1987-01-29

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to Section 9 of the Representation Act, 1985, Chapter 8, Statutes of Canada, 1986, to lay upon the table a certified copy of the 1987 report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Manitoba.

Pursuant to the Act, this report is deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the report on broadcasting policy.


CITIZENSHIP
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask all Members of the House of Commons and all Canadians to join with me in celebrating the 40th anniversary of Canadian citizenship.

The Canadian Citizenship Act came into force on January 1, 1947. Before that day we could say we were Canadian citizens, but there was no legal definition of this status. In fact, legally, we were British subjects.

Our concept of citizenship is relatively new and still changing to reflect the realities of this nation. However, I think all Members of this House will agree when I say that three of the fundamental principles of Canadian citizenship are equality, diversity and community. Our Citizenship Act makes equality a basic tenet of the law. It makes no distinction between citizens by birth and citizens by choice, as do many nations. It also treats the citizenship status of women in their own right rather than simply in relation to that of their spouses. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms defines our national commitment to diversity; respect for the heritage and values of the many cultural groups which enrich the Canadian personality. New Canadians are encouraged to retain their heritage when they accept the responsibilities and rights of Canadian citizenship.

Community spirit is that which prompts us to promote the well-being of others and contribute to the growth and expansion of Canada as a whole. Evidence of this can be seen in all regions of the country.
So we do have many reasons to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Canadian citizenship. I urge all Canadians to organize and take part in various activities in their regions. It does not matter much whether it be a festivity, an exhibition or a show, the main thing is to celebrate Canadian citizenship together.

I hope all Members will get involved, work with groups in their ridings and plan and hold celebrations, particularly during Citizenship Week in April and on Canada Day. As parliamentarians we can teach much and we can learn much about what Canadian citizenship is all about. To assist members my department has produced a planning guide to help community groups organize local events. The guide is available from the Department of the Secretary of State or through the 28 citizenship courts across Canada.

The concept of citizenship may be relatively new in Canada, but it has certainly evolved over time. This being an anniversary year, I intend to introduce amendments to make the Citizenship Act even newer.

While most of these amendments will be of a housekeeping nature, I believe a preamble to an amended Act would

January 29, 1987
statements by Ministers
reaffirm the citizenship principles so important to all Canadians. I will be asking Members of this House and groups across Canada to consider what those principles should be since it is very important that Canadians define them themselves.
I hope we will use this 40th anniversary of the Citizenship Act to increase public understanding of, and reaffirm our commitment too, a dynamic multicultural society and a great country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, to be a Canadian citizen is one of the greatest privileges in this world. I know because I became a Canadian citizen. Millions of people in Canada have done so and there are many who are awaiting to attain that privilege. I am sure as well that there are tens of millions of people in this world who would love to be living in this country and have the privilege and honour of being Canadians.
Citizenship is a relatively new concept in Canada. Canadians have had that special privilege for only 40 years. We should be more concerned about recognizing the importance of being a Canadian citizen. We should celebrate when people have the privilege of becoming a citizen bestowed upon them. We should do more to emphasize its meaning and the responsibilities which it entails, not only for those who become Canadians but for those who are already Canadians.
Other nations understand the privilege and importance of being citizens of their country. The bestowing of an honorary citizenship is the highest honour a nation can give. That is why I enjoyed the privilege of working on a resolution of the House of Commons to bestow an honorary citizenship of Canada upon Raoul Wallenberg for his great achievements on behalf of the human race of saving tens of thousands of lives. The highest recognition that Canada could give was for the House of Commons to pass a resolution supported by all Parties to bestow citizenship upon him. No amount of money and no gift could be as meaningful as the gift of citizenship of Canada. Raoul Wallenberg became the first honorary citizen of Canada.
There are two matters which concern me. The first is that many people who are now elderly came to this country, spent their lives building this nation, and raised their families here. They would like to feel that they belong in this country now. They may not have attained the linguistic requirements which were demanded of them in their earlier years and, therefore, did not become Canadians. They would like to become Canadians in their older years but are hesitant. They feel that there are barriers and requirements which they cannot meet. It would be helpful if the Hon. Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Crombie) would reach out to these people to let them know that they need only present themselves and indicate their love for their country and their desire for citizenship. I know that efforts in this regard would be greatly welcomed by the
families of these elderly people who gave of their lives for this country and would now like to have the honour of finally becoming Canadians.
The other matter which concerns me is citizenship court judges. It is sad that we have some negative images of them because of the behaviour of several of these judges. I believe that a great effort should be made to enhance their image, to show the importance of their work, and to accord them the respect that is accorded to other judges. They should be respected so that people can look upon them as friends and people who play their important role in our country. I believe there should be training programs given to new judges to ensure that they conduct themselves in a reputable manner which will give those who are applying for citizenship a good image of our country. We should do everything we can to improve the quality of the service of citizenship judges as well as improving their image in the eyes of those who come before them.
In conclusion, we should think of citizenship in the words of the late President Kennedy of the United States who said those famous words which certainly apply to the people who contemplate their citizenship in Canada. He said: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to be able to join in this brief discussion on the fortieth anniversary of the Canadian Citizenship Act on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus and as spokesperson for multiculturalism in our caucus.
Citizenship represents the personal involvement of members of the Canadian community with the nation. It defines the individual experience of Canadian nationality. The Canadian nation came very slowly to this assertion of its existence as distinct on the face of the globe. It was only in the eightieth year of Canadian Confederation that an Act stated the distinct experience of this nationality. For years preceding, those who had lived in the Dominion of Canada regarded themselves primarily as subjects of the British monarch and members of the Empire, although they did realize that they lived in a distinct country within that Empire that had begun to foster a sense of nationality.
Those who came to Canada from other countries in the years preceding the Citizenship Act of 1947 and were naturalized valued their naturalization papers. However, it was only in that eightieth year that the Canadian Parliament passed an Act which established the reality of Canadian citizenship. It was a citizenship in which all were equal. As the Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Crombie) has pointed out so well, the act of choosing to come to Canada and becoming a citizen made one as much a member of the family as if one had been fortunate enough to be born into an existing Canadian family and grow up here. There may have been a need for growing in experience, but there was no distinction in law.
January 29, 1987

As the Minister has also pointed out, the experience of women was a primary and individual experience of Canadian citizenship, whatever the status of their spouses might be. Those realities very well anticipated the sensitivity to equality and human rights which Canadians have been fostering in the past few years.
It is in the context of the development of Canadian citizenship that I value the opportunity to participate in citizenship court proceedings in Thunder Bay. As a Member of Parliament I have had the opportunity to attend a number of times. I regard each of these as a very special opportunity. I join in the experience of watching new citizens swear or affirm, according to their own choice, allegiance to the Queen of Canada and to accept the responsibilities and recognize the rights which they now have as new Canadian citizens. When I have the opportunity, as a Member of Parliament, to speak about the rights and opportunities which they now have to partake in Canadian life.
I personally appreciate what Canadian citizenship means.
We have made a commendable advance in Canadian citizenship by expecting all who come to Canada to become citizens in order to vote. The decision to require those who come from the British Isles, the quintessential British subjects, to take out citizenship before they can vote, was the proper decision in an effort to attain full equality.
As we contemplate the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and explore the implications of diversity for this country, we appreciate the words of Section 27 which say:
This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
I know that citizenship will be developed and experienced by Canadians in recognition of this diversity. We will cultivate this diversity. We will enrich the cultural life of the country with elements from all over the globe. We will strengthen our national life with these various elements of our heritage and our Canadian citizenship will be enriched in the process.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been asked by the Hon. Minister to recognize him for a brief additional statement. I think Members will find it appropriate under the circumstances.


CHINESE NEW YEAR
David Edward Crombie: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I know the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) and the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) will join with me and all Members of the House in wishing members of the various Chinese-Canadian communities across the country happy new
Committee Reports
year today. It is the year of the rabbit, which implies prosperity and success, which we wish them and, indeed, all people in Canada. On behalf of members of the Opposition and members of the Government, I want to say to members of the Chinese community, "gung hay fa choy".


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Secretary of State for his words and certainly would be happy to say that our Party joins with him in wishing the Chinese community a very happy new year.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have more Chinese Canadians in my riding than any other Member in the House. Therefore, I also want to say, "gung hay fa choy".
While I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, let me point out that 40 years ago I emigrated with my mother from Scotland, my father having arrived here a few weeks earlier. We were among the first to be subject to the new law that the Minister is celebrating on its fortieth anniversary. Forty years ago Scots were not automatic citizens and we had to obtain our citizenship. I recall my mother asking the citizenship officer if we had to swear our citizenship. The officer said: "Mrs. Waddell, you must go through this procedure but we are not asking about your background". My mother said: "You are lucky to have us".
Those who came here 40 years ago, including my family, have contributed a lot to the country. It is a great occasion to celebrate 40 years of equality. We should not forget Robbie Burns Day as well as the Chinese New Year for which I stood to discuss originally.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, the Chair cannot enter into debate. It is perhaps a good thing because I too, in my riding, have a great number of Chinese Canadians. I also wear a kilt.

[ Translation]


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the Tenth Report of the Striking Committee.
I also have the honour, Mr. Speaker, to present the Eleventh Report of the Striking Committee.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.


COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Third Report of the Standing

January 29, 1987
Petitions
Committee on Communications and Culture in the two officials languages.
That report is entitled Federal Museum Policy. The committee request that the Government respond to that report pursuant to S.O. 99(2).
Our report on the federal museum policy stems from the consideration of important matters of Canadian cultural policy undertaken by the committee.

The committee concurs with the recommendation of the National Museums Task Force that new legislation be introduced to establish the four major federal museums as autonomous institutions. The committee feels strongly that the granting programs to non-federal museums should be administered at arm's length, in accordance with the established and well-founded relationship between government and its cultural agencies.
The standing committee also recommends that the administrative costs of the four autonomous federal museums must be kept within the level of financial resources currently allocated to the National Museums of Canada for that purpose.

The federal Government should keep playing a major role in the area of museums, without neglecting to consult the main parties involved. To that end, the Committee recommends that the federal Government develop a new museum policy in consultation with the provinces and the museums community.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank representatives of all parties in this House for their sustained effort in having this unanimous report ready to be presented to the House. I also want to thank all the staff of the Committee for their commitment.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 I wish to present petitions signed by people from Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
Whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act will affect directly all Canadians who are not protected either by private or governmental medicare programs; and whereas the federal Government's proposal will raise the costs, already high, for provincial health care programs; and whereas the monopolies granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies and will result in an
increase in drug costs and drug prices and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs; and whereas those changes to the Patent Act are another example of the Canadian Government's concession in the free trade negotiations with the United States at the expense of everyday Canadians, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions which have been certified pursuant to Standing Order 106, signed primarily by people from Ontario who request the Government of Canada to remove its retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which has, in their opinion, limited the access of Canadians to literature and information. Whereas the tariff has had little negative effect on the publishing industry in the United States, yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, book sellers, distributors and Canada's culture; and whereas rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition program and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries, the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises public policy on cultural industries in respect of free trade negotiations.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I wish to present a petition from many members of the congregation of the Rothesay Baptist Church in the Kennebecasis Valley region of my constituency in Fundy Royal. They are calling upon Parliament to protect the rights of unborn children of our nation and to prevent the killing of innocent babies by abortion. I should add that this petition has my full and total support.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 on petitions, I wish to table a petition from residents of the Saint-Zenon region who object to the proposed changes to the Patent Act which, in their view, constitute one more example of concessions detrimental to Canadian consumers made by the Canadian Government to the United States in the free trade negotiations.
I also have a petition from citizens of the Saint-Fortunat region, who object to the proposed changes to the Patent Act because they will directly affect all Canadian men and women who are not covered by governmental or private drug insurance plans.
January 29, 1987

Motions


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I wish to present two petitions. The first is from residents of my riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon who protest that the Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drug prices will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. The petitioners are concerned that the proposals of the federal Government will result in higher costs of provincial Government drug plans and represents another example of the concessions of the Canadian Government to the United States in the free trade negotiations at the expense of average Canadians. The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Abram Ernest Epp: 1 have another petition, Mr. Speaker, from residents of Alberta and British Columbia who assert that the National Association of Japanese Canadians is the only elected national organization of Japanese Canadians with representatives from 15 centres across the country. They remind us that the National Association of Japanese Canadians has held public meetings about redress for the forcible dispossession and reallocation of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War, that the organization has used a national questionnaire to obtain grass roots advice from Japanese Canadians about redress and it has developed a position. The petitioners now urge the Parliament of Canada to deal honourably with Canadian citizens of Japanese descent by entering into negotiations immediately with the National Association of Japanese Canadians.



STRIKING


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, if the House so agrees, I wish to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That the eleventh report of the Striking Committee tabled earlier today be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have three motions which have been discussed with the other Parties. I think you will find unanimous consent to move them and have them heard right away. Therefore, I move:
That the document entitled, Report of the Task Force on Broadcasting Policy, tabled earlier this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture for study;
That the Committee be authorized to travel from place to place inside Canada; and
That the Committee report its findings and recommendations on all matters relevant to the development of broadcasting legislation no later than April 15, 1987.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Externa) Affairs and International Trade be authorized to travel to Washington and New York on February 3, 4 and 5, 1987, for the purpose of studying multilateral development assistance, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be empowered to travel to New York City, New York, from February 10 to February 12, 1987, for the purpose of visiting and studying international banking centres, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to underline to the House that we have just passed three motions which were moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis). He does a good job in the House and I just want to make sure we realize that this is the first time in this session that the

January 29, 1987
Order Paper Questions
Parliamentary Secretary has moved such motions, unless I am mistaken.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes beginning at one o'clock p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, January 28, 1987, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Benjamin (p. 2756).
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I think I have I think, three or four minutes left from my speech of yesterday. 1 thought I should return to the House as a matter of courtesy, to make Hon. Members endure another three minutes, and to be available for questioning. Hopefully, there will not be any.
Let me just summarize my objections to this Bill to deregulate transporation. I do not believe Canadians want the Government to control all aspects of their lives. I agree with some Hon. Members of the Government who have said that. However, having said that, I think Canadians need and believe they need strong laws and enforcement to protect their health and safety. This Bill follows blindly the Americans in their deregulation, which has produced some scandals, such as the treatment of older people in nursing homes, in anti-safety measures, anti-health measures and so on, which have come about. If that is what the Government means by "deregulation", I do not believe the people of Canada want it.
Deregulation sounds like a good idea and in some respects it can be. However, with respect to rail or airline safety, I am not so sure it is a good idea. Why should the corporations escape
responsibility to the public and public authorities in these particular areas? If we let the large corporations, the large banks, railway companies and airlines operate without regulations, they will find more and more ways to take advantage of both their employees and the ordinary consumer. Government regulation in Canada has ensured that Canadians are provided with services such as transportation and communication at a fair cost. With this kind of Conservative deregulation, corporations may choose to serve only highly profitable areas and wealthy customers, forgetting about the rest of us.
Let me say that I find this Bill anti-competitive, anti-safety and anti-service. I say it is anti-competitive in that we will have a few companies which will have all of the market, or at least most of it. We already have two airline companies which control 90 per cent of the market now. This Bill does not deal with the problem of the lack of competition.

Second, I find this legislation anti-safety. It is easy to see what can happen when we pick winners and losers, when one airline takes over another that is going under. What we see is the cutting of safety measures. I cited the example of the Arrow Airlines case in Newfoundland where they wanted to cut de-icing procedures to save money. They wanted to overfill the plane, and they did overfill it. There was also a bad record in terms of inspections. That is a good example of what happened with the United States in terms of anti-safety.
I cited articles in my speech yesterday from Time magazine and Business Week with respect to the problems of airline safety in the United States where there are overworked controllers. There were also a number of near misses. There are accidents just waiting to happen.
Finally, I would like to deal with the issue of anti-service. Canadians have had pretty good service and now, for what I think are ideological reasons, to follow blindly the United States to be trendy in this area of deregulation, we will in fact see worse service for Canadians. The Government should remember that Canada is different from the United States. We are not the fifty-first state. We have a history of Crown corporations and a history of laws that protect the safety, service and fairness among companies competing for the business of the ordinary Canadian. Canadians will not stand for a system in which the Government changes its policies to follow blindly the Americans simply to feather the nests of its rich friends in the business community. That is what Canadians believe. That is why we will see some opposition to this Bill.
I want to conclude by saying that I think this is a perfect Bill for a legislative committee to study with hearings across Canada. I heard a motion earlier today about a committee travelling to New York, and other committees looking at different aspects of foreign trade. This Bill deals with something which really affects Canadians in their day-to-day lives. I think the Government should allow a legislative committee to
January 29, 1987

travel across Canada and to hold hearings with respect to this particular Bill. If the Bill is as good as the Government says it is, then there is nothing to fear from ordinary Canadians.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently this morning to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Yesterday I had the opportunity of catching a few of his comments on television, although I was not in the House. I was pleased to hear the Hon. Member say this morning that he thought that deregulation could be a very good thing. That statement gave me heart and encouragement. However, I was disappointed in the bulk of the Hon. Member's remarks this morning.
He talked about this legislation being anti-competitive, antisafety and anti-service. As Hon. Members are well aware, that is certainly not the case. The Bill deals specifically with the question of competition. It does not deal with the question of competition between different modes of transportation, but it deals with trying to promote more competition within each mode. An example of that is with respect to having confidential contracts for rail transportation which will allow for more competition than exists right now. Right now a take-it-or-leave-it situation is being foisted on the public in terms of rail transportation. Once there are confidential contracts and agreements then there will be more competition. I think that is quite clear. I cannot understand why the Hon. Member suggests that this in any way, shape or form is an anticompetitive Bill.
The Hon. Member then went on to say that the Bill is antisafety.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member have a question?
Mr. Red way: Yes, I have a question, which I am coming to, Mr. Speaker.
The Hon. Member says the Bill is anti-safety and cites an example with respect to nursing homes. This legislation has nothing to do with regulating or deregulating nursing homes, so there is no question about that issue at all.
It has been indicated that members of the NDP and the Canadian Labour Congress feel that the deregulation policy in transportation may well affect the employment situation in that sector. Will the Hon. Member comment on the fact that between the years 1980 and 1985, when deregulation took place in the United States, employment in the air transportation industry actually increased by some 9 per cent and employment in the trucking industry actually increased by some 22 per cent, even though the United States was experiencing a substantial recession at that time? Does that not undermine the argument that this measure will have a negative effect on employment in the transportation field?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I draw the Hon. Member's attention to the December 22, 1986 issue of Business Week, in particular to an article entitled, "Is Deregulation Working?
National Transportation Act, 1986
True, Prices Have Fallen but the Top Players May Stifle Competition". Business Week is hardly a socialist magazine. This particular issue talks about the problem with the lack of competition.
I also understand that in the United States there are now fewer air traffic controllers than there used to be, which is one of the problems that country faces. The air traffic controllers are overworked, and some people say underpaid and undertrained. In this respect I draw the Hon. Member's attention to the January 12, 1987 issue of Time in which there is an article on air travel in the United States. The article points out that the number of controllers is down from 16,300 to 14,700 since President Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers. The article points out that only 62 per cent of controllers are qualified at full performance levels versus 80 per cent before the strike. United Airlines Captain Mel Hoagland declares bluntly: "The air-traffic-control system is at the ragged edge of coming unravelled for lack of fully qualified controllers."
We do not want such a system in Canada. We like the Canadian system. We believe in-and do I dare use the word-conserving a good system.
At the beginning of the Hon. Member's comment he said that he was glad to see that I was not against deregulation. I am not against deregulation or privatization per se. I do not want big Government telling Canadians that they have to fill out forms or that it will look after every aspect of their lives. I want ordinary Canadians to have power over their lives. That is what I would like to see. The problem is that we have to be careful in this area.
I tell the Hon. Member that what happens with these types of government Bills is that they shift the power in certain areas in which Canadians want some regulation in safety, health, competition and so on. In those areas Canadians want some regulation. The Hon. Member makes a mistake to follow so quickly the Americans in getting totally rid of regulation. Something which often happens in these cases is that the big guys benefit. They become sort of self-regulated. What they end up doing after some decrease in fares is that they put up the fares because they control the whole market, and they have fewer safety standards.
The Hon. Member should consider the Arrow case. It is a good example of an airline in the United States which, when it was going down, had difficulties in a deregulated environment. It had to cut corners. So they may cut de-icing and save $1,500, take larger loads, or not let their pilots rest. They may cut staff and get more work out of their pilots, or the engineers on a rail train in Alberta. Then accidents happen and people die. Canadians do not want that. That is why they wish to look at this Bill very carefully.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On debate, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Shields).

