caught. However, I must say there is a silly but persistent rumour that Mr. Diefenbaker never actually pulled the fish into the boat.
Lester Pearson's outlook on life was profoundly shaped by his upbringing in a religious family, in a manse, his service during the war and his experience as a diplomat. He held a firm belief that Canada could become a great nation, and his efforts as Prime Minister are a great testament to that conviction. His outstanding international experience is widely known. He is perhaps one of the very few Canadians to ever participate in both the League of Nations and the United Nations. He was Canada's Ambassador to the U.S., President of the UN General Assembly, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, and Canadian Minister of External Affairs. He received over 24 honorary degrees and was known world-wide as a conciliator, and a passionate defender of the peace.
Although he never won a majority Government in the House of Commons, Lester Pearson's record as Prime Minister is remarkable. He established the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Program, medicare, a new labour code, a new Bank Act, the Order of Canada, and of course a new flag. His years in office were a time of great change and progress for all Canadians.
Two years ago this month I introduced a private motion to have a statue of the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker commissioned and placed on Parliament Hill. Subsequently the site for that statue was chosen and the world-renowned artist, Leo Mol, was selected to do the work. Last September 18, some 18 months after the motion was first introduced, the statue was unveiled on a brilliant day here on Parliament Hill. Thousands of Canadians from all parts of the country attended that ceremony.
The committee which established the Diefenbaker statue demonstrated that a coherent and consistent process for the provision of such statues can work and is needed. With the outstanding contributions of the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ravis), Senator David Walker from Toronto, who was the Minister of Public Works in the Diefenbaker Government, and representatives from the Ministry of Public Works, the Department of the Secretary of State, the NCC, and the Speaker's office, we initiated a process which could end the ad hoc approach which has been used for these memorials.
That was precisely the purpose of my motion. It was not my intention to encourage further Private Members' Motions which would simply tread on ground we have already covered. Rather, I introduced the motion to alert Parliament to the
3310

February 10, 1987
Parliament Hill
problem of how we honour great Canadians like John Diefen-baker and Lester Pearson.
Since John A. Macdonald first recommended a statue in honour of George-Etienne Cartier in 1873, we have never followed a coherent process for statue commemoration. In fact, a motion such as mine had not been considered by Parliament for nearly 20 years because of the disastrous handling of the last two statues which were erected on Parliament Hill. In 1966, the then Secretary of State proposed that statues of four Prime Ministers be commissioned and placed on Parliament Hill. After a year of controversy and conflict, only two of the four statues were completed. The statue of the Hon. Arthur Meighen was placed in storage and is still there. The maquette for the statue of the Hon. R. B. Bennett was lost. All we have are some pictures of the maquette which are not acceptable.
For the next 20 years no action was taken to erect a statue for any other former Prime Minister. That is a sad commentary on the state of how we recognize our national leaders and celebrate our nation's history. When I first proposed my motion I wanted to address this inaction and encourage the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) to initiate a consistent statue policy. The days of a motion by motion approach to honouring former Prime Ministers must end or it will take us another 20 years just to erect statues for the eight Prime Ministers who have yet to be recognized.
I was pleased that the Minister of Public Works tabled in the House today the report on commemorative statues to Canadian Prime Ministers and commemoratives to other eminent Canadians. Included in the report is a section on how other countries pay tribute to their founders. Perhaps it is time we considered a national statuary hall similar to the one in the United States capital where each province would be allowed to honour its historic figures.
We have the report filed by the Minister and it is now time we started working together to consider these guidelines, instead of further ad hoc measures, in order that John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson and all our former Prime Ministers can live in lasting memory here on Parliament Hill and in the National Capital Region as well as in our history books.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I thought there would be general agreement by all Parties to pass this motion immediately. The Hon. Member for Lasalle (Mr. Lanthier) indicated that if the mover of the motion were in agreement, he would like the motion to be amended to include "other suitable sites" for the placement of a statue commemorating the Hon. Lester B. Pearson, but that if Parliament were in agreement, he would be prepared to accept the motion as it now stands. The Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes) is indicating that she as well would agree to accept the motion as it is. I am very glad that Hon. Members opposite are prepared to accept this motion.
I want to say only a few words on this matter. I believe there should be a committee responsible for the placement of statues and other memorabilia on the Hill. I hope that such a committee would consider other distinguished parliamentarians who ought to be honoured. Two such parliamentarians come readily to mind, the first being the first Leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, which subsequently became the New Democratic Party, J.F. Woodsworth. I think members would also agree that the first woman M.P., Agnes Macphail, should be honoured at some time. I agree that after this Bill is passed, parliamentarians should have a good discussion on the matters which have been raised by my hon. friend.
As my colleagues, the Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) and the Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper), submitted, I think it is entirely appropriate to pass the motion of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) to ensure that a statue of Mike Pearson is placed on Parliament Hill. I was alive and well, and for part of the time even in this House, when the two great gladiators on the Canadian scene were John Diefenbaker and Mike Pearson. They were dominant figures for over a decade and had many battles. In recent Canadian history it is unusual for two such figures to be face to face for that length of time. For that reason alone, one may like to see them face to face on Parliament Hill.
It was agreed last year, through the passage of the motion of the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre, that we would commemorate a statue to the memory of the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker. All Parties agreed to that. I cannot say strongly enough how important it is to have a statue of the Right Hon. Mike Pearson on Parliament Hill as well. It may be necessary to relocate some statues, but there is still room on the Hill. Even the statue of Mr. Diefenbaker could be relocated, but it should remain on Parliament Hill. His great opponent should be located nearby, so they may face each other on the Hill.
I think we all agree on Mr. Pearson's great contributions, although a few have not been mentioned. One of his very great contributions was the development of a spirit of co-operative federalism. Quite frankly, in my opinion he understood Quebec even better than his successor. He established the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Royal Commission. I believe he was the first Prime Minister to be really concerned about election expenses. The Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson did make the proposal to establish the commission on which M. J. Coldwell, among others, served, to examine electoral expenses and contributions to Parties. That is a landmark which we sometimes forget to acknowledge.
In conclusion, I support the motion and I am encouraged by the remarks of our friends opposite today that while they may favour a somewhat different motion, they will support the
February 10, 1987

