1987-08-20

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 130 will be answered today.


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of Agriculture make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, in each case, what was the (a) purpose (b) amount?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes.
	1984-85	Recipient Producers
Carrot	$74,905	12grain corn	102,455	49hogs	124,117	82onions	10,201	4soybeans	3,673	10wool	776	16New Crop Development Fund	1984-85	Recipient9,332	R.V. WoodsFairs and Exhibits	63,538	Royal Agri-54,511	cultural Winter Fair Canadian18,788	National Exhibition Association Markham &2,904	East York Agricultural Society WoodbridgeFreight Assistance on Livestock	Agricultural Society225	OntarioMinistry of Agriculture and Food1985-86	Recipient Producers	1986-87	Recipient Producers$16,524	3	-	-21,164	5	-	-7,253	3	-	-5,243	2	-	--	-	1985-86	Recipient	1986-87	Recipient-	-	4,422	Multifood Inc.49,790	Royal Agri-	50,931	Royal Agri-cultural	culturalWinter Fair	Winter Fair36,935	Canadian	38,537	CanadianNational	NationalExhibition	ExhibitionAssociation	Association17,028	Markham &	18,109	Markham &East York	East YorkAgricultural	AgriculturalSociety	Society2,559	Woodbridge	2.650	WoodbridgeAgricultural	AgriculturalSociety	Society-
August 20, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1987
Production Development Assistance Initiative
		10.000	Canadian Association of Exhibitions		
100,000	Royal Agricultural Winter Fair	100,000	Royal Agricultural Winter FairCanadian Agricultural Marketing Development Initiative	4,875	Canadian Florse Council	20,000	Canadian Meat Council	40,000	Canadian Meat Council	50,000	Canadian Meat Council27,500	Beef Information Centre	3,000	Beef Information Centre	8,000	Beef Information Centre17,500	Canadian Pork Council	-	-	20,000	Canadian Pork Council-	3,000	George Brown College	-	-Compensation for Animals Slaughtered	1984-85	Recipient	Recipient	RecipientPersons	1985-86	Persons	1986-87	Persons1,644	5	5,690	14	4,821	8Agricultural Research	1984-85	Recipient	1985-86	Recipient	1986-87	RecipientOperating Grant -	-	4,930	University of Toronto	10,000	University of TorontoProduction Development Assistance Initiative	100,000	Royal Agricultural Winter Fair	-	-	-	-[Translation]	Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau): Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome


Philip Derek Lewis: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions the opportunity to speak at this time, and 1 would like to point be allowed to stand.	out that Canada's three political Parties have taken three
vastly different positions on the proposed legislation that will Mr. Speaker: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to substantially change the transportation industry in Canada, stand?	.
While the Government, the Progressive Conservative Party,


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.	favours wholesale deregulation of the industry in Canada, the
New Democratic Party is totally and completely opposed to 

 any deregulation whatsoever.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from August 19, 1987, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that amendments by the Senate to Bill C-18, an Act respecting National Transportation, be read the second time and concurred in.
Those are the two extremes. And as always, it is the middle road, the happy medium that should prevail.
[DOT] (MIO)
That is the position the Liberal Party has been vigorously defending. We said from the outset that we believed in a certain degree of deregulation. However, we feel that the kind of wholesale regulation the Conservative Government would impose on us would be a disaster for Canada in several respects. We think it would be particularly harmful to the
August 20, 1987
[Stage Direction]
stability of Canada's transportation industry. In fact, whether we are talking about the railways, the trucking industry or air transport, our Canadian transportation industry is a going concern, it is profitable and creates and provides thousands of jobs for Canadians who are able to earn an honest living. We in the Liberal Party are still wondering why it should be necessary to overhaul completely an industry that on the whole is doing very well in this country. We do not deny that improvements and amendments to the Transportation Act are needed to keep up with the new developments and new competition that exist in this field as in so many others.
To completely overhaul everything and change the rules of the game through wholesale deregulation, as the Government intends to do, is a giant step that should not be taken. An exhaustive study of this Bill has been made. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Thacker) said yesterday in his speech that the Bill had received very careful consideration. The House Committee on Transport travelled across the country and heard testimony from people from all walks of life and every region in this country. The message we received almost everywhere was one of concern and of opposition to the Government's Bill. Only the big shipping companies are in favour of Bill C-18, and the Conservative Government is again abdicating its responsibility to act in the national interest, in order to act in the interests of a few big Canadian companies. It has become a fact of life that the Conservative Government is biased towards the wealthiest in our society. This Government works only for the big and the wealthy in this country when it is not working for those outside the country, and I am thinking of the multinational drug manufacturers who dictated Bill C-22 which we will be considering in a few days. It is crystal clear that once again, the Government legislates for the rich and the rich alone. The Government's insisting on wholesale deregulation of the transportation industry merely proves my point.
The number of companies that will be affected by deregulation is enormous. We will see an excessive concentration of our trucking and air transportation industry in the hands of the wealthiest exponents of those industries. That concentration is already taking place. And this while it was hoped there would be numerous airlines, each privately owned. We will still have many of the small airlines, but they will all be connected with one another and often belong to the same owner. What is even worse, it is to be feared that they will be under foreign ownership. Well, as Members of the Liberal Party, we oppose this across-the-board deregulation because we believe that the Bill is not a well-balanced one. We have no objection against partially deregulating the transportation industry in Canada to facilitate the shipping of our finished goods in Canada towards the United States and other countries of the world where we can compete with foreigners. The Government, however, has failed to seek the proper balance.
National Transportation Act, 1987
We are now considering a Government motion which accepts the amendments proposed by the Senate to Bill C-18. I can even quote part of a statement made yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport:
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to the amendments proposed by the Senate and to ehcourage Members of the House of Commons to concur in them. There has been very close consultation and the nine amendments will make a very great difference to the Bill and our constructive policy development for the nation.
I notice that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) is present in the House and it is rather interesting to realize that concerning Bill C-18, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport has accepted the amendments proposed by the Canadian Senate and feels that, quote:
-these amendments will make a very great difference to the Bill and our constructive policy development for the nation.
In other words, what the Government is prepared to do today is to recognize the legitimacy of the Senate and the absolutely essential role it can and should play to improve the various legislation which we adopt here in Parliament.
It is not the first time that the House of Commons accepts amendments from the Senate. What is rather particular and unique, however, is the stubbornness with which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs refuses some amendments from the Canadian Senate. That is exceptional. For throughout our history, session after session, Legislature after Legislature, the Canadian Senate has amended legislation adopted here in the House of Commons. With only a few exceptions, the House of Commons has always accepted them and always considered that the Senate had the same authority as the House of Commons concerning a Bill. Under the Constitution, both Chambers are equal. And the House of Commons and the Senate both have the right to adopt legislation and to accept Bills.
What the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are trying to do is to convince the public that, by amending Bill C-22, the Senate has exceeded its rights and responsibilities. Nothing could be farther from the truth. All the legislation introduced in the House are later submitted to the Senate to be reviewed, amended if necessary, and returned to the House of Commons.
And as I am speaking to you, the situation can be summed up as follows: we are debating Bill C-18 as amended by the Senate which, as the Parliamentary Secretary himself put it, has done such a good job that all the amendments made by the Senators will be accepted. Double standards.
There can be only one explanation: the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is so obstinate as to reject the good amendments made by the Senate to his patents legislation.
Mr. Gauthier:: A hard-headed man.

August 20, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1987


Mr. Ouellet:: The Minister of Transport, through his Parliamentary Secratary, is quite prepared to accept the amendments to Bill C-18-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A reasonable man.


André Ouellet: This is not the first time this has happened. I will recall a whole series of amendments which were made by the Senate in the past and which were eventually accepted by the House of Commons.
I have here a study done by the Library of Parliament's Information and Reference Branch, and I did not ask them to go over to earlier centuries, just the past 25 years.
I have here a document that takes us back to the early 1960s. I am not referring to minor Bills, in fact the legislation we are Considering today, the Transport Act, is an important piece of legislation, yet it has been amended by the Senate and Government Members are prepared to accept them. Such was the situation in 1960 when a measure to amend the Income Tax Act came back here in July, 1960, with three Senate amendments. The House of Commons agreed to these amendments and Royal Assent was given on August 1, a full endorsement of the work done by the Senate.
The 1961 Act to Amend the Criminal Code in the case of capital murder was also amended by the Senate and later approved by the House of Commons.
In 1964-I shall not list all such measures because there are pages of them, but I shall simply mention a few to illustrate my point that it is quite natural for the Senate to amend Commons Bills occasionally, and that, in nearly all such cases, the amendments are accepted.
The Senate also proposed amendments to the Trans-Canada Airlines Bill, and these were accepted by the Canadian Parliament.
In 1966, an amendment to the Fund for Rural Economic Development Bill was proposed by the Senate and accepted by the House of Commons.
In 1969, the Pest Control Products Bill was also amended by the Senate, and after discussions, the House of Commons decided that the Senate amendment was unacceptable. What happened then? After consulting Government representatives, the Senate did not insist on having its amendment adopted, but did insist on the principle of this amendment and proposed a new amendment to replace the first one.
On May 14, 1969, the House of Commons accepted this new Senate amendment, which led to the Bill receiving Royal Assent in June.
This shows that, when people of good will work in close cooperation, there is always a way to come to an agreement.
I now come back to what is going on in the case of Bill C-22. If the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was less authoritarian, obstinate and determined to satisfy pharmaceutical multinationals, he could say that the amendments
proposed by the Senate to Bill C-22 do not meet fully the objectives of the Government, but that there might be a way to achieve a proper balance. The Senate could then, later on, propose new amendments which, as in the case of Bill C-157 in 1969, would be acceptable in the mind of the Government.
However, such is not the case. The Government is desperately trying to stir up a fight on the backs of the Senators and suggesting that the Senate is overstepping its authority by amending legislation. The Government should not really be so critical today, since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport has himself accepted amendments from the Senate, as I have already pointed out which at least proves that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) is not as stubborn as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Mr. Andre:: That's not what you said in the elevator. [Translation]


André Ouellet: Other amendments have also been accepted in the past. In 1970, the Investment Companies Act and the Northern Inland Waters Act were also amended by the Senate and subsequently passed by the House of Commons. In 1971, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act was amended by the Senate and accepted by the House of Commons and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs at the time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He's leaving.


André Ouellet: I see that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who was listening just now, finds my comments rather hard to take and probably went behind the curtains to be able to breathe a little easier.
It is a fact that in all our Parliaments, the Senate has, from time to time, amended Bills originating from the House of Commons. The Ministers have always had the courtesy and tact to go and discuss the matter with the Senate and reach some appropriate compromise so that the legislation could be passed in the best interests of Canada and Canadians. Not like the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who wants it to be in the best interests of the drug multinationals.
I say that when there is a will, the House and the Senate can find a way.
I have some more precedents for Bills amended by the Senate and accepted by Parliament. In 1973, there was the Protection of Privacy Act that was amended by the Senate and subsequently approved by the House of Commons; the Act to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act; and the Statute Law (Status of Women) Amendment Act in 1975. The Senate proposed an amendment that the House of Commons subsequently accepted in June, 1975. There was also the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act that was approved after a certain number of amendments had been suggested by the Senate.
August 20, 1987

1 know about this, for I was then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. And 1 never felt my rights as a Minister had been infringed upon because the Canadian Senate had suggested a few amendments to the Bill I was debating before the House of Commons. Quite the contrary: In 1975, I understood and accepted these amendments proposed by the Senate because I knew that these amendments were improving my legislation. And I never felt that my role as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had been debased. As a matter of fact, I was quite pleased to accept the sound pieces of advice of the Canadian Senate. I cannot understand why the current Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs feels his rights have been trampled on simply because the Canadian Senate wants to make a few suggestions in the best interests of Canadians.
The Petroleum Administration Act was another major legislation to which the Senate had also suggested amendments which were later accepted by the House of Commons. Of course, I could continue on and on. There were other similar instances in 1976, 1977 and 1978.
In 1981, there was the Act to amend the National Energy Board Act. If the former Liberal Government ever had a legislation at heart, it was the National Energy Board Act. Yet, on April 7, 1981, the Senate proposed six amendments to this Bill. The then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did not make of them a life or death issue. He accepted these amendments from the Senate and the Bill received Royal Assent on December 18, 1981.
Well, since the Members of the Conservative Party came to power, they have been trying to pick a quarrel with the Senate, and they would like the Canadian people to believe that the Senators, because they are not elected, enjoy fewer rights and privileges than the elected Members of the House. Canadian judges are not elected either. However, we are not trying to imply that their decisions are less valuable and important because judges are not elected. In some American states, some judges are elected. There are functions in the judicial system that are elective. On the other hand, other positions in the judiciary are appointed. So, I have never heard that, because an American justice official in one case is elected and in another appointed, the one who is elected renders decisions that are better or more valuable to the American judiciary than the appointed one.
1 find false and unacceptable that argument by the Canadian Prime Minister and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who would have the people believe and imply that because Senators are not elected, their work is any less important and less valuable than that of the elected Members of the House of Commons. The fact is the Canadian Constitution gives that full and complete right both to Senators and Members of the House of Commons. And I am happy to state that the Senate did an excellent job on Bill C-18 and also Bill C-19, the other legislation that comes at the same time as Bill
National Transportation Act, 1987
C-18 and that would bring a major change in deregulation in Canada.
I would like to remind the House that Bill C-18 has been especially opposed because it is not definite enough as far as safety is concerned. It is incomplete, in particular for air safety, and in my opinion, it should have been amended by the Government at the committee stage.
I would like to quote some of the presentations we received from various organizations when this Bill was being considered. In particular-
-more specifically, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Airline Division, which appeared before the Transport Committee on March 24, 1987. I would like to read an extract of its presentation which states:
A review of the American experience with airline deregulation revealed the following:
In relation to safety it states:
U.S. airline passenger safety has been compromised and jeopardized by deregulation. Airlines, in a competitive squeeze with low-cost opposition have slashed not only labour costs, but operations and maintenance costs as well. Spending on commercial aircraft maintenance declined by almost 18 per cent between 1980 and 1984. The average fleet age of commercial aircraft increased by almost 4 years during the same period of time.
Flying is becoming more hazardous in the U.S. as the effect of using equipment and personnel for longer hours with reduced maintenance is beginning to show. The safety buffer diminishes daily under the relentless economic pressures of deregulation.
In 1984, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration disciplined 16 of 43 carriers, including People's Express, Pilgrim Airlines and Alaska Airlines, after an in-depth inspection found major safety problems, including extensive use of unqualified pilots. Several carriers had their licences suspended.
Meanwhile, U.S. near-collisions in mid-air have jumped, and safety violations fines of commercial airlines are at a record high.
Near mid-airs (in-flight near-misses reported by pilots) escalated alarmingly from 311 in 1982 to 830 in 1986. Pan American, American and Eastern airlines were fined a total of $13 million for violating safety and maintenance standards.
Another of the dangers of U.S. deregulation is that it has brought hundreds of inexperienced pilots into the industry.
In at least 2 cases, that inexperience cost a planeload of passengers their lives, once right here in Canada. An American air safety expert said the Arrow Air crash at Gander that killed a planeload of U.S. servicemen in December 1985 was "clearly a deregulation crash. Without deregulation, that crew would not have been flying that aircraft under those conditions". ("Those conditions" included freezing rain-the same kind of weather we have to deal with here in Canada about five months a year.)
This was stated by the Canadian Union of Public Employees when they appeared before the Transport Committee. I think that their fear of having the same American experience in Canada is real. According to the people who know what they are talking about, deregulation in the United States is a frightening experience. Why would it not also be frightening in Canada?

August 20, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1987

I was especially frustrated by the attitude and the answers of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) to a question which I asked him Monday in the House. I asked what the Canadian Government was going to do to guarantee that tragedies such as the recent one in Detroit would not happen in Canada when the industry is deregulated.
The Deputy Prime Minister, a former Minister of Transport and himself sponsor of Bills C-18 and C-19 which will bring about this massive deregulation in Canada, rose and, affecting indignation, said that he found my question irresponsible. As shown on page 8118 of Hansard for August 17, 1987, the Deputy Prime Minister gave this reply:
I find the Hon. Member's question quite irresponsible-
I think that making that kind of allegation is totally uncalled for.
He concluded by saying:
For the Hon. Member to tie politics to a very serious tragedy is most
unfortunate indeed.
Mr. Speaker, Detroit was the scene of an appalling tragedy which took the lives of innocent passengers. As a matter of fact we have learned today that the accident may have been the result of human error on the part of the pilot. And what do we hear from spokesmen for unionized workers in the aviation industry: air safety has been compromised in the United States since the advent of deregulation.
I am not trying to score political points when I ask the Minister what he intends to do to protect Canadian air travellers when deregulation becomes a fact of life in this country. Everything seems to indicate that lower air safety standards are directly related to deregulation in the United States. Well, we do not want any compromise on safety in Canada and this is why 1 asked the question. My question was all the more justified that, in its January 12, 1987 American edition, Time headlined:

"Be careful out there. As air traffic soars, so does concern about safety in the skies".
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, 1 am not about to quote the whole article but I would suggest that the Deputy Prime Minister, former Minister of Transport and responsible for this Bill C-18, should read it and discover for himself to what extent the kind of deregulation which has been implemented in the United States and which he seeks to force on Canadians might play havoc with air safety in this country.
I am not the only one who is saying this. A number of expert witnesses who appeared before the Committee on Transport expressed similar concerns.

The Canadian Air Line Pilots Association also presented submissions on Bill C-18 to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport. They appeared before the committee on April 2, 1987 in Montreal. Here is what they said:
It should be unnecessary to point out that a profitable operation is necessary
for safety-
This was stated by the U.S. Senate in 1937 during debate on economic regulation of the fledgling U.S. transportation industry. It is equally true in Canada in 1985, 1986, and 1987.
The subject of airline safety appears in Bill C-18 at Clause 3(1 )(a) wherein it states that the objectives of the Act are most likely to be achieved in a free market system under conditions ensuring that the system meets "acceptable safety standards". We are appalled at the use of the term "acceptable" when clearly the public is entitled to and expects that the "highest safety standards" will be assured. Nowhere are there provisions which will assure that the highest level of safety, or even these so-called "acceptable" but undefined standards can be met.
The level of aviation safety in Canada is ostensibly the responsibility of the Minister of Transport who, through his Department, is charged with establishing certain standards and monitoring the industry to ensure compliance. However, in practice the level of safety we enjoy in Canada has been dependent upon air carriers' willingness and ability to operate to standards well above the minimum demanded by the Department of Transport, and on the efforts of dedicated individuals.
Of course, under deregulation the Department of Transport will continue to monitor and enforce the same minimum standards. But as efficiency and profit become all-important, the self-policing aspect of the industry will fade. Capital will be forced to trade as closely to the marginal line of safety as the enforcement agency will permit.
To quote from the Assistant Deputy Minister's keynote address at the Flight Safety Foundation's annual seminar in Vancouver on October 7, 1986: "-safety is not the end objective for companies-" In the same speech he noted that "-safety comes from the top and must be seen to come from the top". In their presentation, the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association said that it is certainly not seen to come from the top in Bill C-18.
The Liberal Opposition introduced an amendment at the committee stage. We tried to convince the Minister to change the words "acceptable safety standards" to the words "the highest level of safety". We were unsuccessful. The Minister did not want to budge. He felt that to do otherwise would be too constraining on the companies. It is a sad day when the Minister will not put safety ahead of everything else in terms of aviation. I very much regret that decision. We would have liked to see the legislation amended, as requested by the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, but we had no success with the Minister.
It is the bread and butter and the security of the people who are directly involved in the airline industry, and they should
August 20, 1987

know what they are talking about. This is what they said to the Transport Committee:
Prior to deregulation in the U.S., many airline industry experts expected that as the economic regulation by the Civil Aeronautics Board disappeared it would be replaced by a higher level of safety regulation and inspection by the Federal Aviation Administration, particularly in view of the expected influx of new entrants. This did not happen. Rather, from an inspectorate of approximately 2,000 responsible for monitoring 237 air carriers in 1979, the FA A reduced its number of inspectors to some 1,300 responsible for 470 air carriers by early 1984.
Furthermore, between 1980 and 1985 much of the time of these inspectors was taken up with certifying new operators, so that the normal inspection process could not be followed. It was only last year that financial restrictions were lifted to allow hiring of additional inspectors, but the number is still, and will remain, below the 1979 level.
Since 1984, when growing safety concerns led to more vigilant and intense airline safety audits, we have seen record fines levied against numerous U.S. airlines, large and small, established and new entrants. Some have argued that these actions by the FAA have demonstrated a satisfactory level of inspection; we, however, take the less comforting view that there is clearly a very unsatisfactory level of compliance with regulations.
Experience in the United States since the beginning of the transition to economic deregulation has shown quite clearly that a greater burden falls to the safety regulator.
This is what the Nielsen task force was saying in 1985. Let us remember that that task force of the previous Deputy Prime Minister of Canada came out with those types of opinions. In other words, this is clearly the view of the Government. The Government is ready to believe and have faith in the industry policing itself.
It is true that for a number of years it has worked relatively well in Canada. Our record of safety is a good one. However, we will be working under a new environment. We will totally deregulate the airline industry with this legislation. Therefore, the situation and the circumstances will be different.
To continue to believe that we can let the industry police itself is dangerous. 1 believe that something must be done to ensure that government officials, independent people, will be able to check the work of each company in order to protect properly and effectively the public that uses airlines. To restrict it exclusively to the industry, as the Americans have done, is a very dangerous course to follow. We only have to look at what is taking place in the United States to realize that American authorities have made a mistake and are compromising safety in the air in the United States, because they do not have the proper number of people to do the necessary inspections. We do not want this to happen in Canada. We are begging the Government to hire the appropriate number of people in the Department of Transport and in the various agencies created to monitor the airline industry to ensure that safety is not compromised.
We have not yet seen evidence that the Government understands. We have not yet seen person-years assigned to the Ministry and the agencies to make us believe that the Government is ready to take its responsibility. We clearly believe that the Minister of Transport and the Deputy Prime
National Transportation Act, 1987
Minister are very eloquent in words but are very short in terms of putting money where their mouth is.
Let me continue citing the presentation of the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association before the Standing Committee on Transport last April. It reads:
Jerry Lederer, President-of the Flying Safety Foundation has stated: "Industry does not remain indifferent to tragedy, but it faces a selection of priorities based on limited resources ... When the highest priority is economic survival, then safety must take a back seat, and there is disturbing evidence that the traditional safety margins of the air transport industry are already being eroded.
As the representative of the airline pilot who is charged under the Aeronautics Act with direct authority over and responsibility for the safety of his passengers, crew and aircraft, CALPA is concerned at the insidious trend in the airline industry, world-wide, toward reduced safety margins.
Over the years, there has been a dramatic shift of onus in most areas of aviation safety. Where once it was safety first, cost second, with no questions asked, pilots are now increasingly faced with the burden of proving why a costsaving procedure is not safe, or the even more difficult task of showing why it is less safe to the degree that it should not be done. Where once there was a strong element of pride within the industry in providing the very best in safety and service, we are seeing more and more reliance upon the letter of the law. Cost considerations are gaining pre-eminence, as a financially hard-pressed industry simply has no incentive to spend more on safety than is required to meet minimum regulatory standards.