January 29, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the House on Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation. Once enacted this transportation legislation will serve Canadians and the Canadian industry through a new and exciting era in transportation. Canada has reached a critical juncture in its transportation history. We must now position ourselves to optimize our growth and develop potential to respond to a very competive world economy. Canada's existing National Transportation Act is now some 20 years old. It served Canadians well through the years, but the time has come to restructure our legislative framework to respond to the dynamics of the international business world, and recognize the fundamental changes experienced by our own economy.
We have listened to the strong signals for changes to Canada's regulatory regime which emanate from all factors and facets of the transportation community. These signals call for a major restructuring of our transportation legislation; changes which recognize tremendous competition in international trading markets, changes in the regulatory environment in the United States, and new operating and technological developments in Canada. We cannot afford to stand still. Transportation is a fundamental and critical element of Canadian business. Reforms to our legislation are critical in meeting the real challenges faced by Canadian industry and realizing our country's potential. Bill C-18 will provide Canadian industry with this opportunity.
Bill C-18 is best characterized by the two words competition and opportunity. This legislation will promote greater competition in the transportation industry, an initiative which will translate into better prices and services for Canadian travellers and producers. These objectives are of particular significance to western Canada where transportation costs are of vital importance to the survival of resource industries that are competing in a tough international market.
The Canadian economy is continually exposed to greater competitive forces; competition from our traditional trading partners, and ever increasingly from developing nations of the Third World, and those of the East Bloc. Canadian producers are neither sheltered nor shielded from such competition. Daily our industries must compete with producers benefiting from lower production costs, and in some cases cheaper wages and equipment costs. Canadian producers or shippers are keenly aware of the competitive pressures in the market-place and must either respond to them, or withdraw.
In the interests of promoting a responsive, cheaper, and effective transportation service for Canadian travellers and shippers, an increased degree of competition will be introduced into the Canadian transport industry. Bill C-18 does not represent a three-headed monster formulated to scuttle Canada's transportation system. It is a balanced and reasoned approach to the current situation faced by Canada's carriers, and the users of Canada's transportation service.
In June, 1985 the Government released a discussion paper entitled Freedom to Move. This outlined the Government's perspective on the need for change in the legislation governing all modes of transportation. I wish to quote from that paper:
We are a trading nation that must export in order to grow and prosper. It is therefore crucial for our economic well-being that we maintain an efficient, responsive and productive transportation system.
A movement to deregulation has occurred in the United States, Canada's major trading partner. Greatly increased domestic and international competition has become a fact of life for Canadian producers and manufacturers.
On June 26, 1986 the former Minister of Transport, the Hon. Don Mazankowski, introduced two Bills into the House of Commons. Both were designed to introduce greater competition in the transportation industry. I might add that this was the culmination of a great deal of hard work by the former Minister of Transport, and he is to be lauded for this initiative.
This legislative package was aimed at increasing Canada's ability to expand its trade, and thereby increase production and employment. The legislation we are debating today has grown from one of those Bills. It has been refined through the consultative process and revised, where warranted, without sacrificing the principle of increased competition in the transportation industry.
Canada has traditionally been an open economy that is significantly dependent on trade as an engine of growth. In every year from 1980 to 1985 exports ranged around 25 per cent of the Gross National Product. During this period the Gross National Product increased from over $300 billion to over $460 billion, an increase in excess of 50 per cent. In the same period total exports increased from $77 billion to $120 billion, or 55 per cent of the Gross National Product.
While total export growth kept pace with economic growth, the same was not true of exports to particular markets. In current dollar terms, Canadian domestic exports to the United States increased by 92 per cent, but our exports to all other markets combined actually decreased by 7 per cent. We must ask ourselves what happened. The reasons are many. One of the more important factors was the decline in value of the Canadian dollar relative to that of the United States which made us more competitive in the United States' market. Another factor was that the value of the currencies of Canada's competitors declined still further relative to both the United States' dollar and our own.
The Canadian dollar has significantly appreciated relative to other currencies, particularly certain European currencies. For example, our currency appreciated 42 per cent relative to Sweden, 30 per cent relative to Finland, providing those two Scandinavian countries with enormous competitive advantage over Canada, particularly for forest products in European markets. The performance of the Canadian dollar relative to the pound, the franc, and the mark was similar, with the high value of our currency virtually eroding our competitiveness. The recent resurgence of certain European currencies relative
January 29, 1987

to our own is barely sufficient to restore our previous competitive stance.
In short, because of the relative strength of our dollar, Canada faces substantial difficulties in retaining traditional markets, and may experience difficulties in penetrating new markets. It is difficult to remain competitive in world markets when that much ground is lost to competitors on currency exchange alone.
Therefore, Canadian producers must exploit every resource available to them to stay competitive. They must ensure that every aspect to getting goods to market works as efficiently, and I stress, as cost-effectively as possible. This includes the transportation network that links us to those markets.
Clearly we have become far more dependent upon the U.S. market, one of the few major export markets left open to us. In October 1980 the Congress of the United States enacted the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which radically altered the regulation of railways in that country. That Act encouraged competition between U.S. railroads and stopped the practice of collective pricing by railroads. Confidential contracting for rail services and legalized rebates on published tariffs were introduced and are extensively used. U.S. railroads began to compete vigorously with each other, with trucking, barge and even shipping companies on the basis of price and service. Those able to offer service at the best price prosper at the expense of those who cannot. This has led to a lower level of freight rate.
The Staggers Act had important effects in Canada. First, Canadian railways complained that they were being competitively disadvantaged relative to their U.S. counterparts. Current Canadian legislation did not permit Canadian railways to enter into rebate or confidential contract agreements. Both contracts and rebates were, however, finding their way into Canada via transborder joint through rates with U.S. carriers and U.S. subsidiaries of Canadian carriers. In hearings before the Canadian Transport Commission, Canadian railways claimed to have lost $100 million in revenue due to the competitive disadvantage they suffered visa-vis American railroads.
I believe the railways are pleased with the confidential contract provisions of Bill C-18 as they apply to transboarder rates. They will eliminate this competitive disadvantage relative to U.S. railroads and provide our railways with an opportunity to regain ground lost to U.S. carriers.
Recent developments indicate that Canada's railways are overcoming their reluctance to compete for traffic. Markets virtually controlled by one railway will be exposed to competition. I am confident that our railways will respond to the challenge of competition.
National Transportation Act, 1986
Since Staggers, a number of Canadian shippers have become aware of the opportunity to realize savings in transportation costs using U.S. rail carriers to a greater extent and have devised methods to access them.
Canadian shippers are currently pursuing options to truck products to United States carriers for furtherance by rail to U.S. destinations. We have heard of one shipper who has seriously evaluated the possibility of pipelining his product to a U.S. railroad located just south of the Canada-U.S. border, to be loaded on a U.S. railroad for delivery to U.S. destinations. We must recognize that today, under present transportation legislation, shippers are disregarding traditional transportation solutions and devoting much time and effort to develop innovative and competitive transportation systems to get across the Canada-U.S. border. In many cases these solutions amount to a short hauling of Canadian railways.
Why are shippers resorting to these tactics? We have made some comparisons to help explain this phenomenon. I would be the first to concede that these comparisons are rough. Exact comparisons are most difficult with numbers produced under the auspices of two different Governments for two different countries. However, the indications are most clear that Canadian railway pricing has not remained competitive with that of U.S. counterparts.
In the pre-Staggers period from 1978 to 1980, the annual revenue per tonne for major commodities carried by U.S. and Canadian railways increased at virtually the same annual rates; close to 10 per cent in each case. However, in the postStaggers period from 1980 to 1984, Canadian railway revenue per tonne increased an average of about 7 per cent, whereas in the U.S. railway it increased by only 3.7 per cent, that is, by just over half the average Canadian rate of increase.
For certain commodities the prices paid to move products on Canadian railways have been even higher. Commodities including coal, lumber, wheat, potash, sulphur, wood-pulp, and newsprint experienced an average aggregate revenue per tonne increase in rail rates of over 30 per cent between 1980 and 1984. By comparison, U.S. rail rates increased by just over 15 per cent in the same period.
Since the passage of the U.S. Staggers Rail Act of 1980, United States carriers have had to compete vigorously with each other on the basis of price and service. This has resulted in more competitive freight rates. Many Canadian shippers who must compete in the U.S. market with U.S. producers of the same product are placed at a competitive disadvantage in that market-place because they must pay higher freight rate costs. Clearly, Canadian railways have not operated in a similar business environment as have U.S. railways since 1980. Relatively speaking, this absence of competition has led to significant increases in transportation costs, costs borne by Canadian shippers.
The importance of reducing costs in today's environment is obvious, particularly for those western Canadian resource industries for whom transportation costs represent a large

January 29, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
portion of their delivered price. Lower transportation costs are vital, especially for shippers whose traditional markets have tightened up enormously in the last several years. Lower transportation costs are vital to the western economy.
What are the implications of this? This is perhaps best illustrated by what happened in the transportation of lumber, a subject which is of vital importance to Canada and one which has certainly received its fair share of attention recently.
In 1985 Canada exported nearly $4 billion worth of lumber to the United States, supplying about 33 per cent of the total American market. Close to 50,000 Canadians are employed in the softwood lumber industry in Canada. Lumber traffic is also extremely important for the revenue of both Canadian railways. In 1984 lumber accounted for close to 8 per cent of total railway revenues or more than $410 million. Lumber is second only to coal as the largest single revenue contributor to the Canadian railways. A large portion of this total lumber movement originates in western Canada and is shipped by rail to the sunbelt, north central and northeastern United States. Because of the long distance involved, weights, value of product, et cetera, lumber lends itself well to transportation by rail.
Nonetheless, an analysis of western Canadian lumber shipments to the U.S. over the last five years indicates that there has been a continuing and growing shift from rail to truck, which has been both substantial and dramatic.
Lumber is a rail oriented commodity, especially for the major markets of the United States. However, the railway portion of western Canadian lumber shipments to U.S. markets has declined each year since passage of the Staggers Act. In the same period, the proportion of western Canadian lumber shipments shipped by truck to U.S. markets has increased almost threefold, a rather significant change.
How many millions of dollars of forgone railway revenue does this represent? How many railway jobs has this reluctance or inability to compete cost?
I am not suggesting that healthy intermodal competition between motor vehicles and railways be discouraged. However, I am advised that rail has shown a marked inability to compete in some western transportation markets. What has happened to this traffic? A small portion of this lumber is being trucked to destination, some of it to U.S. ports by container. However, the bulk of the tonnage is not trucked to ultimate destinations. The majority of this traffic is only trucked to, or across the Canada-U.S. border to reload centres for U.S. railroad carriers, for onward movement to U.S. destinations. As we can see, just as water always seeks the lowest levels and finds its own way to get there, traffic managers seek the lowest levels of freight rates and, as I have illustrated, a lot of them also find a way to get there.
Intermodal rail competition for these shippers will only be realized through effective competitive rail access provisions. No effective alternatives to these competitive access provisions
have been found which will provide competitive rail service to these shippers.
These provisions have been greeted with almost universal approval and support of the shipping community.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, the Government maintains that no carrier need necessarily lose long haul movement if that carrier is willing to price competitively. In other words, if a railway is prepared to be competitive, we are convinced that no other railway will be in a better position to meet that rate than the carrier to which the shipper is captive.
Members will undoubtedly have heard that certain measures in Bill C-18 will expose hundreds of millions of dollars of Canadian freight traffic to U.S. carriers. The key word here is exposure to loss, not necessarily loss. Loss will only occur if Canadian carriers are non-competitive. Is that not the kind of competition Canadian industries face each and every day?
The benefits of increased competition among U.S. railways have been actively sought by Canadian shippers. For many shippers, lower transportation costs are the key to remaining competitive in world markets. It is now time to bring the benefits of increased competition to Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, one of the things people ask is that we be consistent in our approaches. The Liberal Party has some inconsistencies. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) is father of deregulation. He began the process when he was Transport Minister. Last night the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) was totally against, it seemed to me, the process of deregulation and was critical of this Bill. It looks like the Liberals are against the Bill and deregulation. That is an example of inconsistency, but you expect the Liberal Party to be inconsistent in policy.
I have a question for the Hon. Member, who I expect to be consistent in policy. He comes from Athabasca. If I might use the nickname "Syncrude Jack", he has made some statements on Syncrude and his caucus in Alberta has made different statements. This is an issue of regulation or deregulation. Does he believe in a regulated price for Syncrude oil or does he not? Is the Member in favour of helping Syncrude in the expansion of its plant which his Government turned down or is he not? How is the Member consistent in his views on this matter? If he is in favour of helping Syncrude, then he is inconsistent with what he has just said about being for deregulation and letting the market work.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to answer the Hon. Member's question. There are two points to it, the first being deregulation of oil and natural gas. I think the Hon. Member was trying to tie this to transportation. Second, I do not believe in a regulated oil price. We just got rid of the most onerous piece of legislation perpetrated on western Canada, namely, the National Energy Program. God help us if we ever see anything like that again.
January 29, 1987

The second part of the Hon. Member's question had to do with advocating assistance to Syncrude, one of the oil sands plants or the automotive industry, I assume. It could be any specific industry where the high cost of production is maybe related to security of supply or security of the nation. Would we be amenable to that sort of thing? Well, those are the kinds of things that will be discussed at an energy First Ministers conference starting tomorrow morning. Let me point out that for the first time in nine years all Energy Ministers from across Canada will be sitting down to work out the very issue that the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) brings forward.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, some of the New Democratic Party Members have been suggesting that confidential rates are going to be predudicial and detrimental to small shippers. I have a short comment and then I have a question for the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). Before doing either, I wish to commend the Hon. Member for a very excellent address.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: It took a lot of preparation and the presentation indicates the supreme effort which the Hon. Member from Athabasca makes on behalf of the people.
Several years ago in Alberta confidential rates for small truckers was permitted. It did not hurt the small shippers. It increased their business. Things were more buoyant and more truckers were able to get jobs. I found that the confidential rates were sensible and excellent for the country. For instance, the other rate was hurting our shippers. When you have a standard rate, you must know that everything is not standard. Some things are bulky, some are light, some are heavy, some are easy to load and some are very difficult to load. Consequently, if you cannot get a confidential rate you hurt the small shipper. I suggest the very opposite to what the NDP Members say. Confidential rates should increase the market and encourage small shippers. I would like the comments of the Hon. Member on this matter of confidential rates.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) for his question. He has brought forward a very important point. Shippers, small and large, will under Bill C-18 be able to negotiate rail prices and services that they do not now have for movement of goods and services. I have an example that clearly illustrates the Hon. Member's question, and it will probably answer it most graphically.
I come from the City of Fort McMurray which is the centre of the oil sands and the oil sands development. When I first moved there 20 years ago the town had around 2,700 people and today it has around 35,000 people. Massive growth took place because of the development of Syncrude and Suncor. There was a lot of movement of goods and services up to and out of Fort McMurray. The one product that comes out of Fort McMurray as a by-product from the development of the
National Transportation Act, 1986
oil sands is sulphur. Open sulphur cars are used to move the sulphur from Fort McMurray to the markets, world-wide. Cars holding that sulphur go back to Fort McMurray empty. Young entrepreneurs approached the railroads to try to garner those cars to load black dirt. Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker, Fort McMurray does not have a supply of black dirt for lawns, gardens and that kind of thing? People wanted to move black dirt from sidings on cars just out of Edmonton. They could not get a preferential, confidential rate to move that black dirt north from Edmonton to Fort McMurray. The price was too high because they had to pay the same rate as moving the sulphur from Fort McMurray to Edmonton. The cars went north empty and the people of Fort McMurray did not get their black dirt. That is exactly the kind of thing we will eliminate.
Let me come to the back-haul rate. You can get a back-haul rate which works well. Whitehorse and places like that had difficulty moving empty re-usable beer bottles from communities to the factories where the bottling took place because they could not move them economically before Alberta introduced competitive or confidential rates. Now these communities get good back-haul rates and they have spawned an industry in itself. I hope that answers the Hon. Member's question, which was a very good one.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member aware that there are contracts now that could be classified as more confidential contracts after the deregulation of natural gas, that is contracts in the United States? That gas is now being sold in the United States at $1.75 a thousand cubic feet while it is being sold in Manitoba and Ontario for $3 a thousand cubic feet, at a loss really. It means Canadians are paying $125 more a year than they should be paying for their natural gas. It is a loss of $60 million for Manitoba and $600 million for Ontario. Is that an example of what he means by-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Jack Wendele Shields: The Hon. Member is bootlegging energy-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is deregulation of natural gas.


Jack Wendele Shields: We are talking about deregulation of transportation. I talked about two specific cases which I thought would underline what I was saying. The Hon. Member should realize that in the absence of confidential contracts railways are hesitant to offer lower rates to small shippers. Under the present legislation railways cannot offer the very small producer or shipper back-haul rates. That is ridiculous. If they are unable to do that they become uncompetitive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.
2862

January 29, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a special interest in this Bill because, when I was Minister of Transport, I began to develop new regulations for the transport industry in Canada. At the time, Mr. Speaker, I had recognized the existence of a serious problem, especially as concerns the lack of flexibility in the rules and regulations. There was no competition to help consumers and producers. I agree with the comments of the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) who said that it is a problem to have the railroads fix set prices for small businesses in Western Canada and other regions.
However, I do have some reservations, Mr. Speaker. I believe that it is important to use caution when making changes in our transport system. At the time, I referred a number of questions to committees of the House of Commons for consideration, including safety, labour management relations, and the role of Crown corporations under deregulation.
Mr. Speaker, after the election in 1984, the Conservative Government dropped all the questions that had been referred. This means that the regions, consumers and producers have not had a chance to examine them and express their views on these very important changes.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill is weak because it ignores the concerns and the views of all Canadians.

There is no question that our transportation system is essential to our health and vitality as a nation. We have always recognized that, with our geography, if we made a mistake in our transportation system we would suffer drastically in our attempts to keep the country together, serve world markets, and develop the dynamism in our economic system that we require. There is no doubt that from time to time major changes have to take place. However, those changes should not be driven by some ideological imperative, but by a clear and careful judgment of what is going to work well.
When I initiated the movement, as the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) said, to change the rules governing airlines, there was incredible opposition from civil servants, the CTC and transportation companies themselves. Everyone said it could not and should not be done. It was a very happy and cosy little club. However, decisions were taking far too long. There was no sensitive response to local conditions. Certainly there was no market-place dynamism which would allow prices to respond to supply and demand.
It is quite true that at that time, in comparison with many other countries, our airline system was in a deep decline. The number of passengers was falling off because we did not have the incentive to broaden the base of people who could afford to fly. The system was catering to the business traveller, Members of Parliament and Senators who do not have to pay for their own tickets because they have expense accounts. For the general public at large air travel was becoming a less attractive
option. That is when we brought in a new airline policy, and I would remind Members of the House that that policy is still in place today. The new Conservative Government has not changed it. Legislation is in front of us now, but changes have not been made to break down the regional divisions and allow airlines a much freer pricing system, or elimination of the conditions of licensing which set rigorous requirements on too many air carriers.
We also initiated discussions with the provinces on changing the rules governing trucking. Consensus was reached on the need for changes in this area at a federal-provincial conference in April, 1984. The legislation before us has an important history, a history with which I associate myself. However, I ask why the progress made up to that point in time was blocked. In effect we were deflected away from something that should have had the basic agreement of all political parties. Instead we had a peculiar partisan move. The Government did not want to be associated with the past initiatives of the Liberal Government so the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) said we were going to do it all over again. However, in doing so, some fundamental mistakes were made. Those mistakes have yet to be corrected. They are not corrected in this Bill or in the policies and programs of the Government and that is why there is such great concern.
The NDP ask why the Liberal Party, which advocated the liberalization of transport in 1984, is critical of this Bill. The reason is that this Bill does not reflect the initiatives, objectives and concerns we raised at that time. Simply because you use the word "deregulation" does not mean that is what it is. I think it is quite correct to say that the Government has adopted, without much thought, the style and methods used in the U.S. It does so in almost everything else, so why not in transportation?
Let me pose a key question. Can you have a fully-deregulated system subject to the discipline of the market-place when you have major Crown corporations still occupying a large part of the market? If you talk to those who have gone through the experience of deregulation their answer is no, of course. If you are going to have a free market you cannot have a government-owned enterprise as a major player in that market. You have to decide what you are going to do with it. If not, you have a hybrid system, one which is highly distorted.
The Government opted for full deregulation but we did not. We carefully used the word "liberalization", a word which is far more compatible to our ears, but it also made more sense because it would allow us to maintain the mixed system we have. This Bill proceeds with a full court press on deregulation. The Government is left with the embarrassing problem of what to do with Air Canada, CNR and VIA Rail. You cannot have a Crown corporation funded by the Government under a deregulated system. No one in the Government has faced that issue. I presume that the previous Minister of Transport was about to face it when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that he could not do anything with it. We all know of the great
January 29, 1987

policy analyses the Prime Minister makes. If he gets through one day without changing his mind it is a small miracle.
The fact is that we now have incredible disharmony that is putting the transportation system out of whack and giving all the wrong signals to the market-place. You cannot say that the private sector is going to make the decisions and still maintain total control over Crown corporations. In addition, the Government has imposed a complete set of restraints upon Crown corporations. Over the past two and a half years the Government has refused to come to grips with the essential financial problems of Air Canada and the CNR. This system has no coherence.
The Government wants to keep Crown corporations but will not give them any money to modernize and respond to the market-place. The private operators do not want the Government to do that anyway because it would be unfair to them. They cannot be subject to the discipline of the market-place where they live and die by supply and demand if one of the big players is government-owned and can always bail itself out by going back to the federal Treasury. We have no formula whatsoever to deal with that fundamental problem.
How can the Government pass a Bill to make the marketplace supreme without coming to grips with what its policy will be in relation to Air Canada and CNR? Will the Government fund them, keep them, partially deprivatize them? What will the Government do? All we get is a great yawning silence from the benches opposite. To proceed with this legislation and the series of principles behind it without coming to grips with that fundamental issue is a recipe for disaster. It will not be a deregulated market-place driven system. It will be hybrid, distorted, and out of whack. We do not know whether the decisions will be made by public sector signals or market signals.
Another fundamental issue which we began to address in 1984 and which has since been wiped off the agenda is that of how to deal with employer-employee relationships. We carefully examined what had happened in other systems under liberalization or deregulation. The crucial issue for many was how to accommodate that change and still maintain effective, proper employer-employee relations. We seem to be adopting the American model of throwing the workers on the scrap heap. That seems to be the system written between the lines in this Bill because nothing else has happened to make any changes.
For example, in 1984 the previous Government was working with various employee groups to make them partners in certain Crown corporations as an incentive. We had started negotiations with several of the major unions and Air Canada. We believed that was one way of solving the serious problem of dislocation. In addition, the problems of harmonizing union rules, seniority, and providing for certain job guarantees must be dealt with. By treating the workers like scrap the Americans created a total lack of morale and disloyalty in the
National Transportation Act, 1986
system. That is why many of those airlines have gone bust. They did not get the productivity, worker involvement, and caring that was required.
In 1984 we gave the simple but important direction that, before proceeding further with any more liberalization or changing of the rules, there must be an agreed upon approach among the unions and employers in transportation with regard to how to deal with worker problems and worker dislocation. Have we heard anything at all from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux)? Has the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) uttered a-

-a word or made the slightest comment on major problems that would have to be considered? None at all.