erection of a statue on Parliament Hill in honour of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief contribution to this debate. First, I sense that the House will give unanimous agreement to this motion by the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), which should be welcomed very much. I hope the appropriate action will be taken with the passage of this motion because I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) that nothing could be more appropriate than to have these two gladiators, as she called them, honoured with statues of both of them on Parliament Hill.
With all due respect to the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, perhaps I could speak for a younger generation. I was 12 when the Diefenbaker Government fell in 1963. I was actively interested in politics even then and not only remember the night that that Government fell, but I recall that entire period. I believe it is instructive to remind the House of that period in the context of this Parliament. I believe the Prime Minister referred to it today, if I heard him correctly, and it was a time when the two gladiators in their respective Parties were at odds with each other over who would form the Government of Canada.
I suspect that Parliament was viewed then as it is now by many Canadians. Perhaps our agreeing to honour the other of those two Leaders is a reflection of the general view that, with the passage of time, there is a point at which we can put matters into historical perspective. In saying this, I do not in any way diminish the concern which Canadians may have about how the political process has operated recently.
When I first joined the Committee on Parliamentary Reform in the last Parliament, I read, among other research documents, an essay written about Parliament in 1935. This essay was from a book entitled Social Planning For Canada, which is a collection of founding documents for the CCF. That article about Parliament explained that Parliament, which was supposed to be a place for intelligent debate and the real expression of opinion, had fallen into disrepute. It contained a series of criticisms about Parliament which, if the dates and the few references to personalities were removed, could have applied to Parliaments in 1935, 1975, 1985 or, more relevant to the debate today, 1965. Perhaps it is worth reflecting on the fact that Parliament has never been what people have expected. Perhaps it puts into perspective our agreement to erect a statue of Mr. Pearson as well as explaining what is happening in Parliament today.
I also believe that the passage of this motion will represent one small victory for parliamentary reform because it will be another of the few occasions so far when the House has acted within the parliamentary reform Private Members' Business.
In closing, let me support the view that not only those who have been fortunate to become Prime Ministers should be
Parliament Hill
honoured with a statue on Parliament Hill. There are many others, some of whom were mentioned by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, who should also be considered as candidates to be honoured. Being the Prime Minister in a Government is not the measure of political achievement. There are many people who have come to this Chamber over the years, either as leaders or Members of Parliament, who have made very significant contributions to the political process and the country, precisely because they did not have the personal ambition to become the Prime Minister of Canada. I believe we have such a person sitting at the Table here every day. We should keep this in mind when we talk about honouring our leaders.
I am pleased to support the motion to honour Lester B. Pearson, who I understand was responsible for introducing into federal politics the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), who celebrates the anniversary of his election to this Chamber today. I look forward to his speech.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour and a privilege to take part in this debate
today, because in about two hours from now, it will be 23 years ago that I became a Member of Parliament for the first time, when Lester B. Pearson was Prime Minister of Canada. I was going to read through all these notes I have in front of me, but with the Chair's permission, 1 would rather speak from the heart as well as from the mind, something Parliamentarians are often reluctant to do. I see some young Canadians working in the House who will probably be delighted to hear all this and will probably be hearing it for the first time. 1 have some memories which I would like to share with you today.