I firmly believe what pilots are telling us. Day in and day out these people have to live with what is going on in the United States since deregulation. We ought to listen when they warn us to be careful, and this is what 1 had in mind Monday when I directed my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. I reject the Deputy Prime Minister's allegation that I was indulging in petty politics when 1 asked him what his Government was prepared to do to make sure that Canadian air safety will not be jeopardized.
Allow me to continue quoting from this very important brief which was submitted to the Committee on Transport:

Nor is it only the commercial side of the industry that is being adversely affected. We also see it in publicly funded safety services, most recently in crash, fire and rescue services. All indications are that there is a general slippage in safety standards, an erosion in safety margins that could take as many years to restore as they have to deteriorate. If so, better alarmist now than apologetic later.
The challenge is to maintain Canada's traditional attitudes toward safety and ensure that economic pressures, which can only be intensified under deregulation, do not lead to lowered margins of safety. Anything "less safe" must be rejected; we are not interested in exploring the outer limits of the safety envelope.
Bill C-18 presents no provisions to allay our fears that the inevitable economic pressures already affecting all segments of the airline industry will also affect safety. No one other than members of CALPA through our constitutional objectives, has been charged with maintaining the highest standard of safety; instead there is a vague reference to "acceptable" levels. This shortcoming must be addressed.
Indeed, members of the Liberal Party have tried in committee to address it and present amendments to change the

August 20, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1987
legislation but without success. While the Bill provides something to deal with this, certainly Clause 3(1 )(a) was the place where we could have dealt with it. The Government refused to budge. Indeed, 1 have no hesitation in saying that the Minister is compromising safety.
Let no one think that CALPA is alone in its safety concerns. I want to say this because of the vicious response by the Minister of Transport to my questions last Monday. I was asking something that I thought was absolutely responsible. 1 wanted to know if the Government was going to take every possible step to prevent the occurrence of an incident like the one in Detroit. The Minister tried to imply that we wanted to make politics out of a tragedy. It was not making politics because what happened in the U.S. could certainly happen in Canada. What I was saying on Monday is what the CALPA people have been saying along with a number of experts in the U.S. Let me cite them. Canadian Aviation is an important publication and it said in September, 1985:
All airlines are cutting corners these days. Sure there are safeguards but the risks are being cut a little finer in the interests of the bottom line.
James E. Burnett, Chairman of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, said in 1985:
Under-capitalized carriers cannot afford to invest as much in training as the well-established carriers, so that there is less familiarity with equipment and procedures.
Here is what Larry Crawford, President of Avitas said in Airline Executive in 1985:
The current trend among airlines towards maintaining aircraft only to minimum FAA standards is disturbing.
Here is what Donald Engen. administrator of the FAA, was saying in Flight International in November, 1985:
We cannot accept any tendency for people to move down to the minimum standards. Deregulation in itself isn't bad . . . But this is not to say we have no problem for the future.
This is precisely what we in Canada are saying. Contrary to the NDP, which is vehemently and totally opposed to deregulation, and to the Conservatives, who want to jump right to it in a massive and urgent deregulation, we in the Liberal Party are saying, "Just a minute. Deregulation to a certain degree is not bad. Certainly it could be done. But let us do it in a way that will not compromise the safety of people flying. We will not compromise the employment of those who have for years worked in the industry. We will not compromise services to the regions which are accustomed to a service that will no longer be available if there is no ironclad protection in the legislation". That is what we are saying. This industry, if it is totally deregulated, will only go where it can make a buck. It will not continue to serve the remote areas of our country who have been accustomed to the services. Finally, let us not do it in a way that will compromise safety as happened in the U.S. and as will happen in Canada unless we have the proper safeguards.
I am not the only one speaking this way. I want to cite another important organization, the Brotherhood of Railway
and Airline Clerks who appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport when it visited Vancouver in March of this year. Here is what they had to say with regard to safety:
-a number of other facts have many U.S. air safety experts worried about the future:
The number of near misses have increased steadily over the last five years- from 311 in 1982 to 776 in 1985; in the first five months of 1986, 305 were recorded, an increase over the same period in 1985.
While the number of commercial flights has grown by 31 per cent, from 14.7 million in 1980 to 19.2 million in 1986, the number of air traffic controllers has declined by 13 per cent.
While the number of aircraft increased by 68 per cent between 1980 and 1984, the percentage of operating revenues spent on maintenance has declined from 8.9 per cent in 1980 to 7.6 per cent in 1984.
Although there has been a dramatic increase in both the number of flights and passengers, the number of FAA inspectors has declined by 33.8 per cent between 1979 and 1984.
These statistics were presented to the committee to indicate that this trend in the U.S. should not happen in Canada. They urged the committee to make recommendations to the Minister to improve safety and make sure the number of inspectors in the Department would be sufficient to do a proper job. What we have witnessed so far is lip-service by the Minister. There has been no clear-cut indication that there are going to be more employees to do the work effectively. In his report to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, the Auditor General made the following remarks:
None of the Transport Canada regions was able to inspect all carriers in its jurisdiction at least once a year.
This is not a member of the Liberal Opposition speaking. This is the Auditor General of Canada. He is telling us that in 1985, under the Conservative Government, none of the Transport Canada regions were able to inspect all carriers in their jurisdiction at least once a year. The Government is going full steam with deregulation and it has not substantially increased the number of people to do the work. The Government is trying to pretend that it is not compromising safety. It is trying to pretend that the work will be done. When I asked the Minister a question in the House the other day-

Did the Minister know that the Department of Transport delegated-not: did the work itself-delegated authority to airline mechanical engineers to apply the standards it has laid down? I also asked the Minister whether it was normal to let the airline companies police themselves. The Minister answered:
-I find this question totally absurd from a Member who has had some experience in transportation ... I invite him to reread the Aeronautics Act and to reread some of the actions which have been taken by the Government.
1 reread the Aeronautics Act, but I have yet to see the Government's actions reflect it in the policies we need to implement the new legislation and ensure it will produce results. Until the Department or the agencies have the staff they need to do the work, these policies will be no more than wishful thinking on the part of the Government. We can
August 20, 1987

hardly ask the agency, any more than we can ask the Department, to work miracles with the number of person-years and resources the Department of Transport has been given. It can't. I repeat: If you are sincere and if you are honest when you say that you don't want to compromise air safety, more money will have to be spent. The appropriate administrative measures will have to be taken and the requisite support staff made available to do a satisfactory job, and not what your Department of Transport is about to do, which is to ask the companies to police themselves. That is what the Americans have done with their own airlines since deregulation, and the number of accidents or near misses in the United States has increased. I ask the Government: Please wake up before it is too late, otherwise Canada will see a repeat of the tragic incidents that have been occurring in the United States since deregulation.
I want to conclude with another quote from the CUPE Airline divisions.

The general chairperson of the CUPE airline division, V. J. Udvarhely, appeared before the Transport Committee. Let me read to the House an extract of the document that was tabled before the committee. It reads:
The Safety aspect is of monumental concern to us. Examples across the border of horribly low safety standards abound and while the Government would not knowingly create safety hazards, they will happen unless there is a budget for more safety inspectors and the requisite number of firemen at airports and a regulatory body with teeth. This should be a main concern, budget deficit notwithstanding. Safety has no monetary ceiling.

This, in a nutshell, is the philosophy of the Liberal Party of Canada, now in the opposition. We are afraid that deregulation will be a disaster and we have asked exactly what CUPE asked us when it testified before the Transport Committee: that we should have inspectors in sufficient number, an agency with the means and power to act and, above all, the necessary financial resources.
The number of firefighters at airports has decreased, while the Minister would have us believe that he has security at heart and takes steps to better protect the travelling public. It is clear that the number of inspectors and employees is not sufficient to meet the needs. And not only are there not enough inspectors and employees to do the job, but for certain positions such as firefighters working at airports who must take action in case of a tragedy and hurry on the landing strip to protect human lives on an aircraft which may be on fire, their number at Canadian airports has decreased. And the Minister would like to convince us that he has security at heart. Nonsense! On behalf of my Party, therefore, I repeat that we are deeply dissatisfied to see the Government move forward with this Bill which will result in the across-the-board deregulation of transportation in Canada. My only solace, before I resume my seat, is to say that to a certain extent, the
National Transportation Act, 1987
Senate at least has improved this legislation and we are greatful to its members for their contribution to Bill C-18.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today on the motion before us on the amendments brought by the Senate but I cannot agree that small changes in spelling errors and French translation will really affect the basic principle of the Bill and provide the kind of transportation policy that Canada needs. We are very disappointed that many of the possible amendments that would have made the Bill a better one were not made and that the opportunity to do so was lost.
If there was ever a need for sober second thought, it was on this Bill. It is an issue of vital importance to all Canadians and, if I may say so, of particular importance to those of us in more remote and rural areas of Canada. It is an issue which affects everything from the price of a can of soup in my constituency to the export of car parts in other constituencies.
It is not an issue that is very exciting to many people and probably not even very exciting to the media. However, a Bill that throws out the chance of having a planned transportation system in favour of a market-directed game of chance has passed both Houses without substantive amendment, and the New Democratic Party says that that is a shame.
Deregulation conjures up very positive imagery. It has a nice ring to it: get the Government out of our hair, keep it off our backs, decrease bureaucracy and red tape. It appeals to the emotions of most Canadians. We must remember, however, that in the past, there was deregulation. Regulation came into being because deregulation was not working.
At second glance, deregulation as proposed in this legislation is, if I may use the analogy of one of our more sacred Canadian institutions, like a hockey game without a referee. The little guys will get beat up by the big guys and the people who paid to see the game will not see the game at all, but chaos.
Transportation and public policy related to it have gone hand in hand in developing Canada and uniting our vast land and have been the subject of many debates in this House. Transportation legislation then must be founded on a social and economic objective. In this case the social objective must be that of maintaining transportation services on an equitable basis for all parts of our country. Nowhere is the importance of this more clearly evident than in the north.
In Yukon, my home riding, a territory of some 200,000 square miles, we are accessed by one major highway and only one major Canadian airline since the amalgamation of PWA and CP. The cost of living in Yukon is at least 20 per cent to 50 per cent higher than in most parts of southern Canada. Much of the reason for this is the high cost of bringing goods to the territory, most of which are trucked in a minimum of 1,000 miles from the south.

August 20, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1987
Mining, which is a very large part of our economy, also relies heavily on good and economical transportation systems. A big issue in the Yukon recently was that a mine which was closed due to lower world market prices could only open again if economical transportation could be provided. I am suggesting that with deregulation such economical transportation would not have been provided and a number of people would have been put out of jobs because of that.
Our economy is as fragile as our climate. Temperatures range from 35 degrees above zero to 60 degrees below zero. Due to this, transportation routes are the subject of much conversation, speculation and often trepidation owing to floods, snow slides, and the very fact that we are so isolated. The highway is the lifeline of our territory and numerous jobs depend on it.
Parts of northern B.C. as well as Yukon rely on the major airline which goes to only two main communities. Therefore, smaller companies play an extremely important part in relaying goods and passengers between the smaller communities to facilitate mining explorations and to bring tourists to various sites. We are very reliant upon the small chartered companies and smaller airlines.
We know that transportation is expensive. For example, it costs more to go from Whitehorse, the capital city of Yukon, to Vancouver than it does to go from Toronto to Vancouver. It costs twice as much to go from Whitehorse in Yukon to Old Crow, our most northerly community. It costs twice as much to travel within the territory as it does to go outside. Therefore, transportation and the cost of it is frequently a subject of discussion.
The situation of Yukon is not unique in Canada. These characteristics are shared by rural communities throughout the country. Dependence on one major transportation system, high costs, unstable climatic conditions, long distances, and small populations characterize transportation systems in probably 80 per cent of the country. Efficient, economic transportation systems are essential to our survival.
The question before us is how best to achieve a fair system for all Canadians. The New Democratic Party does not oppose improvements to the transport regulatory system. We need less bureaucracy and red tape, better safety regulations and better inspections, but we do not believe that this legislation will significantly address this problem. This legislation is like the referee walking away from the hockey game and saying, "Go to it and we will see who survives".
We require common sense regulations supported by adequate funds for enforcement so that all parts of Canada can benefit from a fair and equitable transportation system.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Wholesale deregulation as proposed by this legislation does not do this. It does not take into account the geography and demographics of this country. Canada is not only Vancouver, Montreal, and St. John's, Newfoundland. It is Carmacks, Tuktoyaktuk, Cranbrook, Qu'Appelle, Wingham and many other small towns, not to mention Come-By-Chance. If this Bill goes through it certainly will be only by
chance that many smaller communities will receive reasonable transportation services.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: While rural areas do tend to have high transportation costs, at the moment we at least have a reasonable degree of service in many areas, speaking particularly of the north. Addressing air service specifically, fares are not currently subsidized by the taxpayer but, because of the test of public convenience and necessity, are paid for through averaging between high and low profitability areas.
Passengers in Toronto are perhaps paying a few dollars extra so that Canadians in less populated areas can pay more reasonable fares-not cheap, simply more reasonable. That is an example of what makes Canada a special country. Our public policies have been-not always and sometimes imperfectly-generally oriented to ensuring that there is some equity for the country.
We cannot be sure of what will happen under a deregulated system. Our system in Canada is very different from that in the United States where deregulation took place almost 10 years ago in the airline industry and seven years ago in the trucking industry. What is the verdict there?
In trucking the number of motor carriers doubled although the amount of freight stayed the same. Therefore, there are twice as many people scrambling to carve up the same pie. There was a 140 per cent increase in federal highway taxes. Insurance rates soared 200 per cent to 600 per cent. Trucking accidents increased 18 per cent in one year alone as drivers attempted to out-race competitors. It is estimated that since 1980 one-third of the trucking jobs in the United States were lost owing to deregulation.
In the airline industry serious concerns have been raised frequently about safety, working conditions for employees causing more stress for pilots and others, and poor route service in less profitable areas. The good news with regard to deregulation seems to be that larger centres receive somewhat less expensive services. The bad news is that smaller centres receive less service and pay more. That is the crunch for rural communities.
In order to give some background to the importance of this I will, if I may, refer again to my riding of Yukon, a place which emanates good sense in that the residents have elected both a territorial New Democratic Government and a federal New Democratic Member of Parliament.
I believe the situation in the Yukon illustrates some of the potential pitfalls in this legislation. In the Yukon there is a very fragile industrial economy characterized by high operating costs and relatively low volume. The majority of our trucking firms, for example, are small owner-operated family owned businesses. Compared to southern firms, even the larger firms are relatively small. The scenario envisaged under the proposal for deregulation could very easily lead to an economy dominated by large firms from southern Canada and potentially the United States. We share a border with Alaska, and what happens there very much affects what happens in the Yukon.
August 20, 1987

One might ask, what is the matter with this? At this point, local trucking firms are run by people who live in the Yukon. They are committed to the community, run the services in the community and even run for public office, participate in the little league and so on. They are there to stay.
Branch plant operations of trucking firms, if one can call it that, do not have this commitment. They are concerned with serving the high volume, high profit routes. Small firms will lose out. Those who are willing to provide a year-round service to rural communities will lose out because they will not be able to compete for the high volume and high profit routes.
We are particularly vulnerable in the Yukon in the summer, both through air transportation and trucking because the highest profitability is in the summer months, with tourism, mining and exploration and the transport of various goods. It is during the summer that heavy equipment and other materials can be transported. If the larger firms come in to skim off those good routes, the smaller, year-round companies will be left with the winter routes. They will not be able to survive because they must average out their profitability in the good months and winter months.
The Northern Aviation Transport Association recognized this problem and made a very impassioned plea to the committee, as did the Government of Yukon. They did receive a hearing from the committee about some of the problems these regulations would raise.
We will not have an equitable system under deregulation. The Minister may say that the problem has been addressed for the north by the inclusion of designated areas, under which my riding falls. This is quite true in the case of air carriers, but the main question for the people of Yukon is, what will happen now that we have lost the public convenience and necessity test? The Government has allowed the north the illusion of protection with its designated area, but without the committee and the appeal system of the Canadian Transport Commission, and without the public convenience and necessity test, how will the community complain about eroded service? Who will hear these complaints, and on what grounds can a successful argument be presented? What action can be taken if such an argument will be made?
As the House is well aware, my predecessor certainly has something to do with the Canadian Transport Commission. I assume that the Transport Commission is not being changed because my predecessor is the Chairman and will continue in that role, but certainly he does understand some of these issues, having been in the Yukon for many years.
Without the tried and true test of public convenience, the Government is creating great uncertainty for the people of
National Transportation Act, 1987
northern Canada with this new environment based on charging as much as the market will bear. Without a policy entrenched in this Bill, which clearly states that people come first, the Government is inviting every opportunist who understands our transportation problems to hold the north up for ransom.
An obvious question arising from the issue of the designated area is: Why did the Government stop with air travel? Surely it is not suggesting that truck transport to the north is less vulnerable, or that truck transport is not every bit as important? I am certain there are many areas in Canada which should have rail transportation protected under such a scheme as well, but neither House would adopt such a common-sense extension of the air designated area, nor would they make the air designated area effective. It is deeply disappointing and makes one wonder how earnest the Government is in wanting to protect the north from this policy.
I mentioned that in the Yukon we have a very fragile industrial economy, characterized by high operating costs and relatively low volume. 1 have also said that the trucking firms are small and owner operated. It is a very important character of our community that people can be facilitated to become independent and remain self-sufficient through the operation of their own business.
I believe that as this legislation comes into force we will see more and more problems. While we have been given some hope as to what will happen, we have not yet seen the evidence.
1 want to deviate somewhat from this subject, if 1 may, to say a few words about my constituency. We are fortunate in the Yukon because we have a population that, while small, includes aboriginal people whose ancestors have been in that land for over 30,000 years. We are able to benefit from that accumulated wisdom and knowledge as well as from the technology and science of other cultures. We are certainly fortunate in that respect.
In many ways, the Yukon is a microcosm of Canadian society and despite our small population, the dynamics of federal, provincial and territorial relations, of human rights and of immigration are readily seen and experienced.
I might add that in the Yukon, perhaps one of the most harsh areas of Canada, we have a number of refugees and immigrants who contribute significantly to the Yukon society and economy.
The impact of public policy in an area like this will be immediately and readily visible. Northerners are used to a struggle. The aboriginal people have a highly evolved culture and it is they who made it possible for Europeans who came to this country to survive. Today, they are struggling for a just land claims settlement.