That is because the Government does not have a policy. It does not know what to do. It has not decided how to come to grips with that fundamental issue.
We have two very major and serious problems which require answers before we can proceed with a fundamental overhaul. The Canadian people, particularly those involved in the transportation industry, are without answers to those questions. It is not as though we in the Opposition have not tried to get answers in committee and other places. However, there has been a stone wall, a refusal to come to grips with those problems.
Do the Conservative Members now in the Chamber have answers to these questions? If so, they should put them forward in the House today. Let us hear what the Conservatives want to do about those two issues. If they do not have answers, they had better not vote for this Bill because that is asking for a pot of trouble. I do not say that for partisan reasons. I say that from experience. I have looked carefully at the issues and, having initiated this in 1984, I can say with some credibility that I knew what to expect.
When the Conservative Government took power and said it was going to continue with this initiative I gave a speech to The Financial Post conference and said, "God bless them, I hope they do well". I was not critical, but said that we should wait and see what they do. We have waited two years and they have not done it right. They have not put it together in the right way.
My colleagues have discussed the Government's policy of ensuring that competition is continued by insisting on fair competition between companies. Instead, we have seen an incredible rash of mergers and acquisitions. How is the Government going to support and stimulate the emergence of commuter and regional airlines to serve small communities?
We shifted allocations in the Department of Transport away from some non-essential expenditure to help smaller private Canadian companies buy new equipment to start up new regional and commuter airlines to serve the Maritimes and the north. One of the first acts of this Government was to wipe out

January 29, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
that support. It did not give those smaller companies an opportunity to get the new equipment they needed to start competing.
That initiative was not a Liberal bogyman. It had worked well in the American system. When larger airlines evacuated a certain market the American Government assisted smaller companies to start up. In the State of Alaska there was an emergence of a number of new regionally based airlines which have been quite successful. The American Government recognized that in order to make that happen there had to be a kick-start, an initial incentive. We had money in our Budget for that. It was not new money. We had reallocated old expenditures. However, the Conservative Government wiped that out.
The Government says that it wants to bring prices down. If that is the case, why has the Government increased user prices for transportation year after year? Why have airport and airline fees gone up? Why have the costs of using ports and dry docks gone up? Why are public charges to the users of the transportation system being increased when the Government says it wants the private sector to bring prices down. Is it telling the private sector to bring the prices down so that it can grab the surplus amount? Is that a coherent and sensible transportation policy? There are no answers to those questions.
We hear fine rhetoric about competition and productivity, but what about the user fees? If the Government intends to apply user fees, it ought to follow through on the logic, rather than ignore it so that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) can secretly grab more money from the taxpayer. I cannot believe the Government is interested in lower prices and costs when it has added substantial costs to the transportation system over the past two years. That will not wash because the evidence is in every budget that the Minister of Finance brings down.
There is severe criticism of this Bill because its stated purpose is not its intent and it carries the portent of real jeopardy to the transportation system. It will not lead us toward the objectives that we believe were clearly established in 1984.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment. Perhaps I may point out again that, unlike what the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) maintained in this debate a few minutes ago, the Liberal Party, the Official Opposition is not against a more flexible system or regulatory framework. In fact, we were the first to look into the matter, and our aim was and still is today to have a regulatory framework that is better adapted to new economic configurations and the changing face of the transport industry.
I want to ask the Hon. Member who, as we all know, was a very competent Minister of Transport and who has always
maintained a very keen interest in the subject, to explain two things.
First, according to Bill C-18, the Canadian Transport Commission will be abolished and replaced by a new agency called the National Transportation Agency. The CTC has seven commissioners while the new agency will have nine. I want to ask the Hon. Member whether he or the previous Government, the Liberal Government at the time, had any plans for making such radical changes in the Transport Commission.
Second, would he agree that here lies a very real danger for Canadians and for the whole transportation policy, since by making such radical changes, it will be impossible to establish any continuity between the former Transport Commission and the new agency, which I imagine might cause major safety problems and occasionally even require radical action on the part of the agency? Does he have any thoughts on the subject he would like to share with us, first of all, with respect to regulation, where I believe he agrees with me that we are in favour of greater regulation, provided it is flexible, and does he agree with me that the changeover from the Transport Commission to the new agency might represent a safety hazard for the Canadian public that uses the various transport modes?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer my friend the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). A major change has been made with the appointment of the former member for Yukon as president of the Commission. Unfortunately, we will have a president of a new commission when we sit on the Government side. Who knows what will be the answer of the new president?
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be a dramatic change in the roles and responsibilities of the new commission, without a new government policy in the area of security, but a policy calling for investing millions of dollars in security for the railway network.
It is not a problem of regulation. It is a problem dealing with a number of railway lines in the downtown district, with the transportation of highly dangerous goods. Also, as indicated in the commission's report, there is a serious problem in the communications system as well as the hiring standards in the railways. It is also a problem of the Government's will to seek a policy change, a change in operating methods for the railways and the airlines.

I did not refer to the safety problem. However, I could have said that one of the real dominant concerns among Canadians about deregulation is safety and security. I am not fearmong-ering, it is simply a real concern that the proliferation in the number of carriers creates greater potential for mistakes and accidents.
The commission that studied the Gimli air accident made a number of recommendations for changing responsibility and
January 29, 1987

control in airline maintenance. Virtually none of those recommendations were implemented since they were made a year and a half ago. I do not know what the former Minister of Transport was doing, but he had an opportunity to take serious action on an important report.
There have been recommendations with respect to the whole question of air controllers and responsibilities in the airports. Serious problems relating to training were raised, but there has been no response.
1 have already stated the need for introducing a much more efficient and modern system of safety and security in the railway system. While no one denies that it will cost money, the fact remains that it has not been implemented. 1 suggest that simply changing the name of a commission and appointing a new president who basically does not believe in the operation of that system will not give anyone assurances that a real change has taken place.


Mr. Clifford:: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity to question a member of the Opposition, particularly since we have a former Minister of Transport with us this morning. The Eton. Member, who spoke on behalf of his party, said much about policies and is now alluding to safety and the need to communicate. I suggest that it is important to communicate the proper policies, because members opposite apparently are not aware of them.
Many Members opposite have said that the Bill does not contain any provision to prevent situations which could effectively reduce air safety. I would like to hear the Liberals explain that statement because the first provision for obtaining a licence to air service is that the firm must be fit and safe.
The Liberals said that Auditor General Dye stated that Transport Canada has been unable to check all the carriers under his jurisdiction at least once a year. However, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has repeatedly made the pledge that we will have 100 new inspectors. Does the Hon. Member deny that?
Let me advise the Hon. Member of our response to the question of safety. The Minister made a statement about airport safety systems. He followed that with action and we have changed all the airport safety systems with a new system of bag checking and personal security checks. I believe our record is unblemished in our pursuit of air safety. I question how much members opposite understand these policies and what they are trying to communicate to Canadians.
The Liberals have said that this deregulation will enable foreign interests, namely the U.S., to take over the trucking companies. I think we should point out to the Liberals that the existing legislation does not prevent American carriers from coming into Canada. In fact, there are over 2,000 American carriers in our country. This occurred under the Liberal Government and its regulations.
National Transportation Act, 1986
Perhaps the Hon. Member could shed some light on these two areas since he brought them up; the lack of policy, with which we do not agree, and the lack of safety. Perhaps then he would like to go on and talk about who really did let the U.S. trucking companies into the country.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in the short time available to me I will attempt to answer those questions, which I think are honest and sincere. Safety is not a matter of a few small changes or announcements by the Minister. I liked the comment of the Democrats the other night in responding to President Reagan. They said: "Actions, not words, are what count". It is very easy for the Minister of Transport to say we are going to do these things. The question is, where is the proof that they are being done? Have they been done? Have the 100 inspectors been added to the Department of Transport? In fact, the number of personnel in the Department of Transport has been cut back. The numbers are way down. There is a shortage of personnel. The regions are being reduced.
Therefore, if the Government is foreseeing a wider range of transport activity and is reducing the capacity to provide for surveillance and maintenance then, of course, we are going to raise the questions. I do not, frankly, give a damn about what the Minister of Transport said. What I want to see in the Estimates book is what in fact he has done. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, he has not done what he said he is going to do. That is the problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the time for questions and comments has now terminated.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Kilgour).


Mr. Kilgour:: I was getting up to make a comment or ask a question, Mr. Speaker. You say the time has expired?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He has already made a speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is now debate. Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary want the floor?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He has already spoken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry. The Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid).


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-18, recognizing that it is a Bill designed to bring the Canadian transportation industry and Canadian business and commerce into a more competitive mode of operation. I would like to direct the attention of the House to a particular aspect of Bill C-18, the tough watchdog of safety and public interest, the new national transportation agency which is established under the provisions of Part 1 of the Bill. I trust Hon. Members opposite have addressed themselves to Part 1 of the Bill and that particular agency.
As Hon. Members know, this new agency will replace the Canadian Transport Commission, so that it does become a

January 29, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
replacement agency, yes, but it will operate in a far different way. It will not be a regulatory body in the sense that the old one was. It will, however, be a transportation ombudsman, a mediator and, as I said before, a public watchdog. Its powers allow it to monitor compliance and establish new regulations if the public interest is jeopardized by unsafe practices or a lack of competition. It will have the ability to make inquiries into complaints, establish competitive line rates, grant entry into markets and provide mediation services to help resolve shipper-carrier disputes.
The over-all intent of Bill C-18 is to reduce the regulatory burden on industry and at the same time deal more quickly and effectively with real problems as they emerge. The new agency is uniquely designed to do that. First, the agency has a wider range of options to deal with complaints and disputes between the various modes of transport. Indeed, the main responsibility of the new agency will be to administer a family of dispute resolving mechanisms contained within the bill itself. These include mediation services, a final offer arbitration service, a simplified procedure for investigating complaints from aggrieved parties. All of these provisions are new. They are all designed to assist industry to operate in an environment which is freer of Government regulation and intervention.
Let us look at disputes between a shipper and a carrier for a moment. The new agency, at the request of both parties, will call in a mediator. If the mediator is unsuccesssful in resolving the dispute, and if the shipper requests it, an arbitrator may be appointed. The arbitrator will then choose between the final offers. We used to do that in the practice of law between disputing parties. We would make our best offer and then let the chips fall where they may. The arbitrator makes his decision and, according to the Bill, that decision must remain in effect for a period up to a year. That is enough to prompt each party to make its best offer and enough to encourage shippers and carriers alike to settle their disputes between themselves and without recourse to the agency. However, the agency is there to do it for them.
The same applies to cargo rates and fares. Under the new rules, carriers will be permitted to establish fares and rates without regulatory approval. However, the provision is there for complaints in case of abuse. Increases in regular passenger fares on monopoly routes can be appealed to the National Transportation Agency. If it is determined that the rates are unfair, are being abused or that the increase is unreasonable, the agency can disallow the new fare and order a reduction, with refunds where practical.
The national transportation agency will be smaller and more streamlined than the old Transport Commission. It will have to adhere to time limits when dealing with complaints and applications for new services. The old Board was never constrained in such a manner and as a result those disputes would drag on and on, which was a disservice, not only to the parties to a complaint but to the users as well.
The size of the agency, along with the time limit, will make it far more responsive to the needs of shippers, users, the industry and the public than was the former Canadian Transport Commission. Further, the new agency is given functions and powers specifically tailored to the Government's new policies and approach.
The agency will be bound by policy directions which may be issued by the Governor in Council. Some Hon. Members opposite may say this is political manipulation. I want to point out that, with the provisions in this Act, nothing could be further from the truth. Any policy direction issued to the new agency must first be presented to both Houses of Parliament. Further, as in the normal course of business in the House, a policy direction might be referred to a committee for detailed consideration. What more could one ask than that?
In addition, under the Bill, no policy direction can have any bearing on any specific case before the agency at the time. Government will not be able to intervene in any case being considered by the agency. The legislation is phrased to prevent this type of interference or intervention. It is a protection from the type of allegation that might be made by Members opposite.
Too often there is a type of regulatory capture between a government body and the industry it regulates. The new agency will be structured on a multimodal basis to prevent that. We are talking about deregulation of all modes of transportation just to prevent that type of occurrence. Agency members will deal with the transportation network as a whole rather than the railway component, the airline component or even a marine component. These are separate entities in themselves. This structure is inherently more fair, as well as being more flexible than that found in most government agencies.
Before closing I would like to make the point that while the Canadian Transport Commission itself will be terminated, the Government intends to draw upon the expertise as presently contained within that body in the staffing of the new agency. This intention was clearly stated in the Freedom to Move document, and I can assure Hon. Members that it remains the policy of the Government. While the headquarters of the agency will be in Ottawa, it may also have regional offices across the country to give closer contact with the users and providers of transportation services.
Bill C-18 is an important part of the Government's over-all program to spur economic renewal and create jobs by removing regulatory obstacles. It is a vehicle whereby the transportation sector can renew and strengthen itself. The new agency will play an important role in this effort. With its new responsibilities and structure, with the time-limit on decisions and with a greater responsiveness to government policy the agency will be well designed to foster the development of a first-rate transportation system throughout our land.
January 29, 1987


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) could elaborate on why he has so much confidence in what will replace the Canadian Transport Commission. It seems to me that the Canadian Transport Commission has operated well over the years. It is not that we have not had our complaints with it from time to time, we have. However, I wonder if the Hon. Member can explain what he means by the ombudsman function of the new agency that is to replace the CTC. It seems to me that one of the features of bureaucracies with an ombudsman function, as opposed to a regulatory function, is that matters often take a very long time to be decided upon, whereas the Canadian Transport Commission now, particularly when it receives complaints related to safety or other operational concerns, has the power to act rather swiftly. Any experience I have had with ombudspersons tells me that will not be the case with that type of function. I would like to hear more from the Hon. Member with respect to why he thinks it is such a great thing. Why does he want to replace a regulatory commission that has a good record with a bureaucracy in which we have no reason to have very much confidence?


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, the type of commission to which the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) refers, the Canadian Transport Commission, is just the type of regulatory commission that takes days on end to resolve an issue. He says that has also been his experience with respect to ombudsmen. I wish to point out to the Hon. Member that he should not be afraid to take a chance. As Samuel Johnson has said, "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome".
I wish to tell the Hon. Member that the streamlining of the new agency will make it accessible to the people involved in transportation. It will make it possible for them to reach early decisions. When we talk about an ombudsman role we are talking about a commission that is prepared to hear complaints, problems relating to rates and entry into markets. For far too long my friend has been dealing with the old types of commissions and the old types of ombudsmen's offices. I suggest he wait to try the new one.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I think we will find, if this Bill is passed and if it becomes law as it is now proposed, God forbid, that many of the people who formerly had complaints about the Canadian Transport Commission and the existing regulatory process will be wishing it back. They will be wishing it back after they have been subjected to the type of process that the Hon. Member has in mind, because that process will be much more subject to the political whims of the day than the process we have in place today.
An area upon which the Hon. Member did not go into great detail, and upon which I would like to know his position, is with respect to whether or not he is supportive of that element of the legislation that calls for mandated joint line rates which will put American railways directly in competition with Canadian railways. Is the Hon. Member aware of the concern
National Transportation Act, 1986
expressed by both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, and everyone else in the railway community, that this could lead to the demise of our railway transportation system? Has the Hon. Member considered that point? If he has what is his position on it?


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made by the Hon. Member is that if we follow the route of Bill C-18 the railways in Canada will reach their ultimate demise. I think that is a completely wrong premise. Frankly, what we want to do is make use of the joint resources of both railways on the northern portion of the North American continent. Given the resources of CN and CP we should be able to come up with a railway mode of transportation as effective, as efficient, as reliable and as responsible as that of the Burlington line south of the border. Obviously, with an intermodal form of transportation capable of fixing rates and linking trucking aspects of transportation with the destinations of railway lines we should be able to put in place a transportation system with both modes of transportation in operation. This will give a complete service to shippers, as well as providing efficient pricing. In this way we can compete completely with the Burlington line across the river. I would support that aspect, even if it comes to an agency consideration of a dispute.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I think the Hon. Member will agree with me that deregulation does seriously impact on existing carriers and on new carriers. It has created stressful situations in some employee-employer relations, and some concessions are demanded from the personnel of these large carriers. For example, I am thinking of the airline industry where we know that stressful jobs, often insecure positions, lay-offs, and longer hours of work cause human error.
Earlier in my remarks I was referring to the safety angle. First, would the Hon. Member tell me what he thinks about the employer-employee relations? At no place in this Bill are there questions of improving employee-employer relations. Does he agree that we should be concerned and preoccupied with putting something into this Bill which would indicate our will, as the Parliament of Canada, to protect and secure employment for those who may be touched by dereglation? Does the Hon. Member agree with me that there could be some severe or serious security factors involved in this rapid deregulation?


Joseph Lloyd Reid: I thank the Hon. Member for his question which gives me an opportunity to emphasize that safety is a priority not to be compromised under this Bill or by the Government. We have said that over and over again. One of the reasons that the agency is established is for the specific purpose of monitoring the operation of these different modes of transport from the point of view of safety, security, and the environment. The agency is not there to protect each private mode of transport, or even the public mode of transport from an employer-employee relation. We want to rid ourselves of this type of

January 29, 1987
regulatory process which the old Canadian Transport Commission had in its operations. That is the whole streamlined purpose of this agency. We will limit its operation to the powers as set out in the Act. Safety will be uppermost in one of its terms of regulatory operation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.
It being 1.12 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.12 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to recall certain facts.
Fact No. 1: The Tory Government rejects the American invitation to take part in the star wars research program.
Fact No. 2: The Tory Government takes away tens of millions of dollars from our research budgets to invest S800 over a 10-year period in the American orbital station program.
Fact No. 3: The Pentagon announces that it will use the orbital station in its star wars program.
Fact No. 4: I raise that inconsistency in a speech which I made in the House of Commons on January 20, and Mr. Jeffrey Simpson of The Globe and Mail goes further in the analysis of the problem the next day, January 21.
Fact No. 5: The Globe and Mail reported last week the comments made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who said that he was so concerned about the situation that he has written to the American administration.
Mr. Speaker, the Government's position in this respect shows that it is entirely out of control, that it does not know what it is doing, that it is naive once again and is blindly handing over to the Americans the whole area of research and development.



ABORTION


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the present Canadian abortion law has been in place for almost two decades. During this time hundreds of thousands of abortions have been performed. Many of those unborn children did not pose a significant threat to the lives of their mothers and were aborted for the sake of convenience.
Many Hon. Members of the House agree with me in deploring the over 65,000 abortions performed each year in Canada. In fairness, other Hon. Members of the House do not agree and believe that abortion should be made more available.
Whatever the opinions of Members, they should stand up and be counted on this important issue. Canadians expect their legislators to take up the issue of abortion since the present law satisfies no one. The matter should be studied with the intent of creating a new and better law. Let us at least have the courage to speak freely about this issue.
There are no easy answers in the abortion debate, but we owe it to millions of concerned Canadians to begin asking the questions.



CHINESE NEW YEAR


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Members of Parliament and my constituents of Vancouver East, I say: "Gung hay fa choy'\ Happy Chinese New Year, with good wishes for health and happiness to all Canadians in the Year of the Rabbit.
I was pleased to learn recently that the Minister responsible for multiculturalism has agreed with the Chinese Canadian National Council that an all-Party resolution is needed to acknowledge the early injustices and the racial discrimination which occurred against Chinese immigrants because of the Chinese head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Some elderly victims who paid this tax are alive today. Their grandchildren recall the many hardships they suffered. These same grandchildren lead their fields in many endeavours. Immigrants come to settle in Canada as equals. By acknowledging these disgraceful injustices and seeking remedial action, all Canadians will be relieved of our collective guilt. We celebrate multiculturalism by celebrating Chinese New Year today.
January 29, 1987



SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I am standing today in the House to applaud the people of Ontario. Today's edition of The Globe and Mail published the results of a recent poll which indicates that support for the position of provincial Liberals on freer trade is fast dwindling. Nearly half the respondents disapprove of the provincial position.
The facts are clear. Freer trade is an idea whose time has come. Despite the flimsy arguments put forward by the Opposition, the people of our country are throwing their support behind the initiatives of the Government. Perhaps, in light of these recent developments, the Opposition and the Government of Ontario will realize the wisdom of a unified approach to these negotiations.
The President of the United States supports freer trade with Canada. The Canadian Government supports the freer trade initiative. The people of Ontario support this initiative. Perhaps it is time for the Opposition and the Government of Premier Peterson to come over to the side fighting for economic security for all Canadians.



FISHERIES


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, last evening the Atlantic Liberal caucus met in an emergency session and consulted with our Leader. We wish to announce today that members of our caucus will be visiting various parts of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada to hold a series of meetings beginning today with interested individuals and groups in the particular regions affected by the Canada-France fishing agreement.
The caucus members will discuss the impact of the arrangement and will consult on appropriate alternatives to the present agreement, which we say is totally unacceptable to the people of Atlantic Canada.
My colleagues from Newfoundland are presently there consulting with affected individuals. We wish to come back to the House with suitable alternatives to what is known as an unconscionable agreement which affects the lives and livelihood of the people of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, a recent Decima poll made public by the Globe and Mail last January 21 indicates that the environment is the first priority of Canadians. The Abitibi-Temiscamingue socio-economic summit has just emphasized that the environment issue is also the first concern of the residents of that region.
Mr. Speaker, such findings are proof positive that for nearly 20 years now Canadian public opinion has been made fully aware of and kept well informed about the damage and negative impact of pollution on human health and the ecology. In the past two years our Government has made firm commitments to reduce this scourge. Last December 18 the Minister of Environment (Mr. McMillan) tabled in the House the proposed Environmental Protection Act, again showing our resolve to fight against polluters in our society. With this measure, Canada ranks first among industrialized nations in the fight against pollution.



INVESTMENT CANADA


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, more and more Canadians from coast to coast are beginning to ask the question: "Who stands up for Canada?" Who stood up for Canada when our softwood lumber industry came under attack? Not this Government.
Who stood up for Canada when the Reagan administration demanded that Canada change its patent laws on drugs that will inevitably mean higher drug prices for Canadians? Not this Government.
Who stood up for Canada when our agreements with the Reagan administration on acid rain were not lived up to? Not this Government. Who stands up for Canada as French, Spanish, Portugese, American, and Korean fishing fleets steal our fish on the Grand Banks? Not this Government.
And now, Mr. Speaker, the people of southern British Columbia are wondering who is standing up for their interests as a big American corporation is on the verge of taking over West Kootenay Power and Light Company and its water rights to a major western Canadian water system. Why is this Government on its knees watching this potentially disastrous take-over go ahead? Why did the Government give approval through Investment Canada for this take-over before hearings were even completed to hear the views of local residents?

January 29, 1987
The Government is caving into United States' interests as it sits idly by and watches West Kootenay Power and Light Company fall into foreign hands. The people of central and southern British Columbia will not forget.



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday our Government designated Vancouver and Montreal as international banking centres. But this is actually a tale of three cities: Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal, and it is an excellent example of how this Government is a Government of all Canadians.
Toronto will continue to be the financial heart of our nation. [ Translation]
Stability, ready access and good economic environment make Montreal an ideal international banking centre.

And for Vancouver, it means better access to the Pacific Rim market-place.
But this happy tale of three cities has a dark side, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal Premier of Ontario insists that it leads to regional tensions. He has said one might as well move the financial centre in the United States from New York to Des Moines. Vancouver is not Des Moines, Mr. Speaker. It is not a region, it is Canada. Toronto is Canada, and Montreal is Canada.
Mr. Peterson's attitude is typical of the Liberal Party: paternalistic, centrist, and derogatory to western Canada. Western Canadians will never forget the Liberal legacy. We will never forget.



FISHERIES


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, how quickly the Government forgot the word consultation. This week we hear about this agreement that was signed, or is it an agreement? It is an agreement on a program to lead to negotiations to settle a dispute, negotiations not actually to arrive at a settlement of the dispute but negotiations to find out if we can go to arbitration.
The consultation which the Government took on itself has been nothing but a farce. The Government went behind the doors and behind the backs of Newfoundlanders, behind the
back of the Premier of Newfoundland and behind the back of the Premier of Nova Scotia. The Government went behind the backs of all of those people in the great Atlantic provinces that have fishing as their lifeblood. I am surprised that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and all of the other Atlantic Ministers have not really given it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) in this case. That is why we in the Liberal Party will be going to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and other parts of Atlantic Canada to consult so that we can come up with some sort of suitable arrangement.