In a couple of hours, it will be 23 years ago that I was elected for the first time to serve in the Canadian Parliament. I want to speak about the man who helped me-some say ensured-that I would be chosen as a delegate in Montreal Saint-Denis to replace the Hon. Postmaster General of the day, Azellus Denis, who is in the Senate. I am told that when I came out of university he helped in my being chosen in a very open and contested nomination. I was chosen and elected.
It is no secret that I have always admired Mr. Pearson. I had known Mr. Pearson since I was a young student. In fact, on January 31, 1958, and I am going by memory now, I was a young delegate for my Party from Quebec, and one of the very few Quebecers for my Party, a Francophone, who supported Mr. Pearson. I was a student escort to Madam Pearson, who is still alive today. Due to her health, she may not be able to listen to our debate, but she is still alive today, I know. I am sure his family, his son, daughter and grandson, who works on the Hill, will be watching. I want to say I had great admiration for that man. I learned a lot from Mr. Pearson. I learned patience and compromise, but the right kind of compromise.

February 10, 1987
Parliament Hill
In this country we have people who speak French. I say to my very good friend opposite, we have four million people who speak only French in my province in Canada, nothing else but French, and they claim to be as good a Canadian as anyone in British Columbia, Alberta, the Yukon, Newfoundland and the Atlantic Provinces who speaks nothing but English and who equally believes he or she is a good Canadian.
The spirit of compromise was something Mr. Pearson taught me as a student by the way he lived his life, his reading, his actions in the United Nations. My very esteemed colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), sat in the House with me then. We knew who Mr. Pearson was. People may like to read the debates which have taken place recently and compare them with what took place on January 19, 1987 in the House of Commons when my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria), introduced an identical motion to the motion of our hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes).
I cannot do otherwise but recall the immense courage of Mr. Pearson. Our young Canadians, our new Canadians, should look back to the debate on the Canadian flag we have today, something which everyone takes for granted. It was a passionate debate. True to our principle of British democracy, the British parliamentary system, we debated that issue for months in the House of Commons. People objected passionately to changing the flag. Others, with as much passion, wanted something truly Canadian. They did not want the Fleur de Lis nor the Union Jack. I remember a debate I had with Mr. Diefenbaker. He was ready to compromise by having on the Red Ensign the Fleur de Lis. I remember having said, to his surprise, that I would never accept on my Canadian flag a Fleur de Lis. That was quite a surprise because I was expected to say something else.
We got our Canadian flag. I remember as a fairly new Member of Parliament attending a meeting in Winnipeg when Mr. Pearson spoke for the first time. I remember his wife was there and the beloved Mary MacDonald, principal secretary to Mr. Pearson, along with a couple of other assistants. At the annual meeting of the Royal Canadian Legion he spoke for the first time about a truly Canadian flag. It was not the best of our days. However, the idea took hold and we won. We got our flag. We did not win and we did not lose. Canada won a beautiful flag. It could have been different. Mr. Pearson proposed two blue bars to represent the two oceans. After compromise we ended up with the flag we have today.
I remember also, and this is never mentioned, that Mr. Pearson appointed a Special Committee of the House of Commons on the National Anthem. I had the honour to sit on that committee. The only two members of that committee left are the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and myself. We sat on the Special Committee on the National Anthem for months. Can you imagine Canadians who are listening-

-who were listening for weeks on end, Mr. Speaker. We were in a room, behind closed doors, with a musician who played us every possible precursor to what would finally be our national anthem. We had people come in and sing us the anthems they wanted to have, safely ensconced behind the doors of certain offices. We even had a bilingual anthem: 6 Canada, My Land ton front est ceint-

-there was something mixed up in French and English. For months we listened to various versions of the national anthem, I say that to those who sometimes despair of the importance of patience when passions are involved. We recommended the French version, which we had been singing since 1880 in various parts of Quebec. In fact, a granddaughter of Senator Tremblay is a descendant of the person who wrote the words of Oh Canada. We proclaimed Oh Canada as the national anthem on July 1, 1980.
I went past what my dear colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, said about the Canada Pension Plan and election expenses. To address myself to the subject directly in the two minutes I have left, I will say I hope that we will pass the motion and erect on the Hill a statue of Mr. Pearson to depoliticize this debate. We should, as was suggested, stop thinking of what we should do in the future. I know for a fact that when they put up the statue of Mr. St. Laurent in front of the Supreme Court of Canada-and this has never been said or written-it was understood that when Mr. Diefenbaker would die, his statue would face the statue of Mr. St. Laurent. The reason the statue of Mr. St. Laurent is positioned in such a way is that there was supposed to be a second statue, that of Mr. Diefenbaker, there.
I believe that if we are to build a country and if we are to teach those who visit the Hill, a statue of every Prime Minister should be here. It does not matter to me if it looks like a series of statues one after another, because as a Member of Parliament, when I walk with students and friends, I want to be able to point to Sir Wilfred Laurier, Queen Victoria, and our different Prime Ministers and explain what Canada is all about. It is as if we were afraid to talk about our country and teach others what Canada is all about. I am not. It is the best country. One of the ways to show that is to teach young Canadians and new Canadians what Canada is all about.
If one were to walk to the back of the Parliament, one would see a statue of Baldwin, but no one would know the meaning of it. When Baldwin was defeated by the Anglophones, he was elected by the French. When Lafontaine was defeated by the French, he was elected by the Anglophones. That is part of our history but no one talks about it. If we could go back to the spirit of what Canada is all about, we would have much less difficulty to explain even what this new Government is trying to do.
It is with great honour on this special day that I say that I hope we pass this motion, that we do not hesitate a moment to
February 10, 1987

erect a statue of the Right Hon. Mr. Pearson, for all the reasons so well expressed by my colleagues. I want to render homage to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). It is as a result of his hard work that we are debating this issue. I say that because he is one of the Members who sits on the committee which chooses the motions which will be debated by us. I also wish to commend the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) who participated, and all the other Hon. Members who took part in the debate.
I hope that in this very difficult time that we seem to be going through we can show Canadians that at times we can unite when there is a good motion put before us. This is a good motion. I would like to see it accepted. I would like to see a statue of Lester B. Pearson erected on the Hill.
After its erection-and this is a suggestion for the Chair-I hope that decisions of this nature will not be left up to the Department of Public Works but, rather, to the Speaker's office. Mr. Speaker is Mr. Canada on Parliament Hill. Such decisions should fall under the auspices of the Speaker's office. It should be that office which decides what will be erected on the Hill. It is our hill, the hill of the parliamentarians. It is parliamentarians who come and go from here. It should be a committee of parliamentarians under Mr. Speaker who decides how to honour Canada's Prime Ministers on the Hill. In this way we can better teach Canadians, young Canadians and new Canadians who come to this country by the hundreds of thousands, about the history of our country. To enrich us and make us better I would like to see us start anew after the erection of this statue. I hope that we will strike a committee under the direction of Mr. Speaker which will consider what we want to do in the future for other Prime Ministers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion of Mr. Boudria.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion of Mr. Boudria agreed to.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to suspend the sitting of the House until six o'clock, at which time we will proceed to the Adjournment Debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.43 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.
Adjournment Debate SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 6 p.m.