August 20, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1987
In 1896, people seeking gold came over the Chilkoot Pass. One of my famous predecessors in the House of Commons, Martha Louise Black, was one of those who went over the Chilkoot Pass in 1896. In 1935, she became a Member of Parliament for the Yukon.
Despite the Yukon perhaps being somewhat isolated from the rest of Canada, it has certainly led the way in electing women, and now of course, in electing New Democrats.
The men and women of Yukon today, like their counterparts in the south, are really average working people who value independence and self-sufficiency. They value the lifestyle of the north and want to stay there even with the high cost of living and harsh living conditions.
We are concerned about the potential for loss of jobs through this legislation. Even the loss of a few jobs has an extremely significant impact on the economy. 1 think this is probably quite true in other areas of Canada as well, particularly in rural areas.
Deregulation does not meet the transport needs of this country. It will not further economic diversity. Canada's public policy has not historically been based on the survival of the fittest mentality, but rather to strengthen Canada from sea to sea to sea by encouraging a fair deal, not just for the many but for the few as well. I submit that this legislation will not do this. I urge the Government to implement a public policy that will be fair and equitable for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Hon. Members will join together in commending the Hon. Member for a fine maiden speech in the House of commons.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, 1 would also like to congratulate the new Member for a thoughtful speech which not only well represented her riding but certainly addressed the inconsistencies of the Bill. I would like to indicate that, as the Chief Whip of her caucus, she will be called upon to give many more speeches on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I think one could say that finally the velcro has been stripped from the lips of the Yukon.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if 1 did not take this opportunity to raise a question or make a comment. As whip of the Liberal Party, 1 should like to indicate simply that we have fully appreciated the comments made by the Hon. Member and that we are delighted to have her with us. [English]


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues in congratulating the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) for what was indeed a very fine speech. As one who some time ago had a large interest in this Bill, and spent a lot of time in committee when it was first introduced, going back to the White Paper, I must say that the Hon. Member for Yukon has summarized very eloquently and succinctly the problems which confront
those Canadians who live in the more far-flung reaches of the country, those people who are dependent in a very fundamental way on transportation services. Transportation services do not come at them in a flood of varieties but they are restricted usually to one or two basic services. The Hon. Member, 1 think, has done the House a service, having only been here a short while, in reflecting very well the concerns of her constituents.
Coming from Newfoundland, I share those concerns. I have to say as one who has been associate transport critic for some period of time, and who was in on the ground floor when the White Paper was released by the Minister initially, and as one who travelled the country with the committee listening to Canadians from across this land, that many voices out there were not saying that deregulation was of and by itself some kind of disaster for Canada. They were saying that while we need to reregulate, to make changes to our transportation system to help it be more competitive and able to evolve in changing conditions and times, we have to maintain at the same time some measure of ability on the part of Government and regulatory agencies to ensure the best interests of Canadians.
As one who has heard that kind of testimony given by quite sincere witnesses right across the country, people who crossed all political ideologies, I am amazed that today we have a Bill before us which came back to the House with nothing more than some housekeeping, house cleaning amendments. These are technical changes to ensure that the French and English sections correspond with each other in as exact a language as possible. These are minor changes.
In making those minor changes, what kind of substantive testimony by Canadians has been ignored? That has been done in a number of fundamental areas. This Bill would change the basic nature of what was formally known as the Canadian Transport Commission which is a regulatory agency that has operated at arm's length from government since the 1960s. It is an agency which is not a Liberal agency, nor a Tory agency, nor an NDP agency. It is a group of some of Canada's finest and most committed citizens appointed to act as the agents of the people of Canada, not of a particular political philosophy. The CTC is an agency which, in the past, functioned as an echo and voice for the people of Canada, including those who live in areas such as the north. Its mandate, in acting in that capacity, was to sensitize and recommend to the Government of Canada the kind of changes necessary from time to time in transportation policy to reflect the reality of this country. It is an independent agency.
That agency has been wiped out. It is gone with the stroke of a pen. It exists no more. There is a new concept incorporated in this Bill. Rather than being independent, autonomous, recommending transportation policy to the Minister honestly without fear of losing a job, and so on, this new agency will receive policy instructions from the Government of the day.
August 20, 1987

The Government of the day will draw the map. A Minister, a few Deputy Ministers and a few colleagues from Cabinet will sit in committee and will say what is the transportation plan for Canada. They will say: "This is the transportation map for Canada. We in our cloistered, hallowed halls surrounded by our chandeliers and stained-glass windows, walking upon our rich carpets, will decide here in this truly representative realistic House what those people in the Yukon, in Come-By-Chance and Baie Comeau need in transportation policy". They will take that map and give it to their new transportation agency which will make it happen. "Let us not let the reality of this country get in the way of our particular vision of what a transportation policy ought to be", is a philosophy which has never worked in our country of 25 million people, with a land mass as great as we have and with our diversity not only in economic activity but almost in cultures. It is almost ironic because just such a model could be found in the Politburo. It is the new five-year plan which will be issued to the transportation agency. If it does not work after five years, well, governments will change and a new philosophy will be heard and a new map will be given to the transportation agency.
Any hope of objective, independent continuity in the regulation of our transportation industries is lost in this Bill. That is not only a Liberal philosophy. It is not only a Liberal concern. It is a concern the committee heard from one end of this country to another. It was heard from people as diverse in their views as labour, business, town councils, chambers of commerce, and so on.
There is very serious flaw in this Bill. It is the question of foreign ownership. Yesterday we heard from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), who has really become the Minister of industrial affairs, the Minister of American industrial affairs, the Minister of American, pharmaceutical, industrial affairs, the Minister of multinational American, pharmaceutical, industrial affairs. He stands in the House and in an attempt to have Canadians swallow this bitter pharmaceutical patent Bill- "pill" Bill-he tells us that the reason we are all going to pay more for drugs is that we are going to establish and develop a brand new Canadian industry in pharmaceuticals.
That is what he told us. He told us that it was a priority of the Government, an obsession. We were told that the Bill was not designed in Washington, is not part of the free trade talks and that we are not caving in to the Americans.


Mr. Malone:: Who says?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I ask the Hon. Member, who pays his salary? Who pays my salary? Who pays the salaries of those who toe the line of the American multinationals? I do not particularly care who says what about pharmaceuticals when their salaries are being paid by anybody other than the people of Canada.
Having given us a lecture yesterday on the importance of Canadian ownership, the Government passes today a Bill on the transportation industry. One does not have to be a genius-one does not have to be an Einstein or even a Joey Smallwood, who was next to Einstein in his brilliance-to
National Transportation Act, 1987
understand that when there are 25 million in such a massive land, transportation is not a secondary concern. It is the way in which we move goods, people and engage in commerce with each other. It is critical.
But this Bill simply demands that all mergers and takeovers over $20 million and over 10 per cent of the voting shares of a Canadian transportation firm be reviewed by the Governor in Council. Anything below $20 million can just happen. In Canada, in particular Atlantic Canada, with respect to our trucking industry, for $20 million on any given day of the week one can monopolize that industry. It is not reviewable under the terms of this Bill.
Let us consider some of our other industries, for example, the airline industry and the shipping industry. When it is reviewable, what happens? It goes to the Cabinet of the day. And what is the philosophy of the Cabinet of today? It is that Canada is up for sale. This is the same Cabinet that believes that Dome ought to be purchased by an American energy giant, and just as quickly as possible. It is the same Cabinet that refuses to intervene in the sale of Dome to try to put together a Canadian solution, a Canadian package. That same Cabinet now provides us with a Bill concerning our transportation industries that has no means of ensuring an independent assessment or protection of Canadian ownership in this vital-
I would argue the most vital-industry that we have in Canada.
What is the rule south of the border? What rule do the Americans set for themselves, those who would now become, by invitation, the new owners of Canada's transportation industries? What rule do they set for themselves, those who believe in the spirit of free enterprise and competition, those who sit back in their ivory towers 25 floors up surrounded by concrete, glass and steel and smoking big cigars? What rule do they set for themselves as they personify free enterprise? I will tell Hon. Members what rule. They say that 75 per cent of their airline industry must be American-owned. When the United States of America, 10 times bigger than Canada and 10 times more economically powerful than Canada, says that it is necessary to have a rule that 75 per cent of its airline industry be American-owned, by law, we in Canada pass a Bill which sets forward the belief that there is no need for us to have similar provisions.
We Canadians, as legislators, as the custodians of those things that make this country Canada, have to ask ourselves whether or not we have done our job on Bill C-18. I submit that we have not.
With respect to regional development, I talked a moment ago about Canadians always bearing in mind what a large, diverse nation this is. Too few of us have ever travelled this country. We have been to Jamaica, Barbados and Europe. But too few of us have really travelled the width and breadth of Canada. Most of us who have travelled the country have done it on an airplane. It is but a four-hour ride. We cannot even really begin to comprehend how big the country is and how different are the interests of each of its parts.

August 20, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1987
The Bill before us was born out of a White Paper on transportation. When it was born, the 10 Canadian Premiers- Premiers of Liberal persuasion, Tory persuasion and NDP persuasion-met to consider their response to the Minister's proposal. There was only one thing that those Premiers from all 10 provinces, from all three Parties, could unanimously agree to, because some wanted regulation, some did not, some wanted more and some wanted less. But one thing those Premiers agreed to-one matter in which they were unanimous-was with respect to a clause being inserted in Bill C-18 that would ensure that the deregulation objectives of the national Government would not override the regional development objectives of any of the provinces. In other words, if in a particular part of Canada special transportation arrangements had to be made as a fact of life to move people or goods, then in that particular part of Canada these new rules on deregulation would not override the regional development objective. That is what all the Premiers agreed to. They asked that that principle be cast in stone, in law, in this Bill.
The Bill we have today merely has a statement acknowledging that transportation is a key ingredient of regional development objectives. It has no provision to ensure that the regional development policies of any particular province will not be overriden by the new powers contained in it.
For a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who came to power developing and expounding the principle of his predecessor, the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), that Canada was a community of communities, that there was to be no more confrontation, that co-operation would be the watchword of this new administration, I find it passing strange that this Bill, drafted in this place with its ivory towers, fails to recognize the particular transportation needs and the ability of provincial Governments to make special provisions in parts of this country that do not suffer from an over-abundance of competitive players wanting to provide transportation services. It is not there. 1 think that there are Members on all sides of the House who are not happy that it is not there.
I would now like to deal with safety. We have all heard over the last number of months about the increasing number of near misses in the United States over the last number of years. We have heard about the increasing number of near misses in air transportation in this country. We know that there have been a number of disasters over the last number of years, some of which are attributable, directly or indirectly, to deregulation, and some of which are still under investigation. What we know is this. Every single objective analysis that has been done
after nearly nine years of deregulation in the United States shows that safety has suffered.
What do we mean by safety? We mean training, maintenance, using aircraft and airplane parts and engines long beyond their normal lives because companies have been engaged in cut-throat competition. When one is engaged in cut-throat competition one has to save money somewhere. Contrary to what most Canadians realize, the most expensive part of flying an airplane is not taking off with a couple hundred passengers on board and landing somewhere else a few hours later. The most expensive part of an airline is training and maintenance. That is where the cuts have been made south of the border, and that is where the cuts will be made in Canada.
Last week the president of one of Canada's national airlines said that there was one airline too many in this country, so there will be a price war and one of them will have to go. When companies that are barely making money now, most of them not making money, engage in price wars, where will they make the price cuts? Cuts will not be made on the free booze that is given to passengers on the flight because that is visible. Cuts will be made on maintenance, training, and by deferring the life of an aircraft beyond its normal operating time.
This Bill does not deserve the support of the House. I hope that Members opposite will have the intestinal fortitude, the courage, and the vision to give it the boot it deserves. In Newfoundland we would say that we should pick it up by the slack of the pants and the scruff of the neck and fling it over the nearest wharf.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
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.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
August 20, 1987


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in June the Ontario Government launched Lifelines, a program which will provide grants to municipalities for 33 per cent of the cost of repairs to water and sewage works.
When Ontario asked Ottawa to participate in Lifelines, it was turned down flat. At the same time the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) was announcing a $7.5 billion proposal for 10 nuclear submarines, a move questioned even by military experts.
Across the nation water and sewage treatment facilities are in need of repair. Every summer beaches are closed because of inadequate sewage services. Yet the federal Government cannot find even one thin dime, hiding behind the excuse of the deficit and the phoney argument that this is not within federal jurisdiction.
We must keep in mind that before 1984 the federal Government contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to build or maintain municipal water treatment facilities and sewer systems. We in the Official Opposition recognize this to be a national problem. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) has pledged to share the costs with provincial and municipal Governments.
Once again we urge the Government to examine its priorities-build sewers instead of subs.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, I called a press conference in the riding of Trois-Rivieres to denounce the position taken by Liberal Senators with regard to Bill C-22. And I mentioned on that occasion, Mr. Speaker, that the Quebec National Assembly, under the Parti Quebecois Government as well as the Liberal Government, has been in favour of Bill C-22 which will bring major benefits in terms of investment to Quebec and to Canada, as you know Mr. Speaker, specially in the Montreal region, where $600 million in investments and at least 1,500 new jobs are expected.
I then asked the people of Trois-Rivieres to get in touch with their Senator and to state their position. Please allow me, Mr. Speaker, to read a telegram which I received on Monday:
Just been made aware of content of senate committee report on Bill C-22.
Sorry to hear that changes were proposed. Had been expecting for months a
compromise which, over the next ten years, would have afforded Canada 1,4
billion in R & D funds and created 3 000 jobs. We urge you to maintain version of Bill C-22 originally proposed by House of Commons.
And it is signed by a Mr. Boisvert from Trois-Rivieres. And 1 have received, Mr. Speaker, an impressive number of calls and telegrams from people in the riding who urge the Liberal Senators to change their views.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, Fermi II is a trouble plagued nuclear reactor in the United States, just 12 miles from parts of my riding. Over 7,000 residents of the southern part of Essex-Windsor have so far signed a petition against allowing Fermi II to operate at full power.
Why? Because the basic design of Fermi II is questionable, because the reactor has over 7,300 discrepancies between its plans and its actual construction, and because there have been dozens of breakdowns before the reactor has even reached full power operation.
Also serious evidence has been presented to the U.S. Congress of attempts to cover up these problems by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency in the United States. This is why we are pushing the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to get a neutral safety review of Fermi before any permission for full operation.
Canadians will suffer the risks; Canadians must have an equal say in reviewing this dangerous reactor.
* V *



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, 40 years from now, the majority of current Members of the House and nearly all current Senators will be dead.
Over that same period, hundreds of thousands of Canadians will die from illness.
All human beings must die; it is a law of nature. However, this eventuality can be postponed thanks to the progress of science and the quality of our scientists. We are contributing to the advance of pharmaceutical research and the development and marketing of new drugs to reduce pain and extend life when we provide incentives to our scientists, academics and workers.

August 20, 1987
Our outdated legislation to protect inventors, which goes back to 1968, prevents research activity in Canada. Our Government has decided to amend this legislation and encourage medical innovation.
However, Canadians will not be able to benefit from our Bill as long as their lives are kept hostage by a group of Whig Senators.
Mr. Speaker, the Drug Bill will provide employment for our youth, give back their health to the sick and ensure a longer and happier life for our elders. Quo usque tandem abutere patientia nostra, MacEachena?



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on August 4, 1984, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney), then Leader of the Official Opposition, stated in Halifax that he fully supported and was committed to the Atlantic shipbuilding industry. Once again we have the Prime Minister saying one thing and doing another. Since 1984 the Halifax shipyard has received only $60 million in work, whereas the industry in Quebec received $750 million.
As a further insult to this Maritime industry, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes), the Hon. Member for Halifax, promised Halifax dock workers a $60 million refit program starting in November, 1987. He then reneged on his promise. He now says the work may begin in November, 1988.
Surely the people of Nova Scotia deserve more than lip-service from the Prime Minister, and certainly more clout in Cabinet than what they have been able to obtain from the obviously uninfluential Member for Halifax.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, have you seen the headline in today's Toronto Star? "Canada's Economy Best in the West for Growth". The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, says the Canadian economy, which last year grew faster than the economies of every other major western country, will out-perform those others again this year.
Do you remember what OECD said before the last federal election? It said Canada's economic growth was behind that of Greece, Portugal and Turkey. Why? According to a study by
the Canada West Foundation published in 1983, government economic intervention in the prior decade had severely inhibited incentives for investment.
What we needed, the study said, was a climate of stability in economic policy to restore confidence in the Government's capacity to deal with investors in good faith, and to give business some degree of certainty as a basis for rational planning decisions.
That is what we have had for the past three years under the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) Government and that is why Canada is now No. 1.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the Fermi plant in Michigan, described by my colleague from Essex-Windsor, shows what can go wrong with ill-considered nuclear technology. Canadians are now disturbed to learn that Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is resisting recommendations put forward by the federal regulator of the nuclear industry, the Atomic Energy Control Board.
The AECB has a number of serious and well-based concerns over the safety of Candu reactors, while AECL is anxious to restrain costs. Such differences between a regulator and a regulated industry are understandable. What is profoundly disturbing is the fact that nuclear power is a technology which is harshly unforgiving of any errors in judgment, while the too cosy relationship between AECL and the AECB has undermined effective regulatory control in the past. 1 urge the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) to ensure that the AECB fulfils its mandate without becoming captive to the nuclear industry.



THE ECONOMY


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, being a Member from the Montreal region I can see every day the consequences of the high rate of unemployment in Montreal. In spite of this situation a handful of Liberal Senators are making a deliberate attempt to delay the adoption of the drug patents Bill.
The Liberal Senators from Quebec are thus depriving their own province, and Montreal in particular, of a $600-odd
August 20, 1987

million investment which will create between 1,200 and 1,500 jobs.
Their irresponsible behaviour threatens the Greater Montreal economic development in the state-of-the-art pharmaceutical research sector. Their action also deprives recently graduated young professionals of the skilled jobs for which they are fully qualified and thus keeps them on the unemployment rolls.
Twice the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously asked that this Bill be sanctioned as soon as possible. Though very handsomely remunerated by the taxpayers, the Liberal senators are continuing their guerilla tactics. It is a scandal, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland receives the lowest per capita share of defence spending in Canada. Nova Scotia receives the highest per capita share of defence spending in Canada.
The Government of Canada is to build a new Sea Cadet training facility in Atlantic Canada. Fully 60 per cent of all Atlantic Sea Cadets come from one province, Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Department of Defence has commissioned the Halifax based firm of MacFawn and Rogers to determine where the new Sea Cadet training facility should be located. Not surprisingly, the Halifax based firm says Nova Scotia, the province that has the highest per capita defence spending.
Newfoundland, the province with the lowest per capita defence spending, is being asked to understand. I am here to report that we do understand. We understand that there is no limit to the bare-faced indecency of a Government drowning in its own pork-barrel. In Newfoundland and Labrador, this Government has gone down for the third time.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney)
clearly indicated that he had every intention of having Bill C-22 adopted, no matter what.
We Conservative Members of the Greater Montreal region fully agree with our Prime Minister, particularly myself since he has just written to me to pledge his unconditional support and to state that my ideas and my contribution to the efforts of this Government were unquestionably essential and highly appreciated.
We Members from Greater Montreal are waiting impatiently for the economic fall-out from the Bill to amend the legislation on drug patents.
Mr. Speaker, let us have respect for the work done by the democratically elected Members of Parliament.



DISASTERS


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday sulphur trioxide leaked from an Inco plant in Sudbury and 120 members of the public who were exposed to the fumes were treated at area hospitals. I understand that one person is still being treated. Apparently Inco did not reveal the problem to environmental or other officials until people began to phone about the large cloud of clearly visible gas on the eastern edge of the city.
I urge the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to contact Inco and the Ontario Minister of the Environment to determine why no warning was given and to ensure that environmental law is amended to require that companies give prompt warning to the general public when potentially dangerous substances have been released into the environment. It seems to me that public safety must be paramount in the way any company is allowed to operate within the community.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, the whole Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean area asks me to express its support to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) against the Grits in the House of Commons who have been thrown out of Parliament after having divided the country and sent it into bankruptcy. This time, it is on a major Bill, that the Grits now control the Senate, Bill C-22, a legislation that will generate $1.4 billion's worth of investment and create thousands of jobs, especially in Quebec.

August 20, 1987
Oral Questions
I therefore challenge the Liberal Leader (Mr. Turner) and some of his Members from Montreal who went into hiding during the vote on Bill C-22, to start a Quebec campaign against that Bill that is highly important for the whole of Quebec.
Concerning price increases, it is also important to state, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time a Government will create a price review board to review 93 percent of drug prices that have never been reviewed before. And of course, I invite the Liberal Leader in the Senate, Mr. MacEachen, to accompany his Leader here in the House of Commons to explain to the people in Saguenay-Lac Saint Jean the reasons why they oppose that very progressive Bill.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, what is it with the NDP these days? Yesterday I read a news story in which Bob Rae, yuppie leader of the NDP in Ontario, refused to say whether he considers himself a socialist. Is Bob Rae, smack in the middle of an election campaign, having an identity crisis? The NDP in Ontario no longer refer to themselves as the New Democratic Party. They are now known as the "New Democrats'', whatever that means.
The NDP are in crisis. The Party of principle has sold its soul. The Party that has prided itself on being Canada's conscience and the Party of principle is rudderless, totally adrift, and riddled with hypocrites. Its leading lights have been co-opted by a tired, faltering and cynical Tory dynasty that has gone from infancy to senility in three short years.
How else can one explain the fact that Stephen Lewis- remember Stephen Lewis-once NDP Leader in Ontario and now Canada's Ambassador to the United Nations, is one of the stoutest defenders of the Government's new refugee Bill? How else can one explain Dennis McDermott's acceptance of an ambassadorship to Ireland after being one of the Government's fiercest critics? How does one explain Ian Deans' acceptance of a $95,000 a year government job after criticizing the Government for six years?


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will, of course, remember that in Statements by Members we try to avoid naming those who are not in the House and therefore unable to respond as they would perhaps wish.



MEDICAL CARE


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, during the last several months an organization called TEARS was formed in Prince Albert. TEARS is a group of concerned citizens in Prince Albert and district, in fact from all across the Province of Saskatchewan, who are protesting the closing of the Prince Albert North Park Centre, a home for mentally disabled people.
The name TEARS seems symbolic of the anguish and disorientation which residents and relatives of the residents are feeling about the callous approach taken by the provincial Government in dealing with these citizens.
The quality of our civilization is shown most clearly by how we treat our elderly and disabled. The hallmark of conservatism as manifest in the drug patent Bill in Ottawa, and by actions such as the closing of the Prince Albert North Park Centre in Saskatchewan, indicates a denigration of that care.
TEARS is an appeal to us all to be more compassionate, and particularly to the Devine Government in Saskatchewan to have a care for the people who cannot care for themselves.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Since the Government is incapable of winning the battle on the drug patents Bill by giving us the facts, it is trying to win with false statements.
The fact is that the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party would guarantee hundreds of jobs in Montreal, while the Government is promising jobs without any guarantee at all.
The fact is that the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party would guarantee lower prices for drugs than the legislation proposed by the Government.
The fact is that all the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party would advance the cause of both consumers and research.
All the reasons given by the Prime Minister yesterday are false.
Can the Minister name a single independent expert who says that the Bill proposed by the Government is better for
August 20, 1987

consumers and researchers than the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party and supported by the Eastman Report?


Harvie Andre: The Liberal Party stands. 1 have a memo to all Liberal caucus members from the Member of Parliament from Cape Breton-East Richmond, dated August 18. It has a lot of falsehoods in it but one statement is true, it says in the final paragraph:
The gist of the amendments are, of course, a four year period of exclusivity
(which amounts to retaining the status quo since generic companies take at
least four years to come on to the market).
In other words, in their own communications, the members of the Liberal Party privately admit that what the Senate has done is restore the status quo which saw Canada's performance in research and development go downhill from what it was, and not develop, it saw the Hoffman-LaRoche plant in Montreal close and the Smith Kline and French plant close in Toronto.
Everyone in the scientific community, certainly in Montreal, but everywhere else in the country, has recognized that this Bill is vitally important to provide jobs for the graduates of their universities and to provide economic opportunities in this important area. The Liberal Party, those from Quebec, are the only ones I know who are denying that fact.