[DOT] (U10)



CHINESE NEW YEAR


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, Chinese Canadians are today celebrating the Chinese New Year of 4685. Canada has benefited immensely from the splendid contribution Chinese Canadians have made to help this country grow and prosper.
My good friend Norman Ho was instrumental in setting up the Scarborough-North York Chinese Business Association which now has several hundred members under its current president, Stephen Chung. On Saturday I will be bringing greetings from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to members of the North York Chinese Heritage Language (Mandarin) School whose president is Mr. Ivan Peng.
My Government is very aware of the many successful businesses started by Chinese Canadians under our entrepreneurial business immigration class. We continue to support enthusiastically and welcome the number of persons of Chinese heritage emigrating to Canada under our Family Reunification Program.
In this Year of the Rabbit I ask all Members of this House to join me in wishing all Chinese Canadians good health, happiness, and prosperity.



SUGGESTIONS FOR FORTHCOMING MEETING OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL MINISTERS

Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, when Canada's Energy Ministers meet here in Ottawa tomorrow they need to work out a planned energy strategy for Canada and not leave it up to the vagaries of the market. They have not asked me, but I see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) so I will give him my suggestions. First, let us have energy security. The National Energy Board
January 29, 1987



IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
says that in 15 years we will have used up our conventional natural gas and will be importing two-thirds of our oil. Let us get going on one or more of the frontier projects at a negotiated price for the oil.
Secondly, and in the meantime, let us resist the short-term temptation to export oil and gas to beat hell, as we are doing now.
Thirdly, if Canadians are expected to pay more taxes at the pump for energy security, show them that the gasoline prices are fair. Canadians are paying more than Americans now because oil company downstream profits are too high. Use Petro-Canada. Tell the provinces to quit loading on taxes at the pump.
Finally, do not forget conservation. That is really the number one priority.
Those are all my suggestions to the Minister and he can have them free of charge.

Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Alas, Mr. Speaker, the labourers hired first are not always properly rewarded. However, the Societe de musique contemporaine du Quebec will be paying tribute in Montreal tonight to Jean Papineau-Couture, one of the major figures of Canadian contemporary music, on the occasion of his 70th birthday.
A composer, teacher and administrator, Jean Papineau-Couture has devoted his whole life to music, and more specifically to composition and the promotion of Canadian contemporary music, although he had to overcome the public's deep and at times fierce resistance to new sounds and rhythms.
His numerous orchestra, piano, chamber music compositions are evidence of his great command of the musical medium. Furthermore, it is not altogether frequent to see talent associated with commitment, but this creator has worked relentlessly within his own artistic community. A founding member of the Centre de musique canadienne, the Societe de musique canadienne and the Societe de musique contemporaine du Quebec, he has also served as chairman of many organizations and institutions in the cultural field.
Jean Papineau-Couture deserves that we should pay him tribute by joining all those who will attend the concert dedicated to him tonight in Montreal.



REPORTED ALLEGATIONS BY MINISTER

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, during the program La politique federate broadcasted on January 17, 1987, on the French network of the CBC, we heard the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) describe his Lac-Saint-Jean region as an area "which has not been disturbed by immigration and which has remained demographically, culturally and politically pure".
1 came to this country in 1966 and I do not believe that I have disturbed Canada, On the contrary, I feel I have contributed to its economic, social and cultural development.
As to the Minister's comments on purity, I find them offensive for all Canadians.
An Immigration Minister who makes such remarks should not hold his position.
Thanks to its compassion, generosity and open-mindedness, our country rightly deserved its worldwide reputation, and comments on ethnic purity and the pride to belong to a privileged community are out of place in our society. When a Minister of Employment and Immigration utters them, they are unacceptable. The Minister should resign forthwith, Mr. Speaker!



COLONIALISM


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, 19th century colonialism appears to be alive and well in North America. India has eliminated Portuguese possession of Goa; Hong Kong and Macao will shortly revert to China; and even tiny Iceland has resolutely and successfully defended its exclusive fishing zones against once mighty Great Britain, but France is allowed to maintain its colony of St. Pierre and Miquelon in the midst of Canada.
Surely this is an anachronism in the third quarter of the 20th century. Worst of all, on the basis of this historic relic, France claims the right to catch tens of thousands of tonnes of Canadian fish. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) should start immediately, and as forcefully as possible, to pursue the termination of French colonialism within Canada's domain.

January 29, 1987
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, a few months ago the Minister of Transport told Atlantic Canadians that if they compared themselves to people in the Third World they would feel quite lucky in Canada. We should have known at that time that any Minister who had the audacity to make such an outrageous statement would not be representing Atlantic Canadians in cabinet. We know through recent events that the Minister and the Cabinet are in fact now trying to make us a part of the Third World.
Does the Minister of Transport really think that a show of strength by our Coast Guard in patrolling the East Coast is tantamount to, in his words, "going to war"? Why is he promoting the defeatist attitude that we have no choice but to flop over into a deadman's float?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would sooner be afloat than be a goat.


Mr. Kaplan:: You are both.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, one thing the previous Government never did was apologize for anything. However, I suggest that they apologize today because it was that Government which entered into agreements in 1972, 1982 and in 1984 which make it very difficult for the Government of Canada to take any firm, effective action today to settle this matter on the East Coast of Canada. They hung us with the dead hand of the past.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate is on his third question. I would ask him to be brief and to the point.


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE CANCELLED
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I will move from the Minister who advocates the deadman's float to the Minister who is a specialist in belly flops. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said in the Chamber last night: "if the fishermen and Governments of Atlantic Canada do not accept the conditions, there will be no agreement". Will the Minister now own up to his words, because the Atlantic Premiers have said no and the fishermen have said no. Will the Minister honour his words and tear up this record of agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: The Government is bound by an arrangement concluded in the form of an exchange of diplomatic notes dated June 20 and June 28, 1984, with regard to the disputed area 3Ps, pursuant to which each party agreed to abstain from regulating the vessels flying the flag of the other party in that zone.
Our Liberal predecessors, Senators De Bane and Mac-Eachen, and their Government entered into an international agreement which prevents us from interfering with or harassing the vessels of France in that disputed zone.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, this is an inconsistent Minister in an inconsistent Cabinet. The one thing they are consistent about is blaming things on the previous administration. The Government is into its third year. There is only one year left after that. By its record it will then be a previous administration.


MINISTER'S CALL FOR APOLOGY
George Baker: The Minister was not talking about the previous administration last night when he said, "I think the Government should apologize". Who did the Minister have in mind to make that apology? Was it the Minister of State for External Affairs, who is perhaps the most to blame in this issue; the Prime Minister, who does not want to muddy the waters for the French summit; or the Minister of Fisheries, who has been hung out to dry like a codfish on this issue and still thinks he is swimming?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated several times in the House that it is important that all Atlantic Canadians understand that the only agreement is to negotiate the reference of the boundary dispute to compulsory third party arbitration, and to negotiate corresponding fisheries arrangements for the period after 1988. If, in negotiating those two agreements between now and the end of the year, the conditions required by France are unsatisfactory to the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada, then there will indeed be no agreement.


ALLOCATION OF QUOTAS TO FRENCH FISHING VESSELS
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, Atlantic Canadians, especially Newfoundlanders, are very angry with the Minister because he has given the French fleet extra quotas and licences for factory freezer trawlers just to get the French to sit down and talk about the possibility of negotiating an arbitration case. Now that he has paid part of the ransom to the French for this deal, how much more Canadian fish must he give up in order to get the French even to come to arbitration?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I suggest this question also underscores the regrettable tendency and, I suggest, irresponsible tendency of members of the Opposition to sow seeds of fear, worry and apprehension based on improper and, I suggest, incorrect facts. In this case no additional quotas which are used, contained, and fished by Canadian fishermen will be given to France
January 29, 1987

either in the longer term or in the period of 1987, unless those quotas can be justified and supported by the fishermen of Atlantic Canada.


OVERFISHING BY FRENCH VESSELS
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, why did the Minister allow this agreement, if that is what it is, to be signed before receiving any commitment whatsoever from the French Government to stop its blatant overfishing in zone 3PS? Why did he even enter into any kind of agreement until the French stopped that?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, again this illustrates the regrettable misinformation that opposition Members and the Hon. Member in particular are using in order to discredit a very important initiative which will bring significant benefits, if successful, to the fishermen of Atlantic Canada. If these two parallel agreements cannot be negotiated satisfactorily there will be no additional fish granted to anyone other than Atlantic Canada fishermen.


ALLOCATION OF QUOTAS-FISHERMEN'S POSITION
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He said that there would be no additional allocation of fish to France unless it was acceptable to the people of Newfoundland. Surely it is abundantly clear to the Minister and the Government that this is and will not be acceptable to the people of Newfoundland. Why wait? Why not recognize that fact and tell France that it is an unacceptable deal to the people of Canada, and begin again?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, first let me clear up a misunderstanding. The quotas of cod granted to France in 1987 in Canadian waters are less than half of what they were last year, 11,000 tonnes as compared to over 22,000 tonnes last year. In contrast to the modest reductions of quotas Canadian fishermen are experiencing, the French quotas have been more than cut in half.
The Hon. Member suggests we should capitulate on our attempt to secure a permanent and lasting solution to the boundary question, thereby consigning Atlantic Canadians in perpetuity to seeing their stocks in the area south of St. Pierre and Miquelon overfished indiscriminately by the French. That I would find absolutely unacceptable.


James Douglas Manly: That is not what this Party wants. It is not what the Government or the people of Newfoundland want. They want a Government which will stand up for their rights and for the fisheries resource in Canada.
___________________________________2873
Oral Questions


DROPPING OF CONSULTATIONS
James Douglas Manly: The
Minister of Transport last night confirmed that the Government of Newfoundland, the industry representatives, and the union had been involved in consultation up until last week and then they were suddenly cut out. Why did the Minister suddenly drop these people from consultation?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member of the Opposition would advocate, as did his Leader last night, is we either walk away from the table and give up, thereby allowing tens of thousands of tonnes of overfishing to continue at the hands of France, or we rattle the sabres and perhaps get into a military confrontation with another friendly neighbour, an historical founding nation of Canada, France. I think it is irresponsible that the New Democratic Party would suggest forceful confrontation in this serious international matter.


APOLOGY TO PEOPLE OF NEWFOUNDLAND
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.


An Hon. Member:: Warmonger!


James Douglas Manly: When is the Government going to take action on the request-demand, really-from the Minister of Transport that the Government apologize to the Government and people of Newfoundland for the shameful way in which it has treated them in negotiating this deal with France?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the Hon. Member that I did speak to Mr. Peckford yesterday. I expressed regret for the inadvertent breakdown in communications and in the process-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -which was established. I expressed my apologies to him, and on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada.


APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns the same subject matter. The Deputy Prime Minister will know that Newfoundlanders are outraged at the way the Government of Canada has failed to represent their interests in its dealing with France on this particular agreement. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House, and the people of Atlantic Canada, and confirm that this decision, this agreement, was not approved by Cabinet but was done by bureaucrats and senior individuals in the Prime Minister's Office? Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that?

January 29, 1987
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if one were to use the Hon. Member's interpretation, I suspect that Canadians would translate this into being a bad deal. However, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has very clearly indicated the process which was established, and the options which were available. When the Minister of Fisheries speaks, he speaks on behalf of the Government.


David Charles Dingwall: It is rather telling that the Deputy Prime Minister refuses to answer that very specific question.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
David Charles Dingwall: The
Deputy Prime Minister is also aware that the consultation process was aborted. The Premier of Newfoundland, the Premier of Nova Scotia, the industry and, more important, the primary producers, are outraged at the failure of the Government to represent their interests. In view of the authority the Deputy Prime Minister has, will he not now demand the resignation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and rescind this unconscionable agreement?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, First, I would like to inform the Hon. Member that I was advised by the Minister of Fisheries that the Government of Newfoundland was involved in the discussions and negotiations, through its negotiating representative, the Minister of Fisheries, and representatives of the Minister of Fisheries, as well as representatives of the Premier's office.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Why did you apologize?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I apologized for an inadvertent breakdown in that process which, in my view, was certainly not deliberate. The fact of the matter is that what we have achieved here is an agreement to negotiate. As the Minister of Fisheries has outlined, as have others in the House, it was the best of the three possible options available to us.


OVERFISHING BY FRENCH FLEET
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, we now know what PC means-Paris Cares.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Wendele Shields: Say that again; we missed it.


Mr. Hees:: Another rehearsal was needed, John.


Mr. de Jong:: You sure have stirred them up.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is clear that the Minister has said to the House and in the agreement that all he has is an agreement to negotiate an agreement. That might take four years. The French fleet has been overfishing in Canadian waters. It will continue to overfish in Canadian waters. What does the Minister intend to do about the French fleet's continued overfishing in Canadian waters?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I trust that when the Hon. Member says that he now knows what PC refers to he recognizes that it stands for perfect Canadians?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: What we have succeeded in doing, after years of inattention to a very costly and serious problem for all of Canada, is to sit down with the Government of France over the next 11 months-


Nelson Andrew Riis: No one wants to hear you, Tom.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Then they had better stop asking questions, my friend.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On your side.


Thomas Edward Siddon: -and negotiate the terms of reference by which an important costly boundary dispute will be referred to international arbitration over some four years of time and, in parallel with that, to negotiate in turn fishing arrangements which could include measures of control which have never before been achieved to deal with the French overfishing in 3PS. The Hon. Member should celebrate that instead of criticizing it.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the people of Newfoundland, the fishermen, the owners of fish plants, the Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Nova Scotia all think that this is a give-away and a sell-out, what makes the Minister think that he has such a great deal going when he did not even follow the advice and consultation of the parties involved? What does he think he has going?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the essence of political leadership, not opposition mentality, is to have the courage sometimes to stand up and explain a course of action which has not previously been contemplated in the face of carping and unhelpful criticism of the sort we are hearing from opposition Members who would not want the fishermen of Atlantic Canada to be better off than they would have them be and as they have been for many years.
January 29, 1987


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Solicitor General said that no one should ever be in any position to influence in any way any Parole Board hearing. In view of the fact that the Conservative Member for Joliette has intervened in the case of Conrad Bouchard, can the Minister indicate whether he considers the intervention on behalf of the Hon. Member to have been appropriate in the circumstances?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we have here another allegation. I think the Hon. Solicitor General responded to that question quite fully yesterday. Perhaps the Hon. Member might want to reread the answer.


MEMBER'S REPORTED ACTION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is not an allegation. The Hon. Member for Joliette admitted today that he intervened on behalf of Conrad Bouchard. I put my question again to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does he consider the Hon. Member's action to be appropriate in the circumstances? Will he indicate today whether any other Member of Parliament intervened in the Conrad Bouchard case?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, such allegations flowing from the lips of the Hon. Member would have to be checked, double-checked, and probably triple-checked before any action was taken.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the U.S. indicated that the Canadian Wheat Board should be placed on the free trade negotiating table. Today we learned that the Hon. Member for Lisgar is being considered to fill the vacant position on the Canadian Wheat Board. With the present threats to Canada's international markets and the increased need for a strong orderly marketing structure, why is the Government considering making a political appointment of a Member who has in the past been hostile to the Wheat Board and who lacks the necessary expertise to be successful in such a position?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a classical case of members of the press picking up their own stories and then augmenting them and running with them. This is a story that
Oral Questions
has been out in the farm press for a month, or maybe six weeks. It seems to me that what we have here is the press sitting around having a discussion, and what they do not understand they attempt to explain to each other. There is absolutely no truth to the rumour whatsoever.


FILLING OF VACANCY
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, we would very much like a clarification of that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Since the Hon. Member for Lisgar has advocated a grain exchange type of marketing system and has called for the closing of Churchill, will the Minister assure us that he, or a person of that type, will not be appointed to fill the vacant position of commissioner of the Wheat Board?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do publicly with regard to some of the Americans' comments on the Canadian Wheat Board is to make an offer to the Americans saying that we would be prepared to start selling some of their wheat. Through the Canadian Wheat Board we have been doing a much better job of selling wheat. It seems to me that both the Americans and Canada would be much better off if they would accept our offer to sell some of their wheat on commission. We would be much better.
Let me say that when we make an appointment to the Wheat Board we will make an appointment that will be in the best over-all interests of the western Canadian farmer who very much depends on this very well run institution.


TIMING OF APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. Will he indicate when he will make an appointment to the Canadian Wheat Board? The position of commissioner has been vacant for some 14 months now. Canadian western agriculture is in the worst crisis since the 1930s with the lowest prices in 50 years. When will the Minister make an appointment? Can he assure the House that he will not weaken the Board by making a political appointment but that he will appoint a qualified person to sit on the Wheat Board?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that the Canadian Wheat Board Act calls for a minimum of three commissioners and a maximum of five. Dr. Jim Leibfried resigned a year ago last December, so the Board has been running with four commissioners, which is entirely consistent with the Act.
I might say that in a very difficult world market it has been doing an extremely good job of selling. As I have said before, and I say again, we increased our market share last year and have the prospects of increasing our market share again this

January 29, 1987
Oral Questions
year. If he is asking us not to make a political appointment, I take it he is excluding himself from that and taking himself out of the running.


UNITED STATES' EXPORT SUBSIDY PROGRAM
Maurice Brydon Foster: The Minister talks about taking people out of this appointment. Will he give a commitment that he is taking the Hon. Member for Lisgar out of the running, because it will be a very divisive appointment with western Canada farm groups, if he proceeds with it.
We have heard about the Minister's fights with the Wheat Board. Will he stand behind the Wheat Board against the United States' subsidy program in its million tonne sale to China, and not capitulate in the manner he did on the Durum wheat sale to Algeria? That is what western farmers wish to know.


Charles James Mayer: It is obvious from the import of the question that the Hon. Member knows very little about what goes on in western Canada. First, the offer to China has only been an offer. To date we do not know that it has been accepted. In the meantime, Hon. Members should know that Canada will probably increase the amount of wheat sold to China this year. We did not capitulate in the Durum wheat deal with Algeria. We will probably sell the same amount of Durum wheat to Algeria as we did last year.
The Canadian Wheat Board, with our system of grading through the Canada Grain Commission, is serving Canada extremely well in some very difficult times. We are looking at increasing the amount of grain exported this year, as a result of the manner in which those two institutions operate, and the manner that the Government is supporting those two institutions.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, rumours have been running rampant throughout rural Canada that rural post offices are to be closed and that rural mail delivery will be eliminated. These rumours are being spread by the Opposition, and some employees of Canada Post. Rural residents are concerned about these rumours and wish some clarification of the Government's intentions regarding Canada Post's corporate plan.
Will the Minister assure the House and rural Canadians that wholesale closures of rural post offices are not being considered?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his interest in the matter. Earlier in the past month the plan was examined and recommendations issued by a Standing Committee, which recommendations have been implemented in the plan. The facts are quite different from the propaganda campaign calling for a wholesale closure of post offices in rural Canada. The Canada Post Corporation has advised me that it has no intention of closing any rural post offices in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michel Côté: I might add that the Corporation will not start any change in the service before it consults both with the Members and the population. I can assure the Hon. Member that this will happen.


SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TAX CREDIT
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the Minister explain his Department's uncharacteristic flexibility to Dreamstreet's $22.5 million scientific research tax credit program? This company was doing research to see whether black and white Holsteins would produce better milk, and more milk, than red and white Holsteins. It has been allowed to continue its activities into this taxation year. Why is the Government giving this company such flexibility?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: appreciate my colleague's interest in this particular matter which is a residue of the infamous SRTC program. As Members realize, I cannot talk about intimate details of any taxpayer's business in the House of Commons any more than to say that in some cases these enterprises are grandfathered out of a sense of fairness. They are scrutinized very carefully by the Department in the interest of the taxpayers of Canada.
I will be pleased to give him more information privately, if it is proper.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Simon Leendert de Jong: My supplementary question is this. The Minister's Department supplied the letter that allowed Dreamstreet to carry on its activities after the Government had announced that it was closing down the SRTC program. Surely the Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot shovel money out under the SRTC program while cutting back on legitimate research through the NRC and universities, and still allow an outfit that is essentially owned by a tax shelter in the United States to grab more Canadian tax dollars.
January 29, 1987


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: know my colleague does not wish to be unfair. The Government has encouraged research by clarifying the R and D guidelines, and taking other efforts in this regard. I repeat to him that the SRTC program, as his Party and his Leader know, was one of the worst programs ever to be introduced. In the interests of fairness we could not arbitrarily cut it off without giving further assurances in the way of grandfathering some programs. We are making sure in every case possible, including this one, that the effects are monitored closely before it is finally phased out.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SASKATCHEWAN MINISTER OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Grant Schmidt, Minister of Social Services for the Province of Saskatchewan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL PARKS
Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Minister will be aware that Parks Canada plans to install a toll-gate at Pacific Rim National Park in my riding. The local community believes that this will damage the tourism industry, and it will probably not be cost effective due to the remoteness of the area. Why is a toll-gate necessary in the Pacific Rim National Park? Will the Minister reconsider the decision to install that toll-gate?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: There has been in place for a long time a general policy to charge entrance fees at the most heavily patronized national parks. In this case we are applying the policy because the Pacific Rim is one of the most popular parks. The B.C. Government, and the Hon. Member, have made the argument that, because the federal Crown owes the provincial Crown some $25 million in connection with outstanding issues surrounding that park, we ought not to be charging entrance fees until the bill is paid.
In a few days time I will be flying to British Columbia to speak to my opposite number, Stephen Rogers, the Minister of the Environment and Parks, to discuss the question. I will certainly take the Hon. Member's own views into account when I attend the meeting.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


FISHERIES
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and I am simply repeating that of my colleague the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.
Was the decision concerning the Canada-France agreement on fish stocks taken by Cabinet or by the Prime Minister's Office?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I thought I had already answered that question. It was a government decision.


Ms. Copps:: No, you did not.


Fernand Robichaud: Well then, Mr. Speaker, I shall ask my supplementary question: second verse same as the first! Would the Minister be good enough to answer this question to which we believe he has not given an answer? Was the decision taken by Cabinet or was it taken by the Prime Minister's Office?


An Hon. Member:: Questions ought not to be repeated.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This was a government decision.


IMMIGRATION
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister spoke with pride a few days ago of the purity in population and culture of his region around Lac St-Jean and along the Saguenay River. The question is simple. Will the Minister withdraw these racist comments that he made on behalf of the Conservative Party on the CBC's French language network?
[ Translation]


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that a Member of this House would dare to use for such purposes an issue which has always received great attention in this country.
The Hon. Member should know that I did not at any time refer to immigrant or refugee communities or to any other

January 29, 1987
Oral Questions
Canadian cultural community. I would ask my colleague not to indulge in this kind of petty politics.


REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENTS
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Does the Minister not recognize that his racist comments were utterly unworthy of Canada's Minister of Immigration and have to be-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


John Carnell Crosbie: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to restrain their enthusiasm. I think the Hon. Member would know that originally most of our families came to this country from somewhere else, except for our own native citizens, and that to call a fellow Canadian or a fellow member a racist is very offensive. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any suggestion that a person is racist. The concern is about comments that have a racist tinge to them.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member can put his question in such a way that he does not offend the sensibilities and the dignity of this place and, for that matter, the concepts of good will and tolerance which are at the basis of our country's success as one of the happiest nations in the world.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is simply whether the Minister does not recognize that these comments can be offensive to Canadians. Does he not realize that to maintain his standing in the Canadian population from coast to coast he needs to withdraw these comments?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will answer in my colleague's first language. I used the French word deranger. It could mean in English disturb, bother, or touch. It meant touch when I said that my region was not touched by immigration. It does not mean that that is a good thing. It means that the region was not touched by immigration. Once again I hope my colleague and hon. friend understands that on such a delicate issue in all communities in the country we do not have the right to use this kind of issue to play politics. I hope he recognizes that I do not have the right to play politics with this kind of issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REPORTED ALLEGATIONS BY MINISTER
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I will try therefore in a different and perhaps more relaxed way . ..
In the evening of Saturday, January 17, during the program La politique federate broadcasted on the French network of the CBC and which was later on the subject of an article published in the Friday, January 23 issue of the Montreal Gazette, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, while referring to the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, commented, and I quote:
-a long time sheltered enclave of some 300,000 Francophones, undisturbed by immigration or the presence of other realities in this country. It is therefore very pure demographically.
I am asking the Minister, and it is not Marcel Prud'homme's habit to indulge in demagogy with Francophone and Anglophone issues, but I wish ... If you insist, I will let other Hon. Members raise this issue, and you will see that it will be quite different. Let me raise it my way.
How could he reconcile such remarks with his duties as Minister of Immigration? How can the Minister of Immigration say that immigration is disturbing, because this is what I understood in French? I read the English text, and in all honesty to the Minister and these disquieting questions, I went over the French text of the CBC about a dozen times, and that's what I understood it to mean. My question is the same.
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, the French language is such that one could use different words to describe-I insist on the word describe-a situation. It is quite clear in my mind that when I described the community I belong to as not having been disturbed, in view of the importance of my duties, my tremendous respect for the various cultural communities of our country and for this country as a whole which was built through immigration, and the tact with which I now deal with the refugee issue-for instance, I stated just yesterday that this country should forever remain open to Chilean immigrants-how could I on a television program try to describe a community by saying that it has fortunately been sheltered from immigration?
I suggest that I should be recognized consistently in the views I have expressed for the past two years concerning my Hon. colleagues in the House who belong to various cultural communities. I described a community. I indicated that it had not been affected by immigration, which is certainly true considering that it is 99 per cent Francophone.


MINISTER'S ALLEGED REFERENCE TO DEMOGRAPHIC PURITY
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I think that I know Quebec and the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area just as well as the Minister. I think everybody will recognize that. But how can the Minister refuse to admit that it was a mistake to talk about-


An Hon. Member:: The question!


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
January 29, 1987


Marcel Prud'homme: Perhaps the translation did not reach them yet, but I was just about to ask the question, so be calm.

Why does the Minister not recognize that it was a mistake to talk about demographic purity when dealing with a community or using an expression such as "disturbed by immigration"? Is the Minister at least prepared to recognize that his remarks certainly exceeded his thought, but they were certainly understood to mean-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the Minister will make a short reply, and then perhaps we could leave this issue.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member has said that a language is a matter of word interpretation. I suggest again that if his purpose is to have me recognize that I made a mistake, I do not feel it is important. What I consider important again is to repeat in front of the whole nation that I have the highest regard and respect for all immigrants and refugees who have at last reached a country where they can enjoy freedom.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCES CONCERNING SALVADORANS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Considering the fact that Salvadorans are fleeing to Canada from the United States because they are afraid they will otherwise be sent back to Salvador, with its death squads and air raids by government troops, could the Minister give the House the assurance that the Government will allow these Salvadorans to enter Canada so they can claim refugee status and remain in this country, pending a decision on their claims?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that at the present time, and especially at Fort Erie in Ontario and Lacolle in Quebec, we are seeing massive entries of Latin Americans into Canada. Salvador is one of the countries to which Canada does not deport. So basically, anyone from that country who would otherwise be in danger of being deported will not be refused entry by Canada.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Since the Salvadorans originally fled the bombing of civilian villages by their own Government which
Oral Questions
was armed by the United States and since the United States is now escalating deportations to El Salvador, will the Government publicly call on President Reagan to cease all military support of the Salvadoran Government and to cease his deportations to that murderous police state? My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I regret that 1 missed the question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can take it as notice.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration who,
I think, realizes all parts of the country and all regions are open, without disturbance, to any and all immigrants in Canada. Nevertheless, given that the Minister's declarations sent out a very discomforting and offensive message to all Canadians, will he not do the honourable thing today in the House, because it is a sensitive matter, issue a very clear retraction of the disturbance allegation and apologize for the message that is being sent from one coast to the other concerning people from all backgrounds and all walks of life?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, briefly, I answered that question earlier, but I simply want to add that it is rather problematic to pursue debate on matters that in my view can only add to the controversy that has already done a great deal of harm in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York West. A very short supplementary, please.


REQUEST FOR APOLOGY
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question. Here we have an Immigration Minister who refuses to apologize for a very clear and discomforting statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please put the question?


Sergio Marchi: Why don't you get up on your feet and ask your own question?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

January 29, 1987
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York West, I think, has made his point. I would comment that it would seem to the Chair that the Hon. Minister has tried to say that, whatever his comments may have seemed to be, they were not intended in that way. That I think is the clear meaning of the exchange so far. The Chair would ask Hon. Members to be as careful as they can be. I will recognize the Hon. Member for York West on a very short last question.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Deputy Minister very clearly will he, on behalf of the Government, issue a statement of clarification and apology so that Canadians can re-establish their confidence in an immigration policy which is both fair and progressive for our present day immigrants and immigrants who are going to be landing on our shores tomorrow?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are any Members in this House who would suggest that there is anyone more sincere than the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I think his very careful and deliberate replies to the questions raised here, in an attempt to explain clearly any misinterpretation that may have been placed upon them, was done in the best interests in the discharge of his responsibility and in the discharge of his responsibility as a Member of this House.
I would simply invite the Hon. Member, before he starts suggesting that someone should apologize, to read in Hansard tomorrow precisely what the Hon. Minister has said because I think he made a full accounting and a full explanation for what the Hon. Member is trying to allege he said, which is a wrong interpretation.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is on tape.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do welcome the opportunity to rise on a point of order to ask the Government House Leader (Mr. Mazankowski) what business he intends to call for the next week.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with Bill C-18, the National Transportation Act, then Bill C-19, the Motor Vehicle Transportation Act which will be followed by Bill C-21, the Shippers Conference Exemption Act.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with respect to a decision made by the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-22.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who is a long-standing Member of this House, has arisen to address the Chair on a question of privilege. I know that Hon. Members would want to hear his intervention.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege on a decision made at this morning's meeting of the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-22. At one of the first meetings of that committee, a motion was made by a government Member that a quorum of the committee authorized to conduct the work of the committee should consist of four Members. I moved an amendment, which was accepted, voted on and approved, that among the four Members who would constitute a quorum at least one should be a Member of the Opposition. The two members of the Opposition serving on that committee are the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) and myself.
The committee at a later date accepted a motion that the committee should meet five times a week and that at each meeting the committee should hear three delegations, each delegation to have 45 minutes and not more. The Member from East Richmond and I argued that this was too restrictive, but that motion carried.
This morning the committee met to hear two delegations, first, the delegation representing the Multiple Sclerosis Organization of Ottawa. That Organization had its 45 minutes. Then came the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. After about 40 minutes, the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond left. I stayed and when I thought 45 minutes had elapsed, I left. Certainly at the least 43 minutes had gone by.
Just let me go back a step, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the committee discussed future witnesses. The Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond proposed that we invite Congressman Waxman who heads up a committee looking into this question in the U.S. House of Representatives and I suggested that we invite a representative of the American Association of Retired Persons. I suggested, and it was agreed, that we find out whether either of these individuals could come and whether we would have to pay their expenses. If we did, then we could discuss whether the committee had the funds. That was the way it was left.
As I said, the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond left the committee. Then after I left, believing the time had gone by for the delegation, the committee adopted, without the presence of either member of the Opposition, a motion that no invitation be extended to any possible delegation from the United States. I think moving and passing that motion when
January 29, 1987

neither of the Opposition Members were there-and I am one of them-was a breach of my privileges as a Member of this House and of the commmittee.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, it is with unusual reluctance that I rise to make a comment on the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). 1 open with those comments because I am the chairman of the legislative committee on Bill C-22. 1 will be precise in my comments and I will not in any way enter into the subject area of the debate that is before Members of Parliament at this time because of my role as chairman of the that committee.
As you know, I attempt to chair that committee in the same way you adjudicate in this Chamber. I am a servant of the committee, not its master. The Hon. Member for Dauphin- Swan River (Mr. White) said this morning that I indicated from the Chair that I would have to assure myself we had a quorum. I was informed by the Clerk that the motions previously passed related to having a quorum for the hearing of evidence and that at that time the committee had a quorum with respect to motions. Therefore, when a motion was moved I allowed that motion to stand on the advice of the Clerk. The motion was put, voted upon and passed.
With respect to the question of whether the time for the meeting had lapsed, my stop-watch indicated we had a full 10 minutes remaining in the time for examination of witnesses. So it is inaccurate to say that the time had lapsed.
I set out those facts because they may be germane to a decision you may have to make. I also want to apologize for involving you as the Speaker in what ought to be the internal affairs of the committee itself.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise with great difficulty concerning this issue. What we had decided was that the purpose of the meeting today was to adduce evidence from witnesses who have very strong beliefs concerning this Bill. I notified the Chair that I had to leave the meeting because of a prior commitment. 1 asked him if he would undertake to obtain certain information from the witnesses and I presume he has done that. However, at no time were we informed up to that point that this would be up for discussion as a procedural matter.
I suggest very humbly that the rules of natural justice have been breached. There was no notice whatsoever. We did not have an opportunity to debate both the procedure and substance of the motion put forward by the Government. Members of the Opposition, whether they be Liberal or NDP, have rights. You would think government Members would want to give us every opportunity, as well as members of their own Party, to discuss the substance of the motion. Yet it was pulled in by members opposite when they knew members of the Opposition were not available. Therefore the motion passed. I find that to be unfair, unreasonable, and a breach of
Privilege-Mr. Orlikow
my rights as a Member of Parliament. It is totally unacceptable.
I ask you to reflect on my comments as well as those of my colleagues. We are not here to try and interfere wilfully with the procedures of this committee. However, it has to be said- and I will not say anything about the substance of the motion-that government Members are running roughshod over members of the Opposition. That is not fair.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have two or three points I would like to add to this discussion.
I believe it is appropriate for you to consider that the committee passed a motion on December 11 which said that when the committee meets to hear evidence at least one member of the Opposition must be present. It is very clear that the meeting held earlier today was to hear evidence. There is a long tradition around here that if a committee is considering altering its procedures concerning witnesses, it is a matter to be discussed by a steering committee. That committee then comes to an understanding and takes the motion back to the full committee.
Upon completion of the hearing of evidence members of the Opposition felt that that was the end of business for that sitting and decided to leave. It was at that point, when only government Members were left, that there was a change to the whole procedure regarding witnesses who would appear before the committee.
It is important to recognize that this meeting was called to hear evidence, not deal with the future order of business, particularly when it is on a Bill as serious as this. It seems only fair that a steering committee would examine it first and then make a recommendation for the whole committee to consider, with all members present after being fully notified.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I was in the
committee this morning. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) left early, as he said. I saw him advise the Chair that he was departing and he asked for some information, which I am sure is coming along. The NDP Member on the committee left with, according to my watch, about 12 or 14 minutes still to go.
We had a matter to consider, that being whether or not we would hear certain witnesses. Of the proposed witnesses one was an American Congressman. It is my understanding that we do not appear before American congressional committees as Members of Parliament. I turned down an invitation to appear before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee on the basis that is not our custom, and we felt it was probably improper for a Congressman to appear before our committee. There were three other American witnesses who we just did not feel had any reasonable contribution to make to our committee. Therefore we moved the motion that they not be heard. I do not see anything wrong with that. The committee acted within the rules and I do not believe there is a question of privilege here.

January 29, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to make some very brief comments about this matter. I hope you will take note of the fact that almost every week there is a point of order or question of privilege raised in this House about what some members think are incidents of unfairness in standing and legislative committees. I invite you, Sir, to determine whether or not the time has come for you to use the broad residual authority, which I submit you have, to ensure that committees operate as fairly as the House of Commons itself with regard to members who are in opposition to the Government, as well as members who support it.
With regard to this particular incident, I believe that the normal practice for making decisions with regard to hearing witnesses would be for the matter to be first considered by the steering committee, on which there are representatives of the opposition Parties, and then considered by the full committee with full opportunity for opposition Members to be present, take part in debate on the motion, and vote on it.
Parliament is a court. It is called the High Court of Parliament. There is a basic principle in the British and Canadian judicial systems. That principle is audi alteram partem, hear the other side. With all due respect to the Government majority on the committee which proposed and voted on that motion in the absence of opposition Members, they did not follow that basic principle.
I respectfully submit that this is a very serious matter and it is not being raised for the first time. There is a pattern developing which, if allowed to continue and solidify, will destroy all claims of value in the changes in the rules with respect to the role of members on all sides of this House in the committee system and in the operation of the House of Commons.
In conclusion, at the very least, at the next meeting of the committee it should agree to revoke this motion and refer the matter to the steering committee for a full and fair consideration such as we are accustomed to in the House of Commons and its committees. If this does not happen, I am sure this matter will reappear before you so that we can again invite you to use that residual authority, perhaps a moral authority, which is very much in existence, to ensure that the House of Commons and its committees operate fairly in the interest of all its members, not only those who for the time being are in support of the Government.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise only two points because I think this matter has been dealt with very well.
It was very awkward for the chairman of the committee because it brings into question the operations of the committee. This is the second alleged breach of privilege in a committee which has been raised this week. I always believed that to exercise privilege one had to be present. If one is prevented
from voting or speaking when one is present, that is a breach of privilege. However, if a member of a committee leaves a committee hearing, it is difficult to complain about what took place in one's absence.
In your deliberations on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you give us some direction as to where a question of privilege must be first raised. In this case should it not be raised at the next meeting of the committee? I believe there are 30 or 35 committees of the House of Commons at this time. If the Chair is to be the first level of appeal for every breach of privilege in those 35 committees, you might find yourself spending a fair amount of time hearing those questions of privilege. I agree that the Chair should be at the appeal level, but I do not think that the House should be the first place where a question of privilege from a committee is raised. I believe that this is a good question of privilege to be raised at the next committee meeting. If one is not successful at that level, one has the opportunity to bring it to the full Chamber.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the disposition of the Chair to adjourn this matter at this time without prejudice to the Hon. Member who raised the matter, or to any Hon. Member who wishes to make an intervention when I bring the matter back to the Chamber. The Chair thinks that the Parliamentary Secretary has made an eminently sensible suggestion. What members of the committee do when they reassemble is entirely their own business. However, perhaps something might take place which would make it unnecessary to carry on with this discussion. I am going to adjourn this matter without prejudice to the Hon. Member who has raised it. If the matter is not settled, I will hear from Hon. Members later.
I hope the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) is not rising on the same matter. The Hon. Member will have every opportunity to speak when the matter comes back to the Chamber.


André Ouellet: If it does.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to adjourn the matter at this point. I want to make it clear that I am not adjourning to make a decision. I am adjourning the debate to bring it back at another time, if it is necessary to do so.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Benjamin (p. 2756).
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, this debate on the new National Transportation Act is very serious.
January 29, 1987

I am somewhat disppointed with the attention that is being paid to this debate by the media and the public in general. In my view we are debating the very future of our country. We are debating the nature of the transportation infrastructure in Canada. Our transportation infrastructure has always been absolutely crucial to both the nature and the survival of our country. I believe that all Canadians would do well to pay more attention to the debate which is taking place in the House.
I sometimes find it both amusing and disturbing that so much attention is paid to the proposed free trade agreement with the United States and the negotiations in relation to that, a hypothetical situation which is some years in the future. We are debating here and now in this Chamber an issue which could have every bit as serious an impact on the future of Canada. It is at second reading stage in the House of Commons. There is a very real possibility that this legislation will be enacted in the near future. Yet, very little attention is being paid to this while the country wastes its energy speculating about a free trade agreement.
I take this debate very seriously and will comment specifically on things which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) said when he introduced this legislation on December 19. It was unfortunate that we heard only from the Minister on December 19 and that opposition critics did not get an opportunity to speak until after the Christmas break. That was a very underhanded way to begin such an important debate as this. The Minister said, as reported at page 2318 of Hansard:
Cost efficient transportation will create opportunities for expansion and development in industries across Canada.
At page 2320, the Minister said:
Real jobs will be created or maintained in all regions wherever better transportation service at a better price will make a resource producer, a manufacturer or other business more competitive in the market-place.
These statements simplistically suggest that there are opportunities for Canadian industry, with markets out there waiting to be served, if only transportation costs could be reduced. This is certainly not true in the case of Canada's raw resource and processed resource markets. There is over-all global over-supply in many cases and it has very little to do with transportation costs.
Of course, transportation is a cost and much Canadian production is distant from markets. However, short of giving away transportation, it is difficult to see how markets can be improved in the face of a global glut.
Implicit in the statement of the Minister is the unfounded myth that starving the transportation industry is somehow good for industry. A transportation industry that is starved for revenues, earnings and investment will not be effective for very long.
In the same speech, the Minister said, as reported at page 2319 of Hansard:
National Transportation Act, 1986
-our transportation system has to be efficient, effective and adequate.
If the Government persists in one-way free trade with the United States and gives U.S. railroads the opportunity to cut away at Canadian railways without giving Canada's carriers an opportunity to compete on an equal footing, the system will not be efficient, it will not be effective, and it will not be adequate for very long. It is a classic example of how the practicality of the Bill is out of sync with its objectives and principles. In that respect, I want to expand on the question of how this legislation would affect the relationship between Canadian railways and the United States railways and comment on the whole matter of mandated joint line use. It is of great concern to the railways, not only CN and CP, but to railway workers across the country and all those economically integrated with the railways.
Mandated joint line rates give two alternatives to the railway responsible for originating the traffic in any particular case. Both alternatives are a disincentive to rail investment. They either turn the long haul portion of a movement over to a competitor, or keep that long haul by quoting a rate which may not adequately compensate the carrier for the investments needed to provide the level of service the customer requires.
In either case, the lower revenues would reduce the carrier's ability to make the substantial investment necessary to maintain and renew its plant and equipment and to remain competitive. This financial squeeze would be compounded if the railway is forced to duplicate its rail line capacity by upgrading track to an alternative junction point in addition to maintaining its vital long haul line.
In the short run, rates may be reduced, but the originating carrier service would deteriorate, even in a few years, to an unsatisfactory level.
As I stated, in many cases mandated joint line rates would include one or more U.S. railroads. Since U.S. railroads operate in a lower cost business and tax environment, they can provide a comparable service at a lower cost than their Canadian counterparts. They can also be more competitive because an increasing amount of their back-shopping can be done in economic and labour environments that pay Americans much lower wages than the railway workers in Canada and Canadians generally expect.
If U.S. railroads succeed in capturing transborder traffic from Canadian carriers, Canadian shippers would become dependent on foreign carriers, operating largely beyond the jurisdiction of Canadian law. This could also mean a substantial loss of business for Canadian ports, since the network configuration of U.S. roads means they would take advantage of mandated joint line rates to route Canadian import-export traffic through U.S. port facilities. Canadian shippers could well find the routing and handling of their traffic subject to the dictates of American national interests. It is an example of another sell-out of Canadian interests by the Progressive Conservative Government.

January 29, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
This could be a serious disadvantage for those who compete with U.S. producers for foreign and North American business. Furthermore, with mandated joint line rates, U.S. carriers could effectively eliminate Canadian rail competition for trans-border traffic by cancelling routings.
For example, let us consider a shipment of western Canadian wood pulp destined for the U.S. east coast. At the moment, CP Rail carries the shipment across Canada, handing it over to Conrail at an eastern Canadian gateway, for delivery to New England. With a mandated joint line rate, CP Rail could be required to turn the traffic over to Burlington Northern at the Alberta-Montana border. Conrail would then pick it up at Chicago and haul it to its destination. Clearly it is in Conrail's best interest to cancel its routing via eastern Canada and funnel traffic through Chicago. Currently, Conrail keeps that routing open because CP Rail has other choices. However, if CP Rail's eastern routing is cancelled, the shipper's competitive options would be reduced.
This would result in a massive export of jobs and economic activity to the United States, because of the increased routing of Canadian traffic through the U.S. Obviously, that is not in Canada's best interests. We should be very concerned about the jobs in those areas directly connected with the railway, including the running yards, equipment maintenance, the ports and many others. Thousands of jobs are at stake because the Government is foolish enough actually to contemplate this kind of measure.
A mandated joint line rate would also undermine the economic health of many of the regions in which Canadian shippers operate. I believe that the most detrimental part of the legislation is the mandated joint line use. Our very existence as a country is at stake.
If our railways are forced to cut each other's throat in order to compete not only among themselves but with the American railways, more and more concessions will be demanded from railway workers, safety will be increasingly compromised and other steps will be taken that otherwise would not be necessary if this legislation were not stopped.
I hope Canadians will understand the implications of this legislation. We in the Opposition will do our best to make the public aware of what is happening.
Let me return to the Minister's speech. At page 2321 of Hansard he said:
The new legislation is not to just create or preserve jobs in other sectors of the economy; it is to help create and maintain jobs in transportation itself. That can only be done if the demands of travellers and shippers increase in a growing economy.
Secure jobs in the transportation industry can only be maintained if the industry is basically sound itself. Therefore, legislation must balance the needs of users of transportation with those of the suppliers of transportation. This Bill is not balanced. It will foster rates that are so low, partly through unequal competition with American carriers, that the viability of Canadian carriers will be put at risk.
One must question whether this is the ultimate goal of the Conservative Government which has talked about privatizing CN? Does it want to so weaken both Canadian railways that at some time it will be able to make the argument that no one railway can stand on its own any longer and there should only be one railway in Canada? Of course, the Conservative ideology is that this one railway should be privately owned so that we would see the fire sale of what was left of CN to Canadian Pacific. One wonders if that is the Government's hidden agenda.
That seems to be the only explanation for the Government's embarking on a regulatory regime that would have the effect of weakening our two national railways to such an extent. Perhaps that is the hidden agenda behind this Bill. No tests have been made of the market impact of the measures in this Bill. The Government is flying blind ideologically. A more measured approach, enabling the impact of certain competitive provisions to be tested, would make a lot more sense than proceeding in the way the Bill is designed.
The Minister also said on page 2232 of Hansard of December 19:
The most significant new option is to allow the Minister to use moneys, which otherwise would have had to be spent to subsidize the line, to help shippers and communities adjust to alternative services such as trucking.
Here again we see a thrust which began under the Liberals, which is now to be accelerated by the Conservatives, of rail line abandonment. Only now people are to be somehow satisfied that there will be a little fund created to help them make the transition from having rail lines available to using trucks. I am against this on two counts and one is from an environmental point of view. I just spent some time this morning at the meeting of the Special Committee on Acid Rain. We heard how nitrous oxide emissions from heavy duty vehicles are a serious environmental problem. What do you think could be more environmentally stupid, Mr. Speaker, than substituting dozens and dozens of trucks for one train? Yet that is the trend and has been the trend for some time. We are going in exactly the opposite direction we should be if we are trying to reduce the emissions of nitrous oxide and other pollutants which come from internal combustion engines into our environment. This really smart idea of the Liberals is now to be carried out and completed as the final solution by the Conservatives who say: "We have a solution to nitrous oxide emissions. Let us get rid all the trains and let us have trucks going everywhere all across the country. Let us undermine the railways". That does not make any sense to me either environmentally or economically.
It is not going to make much sense to any of those small communities which might be affected. If those residents take a close look at the legislation, they will see that even for those who are in favour of rail line abandonment, which I am not, the new provision is flawed because the full costs of a line are not taken into account in the determination of whether or not it is economical.
January 29, 1987

Many people who find rail cost accounting complex and confusing might cheer because it raises the economic threshold for abandonment, but it also means that the cost base upon which federal compensation is determined in the event a line is allowed to be abandoned is low. Therefore, the alternative compensation that communities and shippers may see as helping them to make the transition will almost inevitably be inadequate. On page 2323 of Hansard the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) said:
We do not believe that the railways need a monopoly to be viable or to compete with the U.S. railways.
Railways have not had a monopoly for half a century or more. The 1967 National Transportation Act recognized that. Some people say it was a belated recognition. But no one in the railway industry is asking for a monopoly to stay viable. It has not had a monopoly for ages and it does not want one. However, it does want to be able to compete without its own federal Government tying its hands and opening it up to unfair competition from the U.S. railroads.
The statement by the Minister also raises a broader issue and that is the public policy perception on which this legislation is based. It has been stated frequently by promoters of this Bill that the railways are "fat cats" and that they have been taking advantage of monopoly powers. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, where are the monopoly profits? When Hon. Members rise in the House to complain about corporations making all kinds of money, we do not hear about the Canadian National-or CP Rail, for that matter, as opposed to other dimensions of CP's operation-being cited as one of those "fat cats". In fact, people have been laid off by the tens of thousands over the last 10 years.
The promoters of this Bill have created a bogey man of a monopoly which no longer exists. They have tried to create a perception of railways operating like 19th century buccaneers so that they can justify a piece of flawed legislation which ignores economics and indulges in political wishful thinking.
On page 2323 of Hansard, the Minister goes on to say:
The captive shipper and Canada need better service at better prices to meet the ever-increasing rigours of domestic and international competition.
The captive shipper may be in for a nasty surprise. He is like the dog in the old fable trotting across a bridge above a stream with a bone in its mouth. When it sees the reflection of the bone, the dog thinks it is another and better bone. He drops the bone in his mouth and dives for the reflected image and ends up with nothing.
The benefits of having other carriers, in particular, U.S. carriers, may well be the same thing in terms of long-term effect; an illusion, a mirage, a deception perpetrated upon the shippers and Canadians in general by the Government.
The revenue lost to Canadian carriers, combined with the ability of U.S. carriers to control routings, may well make the U.S. carrier the only carrier for all practical purposes. Once the financially drained Canadian carrier ceases to be a competitive option, the U.S. carrier can treat the Canadian
National Transportation Act, 1986
shipper however he pleases. The Canadian captive shipper is no better off, in fact, worse off, than he was before. It is this kind of game of illusion which is being perpetrated with Bill C-18, that is, illusory "benefits" which are supposed to increase competition when the end result may be less competition.
On page 2324 of Hansard of December 19 the Minister said that the CTC:
-is a huge albatross about the necks of those involved in the transportation industry, and has enormous authority.
It may be a big albatross, and a slow moving one, but at least it is an impartial and apolitical albatross. Finally, on page 2324 the Minister says:
-we will set transportation policy and be responsible for it. We will not slough off responsibility to someone else-
This is a regime of responsibility .
It is difficult to see, by taking more of the responsibilities of the CTC into the Minister's office, how this wili lead either to better decisions or faster ones. One of the most famous railway-related decisions made in this country, which the Conservative Party was against, campaigned against and even reversed when it came into office, was the decision made in the Minister's office over and against a decision made by the CTC, and that was to cancel the VIA Rail routes. That decision was made in 1981. So I ask those Hon. Members who are enchanted by the notion of a new regulatory regime to consider the danger of regulatory decisions by the political whim of the governing Party. I ask them to consider the dangers of that being increased and the danger of the Minister exposing himself to getting loaded down with trivia.
This is a bad Bill. Coupled with a lot of other things this Government has done with respect to Canadian sovereignty, I believe that if this is allowed to go through, along with some of the other things on the agenda, in four, five or six years' time we will not have a country worthy of the name.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party and the Hon. Member who just spoke say that the railways do not have a monopoly. Would the Hon. Member say the same thing to the coal producers, the men and women who work in the sulphur industry, the potash industry, located on CP rails? Would that Party seriously suggest that these products can be shipped long distance by truck? If so, I suggest that that Party is out of touch with reality. I find it strange that the New Democratic Party is arguing that shippers should pay higher rates in order to ensure that Canadian Pacific continues to have high profits from captive shippers, men and women in the Hon. Member's constituency, in my constituency and in the constituency of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer).
Has the New Democratic Party become the spokesman for the CPR in ensuring that the shareholders of the CPR continue to receive dividends on the backs of the Hon. Member's constituency and the people of western Canada? Is that the nonsensical position with which the Hon. Member is trying to con this House?

January 29, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to rates which may or may not be charged to coal producers and others by the CPR at this time. That is precisely why we have the regulatory regime that we do. If these people have a complaint as to the fairness of what they are being charged, there are procedures in place for them to be able to make their case. That is as it should be, as far as I am concerned. If we open it up completely to the market-place and permit secret agreements to be reached between the CPR, or the CNR for that matter, and other producers, then we will have a rate system which discriminates against the less powerful producers and creates a hey-day for those who have the required volume to make sweetheart deals with the railways.
I realize it is kind of cute for the Government to get up and point out that in this case the New Democratic Party happens to be in agreement with a criticism made of this Bill by the Canadian Pacific. That is a fact. I can honestly say that it is not something I enjoy. But I prefer the truth over my own personal comfort. It happens to be the case in this case, and it is rarely the case that the CPR is right.


David Kilgour: With all due respect to the Hon. Member who just spoke, the existing regulatory procedures do not work. They have been proven to be inadequate for the late 20th century on many occasions. I will give him an example of that.
Champion Forest Products, along with other pulpwood producers in western Canada, appealed the 4 per cent increase that CN, and I believe CP, put into effect last January 1. They filed their appeal with the CTC on, I believe it was, April 1 of last year. As the Hon. Member may recall, it was mid-December before the CTC came down with its decision. In other words, roughly eight months went by before the CTC made a decision.
Champion Forest Products as you well know, Mr. Speaker, is wanting to put up a $350 million or $400 million expansion to its pulpwood plant in Hinton in western Alberta. In the construction of this project some 400 workers would be employed full-time if that expansion goes ahead. I can tell the Hon. Member that Champion Forest Products is one of the many suppliers and western Canadian shippers which is strongly behind this Bill.
In other words the system has not worked, which is why we will change it to ensure that CP and CN have to negotiate in good faith with small, medium and large shippers on which hundreds of thousands of jobs in western Canada and throughout Canada, both urban and rural, depend. I am surprised that the Hon. Member does not seem to know anything about these issues.
The Hon. Member raised the question of small shippers. I would remind him, because he has not been here, and I should not mention where he has been, that shippers, small and large, will be able to negotiate rail prices and services as they do now with other suppliers of goods and services. Pricing will be open
to volume equipment service routing and other considerations. The point is that in the absence of confidential contracts, railways are hesitant to offer lower rates to small shippers where volumes may have a unique movement to offer to the railway which, perhaps, is of benefit to the railway because it fills an empty back haul. The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) gave an eloquent example this morning of how the men and women of Fort McMurray tried to get a back haul route for the sulphur trains leaving Fort McMurray some years ago and were told that they could not have it.
When our legislation is in place, back hauls will be available to shippers and entrepreneurs in the Hon. Member's riding as well as in mine. With all due respect, the Hon. Member simply does not realize that the economy has changed since the days of the Regina Manifesto. We are trying to get into an era in which we have to compete with Japan and many other countries. The only way we can do that is by getting our goods and services moving with an efficient transportation system which is not captive to an outdated ideology.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Bird's Nest.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I wish you would cut that out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that I had to say that, I am sorry. There is a problem with that particular part of Winnipeg and I regret that I have said that. I will now refrain from ever saying it again. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Kilgour) was charged with the surveillance of Members of Parliament. He said that he would not mention where I was. If he knows where I was, then that is even more astounding. But I am not sure to what he was referring. The fact of the matter is that I was in Winnipeg for the first few days of this week with the federal NDP nuclear inquiry. If that is something of interest to the Parliamentary Secretary, then perhaps I could brief him on it. In the meantime he would do well to address his remarks to the subject matter.
He mentions, again facetiously, that the economy has changed since the Regina Manifesto. We are talking about amendments to the National Transportation Act of 1967, some 34 years after the Regina Manifesto. I am pointing this out just to show the shallowness and triviality of the type of response we get from the Parliamentary Secretary about a major change to our economy.
With respect to the question of how long it took this particular company to get a ruling out of the Canadian Transport Commission, that is a serious matter. But the disagreement is about whether or not the Government's response to that obvious problem is the right response. In my judgment it is no wonder the Canadian Transport Commission takes as long as it does to come up with judgments because it has been systematically underfunded for years, long before this
January 29, 1987

Government came to power. It has been underfunded in terms of staff at all levels, whether it be in terms of inspectors on the ground looking at safety or whether it be with respect to commissioners and others who have to rule on these types of matters.
In conclusion, in my judgment the solution is not to create a system whereby the pulp and paper will be hauled over American railway lines. If that is the Tory solution, then they can have it. There have to be more creative ways of dealing with the problem than allowing our goods and services to be handled by American railways.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allotted for questions and comments has terminated. The Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) on debate.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my pleasure in being able to debate Bill C-18 today in the House of Commons. I would like to say at the outset that I am much more optimistic about the positive ramifications and benefits that this Bill will have than is the previous speaker. Although I am not surprised, I am disappointed that, indeed, true to tradition, the socialists of the country are knocking the premise of free enterprise and suggesting that indeed we should go for more regulation rather than deregulation.
Today is one of the truly important moments in Canada's history and in the history of transportation in the country. Today, we are debating second reading of a new National Transportation Act and a new Motor Vehicle Transport Act. These Bills are the most fundamental and progressive reforms in transportation legislation that Canada has seen for a good many years.
Two years ago, in the fall of 1984, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled the Agenda for Economic Recovery, the Government's plan for economic renewal, in the House of Commons. An important element of this policy was the return of economic initiative to the private sector and the reduction of government interference and regulation in the business affairs of Canadians.
In July of 1985 the Government put before Parliament the position paper Freedom to Move. It was a carefully thought-out program for the reform of economic regulation of transportation, joined with a reduction in the level of government interference in transportation economic matters.
Throughout the summer and fall of 1985 discussions took place in all parts of the Canadian community with transportation companies, with provinces and with users of transport services-business people, shippers and travellers.
Last fall, the Standing Committee on Transport considered and held hearings on the policy proposals set out in the document Freedom to Move. The committee's recommendations were important in shaping the legislation which is currently before the House.
National Transportation Act, 1986
These Bills are among the most forward-looking and reform-minded legislation I have seen in some time before the House for consideration. They represent the following broad principles. Less regulation and less interference in transportation, which will lead to greater economic growth in all of Canada's regions. Greater reliance on competition and market forces, which will result in lower transportation costs and the services people want, rather than those dictated to them from afar. Users of the transportation system, both shippers and travellers, want a regulatory system that is open, accessible, just, and dedicated to competition and service. I suggest to my hon. friends opposite that those are the cornerstones and the milestones of this entire Act. They are the foundation.
'
It is of special importance to me, as a Member from Atlantic Canada, to know that this reform will bring benefits to the less advantaged areas of the country, as it will to central Canada. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it does address that.
Some have tried to make the case that excessive regulation promotes regional development. Nothing could be further from the truth. For too long, Atlantic Canada has paid too high a price for a transportation regulatory system that protects privilege and stifles development. Our growth will best be served by a competitive transportation system that is efficient, and offers the widest range of services at the least cost. We are located far from markets and need the lowest costs possible. We need the type of innovative marketing that a competitive system brings, not rigid regulation. We need services that suit our special needs, not those operated to arbitrary standards set in Ottawa. In short, we in Atlantic Canada need the benefits of competition.
Over the last 20 years, the rapid change in the transportation system has convinced me that the unreasonable economic regulation of carriers, and the counterproductive effect this has had on users, has gone on far too long. The reforms this Bill proposes for Canadian air services are wide-reaching and important. Under the new reform legislation, domestic air carriers can offer services and prices as they see fit, and as the market demands. This will lead to a wider range of less costly services to our citizens. The public will be protected from abrupt cessation of service by a 60-day notice period, and subsidies to preserve essential services. Unreasonable fare increases can also be disallowed or turned back.
This legislation does address the concerns and needs of Atlantic Canada. This Bill will greatly reduce stifling economic regulations. We all know that the Government is committed to air safety, and as other hon. colleagues have already said, safety is the first priority. I am happy to say that steps are already under way to enhance air, rail, truck and marine safety by hiring more inspectors, improving standards, and making legislative safety reforms.
I am convinced that these air transportation reforms will foster a wider range of services in Atlantic Canada at more

January 29, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
competitive prices. We all know that some lessening of the regulatory grip has taken place since 1984, and that this has increased the range of air services in all regions while holding down prices, and in many cases reducing them. I am also happy to note that Canadian-built aircraft are being used for many of these new services.
I wish to give some examples of how this has helped my region. For years, residents of Atlantic Canada have rightfully complained about air services in that part of the country. These reforms will address the problem. For example, the new fall schedules for the major airlines show that Saint John, New Brunswick, will continue to benefit from economic regulatory reform. Air Canada's trial Ottawa-Montreal to Saint John service will continue. CP Air has added direct service to St. John's, Newfoundland. Air Atlantic has begun a midafternoon Halifax-Saint John run. There are now four midafternoon flights between Saint John and Halifax. In addition, Air Bras D'or is flying six days a week from Saint John to Fredericton, St. Leonard and Charlo, as well as to Digby and Halifax. Air Atlantic also operates to Fredericton and Moncton, with new generation Dash-8 equipment providing excellent quality service to these cities. Passengers who are using these services can use CP Air's seat sales and travel bonus programs. These are only the first of many improvements to come.
I wish to turn to the proposed economic reforms for railways. The National Transportation Act of 1967 constrained our railways in competing with each other. This helped no one, and it led to higher freight rates and a lessening of competition. The Government wants to give the railways a chance to compete, a chance to become efficient once again, and a chance to serve Canadians at the lowest possible price with the widest range of services. The rail proposals in the Bill will help Atlantic Canada's economy. There are better interswitching limits, terminal running rights, competitive line rates, and confidential contracts will allow railways to optimize their use of equipment, and give users lower prices. These reforms will help Atlantic Canada get the competitive rail service it deserves. This could mean more jobs at Bel-ledune Fertilizer, and more rail traffic from Brunswick Mining and Smelting. It will mean real rail competition for Miramichi Pulp and Paper, and all the other Atlantic Canadian companies that can use combinations of rail lines to reach their markets.
For the shippers that are unable to get a suitable price from their railroad, I am pleased to see that this legislation offers a powerful set of remedies that restore shippers' rights, and in particular will benefit the smaller, more remote shipper. Voluntary mediation will be available to help resolve disputes. Final offer arbitration will help a shipper with an unresolved complaint against a carrier's tariff gain a speedy, inexpensive end to his case. In those cases of broad public importance, a much improved public interest provision is proposed.
Shippers in Atlantic Canada will benefit from these provisions. Many shippers will be able to use both railways and will benefit from the competition between them to get a better price or better service. Others will be able to use the improved dispute resolving mechanisms to get a better deal. The greater efficiency in railroading which will result from these reforms will help all shippers in Atlantic Canada.
The Government has agreed with the provinces on a national highway safety code that will ensure that all truckers on our highways meet the same high safety standard. The Atlantic provinces will especially benefit from these reforms. By the very nature of our rail system, we have less choice of rail carriers, and have to rely on our trucking industry to give us the range of services we need. We all know that New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are ready to proceed with provincial legislation that will free up trucking within their jurisdictions. Bill C-18 will give our region the market driven trucking industry that will help us grow and prosper.
I wish to mention that this legislation takes into consideration the regional development needs of my region. Regional development is given prominence in the policy statement of the new National Transportation Act, Section 3. This is a made-in-Canada policy, as we can all see in the special provisions for air transport in the North, the acquisitions section that puts our public interest first in takeovers, the carefully crafted railway provisions, and the staged introduction of trucking reform. The Government is committed to the ERDA programs and the maintenance of the NFRA and ARFAA programs in my region.
In closing, I wish to say that I welcome this legislation and look forward to its passage. I am convinced that it will bring significant benefits to Atlantic Canada, give a much needed boost to economic development in the region, and help create jobs.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 Bow River (Mr. Taylor)-Canada Post Corporation-Rural mail service-Weekly newspaper postal rates; the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)- Banks and banking-Increases in bank service charges; the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger)-Housing-(a) Cooperative housing-1986 statistics (b) Inquiry whether program will be amended.
January 29, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-18, an Act respecting National Transportation, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benjamin (p. 2756).
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation now before the House once again results from another decision made by this Tory Government which is influenced by the American Government.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-18 now before the House is aimed at deregulating air transportation and rail transportation. Bill C-19 which is to be discussed later also has implications along with Bill C-18 concerning road transportation.
At first glance, Mr. Speaker, people might think it is in fact interesting to see changes being made to the transport policy, and the Liberal Party is not opposed to amending the transport policy, but on the other had, we are opposed to the Bill as it is presently submitted to us. And my colleague, our official critic, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) is justified in raising the matter before all Members of this House and the public in general, in criticizing and condemning the attitude of our Tory Government in this matter as in so many others, because the Standing Committee which discussed the whole question, the legislation, the idea of amending or deregulating, did not even have the time to meet and visit with people in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be wise to act as a responsible person, to know, to wait for the opportunity to have information, comments, information from all Canadians rather than blindly relying on what a deputy minister, a minister or two and the Prime Minister's Office may have to say. We know who is running this country, Mr. Speaker. Not the Government Members, not the Ministers, not the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), but the Prime Minister's Office and his friends. But this is a case where laughing problems away is not good enough. First, what would be the implications of deregulation as far as air transportation is concerned?
Everyone remembers what happened in the United States some years ago. Even Canadians would say; "This is interesting. People's Express is advertising very inexpensive trips to Florida." People only had to travel to Montreal, to Ste-Catherine Street-they were taken by bus to Plattsburgh, and then instead of getting a hot meal on board the plane to Florida they ate a sandwich on the corner of the table: all this of course was not expensive. What the people did not know is
National Transportation Act, 1986
that safety was no longer a priority, there were fewer mechanics to check the aircraft and fewer expert technicians standing by and ready to handle any kind of emergency.
In the early stages it did look rather promising. The first and second years were highlighted by strong competition from a number of smaller companies which opened for business and offered truly competitive fares. So where do they stand now, Mr. Speaker? Prices rose to their previous levels and services are still reduced. People still eat sandwiches on the corner of the table. Far from improving, safety has decreased as a result of deregulation, thousands of jobs have disappeared, thousands of companies went bankrupt.
Mr. Speaker, given that kind of experience we in Canada should have said: Well now, they made a mistake, so we should not do the same thing. No, Sir, our beloved Prime Minister listened very closely when Mr. Reagan said: Mr. Prime Minister, you know what the American Government has done, we have deregulated the industry, you do the same thing.
As if job losses were not enough, Air Canada President Taylor himself warned that the price of airline tickets would not go down. So what benefits does the Government expect from this Bill? It is obvious that consumers and passengers alike do not stand to gain anything at all. There will be more losses in terms of safety and ticket sales. Lots of jobs may be lost. But moreover, because of FIRA and given the Government's propensity for crawling before foreigners in the United States-not to mention France when it comes to fishing-if this Bill ever becomes law any foreign company will be able to buy Air Canada or Canadian Pacific Airlines, or any other Canadian airline for that matter, and Canadians will have lost control over their own air transport system.
For my part, I come from Montreal, which is a large urban centre. Naturally, there will always be transport services to cities like Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary. But air services and freight transport will always be important for the remote regions, and small businesses in these regions will suffer because the Conservatives want to deregulate everything so that the law of the jungle, of might versus right, will apply. More is offered to the strongest because he pays more, but less is offered to the weakest because he cannot pay. Mr. Speaker, these measures related to air transport will harm all our remote areas, whether we are speaking about the North Shore and the constituency of the Prime Minister, about the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region in Quebec, or about other regions in Alberta, in the Maritimes or elsewhere. They will harm the consumer, cause job losses and jeopardize our sovereignty and our ability to control the operations of our air carriers.
Let us now look at the impact of this Bill on railroads and trucking. The Government will allow railway carriers to sign confidential contracts. What does it mean? At this time, the shippers have contracts with a trucking company employing a number of truckers to deliver their goods across Canada or

January 29, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
within a province. The amendments proposed by the Government will allow the CN and CP Rail to do what we call raiding in labour parlance. This means that, after this Bill is passed, when a transport company has such contracts, provides such services, gives work to people and helps remote areas develop their economy, the CN or the CP will hire two or three specialists to call on manufacturers who have their products distributed, and tell them privately: It costs you $100 a unit to transport your product, but I shall charge you $75. A contract is signed under the table and lo and behold, another trucking company goes under. Thanks for the present from the Conservative Government: no more jobs, no more contracts.
Mr. Speaker, that is what is going to happen across this country, in every province, riding and municipality. Could a small trucking company afford to hire the experts and top salesmen it would need to compete with Canadian Pacific or VIA Rail? Do you know a single trucking company with 15 or 20 trucks that would be able to pay someone between $100,000 and $150,000 to come and say: Listen here, you have to compete, I'm going to lose this contract. It is not just the contract, Mr. Speaker. He may go bankrupt and have to leave the business altogether.
Mr. Speaker, I keep saying to myself that nobody on earth, nobody in Canada could possibly suggest anything like that. However, I always forget I am not a Conservative, and that when you are a Conservative, the big guy always wins. It really is too bad because I thought this attitude had gone the way of the dinosaurs. However, we have seen this time and time again, in our fisheries, in the softwood lumber controversy and we are going to see it again in the air, railway and road transportation sectors. Mr. Speaker, for weeks and months people in the marine transportation industry have been lobbying. Employees from the Quebec shipyards at Sorel, Lauzon and Montreal came to see the Ministers of Transport here in Ottawa. They lobbied the Prime Minister for a marine transportation policy for Canada, to protect jobs the way other countries are doing. Nothing has happened. The shipbuilding industry in Quebec will be rationalized. In fact, this will happen across the country, as a result of the absence of a marine transportation policy. Those are the disastrous consequences of failing to have such a policy. Then they go on and apply the same kind of thinking to the air transport sector. Why not spoil a good thing? There are a couple of guys who want to make a buck, and two or three landing strips here and three or four planes there. Sold! After all, they deserve a break.
There is the average person who saves every week for a trip in February or during the summer to visit relatives. There are students who want to increase their knowledge and work all summer to pay for a trip, not to Europe, not even to the United States but to somewhere in Canada. People don't know Canada. Canadians do not know Canada. The impact of the proposed legislation will be such that services will go where the money is. Young people, young workers who may be listening
and who don't happen to live in one of the larger urban centres can kiss those trips goodbye. They can wait. If there is time and if there are enough people to warrant sending a plane, they might have a chance, but for the time being, the planes will go where the money is.
This cannot go on. It is just not possible. With 280 or 211 or 210 Conservatives-the way things are going, it's hard to keep track-I can hardly believe they all take the same position on this Bill. It is just not true that the Conservative Member for the Saguenay area is going to accept the Bill on the same terms as a Conservative Member from the Montreal area where people will not be affected as much. There must be somebody in that party who can defend the interests of the average Canadian and the people in his riding.
There are people who have commented on the Bill. I have here letters from the Teamsters Union which operates in the transportation sector. We have CP Rail which is opposed to certain changes. The Canadian Labour Congress has objected vehemently to the consequences this Bill will have. In Quebec we have Transport 2000 Canada, whose national VicePresident, Mr. Guy Chartrand, says that the Bill will not bring about a substantial reduction in air fares in Southern Canada. That is not something the Liberal Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie made up, that was Mr. Guy Chartrand of Transport 2000 speaking. These are experts on transportation. They are dedicated to monitoring everything that relates to the transportation sector in order to protect the consumer, and that includes local, regional and national transportation. They are experts. This is not a partisan statement. These are people who know their stuff. We have the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway and Transport Workers, with 38,000 members. That is a lot more than just 211 or 210 Conservative Members. There are other people in Canada who are knowledgeable and who are saying: Deregulation doesn't make sense.
Mr. Speaker, what is happening today-I think it is important to recall the events that have taken place in the past two years since the Prime Minister's party with the President of the United States in Quebec City. That was where it all started, where the Canadian Government gave it all away. I think that looking back, and I don't blame the Prime Minister-at the time, he thought that by doing his tricks for the Americans he would get a lot in return. The Prime Minister thought: Ronnie, if you're against FIRA, out it goes. No problem, it's as good as done. Trust me, tomorrow I'll get it through the House even if the blues, the reds and the greens are opposed to the idea. I'll get it done. "Tell me what else you want." The Americans were not pleased with our energy policy: "Don't worry, my dear Ronald, I'll give you what you want. Any other request?"
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister crawled on his knees. He had everything right from the start. Here's the only thing our Prime Minister said: "I will negotiate free trade with you, but you will help me get on television", because, for our Prime Minister, it is important to appear on television in the U.S. The only thing Canadians got was to see their Prime Minister
January 29, 1987

on television; as for the rest, we were being conned in every way possible.
This was evidenced by the softwood lumber issue. We cannot blame the French, nor the Germans, nor the Russians. We cannot blame others. They tell each other: "Listen, in Canada, you just call the Prime Minister, and you need give him only two or three slaps on the wrist for him to give in. He's got no backbone, he doesn't stand up. You saw what the Americans did, he gave away everything; and on top of that he imposed a tax and it didn't take long for the Canadian Parliament to launch a debate on the decision taken in the United States to impose a duty. What's more, the Americans will monitor where the money from the softwood lumber tax will go."
The French are as bright as the others. They were quick to realize that since the Prime Minister, the "guy in charge in Canada", had no backbone, why should they not try and get a bigger part of the fisheries? They felt they could get what they wanted. There again other negotiations began in no time. There again, as a consolation prize, our Prime Minister got to appear on television in France. But that does not bring anything to Canadians, and in the Atlantic provinces, as well as in the Gaspe area, in Quebec, once more it will be Canadians, Quebecers, Newfoundlanders who will be penalized in that area.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, we are stuck with a decision and, as we witnessed in the pharmaceutical products issue, it is not by coincidence if the Government is suddenly kowtowing to the multinationals. They say that research is important in the area of pharmaceutical products. But the Government has cut research funding. Why ask the sick to pay for research when the money could have come from elsewhere? No, the truth is that the Government has yielded again on that issue because of pressures exerted by important and powerful people, and it is more of the same in the area of transport.
My time is up, Mr. Speaker. 1 do hope that the government will listen to the voice of reason, not that of the official Opposition, not that of political parties, but the voice of the Canadian population and that it will act with the care that is expected from a government. Because in the area of deregulation, there is no chance to take. If disaster strikes following irresponsible action, that cannot be repaired.
I call on all Members of the House to be careful and to demand that the Government be careful and slow down the pace of deregulation and make the necessary changes to its Bill.


@Acting Speaker: Questions and comments. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Bertrand).


Mrs. Bertrand:: Mr. Speaker, I am far from being an expert in that field, but I listened anyway to the Hon. Member from Montreal-Sainte-Marie, who is always acting as a defender of the poor and the needy, give as an example an airline, People Express in fact, and I would ask him by the way, to
National Transportation Act, 1986
familiarize himself with the region, because People Express flights did not leave from Plattsburgh, but from Burlington, which is located at the other end of Lake Champlain, quite a distance from there. I am speaking of a company which was most popular. People from Montreal would leave in full busloads, there were line-ups, travelers had to arrive hours in advance, because that airline offered such good service. It must have been safe since so many people dared to use it, and I was among those travelers. As far as in-flight service was concerned, of course there was no tablecloth and no silverware, but we were served a meal and we could travel to New York. That airline was successful as long as its prices were reasonable. Suddenly it changed policy, seeking to attract customers looking for somewhat more comfortable and more luxurious travelling. What happened? It went under. If it had maintained a level of services intended for less demanding customers, it would probably have survived.
So I say again to my colleague who fancies himself as the champion of the needy that he should again today stand up for the consumers.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member gave that example. But her example clearly shows that, first of all, she did not realize that when she bought-and she is not without money as far as I know-a ticket from People's Express, this meant the loss of a job elsewhere. She was making other people poor that were not before. And the best proof is that if the company has failed, it is because this could not work, it was a lure to get passengers, a bluff in the first place. What I would like to know is when the Hon. Member who just asked the question boards a plane, whether she knows about safety, if the aircraft is well inspected. Personally, I have had no experience there. When I board a plane I take safety for granted, I assume there were so many mechanics to do repair and inspection work. But the example she just gave I think merely proves that if this had been good, if it had been an effective regulation, it would have benefited consumers. People's Express would still be around. They would not have had to increase their rates. But if they had to increase their rates, and still went bankrupt, it is because this is the law of the jungle, the big fish eats the smaller ones. Certainly we would have had the same result, even with deregulation. The new company that wants to kill Air Canada, to do away with a few thousand jobs at Air Canada, will offer lower rates, but once it gets into a monopoly situation it will act like the financial sharks. You do not know how financial sharks operate. First, they offer a very high discount, but once they have a hold on you, interests go up.
That is the trick, and that is what you clearly proved with your example, that deregulation does not profit consumers because the service which you used no longer exists.


Mr. Grondin:: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point out to the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) that, when you say that Burlington is far from Plattsburgh, you

January 29, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
have to remember that it is not really that far by boat since these cities are right across the lake from each other.
1 would like to ask a question to my colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). He spoke about safety earlier and I think that this is an extremely important issue. The Canadian Air Line Pilots' Association has said that safety is mentioned only in passing in the document Freedom to Move and it is simply stated that economic regulatory reform will not be allowed to interfere with safety standards.
For my part, I believe that, in view of all that is happening in the area of transport and the difficulty some companies may have in keeping up the maintenance of all their transport equipment, whether we are speaking about truckers, airlines or railways, if there are no controls or special mechanisms to urge the contractors to apply safety standards, we could have serious problems very quickly and this could lead to serious accidents. I would like to know whether my colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie shares my views on the issue of safety.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the financial aspect is important, but you cannot set a price on the safety of passengers and Canadians generally. 1 believe that you cannot set a price on human life or on health, and that there should be no competition for markets in this regard. That is quite clear. The Hon. Member referred to experts in this field who have said that this is not covered by the Bill in its present form or by the consultations which have taken place. This is not a statement by a Member of Parliament with no experience or knowledge in this area, but a statement by experts. I would like to give an example to my colleague. In the field of airport security, we all remember that there was some cheap labour, that is people paid less than elsewhere, at Dorval and Mirabel. We recall what were the results of this situation when there was a strike. What happened? It was proven that there was absolutely no security, that the people there were not trained because they were cheap labour. A company had simply hired someone who had not been given any training.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen what can happen and we now have to regulate the transport of toxic materials. Why is it that, when human beings are involved, we say: It is not serious, let us go ahead, let us deregulate, nothing will happen, we shall deal with the problems later. I think that my colleague is right to raise this basic point. In my opinion, all Parliamentarians should consider that if deregulation jeopardizes or threatens the safety of Canadians, that is enough to justify automatic rejection of this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I shall recognize first the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), and then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Kilgour).
[DOT]	(1630)


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, when I saw the Hon. Member rising to his feet to speak, my ears perked up. While 1 know that on occasion he likes to take off on flights of fancy and sometimes his facts do not quite add up, I thought maybe this time he would redeem himself. I thought perhaps we would finally hear a well-reasoned and logical speech. After all, he does profess to speak for ordinary Canadians like me and you. However, as he started to speak I heard him say that when deregulation of the airlines had taken place in the U.S. there had been a loss of jobs. You and I are well aware, Mr. Speaker, that when deregulation took place in the U.S. between 1980 and 1985, a time in which a very serious recession took place, indeed it was called the Great Recession, jobs were not lost in the airline industry. There was in fact an increase in employment of some 9 per cent. So right away the Hon. Member started to lose me in his comments.
Then he went on to say that deregulation was the law of the jungle and apparently he did not support it. That brought me back to thinking about the fact that he sat here as a member of the former Liberal Government which started the ball rolling on deregulation of air transportation. Now he stands up here and tells us that he did not support it. We did not hear that at the time. I do not remember his getting up and shaking his fist at his Minister of Transport and stomping out of the Chamber or voting against it and calling it the law of the jungle.
I wonder if the Hon. Member would like to tell us why at the time his Government introduced the first step towards deregulation of transportation he did not make the same sort of speech in the House that he just did. If we look back in Hansard I do not think we will find him making a speech on that subject at all, and very few on anything else.
[DOT]	(1640)


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we cannot regulate intelligence. The Hon. Member who just spoke did not understand my opening remarks. This is sad, and the best proof is the comment made by a "deregulated" man. Mr. Speaker, this is something. At first, I said: the Liberal Party does not oppose some deregulation; the Liberal Party, and my colleague for Papineau is right in opposing that, and the Hon. Member, if he wants to be honest when talking about creating 9 per cent jobs in the United States, can tell us where all those employees of People's Express are. The Hon. Member forgot to say, if he wants to be honest, that in most competing airlines, employees were forced to accept salary cuts. So the Hon. Member refers to job creation. Speaking as a true Tory, where there is a $15,000 job he says: This fellow earns too much, we are going to cut his salary in half. You will get $7,000, and the other fellow, we will give him $8,000. That is Tory policy.
January 29, 1987


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in his speech the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) referred to the matter of safety in the various transportation systems in Canada. I think it is very important to stress the fact that special attention was given to the matter of safety all along this reform process. The now Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and his predecessor very clearly stated that one of the priorities of the reform is agreement over a higher security level for each of our means of transportation. New provisions for the operating of airlines and trucking companies expressly recognized that carriers should meet safety standards, failing which they would lose their operating licenses.
Recent amendments to the Aeronautics Act and the forthcoming adoption, for the very first time, of a National Safety Code, are proof of the Government's unconditional commitment to the trucking industry in this respect. Mr. Speaker, this is very important. Over 30,000 people will be involved and $1.2 billion, nearly one third of the combined budgets of Transport Canada and the CTC, will be budgeted annually for enforcement of the safety code.
The Minister has also announced his plans to hire an additional 100 inspectors who will be working in safety enforcement.
Our regulatory reform, and this is very important, is purely economic and does not in any way affect existing safety measures.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, it was the Canadian Airline Pilots Association that said that deregulation would have a disastrous impact on safety. It is not something I made up myself. It has been said by safety experts in various fields. However, it is possible that with a certain degree of deregulation, if it is done reasonably, carefully and intelligently, if that is not too much to ask of our friends opposite, we could still guarantee a fairly high level of safety. However the Bill in its present form provides no guarantees for this, and the only thing that is clear from this Bill is the Government's ulterior motives, and on the basis of our experience in other areas, this means the big guy always wins, jobs will be lost, and there will be no safety at all in-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the period for questions and comments has now expired. Debate. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-18, to speak in support of the motion of my good friend, the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), which amends the Government motion to read:
Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
National Transportation Act, 1986
That is a sound and sensible proposal. The amendment recognizes the fact that that which the Government is putting before Parliament will have enormous consequences. It recognizes that the Transport Committee had inadequate time to consider the proposals of the Government and was not given the opportunity to travel to various parts of Canada to allow Canadians to respond to the Government's proposals. The amendment recognizes that the Standing Committee on Transport did not have the opportunity which a parliamentary committee deserves to explore the possible consequences of the Government's Freedom to Move proposals and recommend sound action to Parliament.
In suggesting that the amendment is sound and that it would be sensible for the Parliament of Canada to have a further opportunity in committee to consider the proposals, it is appropriate for me to provide as justification some defence of it from a consideration of transportation in Canada and North America. The curious thing about this proposal for the deregulation of transportation is that it reeks of commitment to a principle which has not been carefully thought through, the application of which is likely to have very different consequences from those suggested by the Government.
There is certainly a desire by some shippers to have the competitive situation which the Government hopes will result from its proposals. I have received letters and briefs from several major industries operating in northern Ontario and other parts of the country. Those interests think that the change in the regulatory regime prevailing in Canada could be to their advantage. I will not name those interests because what I want to say in considering the validity of that view may well be mistaken by them. I will, therefore, leave them anonymous.
It is sad that far too little is known of the history of transportation in this country, particularly that which occurred 100 years ago. Very few Canadians remember now, if they ever learned, that John D. Rockefeller and his associates built the Standard Oil complex through confidential contracts and even worse practices against their competitors which destroyed competition in the petroleum industry in the American midwest and allowed Rockefeller and his associates to get complete control of it. Rockefeller made secret agreements with shippers and played one off against the other. He also brought pipelines into the system.
If you are able to do those things and are prepared to go even further in the war of competition by attacking your competitors' words, setting them on fire and so on, you can build a great industrial empire. That is exactly what John D. Rockefeller and his associates did. It is an odd thing for a Baptist layman who enjoyed teaching Sunday school to have done, but that is what he did. Rockefeller and his associates did that by making secret contracts with shippers and playing one off against the other. They got rock-bottom prices for moving their products because they guaranteed large shipments. In the process they drove their competitors out of business. It was in that context that the United States
2894

January 29, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Congress moved, about 100 years ago, to establish the Interstate Commerce Commission to ensure that regulation would prevent that kind of cutthroat competition.
It is exactly this kind of concern about what will happen in a competitive regime that members of the Government should have. It is obvious that if controls are removed entirely and you set out to create a competitive mode, you will end up forcing competitors to purchase each other, with the end result of strikingly reducing rather than increasing the number of competitors. There were 13 railways in the United States some years ago and there are now only seven left. The situation in the airline industry has been in the news in the last months. Airline companies, particularly those which offered such great rates not long ago, are going bankrupt. Texas Air has purchased many of them and has become an enormous interest in the United States. Each year there are fewer airlines involved in the industry.
It is all too often forgotten that the endeavour to achieve and maintain a competitive realm is not advanced by allowing businessmen complete freedom to do what they want. That is where the matter of wise regulation comes in. There is an ultimate principle for businessmen that is even more important than competition. It is freedom of contract. It is the ability to buy out anyone and control as much as possible.
It is foolish for anyone to believe that today there is real competition when there are only a handful of companies operating in an industry.
The fact is that there are even fewer companies operating in the rail and airline industries in Canada. Recent events in the Canadian airline industry, with the reduction of scheduled carriers into two groups, is a demonstration of what happens with the removal or predicted removal of regulation and the creation of a supposedly competitive environment. The freedom to buy other companies and reduce competition has left us with two interests. I suggest that the only reason we have two interests in the airline industry and railway industry is that in each case one company is publicly owned. If it were not for Air Canada and Canadian National, what guarantees would Canadians have that the entire airline industry and rail industry would not be controlled by one interest?
The Government should not only be concerned with removing regulations supposedly to advance competition and not give any criteria about how to ensure this new regime will actually maintain competition between companies. Unless it ensures that there is competition law that will provide some protection against the freedom of businessmen to buy and consolidate each other's operations for their own profitability, there will be a movement toward monopolization of the airline and rail industries, particularly if there is privatization. The result will be anything but the desired kind of competition.
There is another fundamental aspect of competition which is all too rarely appreciated. Competition seems attractive to
those who want to ship or travel. There is no doubt that shippers are attracted to the possibility of making confidential agreements with their shipping companies in order to reduce their costs and be more competitive. Similarly, seat sales and low air fares by such airlines in the United States as People Express are attractive to Canadians. It has led many to believe that deregulation would result in the same situation in Canada. However, people in the Canadian airline industry do not expect that such bargains will occur in the future since Canadians have already experienced the good bargains that are to be found in the industry. Surely that fact should encourage us to recommend that Bill C-18 be sent to the standing committee for further study.
Setting these concerns aside, what are the consequences of the Government's desired competition to those who provide the important transportation services? There is much doubt that competition will prevail, given the evidence of the consolidation of control and other factors. When there are few shippers, there is far more collusion than control because enterprises exist to make money, not provide the lowest possible cost for the movement of goods and people. The fact that a truly competitive regime could drive profits down to zero or less is of enormous concern to these companies and is exactly the motivation for trying to control a situation the Government has created by removing regulation that was based on sound policy and well established national institutions.
Therefore, let us consider the consequences of such a competitive regime. If one's primary concern is with the enterprise and its shareholders, one will soon worry about inadequate profits in order to maintain the viability of stocks. A supplier of rolling stock to railways or aircraft and various services to airlines will soon consider how to skimp on purchases and keep aircraft flying until they are unsafe. If the Canadian railways thought the old regulatory regime was bad, they will be in a dreadful state as a result of the Government's competition regime.
Companies that are driven down toward the break-even point and below will become the toughest employers the unions have ever seen. The Conservatives may not be concerned that thousands of jobs will be lost, but I would like to be present to keep them honest when they talk to their constituents who have lost their jobs with those companies.
Not only will there be unemployment, wages will be cut, working conditions will suffer and safety will ultimately be in question.
A recent inquiry indicated that the Hinton crash was related to the tiredness of the men working on the trains. Some of us may be aware of the long hours worked by people on our country's aircraft. This legislation leads to grave concerns about health and working conditions and the ultimate safety of Canadians who travel on our airlines and live close to rail lines.
Canadians want to be assured that they can travel safely on our airlines and can safely live next to the railways on which freight travels past their homes.
January 29, 1987

None of those concerns are alleviated by the Government's proposed competitive regime.
Safety is a legitimate concern because we have already seen in the United States the consequences of flying old aircraft. We know that an Arrow aircraft carried some 200 military personnel to their death in Canada. American companies have had their licences suspended because of unsafe practices. These are some of the consequences of the kind of competition that the Government wishes to introduce.
I see it is five o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I will continue tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When Orders of the Day are called tomorrow, the Hon. Member will have three minutes remaining in his speech, plus 10 minutes for questions and comments.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

['Hear, hear!']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before today's Private Members' Business, I would like to inform the House that I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) that he is unable to be present in the House on Thursday, February 5, 1987, to move his motion for second reading of Bill C-209 during the hour for Private Members' Business.
It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in order of precedence pursuant to the Special Order of the House agreed to on December 18, 1986. Accordingly, I am directing the Table to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Since notice will thereby be removed, the hour for Private Members' Business will be suspended and, pursuant to Standing Order 39(2), the House will continue with the business before it prior to that hour until the ordinary hour of the adjournment.
It being 5 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, December 4, 1986, consideration of the motion of Mr. Althouse:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the Railway Act to provide for increased compensation to victims of fires set by railway operations in order to reflect current replacement costs on items lost through property damage.
Railway Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the motion was last before the House, the Hon. Member for Cariboo- Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) had the floor. Since he is not here,
I recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 will begin by saying that this is one of the motions selected by the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business to come to a vote in the House. Not wanting to say anything in relation to the merits of this motion, versus other motions, it seems to me that this is a motion which could well be passed by this House in Private Members' Hour. As far as I can tell, it is not a terribly controversial motion, but it is important. We could make some parliamentary history if, at the conclusion of the five hours of debate, or should the vote come sooner, we were able to have a vote on this motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), send it to committee, have it examined and have it come back for passage into law. This is a Private Member's Motion with respect to the Railway Act. It was introduced in the House on October 14, 1986 and reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the Railway Act to provide for increased compensation to victims of fires set by railway operations in order to reflect current replacement costs on items lost through property damage.
Subsection 338(2) of the Railway Act states as follows:
If it is shown that the company has used modern and efficient appliances, and has not otherwise been guilty of any negligence, the total amount of compensation recoverable from the company under this section in respect of any one or more claims for damage from a fire or fires started by the same locomotive and upon the same occasion, shall not exceed five thousand dollars.
The $5,000 limit was first adopted by Parliament in 1903 through the Statutes of Canada, Chapter 58, Section 239 of the Railway Act. Based on price indexes, $5,000 in 1903 would mean approximately $70,000 in 1986, or more precisely, $68,331.
Subsection 338(2) of the Railway Act specifically mentions damage from a fire or fires started by the same locomotive and upon the same occasion. It cannot, nor should it, be understood that only the locomotive may be responsible for starting a fire. In 1903, when this legislation was first drafted and endorsed by Parliament, steam locomotives, which were then in use, were much more likely to start a fire than are today's diesel locomotives. Yet, this is not at all recognized by Subsection 338(2) of the Railway Act.
On the face of it, it seems obvious that some amendment to the Railway Act is in order. This motion in itself would not amend it, but it would certainly be significant if the House were to pass the motion. It is a motion of recommendation, really, to the Government. When I talked earlier about its going to committee, I had mistakenly thought of it as a Bill, but it is actually a motion. If the motion were passed, it would constitute an instruction to the Government to bring in the appropriate legislation. Unless there is someone who seriously wants to argue that the $5,000 limit which was legislated in 1903 should be defended forever and a day, I see no reason why we should not take the opportunity presented to us by the

January 29, 1987
Railway Act
Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre. As many people could speak to the motion as would like to speak to it and then we could get on to the business of eventually passing the motion to encourage the Government to act in this way.
I am told that the railways have pointed out, in responding to the existence of this motion, that in the case of liability where there is a claim on the basis of negligence, there is no specific limit under the law in the establishment of a financial settlement. This may be true, but the important thing to remember is that even if this is so, the onus is on the farmer, or whoever lost property as a result of the fire, to establish, according to Subsection 338(2), that the railway was in fact negligent. In addition to the likelihood of its being very expensive, as well as very lengthy, it would be extremely difficult to establish in court negligence on the part of the railway. I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the railway can well afford to wait a long time and may well be in no great hurry to settle any of these court cases. As well, the railway can afford to hire very high-priced lawyers to make its case, while the individual farmer, or a group of farmers, who may be the victims of fire started by trains going through their property, are hardly in the same position.
I believe that what we have before us makes eminently good sense. I would be very surprised if anyone were to speak against it. Perhaps at some future point when the time for debate has expired, we could make parliamentary history and vote, I would hope unanimously, to pass this motion to encourage the Government to respond to this particular need and, in doing so, resound to the clear will and expression of the House in this particular matter.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the Hon. Member. On this issue he makes a good deal of sense. I hope that what I say will neither subtract from nor differ from his remarks drastically. The Canadian Railways in recent years have a safety record second to none. I wonder if you know, Mr. Speaker, that CP Rail has been the safest railway in North America for each of the last four years, while CN Rail has been in the top six for the same period. We have a railway system of which we can be truly proud.
If the Hon. Member thinks it is the regulatory system which has produced that record, I can assure him that what we are doing is not changing the regulatory system. As I have said about 90 times, I think, we are only dealing with economic regulatory reform. We are not dealing with safety reform. There are about 11,000 people working in the Department involved in safety in the three modes of transportation.
The railways built the nation and they continue to perform a vital role in the Canadian economy. The railways are safe indeed and we have an excellent base from which to work. One can never be satisfied that one is doing enough where safety is concerned. Notwithstanding the 11,000 people who work in the area and the more than $1 billion that is being spent on
safety in Canada each year at the federal level, there are a number of areas in which legislative changes can help to improve the safety of the system.
Railway safety is regulated through the provisions of the Railway Act. This legislation has evolved from the early days of the Canadian railway system and encompasses a wide range of issues including economic regulation and corporate powers. The safety provisions are in certain aspects outdated and combined with many other non-safety items.
Let me give you an example of that, Mr. Speaker. As evidence of the antiquated aspects of the Railway Act, there are provisions regarding the weight and composition of steam locomotive bells and requirements regarding the oiling of locomotives which became redundant about 100 years ago. Other non-essential items include sections of the Act which specify that telegraph poles should be set vertically wherever possible and that they should be painted in urban areas.
Section 338 of the Railway Act establishes the liability of railway companies for fires started by railway locomotives. Where the railway has used "modern and efficient appliances" and has not otherwise been guilty of any negligence the compensation for property damage by fires started by locomotives is limited to $5,000, which is what the debate today is all about. This section of the Railway Act was first written before 1910 and was subsequently revised in 1919. At the time it was considered appropriate to establish liability for fires in the Act because the early steam engines were prone to setting fires, even when operated with all due regard to safety in accordance with proper operating procedures, and because insurance was not widely held by property owners. Of course, that has long since changed.
It is true that fires still originate on railway property. But if they do they are more likely to be caused by sparks generated by train brakes or by wayside maintenance activities than by locomotives, although diesel locomotives have been known to emit sparks which start fires. Section 338 has been used in a more general sense in relation to fires started by trains, without determining whether or not they originated from the locomotive.
In so far as regulatory control over railway company activities is concerned, Section 221 of the Railway Act gives the Canadian Transport Commission the power to make orders and regulations governing prevention and control by railway companies of fires along railway rights of way.
Section 338 of the Railway Act does not prevent or prejudice any action or claim against a railway company for failure to use "modern and efficient appliances" or for other negligence relating to fires. Therefore, with the exception of this section, there is no legislated limitation on railway company liability.
It is difficult to see any reason why claims for damage caused by fires originating on railway property should not be handled through the courts as civil cases. A person whose property is damaged by a fire started by a railway company
January 29, 1987

should have normal access to compensation through the courts. There does not appear to be any useful purpose served by any exception to this right, as preserved in Section 338.
While the Hon. Member who moved the motion proposes that the maximum level of compensation to victims of fires started by any railway operation, as set out in the Railway Act, be increased to reflect current replacement costs for damaged property, the exception introduced by the Act, regardless of limits on liability, is an anachronism. The Hon. Member's proposal is pertinent in that this section of the Railway Act appears to have outlived its usefulness. Any change should take into consideration the possibility of deleting it in its entirety rather than modifying it as proposed. In any event, it would be preferable to deal with the modernization of the Railway Act in a co-ordinated manner rather than in a piecemeal fashion as entailed by the Hon. Member's motion.
The change proposed by the Hon. Member should be considered in conjunction with a general review of railway legislation, which is presently under way at Transport Canada. In due course, such a review could be laid before the House and Members could then have ample opportunity to examine this amendment, and any other that may be considered appropriate, in the context of a comprehensive legislative proposal.
We now come to the question of how members are to vote on this matter. In the city from which you and I come, Mr. Speaker, about 12 days ago I gave an impassioned plea for having Members vote according to their consciences and the interests of their constituents other than when a question of confidence in the Government is at issue. It would be abjectly hypocritical for me on a motion as tepid as this one to urge government Members to vote against it.
There is no question whatsoever that this motion does not involve confidence in the Government. No Hon. Member in the House would pretend that it did. I would be the worst kind of hypocrite, with a capital "H", if I were to go around asking my colleagues to vote against it. They have heard what I have had to say on behalf, if you like, of the Government, but I have enough respect for them and you, Mr. Speaker, that I would ask them to vote exactly the way they feel so as to be in accordance with their consciences on this matter.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I must say I listened with a great deal of delight to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Kilgour). Indeed, I found his remarks very encouraging. The type of leadership he has just demonstrated with respect to his position of responsibility indicates that something as positive and contributory as the motion before us ought to be supported by all sectors represented in the House. I am happy to be able to speak to the motion following the Hon. Member. I am very encouraged by his comments.
As he has indicated, at the turn of the century when the Railway Act was being formulated there was the recognition
Railway Act
then that with railway locomotives being what they were at the time, spewing out smoke and ash, fires were relatively commonplace as trains moved back and forth across Canada.
In 1903, the Parliament of the day, through the Statutes of Canada, Chapter 58, Section 239 of the Railway Act, indicated that $5,000 would be an appropriate sum to expect a railway to pay if in fact a locomotive caused a fire. I suspect that back in 1903, $5,000 was sufficient moneys to compensate for damages incurred as a result of a fire by a locomotive pulling a train. But if one were to factor in the cost of living and the inflation rate since 1903, I suspect that the figure would be at least close to $100,000, although perhaps not that high. It would be close to $100,000 in order to reflect what would be a typical piece of compensation in an average fire caused by a locomotive. However, as the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, and as have other Hon. Members, with the change of locomotives to diesel, and in some cases to electricity, fires that are caused by railways today tend to be caused by other means and not necessarily by the locomotive of a train. To confine the compensation offered to fires that are created only by locomotives does not recognize the reality of the changing modes of transportation technology and, quite frankly, the changing realities of our rail system.
We all know, particularly those of us who have rural areas in our constituencies with rail lines running through them- and I am honoured to have both Canadian Pacific and Canadian National travelling through the constituency of Kamloops-Shuswap-that fires are occasionally started by careless personnel and by the malfunctioning of brakes on twists and turns throughout the mountainous region of British Columbia. Sparks can fly off and cause fires. I suppose there are probably other ways of causing fires as well.
What the motion before us does is simply to suggest that in the opinion of this House the Government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the Railway Act to provide for increased compensation to victims of fires set by railway operations in order to reflect current replacement costs on items lost through property damage.
The motion is a thoughtful one and is to urge the Government to put into motion a process by which this suggestion could be considered. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport has indicated, certainly an updating of this section of the Railway Act is in order.
In the case of liability where there is a claim on the basis of negligence, I suspect that a different matter will exist. Then, through due process of the courts, people can pursue justice and expect from the railway a reflection of the case that an individual could then present.
The onus is always on the farmers, or whoever lost property as a result of a fire, to establish that the railway was negligent according to Subsection 338(2). In addition to this process being expensive and lengthy, it would be extremely difficult to

January 29, 1987
Railway Act
establish negligence on the part of the railway in court. Of course, the railway can afford to wait a long time and may not be in a great hurry to settle. The railway can also afford to hire high-priced legal help to present its case, while the individual farmer or group of farmers would not be in the same position.
The need for change is obvious. The appropriate way to proceed would be for the Standing Committee on Transport to seek expert advice on what would be an appropriate compensatory figure, and perhaps an improved process. In that manner, a farmer or group of farmers would be able to expedite a presentation regarding a fire on their property caused by one of Canada's railways.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, when I came to the House tonight, I did not intend to speak on this subject. However, as I listened to other Hon. Members make their comments, the subject aroused my interest and raised my recollection of a rather major fire, probably only one of many major fires that have been the result of railway operations, the Mississauga derailment and the damages that flowed from that incident.
The motion before us this evening states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the Railway Act to provide for increased compensation to victims of fires set by railway operations in order to reflect current replacement costs on items lost through property damage.
As I read it, that is an attempt to increase the total amount of damages to be paid on the basis of absolute liability, and not on the basis of negligence by a railway in the event of any fire caused by railway operations.
I have been listening carefully, and I have heard two Hon. Members from the NDP Party talking about fires that may be caused on a farmer's property, or on a farmer's field. But what they have neglected to mention, and to my mind what is more probable in this day and age, is the fire that may be caused in an urban area rather than a rural area. I draw the attention and the recollection of the House to the Mississauga train derailment a few short years ago.
That incident involved a train carrying 14 to 16 different cars containing a variety of hazardous materials. It was travelling from London, Ontario to the marshalling yard in Agincourt, which is part of Scarborough in Metropolitan Toronto. When the train reached Mississauga, there was a derailment of some of those cars. What followed was what the transportation and safety experts referred to as a bleve, which is an explosion of this hazardous material. It hurled a fireball into the air and caused it to ignite and damage property for many kilometres around. I did not bring with me the exact details of the damage caused, or the numbers of people evacuated. My recollection is that the population in that area was evacuated from their houses for a period of up to and in excess of one week for a distance of some 10 kilometres on each side of the railway track.
At that time, that section of the railway track was in a relatively low density area, even though it was in what we might consider to be an urban area. Notwithstanding that fact, the subsequent claims to the railroad as a result of that bleve, the derailment, and the disaster, were in the many millions of dollars. The damages claimed for property damage alone, not for personal injuries, were perhaps in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Immediately after that derailment there was a judicial investigation and inquiry headed by Mr. Justice Samuel Grange of the Ontario Supreme Court. I believe that you were a member, Mr. Speaker, of the former Government which appointed Mr. Justice Grange to head that inquiry. That inquiry resulted in a long list of recommendations on improving railway safety, and many of those recommendations have been carried out. There continues to be a substantial number of derailments of trains that are carrying hazardous materials. On average, after the Mississauga disaster, it was considered that every year within the confines of the greater Metropolitan Toronto area there are at least two derailments of trains with cars carrying hazardous materials. There is every likelihood that there will be another Mississauga train derailment and disaster with property claims in the millions of dollars.
What concerns me about this issue is the fact that if that train that derailed in Mississauga had stayed on the track for a further 20 minutes, it would have derailed in the middle of my own constituency and community. I would have been one of those people evacuated and making the property damage claim, as would many people in my own community. That same rail line which runs through the heart of Metropolitan Toronto abuts on extremely high density apartment buildings and office buildings. The civil defence officials in Metropolitan Toronto have indicated that if the Mississauga train derailment had occurred in the middle of Metropolitan Toronto in one of the high density areas, in no way could there have been an evacuation such as took place in Mississauga. Perhaps as a result of the escape of the poisonous gases, there would have been a substantial number of fatalities.
That is the type of potential situation about which we are talking when we talk about a derailment or a fire caused by a train in this day and age. It may very well involve a spark from a steam locomotive on an historic ride with a load of people who belong to an historic train club. Perhaps that is the sort of thing about which we are talking, but we are also talking about a substantial potential disaster involving millions and millions of dollars.
At present in Metropolitan Toronto there is a task force on rail safety in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area. It was established by the former Minister of Transport, the present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), some months ago to study the possibility of relocating tracks, re-routing hazardous trains, examining speed limits on railways, and looking at various safety measures which might be brought to
January 29, 1987

bear to try to ensure that something like this does not happen in the future in a high density area. Whether or not that task force is successful in coming up with the answers remains to be seen. The risk of a hazard is still there and may be with us for all time.
In this motion we are saying to the railroads that they would be absolutely responsible for whatever amount of damages may be the result of a fire which has been caused or set by railway operations, that their responsibility would be absolute to the extent of the current replacement costs of the items lost and the property damaged. In a case like the Mississauga one, the railroad would have been absolutely liable, without any question of negligence, for an enormous amount of money. I am no great sympathizer and my heart does not bleed for railways when they cause damage. However, we must bear in mind the consequences of adopting this motion.
What we should be doing-and I hope it was really the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary and the suggestion of the House Leader of the NDP-is referring the entire question to the Standing Committee on Transport in order to take a look at the possible consequences. We know that railways would be responsible to the full extent for damages caused as long as it could be established that they were negligent. We should be looking at all the consequences before we decide to nail them with absolute liability for something which might incur a responsibility of some millions of dollars.
I am certainly in support of any move to refer the matter to the standing committee so that all circumstances can be examined.


Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, like the previous Hon. Member who spoke, I did not anticipate speaking on this debate this afternoon. However, the subject of railways is a very interesting one for all Canadians. It seems as though debate over the last 24 hours has focused on transportation systems. In fact, in the last 30 minutes or 40 minutes we have been talking about boats, airplanes, and trains.
I personally have some sympathy with the content of the resolution because it suggests that adequate compensation should be paid to victims of fires caused by rail use. There is nothing more important to Canadians and to legislators than to see that adequate compensation is paid to innocent bystanders to an act or acts of another party. Of course, this is where this particular motion comes into it. We have a responsibility as legislators to ensure that in matters where health, safety, and so on are concerned, all Canadians are protected adequately under the law.
There are many aspects of such legislation. I am not entirely sure what is intended in the motion. There could be compensation to the employees of the railway. There could be compensation to passengers on the railway. There could be compensation to adjacent property, be they farms, communities, or whatever. We certainly have to look at all those areas.
Railway Act
These are changing times and compensation must be adequate. What was adequate perhaps 10 years or even five years ago would probably not be adequate today in terms of providing for an innocent victim of this type of fire.
I want to address the notion of railways in these changing times. We tend to think of railways as perhaps diminishing in number in most parts of the country except on major lines connecting urban centres. However, another aspect has been developing over the last few years regarding tourism. A tourism association in my constituency has in fact been looking at the possibility of establishing a steam railway as a tourist attraction in the area. Such an operation is not in any way unique. In fact, many steam railways now operate in Canada as well as throughout North America.
In New Brunswick the Hillsboro and Salem line has been in operation over the last few years. It has been a real attraction to that particular area of New Brunswick. I think a steam railway in Prince Edward Island also has the potential of being an attraction to people who visit our island in the summer months. Steam railways have caught on to such an extent that there is an association of North American steam railway operators which meets on a regular basis and is promoting interest in this type of attraction across North America. From what I understand, North Americans are very interested in seeing that bit of history recognized and promoted. People are going out to see those railways. They are becoming involved with them. There is some romanticism involved. I suspect that kind of activity will be around for a good many years to come.
In a motion like this one the matter of liability insurance is something about which we ask ourselves. I know that the operators of many attractions which are serving the public today have had concerns about adequate liability insurance. I am sure railway companies must also be concerned about the cost of liability insurance in relation to the protection they will have to provide for people who may be victims of rail fires or other accidental happenings, whatever they might be. I do not think we could ever resolve that matter on the floor of the House. It would require in depth study by the Government before any final conclusions could be drawn.
The matter of current replacement costs is something which is changing rapidly. I suppose this gives us an opportunity to consider the fact that it is not just current replacement costs for people who might live alongside a railway. We must all look at replacement costs of our own property, and perhaps this is an opportunity to remind ourselves of that fact. Many people today do not carry adequate fire insurance on their dwellings, business operations, or whatever. What might have been adequate three years or four years ago would not come anywhere near replacing the cost of a house today. It is something that is important.
Railways still run across most of the country. There has been some change in usage. We are seeing a return to the romantic notion of steam railways. There is certainly the responsibility of the ongoing major lines. I certainly support

January 29, 1987
Railway Act
the direction of the motion and I want to support the mover and the seconder in having this matter examined further.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say just a few words about this motion. I appreciate, first, the manner in which the motion has been taken up by several Members of the governing Party, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Kilgour). This response to the concern which the motion expresses is appreciated by us in our group and I want to recognize that explicitly.
The comments made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), dealing with the potential for various kinds of fires leads me to direct my attention for just a moment to the motion itself in that it does respond to changing circumstances in its way. It looks to legislation to amend the Railway Act to provide for increased compensation to victims of fires set by railway operations in order to reflect current replacement costs of items lost through property damage. That language does generalize the matter a good deal. It recognizes the reality of various kinds of railway operations. As I listen to this very interesting debate I muse over the fact that a clause in the existing legislation begins by saying:
The company shall at all times maintain and keep its right of way free from dead or dry grass, weeds and other unnecessary combustible matter.
I have driven through northern Ontario along rail lines and looked at the right of ways that have been burned clear. One of the things railways do and are required to do is to keep them clear. There is the possibility for fires to spread from those railway operations. We have an additional factor involved in the risk that property owners run.
I want to note that, as the Hon. Member for York East has suggested, people in the cities and towns face dangers. I might suggest that in addition to farmers there are owners of woodlands traversed by railways which might also experience losses that should be provided for.
The main contribution in my few comments deal with the question of the level of cost that might be considered in this consideration if the motion is carried to a favourable result in our vote this afternoon.
It was suggested by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) that price indices would suggest that the original level of $5,000 might today represent a cost of $68,000. I think that amount is quite inadequate, and a careful comparison of some income figures would suggest that $68,000 or $70,000 is not really the appropriate contempory ceiling that might be put on cases of loss where the railway is not negligent. I note in some material that my friend passed on to me that one of the comparisons that can be made is to the parliamentary sessional indemnity, the salaries, if you will, that Members of Parliament receive. Those were $1,500 in 1905. That means the level was about three and one-third at $5,000 of what Members were paid. If the current level is about $55,000, clearly the appropriate comparative figure as a
ceiling on loss in cases where there is not negligence would be into the range of $170,000 or so.
I would like to suggest the possibility that it could be even more than that. My own research into the early industrial history of Canada during those years would suggest that a skilled labourer might well earn something like $500. It could be a bit more than that by the end of the decade, but if one were to take the figure of $500 per year as a skilled labourer's income, I would think that today one might say $30,000 to $35,000 was a fair figure for a skilled labourer to be earning. I am open to correction by others. If then the figure in those days was 10 times that, we would have a basis for urging consideration of a ceiling on these claims where there is not negligence of $300,000 to $350,000. That seems to me to be getting us into the right league, the league which the Hon. Member from York East was pointing to when he talked about the Mississauga derailment.
With these comments on the wisdom of the motion and support on my own part, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
that the motion be amended by deleting the words in "in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of' and substituting the words "the Standing Committee on Transport be empowered to study the advisability of the Government".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Epp, Thunder Bay-Nipigon) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the main motion, as amended, which reads:
That the Standing Committee on Transport be empowered to study the advisability of the Government introducing legislation to amend the Railway Act to provide for increased compensation to victims of fires set by railway operations in order to reflect current replacement costs on items lost through property damage.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, this is Private Members' Hour and we are all here as private members. I would like to put on the record that the only member of the Transport Committee who is in the House right now did not object to the amendment, which means it was agreed to unanimously.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall 1 call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since you have called it six o'clock and we have people listed for the adjournment debate, which we call the late show, who are not
January 29, 1987

in the House at this time, could the House just suspend its sitting so that Members who are on the list can proceed?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The first two members, namely, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) and the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell), are here and I am sure the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) will get here.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are the Parliamentary Secretaries here?


David Kilgour: I will check that, Mr. Speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I just want to use this opportunity, since we do have a moment or two, to comment on what has just transpired in the House. This is Private Members' Hour when members of all political Parties have an opportunity to present Bills or motions before the House for due consideration. I think that we have seen an excellent example of the cooperation that individual members can provide for one another. The motion today was moved by a member from one Party and seconded by a member from another and much of the leadership came from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Kilgour) who indicated his strong support.
The spirit of parliamentary reform particularly, but also the good will of individual members and the willingness to set aside differences at times to work together have been demonstrated conclusively this afternoon, and I think this ought to be commented on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!