NOBEL PRIZE WINNER'S VIEWS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the proposals of the Senate duplicate the proposals we have made in the House of Commons. They are directly in line with the recommendations of the Eastman Report.
I ask the Minister to stick to the facts and all the authorities that he cites to support them. Yesterday he claimed once again that Dr. John Polanyi opposed the Liberal amendment, in the House and in the Senate. We checked again with Dr. Polanyi yesterday and this morning. Dr. Polanyi, of course, favours research in Canada, but he takes no view whatsoever as to the relative merits between the Government's proposition and the proposal of the Liberal opposition.
Why did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs present a false proposition to the House, citing in his favour Dr. John Polanyi when Dr. Polanyi took no position whatsoever?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I quoted Dr. Polanyi on the CBC program Morningside with Peter Gzowski, where he said: "A country that says in essence we will rely on others to do our research, which does not provide the patent protection for research and development, is equivalent to a burglar". Those were Dr. Polanyi's words on CBC radio. I will send the quote.
Oral Questions
I have a quote from another expect, Dr. Michel Chretien, the brother of someone known to the Opposition leader, who says:

We should ask that Bill C-22 be passed immediately in its original form.
This legislation strikes the right balance between the interests of the consumer
and those of the innovating companies. As a highly industrialized country,
Canada has a duty to protect intellectual property and to promote research.

We concur.


John Napier Turner: I think the most generous thing 1 can say to that reply is that the Minister is reaching a bit.


VALIDITY OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO BILL C-22
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said yesterday that Liberal Senators have no right whatsoever to change House of Commons legislation. The fact is that not one Conservative Senator voted against the Bill in the Senate. They all abstained or walked out.
To return to the facts, the fact is that today, in the House of Commons, the Minister of Transport has accepted nine amendments proposed by the Senate on the legislation affecting national transportation. Why is the Senate entitled to propose amendments in one case and not entitled to propose amendments in another case? Why does one Minister take a constructive view and another Minister take a hard rock, absolutely rigid approach to legislation in the parliamentary process? Furthermore-


Mr. McDermid:: Speech, speech.


John Napier Turner: I am trying to get equal time with the Minister. Why does the Minister not cut out the hypocrisy? Why does he not accept a reasonable compromise suggested by Dr. Eastman which would guarantee research and jobs and yet put a lid on drug prices in this country?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, his own critic for Consumer and Corporate Affairs acknowledges in this memo that was sent to all members of the Liberal caucus-I presume the Leader got one as well-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: I am sorry I jumped to conclusions there. He acknowledged that what the Senate had done was essentially to establish the 1969 status quo. When the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was Chairman of Sandoz, a pharmaceutical company, he acknowledged that that was unacceptable.
The Right Hon. Leader talks about listening to Dr. Eastman. Why does he not check to see what Dr. Eastman said

August 20, 1987
Oral Questions
before the Senate committee, before the House of Commons committee? He said he thought that Bill C-22 was a good compromise between the various interests and would produce the kinds of research we are looking for, and that he was confident the Drug Prices Review Board would be effective in keeping down prices for consumers.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are out to lunch, Harvie.


Harvie Andre: Why does the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition not listen to what Dr. Eastman is saying about this Bill?


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Every major national women's group in Canada has expressed serious concern that in the Meech Lake Accord, as presently drafted, the distinct society clause may threaten the sexual equality rights that women fought for and achieved in 1981. Yesterday the Prime Minister adopted a suggestion that these concerns, which were based on legal advice, were a cover for what the Prime Minister called the real motives of these groups, which was to deny Quebec explicit recognition as a distinct society.
How can the Prime Minister accuse groups like the National Action Committee, whose President is a Quebecer, of veiled racism against Quebec?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: 1 would want, Mr. Speaker, that comment to be withdrawn. I accused no one of racism, veiled or unveiled. 1 make that accusation at no time against anyone. I would ask my hon. friend to reflect upon it, given the seriousness of that accusation and its falsehood, and no doubt he will want to withdraw it.
With regard to the matter raised, I invite my hon. friend, rather than refer to, perhaps, reports in the papers, to look at the transcript. The transcript says in reference to a response I gave to a question:
You can be certain that there is nothing in the Meech Lake Accord-


Mr. Lapierre:: We believe you!


Martin Brian Mulroney: You can be certain that there is nothing in the Meech Lake Accord that in any way diminishes the rights of women-


Some Hon. Members:: We believe you!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have been asked an important question and the Liberals don't want an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask all Hon. Members to give the Right Hon. Prime Minister the courtesy of listening to his reply.


Martin Brian Mulroney: You can be certain that there is nothing in the Meech Lake Accord that in any way diminishes the rights of women or anyone else.
What the Meech Lake Accord did was to strengthen Canada. And I urge you to take a look at a column by Lysiane Gagnon yesterday who was pointing out her concern at the number of people who are using that argument because they are opposed to a distinct society. That is her view. And she is an experienced observer and defender of women's rights, and an award-winning columnist. And her view is that a lot of people are using that as a Trojan horse, not because they're trying to protect women's rights, but because they don't want the distinct society and the Meech Lake Accord. And I urge you to read it. It's a very thoughtful piece that some of whose judgments I share.
That was the comment I made which strikes me as being very straightforward-


Brian Vincent Tobin: What a slippery answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and in no way is involved with racism.


Brian Vincent Tobin: He stick handles better than Gretzky.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know my hon. friend, who has been very good in dealing with racism elsewhere in Canada, with the support of all Parties, will want to withdraw any reference to racism involving me.


COLUMNIST'S COMMENTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: We can settle it fairly quickly. 1 have the Lysiane Gagnon article in front of me. She suggests that the women were motivated by hypocrisy and that they were opposed to the distinct society in Quebec, and that that was their reason for rejecting the characterization of the equality provisions.
Let me simply ask the Prime Minister to dissociate himself from that suggestion and to accept that the women's groups that are coming forward, whether he agrees with them or not, are at least coming forward in good faith and not motivated as hypocrites as Lysiane Gagnon suggests in her article?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I said: "You can be certain that there is nothing in the Meech Lake Accord that in anyway diminishes the rights of women or anyone else. What the Meech Lake Accord did was to strengthen Canada." I understood that was the position of the Liberal Party because the Right Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party rose in this House and indicated he supported it on behalf of all Members of Parliament.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Are you going to apologize to the women or not?


Martin Brian Mulroney: If that is still the position of the Liberal Party, I think that would be very welcome.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Dig yourself in deeper.
August 20, 1987


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Gagnon is more than entitled to her opinion.


John V. Nunziata: Have some integrity for a change.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Do you agree with her?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend has not in any way fairly characterized her opinion. I will just read the last line of her opinion.
[ Translation]
"Our defenders on the other side of the Ottawa River can cool their outrage. Since the first to be concerned are the very last to feel threatened, they had better find other reasons for objecting to the recognition of Quebec's distinct society." Ms. Gagnon is saying that the women of Quebec do not need to be told how to protect the most important rights we have in Canada and Quebec.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On a number of occasions the Minister stated that the Bill on drug patents will benefit Canadian consumers, that the result will be fair to Canadians, and that the generic drugs now on the market will always be available. If all this is true, can the Minister explain why the drug Ranitidine, which costs 25 per cent less than the original product, will be withdrawn from the market as a result of the retroactive clause of Bill C-22?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe the Hon. Member is talking about the so-called pipeline drugs which were sort of caught between old rules and new rules. Those were made public on June 27, on which day they were made effective. So there is not the retroactivity about which the Hon. Member talks.
In dealing with his preamble about the effects on consumers, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that 93 per cent of drugs in number, 80 per cent by value, have no generic competitors. Those drugs now form a monopoly and are priced accordingly. Traditionally, their prices have been rising higher than the cost of living over the last few years. The Drug Prices Review Board will be in place and mandated by law to keep those price increases at less than the cost of living. Thus for the first time we will have those drugs for which there is no generic competitor being held down in terms of price increases by the Drug Prices Review Board.
If one examines that objectively, and I do not know whether or not that is in the capability of the Hon. Member's Party,
Oral Questions
one will see that, in fact, there is significant benefit to consumers from that fact. 1 do not understand why it is so difficult-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not understand why it is so difficult for the Minister to fail so utterly and so consistently to answer any question addressed to him.


AVAILABILITY OF GENERIC DRUGS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to rephrase my question and put it to the Minister again. Will the Minister explain how it is better and how it is fair for Canadians that dozens of generic drugs, many of them held up merely by the slow processes in the Health Protection Branch, and many of which lack notices of compliance, will not be available to Canadians? Why will the Minister not accept amendments to his legislation which would make available those drugs that are presently on the market or in the pipeline by deleting the retroactive phraseology in his legislation?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, when the Government announced on June 27 its intentions effective June 27, by what logic does one conclude that this is retroactive? I fail to comprehend on what basis the Hon. Member could keep making this statement about retroactivity.
The question of how to treat the so-called pipeline drugs, those that are in the Health and Welfare approval procedures, represents an enormous compromise in discussions between generic companies, brand-name companies, the provincial Governments, drug plans and so on. I hope the Hon. Member is not suggesting we drop the safety standards that now exist and put on the market drugs that could be potentially dangerous. He seems to be implying that. A compromise was arrived at after months and months of discussions and negotiations, to be effective June 27. In no way is that retroactive. It is eminently fair to consumers, to the innovators and to generic companies.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Minister has in mind, having recommended to one drug company that it stockpile its ingredients so that it can circumvent his own legislation.


SENATE AMENDMENTS TO BILL C-22
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, again my question is directed to the same Minister. Will he not at least look at the Senate amendments which would eliminate retroactivity, and perhaps even explore with his bosses in Washington this very small sop to the interests of Canadians rather than the interests of Americans and their drug companies?

August 20, 1987
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is Mr. Fingerhutt, the consultant in Washington who sits on the NDP strategy committee, who must be advising the Hon. Member to make these crazy suggestions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Is that his real name?


Harvie Andre: Fingerhutt is his name-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Minister is formulating a reply and 1 would ask him to make that reply as quickly as possible.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as i have said repeatedly, there are all kinds of conflicting interests, obviously, when one deals with a subject of this complexity. There were months and months and months of negotiations and discussions, not just with generics or brand-names, not just with Washington consultants-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Or presidents!


Harvie Andre: -but with a research committee. When people such as Dr. Michel Chretien, who is Scientific Director and Chief of the Institute of Clinical Research at Montreal, and eminent scientists of that capability say that this is vitally important to the future of their institutes and health research in Canada, and when we see young scientists like the one who developed this promising new vaccine for AIDS-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: More!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques. [Translation]


ADVISABILITY TO ADOPT AMENDMENT TO CREATE JOBS IN QUEBEC
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the same subject. Yesterday we witnessed a sad spectacle when the Prime Minister distorted reality in an attempt to make Canadians believe that the Liberal Party is against the creation of jobs in Quebec by drug manufacturing multinational companies. Quite the contrary, it so happens that some of the amendments we advocate are aimed at forcing foreign multinational drug companies to do research in Canada to create jobs. My question is this: Why would the Government reject an amendment to Bill C-22 which would guarantee new jobs by forcing these foreign multinationals to carry out research and development here in Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I should think that all Quebecers, including Montrealers, are convinced that it is due to the filibustering of a handful of Liberal senators who are standing in the way of 1,300 new jobs and investments of $700 million. It is a source of deep concern to all Quebecers, all Montrealers. This morning I received a telegram from Montreal Mayor Jean Dore who states that any delay or any amendment to this Bill will have a devastating impact on Montreal and on Canada's economic development in that sector. Now, since my friend is a Montreal member and since Montreal is urgently asking that jobs be created as soon as possible, we have before us a Bill whose effect will be to create 1,300 new jobs in Montreal and inject investments of $700 million in the greater metropolitan area. I think this is good news for Montreal and Quebec. Please, tell the Senators that enough is enough. Get on the Montreal economic recovery Conservative bandwagon.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEES
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, we will go one step further than the Mayor of Montreal, who wants jobs to be created in the pharmaceutical industry. We demand guarantees that these jobs will be created. We are doing so, Mr. Speaker, because we are as sceptical of the promises of foreign multinationals as we are of those made by the Conservative Party.
Why does the Government, which claims that it wants the multinationals to do research and development here in Canada, why is that Government against legislating measures that would guarantee this would happen and that would oblige the companies to engage in research and development in this country?
Why don't you practise what you preach?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, a national Government must take a variety of measures designed to generate national growth in all regions of the country.
I know my hon. friend, who represents a constituency in Montreal, will be very pleased with the headline in today's Toronto Star on an OECD report which states: "Canada's Economy Best in the West for Growth".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Right Hon. Prime Minister is aware that we have a rule about exhibiting newspapers, or other things that may be used to support a statement. I know that the Right Hon. Prime Minister will continue the answer without waving the newspaper around.
August 20, 1987


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 did not think that there would be any objection from the Liberals. It was a quote from The Toronto Star.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Right Hon. Prime Minister will accept that it was an objection from the Chair.


Martin Brian Mulroney: With good grace and alacrity, Mr. Speaker.
The report of the OECD would be of great interest to my hon. friend. It states:
The buoyant Canadian economy, which last year grew at a faster rate than the economies of every other major Western country, will outperform the others again this year, the OECD predicts.
That is good news for Canada. One of the problems that we have in Canada, and debated in the House, is the fact that the tremendous growth and job creation experienced in Canada are uneven in their application. Newfoundland does not share as equitably as southern Ontario in this type of growth. We must equalize the opportunities. One of the ways to do this, for example, in Montreal, and in Quebec, is to attract the $700 million worth of investment and 1,300 new jobs that will be created in the R and D sector.


FINANCE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Finance.
The Toronto Dominion Bank announced it had signed an agreement with the Government to cover the debts of the Third World at a cost of $450 million in lost taxes.
Could the Minister indicate to the House what will be the total cost in lost taxes from all Canadian banks as a result of this agreement?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer precisely what the total tax implications will be. The tax situation of each bank is different. Each has different foreign tax credits, and each has different taxable rates of income.
I can tell the Hon. Member that in the committee that he and I served on a year and a half ago, he argued for outright forgiveness. If there was outright forgiveness of these debts, the tax deferral would be permanent and much, much larger.


Steven W. Langdon: The Minister knows that what I argued for was a Canadian initiative for an international conference to see to it that international action was taken on this issue.
Oral Questions


POSSIBLE EFFECT ON INTEREST RATES CHARGED BY CHARTED BANKS
Steven W. Langdon: Since the Minister could not answer the previous question, I would like to ask him this.
Now that this tax break has helped the banks out of part of their problem, what steps will the Government take to see to it that the banks do not raise interest rates and service charges so that their customers pay for the rest of the costs of these suspect debts?


Thomas Hockin: The
answer to that question was given on December 18. We have put in place a policy which will allow trust companies, insurance companies, and other financial institutions to compete head-to-head with banks on commercial and consumer credit. This new policy will give an injection of competition to the economy that previously the banks did not have.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that profits for the pharmaceutical industry were among the highest of all Canadian industries from 1968 to 1982. At the present time they are higher than those in Japan, Germany, Britain, France, and Switzerland.
Why is the Prime Minister pushing a Bill that will make profits in Canada even higher than those in the United States, which has the most expensive pharmaceuticals in the western world? Why is the Prime Minister putting profits before the health of the Canadian people?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, if a company makes a net profit after sales of $2 million and invests $1 million in research, the profit declared is $1 million. If the company does no research, it declares $2 million profit.
Through this Act we are attempting to make it attractive for all companies, those already established and new companies attempting to become established in Canada, to invest these funds in research and development and generate thousands of jobs in Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, Nova Scotia, and everywhere around the country. We are tired of seeing our young university graduates in the health sciences and biotechnologies going elsewhere in the world in order to pursue their careers.

August 20. 1987
Oral Questions


RESEARCH WORK-REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF GUARANTEES IN LEGISLATION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Minister will know that, as demonstrated repeatedly in committee, and in the House, the present legislation has no guarantees for research and development, and no guarantees for jobs in this country.
If the Government is concerned about the cures for illnesses such as cancer, why does it not have those guarantees in the legislation to ensure that research for these diseases will stay in Canada? Does the Minister not understand that thousands of Canadians want research and development, but they want the Government to provide good public policy, and to have guarantees that multinational corporations and generic companies do their research in Canada?
When will the Minister act for consumers in Canada as opposed to the multinational corporations?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, everybody involved in creativity and research understands that when an investment is made in research there must be some period of time after the discovery is patented to recover the investment, otherwise it makes no sense. The Hon. Member would have us pass a law that says "Industry shall discover a cure for cancer. But, if you do, do not expect us to patent it, and do not expect to get a period of exclusivity. Invest your money, but we reserve the right to have somebody duplicate your research results immediately."


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday the Minister responded to a question raised about the cost of nuclear submarines. The authority quoted was Jane's Fighting Ships. The amount quoted was $12 billion or $13 billion for the submarines which we were to acquire.
I know that in London today the 1987 version of Jane's Fighting Ships was published. I wonder whether the Minister has had an opportunity to look at it. Could he tell us what Jane's Fighting Ships now believes the cost of our nuclear submarine program to be?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance to take a look at the foreword to the current issue of Jane's Fighting Ships.
It refers to a cost of $7.5 billion to $8 billion, and it says that this looks like a bargain. Further it says that the decision to purchase the submarines represents a radical and welcome break with past Canadian naval policies.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I think I just heard an echo in here.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the most recent annual report of S1RC stated that CSIS is abusing its sweeping powers and is spying on far too many Canadians, including targeting a group that publishes a left wing magazine in Canada. The Minister's response to this is to set up another review committee to review the work of the review committee.
In view of SIRC's attack on this targeting of a group which publishes a magazine in Canada, will the Minister explain to Canadians why CSIS improperly targeted this group? Which magazine did it publish? Was it the United Church Observer, or what was it? Will the Minister immediately order CSIS to stop this offensive spying, this assault on freedom of speech in Canada?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I trust the Hon. Member is not accusing the United Church of Canada of being left wing. In any event, I would like to correct the Hon. Member. The committee I set up is not a review committee.
If the Hon. Member will read the release I issued at the time I set up the committee, he will see that I said that indeed we were accepting the concerns and recommendations of SIRC. The Osbaldeston committee is to give me an action plan to implement the recommendations and concerns as expressed by them, particularly with respect to counter-subversion, the very concern raised by the Hon. Member.


ALLEGEDSURVEILLANCE OF UNION MOVEMENT IN PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. SIRC said to stop spying on this magazine, and I would like to ask the Minister to respond to that.

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Apparently, the CSIS has targeted not only leftist newspapers in Canada, but also the labour movement in Quebec.
August 20, 1987

Could the Minister clarify the role played by Mr. Marc Boivin, a former CNTU adviser in Quebec? Was Mr. Boivin an informer or secret agent for the CSIS and, in the affirmative, how could the Minister justify such a scandalous attack against a democratic organization in Quebec?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I presume he did not hear the answer I gave earlier in the House a month or so ago in which I advised that we do not nor is it within the mandate of CSIS to target a union. It never has been and it never will be.
We do target individuals, and that we must do under our particular mandate.
Whether or not Mr. Boivin is an agent, I think Mr. Boivin has publicly discussed that himself. The case is presently before the courts, and I do not think I should comment on it at this time for that reason.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He has been flailing around in the House in the last week or two claiming that the new legislation he is proposing will increase jobs in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I am glad his own Members believe him, because nobody else does. The fact of the matter is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure Hon. Members realize that the hour is late. It would be helpful if questions were direct and answers were a little shorter.


Lloyd Axworthy: I would like to ask the Minister about a study which was recently published by Mr. Roy Davidson, the former Senior Economic Adviser of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the former Director of Research for the Combines Investigation Branch. He pointed out that in the period in which Canada had compulsory licensing, the net increase in employment was 29 per cent. In the same period in the United States, which had the monopoly system the Minister is advocating, job creation was only 23 per cent, a net loss of 6 per cent compared with what we had under the present system.
Taking that kind of verifiable evidence provided by a distinguished former economic analyst of his own Department, how does he put that kind of evidence against the spurious
Oral Questions
claims which the Minister and the multinationals are making to show that there will be job creation, when in fact we will be facing job losses?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have gone over the investments in some detail before the committee. I am glad to send them over to the Hon. Member.
We already have commitments of over $900 million- specific investments in specific places, including the University of Manitoba. There are people who will be employed at the University of Manitoba working on research, and trying to find cures for Alzheimer, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and all other diseases.
Why does the Hon. Member feel that is unworthy of support?


Lloyd Axworthy: The last time the Minister made that claim the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association had not heard of the same commitments he is talking about.


OWNERSHIP OF PATENTS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a question about another distinguished source, the Economic Council of Canada. In its report it pointed out very clearly that 95 per cent of all patents held in this area are held by non-Canadians.
Why is he promoting legislation which will give advantages to non-Canadians rather than following the advice of the Economic Council of Canada which recommended the royalty system, as we have recommended, or a co-venturing system? Why has the Government avoided that recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada and gone with the clear and unmistakable demands of the American Government and the American multinationals?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is right that our performance in terms of patenting new discoveries, and so on, in Canada does not stand up very well. That is because there has not been research going on in Canada and because we have not had the patent laws to make it worth while for people to invest in Canada. That is what we are trying to cure. The Hon. Member said-


Lloyd Axworthy: The Economic Council of Canada says, not the Hon. Member.


Harvie Andre: Why does the Hon. Member have so little faith in Canadian scientists?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

August 20, 1987
Oral Questions


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who is also responsible for the Canada Post Corporation. It deals with the Patent Act. Because of the powerlessness of the Liberal leader, thousands of Canadians will die sooner, some chronic patients will never get well, and some senior citizens will no longer be able to afford effective drugs. As Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation, is the Minister prepared to authorize Canada Post employees to accept free of charge the many representations made by the old, the sick, the chronically ill, to the Liberal the whigs in the Senate, all those who will not be able to take part in the demonstration scheduled for the Senate next Tuesday on Parliament Hill? They need to be able to contact senators free of charge. Does the minister agree with this?


Harvie Andre: I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his question. As all Hon. Members are certainly aware, no stamp is required to send a letter to a senator. 1 hope that as soon as Bill C-22 is adopted, a drug will be found to cure the pitiful state of the Liberals!


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Over the next 11 days the Aluminum Company of Canada Ltd. will attempt to reach a private settlement with the federal Government to take more water out of the Nechako River, which contributes 40 per cent of the flow of the Fraser River, at Prince George, than federal scientists feel is safe. Since this development is of enormous importance to communities throughout British Columbia, will the Prime Minister add his support for a public inquiry into this major development to ensure that federal constitutional powers are protected and that the development occurs for the full benefit of all water users in British Columbia?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, I accompanied the Minister of Fisheries last week-end on a journey throughout the Nechako watershed and also the Morice River system which would be involved in the expansion program. I can assure the Hon.
Member it is the Minister's desire to negotiate with the company to make sure the interests of which he speaks are protected. Scientists from both parties are meeting this week to see what can be worked out to make absolutely certain that the interests of which the Hon. Member speaks are protected. That is the Government's concern.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have to address my supplementary to the Prime Minister because I want to know whether or not he endorses on behalf of the Government a public process? This is due to the fact that the Minister directly responsible, the Minister of Fisheries, is on holidays until September 7. The negotiating window expires on August 31. Since all three federal political Parties in the Northwest in 1984 endorsed a full public inquiry, do he and his Government endorse and support a process which involves the public, something which the present Speaker held high in British Columbia?


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is not on holiday.


James Ross Fulton: I confirmed it with his office.


Frank Oberle: Both parties are desirous of extending the process which expires on August 31 to make possible the kind of thing he is talking about, namely, the meeting of scientists to reach an accommodation and a negotiating process between the parties.


James Ross Fulton: What about the public?


Frank Oberle: To be fair, in western Canada Alcan is known as perhaps the best corporate citizen we have. It is very active in his riding and it would be helpful if the Hon. Member checked with the Kitimat Chamber of Commerce to see how they feel.


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise Hon. Members that we will hear from the Hon. Member for York West and that will be the last two questions of Question Period.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. Despite statements by the Minister in the House yesterday, the Canadian Ambassador to the UN, Stephen Lewis, has refused to categorically endorse Bill C-84 in its present form. To quote from his statement outside the House yesterday: "It would be very uncomfortable for me as Ambassador to the United
August 20, 1987

Nations to be in a situation where our own legislation was in any way out of sync with conventions that we have."
Our Ambassador to the UN will eventually have to promote and defend Bill C-84. He has also refused to endorse the legislation unequivocally. Therefore, does the Minister not agree that amendments to the Bill are absolutely necessary if the Government and its ambassador are in harmony on our policy, rather than sending a conflicting, confusing and embarrassing message?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Lewis is not a Member of this House. Clearly what we have heard Canadians say is: "Stop the abuse. Stop the racketeering". What this House has done is send to committee a refugee determination process that will provide a speedy, fair and just determination which will allow access to real refugees.
The purpose of the other Bill, which is also in committee, is to preserve for persons in genuine need of protection access to a procedure for determining refugee claims. It is to deter the smuggling of persons into Canada. It is to respond to security concerns and, of course-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should try to answer the question asked rather than one that was not asked.


POSSIBLE ACCEPTANCE OF AMENDMENTS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. Every single witness appearing in front of the committee studying the legislation urged the Government to move on amendments. Canada's own Ambassador to the UN has refused to support Bill C-84 emphatically as it stands. Therefore, will he concede that amendments are required to enable our ambassador to defend freely Canadian policy without reservation or embarrassment? If he is not prepared to accept amendments, what instructions or ultimatums has he given the ambassador-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, both Bills, which are amendments to the Immigration Act, are now before a legislative committee. While we never said anything was cast in stone, we believe the principles set forth will do just what we want to do. They will stop the abuse, stop the racketeering, and provide an open determination system for everyone in need of our protection.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, can the Government House Leader give us a statement concerning government business? In particular, is the Government ready to call Bill C-71, the Bill dealing with war crimes, which arises out of the Deschenes report, once debate is completed on Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 which the House will deal with now?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to respond to that. I am prepared to call Bill C-71 this afternoon right after we pass Bill C-19.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I am certainly pleased to hear the Government House Leader's assurances that he intends to call Bill C-71 for second reading this afternoon. We in the NDP, in view of the history and urgency of this matter, are prepared to consent to having this Bill go through the House in all stages this afternoon.
At this point I would like to seek unanimous consent in order to proceed with this legislation in that manner.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am not sure whether the Hon. Member is assuming the role of House Leader for his Party. These things are normally discussed amongst House Leaders and I will be prepared to talk about that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that at this point I am seeking unanimous consent of the House to proceed with this important legislation in all stages today.


Mr. Prud'homme:: You are not the House Leader.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mind your own business.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we are not even on that particular legislation. The order of business is Bill C-19. There have been no discussions with his House Leader or his Acting House Leader. The Hon. Member is up to his old tactics of grandstanding, and 1 am not sure whether he speaks for his Party because on previous occasions he took one position and the rest of his Party took another.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments

August 20, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
made by the Senate to Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings.


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity again to speak on Bill C-19, which we have discussed in the past along with Bill C-18. It is memorable that, after so much consultation and so much work by all the House committees involved, we have finally reached a consensus on the National Transportation Act, something which will be good for Canadians in general.
Time and again throughout this lengthy process, the Government has demonstrated the necessary flexibility to develop and modify the economic reforms mentioned in Bill C-19. Indeed, some amendments were made when the House standing committee examined the Bill last spring.
Without going further, I would like to congratulate the Standing Committee on Transport, its Chairman and all members of the committee from all sides of the House who worked so diligently with the provinces and all people concerned with our transportation system. We must remember that there are consumers, shippers and carriers involved in the transportation system and we have responded to the needs of those people.
The transition period during which economic regulation will be phased out was extended from three years to five years, that is, to January 1, 1993. The provinces have generally been relaxing economic controls on the industry for some time, so this gradual approach to change is already well under way.
The extension of the transition period will give truckers well over a decade to adjust to a less regulated environment. Some shippers feel that this is too long to wait. The Government, however, has also listened to the provinces and the trucking industry. A five-year transition represents a reasonable balance of opinions as well as a consensus among the provinces that will be implementing the reforms.
In response to uneasiness expressed by a few provinces concerning the final step to fitness only, Bill C-19 now includes a provision to study the effect of reform in the fourth year of the transition phase which will be 1991. The Government is confident that this study will not show serious problems, but if it does, the Governor in Council can extend the transition period.
When the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications recently conducted its own independent review of the Bill, Senators felt that certain concerns were not adequately addressed in the Bill. Again, we were most cordial and conciliatory to these views, and in fact we recommended and accepted certain amendments that were proposed by the Senate.
I would like to take this opportunity to explain briefly these new amendments that will be brought forth in Bill C-19. First, the wording of Clause 8(5), paragraph (b), has been clarified
and now obliges provincial transport boards to have regard to any statement of public transportation policy issued by the Governor in Council after consultation by the Minister with the Government of each province affected thereby.
Second, a new subclause has been added to Clause 34 which requires the Minister to table a copy of the four-year review in each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of his acceptance of the completed report.
Finally, a new Clause 35 has been added which essentially requires that a review similar to the four-year review be conducted at the end of each year from 1988 to 1993. These annual reviews must contain motor vehicle accident statistics as well as a progress report on the implementation of the National Safety Code. Again, the Minister will be obliged to table these reports in each House of Parliament.
As all Hon. Members can see, these amendments in no way detract from the essence of this Bill. Indeed, they enhance the measures that have been taken. Very close attention has been paid to the safe implementation of the economic reforms that Bill C-19 proposes.

Mr. Speaker, I believe at the same time that under Bill C-19 and Bill C-18-this is provided in those acts, those pieces of legislation-security is a high priority for this Government, for us, all Members in this House and also for other Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, it is essential that in every Canadian transportation mode safety be guaranteed. And this is what we have included in those two Bills, Mr. Speaker.

For the trucking industry, the federal and provincial Governments and industry representatives have co-operated to produce a uniform National Safety Code. In March, the federal and provincial Governments reached an agreement on implementation and cost sharing, which was subsequently incorporated into the Bill. The code now has a concrete existence. All Governments are committed to implementing it. Key components will be in place in federal regulations when this Bill comes into force on January 1, 1988.
The Government of Canada has agreed to assist in funding development and implementation of the standard Canada-wide National Safety Code to a maximum of $23.5 million over the next five years. The National Safety Code will form the basis of safety regulations in the future. You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker-

-whether we come from one of the 10 provinces, from the Northwest Territories, Newfoundland, western Canada, British Columbia, or the northern part of the Northwest Territories and Yukon, it is important for us to have a safety code for our transportation system in Canada.
August 20, 1987



Several key elements of the code will be included in the federal safety regulations. The detailed standards for these regulations will be finalized by the end of this month. Hence, once this Bill is passed, federal regulations setting out safety requirements for both trucks and buses will be in place well before the move from reverse onus to fitness only in January of 1993.
Furthermore, Parliament will be provided with a mechanism for knowing what is going on in the key areas of extraprovincial motor vehicle safety and highway accidents. While available evidence indicates that there is no causal link between economic regulatory reform and safety, many believe there is a connection. The preparation of these reports will dispel any fears that the Parliament of Canada is proceeding with economic regulatory reform of this important transportation industry without first putting in place a mechanism which will enable it to monitor the situation over the next few years.
This should not be misconstrued to mean that we have no highway safety at this time. Canada has an excellent safety record but we are determined to improve it. We already have a fine regime of safety regulations in each of the provinces and territories. Indeed, a number of the elements of the new safety code are already in place in one or more provinces. There will be improvements made to the safety standards in provincial regulations, some of which will be ready by January of 1988 and the remainder of which will be ready by mid-1989.
The provinces have made a commitment in consultation with the federal Government, with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and especially with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to have enforcement resources in place by the end of 1989 in order to police these improvements. The improvements that will exist in the new safety code and Bill C-19 include, first, a safety requirement for obtaining an operating licence. For the first time in legislation, all applicants for extraprovincial trucking licences will have to meet tough safety standards. Second, we will have uniform safety requirements for all extra-provincial traffic among the provinces. In the past we have had different codes and different regulations in each province. We are bringing all of Canada together. Third, we will have a national enforcement scheme based on company and individual driver safety deficiency records which will be available to all provinces. Fourth, we will have annual reports tabled in both Houses of Parliament reporting on trends in extra-provincial motor vehicle accidents and on progress in implementing rules and standards governing the safe operation of extra-provincial undertakings.
Economic regulatory reform includes the most effective enforcement tool, the linking of safety compliance with an operating licence. Furthermore, implementation of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act on January 1, 1988, will maintain pressure on the provinces to meet the implementation forecast for the safety code.
Bills C-18 and C-19 are of the utmost importance to our country. We began creating them, not in the last two or three
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
weeks but over a number of years. It has taken in excess of 20 years to revamp our National Transportation Act.
I speak as the representative of my riding, Bonaventure- Iles-de-la-Madeleine, but also for all Canadians when I say that due to the Canadian geography we must create a system of transportation for the shippers, carriers and consumers that is reliable. Regardless of what the Opposition says, safety will never be compromised. We cannot use isolated examples of what has happened in Africa, Europe or the United States. Millions of Canadians have travelled on our highways, our trains and our airplanes. We have an impeccable record.
The Opposition may say that this legislation is bad but, Mr. Speaker, it is good. As the Vice-Chairman of the Transport Committee, as a Member of Parliament, and as a Canadian, I sincerely believe that Bill C-18 dealing with our trucking industry and Bill C-19 dealing with economic regulatory reform will be good.
The Government has attempted to develop a balanced package of reforms which removes obstacles to the growth of our economy and trade with the rest of the world. Over-all, I believe that Bills C-19 and C-18 represent a balance for all concerned; our shippers and carriers and their employees, consumers, air travellers and others in every region of Canada.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in the debate on the motion to support the amendments that were sent to us by the Senate. Once more, amendments made by the Canadian Senate to a Bill have been found in order by the Government. I commend the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) for accepting on behalf of the Government, on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) those amendments from the Canadian Senate.
It is therefore clear that the Canadian Senate, which has a role to play in the same way as the House of Commons in discussing and accepting or proposing provisions to a Bill, is doing its work. In this instance, the Senate found it useful and worthwhile to improve Bill C-19, and this is why we support the motion to accept the amendments made by the Canadian Senate in the area of trucking by extra-provincial firms. I can say immediately that we accept these amendments. We find it quite appropriate for the Canadian Senate to propose occasionally amendments to legislation which was first considered in the House of Commons. I can only repeat how sorry I am that the flexibility shown by the Minister of Transport in accepting the amendments proposed by the Senate to the Bills sponsored by himself or his Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Thacker) is not shared by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre). I do not understand why one Minister would find amendments from the Senate acceptable while another says that the Senate is overstepping its authority by proposing amendments to Bill C-22. What is good for Bill C-19 could be just as good for Bill C-22, and I find it strange that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would refuse to consider such amendments.

August 20, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
In any event, I would like to say that, on the substance of this Bill, the Liberal Party of Canada has been critical right from the start because we believe that the Conservative Government, inspired by a free competition theory which has serious weaknesses, and inspired even more by its desire to reduce the costs of the Canadian transport system, is now destroying the regulatory basis of the Canadian trucking industry.
Basically, the Conservative philosophy seems to be that the Canadian transport industry should catch up with the deregulation which has already taken place in the United States. Unfortunately, the Conservative position on transport deregulation virtually ignores the harmful effects of American-type deregulation on the Canadian trucking industry, and most important, the transport cost increases which will fall on Canadian manufacturers, who will thus lose some of their competitivity on the market as they will have to transfer these higher costs to consumers.
The Canadian Trucking Association states in its presentation to the Standing Committee on Transport that deregulation has clearly contributed in the United States to an increase in competition and shipping costs and to a decrease in productivity, reflecting a deterioration of the financial position of the trucking industry and an increase in the cost of transporting goods.
If there is one thing that the deregulation of the trucking industry in the United States has taught us, it is that there can be no compensatory rates on the basis of service in the trucking industry. On the one hand, we have seen a proliferation of full-load carriers, and on the other, a strong concentration of large, long-haul carriers. The losers are the regional and inter-regional carriers who have mixed loads and provide long distance services.
Moreover, the trucking industry is not alone to suffer from deregulation in the United States. Smaller manufacturing businesses unable to ship large quantities over long distances, which would allow them to benefit from the discounts offered by the carriers, must pay higher prices to compensate the lower rate given to those who ship goods in large quantities.
As we can see, the principle that large shippers pay less and small shippers pay more has serious consequences on all businesses, and not only on carriers already established in Canada. It is quite possible that deregulation in Canada will remove the value of operating licenses in financial statements. As many Canadian carriers use the value of their license as security for credit from the banks, the value of their business will disappear with that of their operating license. All Canadian trucking firms will find it ever more difficult to borrow money and, without Government assistance, they will not be able to compete successfully with the major American carriers.
Unlike the Conservative Government, the Liberal Party is not in favour of deregulating the trucking industry. We said so when the White Paper entitled Freedom to Move was tabled,
we said the same thing when Bill C-19 came up for second reading here in the House and when is was scrutinized by the Committee on Transport, a parliamentary committee of the House of Commons which heard representations from various groups and people interested in trucking in Canada. We repeated the same thing at the time that, if the Conservative Government was really intent on seeing this deregulation project through, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had to take the opportunity of his Budget presentation to do something to help trucking firms be at least on an equal footing with the major American carriers to be in a position to compete with them.
Sad to say, the Minister of Finance unveiled his tax reform, but he did not say a word about this very important question of the support he might have given Canadian truckers. Indeed, American truckers are way ahead in their country if we compare them with our trucking firms and the tax situation they are faced with here in Canada.
We in the Liberal Party recommended introducing a compensation mechanism in the form of a tax rebate for the trucking industry, so that shippers would be compensated for the drop in value of an operating licence issued under current rules of access.
When a company is not in good shape and is near bankruptcy, this artificial value diminishes and the guarantee ceases to exist. When this happens, the banks, as we know very well, call in their loans. If the companies were compensated in the form of a kind of tax relief that would correspond to this depreciation of their assests, Canadian shippers could at least survive. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance failed to take this into consideration. Today, now that we have reached the last stage in adopting Bill C-19, it is clear the U.S. trucking companies will have an unfair advantage when they come to compete with Canadian companies.
Deregulating the trucking industry means that we are opening the door to American trucking companies who will come here and take a lucrative market away from Canadian companies. They already have tax benefits. They pay a lot less for their gas in the United States than we do in Canada, and in many cases, wages and working conditions in the United States are less attractive than in Canada. We have always wondered why the Conservative Government insisted on dismantling a system that, on the whole, has provided stable employment in the trucking industry in Canada, and why it wanted to get rid of something that is working quite well in this country. We have a competitive trucking industry that meets Canada's needs and the needs of all Canadians. Thousands of workers earn a decent living in our trucking industry. To satisfy certain specific economic interests of big shippers, and for the sake of deregulation at any cost, the Conservative Government is about to seriously undermine a prosperous Canadian industry to promote competition that will
August 20, 1987

come almost exclusively from big trucking companies in the United States. We find this most unfortunate.
But there is more. In addition to the threat that Canadian trucking companies will be swallowed up by U.S. companies, there is also the highway safety factor.
[DOT]	(1530)

Transportation is different from most commercial activity. A fundamental difference dictating reaction to commercial forces is that the product, which in this case is a service, has no shelf life whatsoever. If a trucker has a load from point A to point B, and he has to get back to point A, absorbing costs associated with that return move, he can be persuaded under hyper-competitive conditions to back-haul traffic at an extremely depressed rate to cover his out of pocket expenses. That is a sensible market decision for the mode.
It has inevitable long term consequences, as one can imagine. Multiply that by thousands of truckers, all competing to some extent in each other's market-places, with one's man head-haul being another man's back-haul, and there is a potential for destructive competition, at least until a massive shake-up spends itself.
Therein lies the connection to highway safety. The independent trucker, in particular, faced with payments on his rig, expensive maintenance bills, or that atrocious insurance premium, has no alternative if he is to survive in the short term but to ignore hours of service restrictions if he can find another load, or defer maintenance as long as his truck will move. It is these attributes of hyper-competition that result in a deteriorating safety record in association with deregulation, in the absence of an effective and adequately enforced safety regime.
This is exactly what took place in the United States. It has become very clear that after some years of deregulation of the trucking industry in the United States, this phenomenom has now become a very serious problem there.
We in the Liberal Party who have been discussing this Bill have told the Government to be careful, to examine the experiment in the United States and to ensure that what is happening there will not happen in Canada. In doing that, we did not take it out of our minds. It was not done in abstraction.
[DOT]	(1540)
We have looked at the experiment in the United States. We have studied it and have listened to some experts who have written on the subject. I would like to quote Mr. Nicholas Glaskowsky who wrote a very important essay entitled "Effects of Deregulation on Motor Carriers". This essay has been prepared for the ENO Foundation in the United States. We should take a very close look at what he said because I think it is certainly important, on the eve of deregulating the trucking industry in Canada, to see whether or not it was a
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
useful and appropriate experiment in the United States. Mr. Glaskowsky states:
Depending on the model, a new over-the-road tractor today costs about $80,000, give or take a few thousand. That is a lot of money. A dozen of them-with a few spare tires thrown in-cost about a million dollars. A motor carrier strapped for cash in an intensely competitive deregulated environment has got to consider alternatives to equipment replacement. The only realistic alternative is to keep and operate the equipment longer before replacing it.
The necessary concomitant to using older tractors and trailers is that they need more maintenance. But, maintenance costs money. And, worse from the standpoint of safety, some types of maintenance can be deferred. In fact, a great deal of maintenance can be deferred, the only limitation being a nonfunctioning item that literally prevents the vehicle from being driven.
After five years of deregulation three trends are fairly clear: (1) the equipment fleet of the motor carrier industry is aging, (2) a lot of maintenance (expense) is being deferred, and (3) the motor carrier accident rate is increasing.
Part of the cause of the increasing accident rate is probably due to the use of many more less experienced drivers by new entrants and non-union firms. The cause and effect relationship between good and poor drivers on the one hand, and properly and improperly maintained equipment on the other, is fuzzy, but clearly exists. For example, an experienced and careful driver may be able to handle a tractor-trailer with brakes he has "taken up," if he "takes it easy," whereas a poor and/or inexperienced driver would stand a good chance of having an accident if he drove that same rig.
There is no question but that the motor carrier equipment fleet is aging. There is also no question as to the cause of this. It is lack of money for the purchase of new equipment.
I am sorry?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! The reaction of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) is understandable.
To the best of my knowledge in such instances, Hon. Members have 20 minutes to speak and 10 minutes for questions. I shall have this confirmed and come back to the Hon. Member. You have had unlimited time in the case of Bill C-18, if I am not mistaken.
However, to my recollection, the Hon. Member was allotted unlimited time in that case by resolution of the House.
At any rate, I shall grant the Hon. Member the time requested, but I believe that in this case 20 minutes plus 10 minutes apply.
I shall come back to the Hon. Member shortly.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, if you think I cannot speak for a longer period of time, I will shorten my intervention.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In any case, to settle the issue- [English]
-I do not think there will be any opposition. I am sure the House will agree to give some more time to the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) to complete his speech-I am sure that he will not take unreasonable time, in any case, as he never does.

August 20, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


André Ouellet: I thank Hon. Members for allowing me to complete my remarks. 1 will not abuse their good disposition and will speed up my remarks.
I was citing Mr. Glaskowsky who was describing the situation in the United States. 1 will continue:
There is no reason to believe that this trend will lessen in the foreseeable future. Indeed, there is every rational reason to believe that it will continue and may even get worse.
Maintenance, especially preventive maintenance, can do much to keep older equipment safely in use. Carried to an extreme, it probably can overcome all or nearly all of the safety concerns involved. But, such a maintenance-practice extreme is also extremely costly. And that's the problem. The cost/profit squeeze brought about by deregulation affects mostly those carriers who can afford it the least in regard to aging equipment and the associated need for greater maintenance expense. One state (California) attributes an increase in its accident rate to the safety related effects of deregulation.
What is happening in the United States will inevitably happen in Canada. It is true that California, after the deregulation of its trucking industry, has decided to reregulate because of the level of accidents. It is interesting to note what is happening in California. Based on its experience with complete state deregulation, complementing its regulations, they are now deciding to redeem the situation by reintroducing a form of rate regulation. 1 hope we will not have to go through this terrible process in Canada, to deregulate, to destabilize the Canadian trucking industry, to create a number of accidents on the road and the loss of good jobs for Canadian workers to the detriment of American workers, because quite clearly, what will happen, as has been predicted by the industry, is that there will be excessive concentration of the trucking industry in Canada. Every time there is concentration of ownership, there are mergers of firms. The very first people who are affected by these mergers are the workers, employees of these companies who are losing their jobs. The process is always the same. One merges two companies and then one tries to streamline the operation and improve the efficiency and productivity of the two new companies. In the process, inevitably there are a number of employees who lose their jobs. We will see this happening in the trucking industry in Canada.
More important, the Canadian trucking industry has told us that what will happen is that it will not be able to sustain the competition of some major American trucking companies and will lose some of its market, some of its more productive and financially viable routes. This is a danger which is very real. I think deregulation in Canada will create this situation. If the Conservative Government goes ahead irrespective of the advice it is receiving, we will then be forced to do like the Californian people and reregulate after a bad experiment.
We have been saying all along that we should not do it. Let us put the proper safeguards in the legislation in order to ensure that we are doing it right. If we are able to take advantage of the experience of others, let us take it, and let us do it right in Canada in the first place. Both the Canadian Trucking Association and the Ontario Trucking Association have made representation to the Canadian Government to implement the deregulation process the right way.
One matter which has been outlined to the Government and which it has not been taking care of, something which I regret very much, is with respect to the safety gap that exists in Bill C-19. A balkanized approach to safety has developed. This has created an extremely dangerous situation. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has indicated that the national safety code is to be phased in between 1988 and 1990. Moreover, the Minister of Transport has stated that the main elements of the national safety code will be in place by January 1, 1989.
For the period between January 1, 1988, which is the proposed date of the regulatory change, and January 1, 1989, there will be inadequate safeguards to irresponsible and unsafe trucking operations. This is quite clear. The deficiency there is important and should have been addressed by Ministers but it was literally refused every time we brought it to their attention.

The Quebec Trucking Association also made representations on Bill C-19. I would like to briefly quote from them.
"Let us now review the situation. The Government wants to deregulate on January 1, 1988; yet there is no indication that we would have in place a standardized road safety code throughout Canada before 1990 or even 1991.
"Each province interprets in its own way its role in that area, and there is no central leadership other than a pious wish to arrive at a uniform code some day in the future.
"Imagine what could happen if anyone can enter trucking without any ability and qualification tests, without rules and without any regulatory process to protect the public interest, on matters of vehicle safety for instance.
"What we cannot understand is why this Government wants at all costs to travel a road the Americans already are starting to steer away from. Looking at what is going on in United States under deregulation, we find it led to increased road accidents, increased bankruptcies, concentration in the hands of a few large corporations that conquered new markets through price discrimination and unfair practices."
We share the same view exactly. We believe that this measure to deregulate trucking in Canada has been put together hastily. Without the required mechanism for adequate safety, we cannot understand that this Government wants to deregulate trucking immediately without at the same time putting in place a national road safety code.
Each time we have asked the Minister of Transport whether he could guarantee that a highway safety code will be implemented throughout Canada, he has told us that he has received the assurance that the provinces will co-operate. However, he has never been able to give us a clear and specific commitment that a uniform national code will be implemented in all the provinces. We are therefore about to deregulate the trucking industry with no proper guarantees.
August 20, 1987

We are about to deregulate our trucking industry in exactly the same way as the Americans did, without proper guarantees, and I must say that we are running the same risks as in the United States of disastrous consequences because of an increased number of highway accidents caused by massive deregulation. I have no hesitation in saying that, because of the indifference of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), we shall have the same problems on Canadian highways in a few months or years because of this massive, ill-prepared and ill-orchestrated deregulation imposed by the Conservative Government.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) talk about deregulation. He does a very effective job of explaining his position and all the ills that go along with deregulation. As 1 said in an earlier debate, it is interesting to hear a former Liberal cabinet Minister take that line since it was his seatmate, a former Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), who was really the father of deregulation in Canada. He started us down the road, the track, the flight path of deregulation. There is no question that that is the case.
It is interesting to see that members of the Liberal Party when in opposition combine with the New Democrats to fight such legislation, legislation which I suspect they would have introduced were they the Government today. It reminds me of another piece of legislation, one which we will probably be dealing with tomorrow. Bill C-22. A former Liberal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Judy Erola, was looking at legislation very similar to what the Conservatives have brought forward with respect to changing the Patent Act as far as it affects generic drugs. Ms. Erola is now the chief spokesperson for the large American-based pharmaceutical companies in Canada. She is their chief lobbyist and was speaking on their behalf on The Journal last night. It is interesting to hear how the Liberals say one thing when in opposition and yet the very actions they take when in government are similar to the actions now being taken by the Conservative Government.
Politics aside, I would like to speak about the Bill. I believe that both Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 are dangerous for all Canadians. Deregulation will be an important step to the destruction of a safe and reliable transportation network in this nation. We will be sacrificing service, safety, reliability, job security and Canadian control of our transportation industry.
During the past week both the Hon. Member for Papineau and myself have asked questions of the Government regarding near-misses and accidents which have caused the deaths of people in the United States. 1 believe that the near-misses and, perhaps, the devastating destructive death-causing crash of an airliner earlier this week were a direct result of deregulation. I think we must recognize that with deregulation, with the competition to stay in business, with cost-cutting measures and
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
the reduction of people working on maintenance, we are running the risk of creating a situation in which we will have more near-misses and more accidents causing death, not only in our skies but along our tracks and on our roads.
1 come from a riding which encompasses a great part of northern Manitoba. There are large distances between communities in my riding and people often fly in small planes from one place to another. There have been derailments and people have died as a result of truck accidents along our roads. I recognize that deregulation will create an even greater risk to people living in isolated communities, people living in the north, people who rely on a deregulated industry in which competition will be fierce and in which safety will be sacrificed.
There are already concerns in our nation with regard to the quality of air safety. At the present time there are many small companies involved in providing transportation services to remote communities, and there are a large number of accidents, many of which are caused by poor maintenance records. Many of those accidents are caused by keeping pilots in the air too long, overloading flights to realize as much profit as possible, and not adequately seating passengers. At the present time that is the history. Going into a mode of deregulation will only escalate the whole problem and the threat to the safety of Canadians.
Looking at the history of deregulation in the United States, there has been a reduction in the service to some small communities, and some that are not so small, for example, cities of 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, and 30,000. A situation is created whereby many of the companies want to do the profitable runs between Chicago-Detroit, Detroit-New York, and Seattle-New York. Many companies in Canada will want to do the runs between Toronto-Vancouver, Winnipeg-Vancouver, and Toronto-Montreal. The companies will be less interested in serving Timmins, Thompson, Prince Albert, and the other small communities. In the United States that has certainly been the experience. Companies know there are a large number of passengers on certain runs between cities with large populations, and they will either cut their services to smaller communities, or drastically reduce them.
The people in those smaller communities will suddenly discover that the flight that used to take off at 8.30 a.m. now takes off at 5 a.m. or 6 a.m., and that that is the only flight which leaves that community. In order to use the equipment for a longer period of time, air transportation becomes completely inconvenient to the people in smaller communities. I have already experienced that happening with the amalgamation of PWA and CP, and the management arrangements that are taking place with other small companies. The service is more inconvenient, the equipment is smaller, less comfortable, and obviously slower. This is already happening with the

August 20, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
threat of deregulation. When deregulation becomes a fact, more problems will be created.
The other aspect that concerns me with the general concept of deregulation is that the number of carriers in this country is decreasing. When the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry was the Minister of Transport, and this legislation was first discussed, there were a number of small, independent operators. Now PWA and CP have amalgamated and that new firm has formed management arrangements with other carriers. Air Canada has also made similar arrangements with other small carriers.
Over the last four years, instead of having competition there has been a drastic reduction in the number of carriers and independent operators. Two weeks ago, CA1, the amalgamation of CP and PWA, bought out 45 per cent of Calm Air International Ltd., a small carrier that services the people of my riding.
We are not developing a free enterprise, competitive sense in the country. The larger corporations are having complete domination. There is less service, and less competition, as a result of a Bill which is supposed to be called deregulation, and which the Government has stated will result in more competition. That simply is not happening in the area of air traffic. In the long run, I suspect that it will not happen with rail or truck transportation. In the short term, especially in the trucking industry, perhaps there will be more carriers. In the long term, we will suffer, as the Americans have, and there will be a reduction of service and in the number of carriers available to do the work.
The last area that 1 wish to deal with in the general concept of deregulation, before I deal specifically with Bill C-19, is its effect on job security. All of us in the House recognize that we are facing a pending rail strike, depending on the outcome of the conciliation talks presently taking place. The main issue is not salaries. For that matter, salaries seem to be a very minor issue in the rail talks. What is at stake is job security, and the insistence of the rail lines that they be able to contract out work that is presently done by their employees.
The reason given by CP and CN for contracting out the work, and taking away the job security of the present employees, is that they expect to be facing more and more competition in the trucking industry. Much of that trucking competition will come from American firms. In this country we are facing a strike as a direct result of the whole area of deregulation, and the legislation that will be passed in the House later today.
Employees in the rail industry may have reasonable salaries, and in the past they may have had job security. It is completely unacceptable for the employees to have their jobs threatened because the Government has a political agenda which states that we must go into deregulation and for some reason open up our trucking industry to Americans. It will not benefit Canadians to be in a situation where the owners of our trucking firms are based in Memphis. It will not help Canadians to pay taxes if the truck drivers are from Tennessee. It will not help Canadian municipalities to raise taxes if the operations are not based in their own communities. It will not help
the Province of Manitoba, which has a large trucking industry, if the trucks are based in Minneapolis. That will be the result of the legislation before us.
Perhaps as a result of the desire of the Government to come to some arrangement with the Americans on the free trade talks we will open up our doors to American firms in this transportation Bill. Yet, the Americans will not open up that same door to Canadian truckers. In the United States in the trucking industry, we cannot do what this legislation will allow Americans to do in Canada. The immigration rules and policies in the United States prevent Canadian truckers from operating in the same manner as this legislation will allow and encourage Americans, to take Canadian jobs. That is the truth. We have not heard any government Member deny that that is the truth.
As 1 have listed them, my concerns deal with the fact that we are giving up service, safety, reliability, job security, and Canadian control and ownership of the transportation industry.
As has been done with the oil industry and the mining industry, in the long run we will find that 80 per cent, 85 per cent, or 90 per cent of the transportation industry will not be Canadian, but will be owned offshore or in the United States. That is the history of the development of Canada in the case of so many of our resource industries, and our other industries.
Transportation has been one of the areas where Canadian control and ownership has remained. We have built up a proud tradition which has resulted in the employment of Canadians. We have built up a tradition which has resulted in servicing and maintenance being done in Canada. We have built up a tradition where the jobs, purchasing, and taxes have remained in this nation.
This is not so in every case. We know that CN has occasionally bought its tracks elsewhere and that CP, in terms of shipping, has quite often flown flags other than the Canadian flag. However, the bulk of the jobs and the bulk of the wealth have stayed in this country because we have had a regulated industry. With all its problems, its inconveniences, and the bureaucracy attached to it, we still managed to maintain Canadian control and to ensure that the industry operated for the benefit of Canadians.
It is interesting to note that the amendments before us at the present time are minor ones. The Government has accepted them, but basically the amendments say that we must keep some statistics on what might happen with regard to accidents in the trucking industry as a result of deregulation. That is nice and commendable and I congratulate Members of the Senate for managing to get them passed. Similar amendments were previously suggested in the House of Commons, but at that time the Government did not accept them. All they are saying is that they will keep a record and that the record will be made available to the House of Commons. They are hardly major amendments which will convince members of the New Democratic caucus to support the legislation, because its basic intent will ruin our transportation industry.
August 20, 1987

In terms of my own riding I find it upsetting that they have not said, with regard to the trucking industry, that the north should be treated differently. In the case of air transportation, we have recognized that in part of the north we really cannot expect to have a free enterprise system with 15 or 16 operators, each with one plane, no mechanics and no hangars. We recognized it for northern parts of the country, but we have not recognized it in terms of the trucking industry. We are creating a situation where there may not be adequate maintenance, garages, and trained mechanics in smaller communities. Basically we could see fly-by-night operators who come in, take the business, last for a year or two, and close.
It is interesting that that is actually happening-and it is not only a threat to people in northern Canada-in the United States with a much larger population. The number of carriers hauling less than a full load has not decreased as a result of deregulation in the United States. In fact, the reverse is true, because bankruptcies and takeovers have increased the number of general freight companies. It seems that what has happened is that with deregulation the competition is cut-throat. A business lasts for a year or two and provides a fairly cheap service, but in the long run it cannot pay its bills with the banks, do the maintenance, or provide the service necessary to maintain contracts. As a result it goes into bankruptcy and finds itself a victim of takeover.
With the American experience of less competition and worse air safety, why are we going that way? It does not make sense. We know that it will be a threat to the lives and to the safety of Canadians. At present we are being told by CP and CN that it will be a threat to the jobs of Canadians. Why are we doing it? It will not be to the advantage of Canadians. Obviously it is because of a political dogma which is unacceptable to the nation.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment to make following the remarks of my NDP friend. At the beginning of his remarks he indicated that he thought it was peculiar to see the Liberals adopting a different position now than the one they adopted while in Government.
I remind him-and the public was listening to us-that in this case, like in many other cases, there is a fundamental difference between the three political Parties. In relation to deregulation of the Canadian transportation industry, Conservative government Members are massively for immediate deregulation at all cost. At the other extreme, NDP Members are vehemently opposed to any deregulation at any cost. All along members of the Liberal Party have said, while in government and now in opposition, that we favour some deregulation, flexibility in the regulations which allow better competition and help the shipping and manufacturing
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
industries of Canada to be in a better position to compete world-wide.
At the outset we said that we favoured some deregulation. In fact, the former Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), brought about partial deregulation in the airline industry which resulted in reductions in ticket prices; fares have been lowered thanks to these efforts.
At the same time as we were favouring some deregulation, we always said that there must be appropriate guarantees in the legislation to protect the jobs of workers in the transportation industry, to make abundantly clear that safety would not be compromised, and to ensure that an industry which is predominantly Canadian would continue to be Canadian.
We certainly oppose the Conservative Bill because we do not see these safeguards in the legislation. This is why we think the regulations contemplated by the Conservatives are so fundamentally wrong.
We are in the middle position. We have the Conservatives who will do it hurriedly, at any cost, and take many risks. On the other hand, we have the frozen New Democrats who are afraid of change. I do not think that position is appropriate either. I much prefer the Liberal position, which is in the middle and will be helpful both to workers in the transportation industry and the shippers who want a better deal.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the Hon. Member for Papineau spoke like a true Liberal; he wants to have it both ways.


André Ouellet: The right way, not both ways.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The far right way, there is no question about that.
Let me refer to the history of the last two years of Liberal administration. As the Hon. Member mentioned, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry was the Minister of Transport and was certainly on the road to massive deregulation. It was not just the matter of a slight difference, that they would do a bit more for safety or to maintain Canadian control. They conducted a series of hearings across the nation in which they pointed out that they were going for deregulation, with a few exceptions, and that they were opening up the air to all sorts of new companies. That is what they bragged about. If we look back at the speeches of the former Minister of Transport and what Liberal government Members were saying across the nation, we must recognize that the Conservative Government is doing in an exaggerated form what the Liberal Government was doing.
That is the truth, and Canadians know it. They remember the speeches and the massive press promotional kits which that Government put out. It was certainly good at that; it talked

August 20, 1987
Adjournment Motion
about deregulation and called it deregulation. Do not pretend it is anything different now.
The Hon. Member also said we have a rigid position. That is not true. When the former Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry set up hearings on deregulation, we said there was a need to change the system. For the air and trucking industries, we promoted ideas which we thought would enhance not only competition in some areas but also service to other areas. Let me just give one quick example because obviously I cannot go through our whole policy paper of four years ago right now.
We said that if the Government wanted to open up competition on east-west routes and increase the number of flights between Toronto and Vancouver, those carriers would also have some obligation to maintain north-south flights so that smaller communities would still receive service. If a new carrier came in, there had to be guarantees that they provide a certain level of service and maintenance. They, too, would share part of the responsibility to make sure smaller communities still received service. We had some ideas which we thought would have increased competition but at the same time guaranteed a level of safe service across this land.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.


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 Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-Environmental Affairs-Acid rain-Effect on lakes in eastern Canada- Request that Prime Minister press economic arguments with United States President; the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi)-Refugees-Terms of proposed legislation- Punitive measures; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-National Parole Board-Request for changes to parole system.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to once again rise in debate on Bill C-71. As I said on June 30, the Government views passage of this legislation as an essential step both in correcting historical wrongs and in reforming our laws to ensure that Canada can never be considered to be a safe haven for war criminals or those who have committed crimes against humanity. Further, the law shall apply whether those acts were committed in the past, today, or in the future.
As you know, consideration of the legislation was interrupted on June 30 by adjournment of the House, pursuant to Standing Order. Unfortunately, unanimous consent to extend the sitting to complete second reading of the Bill was not granted. I indicated at that time it would be an early priority of the Government to resume the debate when the House returned and I am pleased to be able to fulfil that commitment today.
In the interim one other significant event occurred. Following the tabling of the report of the Deschenes Commission and the Government's comprehensive response earlier this year, I indicated an additional study undertaken at the request of the commission would be made public. That study, entitled "Nazi War Criminals in Canada: The Historical Policy Setting from the 1940s to the Present" was submitted to the Deschenes Commission by Ms. Alti Rodal and, along with the other information assembled by the commission, was considered by Mr. Justice Deschenes in developing his findings and recommendations. In turn the Government provided both its detailed policy response to those findings and the recommendations and presented the legislation we are now debating here today.
Although the Rodal report contained no new information beyond that considered by the commission of inquiry, the Government believed the report contained useful contextual information and it was made public following a review by the Privy Council Office to ensure conformity with the statutory requirements of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.
The report speaks for itself. It traces the development of issues and policies in the past. It speaks of what is sometimes not a proud history but what is nonetheless history. It is not my intention to debate the policies and practices of past
August 20, 1987

Criminal Code
Governments. That task must fall to those who made those decisions or instituted those policies. It is up to those who are responsible to take responsibility for their acts or omissions. My task, and one from which this Government has never shied away, whether in establishing the commission of inquiry, responding to its findings, or bringing forward legislation and taking action on case files as recommended by Mr. Justice Deschenes, is to face the problem before us today. That is, to reform our laws and ensure that justice is done with respect to suspected war criminals.
Bill C-71 is a critical element in that task. It will give us the tools required to undertake prosecutions where warranted and will bring about important changes to our immigration and citizenship laws to ensure that the errors or oversights of the past are not repeated. Canadians expect their Government to undertake every step consistent with the principles of Canadian justice and the spirit of fairness and equity that is woven throughout the fabric of our nation and its institutions. Those principles are fundamental to our made in Canada policy response and they are an obligation we shall not shirk.
There is one other observation I feel compelled to make before dealing with the substantive provisions of the legislation. We must make every effort to ensure that in our zeal to bring war criminals and those who have committed crimes against humanity to justice, we do not overlook the requirements of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and of the requirements of natural justice. I am often pressed by the media, groups and individuals, and generally by those interested in individual cases, for information with respect to the identity or whereabouts of suspected war criminals, or about the disposition of specific files turned over to the Government by the Deschenes Commission. In all good conscience, and in my capacity as Attorney General, I cannot and will not do anything that would serve to reveal information which might serve to jeopardize the right of any Canadian citizen or person resident in Canada to a fair trial. Furthermore, where there is no evidence to support prosecution or where Mr. Justice Deschenes recommended that files be closed, it is not my desire to submit persons to a form of trial by media. The requirements of Canadian justice will apply equally to all.
[Translation\
Mr. Speaker, the support which this Bill has already received, not only from Members of Parliament but also from the Canadian public, shows just how important it is.
I intend to speak mostly about the amendments proposed to the Criminal Code, but I shall also give an outline of the parts of the Bill which propose related amendments to the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act. These amendments complement those dealing with other immigration issues which have already been introduced in this House. By proposing these amendments today, the Government is living up to its commitment to respond quickly to the Deschenes Report.

The same is true of the amendments proposed to the Citizenship Act. My colleague, the Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Crombie), recently issued a comprehensive discussion paper on citizenship, setting out in broad terms the areas to be considered for legislative review.
This is a complex matter from a legal perspective involving not only Canadian law but also principles of international law. However, I believe that the purpose of this Bill can be summarized more simply. It is that we as Canadians will not allow this country to be a haven for those persons who have committed acts or omissions which are rightly condemned throughout the civilized world.
The purpose of this Bill is to confer jurisdiction upon the courts of Canada so that the criminal law can be exercised in a manner consistent with international law and the principles of our Criminal Code. I make no apology for the somewhat intricate nature of the proposals the Government has brought before the House. They are necessary if we are to address not only those wrongs which have already occurred but also those which sadly will take place in the future.
This Bill is retrospective rather than retroactive. The acts or omissions encompassed in the definitions of war crimes and crimes against humanity have long been regarded as criminal by the community of nations. It is important to note that the military tribunal at Nuremburg reconfirmed the prior existence of these offences as have other courts since then. This Bill recognizes this fact and therefore would confer jurisdiction upon such cases.
I think it is important to stress that only offences which were known both to international law and to Canadian law at the time when such offences were committed will be brought before the courts. There will be no new offences created or applied retroactively to past acts or omissions, something which would be rightly viewed by Canadians and courts alike as repugnant to our concept of justice. Similarly, the proposed amendments to the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act would not have retroactive application for the same reasons.
This important point is underscored by reference to the words of Mr. Justice Deschenes who said:
We are not aiming to make acts, which were deemed innocent when committed, criminal now; such would be unacceptable retroactivity. But extermination of a civilian population, for instance, was already as much criminal in 1940 as it would be today, under the laws of all so-called civilized nations. We are only trying to establish now in Canada a forum where those suspected of having committed such offences may be tried, if found in Canada.
However, I should point out to the House that international law is evolutionary and has changed over time. The definitions of war crimes and crimes against humanity reflect this. In the past, Canada has amended its laws in order to conform to its international obligations. Often these amendments have also recognized the increasing acceptance in international law of

August2(V1987
Criminal Code
the principle of according universal jurisdiction to the national courts in respect of internationally acknowledged offences.
The proposals in this Bill are made in this tradition and have been designed to respect international principles of jurisdiction with regard to any particular time period. Canada will conduct its prosecutions under the new amendments in accordance with international law.
While we must always be vigilant to ensure that the law and its application are fair, this is perhaps an instance where we must be particularly scrupulous. For this reason, the Bill contains provisions that the accused will be entitled to the full range of defences available under the laws of Canada or under international law at the time of the conduct in question and at the time of the trial. This will of course include the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this way, it will be clear to everyone that while Canada condemns and will act against war crimes and crimes against humanity, this country will only proceed in a just and equitable fashion. 1 believe that in acting against historic evils, we are at the same time preserving historic rights.

It should be noted as well, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill contains a provision whereby a defendant can be convicted even if the offence was committed to obey orders or pursuant to the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission. I think that all members of this House and even all Canadians find it necessary to ensure that some people do not avoid prosecutions by maintaining that the act or omission they are charged with were legal in the place of their commission. In case of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity", international law must have precedence over domestic law.

As the report of Mr. Justice Deschenes has already emphasized, the offences addressed by this Bill inevitably raise considerable emotions. The urgency the Government attaches to the enactment of this Bill recognizes the necessity of treating the problem as dispassionately, justly and expeditiously as possible in order to reassure all Canadians and to prevent intemperate individual action. I believe that this view is shared by my hon. friends opposite and I commend them for the support for this Bill which they have already shown. I am sure they will work with us to ensure that the proposals are not delayed. 1 am also most encouraged by the attitude of those groups which had legal standing before the Deschenes Commission.
The Bill also recognizes the need for prosecutions not to be undertaken lightly nor solely in response to the understandable pressure that offences of this horrible magnitude inevitably create. For this reason, proceedings will only be commenced after the personal written consent of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General of Canada has been given. It is proposed that the proceedings will only be conducted by the Attorney General of Canada or instructed counsel. This is in
accordance with the recommendations of Mr. Justice Deschenes.
I have already referred to the evolutionary nature of international law. The restriction on the right to prosecute also carries with it the responsibility to ensure that any action is in conformity with the treaties, rights and accords to which Canada is a party at the time such prosecution is considered. In general, this monitoring of international law is the duty of the Attorney General of Canada.
I will now turn to the amendments proposed to the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act in support of the changes to the Criminal Code already described. I will first consider the provisions of the present Bill as they relate to the Immigration Act.
Consistent with the Government's response to the Deschenes Commission report, these changes will be prospective in nature. The single most important change to the Act is the addition to Section 19 of the Immigration Act of a new class of inadmissible persons. This new admissible class consists of persons who, there are reasonable grounds to believe, have committed a war crime or crime against humanity as these concepts are defined in the amendments to the Criminal Code.
As it is evident that no selection or assessment process, no matter how thorough, will be successful in preventing the entry of all inadmissible persons, it is necessary to provide a means for the removal from Canada of those war criminals who might be successful in slipping through the screen. This has been done through the creation of two new classes of persons against whom removal action can be taken should it come to light after they have been admitted to Canada that they have committed war crimes or that there is strong evidence suggesting that they may have committed such crimes.
The Bill also restricts appeals to the Immigration Appeal Board by persons ordered deported as war criminals to questions of law or fact. Other classes of persons having the right to appeal to the Appeal Board may do so on the basis that for humanitarian reasons, they ought to be allowed to remain in Canada. It is inappropriate that war criminals and persons who have committed crimes against humanity should enjoy this privilege.
The Immigration Act currently provides for the removal of persons to their country of citizenship, country of residence or the country from which they came to Canada. An important provision of this Bill with respect to the removal of war criminals empowers the Minister of Immigration to select any country that is willing to receive a person as the country to which he shall be deported, notwithstanding the fact that normally he would not be deportable to that country.
This provision is necessary because the country that is both willing and best able to prosecute, while at the same time offering guarantees of due process of law, may not be a
August 20, 1987

Criminal Code
country to which the person concerned would be deportable under existing Canadian law.
1 would also like to outline briefly actions being taken by the Government outside the context of this Bill to implement the recommendations of the Deschenes Commission with respect to the immigration program. The recommendation of the Deschenes Commission with respect to refugee claims by war criminals has been implemented in Bill C-55 by including in the definition of "convention refugee" the exclusion clauses contained in the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. These exclusion clauses include persons who have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. Their inclusion in Bill C-55 will have the effect of preventing such persons from being found to be refugees.

In addition, the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission is in the process of developing new administrative procedures in order to ensure that people asking for landed immigrant status will answer questions about their potential participation in war crimes or crimes against humanity. Moreover, these proceedings will mention their positive or negative answer, which could be used later as evidence.

The proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act will also be prospective in nature only. They would make involvement in a war crime or a crime against humanity a bar to the acquisition of Canadian citizenship. Section 20 would be amended in three important ways.
First, citizenship could not be acquired or resumed if the person was being investigated or charged with, on trial for, or subject to or a party to an appeal regarding war crimes or crimes against humanity unless and until that person has been fully cleared. Second, a conviction for these offences would be a permanent bar to acquisition or resumption of citizenship. Third, the onus would be placed squarely upon the applicant for citizenship to reveal any involvement in offences of this nature. Failure to do so would then render the applicant subject to prosecution and/or revocation of citizenship.
These amendments would, I believe, be a full and positive response to the concerns raised before the commission of inquiry. I am sure that the House appreciates, as I do, the swift and thorough efforts of my ministerial colleagues and their departments in addressing these related issues.
In order to avoid delay, the Government has already begun to act upon the recommendations of the commission of inquiry headed by Mr. Justice Deschenes. As he states in his report, this will require another monumental effort. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this work should proceed as soon as possible with the benefit and blessing of this House.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, we often say in this House that we are very pleased to have the opportunity to take part in a debate.

We often say what a pleasure it is to be able to participate in debate. In my case in respect to this Bill that would be an understatement. A large preoccupation of my life has been the events of World War II, in particular the holocaust, and the fact that our country, without intending it in a general sense, did become a place where a certain number of war criminals found safe haven. I think that by and large Canadians are appalled with this situation. It reflects badly on those, some in high places, who, over the decades, have been responsible for their arrival and their continued presence in our country.
It is difficult to characterize Canada as a just society or civilized place without a strong policy to bring to justice those who have committed crimes which can be characterized as war crimes or as crimes against humanity. Yet they are here. The royal commission appointed by the Government, under the exceptionally competent leadership of Mr. Justice Deschenes, presented a report with a blueprint for action. I want to acknowledge that the Government has adopted an important part of the blueprint for action, albeit not all of it. I would have liked to have seen all of it implemented, but an important part of it was implemented.
I am in the awkward situation of wanting to speak on this reading of the Bill but wanting also to see the Bill go forward quickly. Our House Leader made an offer to the Government on behalf of the Official Opposition. That offer was that we were prepared to give the Bill all three readings today, or earlier than today. We would have been prepared to have the Bill go to Committee of the Whole rather than to a regular legislative committee.
All of our willingness to expedite the passage of this Bill relates to two fundamental points. First, although the Bill can bear some improvement, we are satisfied that it will achieve the good purpose of providing for the prosecution of some war criminals. That is one reason why we support the swift passage of this Bill.
More important, however, is the fact that we are dealing with a problem which is rapidly becoming history. We are dealing with crimes committed by a small number of individuals in Canada who are aging and will be the subject of prosecution under this Bill and against whom evidence will be brought, pursuant to this Bill, by holocaust survivors who are also aging.
It is, therefore, very important that we move swiftly. While the Government has expressed a commitment, provided a royal commission, and brought forward legislation, I only say that I wish it had been done more quickly. I wish it had been done by past Governments, including the Government of which I was a part. However, I cannot refrain from commenting on the fact that if this is to be effective it must be done as quickly as possible. For that reason we supported moving through all of the stages quickly and getting on with the job in the time left on the biological clock for action against the war criminals in Canada.

August 20, 1987
Criminal Code
We will, therefore, uphold the agreement that we made to have the Bill referred to a legislative committee by five o'clock today. I hope that when the Bill is considered by a committee some amendments can be considered, not in the spirit of wanting to slow the Bill down but in the spirit of wanting to be certain that the Bill is more effective.
For example, I would like to be certain that the Bill will apply to all war criminals. While there is no doubt that the main genesis of the Bill is the holocaust which took place during World War II, there are other victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity who are living in our country. World War II was not the only war in which terrible atrocities were committed. Atrocities have been committed outside of war, against victims who have found haven in our country.
When a war criminal or a criminal who has committed a crime against humanity is living here, whether he or she comes from Europe, Asia, South America, Central America, Africa, or wherever, I want to be sure that this amendment to the Criminal Code will be available for the prosecution of that individual. Justice requires certainly no less.
I want to argue, and will do so in the legislative committee, that any individual within Canada who has committed a war crime ought to be amenable to being charged under the Bill, whether he or she has become a citizen, a landed immigrant, whether they are here on a more casual basis, such as on a work permit or as a visitor, or just passing through.
If international intelligence puts us in a position to lay a charge against someone who is in our country waiting to change planes, I think this legislation should be amenable to being used for that purpose.
Finally, in spite of the fact that Mr. Justice Deschenes recommended it, I do not think we should give a monopoly to the federal Attorney General when activating this legislation. I have great confidence in the present incumbent and I am certain he will do his duty under this legislation. I am looking forward to seeing that he does. However, I think provincial Attorneys General across the country have the competence also to bring charges under the Criminal Code. They understand the rules of evidence and deal with many matters that involve international and foreign evidence. I believe provincial Attorneys General ought also to have the door open to them to lay charges and bring forward prosecutions when they feel that it is advisable to do so, perhaps even where the Attorney General of Canada may not feel that a prosecution should be brought, in a particular case.
I want to indicate that this is only a stage and that simply passing second reading and referring this Bill to committee in no way assures that it will be passed and the Government will do the investigations and the Attorney General of Canada will lay the charges. I think the commitment that the Government has made requires it to follow through and do all those things I just mentioned.
Let me say that I am not questioning the good faith of my friend. I am only indicating that if he and his Party want the recognition and the thanks that would come from having and implementing an effective war criminals policy, it must follow through. It cannot just refer it to a committee where it will languish in a rerun of the Deschenes Committee, accepting as witnesses everyone who wants to come. In that respect, I think those who want action and wish to tell the committee that they want action will be doing themselves a disservice by seeking to appear before the committee. I hope we will be very disciplined when this Bill goes to committee, to see that we can move within a time frame I have described and have action and results.
I commend the Minister, as I commended the other steps that the Government has taken in the evolution of a war crimes policy. However, each step in itself will mean nothing if we do not proceed and reach the point where something can actually be done.
There has been talk about this issue for a long time. When we were in Government, we were able to move in a limited area. We attempted to produce extraditions and we managed to accomplish one. Certainly one was not the limit of my ambition in that area. I hoped we would be able to produce more, which I believe will be possible under this legislation.
Therefore, I want to give my support and encouragement, and that of the Official Opposition, at this stage. But let us not take too much satisfaction from reaching one stage. It is important to reach the stage where war criminals are being brought to justice.
While one was brought to justice in the former administration and more might have been brought to justice, at this stage let us at least get to one, and then more.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because I believe all Members of the House recognize the urgency of this legislation. Indeed, as I indicated earlier, we are and have been prepared to facilitate the passage of this legislation through the House in all stages today.
I want to acknowledge the importance of the decision taken by the Government to establish the Deschenes Commission. Clearly, in the face of some 40 years of inaction, this decision was an important one. It sent out a signal that Canada at last was prepared to take seriously our responsibility to bring to justice those who were responsible for these terrible crimes against humanity.
I want to commend the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, B'nai Brith, the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association and others for their tireless dedication over many years in urging Governments to take action.
As we know, it was only in 1982 that action was finally taken. I want to acknowledge the work done by the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) within his Government in
August 20, 1987

attempting to persuade his colleagues in Cabinet to take action. Unfortunately, he was unsuccessful.
The former Minister of Justice, Mr. Chretien, stated: "I don't think we should start prosecutions in Canada for crimes committed in European countries 35 years ago". That slammed the door on any further action. I am very pleased that the Government recognized that that response was inadequate and that action had to be taken.
We know that Canada's record, both before World World II and following World World II was quite appalling. Irwin Cotier quite rightly called it the "bureaucratization of horror".
This record was eloquently documented in the report of Alti Rodal which was referred to by the Minister. In Nazi War Criminals in Canada she set out very clearly the fact that a strong anti-semitism underlay many of the actions of the Government at that time.
As Irving Abella said: "None is too many, was the underlying philosophy of those Governments". Today, surely we must recognize that our responsibility must be that one is too many when it comes to the presence of alleged war criminals in Canada.
We are not speaking in abstract terms. I think it is important to underline that we are dealing with human beings who are responsible for terrible atrocities. I recently had an opportunity to visit Ukraine where I viewed official archives, met with officials, and heard personally from men and women in Lav'in who had witnessed these terrible crimes against humanity.
There is the man with tears in his eyes who, at the age of eight, saw the village in which he had been sheltered as a young Jew be burned to the ground, subsequently returning to see the horrors of that event. There is the story of the destruction of the village of Huta Pieniacka. There is the deeply moving tale of the woman who witnessed her father being murdered in front of her eyes. We have an obligation in Canada to bring to justice those responsible for these war crimes and, indeed, all other war crimes. This legislation is an important step in achieving that objective.
The Deschenes Commission recommended other steps as well. Instead of dismissing them as the Government has done, I believe we should have seriously examined those alternatives. Apparently this Bill will go to a legislative committee where we will be proposing amendments in a number of important areas.
Let me close by quoting the words of the president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Dorothy Reitman, who said: "The presence of Nazi war criminals in Canada has been an affront to the Canadian conscience, a moral stain, a betrayal of everything that people died for and Canadians fought for. The report of the Deschenes Commission would help to remove the stain, to redeem the victims, to right the wrong and to restore faith in the rule of law".
Soil Erosion
We have waited far too long. Let us finally move as a nation to right this historic wrong.
As I indicated earlier, I wish to seek unanimous consent of the House in order that we might proceed through all stages of this legislation today. We are prepared to proceed in this manner, given the urgency of the legislation. I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to proceed through all stages of the legislation today, through Committee of the Whole and third reading.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to my friend this morning, a Member of our side, who will be participating in the committee work, was unable to be here today. He also has amendments he wishes to place. The fact that we are debating this Bill today is as a result of co-operation among all Members during the proceedings earlier today.
I could not for a moment think of going back on my word to this Hon. Member when 1 said this would be heard in a legislative committee and he would have his opportunity to place amendments. 1 am sure, given the spirit of Hon. Members, and what was said here today, that those meetings at committee will be very brief and that the Bill will proceed, with the co-operation of the other two parties, to, hopefully, third reading next week, or after those committee hearings.
While I am unable to give the consent, I do say that there is a good feeling toward this Bill and there is no question in my mind that third reading will pass very, very shortly and that this Bill will be law before the end of August.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE ENVIRONMENT SOIL EROSION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Caccia that, in the opinion of this House,
[Stage Direction]
August 20, 1987
Soil Erosion
the Government should consider the advisability of introducing a coherent, comprehensive policy and plan of action to respond to the threat of soil erosion posed to Canada's agricultural land, as described in "Soil at Risk" and "Soil Degradation in Canada".
Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak on this motion of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) because I have a great deal of interest in the matter of soil conservation. In my area, the riding of Perth, one of the greatest farming areas in Canada, it is of deep concern to the farmers as well.
My interest in this subject was spurred by a piece of historical fiction I read. It was about an immigrant who came, I assume legally, many years ago to the American States. As he treaded across those States, he used a test when he came to a piece of land he thought was good. He took a rod and drove it down into the ground until it came to the hard soil underneath. He measured in this way, perhaps imperfectly, the amount of topsoil. This gentleman was from Scandinavia and I assume he went to the area of Minnesota. Finally he found a piece of land where he could drive his rod down, I think it was something like 18 inches before he came to hard ground. He said to his family: "This is where we will stay. This is where we will farm because this is good land".
After reading this book, I read a report about the same area where the amount of topsoil left on many of the farms which had been farmed for perhaps 150 or 200 years was only something like five inches or six inches. This struck a bell with me. In my riding, many of our farms have only that amount of topsoil. If farmers plough deeper than six inches they turn up clay. There is very little reserve left in many of these areas.
In Ontario, which grows intensive crops of corn, they say that if you grow a 100-bushel crop of corn, you lose 100 bushels of topsoil off that land. I know that is not totally true because some land is flat and the topsoil does not run away. Some areas are protected by trees, and some areas have a lot of hills where much more topsoil runs away. I asked an expert what would happen if one had a piece of land with perhaps eight inches of topsoil and every year corn was grown for never ending time. How long would it take for all that topsoil to disappear leaving nothing on that farm? The answer was about 100 years. I saw then that our farmers today, who are farming in difficult times and with techniques that are pushed by economics, may be forced to expend the soil on their farms so there is nothing left for the farmers of the future.
This particularly worried me. We see corn grown on land year after year. We see bigger tractors used on that land because the soil gets more compacted. We see more chemicals being used on that land because without rotation, without the ability to put other crops in, one has to add chemicals to kill the weeds. We are seeing a destruction of trees which would stop some of the erosion because farmers have to use 100 per cent of their farm land. That is a very frightening prospect.
I am sure the farmers of Canada are aware of this problem. They may not know the solution. They may not know how to handle it, but they are aware of the problem. For economic reasons they cannot really stop some of their practices or do something else which would help their land.
Of course, we know that much of the cost of land degradation does not accrue to the farmer. It accrues to the societies living downstream, the cities that have to clean out the sewage, the water flows, the provinces which have to clean out the ends of rivers. The total cost does not accrue to the farmer. He may not even realize what the total cost is, although he does know the problem.
I am very interested in the motion of the Hon. Member, although I believe it is possible that there is a move already in process which will answer his concern, and perhaps this motion is simply unnecessary.
Because of the Senate report called "Soil at Risk", which was tabled in 1984, and indeed other reports mentioned by the Hon. Member in his discussion on June 19, this issue has become very important to any thinking environmentalist in Canada. It was on the agenda of the First Ministers' Conference in 1985 and as a result of the deliberations there, six working groups were set up. One of these dealt with the soil and water conservation problem. This particular working group was composed of federal and provincial officials who studied the problem and produced a report for agricultural Ministers in July 1986. This report provided the basis for the soil and water related recommendations that were put forward by agriculture Ministers in the national agriculture strategy. The soil and water conservation part of that strategy called for many different aspects but particularly for the establishment of a co-ordinated soil and water conservation program adapted to each province. In other words, it would not be the same in every province because each province's needs are different. How could one compare, for instance, the rolling land in southwestern Ontario with the flat prairie lands in the west. So each province would have a different need.
The program would provide awareness in education programs so that we ensure that everyone is aware of it, and improved extension and technical advisory services to help the farmer and the communities plan the use of the land because we cannot blame this totally on the farmer. It would provide for more on-site demonstrations of preservation techniques. It would also provide for additional research, improved financial support and assistance in areas such as soil survey work and infrastructure planning. That is all under just the one requirement of the program.
Other requirements are improvement of federal and provincial co-ordination mechanisms, a creation of a focal point for co-ordinating existing and new soil and water activities, the re-orientation of federal and provincial programs to meet needs, and the negotiation of federal-provincial agreements to finance and co-ordinate these programs, and the
August 20, 1987

establishment of local water and soil conservation organizations where appropriate action could be taken to facilitate the farmers' participation in local activities.
The national agriculture strategy calls for a federal-provincial partnership to be developed whereby both parties can define their ongoing work and in this light the federal Government has designated officers to work bilaterally toward a definition of the program by province. As well, Agriculture Canada has put together an inter-branch committee which is now in the process of defining a comprehensive national soil and water policy. In carrying out that task, federal representatives have already completed a round of consultations with each province in order to define the needs and to start the process of co-ordinating activities between each of these governments. As well as all of this, consultations with Environment Canada are under way. This is what is planned under the strategy.
Before I complete my remarks, I want to mention another program that is already in place but which has nothing to do with this strategy. It was developed separately. I refer to a soil and water environmental enhancement program which will be put in place in my area. Some $30 million in federal and provincial money will be designated to meet the problems of soil erosion. This is a program being carried out separately from the programs I mentioned before.
In thinking about environmental problems in terms of soil, we must remember that things we do in the soil can affect other areas, for example, water-tables and the quality of water that we have available in our cities for consumption. We have to keep in mind that we should not change programs so much as to cause other problems to rear their heads. It is my view that this federal-provincial approach to soil conservation will provide the coherent and comprehensive policy and plan of action called for by the Hon. Member for Davenport. It is for this reason that I maintain that his motion is simply an unnecessary one.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I too am delighted to speak to the motion put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), and to express my appreciation for him having brought forward such a motion. The significance with respect to his bringing forward the motion is that he comes from a large urban area. I believe that the solution to the problem lies with our urban cousins as opposed to our farmers.
What is before us is an important motion. The Hon. Member can provide a valuable service to the country by visiting urban Canada, since he understands the ethics and mores of urban Canada. He can more appropriately change them than those of us who come from the rural parts of the country.
Soil Erosion
Speaking for the West, there is absolutely no doubt as to the description of the problem. In the high western plains we have been farming for some 50 years. The fertility of the western plains has dropped by some 50 per cent. If it goes down by another 50 per cent over the next 50 years, we could very easily have nothing but pure sand, which would lead to the very real possibility-in fact a probability-of seeing a massive desert in that area.
This is not a situation which can be taken lightly. The amount of soil lost in western Canada each spring is truly massive. I flew over all of southern Alberta this spring and even at a height of 18,000 feet we could barely see out the window of the plane when the winds were blowing strongly. It was not difficult to see that where farmers were using proper strip farming procedures there was no land blowing. However, where they were into farming 80 acres or more, the strips were wide enough that I could see a few pebbles rolling along on the western end which just grew and grew until the whole field was blowing away. As well, salinity is a very major problem on the high plains.
The motion before us asks for more government involvement. In fact, there is a government strategy in place. However, I want to argue that the real solution is not necessarily in more government involvement, although I think that will be the case in the short term. The solution is not necessarily in more regulation, although I believe that in the short term we will need to have more regulation. Nor is the solution implementing laws that would send farmers to jail for not stripping properly.
I submit that the real solution lies with our urban cousins, those of us who live in the small and larger urban areas, to pay more for farm produce. 1 say that for one reason. I believe that farmers want to save the soil. In fact, farmers more than anyone else want to save the soil if for no other reason than they want to conserve their income-generating asset. However, the situation goes beyond that.
Farmers have a unique attachment to the soil. Those of us who work with farmers every day and, indeed, those of us who come from the land ourselves, understand that. One has just to stand in a field after a harvest knowing that one has prepared the soil, seeded it and watched it grow, sprayed it for weeds and then swathed and harvested it. Often times one stands at the edge of the field only to see that the entire field has been destroyed as a result of a hail storm. That is a sick feeling that you would never want to have, Mr. Speaker.
If farmers received the proper amount of money for their produce there is no doubt, and I can assure anyone in the House, that we would not need laws. No farmer will let his land go down. But he needs to have a higher price for his produce so that he does not have to mine his land but actually farm it. That is where the solution lies.
With respect to grain, we have to get at our European and American neighbours who have placed us in a price war that is driving the price of grain far below the true cost of production.

August 20, 1987
Soil Erosion
How can we convince our urban cousins to do that? I am not sure. Until we can do that, even with low prices, farmers themselves are doing much, much more. Today, farmers are more knowledgeable than they were even 15 years ago when I was a young man coming off a farm. They simply know more now and they want to do better.
In southern Alberta we have a Drylands Salient Control Association which is doing absolutely first-class work in the Warner-Milk River country south and east of Lethbridge. The Government is moving. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Brightwell), set out the six task forces. We are operating at the political level, federally and provincially, and at the administrative level with the bureaucrats. We can all say that it is not going fast enough, and we do, and perhaps it is not. But at least it is moving ahead.
The long and short of it is that the solution lies in the pricing structure. If we were to get the prices up a bit-and it would not have to be a lot-farmers would make an investment in their soil and machinery that would stop us from having any problems.
I noticed in another document I was reading that we have clear objectives on acid rain, which gets into another dimension that affects farming, particularly the forest industry which is a type of farming, as well as the production of maple sugar. Canada's clear policy is that acid deposition in vulnerable areas must be reduced to less than 20 kilograms per hectare per year. I think my hon. friend from Davenport would agree with that. Indeed, when he was part of the Government he might have been part of the setting of that objective. But in order to do that, total Canadian sulphur dioxide emissions from the Saskatchewan-Manitoba border east must be reduced to 2.3 million tonnes per year. That would be some 50 per cent of the 1980 level. Also, the transboundary flow of sulphur dioxide from the United States into eastern Canada must be reduced to about two million tonnes per year. Again, that is 50 per cent of the 1980 level.
Because I did not realize at first exactly all of the things that Canada was doing in this area, I want to set forth some of them. On May 22 Canada began discussions with the United States on a possible bilateral accord. It is the first time since 1982 that the two countries have engaged in negotiations that could lead to a lasting solution to the acid rain problem.
A concept paper tabled by Canadian officials outlined the nature and scope of a possible accord. The paper clearly stated that, to be acceptable to Canada, the accord must have definite targets and schedules for acid rain reduction. Specifically, Canadian representatives stressed that the flow of United States sulphur dioxide to Canada must be reduced to the 2 million tonnes that I referred to. This objective was again stressed at a July 28 meeting of Canadian and American officials. The federal Government believes that an effective U.S. acid rain abatement program requires action by both the U.S. administration and the Congress. To date our efforts have
been focused on the U.S. President. Increasingly, in the months ahead, we will be concentrating on American legislators while continuing to work with President Reagan and his administration on a bilateral accord.
As we have learned from our history when dealing with the huge republic to the south, it is not enough to deal with the administration. As a Parliament, we somehow have to develop and expand our parliamentary contacts. The Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association does good work. The yearly meeting where they come up and sit with us in Canada, and where we go down and sit with them in the United States is a good program. Perhaps it should be expanded further. More and more the U.S. Congress is responding to narrow special interest groups. Less and less it is reacting and making decisions based on the national good of the entire United States. We too are faced with those pressures of narrow interest groups that develop sophisticated techniques, and powerful levers over us as Members of Parliament. It is difficult to take a Canadian view rather than the view of your own narrow self-interest group.
Whether it is on free trade or 100 other topics, we in Parliament have to develop a more refined mechanism in order that we can go to the United States and sit with members of Congress and have them see our Canadian perspective. I do not believe that they want to destroy North America any more than we do.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in speaking to the motion introduced by my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). Having heard the previous speaker from the government side express his interest in and frequent involvement with farmers, I must say it astounds me that the Hon. Member spent most of his time talking about acid rain when he was involved in a discussion of such importance as reading the future agricultural production of Canada. I would have thought that the Hon. Member might have said that acid rain is an important issue, one that requires a great deal of work in order to give it prominence in the consciousness of Canadians and Americans, and that while it is a significant problem, an equally significant program is the problem of soil degradation in Canada. Perhaps he should have continued to give some constructive characterization of the problem, and its potential solutions. I regret that the opportunity was lost to enlighten this Parliament and the people of Canada on this significant problem.
I stand before you, Mr. Speaker, and unashamedly admit my fundamental ignorance of agriculture and farming. I am an urban dweller who should be made more conscious of the issues affecting the farming community. My own constituency barely has a farm, if any, within its boundaries.
It is consistent with the concerns of the former Minister of the Environment that he should raise this issue. There are a great many problems in the environment that will create a
August 20, 1987

problematic future for our children. There is a great deal of discussion of holes in the ozone layer, the greenhouse effect caused by excessive petroleum product combustion, carbon dioxide causing a future warming or cooling of our climate, the contamination of food and beverages, and the dumping of toxic and carcinogenic substances into our waters. We discuss the lead in the air from lead in gasoline.
There is also an awareness of the global problem of soil erosion. I think most people are aware of the desertification of parts of Africa, and the consequent famine. It is worth noting that wind erosion and the consequent wafting of dust in the air probably has a far more significant impact on climate than the production of pollution by our factories because it shades the earth from the sun.
Two years ago when exploring the constant stream of literature that crosses our desks, I came across a book entitled Soil At Risk. It was an impressive and informative document in terms of drawing my attention to, and enlivening my concern about soil erosion. At the same time it suggested a function that the Senate has well fulfilled, and that is being involved in long-term studies of the type that the immediate concerns of the House of Commons do not permit us to do.
When we consider the problem of soil degradation, we are considering a problem which is characteristically the type of issue with which the House has great difficulty. We are not talking about next year, much less today, but we are talking about a century from now. In the year 2050 we will be faced with serious problems of being able to maintain ourselves and our economy to the extent to which our survival is based upon a prosperous agricultural sector. Presently it is costing in the neighbourhood of $1.5 billion a year. As was earlier noted by my colleague, huge amounts of soil are being lost to cultivation. Some $20 to $35 per hectare is the average cost of soil degradation in this country. In immediate terms, this involves an area of something in the order of 650,000 Canadians, 10 per cent of our gross domestic product, and 20 per cent of our positive merchandise balance in trade.
This country can ill afford to lose its soil. Because of climatic and geological conditions, Canada has only 9 per cent of its vast land mass in cultivatable soil. Much of that area is taken up in other uses, for example, in cities, roads, forests, and other not unreasonable uses. Only 4.5 per cent of our land mass constitutes cultivatable soils. In addition to the degradation of our soil, if one envisions the future increase in our population, it is obvious that we are going in a dangerous direction. It was mentioned earlier that to a large extent the problems or the solution to the problem of soil degradation belongs to the cities, we urban residents. One of the significant causes of the loss of our richest, most fertile soil is the willy-nilly expansion of cities and towns into areas that were previously farmland. Year by year huge amounts are lost.
Soil Erosion
As I told you, Mr. Speaker, I am an urban dweller and therefore not tremendously knowledgeable about agriculture. However, 1 was a member of a regional conservation authority and 1 live in a county where soil erosion is quite marked. Whether it be by wind or by water, one knows immediately what are the causes simply by looking across our flat country. There are no trees, so in the area where I live we have exploited the land, purely and simply, without any attention to conservation.
The book "Soil at Risk", and the Science Council of Canada publication "Soil Degradation in Canada" are to be recommended to all to read.
I was interested in hearing the results of the federal-provincial conferences and other consultations on the issue of soil conservation. I would have to say, if indeed effective actions are being taken, that they are being kept quite well hidden from the general population. Certainly the most important thing which needs to be accomplished is to increase the awareness of Canadians of the dire threat to their survival and to the survival and self-sufficiency of the country as a result of the degradation of soil.
It results from wind and water erosion, from salinization, from acidification due to the excessive use, chiefly, of fertilizers, from compaction due in large measure from tilling practices, and from loss of organic matter.
As you have indicated by your signal to me, Mr. Speaker, I do not have much time to elaborate on all these issues, but it is clear that many of the problems result from the practices which are being used and often encouraged by other government policies, whether they be taxation policies, transportation policies, farm products transportation policies, marketing boards, or whatever.
There is no doubt that there is a significant difficulty on the part of the farmer in attempting to address the problem. There is no doubt that the urban dweller has a significant role to play. However, certainly the urban dweller will have to be made aware of the situation of our land as well as the situation of the farmer fighting increased costs and lower prices; facing a lack of adequate information on how to deal with the problem; and facing government practices which have failed to provide adequate research, adequate information, adequate advice, and a national policy which everyone knows would deal effectively with this very serious problem.
We have heard much about acid rain and much about the pollution of our waterways. This motion calls for not only increased awareness and action on this very serious problem, but it calls for that action to be co-operative and on the basis of concern on the part of farm dwellers and city dwellers as well.
Motion (Mr. Caccia) negatived.

August 20, 1987
Adjournment Debate


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I suggest that the sitting be suspended until six o'clock in order for those who have adjournment motion questions and the respective Parliamentary Secretaries to attend.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the first question in the late show tonight is in my name and that the Parliamentary Secretary is here, I am ready to proceed. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary would be agreeable to proceed at this point and hope that the other two Members who have questions make it to the Chamber.


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is satisfactory to the Government. We will try to work in the second and third adjournment debate matters as soon as possible.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in March of this year I raised in Question Period the findings by Dr. Schindler of the Freshwater Institute of Winnipeg concerning the impact of acid rain on the ecology, in particular on the life of organisms on which fish feed. In that process I raised the urgency for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to proceed with the matter of an acid rain agreement with the United States.
On that occasion the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) made reference to the agreements that were being discussed, at least, and to the bilateral discussions which were taking place. It was implied that Canada was to meet with the President of the United States with a clean conscience, having put into place a domestic program on acid rain from Manitoba to Newfoundland.
Today I should like to put very briefly to the Parliamentary Secretary the following chronology, in the hope that he can answer the questions I have for him flowing from the chronology and the intervention last March.
In March, 1984 the Government of Canada sought and obtained the agreement of the provinces to introduce a program which, by 1994, would implement a 50 per cent reduction in pollution emissions by producers of electricity and non-ferrous metals.
In March, 1985, the present Government confirmed that agreement and announced a detailed program.
By April, 1987, to make it short, several provinces signed that particular agreement with Ottawa, namely, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island. We still had two provinces missing, namely, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, both of which want some funds for research or even for electric generating plants.
After enormous pressures from the committee on acid rain we finally managed to get the Premier of New Brunswick to appear before the committee on April 2. He appeared and made an announcement that he was ready to introduce a plan for New Brunswick and to sign this agreement with Ottawa. The media were there. A lot of publicity was given to that committee meeting, and Mr. Hatfield disappeared. We have not heard from him since April 2, which was just on the eve of the meeting that took place in Ottawa between the Prime Minister and President Reagan.
It was certainly well timed to convey the impression that Canada was moving, but we have not heard since from the Province of New Brunswick on the commitment it made at that time, through its Premier, that it would sign an agreement with Ottawa.
We also have another province which has not signed yet, that is, Nova Scotia. Here again that province has been dragging its feet to come through with the commitment and promise it made back in 1984 to cut its pollution in a manner which, quite frankly, is rather modest and not substantial.
Nevertheless, we have two provinces with Conservative Governments, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, that have not come through with the promise and commitment they made twice, once in 1984 and again in 1985. At the same time we see two provinces run by Liberal Governments, Quebec and Ontario, that have come through on their promises by signing an agreement. I begin to wonder whether it is perhaps Tory ideology which is impeding action by the Premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in coming through on a promise made some time ago. I cannot find any other explanation.
As I mentioned, the Premier of New Brunswick made a very clear and explicit commitment before our committee. We have not heard any word from the Premier of Nova Scotia despite letters from the chairman of the acid rain committee. Therefore, I am taking this opportunity to bring the matter to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure he is well briefed, and he is well known for his competence and thoroughness. I am also sure he will give us a very comprehensive reply.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government established clear objectives on the acid rain issue. To protect the Canadian environment from damage due to acidification, acid deposition in all vulnerable areas must be reduced to less than 20 kilograms per hectare per year. Achieving this objective requires that total Canadian sulphur dioxide emissions from the Saskatchewan-Manitoba border eastward be reduced to 2.3 million tonnes per year. You will know that is 50 per cent of the 1980 level. As well, the transboundary flow of sulphur dioxide from the U.S. into eastern Canada must be reduced to about 2 million tonnes per year. Again, that is 50 per cent of the 1980 level.
August 20, 1987

The federal Government and the provinces are implementing a program to achieve the required emission reductions by 1994 at the latest. More than 90 per cent of the reductions required are in regulatory or program form and have been ratified in federal-provincial agreements.
The federal Government is unequivocably committed to securing an accord with the U.S. that specifies targets and schedules to reduce transboundary acid rain to the level necessary to avoid environmental damage. The Canadian objective is to have the flow of U.S. sulphur dioxide emissions into Canada reduced from 4 million tonnes to 2 million tonnes by 1994, paralleling the Canadian acid rain abatement program.
On May 22 Canada began discussions with the U.S. on a possible bilateral accord. This is the first time since 1982 that the two countries have engaged in negotiations that could lead to a lasting solution to the acid rain problem. A concept paper tabled by Canadian officials outlined the nature and scope of a possible accord.
The paper clearly stated that to be acceptable to Canada the accord must have definite targets and schedules for acid rain reduction. My friend opposite will remember that phrase because that is what he fought for when he was the Minister. Specifically, Canadian representatives stress that the flow of U.S. sulphur dioxide to Canada must be reduced to 2 million tonnes by 1994. This objective was stressed again at a July 28 meeting of Canadian and American officials.
The federal Government believes an effective U.S. acid rain abatement program requires action by both the U.S. administration and Congress. To date our efforts have focused on the U.S. President. Increasingly, in the months ahead, we will be concentrating on American legislators, while continuing to work with President Reagan and his administration on a bilateral accord.
This fall promises to be an important period for our dealings with the U.S. administration and the work of Congress. Canadians can be assured that the federal Government will continue to place a high priority on securing U.S. emission reduction targets and schedules. Our objectives and our determination could not be clearer.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD-REQUEST FOR CHANGES TO PAROLE SYSTEM
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, you may recall that just about a month ago the National Parole Board granted an unescorted day pass to a man by the name of Real Chartrand. As you know, he was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to die in 1972. This was for the murder of a police officer in Ste. Therese, Quebec. That murder occurred after a chase following a bank hold-up. While awaiting the carrying out of that sentence, in 1976 the
Adjournment Debate
Parliament of Canada repealed capital punishment. As a result, his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. He was to serve some 25 years in prison, but at the same time an amendment to the Criminal Code was passed which provided that someone convicted of first degree murder could, after just 15 years, apply to a jury and have it decide whether he or she should be eligible for parole at the end of 15 years.
Mr. Chartrand is the first person to have the opportunity to take advantage of that change. Just a month ago, after applying to a jury in the same community where he shot and killed the police officer and where he was convicted of first degree murder, the jury decided he was entitled to go to the NPB and ask for a parole after only 15 years. As you know, he did that and was given the right to unescorted day passes.
All that occurred just a few days after this House had debated the issue of capital punishment and voted on that issue in the early morning of June 30. Coming so quickly after the return of capital punishment was defeated in this House it came as a shock to many Canadians. They felt that not only was a decision made on June 30 to not increase the penalty for murder, but in fact a few days later, on July 9, there was a decision in effect by the NPB to reduce the penalty for first degree murder.
You may recall as well that in April of this year a national poll was conducted. It found that at least 62 per cent of Canadians felt that the parole system was too easy. It was too easy for people to get out on parole. Some 82 per cent of Canadians were against the idea of a week-end pass for criminals convicted of serious crimes. Only 2 per cent felt our parole system was too harsh. Only 33 per cent felt it was just right.
It is interesting and perhaps even significant to find that in the Chartrand case one of those who felt he should have received parole after 15 years was the father of the police officer murdered by Mr. Chartrand in 1972. As you will recall, he was in fact the Chief of Police of Ste. Therese at the time that incident occurred. Following the decision by the NPB to release Chartrand, the father of the slain police officer, Mr. Labelle, now retired, said that if Chartrand has rehabilitated himself, why not let him out? He said that if he had made an effort to change, give him a chance.
Mr. Labelle obviously stands with that 36 per cent of Canadians who feel that either the parole system in Canada is all right as it is or perhaps that it is even too harsh. Obviously he does not stand with the 62 per cent of Canadians who feel that there is something wrong with the parole system, it is too lenient, it should be changed and it should be changed very quickly.

August 20, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Why is it that some 62 per cent of Canadians do not have confidence in our parole system? I think the Chartrand case is perhaps a good example of what concerns Canadians about our parole system. Someone who was quite clearly convicted of the first-degree murder of a police officer was released on day passes after just 15 years. Is that in fact a proper penalty for the deliberate first-degree murder of a police officer who was in the line of duty?
It seems to me that another reason for this is the whole question the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) raised not too long ago when he said that Canadians have lost confidence in our criminal justice system. He said that the reason we have lost confidence is that the media has been sensationalizing all of these cases. It may be that that is the answer but I personally do not really think so and I know that 62 per cent of Canadians are with me. I think they feel that there is definitely something wrong with and something that has to be changed about our parole system. Having defeated the principle of capital punishment again in June of this year, they feel that Parliament now has a duty and an obligation to see that changes are made to the parole system, changes which would restore the public's confidence in that system.
In my view, we need a parole system that not only works but seems to work as far as the public is concerned. We need an entire criminal justice system that not only works but seems to work as far as the public is concerned. I hope that tonight, the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that the Government will be unveiling such a system, a system that will restore the confidence of that 62 per cent of Canadians who just do not have any confidence at all in the present parole system. [Translation]


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to read, if I may, the mandate of the National Parole Board: "The National Parole Board, as part of the criminal justice system, makes independent, quality conditional release decisions and clemency recommendations. The Board, by facilitating the timely reintegration of offenders as law-abiding citizens, contributes to the protection of society."
What I have just quoted, Mr. Speaker, clearly expresses the NPB's purpose and guides the NPB's day-to-day activities. The statement is the starting point for the renewal under way within the NPB, a renewal initiated last year by the Solicitor General, Mr. Kelleher.
The Minister did not await survey results to decide to take action: for some time, in close co-operation with the chairman
of the Board, he had been analysing what changes should be made and how best to familiarize Canadians with the activities and nature of the National Parole Board.
I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, a few important changes that have already been made: the attention focussed on victims, who may now express their views to the Board in the course of its deliberations and reviews; the guarantee to victims that their testimony will be a factor in decisions on the release of offenders; the NPB's organizational review, the purpose of which was to ensure the Board's greater effectiveness as well as improvements in training, techniques and information for board members; the joint efforts of the NPB and the Correctional Service to enhance their respective contributions to the protection of society while reducing the need to build new prisons; the measures taken by the two agencies to make the transition from a prison setting to life in the community easier for the inmates; the establishment of uniform release standards, now on the verge of publication, to replace by the end of 1987 the current criteria which are too vague and general; the implementation by the Minister and the chairman of strict criteria for the selection of board members, thereby ensuring a very high level of competence.
In the end, Mr. Speaker, one reason why 62 per cent of Canadians have mixed feelings about the system may well be because the system is poorly understood. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) is perfectly aware of that stumbling-block, and that is why he has requested that the workings of the system be exposed to public scrutiny, so that everyone can see and understand how the Board reaches its decisions. In so doing, the NPB will demonstrate to Parliament, to the Government, to other agencies in the criminal justice system and to Canadians in general how the National Parole Board contributes to the protection of society.
As we have seen, Mr. Speaker, the Board is going through a period of change. The Hon. Member will, I am sure, join me in applauding what has been done so far. I am convinced, as well, that the NPB's new direction and new spirit will not only lead to greater security for Canadians but will also contribute substantially to assuaging the fear of crime, which affects the quality of life of so many people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
mm
[Stage Direction]
Friday, August 21, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers