1987-02-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, on behalf of Canadian voters from Montreal, a petition concerning the proposed changes to the Patent Act, which these petitioners say will have a direct impact on all Canadians not covered by public or private drug plans. They humbly pray that Parliament reject these proposals which they say will increase the price of drugs for Canadians across the country.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 106, from a number of Canadian residents who are concerned that the changes to the Patent Act by the federal Government will significantly increase drug prices for Canadian consumers. They believe it will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They are calling upon the Government to come to its senses and stop the continuation of this Bill changing the Patent Act.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of Winnipeg, mostly in my riding of Winnipeg North Centre, concerning the Government's proposed changes to the Patent Act. They indicate that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They add further points and conclude by calling upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians who are opposed to the Government's proposal and sanctions against South Africa, claiming that it harms the Canadian economy.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians from my constituency and the constituency of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake who call upon Parliament to reject the proposals which would increase the prescription drug prices for all Canadians and suggest that the proposals presently before the Government will do just that.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, this morning, I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of Canadians from Vankleek Hill in Ontario, urging the Government to refrain from adopting the amendments to the Patent Act proposed in Bill C-22. They say this legislation will have a direct impact on all Canadians not covered by public or private drug plans. They also say that proposed amendments to the Patent Act are one more example of the concessions the Canadian Government is making to the United States.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition from many Canadians, particularly from Vancouver. The petitioners state that the Government of Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information, that the tariff has had little negative effect on the publishing industry of the United States, yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers and book-sellers, distributors and Canada's culture, and that rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries. The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect to free trade negotiations.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from Canadians in Montreal who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain

February 2, 1987
Order Paper Questions
assurance that your Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy. They humbly declare that the monopoly position granted innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from less expensive generic drugs, thus leading to an increase in the price of drugs for the Canadian consumer and severely restricting the ability of many people to purchase the drugs they need, that the proposed amendments to the Patent Act will have a direct impact on all Canadians not covered by public or private drug plans, that the Government's proposal will increase the already high cost of provincial health insurance schemes and that the proposed changes to the Patent Act are one more example of the Canadian Government's concessions to the United States in the free trade negotiations, without regard for the well-being of the average consumer. Wherefor the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase the price of drugs for Canadians.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present two petitions to the House. The first petition is signed by some 300 citizens of the queen city of the plains, Regina. The petitioners, all of whom are residents of Canada, present a grievance common to them. The petitioners state that the federal Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs, and that the proposals of the federal Government will result in higher costs for provincial Government drug plans. Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by residents of Calgary, Alberta, another fine city which is next to Regina. The petitioners state that in their opinion, transportation is a natural monopoly without economic regulation and that economic regulatory reform or deregulation of the dimensions proposed by the Government in Bill C-18 will create unnecessary chaos in the transportation industry leading to unacceptable reductions in safety standards as well as deterioration in quality, type and frequency of service. Therefore, the petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to have the Government withdraw Bill C-18 and retain public convenience and necessity as a fundamental factor in the development of transportation policy.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 47 will be answered today.


Mr. Kaplan: Did the Government make a grant of $19,200,000 to Baie Verte Mines Inc., as a method of permitting it to repay debts due to the Crown and, if so, for what reason did the Government use this method rather than simply forgiving the debt?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: While the grant has not yet been provided, it is the Government's intention to provide $19,200,000 to Baie Verte Mines Inc. as a method of permitting it to repay debts due to the Crown. This grant item is included in Supplementary Estimates "A" 1986-1987 and parliamentary approval of the payment will be sought in Appropriation Act No. 3, 198687.
This method is being used as there is no mechanism through which the debt can be directly forgiven. While the Financial Administration Act does provide for the forgiveness of debts, the appropriate provisions of the Act apply only to Crown corporations. Given this situation, the provision of a grant was deemed to be the appropriate course of action.
It should be noted that the existing situation whereby debts of Crown corporations may be directly forgiven but debts of individuals or privately held corporations may not, was considered to be inappropriate by the Senate National Finance Committee. In its report on Supplementary Estimates (C) laid before Parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 the Committee stated that:
The Committee believes that under the principle of equity, individuals and private corporations should have the same rights as Crown corporations with regard to write off or forgiveness of debts and that the Government should consider such a change when the Financial Administration Act (FAA) comes under legislative review.
In a subsequent appearance before the Committee (April 23, 1986) the President of the Treasury Board noted that "- the suggestion makes a lot of sense and I plan to review the issue fully. I have instructed my officials to look into this matter and to develop recommendations for the consideration of the Government when the FAA next comes under legislative review."


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 2, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, January 30, 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),
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) did have the floor for the 10-minute question or comment period. However, since she is not here, we must go to the next person.
I would like to remind Hon. Members that under Standing Order 55(2) we have completed the eight hours of debate. We are now into 10-minute speeches. I must recognize the next speaker from the other Party. The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins).


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have not yet had the opportunity in the resumption of this Parliament to congratulate you on your job as Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole. You conduct yourself very well in the chair and we wish you every success in that role.
I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-18 which deals with the National Transportation Act. It also deals, of course, with the deregulation of the transportation industry. Bill C-18 is primarily designed to revamp the National Transportation Act brought forward in 1967 by the Hon. Jack Pickers-gill who was then Minister of Transport in the Government of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. I can remember very well as a fledgling Member in those days sitting behind Mr. Pickers-gill while he supported his Bill day after day.
I recall having a Parliamentary Secretary come to my riding to speak one night. In those days, of course, the House sat at night, and the House was still in session. While the Parliamentary Secretary and myself were in my riding, a snap vote took place. I was paired, but, unfortunately, the Parliamentary Secretary was not. The Government lost that vote, I believe, by 57 to 55. It was one of those squeakers. When Bill C-18 came up for debate it brought back those old memories. Jack Pickersgill was a very adept and professional Parliamentarian, as we all know.
The cited purpose of this Bill is to increase competition in the transportation sector by removing certain regulations which hinder the ability to compete. That is very serious for the regions of this country. It is certainly one reason 1 wanted to speak on this Bill on Friday and today. The transportation modes which will be affected by this deregulation are rail, air and trucking. Of course, most of us have received representations from them all.
National Transportation Act, 1986
Every Canadian rail company, commercial airline, private airline owner, extra-provincial trucking firm and parcel carrier will be affected by this Bill in the way they will be allowed to conduct their business. It will be particularly difficult on regional airlines. Again, regional airlines are very important to the regions of this country because they feed passengers and freight into central locations.
Of course, there is something about which we have to be very cautious, and it is one of the major thrusts of this debate. The fact is that in the deregulation of the transportation industry one must always talk about ensuring that safety measures are implemented. We are not absolutely certain that the proper precautions have been taken with respect to the implementation of this legislation.
I remind the House today, and all Canadians, of the Gander air crash in which Arrow Airlines transporting a planeload of American troops home from peace-keeping operations in the Middle East did not use every safety precaution. As a result there was a crash in which many people on their way home for Christmas lost their lives.
This is a serious matter in spite of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary gets up after each speech and reiterates how the safety measures of the Bill will be implemented and how everything will be fine when they are in place. What will be needed to oversee the transportation industry once all deregulation efforts go into effect is a police force doing nothing else but supervising deregulation and the way in which people treat it.
We have to go one extra step in Canada, something which we have known since Confederation and even before. I refer to the equalization of transportation costs to all parts of the country. The issue is deeper than that, however. It goes to placing transportation facilities at the service of various regions of the country.
I was absolutely astounded to learn what will happen under deregulation. I have received a great many representations from van lines, people who ship by rail, trucking firms and, of course, regional airlines. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) went down to the United States and said that Canada is open for business. It has been said often in conjunction with that statement that we are not up for sale. Yet, when we see what has happened recently in Canada, for example, the 15 per cent tax on softwood lumber, the Fishing agreement with France which has devastated the fishermen of the East Coast and now the transportation industry situation, we may very well have large American companies coming in to buy up smaller Canadian firms. These firms will not be absolutely perfect in putting into effect all the safety measures.
Let us deal with one measure of deregulation. There is one thing that the transportation Bill of 1967 did, that is, it ensured a reasonable and fair transportation policy for the regions of Canada. Recently, the CNR came out with what it
2958

February 2, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
calls a rationalization program, 1986-1996, concerning the St. Lawrence region. This is the region including Montreal, the Ottawa Valley and areas of northern Ontario. It is a devastating report. It starts off with the following words:
In the context of the rationalization of our rail infrastructure, some lines have been identified as being potential candidates for abandonment in the coming years. A preliminary plan has been prepared and attached you will find the sections affected.
Any effort to attract new traffic on these sections is to be abandoned immediately.
So CN wishes to discourage business to make it look as if the railway line is not needed. The report continues:
For the traffic already on these lines, we must consider either, and preferably, converting this traffic onto the intermodal system, or else, adjusting rates to minimize our present losses.
So if the company cannot discourage traffic on the lines it wants to close down, so says CN, then what it does is simply raise freight rates to the extent that nobody will use them, something which will be devastating to the regions of Canada. The report goes on to state:
You will shortly be convoked to a meeting in which the particulars of the application of these measures will be discussed in more detail. In the meantime, I would ask you to treat this with discretion.
In other words, "Keep it low-key, fellas. Don't blow the whistle and don't let anyone know what we're planning to do". When I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) a question about this matter one day in the House he belittled my representation and more or less shoved it off to the side as if it were not important. Yet, the document to which I have referred concerns the main line of the CNR from Montreal to Ottawa, up the Ottawa Valley to North Bay and beyond. A major part of it, some 163 miles, is known as the Beachburg Subdivision. This does not only affect the regions of eastern Ontario and western Quebec but it affects other parts of Canada, for example the City of Toronto and the large urban areas of southern Ontario where a great deal of this traffic will be headed if that line is closed down.
The Consolidated Bathurst Paper Mill at Portage-du-fort on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River receives and ships out approximately 4,500 railcars per year. Out of this amount, nearly 1,800 carry chemicals including chlorine, caustic soda, bunker oil, to name just a few. The concern is that if the railroads are looking to all these chemicals being transported over our provincial highways, then with the abandonment of the line servicing this mill it is a certainty that the goods will have to be shipped over the provincial highways. I do not think that the Governments of the Province of Ontario and Quebec have any choice but to enter into this issue to save that CN line and ensure that it stays in place.
Local fire and police departments in the area of this mill are not equipped to handle a major spill of chlorine if one were to occur as a result of a transport accident. Some municipal fire departments have done excellent jobs of upgrading themselves. A great many of them are volunteer fire departments and they still send their members away on courses. They can handle many of these situations. But to put this type of material into
these big transports on to highways in eastern Ontario and western Quebec, highways which are already overloaded, is not only unfair to the shippers but to the people of those areas. It will end up costing the two provincial Governments a fortune.
In conclusion, where will these 1,800 carloads go? They will go right through the built-up areas of Canada.
There are a great many things I have to say about the Bill but I see that you are giving me the signal that my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that I will be voting against the Bill because I think it is horrendous. I just wish that the Hon. Jack Pickersgill were back here putting some sanity into Canadian transportation policy.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to take part in the debate this morning concerning an issue that is so fundamentally important to western Canada. I do not think it is any secret that I come from a region of Canada which is very much dependent on transportation. A large part of our industry is based on resource development. Many of the industries in my riding literally end up becoming captive shippers. As a result we are very keenly interested in the Bill which is before us. We feel it is fundamental to the development of the West, especially in terms of its economy. All the grain produced in our area has to be shipped out by rail. There are many difficulties surrounding these shipments. This debate is but a reminder that the number one problem we face in the Peace River country continues to be with respect to transportation.
I would like to give a specific example which illustrates the point I want to make in speaking to this Bill. In my riding I have a large lumber mill, the capacity of which is virtually incredible. It probably ranks as one of the top-producing mills in Canada. The only form of transportation available to this mill is one railway. What is the result of this situation? There is no competition. Thus the bottom line is very simple. The mill pays tremendous prices to ship out its lumber. But does this company have an alternative? The company has to provide a form of competition on its own. It has to truck out large amounts of its lumber, not because it is practical or economical, but because it is the only way there can be any form of competition which allows some leverage to bring down the prices the railway charges. In effect, artificial competition has to be created because of the present National Transportation Act. There is no opportunity for the competition that is so necessary. This Bill starts to deal with and address that problem.
The second item I wish to briefly touch upon, and which I think is very important to western Canada, is the whole issue of western coal. We have talked for some time now in the west about the coal there. It is high quality, low in acid emissions, and it is ideal coal for Ontario Hydro to use in the production of its power.
February 2, 1987

In today's Quorum there is an interesting article from The Globe and Mail which speaks directly to this issue. I wish to refer to some of the quotations from it, because it illustrates some of the problems that we are facing.
Under the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), the Government has spent a great deal of time, effort, and energy to bring western coal into Ontario.
Deputy Prime Minister Donald Mazankowski has written a stiff letter to Ontario Premier David Peterson, complaining that the Premier is avoiding a meeting with him to discuss the use of low-sulphur western Canadian coal by Ontario Hydro.
"I have, since last November, been seeking a meeting with you to discuss how we might best proceed on a co-operative basis with this important initiative," Mr. Mazankowski wrote in a letter dated January 29 and obtained by The Globe and Mail.
"Already, this meeting has been postponed twice by your office-
This is a very important issue and we are trying to do it.
The article becomes more interesting, and as a western Canadian I feel it is well and accurately stated that:
The report, which says 13,000 jobs could be created in the next 15 years, $4.1 billion in income generated-
That is, just because of this deal. This is an extremely important decision for western Canada with an impact for the nation.
In addition to that, there is the all-important concern about acid rain. The same report states:
-Ontario Hydro could meet its future acid-gas emission limits "solely by the use of more western Canadian coal"-
There are two options. First, we could create economic activity in Canada instead of in the United States, which is where Ontario Hydro presently gets its coal. In addition to that, an important goal is met, that of reducing the acid emissions in Canada. What is the problem? Why can we not arrange a meeting with the Premier? Why can we not come to some resolution of this issue? Again I refer to the article, this time a quotation from the Ontario Energy Minister, Vincent Kerrio, who said this:
"One major hurdle, however, is the high cost of transporting Western coal to Ontario," he said. "Instead of Mr. Mazankowski laying the blame on us, if he came forward with a strong commitment to moving that product at a reasonable price I'm sure we could do it."
Is that not incredible, Mr. Speaker? The provincial Government of Ontario is asking us to come up with something that will allow the coal from western Canada to be brought into Ontario at a reasonable price, and their federal colleagues are sitting here blocking the very vehicle needed in order to ship this coal into our region.
That is a picture of the type of problem that we have. I am astounded when I see an economic opportunity, an opportunity to reduce acid rain emissions, and what have we got? The two wings of the Liberal Party at loggerheads, at opposite ends of the spectrum on something that is so fundamental and important.
The question is, are the Liberals opposing this Bill because of some clear understanding of some great harm to the
National Transportation Act, 1986
Canadian economy, or are they looking at it for some other reason?
If we look behind the scenes and take our memories back to 1983-84, we find something that is very interesting. At that time the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was a director of CPR. In itself, that is fascinating. His resignation did not take effect until after he was sworn in as Prime Minister, so that carried through his run for the leadership into his time of leading the Party, and then becoming Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition presents himself as a Member from western Canada. If he was representing western Canada, he would see the absolute importance of this coal deal. He would see the legislation as an opportunity to deal with that problem. In addition, he would sit down with his Ontario colleagues, namely, the Premier of Ontario, and say, "Sit down. Let's get this ball going." What is he doing?


Mrs. Mailly:: He has moved to Toronto. Maybe they will talk to each other.


Albert Glen Cooper: That is exactly what he has done. He has taken a condominium in Toronto, and maybe the two of them can get together and work out these serious problems.
The truth of the matter is that the Liberal Opposition is not representing western Canada. The time has come for them to do that. He should not be buying a condominium in Toronto, he should be spending more time in Vancouver, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, and understanding what is going on there. He should be talking to his provincial colleagues and not representing the CPR, even though he has resigned as a director, but representing the people who have the concerns of western Canada, and their concerns focus on this Bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-18. It is always a pleasure to speak on Bills relating to transportation, particularly because we can look back in our history and recognize the major element that transportation has played in the social and economic structures. We are the second largest country in the world ranking twenty-eighth in terms of population. It is not surprising that transportation has played such a role in the development of Canadian society and the economy.
For the average Canadian thinking in terms of our history, we think of the voyageurs, the fur traders linking up Montreal with Fort St. James in British Columbia. We think of the CPR and the history of railroads and canals in Canadian history. We certainly can recall the role of aircraft, the bush pilots opening up Canada's North.
I could go on, but obviously transportation and the development of transportation in the best interest of Canadians is important. Now that we are debating amendments to the National Transportation Act, we recognize that it is long overdue. It was 20 years ago last year when Jack Pickersgill introduced legislation, the National Transportation Act, that

February 2, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
in a sense provided the framework that we have known in Canada for the last two decades. We all recognize that it is time for rethinking, upgrading, and re-examining the various sectors of that Act, and bringing it more in line with the realities of the 1980s in preparation for the 1990s.
This Bill could be called Bill C-18 with a variety of things in terms of title. It does have a title, but I would think that a more appropriate title would be to call this an anti-bill. It is in fact anti-competition. It is anti-regional. It is anti-economic development, particularly in certain regions of Canada. It is anti-Canadian. It is anti-safety. It is anti-service. It is antismall-business. I could go on with a variety of other categories.
In looking at what this Bill actually does as opposed to the mythology surrounding it, it is quite alarming. In this Bill there is the assumption that we will leave the transportation systems of Canada to the free hand of the market-place. The belief that whatever is the most profitable thing to do is what companies should be permitted to do, and that what makes sense in terms of profit motive is good for Canada goes against the reality of the Canadian landscape. If we say that what is profitable is best, once again the entire emphasis of the transportation system will be focused on the Golden Horseshoe region of southern Ontario or the Toronto-Montreal access. That will be Canada, that is where the transportation system will be most effective and efficient. The rest of Canada will simply be left on the sidelines. That is not what built Canada. That is not what makes Canada today. That is one of the major weaknesses in this piece of legislation. It lacks any framework by which to evaluate the various aspects of the Bill.
[DOT] (U40)
What does it do in terms of dealing with matters of safety for workers and passengers? What does it do to create better and improved competition in our economy? What does it do in terms of developing economic growth, particularly in the regions of Canada? Does it assist the fledgling small business sector or small manufacturers, particularly in our regions? Does it promote Canadian participation in the economy? I am afraid that the answer to all these questions is no, it does not.
Consequently, we have a number of concerns regarding Bill C-18. I think it is really a carbon copy of Bill C-126. The old Bill has been simply reintroduced in the House. When the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) introduced the Bill, he was asked in a scrum outside the House, "How is Bill C-18 different from Bill C-126?" He had to admit that he was not aware of any significant changes. He was not aware that it was much different at all.
We know what groups felt about the previous Bill to deregulate the transportation system. We know that the Canadian Trucking Association was against the previous legislation. We know that CN was against the legislation. We know that CP was against the legislation. We know that the Council of Maritime Premiers was against the legislation. We know that the Canadian Labour Congress was against the legislation. Quite frankly the list goes on for a whole page.
Witness after witness appeared to speak against the legislation in terms of it being anti-competitive and anti-service. They indicated that it did not promote safety for passengers or for people working in the transportation system and that it did not enhance Canadian participation.
Quite frankly the question is, who supports the Bill? I suppose a few major shipping companies support it. However, do Canadian consumers support it? I, for one, will be very curious to see who lines up during the committee hearings, which will hopefully be held across Canada, to say that this is good legislation.
I should like to refer to a specific point in the legislation. The authors of Bill C-18 seem to understand the devastating impact of deregulation on the northern parts of Canada. Perhaps one should ask, do they really understand? The Bill retains regulation for air travel only for an area called the designated area. In other words, the Bill indicates that it is important to have regulation in a certain part of Canada, that being the northern part of the country. I should say that it is defined as being north of the line drawn from the 50th parallel on the East Coast to the 55th parallel on the West Coast. In this particular area regulation will continue, except for flights from the south to northern destinations as well as trips originating in the North and terminating in the South. These flights are still deregulated.
If it was believed that it was important to maintain regulation in the northern parts of Canada, which includes the northern parts of most provinces and certainly the territories, why was it restricted only to air travel? What about truck and marine traffic in those areas? If it is needed in the northern parts of Canada, what about the other parts of Canada?
In this particular section of Bill C-18 the Government really betrays the reality of the situation. It recognizes how important it is to ensure the economic development of northern Canada and to ensure that the citizens of that part of Canada obtain reasonably competitive rates. Also it recognizes that safety is a factor for workers and for passengers and that it is important to help Canadian companies exist in that milieu. Obviously it felt that regulation was necessary in that part of Canada. However, for the rest of Canada it says no. We will have to explore that distinction as the debate continues.
It is part of the sell-out theme for which the Government has become famous. It sold out the softwood industry. It sold out to multinational drug companies. It sold out the fishing industry. Now it is selling out in the transportation industry. It is part of the so-called free trade discussions which are already well under way. Bill C-18 is simply part of that because it will give United States railways and trucking companies access and advantage in Canada which Canadians will not have in the United States. It gives it all to the American trucking companies and to the American railways, but it does not give the same benefits to Canadian trucking companies and railways. Why would anyone agree with that? That is what the legislation does. It is pro-American and anti-Canadian. For that reason we have some real concerns about it.
February 2, 1987

We also have concerns when we think of the need for some regulation in the system to ensure that parts of Canada are well served. I remind the House of the 1897 Crow's Nest Pass agreement, which was designed to help western producers; of the statutory grain rates established in the 1920s, again to assist western farmers; of the Western Grain Transportation Act, which was necessary to provide equal opportunities for those in western Canada; and of the Maritime Assistance Act as well as the Atlantic Provinces Freight Assistance Act, which were designed to provide equal opportunities for people in the Atlantic provinces. These pieces of legislation were thoughtfully presented, argued, and adopted in the past because they were deemed to be absolutely necessary. Suddenly, through this intellectual breakthrough, the Conservatives think that they are unnecessary and that we can throw aside all this legislation and let the free hand of the market-place decide.
In closing, when people are seeking lower air fares, they want to go between other places than Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. What about Red Deer, Swift Current, Moncton, Sherbrooke, and Brantford? If it is to be simply the invisible hand of the market-place which decides where services will be provided at competitive rates, it will just be between major metropolitan areas in terms of air fares. Those living in smaller cities and towns in rural areas will once again experience discrimination at the hands of the Government.


Mr. Moe Mantha (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to draw to the attention of the House the problem with which I was left when I was elected in 1984. As a result of deregulation under two former Ministers of the Liberal Government, 23 controllers at the air terminal in North Bay were to be uprooted through attrition, or moved to Toronto or Winnipeg. They had mortgages. Their children went to school in the North Bay area. They were totally upset.
I draw to the attention of the House that this problem was started by the former Government under deregulation, and today Liberal Members talk about being against deregulation. It is hard to believe what you hear as a new Member of Parliament. The former Government has left the present Government with this problem. I hope we will be able to do something good and that these controllers will not have to move.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise again in the discussion of Bill C-18, because it allows me to dwell a little longer on this party's position on such a basic matter.
Although unbelievably thick, this Bill as it now stands is more amazing because of its shortcomings than because of what it does contain.
Two weeks ago, I rose for the first time in the early stages of the debate on second Reading, and I pointed out to the House
National Transportation Act, 1986
that we in the Liberal Party believe this legislation is incomplete. The deregulation principle itself is acceptable, but the way they are going about it is totally unacceptable in our view. For this reason during discussion in committee we will attempt to bring in amendments to provide safety guarantees to certain groups in our society who may be harmed by the Bill as it is now drafted, because we believe specifically that safety at airports is essential, and the Bill does not guarantee the safety of each and every passenger boarding a plane. Despite all this Government's rhetoric, it is clear the Bill has no teeth as far as air safety is concerned, and the same even applies with respect to rail safety, for we must admit there is now a significant increase in the number of rail accidents in Canada. The only thing the Government has been able to do so far is to appoint inquiry commissions which invariably urge the Government to intervene and impose much stricter conditions and a much more appropriate control system. Yet this Bill does not even allude to safety measures.
We would also suggest that the Bill is replete with other flaws. Particularly with respect to air rates, we can see now that one of the priorities advocated by the Deputy Prime Minister and Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who was then the Minister of Transport and sponsor of the first Conservative Bill on deregulation can be summed up in his words: Thanks to deregulation we will see the rates decline. The fact is that the rates of our Canadian air carriers will not go down as a result of deregulation or this Government measure. There could have been competition in the air, but any such possibility is melting away like snow under the sun. All major air carriers are buying each other out and before too long there will be undue concentration in Canada's air transport business. So how can anyone possibly look forward to healty competition among various companies when in fact Canada will end up with only one or maybe two major air carriers?
As if the situation were not devastating enough, both CP Air and Air Canada presidents stated before the parliamentary committee which studied the Minister's document entitled Freedom to Move that they did not expect to see lower air rates within the next few years. Why? Because the two presidents told us that indeed, owing to market forces and especially competition from foreign airlines-mostly American airlines-Canada's major carriers are feeling the pinch and simply cannot offer lower rates to their clients.
In short, I believe that the Canadian consumers have been deceived because the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has tried to make the public believe that the rates will decrease substantially because of deregulation. The former Minister of Transport, who is the sponsor of this Bill, was himself forced to admit the truth last June when he appeared before the Committee and was asked for evidence that rates would in fact decrease. He was himself forced to admit that there was no guarantee that his deregulation plan would result in a rate decrease. What is even worse in my opinion is the effect that this Bill will have on employment in the transport sector. The

February 2, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
House will recall that the Conservative Government was elected on a platform of jobs, jobs, jobs. Before the last election, the Conservatives were saying: Vote for us and we shall create jobs. Yet, the Bill does the exact opposite of what this electoral promise implied because, if we look at what happened in the United States when the American authorities deregulated the industry, we find that there was a series of layoffs and a major displacement in the air industry. Between 1978 and 1985, some 40,000 workers in the air industry lost their jobs in the United States. This Bill, however thick it may be, contains nothing to protect jobs in the air industry. It contains nothing to force the air carriers to compensate workers who have to move to keep their jobs or to give adequate notice to employees being laid off.
We feel that Bill C-18 will lead to major disruption of the air transportation industry, the trucking sector, and our two railway companies in this country. All intervenors who testified before the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Transport which examined the Government's paper, Freedom to Move, and I say all intervenors, made it clear to the Conservative Government that this Bill would have serious repercussions on employment levels in the transportation industry in Canada. Mr. Speaker, traditionally, Canada's transportation sector has been among the most fertile and most stable sources of employment in the history of this country. Our country was developed thanks to our ability to improve our transportation modes, including the railways, highways and our aviation industry with its many airports across this country. I think we can say that in the past, thousands of Canadians have earned an honest living, made good wages and enjoyed job security in the transportation sector in Canada. I therefore have no hesitation in saying that the Government's hasty decision to proceed with total deregulation may severely affect the number of jobs available and the job security of those who traditionally earn a living by working for one of our Canadian transport companies.
I find that unacceptable. And that is why I support a suggestion submitted by one of our colleagues who presented an amendment that would send this Bill back to the Standing Committee on Transport with the request that it reassess the entire question, and add firmer guarantees for employment security to the Bill, as of now, if possible.
I know this Bill contains many other deficiencies. Unfortunately, our Standing Orders do not give me more than 10 minutes at this stage. When I next pursue the matter, I will point out all the loopholes and reasons for concern this Bill contains, not only for workers in the transportation industry but for those who enjoy the benefits of our very efficient transport infrastructure here in Canada.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am a bit disappointed that I did not hear a few more of my colleagues from the government side taking an
opportunity to participate in this debate. I extend an invitation to them to enter this debate following my remarks which are limited to 10 minutes. If government Members rise, they may contribute to the public discussion on this very crucial matter. This is an essentially important piece of legislation. I would like to hear the Conservative response to my understanding of the implications of this legislation, and that of my colleagues who have spoken on it. I invite Conservative Members to speak rather than to remain silent, waiting for the negative impacts of this legislation on Canadians.
This legislation is gambling with Canadian interests. It is playing Russian roulette with our economic and transportation needs. The Government is gambling that its approach to transportation will work.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Right.


Cyril Keeper: The Hon. Member over there has said that this is right and I hope he rises after I have finished to elaborate. Canadians do not want to gamble with essential services-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It was studied by the committee.


Cyril Keeper: It is interesting that the Hon. Member can heckle. I appreciate his capacities in that regard-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He's got good lungs and that's all he's got.


Cyril Keeper: He has good lungs and I would hope that he would take the opportunity to make a speech and make good use of those lungs so that we may hear his position on the gamble the Government is taking with our need for transportation services and for safety in transportation.
I would like to elaborate a bit on the substance of this issue. It is my understanding that the carrot the Government is holding out to the Canadian public is lower transportation fares; that if the Government moves out of the area of transportation and is no longer a watchdog, we can expect to have lower transportation fares. In fact, by holding out this carrot, the Government has even captivated those who do analyses for the Consumers' Association of Canada, or at least it has up until now.
I heard recently that a representative of the Consumers' Association of Canada has said that while the association agrees with deregulation in principle, if it will mean less competition and only two major carriers in Canada-and it seems to be moving in that direction-then the association has doubts. It has said that if the interests of Canadian consumers will be hurt, it will have to re-evaluate its position on this legislation.
We should remind ourselves that we have already begun to move in the direction of deregulation. When the Liberal Government was in office, it commenced that process, a number of years ago. I think it is worth while to remind Canadians that, while Liberal Members in Opposition may be taking strong stands with regard to deregulation, they started the ball rolling. They started the snowball rolling down the
February 2, 1987

mountain and now it is getting pretty big and scary and they are waking up to the actions they themselves started.
Deregulation has already taken place to a great extent. Under existing legislation, there is a rule that refers to public convenience and necessity and this provides some protection for the public. Even so, the regulatory environment has been loosened up a great deal. While there have been some seat sales, Canadians cannot point to any great nirvana in terms of reduced transportation fares. The Government is simply gambling that its further giant step in the direction of deregulation will result in bargain-basement fares. If it does not work, then we will be paying an enormous price because we could lose Air Canada and we could lose in the areas of safety and service.
Even if the Government's gamble does work, what will we have? We may win on price but is price the only consideration? Is there not a place in transportation policy for considering the value of a service as determined by convenience, availability and safety?
I would point out that there have been a number of disasters in the transportation industry. I think in particular of the Air-India disaster. When transportation companies are put into a deregulated environment in which they take responsibility for safety and security, it is obvious that the price of the ticket is not the only consideration. Safety is an essential consideration as well.
The Government is taking a big gamble on behalf of Canadians. Why does it not put its studies on the table? Why does it not tell us precisely what it expects fares to be if this legislation goes through? Based on our experiences to date, 1 doubt that we will see the air fare nirvana that the Government has been holding out as a carrot to Canadians. I am afraid we will pay a price in terms of safety and service.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very important, because the interests of all Canadians are at stake here. Our transportation system is not just a matter of rates but also of safety and service.
1 believe the Government is gambling with the interests of Canadians. It wants to offer Canadians the lowest possible fares for transportation, but it has failed to prove this will indeed be the case, which I doubt it will in the near future.
Mr. Speaker, I know I should finish my speech, and I simply want to say in concluding that Canadians do not want a Government that is taking a serious gamble with their interests. They want a Government that takes a balanced approach to these issues, since there is more involved than just the price of a ticket.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I had not anticipated speaking on the question we have before us
National Transportation Act, 1986
because I thought the correctness of the legislation would be self-evident to any rational, thinking human being. However, we have just had a demonstration from the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and the Hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) that perhaps rationale and common sense are not as prevalent, certainly in this House, as 1 had hoped they would be. I therefore feel compelled to add one or two points.
Is it not self-evident that competition results in the best service for the customer? You do not really have to think about that. All you have to do is go to your local grocery store and then walk across the street to your local post office. Can you not see that the level of service and prices that you get from the grocery store are far better than you get in the post office? That is not because of the people who work there. It is because of the system imposed in the case of the post office when Government is involved in things where it has no real place.
I am not surprised at the arguments we have heard here today. It is typical of the Liberals and their socialist allies to want to control everything. We will decide, they say, where you can fly from and to and what price you will pay. There is no point in leaving that to the open market because we are better than the open market. We are more intelligent than you, the consumer, or you, the provider of service. We the Government should tell you what you can do and what you cannot do. The Liberals and the NDP look upon the providers and consumer of services as some kind of incompetents. They cannot get over the state of mind which says that the Government knows best and can therefore impose its will on all other Canadians.
I do not know, Sir, whether you have ever spent any time dealing with the regulatory process in transportation as it existed in the past. I sat in on ATC hearings and have seen high-powered and high-priced lawyers trying to belittle the applicant concerned. It is a waste of time, money, and human effort which could be better spent on competition rather than trying to beat down some guy in a quasi judicial hearing. Instead of competing in trying to hire the smoothest talking lawyer, they should be improving the service concerned, which is what will happen as a result of the legislation presently before the House.
I was astounded when the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap said that deregulation was against the little guy. It is the very opposite. It is the little guy who will benefit most from deregulation. He is the guy who cannot afford to hire the special consultants and lawyers under the existing system. He is forbidden to get into business right now unless he goes through six months, a year, or two years of judicial proceedings. He cannot even start out. Under the new system proposed by the Minsiter of Transport, using the fit, able and willing criteria, the little guy will be able to get into business where he cannot even get a start right now. In so doing, if you are a big operator in transportation and you are always scared of little guys starting up in competition, that will keep you honest. The

February 2, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
big guys are not going to be able to get away with the things they have been getting away with because there will always be that threat of competition. That is the way it should be.
I know, Sir, why the NDP and Liberals want to restrict economic enterprise to a few big organizations in Canada. They do not like little guys. They are scared of thousands of Canadians running around doing their own thing, making their own deals, buying and selling amongst themselves with no Government telling them what to do. I know why they want just a few big corporations in every field of endeavour, whether it be energy or transportation. It is a lot easier to eventually nationalize five or six big companies than it is to take over hundreds or thousands of little guys. That is why they are always arguing in favour of the big corporations. Liberals, in their political philosophy, might not want to take over ownership of the means of production and transportation, but they certainly want to control it. They want to keep that iron grip. Therefore we have the Liberals and socialists together arguing in favour of continued regulation.
I will give you a couple of examples of this. The town where I live is an exporter of arsenic. It is hauled away by truck from the City of Yellowknife down to somewhere in Georgia. It is a hell of a good business for a little trucking company to get into. However, a little trucking company cannot do it because it has to go through several Canadian provinces and several U.S. states to get from the Northwest Territories to Georgia. Only a large international trucking company can bid on a contract like that. What the Government wants to do is have a system where the little guy has a chance to bid on a job like that. At present he is prevented from doing so.
I have seen this in small communities in my riding which have no road access and where somebody wants to start an air service. They want to buy themselves a Cessna 185 or a little Beaver and provide air service where none now exists. If you want to charter a plane you have to pay to ferry it from its original point to where you are, then to where you want to go, and then pay again to ferry it back. I have seen it made impossible for people to start up an air service because existing corporations based in other towns have gone to the ATC and blocked the setting up of an obviously advantageous air service for the people who live in these small communities. We heard examples of towns like Brantford and Red Deer, the kind of medium-sized town not particularly well serviced at the present time. With deregulation it would be a lot easier and simpler for an air carrier to set up in those towns and start servicing them on a regular basis. Deregulation has been put into effect in the U.S. but here in Canada, because we have not changed the legislation, the Government has not been applying the existing law in all its rigour.
I have a few final comments about the north-south line which divides Canada. We will have one system of more or less complete deregulation in the south and a continued form of regulation north of the line. In this respect I believe the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap had a good point. He said if one argues that deregulation is best south of the line, should
one not also argue that deregulation is better north of the line? Alternatively, if one is of the other opinion, the same ought to apply.
Why do we need this line? That is a question that troubles me. My opinion is that we do not need that line. I believe that deregulation is best both in southern Canada and in northern Canada. However, I know that a number of operators and municipalities have argued that they want to keep a system in the north for some time, on a kind of experimental basis. If the deregulation works well in the south, then the line can be eliminated later. That may not be bad because in that instance, the reverse onus would be in effect.
In conclusion, I want to go firmly on the record as being in support of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and the deregulation system for Canadian transportation that he has so wisely brought before the House.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in this debate on Bill C-18, to amend the current national transportation legislation which was first implemented in 1967. I deplore the fact that before introducing this Bill on November 4, the Government chose to ignore the quite legitimate claims of dozens of organizations representing thousands of Canadians.
Again, the Government overlooks the results of a democratic process just as it did in the case of Bill C-22, concerning pharmaceutical products, totally disregarding the recommendations of Professor Eastman. In both cases, Canadian consumers will foot the bill for this Conservative Government's indifference.
I should like especially to emphasize the shortcomings of this Bill concerning the transportation of handicapped people. The House will remember that in 1981, the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped, on which I had the honour to sit, submitted ten recommendations dealing with transportation in Chapter VIII on its Obstacles report.
The two major objectives of the International Year of the Handicapped, I should like to remind the House, were: equality, participation and full integration.
Our report was entitled Obstacles for a precise purpose. Having heard over 600 briefs, we wanted to make the Government and the Canadian public aware of the special needs of the handicapped in each and every area which affects their daily lives, namely, human and civil rights, employment, income, information and communications, housing, independent living, public access to facilities and buildings, transportation, recreation, education, aids and devices, consumerism institutional living, changing attitudes, prevention, research and development, data base development, Native population, international perspective and finally funding and implementation.
February 2, 1987

I wanted to list the various chapters of this report, Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate the extent of this study which should have been consulted by the Minister responsible for Bill C-18, a legislation aimed at de-regulating the transportation industry.
Chapter VIII of our Obstacles report dealt entirely with the problems associated with the transportation of handicapped in Canada. Here is what Elizabeth Semkiw, from Winnipeg, said:
Transportation, or rather the accessibility or lack of transportation, has always been the most serious problem handicapped people have had to face.
Getting to the doctor, to work, or, on very rare occasions, to recreational activities has always been a major obstacle and a source of considerable difficulty and expenditure for the handicapped who, like myself, cannot move around without assistance in an ordinary vehicle.
Then, there is what the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the handicapped has to say.
Since the invention of the wheel, humanity has always worked at improving its means of transport. High technology gives more freedom to the non-handicapped and facilitates their movements in their own neighbourhood and beyond. However, for the handicapped, transport still is a major obstacle to equality, participation and integration.
I remind the House that the theme of the International Year of the Handicapped in 1981 was equality, participation and integration plans. How can our handicapped in Canada hope to achieve full participation and integration if they cannot travel with dignity inside their own country? Our fundamental recommendation on which all the others were based was as follows. Before making any change to any Canadian law, the Government must always consult the handicapped about programs and policies which directly affect them.
It is very disappointing, Mr. Speaker, to see that the Government did not consult the handicapped in preparing this Bill. If the handicapped had been consulted and listened to, Bill C-18 would be very different. For instance, it would ensure reasonable access to all modes of transport under federal jurisdiction for the handicapped. The Minister of Transpsort should have developed a national policy on transport for the handicapped before introducing the Bill. As we know, several means of transport come directly under federal jurisdiction, such as air carriers, interprovincial railway services, interprovincial bus services, international and interprovincial ferries and the road cruiser service in Newfoundland.
Had the Government adopted a national transportation policy for the handicapped, the major air, rail and water terminals would be decently accessible to them, especially with respect to washrooms, wickets, baggage registration, restaurants, telephones and drinking fountains, as well as the audio and visual communication and information systems. There are still too many terminals across the land where those essential services are not available, and the Minister of Transport should publish without further ado a scheduling of the projects he intends to implement to ensure reasonable accessibility for handicapped travellers. "Accessibility" means that the person may get aboard and take his or her seat without help. This is too bad, and I regret that the Minister did not take this
National Transportation Act, 1986
opportunity when tabling the Bill to make transportation more accessible to the handicapped.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-18 now before the House, the National Transportation Act, 1986 is a clumsy and incomplete application of the deregulation principle. It is an application copied from the American experience. I have just shown how the Bill has completely ignored accessibility, comfort, safety and rates for the Canadian handicapped. With this in mind, I will ask the House the following question: If the Canadian Government fails to take heed of ensuring accessibility and safety to the Canadian handicapped, is it realistic to believe an American firm will? This legislation brings in long awaited changes on which we are partly in agreement, but as concerns the handicapped, there are still too many shortcomings and deficiencies.
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we will have an opportunity to introduce amendments during the parliamentary committee study and, above all, the Minister will look favourably upon them. So I intend to vote against this Bill, Mr. Speaker, but I will support the amendment aimed at withdrawing it and referring the subject-matter to the Standing Committee on Transport.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to speak on Bill C-18, and the motion, which I support, to send it back to committee so that people who have expressed an interest in having input can do so before it is drafted instead of after the direction is set by the Government.
This Bill is a virtual word-for-word repeat of a Bill which failed in the last Parliament, Bill C-126. We see with this Bill an introduction of an Act by a Progressive Conservative Government to, what it calls, "deregulate" the transportation industry. That is the same Party which appeared to be opposed to the killing of the Crow rate because western Canadians understood what killing the Crow would do to their region. Now the Conservatives have done a complete flip-flop and decided that all transportation matters should be completely deregulated.
What does that mean for a region like western Canada? It means there will no longer be rights to service by rail. The process of getting rid of branchlines will continue at an even faster pace under this Government than happened under the Liberals. Western Canadians will recall that the Liberals closed down some 2,500 branchlines in the course of their mandate. There are about 3,000 that the Conservative Government is proposing to get rid of in its mandate. This is the same Government that on the hustings claimed to be the protectors of farmers' rights to maintain those branch lines and the rights of their communities to have access to the rail system.
What regulation is all about is the right of communities to have access to service. We have used the system of regulation

February 2, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
to ensure that when service whether by truck, rail or air, begins in a particular community or area, it will be there for some years to come so that the local community can build its businesses and infrastructure based on the certain knowledge that the transportation service will continue.
I noticed with some interest that the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) talked about the great value of deregulation and permitting companies to come and go at will in providing service to communities. He can take that position quite secure in the knowledge that his area of the country, the far north, will continue to be regulated so that those comunities will know for some time that they will have transportation service available and will not be subjected to the kind of on-again off-again service the smaller communities in my part of the country, the prairies, will find themselves facing.
The only criteria for a company beginning a transportation service to a community is that it prove-and apparently this can be done fairly easily-that it is fit, willing and able to provide a service to that community and it will, with very little to-do, commence the service. On the surface that sounds like the ultimate in free enterprise and good business for small communities. However, most of the communities I represent, and in which I have lived all my life, know that that sort of philosophy does not pan out when one starts getting into cases. The community of Wishart has lost its rail line because it was unable to maintain the interest of the shipper. Under this law, that phasing out process which took three or four years, during which time the community was provided with service, will no longer be available. The service can be withdrawn very quickly by a number of processes, some of which only take 60 days, so that if a railway or trucking company think they are not making enough money providing goods and services in and out of a town like Wishart, they can be gone in 60 days. Under the regulated system, at least the community had an opportunity to go before a branch of the Canadian Transport Commission and argue its case for maintaining the service as long as possible.
We have another process at work with the dropping of the old regulation which required that public convenience and necessity be the basis upon which service was supplied to small communities. That is the move which was made possible under the changes to the Western Grain Transportation Act when it was piloted through this House by the previous Government under the then Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). These changes permitted a procedure whereby some of the railways could offer to their customers variable rates. This is beginning to be seen in western Canada for what it is worth. It appears to be an opportunity for the grain companies and railways to coalesce and provide a minimum amount of delivery points so that producers have only a few points at which to deliver grain. They propose to use the variable rate procedure as a means whereby higher prices for the final grain product will be offered to producers to deliver to certain designated points.
Those higher prices are made possible because the railways have offered a reduced rate to the shipping company. One of the railways states these variable rates are in fact economical for it because it can drop off more cars to these larger points and make fewer stops. Making drop-offs of 10, 20 or 30 cars, reduces its operating costs and, therefore, it can pass the savings on to its customers.
I want to raise the question, Mr. Speaker, that if the railways are finding it costs less and is more convenient to drop off 10, 20 or 30 cars on a siding for a customer, why can they not offer those kinds of rate cuts to the Wheat Board which is, in practice, the actual shipper of the biggest chunk of the grain in western Canada? The Wheat Board allocates the cars and arranges for them to be unloaded, a trainload at a time, at the individual terminal, regardless of who the prior shipper was, and the corrections for the ownership of pool grain, UGG grain or pioneer grain, is taken care of simply by trading paper between terminals. If the railways are arguing they have less cost by dropping off 10, 20 or 30 cars to a shipping point, I would argue that by allowing the Wheat Board to be seen as the shipper, the cars could be loaded faster because they could call on all of the loading capacity of all of the companies at that shipping point to make the load. The unloading is already being done at one terminal and the ownership question is corrected afterward.
I think that some of the arguments being used in proceeding with some of these so-called initiatives do not make sense. Where they do have some economic impact, they are not put into place with the desired rationality. For instance, they do not recognize that the Wheat Board is the major shipper of grains. They do not consider the Wheat Board a shipper because the grain transportation agency has decided it will not permit the Wheat Board to be a shipper, even though the practice and the law states very clearly that it is.
I think all Members of the House and the general public will be opposed to this move by the Government to end regulation, as it calls it, simply because it will effectively end the feasibility and economic viability of a great many small communities in my part of the country, as well as in other parts of the country.


Mr. Richard Grise (Chambiy):: around because, once this more than 20-year old transportation legislation has been put through the deregulation process, a community or company will be in a position to negotiate more favourable rates for its products, whereas until now producers and companies did not have any leeway since under the law only one carrier was licensed to transport their products at fixed rates in a competition-free market. The producer or company that was saddled with higher shipping rates sometimes had to go through incredible contortions to be able to produce his product and bring it to market to compete, while today, producers, whole communities and our exporters as well will be given a fair chance to negotiate cheaper rates, both for finished products and also for the products they have to modify or process.
Mr. Speaker, under the present legislation, often when people need a shipping licence, they come before the Transport Commission and are told: Sorry, the licence has already been given to a company or several companies, and even if they only provide a service once or twice a week or even once a month, they have that licence. This means other shippers cannot come in because there are already companies who are doing the shipping, often at much higher rates. Under the proposed legislation, Mr. Speaker, a company that is willing to take the initiative and create jobs, a company that wants to set up a new service or improve an existing one, and perhaps charge lower rates, will be given a licence. It will be up to the other companies to ask the CTC for a ruling on whether the new shipper is harming existing companies or the community or the companies concerned.
Mr. Speaker, this Government, whose priority is the development of our economy, has realized the importance of deregulation in the transportation sector. If we want to get ahead, and we are now in 1987 ... I fail to understand why the members of the New Democratic Party are opposed to a Bill that will in fact protect the consumer. It will protect Canadians. Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why they object to a Bill that helps the little man. We have always been branded by the New Democrats and the Liberals as a Government that supposedly ignores the needs of the people. Now we are meeting those needs in this National Transportation Act, they object, saying we are not protecting the people and may be protecting one group more than another, although the very opposite is true. We are telling existing companies-I have nothing against the companies operating at this time-they no longer have a monopoly over territory, rates or service. We want to give other companies a chance to say: I'm ready to show what I can do. I want to tender against these people. I want to negotiate.
In the railway sector, companies were limited to certain regions and certain routes by the various railway companies, and the manufacturers using the services of these railway companies could not negotiate rates.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-18 before the House today will have a major impact on the economy of this country. The safety issue has been raised. Mr. Speaker, as far as Bill C-18 is concerned,
National Transportation Act, 1986
we have said we will be even stricter about enforcement of the safety regulations in the National Transportation Act. That is what we intend to do, that is what is in the Bill, and, as the Member representing the riding of Chambly in the House of Commons, a riding that is so important to the economic development of the metropolitan area of Montreal, especially on the South Shore, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to this Bill, to represent the people of Chambly and to thank the Government and private enterprise, because it is with this kind of legislation that we will continue to create employment and develop our economy, not just in our own region but across Canada.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-18 and, of course, the motion which would send it back to committee for further study. At the outset I must say that we on this side of the House are certainly not against the principle of deregulation. What we are against is the contents of the Bill, especially as they relate to safety in general, and safety in the air traffic field in particular. I believe we must have some safety safeguards in this Bill to protect the travelling public. We must also have some safeguards to ensure that regional interests are not jeopardized by rail abandonment, or by transportation companies taking over the lucrative routes of the region, and leaving other regions of the country with an inefficient service at a higher cost. This will make some of those regions even less competitive than they are.
Since I come from Prince Edward Island, I wish to briefly touch upon this transportation Bill as it pertains to P.E.I. It goes back a long way to the terms of Confederation in 1873 when the Dominion of Canada was supporting or guaranteeing an efficient ferry service to the mainland that was to be operated continuously winter and summer. Even under those terms of agreement, it was not until 1917, 40 years after Confederation, that service was provided from the island to the mainland that could qualify as an efficient and continuous service in summer and winter. I raise these points, because I think that I can develop a case here in the next few minutes to show you what has gone on in our province and, indeed, what is likely to continue under this Bill.
I have before me a clipping from The Charlottetown Guardian dated Tuesday, March 19, 1940. It is a speech given by a Mr. J. O. Hyndman. You may know some of the Hynd-mans who are in Alberta, who are direct descendants of Mr. Hyndman. One of the Hyndman boys was a member of the Alberta Government. He probably still is. The headline states: "P.E.I. Producers Facing Unfair Discrimination". In this article, Mr. Hyndman discusses the Confederation contract. He states:
Prior to the Car Ferry Service being established by the Borden Conservative Government, Island farmers realized for their field crops only fifty percent of the prices realized by the farmers of the Mainland, according to the Dominion Year Book, on account of our products having to be shipped out, in the Fall months.

February 2, 1987
before navigation closed and our farmers were deprived of the opportunity to take advantage of the Winter and Spring Markets and the prevailing enhanced prices.
That article was printed 47 years ago.
In his speech he mentioned something that is true today, and started in 1984 under this Government. I am talking about the excessive ferry charges. He states:
The Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick purchase farm products to meet the requirements of upwards of one million people in these Provinces, to the value of over $2 million each month, or approximately $24 million per annum. Prince Edward Island farmers could cater to a large share of this market right at their own door if the excessive Ferry charge equivalent to a tariff between foreign countries was not in effect.
Over the years, we have tried to make this case. Certainly, in the last years I have tried with this Government. Ferry rates are a great detriment to the transportation costs of Prince Edward Island.
Mr. Hyndman further states:
It should be remembered that this Car Ferry Service was bought and paid for by Prince Edward Island when the Province entered Confederation. Compare these excessive charges with the great Canadian Canal System, which required an expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars to construct, and is costing the tax-payers annually, many millions of dollars to maintain and operate, but no toll charge, whatever, is made to Canadian or foreign vessels. Nevertheless, all vessels passing through the Panama Canal have to pay a toll of fifty cents each per registered ton ...
When we talk about transporation, we should look at transportation as a tool of economic growth. Regions of this country are truly disadvantaged because of their geographic dislocation.
We also should go back to the annual Premiers' Conference held last August in St. John's, Newfoundland. The Premiers adopted the following resolution which emphasizes the role of transportation as a regional economic tool. 1 wish to read the resolution into Hansard. It should be alluded to when Members are speaking on this important Bill. It states:
Whereas the importance of regional economic development has been agreed upon by all governments, we, the provincial Premiers, call on the Government of Canada to incorporate in the proposed new National Transportation Act, in addition to an objective of commercial viability, the following:
1.	Transportation is recognized as a key to regional economic development; and
2.	Commercial viability of transportation links must be balanced with regional economic development objectives in order that the potential economic strengths of each region may be realized.
That is the resolution the Premiers put forward in August, 1986 to the federal Government.
I believe the Government should carefully look at that resolution.
What the Premiers are saying, and what transportation companies are saying, is that we must use transportation as an economic tool to development. Some of the regions of this country are disadvantaged because of large geographic areas with small populations which are a long distance from the
markets. There must be some type of infrastructure which is looked after from general revenues in order to have comparative costs and equal competitive opportunity with those of other parts of the country. That is what Canada is all about. Therefore, in some of those areas, we must have preferred rates.
In looking at air traffic, we have seen that in the past Air Canada and some of the large carriers had to go to some of those remote areas, and service to those areas had to be subsidized and paid for out of the revenues received from the lucrative areas.
In returning to safety, I hope that when Members of Parliament are debating and discussing this Bill before the House, they talk to some of the people who will be affected, and some of the people who will benefit from the Bill. I talked to a small entrepreneur two weekends ago who told me that he was driving a tractor under a common carrier's name, that he had bought the tractor and was an entrepreneur. Because of deregulation and the strict competition that the big companies will be faced with, they are selling off some of their tractors to the employees. This chap was from Prince Edward Island. He said that we are 650 miles away from Boston. Because we are not covered under any union agreements, we have to drive to Boston. We leave Borden, Prince Edward Island on the last ferry. We drive straight through to Boston. We unload our cargo. Instead of paying the extra cost, we are tempted to sleep in the truck for four or five hours, and drive all the way back.
I contend that those numbers of hours for a truck driver who is driving a heavy tractor with 30 or 40 tonnes in the trailer, will be a severe problem for our highways. Indeed, we may not get the benefits. If there are more accidents on the highways, there will be higher insurance rates. Along with the higher costs of transportation, be it diesel oil, et cetera, the competition will be so stiff that corners will be cut. It will be to the detriment not only of the consumer, and those who are using the service, but in my opinion to the detriment of the travelling public.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the next speaker, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), when Orders of the Day are called after Question Period.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
February 2, 1987


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, here are some interesting conclusions by Environment Canada on acid rain.
The currently planned U.S. clean coal technology initiatives will not provide any measurable reduction in the transboundary flow of U.S. air emissions affecting Canada between now and 1995.
Even after 1995, in the absence of a U.S. acid rain control program, neither the currently planned U.S. clean coal technology initiatives nor existing air pollution control programs will provide any significant reduction in U.S. transboundary air pollution flows for at least the next 25 years.
While about $1.7 billion of the expenditures appear to meet most of the special envoys' technical criteria, the potential reduction in U.S. transboundary flows will be insignificant and will not alleviate the damage being caused in Canada.
Will the Government act on the findings of Environment Canada and request at the next summit that President Reagan impose pollution controls in the U.S. which would protect the Canadian environment? We hope so.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, The Canadian Lutheran, the national publication of the Lutheran Church, is successor to three previous Lutheran publications, all of which enjoyed second-class mailing privileges.
Imagine the shock experienced by Canadian Lutherans after being advised by Canada Post officials that The Canadian Lutheran did not qualify for second-class mailing because it did not contain sufficient material devoted primarily to religion.
In the meantime, under the heading of news or articles of interest to the general public, Playboy magazine found favour with the same officials and received second-class mailing registration.
Clearly these matters involve the exercise of judgment and common sense within existing regulations. These arbitrary and inconsistent decisions are typical of a sick postal administration which seems determined to alienate every Canadian.
I urge the Minister to tell his Canada Post bureaucrats to stop aggravating Canadians and to start serving them.



CANADIAN COAST GUARD


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, during the Oerlikon affair we learned that officials from the Department of National Defence who worked on the tendering process subsequently left the Department to work for one of the tendering companies, Oerlikon itself. An obvious conflict of interest took place under these conditions.
Now we learn that a member of the government committee which evaluated proposals for the Polar 8 ice-breaker has joined a consortium competing for the contract, taking with him confidential information provided the team by a rival bidder-obviously another conflict of interest.
Peter Hatfield was a member of the committee which evaluated three proposals for the design of the new Canadian Coast Guard ice-breaker. We now find that he was part of a last minute proposal offered by a newly formed consortium on January 15.
This new formed consortium, including proposal evaluation team member Peter Hatfield, had obvious inside information and therefore was in a position to submit a proposal to undercut those previously submitted. This is a blatant abuse of the tendering process and obviously a conflict of interest.
The federal Government ought to take immediate steps to ensure that not only is justice done in this case but that it is also seen to be done.



INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF PEACE


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to read a letter sent to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) by Rochebaucourt, Abitibi, fifth grader Sylvie Tremblay, the daughter of Rosaire and Cecile Tremblay, concerning International Peace Year.


Mr. Prime  Minister@: I have a request to make to you for International Peace Year. You are aware that children are starving in some countries, that there are poor people and orphans, and that nuclear tests are being carried out by various nations. This is why I would ask you to put a stop to such terrifying things so the world may become a better place to live in. I am asking this not only for myself but for you and everybody else, especially for the love of God.

February 2, ) 987
Please, our earth will soon be fit only for the garbage dump. Something has to be done. Lives are being lost because of that, so put your whole heart into it and please make a plea in favour of peace, agreement, dialogue and love.
You can do that, Mr. Prime Minister. You are not alone, there are a lot of people with you. Invite all world leaders to lend you a hand. Together you will build a better and more promising future for us. This is the nicest inheritance you can leave to us children, your children.
Thank you for your consideration.



FISHERIES


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has reached an all-time low and an all-time high. It has reached an all-time low in saying to the French that they can come in and rob our bank just so that it proves that it is in fact our bank. It has reached an all-time high because it has never stuck the knife higher in the back of Newfoundland than it did last week when it allowed a foreign country to take the mother lode of a resource which is so important not simply to our main industry but indeed to the life of the people themselves. It strikes a devastating blow at Newfoundland.
Everybody is agreed-the Premier, the fishermen, the Opposition, and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie)- that this deal is pernicious and that it should be cancelled. I call upon the Government to do cancel it.



WILDLIFE


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, you, Sir, understand and are concerned about the importance of wildlife to Canadians. I have here a plain brown envelope with a note inside to all Ministers which reads:
Dear Minister,
Wildlife related activity in Canada employs about 200,000 Canadians and generates billions of dollars of business activity. It is a renewable resource that needs more money and better management.
Sincerely yours,
Barry
Dozens of wildlife clubs from all over Canada, provincial and national associations have written to me endorsing a special tax initiative to enhance this renewable resource.
[ Translation]
The directors of the board of the Quebec Wildlife FeDeration met in Montreal last January 10 and "unanimously
agreed to support your project".

The Government must now accept this idea in principle, react positively to a back-bench initiative, and redeem itself in the eyes of millions of conservation minded Canadians.
When it does, we look forward to co-ordinating national input into the mechanics of its implementation in order to sustain our valuable wildlife resources forever.



AIDS DISEASE-NEED FOR EDUCATION

Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, AIDS is fast becoming the most serious health problem that Canada and other countries have faced this century. Canadians, through their federal and provincial Governments, need a real commitment to AIDS research and full public education, including classroom education on AIDS. It will only be through both research and preventive education that we will overcome this peril. Ignorance will never be a prevention or a cure.
The federal Government should take note of the increased commitment by other Governments, notably Great Britain's, to safe sex education and AIDS research. I am relieved that the Premier of British Columbia has at last decided to support classroom education on this and other sex and health issues, although I will not be cheering too loudly until I see if B.C.'s new sex education program is to be comprehensive and, like Ontario's, obligatory.

[ Translation]



GOVERNMENT'S PERFORMANCE

Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Marcel Masse, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and his provincial counterparts, have demonstrated once more to Canadians that it pays to sit down together and find solutions to the serious energy problems Canada has been facing since the oil market collapsed.
Mr. Speaker, the previous Liberal Prime Minister had insulted his own Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at the time by secretly signing a national energy agreement without even informing him, thereby contributing to the economic slump in both Western and Eastern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this Conservative Government respects the provinces' jurisdictions in the area of natural resources, as
February 2, 1987

demonstrated by the many agreements we have signed in this area since our fortunate coming to power.
Mr. Speaker, this Conservative Government prefers consensus and compromise to unilateral and sterile decisions for which the Liberal Government of the time was famous. I am convinced that with the open-mindedness of our Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the support of the provinces, we will elaborate fair remedies to counteract the effects of the decrease and instability in oil prices.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by emphasizing the excellent performance of our Minister during the Question Period program broadcasted yesterday on the CTV network.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in the election campaign, 1984, the Conservatives were promising jobs, jobs, jobs, but all we got after the election was a loss of jobs, and broken promises. In my own riding, the Energy, Mines and Resources office has moved to Charlottetown with a loss of 12 jobs. We have seen job losses in Prince Edward Island in the Department of Fisheries. Our customs offices have had cuts in staff. Our wharves are falling down because of lack of funding for small craft harbours.
The long awaited construction of the new combined Mess for Canadian Forces Base Summerside had been delayed several times and has now been placed on the back burner. Our postal service has been cut. Our railways are being abandoned. Our construction industry is suffering as a result of these cuts and broken promises. The only thing the Government is promising the people of Atlantic Canada now is user fees and higher taxes. What a difference two years makes.
Atlantic Canadians will remember this Government when the next election rolls around. They will remember the Tory Members they elected in 1984 to represent their interests in Ottawa who transferred into little sheep. The people will have the last "baa" and will turf out these little sheep.



FISHERIES


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, in 1972 the Liberal Government signed a treaty which gave permanent rights to French nationals to fish in southern Newfoundland waters. In 1984 the Liberals agreed, in writing, to French overfishing in the same waters.
A number of proposals have been suggested to solve this mess. The Liberal Leader in Newfoundland has suggested that we annex St. Pierre and Miquelon. The NDP leader in Newfoundland, when asked for his suggestion, said: "I don't know, maybe its time to bark at the French". The NDP Leader in Ottawa said we should take military action.
Our Government has suggested the only reasonable course of action to date, not a declaration of war, but to resolve the dispute by arbitration, something the Liberals were not capable of doing.
French quotas in Canadian waters are half what they were last year. What we must do now is come to terms with the French overfishing in disputed waters. We welcome any and all suggestions, short of a declaration of war.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, when I was at church yesterday morning, and on a number of other occasions over the weekend, a great many people expressed to me their dismay at the fact that under this Government, magazines like Penthouse and Playboy continue to receive higher subsidies than religious magazines like The United Church Observer, The Canadian Lutheran and the Presbyterian Record. Now that this has come to the attention of the public, Conservative back-benchers and the Government, I would hope that we would see some action on this front very soon.
This is not the kind of thing that will have to be before the House for weeks on end before some action can be taken. It is the kind of problem that could be solved through quick action on the part of the Government. I am absolutely positive that there must be a great many back-benchers who find this every bit as appalling as we do on this side of the House and I would hope that very soon this discrimination against religious magazines and in favour of soft-porn magazines will be eradicated.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, is Ontario Premier David Peterson really serious about eliminating acid rain? If so, why has he again postponed his discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) on the subject

February 2, 1987
of reducing Ontario Hydro's acid-gas emissions by the use of low-sulphur western coal?
If we cannot force the United States to take action, we can at least put our own house in order. A report released last August indicated that acid-gas emissions in Ontario could be cut in half if Ontario Hydro used low-sulphur western coal. The same report went on to say that this would create some 13,000 new jobs in western Canada over the next 15 years. If Premier Peterson is truly concerned about reducing acid rain and if he is serious when he talks about reducing regional differences in Canada, he will have to put his money where his mouth is.



CANADA-SOUTH AFRICA-CALL FOR COMPLETE SEVERANCE

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I was thrilled as were all other Canadians on hearing some of the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) this weekend with respect to cutting off trade relations with South Africa. I hope he does follow the recommendations of the allParty committee. When I took an opportunity to examine the facts a little more deeply, however, I saw a Prime Minister who seemed to be talking out of both sides of his mouth.
The fact is that for 1986 trade from Canada to South Africa and Namibia has increased by over 63 per cent. At the same time as the Prime Minister and his colleagues have been talking tough about and to South Africa, companies and Crown corporations in Canada have been increasing trade to South Africa by over 60 per cent. It is shameful and unacceptable. I urge the Prime Minister not only to speak out of only one side of his mouth but also to ensure that the complete cutoff of trade includes comprehensive sanctions involving Crown corporations, government agencies, and the private sector.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, on February 9 the European Economic Community Foreign Ministers will be meeting in Guatemala to discuss and find solutions to social and economic problems in the region. Guatemala is now ending its second year under a democratic Government. As the largest country in both area and population in Central America, it has the potential to become a stabilizing force there.
A Joint Committee of Parliament on External Relations
describes Guatemala as a country that is good for co-operative
programs with Canada. Amnesty International, the Contadora Group, and the United Nations have all perceived the improvements in the human rights situation in Guatemala.
When the Presidents of all Central American Governments recently met, Guatemala sponsored the idea of a Central American Government, and the concepts of peace and neutralism were discussed. Canada must restore assistance to Guatemala in order to promote national reconciliation and the participation of citizens in the political process.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend I had the opportunity to discuss with representatives of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association problems they have been having with their publication entitled Beef in British Columbia. During those conversations I was reminded of the fact that they have applied and re-applied for second-class mailing status for their publication which is concerned exclusively with cattle ranching in British Columbia. They reminded me that other organizations such as The United Church Observer have been making similar applications, yet soft-porn girlie magazines from the United States like Penthouse, Hustler, Gallery, Playboy and others get this preferred status and mailing rate.
I call upon the Minister responsible for the Post Office to intervene immediately to ensure that not only do these publications get better rates than Playboy and Hustler but that some preference be given to Canadian publications, and particularly Canadian church publications and those like Beef in British Columbia.



BANKS AND BANKING


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the failure and subsequent liquidation of the Canadian Commercial Bank has been very costly and damaging, particularly for the bank's former employees. I am of course speaking of junior and middle-rank employees, not the high-flying top management, some of whom are now involved in unconventional operations in the Caribbean.
The CCB staff to whom I refer received less than one-quarter of the more than $2 million in their pension plan. While this may have satisfied the letter of the law it seems
February 2, 1987_______________________________COMMONS DEBATES_________________________________
Oral Questions
shabby treatment of people who have lost their jobs without notice and in demoralizing circumstances. Moreover, the bank staff have not received a penny of the severance benefits to which they are entitled under the Canada Labour Code. In fact, Labour Canada is preparing to lodge a claim on their behalf.
Surely after the VIP treatment accorded to the nameless uninsured bank depositors the Government can stir itself to deal more fairly and expeditiously with the bank's former junior staff who were also victims.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. When asked whether the cod deal with France was made by Cabinet the Deputy Prime Minister said in this House last Thursday: "1 thought I already answered that question. It was a government decision." However, this morning we had the Minister of Transport, the cabinet representative of Newfoundland, in a television interview saying this: "This happened without adequate notice or consultation with the Government of Newfoundland and the industry and, for that matter, myself. If I had been more involved in this matter I think the course might have been quite different".
My question is this. Was the Minister of Transport, as the representative for Newfoundland, involved in that cabinet decision or not? Which is the correct version of the facts?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition pay close heed to the specific words he read into the record. He said: "This happened" on account of, et cetera. The Hon. Minister of Transport can speak for himself but I believe the reference was to the process, not to the specifics of the agreements which were concluded the week before last and which were based on a government decision.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is curious because the Minister of Transport said he was not involved. The Deputy Prime Minister said it was a cabinet decision.


CONTENT OF AGREEMENT-REFERENCE MADE BY NEWFOUNDLAND PREMIER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it may be beyond the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries to clarify that particular aspect which is why I put the question to the Deputy Prime Minister, so let us turn to the Minister of Fisheries. Last week he said: "The agreement does not exceed conditions which may have been the subject of
extensive negotiations with the Government of Newfoundland". Premier Peckford of Newfoundland responded to that statement on television by calling the Minister of Fisheries a word which you would not permit me to use in this House, Mr. Speaker. In effect he questioned the accuracy of the Minister and his version of events. I ask the Minister, in this case, who is telling the truth?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe my honesty or integrity need be questioned, by implication or otherwise, by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I made a statement last week to the effect that the conditions on which the agreement was concluded in Paris a week before last had been discussed, although not necessarily agreed to by the Province of Newfoundland, with the industry and advisers and representatives of the appropriate provincial Governments. I stand by that statement.


John Napier Turner: Mr Speaker, I am yielding to the authority of the Premier of Newfoundland who is calling the Minister's integrity in question.


NORTHERN COD QUOTA
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the same interview the Premier goes on to say that the only time consultation with Newfoundland occurred was when Tom Rideout, Newfoundland's Minister of Fisheries, was called and asked what Newfoundland's position would be if northern cod was put on the table. According to the Premier: "Tom almost laughed off his chair". Why did the Minister put northern cod on the table with France when the Government of Newfoundland opposed that move 100 per cent? When will he get his act together with his colleagues and with the Premier of Newfoundland, because it is a shambles? Someone is not giving us a correct version of the facts.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, as was explained adequately in the House last week, a telephone call should have been placed to the Premier of Newfoundland at a particularly important moment prior to the delegation travelling to Paris. Let me add that with respect to all of the terms and conditions and the amounts, which do not exceed those allocations provided in the 1987 groundfish plan, I wish the Hon. Leader of the Opposition would get it straight and help project the truth to the people of Canada. All of those amounts have been thoroughly discussed not only by the Government of Canada but with industry advisers and the officials representing the Province of Newfoundland and the other Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Sudbury, both in the lead question and in the responses by the Minister there has been reference to the truth. The Chair has taken that to mean accuracy. I hope that any questions that follow will be carefully designed to go after facts and accuracy

February 2, 1987
Oral Questions
and not impugn in any way the Minister being questioned or, in the Minister's response, the Member asking the question.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Until today, Senator designate Jean Bazin has stated in writing that he had no direct involvement in the Oerlikon file until August 1, 1986. The Prime Minister, in response to a question put on January 20 and reported at page 2449 of Hansard, said:
Mr. Bazin, as I say, is a lawyer from Montreal who represents clients. I am not aware of that client list but I can tell him that he is not a lobbyist-
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the truth of the statements made in the program This Week In Parliament that the former Associate Minister of Defence had been lobbied as early as March, 1986, at a PC convention by both Mr. Bazin and Mr. Nantel, representing Oerlikon, asking that Oerlikon be awarded that contract, and that that same lobbying effort was renewed at the opening ceremonies of Expo 86 in May, 1986. If that is not lobbying, what is?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the precise words that the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs used to describe it, but my understanding is that the issue did come up during the course of a visit at these two events and that there certainly was not anything in a formal way that was discussed.


REQUEST THAT SENATOR DESIGNATE BAZIN DELAY SWEARING-IN CEREMONY
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that that is a form of lobbying? That is the lobby definition made by a recent finding of a House of Commons committee with respect to lobbying in Canada. Will he request the Senator designate to delay his swearing in as a Senator until such time as the RCMP deals with that broader issue for which we have been asking, which is the degree of influence peddling that benefits only a small group of friends of the Prime Minister in this country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not a
lawyer but I know that lawyers make representations on behalf of their clients on many, many occasions. If the Hon. Member is not aware of that, perhaps he might discuss it with his Leader.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It has come to my attention through the use of access to information by Project Ploughshares, that there is an internal Defence Department memorandum about proposed tests of the advanced Cruise missile in Canada. As the Minister knows, testing the advanced Cruise Missile, which is the Cruise using what is called "stealth" technology, would give a major impetus to Canada's participation in the escalation of the nuclear arms race. Has the Pentagon asked Canada to test the advanced Cruise missile and, if so, when and what has been Canada's response?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there is no request before Canada at the present time to test the Advanced Cruise Missile.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, we have learned under the access to information that on April 21, 1986, there was a briefing note-Briefing Note 50-to the Minister of National Defence. It was called "Project Proposal for Captive Carry Tests of the AG M-129 Advanced Cruise Missile". Is the Minister saying he does not know anything about this request to test the missile with stealth technology? Or is he trying to continue the Liberal practice of keeping this House of Commons in the dark on these matters?


Henry Perrin Beatty: No,
Mr. Speaker, my statement stands for itself. As I indicated to the Hon. Member, there is no current request of the Canadian Government to test the Advanced Cruise.


Pauline Jewett: The Minister is saying he does not know what is going on in his own Department. That is what he is saying; he does not know.


WASHINGTON POST NEWSPAPER REPORT
Pauline Jewett: Has
the Minister been informed-does he even read The Washington Post-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: If the Minister were to read-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put a question.


Pauline Jewett: If the Minister were to read The Washington Post, or Aviation Week, he will discover that the Advanced Cruise Missile with stealth technology is being developed, that
February 2, 1987

Caspar Weinberger hopes to see it deployed this year, and that Canada has been asked to test it under the Cruise missile agreement. When will the Minister come clean with the Canadian House of Commons and tell us this in fact is the
case?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, there is no request before Canada at the present time to test the Advanced Cruise. If one is received, we will consider it in due course. Perhaps when the Hon. Member is Finished with her copies of The Washington Post, she can send them over.


FISHERIES
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who has made much of an apology to Newfoundland over not being consulted. The Premier of Newfoundland has thrown that apology back in the face of the Government by saying: "I don't care if you didn't consult me about giving away the shop, you still gave away the shop". I want to ask the Minister, on behalf of the Premier and all inshore fishermen who are severely disadvantaged by this action, will the Minister now, on behalf of the Government, reconsider and cancel this pernicious deal with the French?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, what is so puzzling and what ought to be terribly frustrating for the people of Newfoundland is that a Member of Parliament from Newfoundland would get up and suggest that we should somehow terminate an agreement which is the best news in terms of resolving-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: -offering a potential path to the resolution of a long-standing problem which is costing the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador millions of dollars a year, that is, the unresolved boundary dispute in 3PS, and at the same time, the negotiation of interim fishing arrangements to eliminate, once and for all, the overfishing by France in that disputed zone.


Bill Rompkey: It is not just Members of Parliament. The Premier of Newfoundland has said it has to be cancelled because, if it is not, it is a disaster for the fishing industry. And he is speaking on behalf of all inshore fishermen and all of the people in that province.


DISAPPROVAL OF NEWFOUNDLANDERS
Bill Rompkey: The Minister said on television last week-I heard him-that if this agreement does not meet with the approval of
Oral Questions
the Newfoundland people, it can be changed. Will the Minister now do the honourable thing and cancel this agreement with the French?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is, no, because there is no give-away. I wish Hon. Members in the Opposition would stop perpetuating this notion that anything has been given away except a willingness by Canada and France to sit down over the next 11 months of this year and decide what concessions, if any, might be the price to be paid for the referral to compulsory third party arbitration of the long unresolved boundary dispute in the vicinity of St. Pierre and Miquelon. That is the only concession which has been made which is of significant concern. We believe that the consequence will prove to be of significant benefit to Newfoundland and to all of Atlantic Canada.


FRENCH NAVAL VESSELS-REPORTS OF THREATENED ENTRY TO CANADIAN WATERS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. On Friday, Premier Buchanan of Nova Scotia said he had heard reports that the French were preparing to send naval vessels with their trawlers into Canadian waters. Can the Minister confirm these reports? How does he intend to deal with this threat, or is he prepared to act like a wimp again?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that I have heard no such reports. If that is a tactic that France would want to exercise in such a sensitive matter as this, I would find it surprising and regrettable.


OVERFISHING BY FRENCH VESSELS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. In light of the fact that this agreement does not come to grips with the basic problem of French overfishing in Canadian waters, and in spite of the agreement he has, can the Minister tell the House how he intends to deal with French overfishing in Canadian waters? What specific steps will he take to ensure that this practice does not continue?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, from France's perspective the problem is that those are not Canadian waters.


John R. Rodriguez: They are wrong!


Thomas Edward Siddon: The French claim those waters for themselves. That very reason dictates the necessary reference to compulsory third party arbitration. There is a dispute which flows from the 1972 treaty between Canada and France. Until those boundaries are resolved once and for all I think it is premature

February 2, 1987
Oral Questions
for the Hon. Member to suggest that there is some magic potion to cure this very serious problem.


APARTHEID
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has promised more sanctions against South Africa and has stated: "every step this Government has taken on South Africa has been pursued to a carefully thought out plan that takes into account all elements". I have here in my hand a copy of a prominent daily Canadian newspaper which carries a one-half page ad promoting a tour to South Africa which appears to be in breach of existing government sanctions. How can these declarations about new sanctions be taken seriously in light of what we see happening this very day in a prominent Canadian newspaper?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the actions of the Government and, indeed, the actions of the Prime Minister are very clear on this very important issue. The Prime Minister is due to return later this day. He will be making a statement in the House of Commons on his trip. I hope that perhaps the matter that the Hon. Member raises will be touched upon at that time.
[ Translation]


CONTENT OF PRIME MINISTER'S FORTHCOMING STATEMENT IN HOUSE
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to learn that the Prime Minister will be making a statement in the House. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could encourage him to tell us, first, how he intends to strengthen existing sanctions, second, which additional sanctions he intends to impose on South Africa, and third, whether diplomatic relations with that country will be broken. Can the Deputy Prime Minister encourage the Prime Minister to include this information in his statement to the House?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the position of the Liberal Party is with respect to the issue of ending diplomatic relations with South Africa. It might be interesting to know how many versions the Liberals have on that particular issue, as they have so many on other issues.
The Prime Minister has shown leadership not only to Canadians but to the world in terms of Canada's position with respect to South Africa. I am sure the Hon. Member will not be disappointed when he hears from the Prime Minister later this week.


REQUEST FOR IMPOSITION OF MANDATORY SANCTIONS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and it is on the same subject. Does it not seem clear to the Government that in view of these advertisements in The Globe and Mail inviting Canadian tourists to be brain-washed about the advantages of apartheid that it is about time for the Government to impose not voluntary sanctions but mandatory sanctions, sanctions that are clearly and absolutely enforceable?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thought 1 answered that question. I thought I invited the Hon. Member to be in the House when the Prime Minister makes his statement. He will be making a statement later on this week. He will be in a better position to respond to those questions than I am, with respect. I hope that he will be patient.
I know the Hon. Member's feeling. He has certainly expressed it very eloquently in the House on many occasions. But, clearly, the Prime Minister of Canada has shown leadership on this issue, and he will continue to show leadership. I hope that he will have the support of the Hon. Member.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is a simple one. We have heard a great deal of eloquence from the Prime Minister. It has been almost two years now since the Prime Minister promised that there would be mandatory economic and diplomatic sanctions. Are you telling this House that tomorrow when the Prime Minister returns he will live up-


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members have used great restraint in not using the word "you". I know that it was only a slip on the Hon. Member's part. I would ask him to put his question again.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I repeat the question with the substitution of "he" for "you".


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister has not only demonstrated eloquence in the House, throughout the country and the world, he has also backed it up with action. I think the position of the Canadian Government and the actions of the Prime Minister speak clearly for themselves.
February 2, 1987


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House whether he has been able to arrange a meeting with Premier Peterson of Ontario to discuss with him the use of low-sulphur western coal to reduce acid rain emissions by Ontario Hydro? Will he also advise the House if our Government is prepared to subsidize the transportation of western coal to Ontario?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as of two o'clock this afternoon I had not been able to arrange a meeting with the Premier of Ontario. I am surprised that he has taken such a nonchalant approach to such a very important issue. I am surprised since it is a very important national issue in terms of jobs, economic activity and, above all, the containment of acid rain. I thought he would have been right up front and centre.
With regard to transportation and the prospect of subsidization, perhaps the Liberal Party in Ontario and in Ottawa could get their acts together and pass Bill C-18 which would go a long way in reducing transportation costs for all Canadians.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. He will know how shocked western Canadians were to learn of the $200 million deficit experienced by the Canadian Wheat Board, and how dismayed they are at the cavalier attitude taken by the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board who says that it is simply a unique event. He does not recognize how the U.S. Farm Bill is thrusting prices down. When will the Government take sincerely the free fall that we are now experiencing in grain prices due to the U.S. Farm Bill? When will we create a high priority requirement to meet with the Reagan administration to stop the impact of the Farm Bill? Will we be asking Vice-President Bush to come back to Canada for another earful, this time of good Canadian feed barley?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the Hon. Member referring to the actions of the Government as being cavalier when we proposed a $1 billion farm aid package for the grain and oil seed producers of Canada. It is the biggest aid package that has ever been proposed in direct response to the difficulties in the international market-place.
Oral Questions
The $200 million deficit in the Canadian Wheat Board is a further $200 million that can be added to aid the Canadian grain and oil seed producers.
On the international front, the Hon. Member should be aware that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for External Affairs dealt with this issue during the GATT process. The Hon. Member is always complimenting the role of GATT in these sorts of matters, which is the mechanism by which it is most appropriately dealt with. I would have thought that we would have had his support in that regard.


REQUEST FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES DISCUSSIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The fact remains that the free fall in grain prices is largely as a result of the United States Farm Bill which ratchets prices down an average of 15 or 20 per cent a year. When will the Government have some sense of urgency to bring that to a halt, and put it on the agenda with the United States before our western grain economy is destroyed? We are talking about the destruction of the western grain economy. It does not behoove the Deputy Prime Minister to treat it in this way when the livelihoods of so many farmers are at stake. Will that matter be raised with President Reagan or the Vice-President to bring to their attention the need for a long-term solution, which means the total abolition of the United States Farm Bill measure?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Hon. Member is behind the times. This matter has been raised, it will continue to be raised not only with the United States but with the EEC, and throughout the GATT process.
In addition to that, in the meantime we are trying to cushion the impact of these disastrous prices on the hands of the farmers. There is a price war going on between the United States and the EEC. There are two parties involved. We are addressing this issue on all fronts.


AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the continuing concern in Manitoba over discrepancies in statements made by the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources over the future of the aerospace industry in Canada.

February 2, 1987
Oral Questions
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said that the Government was committed to equitable regional distribution. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said that Montreal will be the centre for the fifth generation of the transport industry. He further said that the Government has deliberately opted for Montreal in aeronautics.
The Deputy Prime Minister is apparently in charge of a committee concerned with western regional development. Could he tell us who is speaking for the Government in this regard, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this Government is interested in economic growth and the broadening of the economic base in all regions of the country. The manner in which the aerospace contracts were let have taken that into consideration. With regard to the manufacturing sector of the aerospace industry, Montreal is the centre of excellence, having regard to the fact that Canadair, which is now owned by Bombardier, has demonstrated a degree of excellence. With the awarding of the CF-18 contract to Canadair, it will further advance Canadair wherein it will become a leading edge competitor in the manufacturing sector and provide it with world-wide opportunities. Certainly that is good for Montreal. The spin-off benefits will reverberate throughout the country. With regard to the CF-5, Winnipeg becomes a centre of excellence for repair and maintenance. There are other centres of excellence that can be distributed across the region.


GOVERNMENT PLANS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the Deputy Prime Minister's answer that the Government has written Winnipeg off as a future centre for the aerospace industry in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister when can we see the plan that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources referred to when he was talking about the Government deliberately opting for Montreal and fifth generation technology? Will that plan be made public? At the same time, will the Deputy Prime Minister kindly make public what plans the Government does have, if it has any, for the development of western Canada, particularly Winnipeg?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, CF-18 technology is the latest technology on the boards at the present time. Canada will have the opportunity to use that technology in the manufacturing of airplanes. That should be good for Canada, not only in terms of jobs, but in terms of maintaining its leadership in the manufacturing sector of the aerospace industry.


FINANCE
Aideen Nicholson: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns his reneging on his promise to introduce tax reform with the Budget later this month. Since low and middle-income Canadians are now bearing 90 per cent of the $6 billion tax burden imposed by the Minister's last two Budgets, will the Minister say if and when they can expect tax reform and tax fairness?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member, rather than criticizing me for a very short delay in the introduction of tax reform, should be saying that is the right way to do it. Canadians do not want speedy tax reform, if it will not be right. We want to get it right. The implementation will not be delayed by the very short delay in the introduction of a White Paper, but I cannot be precise about the exact date of implementation.


EFFECT OF REFORM ON TAX LEVELS
Aideen Nicholson: My supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. In December, 1986, high-income Canadians were relieved of their temporary surtax on income. But the 3 per cent personal surtax which applied to everyone regardless of income level is still in force with no end in sight. Will the Minister assure the House that his promise to reduce tax rates will mean real reductions, not just the cancellation of this surtax?


Geoff Wilson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Nelson Andrew Riis: My question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister will know that in the fiscal year 1985-86 there was $374 million in the Canadian Jobs Strategy that was not spent. Has the Minister determined what that figure will be this year in terms of lapsed money for the Canadian Jobs Strategy? If so, does the Minister have plans to redirect those funds into areas or regions of Canada where they are most in need?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take note of the question. I am not in a position to answer today. I will provide an answer during the week.


Lloyd Axworthy: That's called a well prepared Minister.
February 2, 1987


POSSIBLE REDIRECTION OF LAPSED FUNDS
Nelson Andrew Riis: My supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. When the Minister does report back, would he clearly indicate the process that he has in mind to redirect the lapsed funds for the Canadian Jobs Strategy in this fiscal year to those regions of Canada where the moneys can still be invested in a positive and proper way?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, what I can now say is that the funds allocated under the Canadian Jobs Strategy have been used in such a way that over 600,000 jobs have been created in Canada. I believe that these funds have been used in accordance with our national economic policies. It would be a mistake to believe that jobs in Canada are created exclusively under the Jobs Strategy.
Once more, I am convinced that the Hon. Member appreciates the results we have obtained under the Canadian Jobs Strategy.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Canadians across our country are gravely concerned about the changes that are possibly happening in rural Canada with the Post Office. At a meeting of Rural Dignity in Agassiz, British Columbia, which was attended by some 600 people, it was reported that in the last two weeks new notices of closures had gone out in eastern Canada.
Will the Minister assure rural Canada that Canada Post has in fact been stopped, and will start to consult with rural Canada as to changes it is proposing for the post offices?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question last week. You will recall that the House created a committee to examine Canada Post's corporate plan, and the committee made several recommendations.
In fact, recommendations 2, 3 and 4 were about closing rural post offices. Last week I gave the House the assurance that there would be no plan for closing rural post offices until the Corporation had provided the necessary information, as recommended by the committee.
Oral Questions


OPERATION OF RURAL OFFICES ON FRANCHISE BASIS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is offering a free postcard for letter writing week from February 9 to February 14, and the slogan is: "Write a little love". Perhaps that is why the Minister in charge of Canada Post announced that there will be no closing of rural post offices. He is hoping to get a lot of those postcards of love. How does the Minister explain that Canada Post claims that over 3,000 post offices in rural Canada will close and the service will be passed over to local businessmen to operate on a franchise basis? If that is the case, for this Minister there will be no letters of love. It is one big shove.

Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion): Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Hon. Member I will again read committee recommendation No. 3. It says that before closing any post offices, the Canada Post Corporation should develop more specific guidelines to reflect regional differences and specific needs.
Our answer to that, Mr. Speaker, was that we agreed with this recommendation and with the point raised by the committee. We intend to ensure that Canada Post will act on the committee's recommendations, and last week I gave the House the assurance that we would personally see to it that this would be done.


WISHES OF RURAL CITIZENS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is saying that if rural Canadians have the program explained to them, they will agree with the closure of the post offices. Does the Minister expect that rural Canadians will agree with the closure of their post offices and having them replaced by part-time businessmen who will operate them on a franchise basis instead of having full-time postmasters and postmistresses? What if they do not agree to having the post offices closed? Will the Government shove it down their throats anyway?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member should look at the details of the corporate plan. Last week, I reassured the House with respect to Canada Post's new policy, and today I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that there will be no closures or service changes at the Canada Post Corporation and its rural post offices until the recommendations proposed by the committee are acted upon. Mr. Speaker, the recommendation referred to a period of consultation with the Canadian people on the post offices that might be affected. The Hon. Member referred to closures, but we, Mr. Speaker, call this a service change.

February 2, 1987
Oral Questions


RURAL DIGNITY ASSOCIATION-REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH MINISTER
Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. At the same meeting Rural Dignity reported that it has been endeavouring to have an appointment with the Minister. Could the Minister tell us whether he will meet with Rural Dignity?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am of course aware of the existence of this Rural Dignity committee, and I have agreed to meet with its members. According to my agenda, this should be tomorrow or within the next few days.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER UNDERTAKE NOT TO CLOSE RURAL OFFICES
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know from the Minister responsible for the Post Office whether the reason he is framing his statements about the Post Office in terms of closures, that there will be no closures without consultation, is simply to give a licence to his back-benchers to say to their constituents that there is nothing to worry about. If that is not his intention, why does he not stand in the House and say without qualification that between now and the next election there will be no closures of post offices in rural areas?
[ Translation]


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, again, I simply said the recommendations, and I repeat it again, the recommendations made by the committee in December, and in which the Hon. Member had a hand, were to ask Canada Post not to go ahead with rural post office shutdowns without some action being taken by Canada Post. It must be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that what is involved here is service changes. This may mean merging post offices, it may mean providing additional services. And it is definitely our intention that the Canadian people be consulted as well as Members of this House before action is taken. This is all clear and simple, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INFORM HOUSE WHERE AND WHEN POST OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is not prepared to state that there will be no post office shutdowns, why does he not share with this House Canada Post's plans for privatization, post office mergers and post office shutdowns? Give us definite information: where will post offices be shut down, and when?

Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion): Mr. Speaker, I repeat again, like I said last week,
there will be no change in the service before Canada Post
proceeds with proper consultation with the population and with Members of the House. That is what I said. That is what will be done for rural post offices.

[ Translation]


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I have in my hand a report signed by Assistant Commissionner J.E.L. Julien, commanding officer of "C"Division of the RCMP. The report sent to Commissionner Simmonds describes the unacceptable and indeed regrettable conditions forced by the RCMP upon its French-speaking officers. The Government has been warned on several occasions in this House as well as in committee that it was urgent to remedy the situation. The President of the Treasury Board has admitted it himself when three months ago he asked the Solicitor General to provide him with a plan of action. I should like to ask the Minister where that plan of action is and what he intends to do?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have assured Members of the House on a number of occasions that the RCMP is to comply with the official languages policy of the Government, the same as any other Department, and that it is obligated to comply with any order of the Treasury Board in this regard. As the Hon. Member well knows, the Commissioner will be appearing before the committee tomorrow. I am sure he can address the appropriate questions to him at that time.


REDUCTION IN FRANCOPHONE MANPOWER
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have already done that. I know the Minister to be a reasonable man. He will admit that the point is that the Government must give direction to the RCMP because it is not doing what the languages law requires. The report of assistant Commissioner Julien states that "a feeling of rejection by the Anglophone majority" is felt by Francophones and that "participation by Francophones on the force now is marginal and unfair". Will the Minister unequivocally disavow himself from the Simmonds' policy of reduction in RCMP Francophone manpower from 20 per cent to 12 per cent? Will he disavow that policy today in the House?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. That is the same question he asked the first time and therefore I will give him the same answer. The RCMP will have to comply with the official languages policy of the Government and the use of Francophones within the force. Second, it will have to
February 2, 1987

comply with any order made by the Treasury Board in that regard. 1 cannot be more clear than that.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I am sure he will know that a poll published on Saturday indicated that a very substantial majority of Canadians from every region, and supporters of every Party including the Conservative Party, are opposed to the prescription drug legislation. Given the fact that the Government has already been made unpopular as a result of decisions such as the one on lumber and the agreement with France on fish, is it not time that the Government faced up to reality and withdrew a Bill which is so unpopular?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the House has already decided on that issue and supports the Bill in principle, and rightfully so. It will lead to improvement in the health care to Canadians. It will lead to thousands of research jobs. It will enable Canada to participate in the exciting biotechnologies. Frankly I cannot understand how responsible Members of Parliament could in fact say that Canada should opt out of this technology and let the rest of the world do that research. That is just irresponsible and something I would never concur with.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, despite everything the Minister and his supporters have said, does he not realize that according to the poll Canadians believe that they will have to pay higher prices for prescription drugs, that the companies will make much higher profits, and that there will be very little new research done? Given those facts is the Government going ahead with the Bill because it has made a commitment to President Reagan and the United States and it is part of trying to get a free trade agreement? Isn't that the real reason that the Government is going ahead?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons there might be concern is that the Hon. Member and his Leader have been talking about a Coopers & Lybrand study of $650 million. Coopers & Lybrand wrote to me to say that they had nothing to do with that study and they disavow any claim to it. I can understand why. It is simply a false, phoney figure which the New Democrats, for reasons of their own-and the reasons
Oral Questions
have nothing to do with informing the public-keep publicizing. If the Hon. Member believes in polls, let him wait a few days for another poll which will show that we are on the right track, exactly where we should be, according to the people of Canada.


THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the Solicitor General concerning the way french-speaking members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are treated. The minister keeps repeating that the RCMP must abide by government guidelines regarding Francophone participation. However, we know through certain documents that some high ranking RCMP officials are attempting to reduce Francophone participation from 20 to 12 or 15 per cent. Can the Minister tell us whether or not he has enquired to find out who is promoting such a pigheaded policy within the RCMP?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly advise the hon. gentleman that I have discussed this matter with the commissioner, that a new plan is in preparation and will be presented shortly to the Treasury Board for its perusal and hopefully its approval.


Mr. Speaker:: That will be the last question. The Hon. Member may ask his question.


REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF COMMISSIONER SIMMONDS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister intends to raise the issue with Commissioner Simmonds. I am hardly comforted. This situation is going on while he is in charge. While raising the issue with Commissioner Simmonds, could the Minsiter also ask for his resignation?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied that Commissioner Simmonds has been doing an excellent job for the RCMP and has led the RCMP well during the past 10 years. I can only repeat that a new plan is being prepared and will be presented shortly to Treasury Board, hopefully for Treasury Board's perusal and approval.

February 2, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986



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).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at 1 p.m., the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) had been given the floor.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on the National Transportation Act. Bill C-18 possibly underlines the need the Government has to establish some kind of credibility. It was an opportunity which the Government could have used, but instead of that the Bill just enhances lack of credibility. Almost every part of the Bill has to be taken separately.
The Government keeps talking about its concern for transportation safety but the Bill itself has no requirement for safety. In fact, there will be a greater possibility of accidents because less time will be spent on safety. When you are trying to make money on a very small margin, you are not going to spend the money on safety.
The Government keeps talking about sovereignty. This Bill will deliver our goods from all across Canada to multinational trucking companies and railways. The Government has also been talking about a philosophy based on competition and that that is the key to the direction it intends to go, but this Bill also lacks credibility in that area. Bill C-18 will decrease the amount of competition available to our transportation system.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but in 10 minutes it is probably not possible to list, let alone explain, all of the areas where the credibility of the Government in this subject should be questioned.
For 100 years transportation has been used as an instrument of policy and economic development. Bill C-18 ignores the economic need for some kind of equal transportation costs for all parts of the country. If you have differences in cost for remote areas than for central Canada you are bound to affect the economic development of those remote parts of the country. This Bill discriminates against people, businessmen and producers on the basis of where they happen to live, a 180 degree change in Government policy.
When Sir John A. Macdonald established the transportation policy for Canada he recognized that transportation could be a major factor in how the country developed. Most of us in this Parliament today would not accept as the basis of his decisionmaking the fact that he thought the western and the eastern parts of the country should supply the raw materials and that
the central part, Quebec and Ontario, should do the manufacturing. That is long past. We have had somewhat of a movement on that. My predecessor from Prince Albert, John Diefenbaker, recognized, when he was Prime Minister that transportation could be a major factor in how a country developed. In his vision of the north he used transportation as the basis for development right across the northern fringe of the Prairies, in northern Ontario and Quebec. He based that decision on the fact that transportation is a key element to economic development.
Bill C-18 does exactly the opposite. It shows a 180 degree turn from the idea that transportation should be used or could be used to give all parts of the country the same possible advantage. Consequently, we have a situation now where instead of the Government and the country looking at the more remote areas and saying that is where we need some kind of development, we have a Government which looks at the central part of Canada. It is saying, "If we put in place this economic change, this deregulation of transportation, we will make sure that forever and ever, Canada will continue to develop in the so-called Golden Triangle". Those places from which you and I come, Mr. Speaker, will be at a disadvantage. We will not be able to develop or manufacture goods because we will pay so much more for transportation that we will not be able to compete.
Back in the 1800s, the Government established the Crow's Nest Pass agreement. That agreement was put in place so that products from western Canada could move to the East at a lower rate. It also allowed the transportation of settlers' goods from eastern Canada to the West and assisted in the development of western Canada. In the 1920s, Parliament established statutory grain rates. This put into legislation the kind of structure which allowed the West to continue to develop by allowing the West to deliver its product.
The Western Grain Transportation Act which was passed just a couple of years ago, although many of us disagreed with the approach because we recognized it as a first step in the direction we are moving today, recognized that people in the remote areas should not be penalized because of where they live. Instead of that, and I suppose even because of that, we have taken one more step in the direction begun by the Western Grain Transportation Act, of allowing the undermining of an economic policy which assisted in the development of the regions.
I am not necessarily talking of places as far away as Yellowknife. I am talking about communities like Prince Albert and those in northern Manitoba, the Prairies and British Columbia. These communities will be affected by the transportation structure which the Government is putting in place through Bill C-18.
This Bill ignores the reality of Canada. It fails to take into account Canada's geography and its climate. It fails to take into account the needs of a population that has spread across
February 2, 1987	COMMONS
Canada. If we keep on taking this particular track, we will eventually isolate the remote areas of Canada and we will not have the kind of country that you and I, Mr. Speaker, and most Members of the House feel is the country we have been promoting for so long.
I would like to remind Conservative Members that if we are to work as a nation, if we are to have the kind of nation that we think we should have, a united and forceful nation, we must have a transportation policy which unites the country and allows all areas of Canada to operate without discrimination. This Bill does not allow for that.


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-18 and to detail further our party's position on this fundamental question.
Although outwardly the Bill impresses by its bulk, we are more impressed by what it does not than by what it does contain.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill is incomplete. We have already said it is utterly lacking in credible safety guarantees. We have also referred to the lack of restrictions on foreign control of our transportation industry, in the case of the trucking sector. This is a real problem and a pressing one, but unfortunately, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has chosen to ignore the problem.
Mr. Speaker, we have also pointed to the lack of guarantees for job security. Thousands of Canadian workers are afraid to lose their jobs, and once again, the Minister and the Government have turned a deaf ear. For these reasons alone, this flagrant lack of judgment and sensitivity, the Bill would be a bad Bill and should be rewritten, but there is worse than that, Mr. Speaker. When the Minister of Transport tabled this Bill with its far-reaching reform of our regulatory framework, he failed to consider the humanitarian aspect and include special provisions for the rights of the handicapped.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) raised the issue in the House last Friday. Do you know what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Kilgour) had to say? That the National Transportation Act will be subject to human rights legislation. Mr. Speaker, that is wishful thinking. This so-called comprehensive reform of the regulatory framework would have been a unique opportunity for any Government with real concern for the rights of the handicapped to enshrine in our transportation legislation provisions governing access, comfort, safety and fare schedules for the handicapped on all transport modes.
Mr. Speaker, above all, the Bill contains no imperative standards for access and safety as applied to the handicapped.
DEBATES________________________________________________2983
National Transportation Act, 1986
Another major drawback of the Bill is that it contains no reserve clause tying enforcement of the Act to regional development objectives.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has refused to recognize the importance of regional economic development. We feel this position is totally unacceptable and shows a lack of sensitivity to the fact that Canada's population is scattered over a country with the second largest territory in the world.
Mr. Speaker, in its present form, the proposed legislation contains no safeguards against regional reductions in service, abandonment of certain routes and railway lines and other eventualities. Considering the highly competitive market we shall have after deregulation, Mr. Speaker, we feel it is imperative that certain safeguards against loss of services be included.
Despite all the good words and suggestions of a national reconciliation and a new era in federal-provincial relationships, the Conservative Government has once again shown what it really is after. An important resolution is indeed missing from the statement of purpose of the bill, a resolution passed unanimously at the annual Prime Minister's Meeting held in Saint-John's, Newfoundland last August.
Under that resolution, Mr. Speaker, any transportation policy was to have regional development as its main guiding principle. Moreover, last December 3rd, the Atlantic Cabinet declared unanimously that the Federal Government should amend Bill C-18 to state that any objective dealing with regional economic development should take precedence over the commercial cost effectiveness objectives of a transportation service should there be a conflict between those objectives.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that the bill as introduced is incomplete, and that it may have a very negative impact not only on the transportation industry, but also on several other economic sectors. In short, Mr. Speaker, it is an inconsistent piece of legislation quite in keeping with the image of this Conservative Government.


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and express some of my views after all I heard on this matter in the past few days. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, you will understand that when a society, for some reason or other, stops developing, when a society does not keep up with the day-to-day developments of a situation, one is tempted to say that it is a conservative society. When a party, for some reason or other, cannot keep pace with evolution, when a party does not evolve with circumstances and developments, one could say that it is a Conservative Party. And indeed one of the basic problems that I have noticed in this debate was a very deep misunderstanding of the position of the Liberal Party on this matter by the Government Party. When some Government Members suggested that it was surprising that the Liberal Party did not oppose deregulation, and when some Government Members stressed the fact that the Liberal Party had rather consistently opposed deregulation in the past, I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that they

February 2, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
were right... If you look at how things evolved and situations developed, you understand that there is an element of logic in the process, and whenever a situation has evolved and given good reasons to make adjustments, I feel the Liberal Party has always been able to adjust and take any corrective action and decision required to help every sector in Canada secure an excellent position.
Mr. Speaker, what the Liberal Party would not accept, however, is a reckless deregulation without due consultation process. One of the basic problems I find, after all the discussions I had and the speeches I heard, is this lack of consultation, this very selective process of consultation which leads to bills like the ones presented by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie).
Last week, I heard my colleague, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), say that a number of provinces were not even consulted on the document Freedom to Move. The Standing Committee, as he mentioned, did not have the time to consult Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan. I would imagine, Mr. Speaker, that in these provinces there are groups and individuals involved in transportation who should have been consulted or heard, but unfortunately the Government did not do it and, today, we are confronted with a Bill we cannot agree with, as a number of groups have voiced strong concerns about it.
Despite all the objections raised by Liberal Members and others, even Conservative Members, in particular the Chairman of the Committee, about the very short time given to the Standing Committee to study Freedom to Move, the Conservative Party used its majority and went along with the Minister of Transport request for a speedy report. We deplore this decision made by the majority and, in keeping with its responsibilities as Official Opposition in this Parliament, the Liberal Party had to produce a minority report.
One of the basic aspects of the discussions or meetings we have had with interest groups, business people or companies which are opposed to or entertain serious reservations about this Bill is, of course, the role played by transportation in the promotion of employment opportunities, and the fears of these companies with respect to the impact this Bill might have on employment in Canada.
It is likely, indeed very likely that deregulation will be followed by a sharp decline in employment in Canada, and the attendant loss of wages, because we can expect a proliferation of non-unionized job openings on the labour market. Mr. Speaker, it was in 1978 that the Americans began deregulating their air transport industry and, between 1978 and 1982, fulltime jobs in American air transport companies decreased by 6 per cent. From 1980 to 1985, 40,000 workers lost their jobs in that sector. We heard as well-and this was underscored last week-that airlines had to shut down because they were no longer subject to regulation. Among others, People's Express went bankrupt and folded their wings. They used to carry a lot of passengers, but deregulation made it impossible for
company management to meet their obligations, they just could not survive and decided to declare bankrupcy.
Mr. Speaker, many of us have also raised the question of safety in respect of deregulaition as such. We did refer to safety because the Canadian Aviation Safety Board has raised the matter and stated that deregulation could lead to many accidents and an increased number of accident investigations if the deregulation legislation were to be adopted as it is now.
We have here a statement made by Mr. Bernard Deschenes in an interview reported in La Presse in which he says the Canadian Aviation Safety Board expects to investigate more than a thousand incidents and accidents in 1986. Of course, Mr. Deschenes is not looking forward to that, but it could be expected that the total number of accidents would return to the 700 yearly average after declining to around 500 during the recession. Added to that would then be more than 350 investigations on incidents that could have had serious consequences, whether engine failure, running out of fuel, near collision cockpit trouble, decompression requiring emergency descent, etc.
What we have pointed out last week, Mr. Speaker, is that deregulation will automatically lead to price competition. With this automatic price competition, there will be companies which, in order to stay afloat and go on operating, will try to save on operating costs, and when looking at operating cost reductions, they will automatically reduce certain costs probably in the area of safety. This means we will be faced with the kinds of situations described by Mr. Deschenes, most probably there will be serious problems in the area of safety-inspections or preventive maintenance that used to be done industry-wide for all transportation services in Canada. Then we may experience serious accidents, disasters that will be due to a kind of deregulation that will have failed to include standards, mechanisms or requirements for those carriers to have maintenance or safety standards that are complied with or that require regular inspections.
Mr. Speaker, we are sorry to note that the Standing Committee on Transportation has been given no mandate to deal with safety within the deregulation process. Indeed, many witnesses were amazed to learn that the Committee wanted to make its views known on deregulation without any analysis of safety standards. The Auditor General. Mr. Kenneth Dye, said, regarding the fiscal year ended March 31, 1985, that Transport Canada was not able, in any of the regions, to inspect all the carriers under its jurisdiction at least once a year.
And according once again to the Canadian Air Line Pilots' Association, we have reached the point where safety-related concerns became so pressing last year that the U.S. Transport Secretary ordered a white glove safety inspection.
So, Mr. Speaker, I only hope that before passing this Bill government will make some serious amendments and refer it to a committee.
February 2, 1987


Mr. Ken  Janies@Sarnia-Lambton: Mr. Speaker, the reforms of the economic regulation of transportation which we are considering are called the Freedom to Move legislation. What does Freedom to Move mean? It means that air travellers will have a wider choice of flights at more convenient times and more competitive prices. It means that all kinds of businesses, including small family concerns, large corporations, and major resource producers in every part of Canada, will have some real alternatives to get their products to market. They will have alternative services from more innovative carriers, offering more pricing options.
What will this mean for individual Canadians? Real jobs will be created or maintained in every region of the country and every sector of the economy because better transportation service at a better, more competitive price will enable our resource producers, manufacturers and other businesses to be more competitive in markets at home and abroad.
During this debate, however, we have heard from members of the Opposition that these reforms are too much and come too fast for our transportation industries to cope. The naysayers on the other side predict devastating effects on our trucking industry. They claim that our railways will no longer be financially viable. In short, if we were to believe them, we would expect that our entire transportation system will be in chaos the day after these reforms are implemented. This will not be the case.
Let me explain why. Of course, there will be some adjustments required on the part of everyone. Neither I nor the Government has ever denied that. However, there will be no dramatic upheavals. Economic regulation has been gradually loosened, and many adjustments have already occurred.
Let us look at the air mode, for example. Regulation was brought in to encourage the establishment of a national carrier, Trans-Canada Airlines, when no private carrier could or would take the risk in the fledgling aviation market. By the end of the 1950s, the market had developed and a second airline, Canadian Pacific, was ready to begin long haul service across the country.
Through the 1960s and 1970s regulation was used to keep other airlines within defined regions of the country. After 1978, however, the market changed significantly as a result of the United States air deregulation. Canadian air travellers began asking for similar benefits, such as lower prices and greater choice of service. Many got those benefits, if they could, by crossing the border to fly on U.S. airlines.
In Canada, regulators began allowing regional carriers to extend their operations and all carriers to introduce innovative pricing practices such as seat sales and advanced booking discounts. Further relaxation of air regulation in recent years has led to new carriers entering the market regionally, such as Air Atlantic, and Wardair which has entered the business
National Transportation Act, 1986
nationally. Existing carriers have been allowed to add new routes and introduce more efficient aircraft.
One might ask why we need the reforms in Bill C-18? It is because the existing law has been bent as far as it can. Our airlines can go no further in adjusting to the changing demands of the market without a change in the law. Complying with the bent-over-backward rules is still costly, cumbersome and time consuming. Tomorrow, a different interpretation of the law could send us backwards, not forward to meet new challenges and opportunities for economic growth.
The story in trucking is similar. The provincial boards which regulate extra provincial trucking have been loosening the reins for years, although in different ways and at different paces. U.S. deregulation of trucking occurred in 1980, and many Canadian truckers have since established operations in the United States. Naturally, American truckers would like similar access here.
Transborder competition has been heating up, and our truckers are more than holding their own. Our share has increased by about 10 per cent since 1980.
The new legislation for trucking which is scheduled to be implemented in 1980 according to federal-provincial agreement, contains a three-year transition period. Thus, the impact of the entry test, based on fitness only, will not occur until 1991 and beyond. Is over 10 years of adjustment for the trucking industry an abrupt change? Will it have a devastating effect? I think it will not, but one need not take my word for it.
The federal and provincial Ministers responsible for transportation commissioned a study of the effects of the reforms to which they have agreed and which are before the House. That study, released last November, concluded there would be no great disruption in the industry, no harmful concentration and no loss of service to small communities. It did predict keen price competition and it wisely counselled monitoring of developments, in any event.
The federal and provincial Ministers have accepted the recommendation to monitor closely developments under the new legislation and have commissioned a further study of the effects to be completed before the final phase of the reform becomes effective.
With respect to rail transportation, what we are doing is really the second stage of a process which began in the 1960s. The 1967 National Transportation Act, rate regulation, granted railways the right to set their own rates subject to the very limited rights of appeal. The Americans did not move in this area until 1980, but when they did move, they went further and allowed confidential contracts. Our present reforms are necessary to ensure that our carriers can compete on an equal basis with the American carriers. However, this will not be a sudden change. Canadian shippers have been negotiating with U.S. railways and are already accustomed to this new way of doing business. Similarly, Canadian railways,

February 2, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
through their American subsidiaries, are no strangers to these new rules.
The other part of the rail reforms restores stability where an imbalance was created because of the growth in the number of captive shippers since the 1967 Act was passed. This has been a growing problem since the mid-1970s. It is an issue which has been discussed and studied for a number of years. The Government is proposing a solution. Captive shippers have been at a disadvantage for far too long. Now is the time to correct this problem. As I have illustrated, the market-place demands that economic regulation catch up with reality, and our carriers are ready for these reforms.
Regulation of transportation has played an important role in the development of our nation and its economy. Our transportation industry and other industries have matured. The world is a far more competitive place than it was even a few years ago, let alone 20 years ago when transportation regulation was last revised. To meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, our producers must become more competitive and innovative, and transportation services will always be a crucial element in their competitiveness.
No wonder we have asked ourselves seriously what can be done to make our transportation industry more competitive. Extensive consultations on what should be done have been undertaken with shippers, carriers, travellers, Members of the House, provincial Governments and the general public. The answer which has emerged from these consultations is to regulate less and smarter and to let the market forces determine to the greatest possible extent what services are available at what prices, not everywhere, however, and not in all cases. Some areas still need some protection from deregulation.
Therefore, the package of reforms includes some provisions to protect the public interest in certain regions, especially in the North. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this Bill.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I am sorry, however, that Bill C-18, as put forward by the Government, and as praised in those laudatory speeches prepared by the Government Research Bureau or the Minister's office for the Hon. Members taking part in debate, is before us. I think there are a lot of questions government Members should answer before they return to their constituents and tell them what a wonderful idea Bill C-18 is. These are questions which form a core of government policy, where, 1 think, the Conservative policies are extremely questionable.
What the whole question of deregulation or reregulation, whatever it is the Government says it is doing with Bill C-18, amounts to is the Americanization of transportation regulation in Canada.
I go back to the days of Sir John A. Macdonald who, I think, would be turning in his grave at what his supposed heirs in the Conservative Party are doing after what he wrought, what he thought was important to create. He tried to bring this country together from sea verily unto sea by means of the
construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Although it was a private enterprise venture, the Canadian Pacific Railway, that band of steel which brought our country together-which was part of the agreement under which British Columbia came into Confederation in the first place-was only created because of public initiative and funding. The land grants made by the Government of Canada at that time, the money which was advanced to the Canadian Pacific so it could complete construction and more or less meet the deadlines agreed to at the time of Confederation, were a sign of the partnership between public initiative and private enterprise which in fact marked a great deal of the construction of this country.
The Americanization of transport regulation means that the Government suggests that competition above all should be what is directing the operations of our transportation industry. I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the problem with that theory is that the population density in the lower 48 states of America is about 25 or 30 times greater than the density of Canada. If one goes east of the Mississippi where the bulk of the population lives, or to the State of California, the population density is even higher. Under those circumstances, it may be possible for the Americans to have a competitive kind of system and for it to work for them. The question is, under the circumstances which are different here in Canada, will it work for Canada?
I think most Canadians are proud of what we have achieved in the area of transportation and communication. We are acknowledged throughout the world as being world leaders. We have two especially effective and efficient railways. One of the areas we lead in terms of a world class industry is the area of communications. Canada has one of the finest airlines in the world. CP Air, which is now owned by Pacific Western Airlines, was not bad, either. We have been good at these things. In fact, Canada has developed one of the most efficient and cost-effective transportation systems in the world. We can ask ourselves the question, having gone that far, if it works then why try to fix it, particularly why try to apply the kind of fix the Government, for ideological reasons, seems to want to apply?
I want to remind Hon. Members opposite that the idea that we can take everything holus-bolus from a neo-Conservative clique which surrounds President Reagan and his friends and input it into Canada is a bunch of nonsense. This is a different country. Our traditions and our geography are different. This country would not exist if we had not defied geography in order to bring the country together, linked East to West, when all the natural channels of water transportation, trade and possibly even community interest in the earlier days, would have run North South.
We have had to use public intervention to get a railway in place. We have had to use public intervention for a national airline. Perhaps my colleagues can remind me of which Party was in power when Air Canada was established.


John R. Rodriguez: The Conservatives.
February 2, 1987


Michael Morris Cassidy: It was the Conservative Party that was in power. Was it the Liberals or the Conservatives, I cannot remember which, that were in power when the Canadian National Railways was created? The Government in power, or its predecessors, was responsible for many of the Crown corporations. It was responsible for the Canadian Pacific and for Air Canada, so it has agreed in the past that public participation makes an awful lot of sense if we are going to have a country at all. Now the Government is turning its back on it.
What will occur? The First thing is that safety is very much at risk with the kind of deregulation which is talked about by the Government. If we deregulate entirely and have no effective means of oversight, then experience shows again and again that we put people's lives at risk, employees' lives at risk and, if Hon. Members opposite want to quarrel with that, I suggest they tell me how it was that the Arrow Airlines crash occurred in Gander, which resulted in the death of 200 or more American forces personnel returning to the United States?
There are great risks with respect to jobs. Hon. Members should know that tens of thousands of jobs in the transportation industry are at risk. They should know as well that the benefits in terms of possible improvements, efficiencies or lower costs will not necessarily flow from that. What may happen is that we may lose jobs. Wages may be crushed downward. We may wind up with a system which is less safe and no more efficient than the one we have right now.
We have been told that we will have cheaper fares and better services. The fact is that that statement is generally applied to one specific sector, that being the air transportation sector. What has happened is that in anticipation of Bill C-18 the airline industry in Canada has been in a wave of reorganization which parallels what has occured in the United States. In the U.S. the budget airlines such as People Express brought down air fares on a certain number of routes over a certain period of time. Those airlines are now being absorbed, taken over or forced into bankruptcy. They could not survive. As anyone who has travelled recently in the United States knows, air travel in that country is now tougher, it takes longer, the equipment is not as good and the fares are high.
1 have in front of me a study which was prepared a year or two ago by the ENO Foundation, a business research group in the United States. It looked at air fares in the United States after deregulation. The fact is that in the spring of 1984, after deregulation, the fare per mile varied widely. It ranged from 13 cents a mile for a New York to Norfolk fare, to 53 cents a mile for a St. Louis to Cincinnati fare, even though these two markets are virtually the same distance apart. The escalation in fares has been extraordinarily different. To return to the two examples I just cited, the fare from New York to Norfolk fell by 19 per cent before 1978, while the fare from St. Louis to Cincinnati rose by 231 per cent. The increase in fares
National Transportation Act, 1986
between different city pairs in the United States averaged 50 per cent between 1978-before deregulation-and 1984, but it rose in one-third of the cases by more than 120 per cent in six years, an average fare escalation of over 20 per cent per year.
What has happened in Canada? Essentially, we now have two airline groups. We have the Air Canada group and the Pacific Western group, which is made up essentially of CP Air and Nordair. In other words, an oligopoly exists. An oligopoly means two or three competitors-no more. Under those situations competition is not achieved, competition which would result in prices being driven down to the lowest or marginally lowest cost of providing services. In such a situation the two participants shy away from cutting fares too low. Wardair might be able to force fares down occasionally in certain markets. But, essentially, the situation we have now is that the Canadian Transport Commission does not ensure that there is a reasonable set of air fares in place. It does not allow a certain amount of competition in terms of special deals. Nor does it ensure that the regular fares bear some relation to distance travelled. For example, if one travels 200 miles in British Columbia, the fare should be more or less similar for the same distance travelled in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes. Instead of that being the case, we now have a situation in which all types of disparities can exist, on the one hand. On the other hand, the situation is that the airlines will conduct their regulation on an internal basis. For what purpose? Mainly for the profit-to maximize their revenues.
The Government has also indicated that it intends, or is very seriously considering, the privatization of Air Canada. This means that Air Canada's commitment, and I think it has maintained it, to be an instrument of public policy will disappear, or virtually disappear. Thus we have two private sector entities dividing the market between them. Frankly, I fear that what we will see in Canada is similar to what has occurred in the United States. There, the initial benefits, if there were any, were very quickly followed by disbenefits, in effect to a situation in which there were no longer any benefits at all.
I see that you are indicating that my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that Bill C-18 will not bring about the type of benefits which government Members have mentioned. It will bring us real costs in terms of lowered safety standards, in terms of lost jobs and in terms of less potential for holding the country together. In accompaniment with free trade it will bring about the danger of further Americanization of our country. I do npt want to be nasty to the Americans. I just want to say that we as Canadians have run our country differently. We have values which are different. We want to maintain strength in our regions. We will not be able to do that with free trade, nor with the type of transportation deregulation that is being advocated by the Government in Bill C-18.

February 2, 1987
Adjournment Debate



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 Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-Food- Irradiation with cobalt-60, (b) Scientists' reservations-Safety of practice; the Hon. Member for York-East (Mr. Redway)- Environmental Affairs-Introduction of legislation announced in Speech from the Throne; the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson)-Agriculture-Fuel tax rebate-Denial to farmers using vehicles on highways, (b) Request for reconsideration of rebate.



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).
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my brief contribution to the debate on Bill C-18 will focus on one aspect only, that is, how this legislation will affect-and in many people's minds affect adversely-regional economic development.
It was concern for regional development which first led me quite a number of years ago to consider standing for a constituency and coming to represent an underdeveloped region of the country here in the federal Parliament of Canada in the House of Commons. During that period of time there have been a large number of endeavours to come to grips with the serious problems of regional development in northern Ontario. They have met varying degrees of success. Some attempts have been almost negligible in terms of their effect on the North, and some have had a reasonable amount of measurable positive benefit. However, always standing in the way of effective regional development in northern Ontario has been the transportation problem. It would be much more serious than it is today if we did not have at least some degree of regulation. Very often, it was the regulatory agency which prevented corporations such as Canadian National, for example, from abandoning the region almost entirely. Despite regulation CN has still managed to do rather well in its obvious neglect of this vast resource region that has contributed so much to our federal union.
What is very puzzling about Bill C-18 is that it recognizes in passing that transportation is important to regional development. In Clause 3 of the Bill there is a passing reference to transportation being recognized as a key to regional economic development. However, that is about as far as it goes. Well-informed citizens in the constituency which I represent who see the correlation between development in transportation and development in the region believe that this legislation will act in a contrary way. In other words, instead of assisting and ensuring that development will go forth with transportation as a tool, it will work in a negative way.
I would argue that in Bill C-18 we need much more than a passing reference to the fact that transportation is a key to regional development. We need a policy that is translated into legislation which will ensure that transportation can become a key to regional development.
Since the Government took office, I have become sadly aware that regional development has been de-emphasized. Federal programs for regional development have either disappeared, or the amount of funding to support those programs has declined. What has taken the place of the programs with some muscle has been a proliferation of committees to consider what can be done. In fact, in recent months committees have become the biggest growth industry in northern Ontario. All types of committees are looking at what can be done to get around the fact that our region is in a state of rapid decline.
Although deregulation may have a large benefit for the country in increasing commercial viability and in increasing competition, it cannot be argued by anyone that there will not be certain beneficiaries from deregulation. Never would I stand in my place and argue that we want a totally regulated and controlled society. I am arguing that a certain number of safeguards have to be put in place for regions that are now underserviced, and regions that are blocked from further development because the transportations facilities are not there. This type of emphasis on national competition and commercial viability will push these regions further into the background. They will find themselves much further away from achieving any equity with the rest of the country.
I have listened to a number of speeches from the Opposition, and I am sure that some Hon. Members in the House will say that here is the Opposition once again either whining or creating concerns that are not legitimate. When we express our concerns about how this legislation will affect regional development, we have some strong supporters. Not only opposition Members, but Premiers of many provinces have looked at the legislation along with their advisers and have come to precisely the same conclusion. These concerns have been translated into a number of resolutions put forward by the Premiers gathered together in conference. For example, as recently as November, 1985, when the Premiers met in Halifax, they looked at legislation brought forward by the
February 2, 1987

Government of Canada to deregulate the industry, and they passed this resolution:
Whereas the importance of regional economic development has been agreed upon by all governments, we, the provincial premiers, call on the government of Canada to incorporate in the proposed new National Transportation Act, in addition to an objective of commercial viability, the following:
1)	Transportation is recognized as a key to regional economic development-
That is in the Act, the recognition. They further state:
2)	Commercial viability of transportation links must be balanced with
regional economic development objectives in order that the potential economic
strengths of each region may be realized.
It is that particular concern that has cast doubt on the effectiveness of Bill C-18 in the regions.
For example, I turn to the neighbour of northern Ontario, the Province of Manitoba, which has much in common with northern Ontario in terms of its economy, and its level of development.
In a speech, the Premier, Mr. Pawley, said "that the federal Government's proposals to deregulate the industry rely too much on competition". He further stated:
If changes are not made, they (the federal Government) will reduce the opportunity for economic growth and will accelerate the growing opportunity gap between the have and have-not provinces, since the have provinces will be the benefactors of a deregulated environment.
On many occasions in this House we have heard that there is a growing gap, because we are living in a period of restraint and Governments are looking for ways in which to reduce deficits. On many occasions it has been brought to the attention of Hon. Members that there is a gap between those who have and those who have not, and that that gap is growing. This is becoming a characteristic of our society.
Therefore, I do not think that Hon. Members will wish to support a Bill that will enlarge the gap between regions that are underserviced, regions that are underdeveloped, and those regions that have already achieved a very high level of economic prosperity.
Surely the role of the House is to foster national unity. National unity means more than simply calling ourselves Canadians. It means sharing in all the benefits of this great country of ours.


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the concerns expressed in this debate regarding concentration of ownership and foreign ownership, especially in the air mode. The charge has been made that the legislation before us will lead, not to greater competition and its many benefits, but to less competition and negative effects on price and service. It has also been alleged that this legislation will result in a massive sell-out to foreigners of our airlines and trucking firms. Such fears of dire consequences are not well founded. A number of carefully planned safeguards will ensure that Canadian consumers and air travellers receive the benefits of competition.
National Transportation Act, 1986
The economic regulatory controls on airlines have already been relaxed as far as possible under the existing law. This has given us more competitive air fares, several new carriers, and better service. Among the new carriers at the regional level are Air Nova, Bras D'Or, and Air Atlantic. Other carriers such as City Express, Time Air, and Air B.C., have expanded their operations considerably.
The new existing regional carriers are providing more frequent service, at more convenient times to small communities across the country. Their service may not always be jet service, which has, in some instances, been replaced, but then jets are not cost-efficient and often no faster on short distance flights.
I would also remind the House that Canadian-made Dash-8s are being used for many of these new services. This means more jobs for Canadians in the aircraft industry.
The alliances being formed between some local carriers and national ones will produce better service for passengers. Flight schedules, baggage transfer, and other operations will be coordinated to minimize delays and inconvenience to the travelling public. Price competition continues throughout the system. Seat sales and discount prices based on advanced booking requirements are being offered, not just between major centres but on flights to and from many small communities. My colleagues have cited numerous examples. In other words, there is no evidence that alliances between national and regional carriers are harming competition in any way.
At the national level, as we all know, Pacific Western Airlines has arranged a deal to acquire Canadian Pacific Airlines. I will not comment specifically on this because the proposed acquisition is still under review by the Canadian Transport Commission to determine whether it is in the public interest. Critics of the new transportation policy in Bill C-18 seem strangely reluctant to acknowledge this safeguard in both the existing law and the new Bill.
Let us also acknowledge that Wardair is entering the long haul scheduled service market. In announcing his plans to spend over S900 million on new aircraft, Max Ward has demonstrated his determination to compete head to head with established national carriers. I applaud this demonstration of entrepreneurial spirit. This is precisely what the Government's approach to regulatory reform is meant to achieve.
We should also remember our history. Not too many years ago-and you and I shared this history, Mr. Speaker-there was only one national carrier, Trans-Canada Airlines, which is known as Air Canada today, and a variety of regional carriers held to that role by the regulators. Even today Air Canada still has close to 50 per cent of passenger traffic.
Given the nature of our domestic air market, it is possible that the efficiencies necessary to give travellers the best service at the best price can be achieved only with a relatively small number of healthy competitive national carriers. Whatever the
2990

February 2, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
case, I believe that Canadians will be better served in future if, as the policy in Bill C-18 indicates, market forces are the primary determinants in the efficiency and adequacy of service.
In any case there are a variety of safeguards to competition. First, the power now exercised by the Canadian Transport Commission to review mergers and acquisitions in light of the public interest will be continued in the National Transportation Agency. Second, the recently enacted Competition Act provides for review of any transaction which would substantially reduce competition. Third, under the proposed legislation new carriers can enter the market and existing carriers can add new routes much more easily. Finally, as they did in the early 1980s, many Canadians can cross the border to fly on U.S. airlines, perish the thought. In effect, additional competition exists across the border. For all these reasons I am confident that we can have the benefits of regulatory reform and healthy, efficient, and competitive air carriers at both the national and regional levels.
Turning to the trucking industry, I find from an independent, objective viewpoint that the fears being expressed about concentration of ownership are exaggerated. The Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, on behalf of the federal and provincial Ministers responsible for transport, commissioned a study on the effects of the regulatory reforms being proposed. That study was received by the Ministers last October and was released in November.
The conclusion of the independent transportation experts who conducted the study was that some restructuring and consolidation of firms would continue as it had for a number of years, but that concentration would not reach undesirable levels among national carriers. The study also concluded that regional carriers would not be eliminated and that service to small communities would not suffer.
In respect of foreign ownership, I should like to point out that an airline will have to be at least 75 per cent Canadian owned in order to obtain an operating licence for domestic service. This requirement, for those Hon. Members who may wish to verify it, is contained in the definition of "Canadian" in Clause 67 of Bill C-18.
Mergers and acquisitions of Canadian transportation firms by foreigners are also subject to a number of review mechanisms, although those involving small firms are exempt. The Government is not prepared to subject each and every acquisition of a small firm to the bureaucratic burden, delay, and cost of a substantial review when the national interest cannot reasonably be at risk.
The safeguards which exist now and will remain in place include the following. First, under the Investment Canada Act, an acquisition by a foreigner of a Canadian company, including a transportation company, can be blocked if it is deemed not to be of benefit to Canada. Second, a foreign acquisition is subject to review under the National Transportation Act to determine whether it is in the public interest.
This provision of the existing Act is being broadened under Bill C-18. It now applies only to mergers and acquisitions between two transportation companies. In future, it would apply to the acquisition of a transportation firm by anyone, whether or not they are already in the transportation business. Foreign companies and domestic ones are subject to review without distinction.
Third, the recently enacted Competition Act provides for a review of mergers and acquisitions. They may be disallowed if they are found likely to reduce competition to a substantial degree. I understand that the Competition Tribunal has already turned down one proposed merger, although it was not in the transportation field.
With all the safeguards I have described, Canadians can rest assured that neither foreign ownership nor corporate concentration will be permitted to harm the public interest or to jeopardize competition in transportation services.
Under the proposed reforms of transportation regulation, the operation of market forces will bring the benefits of competition to all Canadians-producers and manufacturers, air travellers and consumers-in the form of better transportation services tailored to their needs and at more competitive prices.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to take part in the debate on Bill C-18 this afternoon.

I listened very attentively to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Lachine (Mr. Layton) who spoke about the issue of foreign takeovers of transportation companies and about reviewing some of these takeovers. I remind him that under the new Investment Canada Act, foreign takeovers of $5 million or less will not be reviewed by anyone. In the transportation industry Canada has a vital interest to ensure that proper reviews of foreign takeovers in our transportation industry are carried out and are blocked when necessary.
I rise to speak in the debate this afternoon principally to talk about the issue of rail deregulation or deregulation of the transportation industry and what it could do to the constituency I represent.
Of course my riding, which is the most beautiful one in the country-


John Barry Turner: As is mine.


Don Boudria: -is situated east of the City of Ottawa. I notice the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) is heckling at the present time. No doubt he will be interested in the issue which I intend to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because his constituency and mine, as well as Stormont-Dundas and other ridings, are affected by the Ottawa to Montreal CN Rail line.
February 2, 1987

A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of meeting with CN Rail officials, along with my provincial counterpart in the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, Conservative MPP Noble Villeneuve, and with municipal officials, local industry representatives, and so on to find out what were the plans of CN Rail for the Ottawa to Montreal line. Perhaps you will wonder, Mr. Speaker, why we chose this particular time to meet with them and what prompted the local community in my riding to want to meet with officials of CN Rail.
On September 25, 1986, a piece of internal correspondence at CN Rail, signed by R. P. Langlois, Regional Manager of Marketing for the St. Lawrence Region, indicated the following to a number of other officials:
In the context of the rationalization of our rail infrastructure, some lines have been identified as being potential candidates for abandonment in the coming years. A preliminary plan has been prepared and attached you will find the sections affected.
Further he indicated:
Any effort to attract new traffic on these sections is to be abandoned immediately. For the traffic already on these lines, we must consider either, and preferably, converting this traffic on to the intermodal system, or else, adjusting rates to minimize our present losses.
What we have is an official of CN Rail telling everybody else in the company: "Guys, we have to alienate business from this particular line. We have to discourage new business". Obviously the reason is that if and when CN applies to shut down the line to the Canadian Transport Commission-or whatever its replacement is according to this Bill-CN will have full justification. CN will not have any customers. Why will they not have customers, Mr. Speaker? Because CN intentionally will have done it.
In the event, Mr. Speaker, you are wondering about the if and why about which I was talking a minute ago, I have the attached list to this letter which identifies the Alexandria subdivision. In railway language that means the piece of rail between Ottawa and Coteau junction just west of Montreal. The Alexandria subdivision is listed here from mile marker 15.0 to 72.7, which is 57.7 miles to be shut down. The year identified is 1990. If CN Rail proceeds with what it wants to do, there will be no train, there will not even be a track between Ottawa and Montreal in the year 1990.


John Barry Turner: I agree.


Don Boudria: This is according to CN's own internal documents which, incidentally, I have shared with the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton because his region is affected as mine is. I know he shares that concern with me.
I have further correspondence from CN Rail which clearly demonstrates that it is the intention of CN to shut down that piece of rail line. What is most offensive to me as a Member of Parliament is to receive a letter from R.E. Lawless, President and Chief Operating Officer of CN Rail, in which he said, on December 4, 1986, describing the plans of his corporation:
National Transportation Act, 1986
At this time 1 can advise you, and indeed assure you, that should such a study reveal the need for a change in status, I will see that you are made aware of the situation.
In other words he is saying, "If we have a study and if we decide to shut down the rail line, we will let you know". This was after I had indicated to him that I had a copy of these documents in my hands. You would have thought that at least he would have had the foresight of knowing that to contradict previous documents from his own corporation in such a manner would lead him into some trouble, Mr. Speaker. But for those people at CN Rail that was not apparent.
When we had the meeting to which I was referring a little while ago in Alexandria with officials of CN Rail, the officials described to us that they had to operate under the new climate of deregulation that was coming up. Therefore, they were preparing themselves for it. That is why they had to contemplate what they were going to do next. This was being said at the same time that they were refusing to admit that their internal correspondence was their internal correspondence. They did not acknowledge this, but they told us about the new climate of deregulation which would necessitate all kinds of reviews and studies and this and that and that they would have to shut down, at some point, some parts of the rail line. Officials were doing this while refusing to admit that they had already started the process outlined in the memo I have described and in other internal correspondence of that corporation.
Should this plan proceed, both the deregulation as we know it now and the plans of CN Rail to shut down part of its rail line to accommodate this new deregulated system that we will have, here is what will happen: I have a plant in my riding in Alexandria, Ontario, by the name of Alexandria Moulding. It makes all kinds of fine wooden moulding similar to some of the ones here in this House and elsewhere. Alexandria Moulding employs over 200 people. The plant was in the middle of a $15 million expansion program. Everything is stopped right now until the company can get some clarification as to whether or not there will be a rail line servicing the industry. That is only one industry in my riding. The agricultural community in the constituency that I represent-

Mr. Speaker, the farmers of my constituency have suffered from the failure this Government to help them and to lobby on the American Farm Bill, because of which Canadian farmers, faced with ridiculously low prices because of the negligence of this Government in its relations with the Unisted States, will lose access to the rail services which they have been using to transport the corn from our region to the Maritimes. What will happen to our industries? What will happen to the farming community in my constituency? Mr. Speaker, those issues worry me. Moreover, at our meeting, the CN representatives admitted that those measures were aimed at accommodating the new climate created by the deregulation brought about by the Conservative Government.

February 2, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986

The other thing that worries me is this whole business of the intermodal system. It means rail traffic is put on the highway. The same plan I have here from CN Rail talks about the fact that west of the City of Ottawa CN will shut down what is known as the Beachburg subdivision in the riding of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins). That means that all the trucks going north to service the pulp and paper industry will be going down the highway. The highway is also subsidized, like the rail line. It is paid for by our tax dollars. Highways will be ruined. Provincial taxes are paying to maintain those roads. And what about the increase in accidents and everything else resulting from shifting rail traffic to the highways?
The Government had better think again about what it is doing. What I see it doing to the constituency that I represent is not right, it is not fair, and I know I am not the only one who does not like it. I see the Member for Ottawa-Carleton across the way, and probably the Hon. Member for Stormont- Dundas (Mr. Warner) has views of his own on the issue. We want the Ottawa to Montreal rail line maintained so that we can have it to service the industries and the passengers of the area that I represent.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say in closing that I believe that the Government should review its deregulation policies. It should ensure that the railroads maintain their tracks so that we can continue to have in Canada fair service for both the industrial and the farming communities, especially in the underprivileged areas, some of which can be found as close as 100 kilometers from the National Capital in my own constituency.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention earlier today to rise to speak on Bill C-18. What bothers me is that the Bill and the policies behind it have been studied to death. They have been before the Standing Committee on Transport on two occasions. The committee has travelled across the entire country.


Don Boudria: No.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It did a trip through the North. It has made recommendations and gone over the whole philosophy behind Freedom to Move.


Don Boudria: The committee went to three Canadian provinces.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The policy was discussed in the last Parliament. It has been discussed since this Parliament commenced, and now we wind up with more debate and a resolution suggesting that it go back to the committee again. This is absolutely ridiculous. It is an indication that the opposition mentality of the two Parties that form a corner of the House is one opposed to change. They are stuck in the mud. They say:
"Please don't deregulate anything. Please don't change anything. My goodness gracious, let us leave Canada where it was in 1950 or 1940. If we had a railway then, let us keep the same railway. Let us not change anything". I am surprised they allowed longer railway cars and bigger transport trucks. With their mentality, I am surprised that they would even fly on a jet airplane.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) said that there can be foreign intervention in a company worth under $5 million. My goodness gracious, that would not even be a down payment on a decent sized airplane. What kind of nonsense is that?


Don Boudria: What about the trucking business?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Yes, a few trucks can be purchased for that amount, I suppose. Here he is all worried about the trucking business, yet he is saying that this business of PCV licences and preventing a man from buying a truck and carrying freight from one place to another on his own without some provision from some big bureaucrat and some board of transport must stay in place. Opposition Members say: "Let's keep monopolies and make sure that the little guy has not got a chance but only the guys who can afford to buy PCV licences".
Before I came to this place, I can recall appearing before the Highway Transport Board fighting for little guys who had all sorts of letters from people who wanted to use their services. These little guys were trying to prove public necessity and convenience. All the big boys were there with 10, 12 or 14 lawyers at a time. If they did not bankrupt the little guys with legal fees, they destroyed them with one argument after another, proving that it would be against the public interest and convenience to grant these applications. This must stop. The situation has been the same with respect to highway transport, air transport and every form of movement in Canada.
Members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party want to preserve the status quo. They do not believe in change, development or anything new. They believe that letting the new guy on the block get into business is wrong. That is the kind of philosophy that Canadians have surely refused.
We are told that intermodal transportation is bad. We are told that using the highways is somehow wrong and that the highways are subsidized by the public. Yes, they are subsidized. They are subsidized by the public paying enormous taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel.
In the Province of Ontario, it was at one time the fuel taxes that built the roads. It is now the fuel taxes that pay for everything else as well. Not only are fuel taxes more than sufficient to cover all of the road maintenance required but they even supply money for hospitals and goodness knows what
February 2, 1987

else including legislators and legislative assistants. Yet the Opposition has the nerve to suggest that the highways are not self-supporting. You and I, Sir, know that right across Canada, the highways are self-supporting because of the taxes charged against those who drive on them. We ought to realize that if the highways are a better method by which goods can be moved from one place to another, they should be used.
The philosophy of this Bill is a philosophy that tells a shipper to do it the way he wants to do it. It tells him that if he can ship it by road cheaper, he should ship it by road; if he can ship it by rail cheaper, he should ship it by rail; and if he can ship it by air cheaper, he should ship it by air. If that guy will not do it for him, he should get someone else to do it. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with giving people freedom? Is there something wrong with freedom that would cause members of the New Democratic Party to say: "No, no, don't give us freedom", or that would cause that great Liberal Party to say: "Freedom is not for us, freedom is for civil servants only"?
Members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party are demanding the status quo. They want us to make sure we preserve branch lines that do not work. They are saying: "Make sure that if it went by one trucking company 20 years ago, the same trucking company maintains the monopoly; make sure that if it went by one airline once, that same airline will forever maintain the monopoly". It is a policy of status quo and monopolies. It is a policy of protecting vested interests.
What are those vested interests? We know that the vested interest of the Liberal Party is big business. Only big business contributes to the Liberal Party. Let us talk about the vested interest of the New Democratic Party. As we all know, the New Democratic Party is supported by donations and contributions, forced or otherwise, from the unions that look after the rights of workers working for established companies. The unions do not want any competition. If a new guy on the block comes along and says that he can do it cheaper, that might mean that some of the union members will have to work for the new guy who has not yet been certified. That might mean that the unions might receive fewer contributions. Is that not too bad?
Canadians should be frozen in ice because of the attitude of the New Democratic Party. Where is the "new", where is the "democratic"? Where is the freedom? How is the little guy being protected?
Sir, you and I both know that the New Democratic Party has not had a new idea since 1935. In this particular case, it is doing what it can to prevent the development of this country and to make it more expensive for people to ship coal, potash or lumber. Every time goods are made more expensive, the person buying those goods must pay more for them, or perhaps not even buy them at all. That means that people are put out of work and workers cannot get raises. That means that Canada is not as wealthy as it should be. Members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, through this
National Transportation Act, 1986
filibuster, are rising to ensure that Canada is not as prosperous as it could be.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments on this Bill and I would also like to take issue with some of the drivel, amusing though it was, of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). We should have him here more often to provide a little comic relief. At least he breaks away from the routine speeches prepared by the Tory caucus research branch. On financial matters, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South has occasionally shown some spirit of independence. We certainly did not see that this afternoon while he was speaking on transportation matters.
The Hon. Member first ignored something which he should know since he has been around this place long enough, and that is, that regulatory reform as opposed to deregulation- and there is a difference-in the transportation industry was begun by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), when he was the Minister of Transport.
The Hon. Member talks about new ideas with the notion of making our national transportation system more efficient. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry had already embarked on that course of action and undertaken a reform package when he was rudely interrupted in 1984. However, with what we have seen to date from the Government, undoubtedly we will in due course have the opportunity, the challenge and the responsibility of finishing the job we began in 1984 of bringing a more rational and up-to-date transportation policy to this country. Therefore, when the Hon. Member across the way accuses us on this side of the House of not being prepared to move from the status quo, he is patently abusing his own memory as well as those of us who were here at the time, including you, Mr. Speaker.
We began this exercise but we did it in a sensible, measured way. We began by recognizing that there are a lot of good things in our national transportation system. We began by recognizing that massive deregulation of the kind contemplated in this Bill is not necessarily in the interests of the transportation sector, its users, employees, the regions or the domestic economy.
I have noted that when the Government presents its argument it speaks of course to the benefits of deregulation such as efficiency, profitability and so on. However, one thing we have learned over many years, which the Government has not yet learned, is that every single government program of any kind has costs and benefits. There is an asset side to the balance sheet and a liability side. It is the duty of the Government not simply to promote the benefits of a particular kind of program but to analyse carefully the costs to those adversely affected by a particular program and address that issue in its legislation. Yet the Government has repeatedly failed to do

February 2, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
that since it assumed power in 1984, and here we have another obvious example.
A regulatory reform package, or deregulatory reform package, is like any other program. There are sectors and individuals and regions who may benefit and those who may suffer. All the speakers I have heard from the government side have talked about the benefits of the Bill, and only the speakers on this side of the House have said, "Sure, but there are costs and issues which are not being addressed". I am disappointed when my friend, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, for whom I have great respect on some matters, stands up and spouts a lot of drivel about freedom and freedom to move and so on. He knows better than anyone else that a tax program, or any other program for that matter, has costs and benefits. He is the first one in committee to sort them out, but not here. Here he is toeing the Party line.
There are some old sayings that our friends on the other side of the House should pay attention to, some old adages like look before you leap. Another one with which we are all familiar is: do not throw out the baby with the bath water. It seems to me that this Act we have in front of us, this voluminous effort at deregulation, underlines the wisdom of those wise sayings which have been developed over many centuries.
In some respects I suppose one might say that this Bill speaks quite eloquently to the very fundamental difference between a Conservative and a Liberal Government. As I said at the outset, we favoured regulatory reform, and I speak with some knowledge because I had responsibility for regulatory reform. However, we were not speaking of deregulation; we were speaking of better regulation. Sometimes that means a decrease in regulation, sometimes it can even mean an increase in regulation, especially when it deals with the safety and health of the public. However, the Hon. Member seems to suggest that a regulation is some kind of evil. I say to him that if he thinks that, he should never be in Government because it is the Government's duty and obligation to bring forward sensible regulation where the costs and benefits to the various sectors of society have been properly analysed. That is the Liberal approach, but not the Conservative approach. All we hear is freedom and deregulation. That would be like throwing out all the quotas on how many fish you can take out of the lakes. 1 am sure the Hon. Member would not support that kind of legislation, but that is the way he talks. Everybody should be free, the common property should be there for everyone. If all the fish are gone and all the deer destroyed, so what. That is freedom. Those sectors have to be regulated, and they are, and that is what his job and the job of his Government is.
It is terribly important in this sector that we not get carried away with this ideological thrust and forget that pragmatic common sense must underline this legislation as it does all other legislation. It again reminds me a little bit of the ideological thrust toward privatization. Sure, we had a privatization approach as well. It was a difficult period to privatize companies, but there was no ideology saying, "do not privatize".


Mr. Kilgour:: You just did not do anything.


Donald James Johnston: That happens to be wrong and I can prove it to the Hon. Member but, that being said, we did not privatize for ideological reasons, or intended to privatize, I should say, in most cases-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What did you ever privatize?


Donald James Johnston: Yet here we have this thrust to privatize at any cost. Some Crown corporations work well and some do not. However, the issue of deregulation is not one of ideology, it is a pragmatic, common sense approach.
I will just make a few other points because you seem to be indicating my time will soon expire, Mr. Speaker. What we have in this Bill is an ideological leaping before you look, leaping, I suggest, into a swamp of alligators for many sectors of the economy, and that gives me great concern. Let me just give you a few examples. There is no question that this will create an integrated free trade zone and save trucking costs both north and south of the border. One thing I cannot understand-and it has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of negotiating a free trade agreement-is why we, along with FIRA, the NEP and everything else, would simply give this away and not make it part of the free trade negotiations if they are going to be carried on. It is a mystery to me. Of course, the whole conduct of the free trade negotiations is shrouded in mystery, and hopefully some day we may learn that they are not as incompetent as they appear to be. However, this seems to me to be just bungling along, once more giving away unnecessarily a chip which could be used to much greater advantage.
If we are going to try to integrate the transportation structures of Canada and the U.S. what about the level playing field? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has now deferred his tax reform Bill. How on earth can you talk about putting these kinds of measures in effect without knowing what the tax regime is going to be north and south of the border?
You are looking somewhat impatient, Mr. Speaker. I thought I had 30 seconds to go. In any event, I want to make one specific point. As we know, the United States carriers have a major depreciation advantage on heavy equipment. They can write the equipment off over three years, whereas we are looking at seven or eight years. Will that change?
What will be the income of the business transfer tax on Canadian carriers as opposed to that of the Americans? I suggest the Government is moving with undue haste, without having prepared the ground work or knowing where it is going. That is why I find the notion of deregulation particularly offensive. The Government wants to move full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes. There are many torpedoes out there and they will start hitting our fleet soon.
February 2, 1987


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the comments of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). I suggest they typify the Government's philosophy and objectives. One would have thought that the conservative revolution in North America has reached its end and is beginning to decline. However, when one considers this legislation and the comments made by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South and other Conservative Members, one finds that that ideology is certainly strong in their hearts.
Canadian public opinion and public opinion elsewhere in the world has moved beyond these philosophies, and it is not surprising to see the Government so low in the polls as it continues to hold on to these philosophies which, as Canadians are beginning to realize, are outdated.
It is obvious from listening to the Hon. Member for Mississauga South that he is a typical free enterpriser from the old school, before there were laws controlling pollution, child labour or industry in any way at all. He, like other Conservative Members, is advocating an uninhibited free enterprise environment where anything goes. They believe in ignoring public interest and allowing our transportation system to operate in any way that makes a profit or helps to achieve a profit. The Hon. Member says "correct".
Of course, when considering the Hon. Member's ideology, one must also consider that he comes from the Toronto area where he will not face problems in a deregulated regime. The airlines will not be after his business and he will always have the benefit of seat sales and so on.
However, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) knows that people from Weyburn, Saskatchewan and other areas in his riding will have greater difficulty in getting the benefit of seat sales because Regina is not as important. While we had difficulties in getting seat sales in Regina in the past, we were able to get some concessions from the major airlines because we live in a deregulated environment in which airlines are supposed to treat Canadians equally, whether they live in a small city like Regina or a larger city like Toronto.
The Hon. Member for Mississauga South does not like that and would rather see people in Toronto, Montreal and other major centres receive all the benefits, while people from smaller cities like Saskatoon and Regina receive no benefits whatsoever. I am surprised that the Member for Assiniboia would even agree with this legislation. He is certainly not acting in the best interests of his constituents and the people surrounding Regina and other smaller cities in Saskatchewan.
It does not make sense that the Government would put forward legislation that would deregulate transportation in this country and allow a dog-eat-dog environment to prevail. Canada has been united despite its vast geography and immense difference in terrain. Our population is scattered,
National Transportation Act, 1986
with small communities throughout the country and larger concentrations of population in larger centres. There has been a commitment in Canada, whether there has been a Conservative or a Liberal Government in Ottawa, to provide equality in the treatment of Canadians from coast to coast. Whether Canadians live in smaller or larger communities, they will have the same benefits. However, that will certainly be changed as a result of this Bill.
This Bill also raises the question of variable rates, which is another reflection of the Conservative Government philosophy. The railways want variable rates because it would give them the opportunity to offer lower rates to certain communities and charge higher rates in other regions. Of course, that would encourage trucking because it is cheaper to the railways if farmers truck their grains from the mills to central points which the railways service. Grain farmers in the West will know the consequences of variable rates. Hundreds of miles of rural rail lines will be abandoned, which will mean the end of many smaller towns. It will mean the concentration of resources and facilities in a handful of communities throughout the western prairie region.
Those of us who believe that our country must consist of widespread viable smaller communities have consistently opposed the notion of variable rates. This legislation would allow variable rates in trucking, rail, and air transportation. That is why we cannot agree with it. Our Party agrees that many of the regulations that exist today are outmoded and should be changed through an ongoing process, but the basic philosophy of cross-subsidization should remain in place. Those routes that are profitable, whether in rail, trucking or air transportation, should subsidize and support those routes that are not so profitable. That is how all Canadians can benefit from a modern, efficient transportation system to which all can have access. We do not believe there should be first and second class citizens in this country. Therefore, my colleagues and I are opposed to this legislation.
I am also concerned about safety. I believe I have one minute remaining, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the Hon. Member's time has expired.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the last few days and weeks we have talked about this Bill at length. We well realize that there is a question of representation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that it is five o'clock. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

February 2, 1987
Capital Punishment


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   CAPITAL PUNISHMENT SUGGESTED STUDY BY STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bill Domra (Peterborough) moved:: That the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General be empowered to study and report on the arguments for and against capital punishment giving consideration to allowing the question of capital punishment to come to a free vote in the House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, to get right to the point, I should say that this is not one of my Bills to reinstate capital punishment for planned and deliberate premeditated acts of murder. It is a motion, which I call upon Parliament to endorse, which would allow a special standing committee of this House, namely, the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, to review the pros and cons of capital punishment and then to bring that report forward to Parliament so that every Member of Parliament, regardless of political faith, would have an opportunity to hear the most up to date information available on both sides of this very controversial issue.
There is no question in my mind that we who support a return to capital punishment have a responsibility to those who do not. These people have been asking for an opportunity to come before a committee of Parliament in order to express their views. Organizations such as the United Council of Churches, the Catholic organizations, the John Howard Society, all those persons who in conscience feel that capital punishment is wrong, would like an opportunity to explain to the elected representatives why they feel that way. If this House denies the right of this motion to be passed, it will deny the right of those abolitionists to be heard.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I know it is not a conscience issue with the New Democratic Party. It does not have a conscience about capital punishment. Those Hon. Members vote as a Party against capital punishment because they have no freedom of choice. I am talking to the Liberals and the Conservatives now who treat this matter as a free vote, not to the socialists. I am not speaking to the New Democratic Party which knows what is best for Canada regardless of what the Canadian people want. It votes for abolition.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of Canada?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The Prime Minister of Canada-


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: What about your Cabinet?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I know this is a touchy issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, and I know it is a touchy issue, but I hope Hon. Members, knowing this is Private Members' Business, will all please let us have a really fine Monday afternoon.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I have 10 minutes alloted to me to make my case. There is nothing the New Democratic Party would like better than to make it impossible for me to have my 10 minutes. Those Hon. Members have said in the Committee on Justice and Solicitor General that they will do anything they can to filibuster this issue so it cannot be heard. They are denying those who want abolition the right to appear before a parliamentary committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: They are denying these people the right to appear before the Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. Their own Member, who sat on that committee, said it is not a matter of whether the issue is heard or not; it is that he does not wish it to be heard. He does not want to do anything. He wants to shove it under the desk. That is not a democratic system of government.
What we are dealing with today is the question of having the opportunity, if this motion passes, to hear both sides of the issue, both the noisy so called abolitionists over there, and the rest of us. But the New Democratic Party is denying the Canadian people the opportunity to put forward their views before a parliamentary committee because it fully intends to do everything within its power, not only to filibuster a return to capital punishment, because it is the Party's position, but to filibuster the rights of the abolitionists to be heard before a committee of Parliament in order that a decision be made about the pros and cons of the issue.
I have taken up five minutes, and the New Democratic Party has taken up two of those five minutes with their raucous noise. In the remaining five minutes, I would like to document statistics. Neither the Liberals nor the New Democrats have any idea about what is going on with statistics today. I am going to use the most recent report of The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics here in Ottawa, which was published on January 1. The Liberals denied to the Canadian people all through their terms in office the right to know what is happening in first degree homicides in Canada. I refer to the report put out by Statistics Canada last week which compares Canada with the United States. I would like to draw your attention to the highlights of this report.


Some Hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Mr. Nystrom:: Read it.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: If those Hon. Members will be quiet for a moment. If we take the trend, the graph, of first degree homicide in Canada since we abolished capital punishment, we will find that the homicide rate has gone up every year on first degree planned and deliberate murder, and gone down on second degree. In the United States, as compared to Canada, it
February 2, 1987

is just the opposite. Through the Justice Department in the United States, reports have been printed of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which take the same period during which abolitionists maintain that violent crime and murder were on the increase. The truth of the matter is that every year since 1980 in those states which have capital punishment there has been an annual on-graph decrease in homicide rates. From 1980 through until 1984, according to the Justice Department in the United States, as published by the Canadian report I referred to earlier, the United States has had a decrease in homocide rates on an annual basis all through the 1980s, while Canada has had an increase.
First degree homicides in Canada, which have been published now for the first time in 15 years, have gone up every solitary year since capital punishment was abolished in Canada. In the United States, it has gone down every year since capital punishment was reinstated in 1977, after 10 years of court challenges of that law. To add reinforcement to the other side of the story, we can now prove, without any doubt at all, that the figures used by the abolitionists have been dead wrong.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: How would you bring Marshall back?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. This is Private Members' Business. It is Hon. Members' own business, and I cannot hear the Hon. Member speak.


David Orlikow: He is not worth hearing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope you would all give him an opportunity to finish his remarks.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I guess that because I am starting to show some evidence of what has happened in the past, and the statistics which have been funnelled out by those Hon. Members over the last seven years are in error, they do not even wish to hear it. They have been quoting StatsCan for 10 years since we abolished capital punishment and they have fudged and misled the Canadian people.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You have.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You have.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: We now have the facts from StatsCan. StatsCan claims that when first degree and second degree homicides are broken down, there is a remarkable increase. This will give, without any element of doubt, some satisfaction to those who argue it could possibly be a deterrent. It does not deter every homicide, but there is a possibility that it deters some. If we go back to the 10 years prior to 1977-from 1966 to 1977 when the United States executed no one because of court challenges-we find during that period that homicides in the United States, not in isolation but on graph, went up 38 per cent. Those figures are from the American Justice Department. If we consider the period of time in which capital
Capital Punishment
punishment was brought back in 1977 through 1985 when there were executions in the United States, we find that, on graph, there was a 23 per cent decrease nationally in homicides. The figures cannot be denied. They are there. They are not debatable. They are fact. But they are whole facts rather than the parts of facts that we have been getting for 10 years.
In conclusion, not only is there new evidence which needs to be heard, but Members opposite can no longer continue to filibuster the right to be heard, the right that these organizations which want to be heard have.
Members opposite are not speaking for the abolitionists when they say that they do not want to be heard. The Catholic Council of Churches has just raised $50,000 in order that it can be heard, because Parliament slammed the door. Members opposite have that on their conscience. As our homicide rate goes up, as the rate of first degree crimes go up and as innocent people, bystanders, shop owners, bank tellers and policemen, are murdered on the streets, Members opposite will have this to carry on their consciences. They cannot look across here and blame us because we can show that it has a deterrent effect.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are not talking about first degree and second degree murder. We are talking about first degree hypocrisy on behalf of the Government. In my view, the reason the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) has brought this motion before the House is that he does not believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The Prime Minister made a commitment during the last election campaign-and Members opposite know where I stand-on the issue of capital punishment. However, the Prime Minister, with whom I happen to agree on the issue of capital punishment, made a promise during the last election campaign that there would be a free vote in the House of Commons on the issue.
Here we are about two and a half years after that particular promise was made and we have yet to vote on the subject of capital punishment. I can understand the frustrations felt by the Hon. Member for Peterborough. If he had faith and trust in his boss, the Prime Minister of Canada, he would not be here this afternoon asking the House of Commons to pass a motion to have the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General consider the issue of capital punishment. If he believed the Prime Minister, then he would have patience. He would wait for the Prime Minister to fulfil his promise to have a vote here in the House of Commons.
We on this side of the House understand the frustrations of the Hon. Member, his frustration with the Prime Minister for not keeping his promises. I say to the Hon. Member: "Welcome aboard. We know how you feel because the Prime Minister has made many promises which he has not kept over the last two and a half years". As I look across the great divide here in the House I know that many, many members of the

February 2, 1987
Capital Punishment
Conservative Party are beginning to lose trust and faith in their own Prime Minister.


Philip Derek Lewis: Name one.


John V. Nunziata: We know that Canadians from coast to coast have lost trust and faith in the Prime Minister of Canada. Is it any wonder that he now leads the third Party in the House of Commons?
Enough about the Prime Minister and his promises. If we wait until the Prime Minister keeps his promises, I will be completely bald and you, Mr. Speaker, will be completely
gray.
The motion of the Hon. Member for Peterborough reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General be empowered to study and report on the arguments for and against capital punishment giving consideration to allowing the question of capital punishment to come to a free vote in the House.
The Hon. Member is an experienced Member of this place. He has been here for a number of years. Far be it for me to educate the Hon. Member with regard to the rules of the House. However, we do not have to empower the committee to study capital punishment. The committee can do so on its own. We do not need the House of Commons to say to members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General: "We hereby instruct each and every one of you to study capital punishment". He knows that the committee can undertake such a study on its own.
We must commend the Hon. Member for his commitment to his cause-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: His obsession!


John V. Nunziata: I suppose at times one could accuse the Hon. Member of being a fanatic about his cause. He is certainly irrational about his cause, as his 10-minute dissertation this afternoon illustrated.
The Hon. Member appeared before the committee. As a member of the Committee on Justice and Solicitor General I listened carefully to what the Hon. Member had to say. Yes, all members of the committee listened to the Hon. Member. The committee is presently in the process of considering whether or not to initiate a discussion, a debate or a study on the issue of capital punishment. The Hon. Member does not have patience, because the committee has yet to decide on this issue.
In his motion he states that the committee should give consideration to allowing the question of capital punishment to come to a free vote in the House. Once again I tell the Hon. Member that I am not here to educate him. But let me remind him that the Prime Minister has already made that promise. So why should the House of Commons be put in the position of having to tell the committee to keep the Prime Minister's promise? It does not make any sense at all.
We are not here this afternoon to study the pros and cons of capital punishment. The Hon. Member knows that. He knows that we are here to discuss his motion. Yet he proceeded to talk about the merits of capital punishment. This is not the time to talk about the merits of capital punishment, whether or not it is a deterrent and whether the homicide rate has increased or decreased since 1976. If the Prime Minister keeps his promise, there will be an opportunity to discuss this matter fully in a reasonable and responsible fashion so that parties on both sides of the subject matter can have an opportunity to air their views.
In my respectful submission, and in conclusion, I say that we know that there are Members of Parliament who have their own causes which they pursue. I say to the Hon. Member that he does an injustice to his own cause by using it to grandstand, to get on a soap-box to talk about capital punishment. What we need is a reasoned debate on the subject. We do not need the Hon. Member for Peterborough to stand high on his horse ranting and raving like a lunatic on the question of capital punishment.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


John V. Nunziata: In closing, I urge Hon. Members who have some understanding of the processes of the House and who have some concern about this issue to vote the motion down, thus giving the Prime Minister the opportunity to fulfil his promise. I for one will be voting against the reinstatement of capital punishment in Canada. However, I will make my complete submissions when the opportunity presents itself in the House, presumably over the course of this Parliament.
In the meantime, I suggest to the Hon. Member opposite, and all the rest of the Members of his hanging committee, to be patient and to put some trust and faith in their own Prime Minister. I know that it is hard, given his propensity to stretch the truth, given his propensity not to honour each and every commandment, but a time will come for us to vote on the issue in the House.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for agreeing with me on this particular subject.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago this House went through one of the most divisive and emotional debates on the subject of capital punishment. What we have seen today from the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) is an attempt to place front and centre on the parliamentary agenda that question which was clearly decided 11 years ago.
I understand the frustration, the anger, and the despair of the Hon. Member in that his own colleagues, in particular the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), have not perhaps moved as quickly on this important question as the Hon. Member for Peterborough would have liked. Surely what we must ask ourselves as a House is, has there been evidence since 1976,
February 2, 1987

since the House took the step of abolishing capital punishment, to suggest that in any way the decision that was made at that time was wrong? I suggest that the answer to that question is very clearly no, that in 1976 the House made the only possible decision on that fundamental question.
The House is not alone in being asked to consider the issue of capital punishment. In 1983, the United Kingdom Parliament was asked to reconsider the decision that was made on the question of capital punishment. The United Kingdom Parliament, dominated by Conservative Members of Parliament, headed by a Prime Minister who strongly supported capital punishment, overwhelmingly voted down the suggestion that capital punishment be reinstated in the United Kingdom.
I wish to quote from Jim McGrath on this issue. He now is serving with distinction as the Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland. Last year he said this:
-does Canada, with its new and enlightened Constitution, want to turn back the clock on progress and be one of the very few democracies to restore capital punishment? Why stop at capital punishment, why not restore corporal punishment? We have to ask ourselves what this would do to Canadian society and to Canadian jurisprudence. Do we as a nation join South Africa, the U.S.S.R., China, and the State of Alabama in imposing the death penalty on its citizens?
That is the question that Jim McGrath asked in 1986. That is the question that we, as Members of Parliament, must address today.
The Hon. Member for Peterborough made some remarks about deterrents, and talked about statistics. We do not have the time to look at the statistics. There are a couple of remarks that I wish to make about deterrents.
It is interesting to note that the President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Chief Robert Lunney of the Edmonton Police Department, has said this, and I quote: "It is futile to base an argument on reinstatement of capital punishment on the grounds of deterrence". It is also interesting to note that the largest number of deaths of police officers in Canada occurred in 1962, the last year that human beings were executed in Canada.
I mentioned the U.S.S.R. and the fact that the Soviet Union still has the death penalty. It is interesting to quote from an individual who is respected worldwide on this question, and that is Andrei Sakharov, who said:
1 regard the death penalty as a savage and immoral institution that undermines the moral and legal foundations of a society. I reject the notion that the death penalty has any essential deterrent effect on potential offenders. I am convinced that the contrary is true-that savagery begets only savagery.
That, Mr. Speaker, was said by Andrei Sakharov.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Let us listen to some of the victims of crime and their families. One of the most powerful statements that was made in 1976 during the debate on capital punishment was by Pauline Maitland, the widow of a police officer who was slain in Toronto, when she said:
Capital Punishment
I learned-that the man who killed my husband, P.C. Leslie Maitland, last February 1st, has now been sentenced to death. I would like you to know that the views of myself and my husband's family on capital punishment remain unchanged. We are totally against it. It would not bring Leslie back and it is too easy a way out for all of us. Society condemns murder, but is willing to accept the murder of this man in the name of justice. Please do what you can to prevent this second crime before it is too late. The killing of this man would be completely foreign to all the moral standards of both my late husband and myself.
As my colleague for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) says, then there is Donald Marshall, who served 11 years in prison for a murder that he did not commit. I ask each and every Member of this House, would you be prepared to stand and explain to the family of a man or a woman who was murdered by mistake that we are sorry, an error was made, but we cannot reverse that error?
Mistakes have been made. I have a copy here of a newspaper article with the headline, "Innocent Man to Go Free". This man was cleared of killings after nine years. If we were to reinstate capital punishment in this country, innocent men would not go free, because they would have been sent to their deaths.
The Hon. Member for Peterborough has said that we are not giving the abolitionists a forum. They have raised $50,000 because they wish to speak on capital punishment. I wish to say to the Hon. Member for Peterborough that it is not they who have chosen to speak on capital punishment. It is not the Church Councils that have put capital punishment on the political agenda. It is he and his fellow killers, and they are only responding to a lust for blood and revenge. They have not chosen to spend their money on this important issue; far be it from them to put this on the political agenda. No, Mr. Speaker. Those groups in Canada, including the Anglican Church of Canada, the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, the Lutheran Church in Canada, the Mennonite Central Committee, and the Pope himself who has spoken out strongly against capital punishment, believe that rather than talking about revenge and lust for blood, we should be talking about preventing violent crime and not contributing to more deaths in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: The arguments against capital punishment are clear and compelling. We must look at the prevention of violent crime. We must look at the whole question of gun control in our society. We must look at far more effective programs for dealing with young offenders, for pro-active rather than reactive police work, and better trained, better deployed, and better equipped police forces. We must look at profound changes to our prison system. We must work in our communities with organizations such as churches, schools, the labour movement, and others to prevent violent crime.
All of us in the Chamber share the concern for the protection of society. In closing, I wish to quote an editorial from The Globe and Mail on this subject, which I think very

February 2, 1987
Capital Punishment
eloquently sets out the concern which I and my colleagues have on this issue. It reads:
It is easy, to the cynical temptingly easy, at time of anxiety and uncertainty over jobs, over the dwindling value of the savings of a lifetime, over Canada's capacity to hold together, to whip up an emotional firestorm that exploits the dark side of the human psyche. This instinct to try to exorcise doubt and fear through the clenched fist, to seek shelter from the unknown in the embrace of a punitive authoritarianism, is as powerful as the urge that sends the lemmings stampeding to self-destruction. And we exploit it at our peril.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before recognizing the Parliamentary Secretary, I see the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) in the Chamber. I would just like to remind him not to involve the Chair in the debate, whether it is Private Members' Business or whatever.
I noticed that in his last sentence, as I was paying attention to the other side, he brought the Chair into the debate. I hope he will not involve himself in that process any more.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to enter into the debate on the motion. My remarks will not be directed strictly to the substance of the motion but rather to the process, because I submit that in any debate about capital punishment the process by which the debate proceeds is vital to a full and fair resolution of the issue.
I respect the views of those who propose and those who oppose this motion and this measure. I also respect their right to speak and represent not only their views but the views of their constituents.
In this matter we must address the following questions. When should the debate take place? Who should participate in the debate? Where should the debate take place-in the House of Commons, in a parliamentary committee such as the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, or a special committee? Also, should that committee travel?
I suggest that we should look at what the House should debate-a specific motion such as the one the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) brought forward, or a motion which, if successful, would set forth a plan of action to draft a specific Bill? As Members of Parliament we have a responsibility to address process just as seriously as we address substance in this particular matter.
During the last election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that a Progressive Conservative Government would allow a free vote on the question of capital punishment. That free vote will be held. However, the first question is when. On September 4, 1984, Canada was beset by economic and social problems. Our Government took action on many fronts. We concentrated first upon Canada's economic problems. Interest rates are down. A Canadian can go out and obtain a mortgage at the lowest rate in years as a result of our action. Unemployment is down. It is not where we want it, but it is down. Investor and consumer confidence are up, to name a
few economic indicators. There are still regional disparities, but our solutions are working and we are recovering from the recession.
On the social front, we took tough action on the problems of impaired driving, prostitution, and pornography. I suggest that that was the business the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General should have considered first. The Divorce Act has been revised to bring about realistic and thoughtful solutions to the problems of the eighties. Indian women have regained their rights. We have made significant progress on social issues.
Much has been made about the Government's promises. No Government can possibly be expected to complete action on all its promises and commitments on the first day of its mandate. We have not kept them all but our record is remarkable and responsible.
It would have been irresponsible to launch a full scale debate on the issue of capital punishment before we addressed the major economic and social problems of the day. Progress has been such that we are now in a position to proceed in an orderly fashion to consider the issue of capital punishment. I reiterate that a subject as important as capital punishment deserves a full and fair debate in a democratic society.
My colleague has brought forward his motion. He has other Bills on the Order Paper. No matter where one stands with him on the issue, he is fairly behind a full discussion of the matter. No matter where one stands, whether one is with him or against him, he has never denied the right of anybody to debate the subject.
The question remains: How do we do it? If the question is simply that the House resolves that capital punishment should be reinstituted in Canada and the question fails to pass on a free vote, the matter is resolved. There is no question that the matter is resolved. However, if the question is resolved in the affirmative, what is the next step? I have always said that the debate must be framed so that if the House votes to reinstitute capital punishment we have an orderly process to determine how the specific question is to be answered.
The Government has been considering an appropriate process for some time. The issue for process is not taken lightly by those who favour it on both sides of the House and by those who oppose it on both sides of the House. In the very near future I am sure we will see a proposal for an orderly debate on this important issue.
Every Member of the House, no matter what is his or her position on the issue, owes it to society to debate the issue on as high a level as possible. I suggest that this debate will be the ultimate test of every Member of the House. There will be some Members who will be in the fortunate position where their personal views and the views of their constituents will coincide. There will be others in a position of conflict, and their views will be at odds with those of their constituents. That is a tough position. We all know that as elected representatives.
February 2, 1987

I take no pleasure at finding my colleagues on all sides of the House in that difficult position, but that is what we are sent here to do. I suggest to Hon. Members of the House that we owe it to each other to be both passionate and dispassionate in this debate; passionate as the Members who have spoken before me have been in their personal views, and dispassionate as we consider the views of others.
This debate will be a great test. It will touch every Canadian-the innocent and the guilty, the judge and the jury, and the Crown and the defence. We will be judged as much by the way in which we reach the decision as on the decision itself. Let us all push ourselves to the limit to be worthy of the right to make that decision and to do it in as calm and as thoughtful a manner as possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) with considerable interest. I want to talk about his remarks. His concluding hope was that the type of inquiry implied by the resolution before us would be a dispassionate one, if that is what he is hoping for. I must tell him from my own experience of having debated the subject for a considerable number of times over the years it has been considered and reconsidered by the House that it is a pretty naive hope.
What I visualize and what I would expect this kind of hearing to be, travelling across the country, would be a gathering in each community of people who support capital punishment strongly. Many of them would have victims in their families or might themselves be victims of serious crimes. They would come forward and make their case. The other side, I regret to say, would be for a considerable part no less compassionate and motivated by their own life experiences. I do not mean to regret that; that is just part of human nature. It is part of the human condition to consider a life or death question in very passionate terms.
If the Hon. Member is hoping for a debate free from emotion and free from passion, I have to tell him that he is barking up the wrong tree with this kind of a study. I oppose this resolution. I believe most members of my own Party oppose it. We do not think that this is the time in which the issue of capital punishment should be debated to the extent of animating the passions and feelings of the entire country with a travelling road show of the sort to which this would inevitably give rise.
When the resolution was brought forward on behalf of the Hon. Member in the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, I was there to vote against it, but opposition Members were not successful in bringing the resolution to a conclusion in the time allocated for its discussion in the committee. That has to make me really wonder what it is the Government has up its sleeve, or if it even knows what it has up its sleeve.
Capital Punishment
The Hon. Member for Simcoe North set out a list of questions that the capital punishment debate should cover, questions that we should deal with when it is to take place, such as who is to put it into place, whether committees are to be involved in it, what the resolution is to be, what the amendment to the Criminal Code eventually, if it goes that far, is to be. I have to tell the Hon. Member that those are questions the Government should be answering not asking. The Government should not be coming to the House asking us to answer those questions. The Government has made many promises to the Canadian people which have not been kept and, in many cases, phoney excuses have been put forward to justify the breaking of them. For example, "The deficit is higher than we thought; and we cannot keep this promise". I think of the tragic betrayal of the Armenian people of Canada. The Government made one promise during the election campaign and then the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) had the gall to stand before the Armenian community and say that the Tories did not realize when they made the promise, what was involved in keeping it-another promise the Government made and did not keep. Other promises have been backed away from because vested interests have been too tough for the Government to take on. The Tories made a promise that lobbyists would be required to register, that legislation would be brought in. They made a promise that there would be conflict of interest guidelines enforced on Ministers. They made a promise that there would be tighter security of staff working in Ministers' offices. That promise was broken with some excuse or another. What is the excuse for leaving this matter to the back-benchers? None of them have stood up and said, "We are here on behalf of the promise made by the Government that there would be a debate".
Each Member who is committed to capital punishment or any of them who are committed to capital punishment are trying in their own minds to work out some scenario in which they can get the support from the House of Commons and can say that this will be the implementation of the promise of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney). Where is the Prime Minister? What is his promise? What is it that the Prime Minister had in mind when he made the promise that there would be a debate on capital punishment and there would be a free vote on capital punishment? No one on the government side is in a position to stand up and say that the Prime Minister wants this study to occur or that the Prime Minister has in mind that if the motion carries it will be dealt with in such and such a way.
What I think is that a desperate Government has come to the conclusion that capital punishment is a grabber, which it is, regrettably, as far as public opinion is concerned, and that if the capital punishment issue can be stirred up and can animate and engage the interests of the country, there will be a lot less concern with the subject that Members on this side of the House have been raising in the Question Period and that our constituents, when we go back home, and Canadians, when we travel across the country, have been telling us are the issues about which they really care.

February 2, 1987
Capital Punishment


Mr. Gustafson:: Talk about the economy.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I think we should be talking about the way the economy is performing, all right, about whether the Government can be trusted, about whether the country approves of the way the Government awards contracts, about 100 other matters that are more central to the concerns of Canadians, instead of those issues being the issues in the next election campaign. I can see a plot to beguile the Canadian people with the question of capital punishment. I think it is totally unworthy of a Government in a democratic society to seek to divert attention from its own performance and its own record to stir up public opinion on a passionate issue which, after all is said and done, when it is implemented, if it is implemented, will make very little difference to the crime rate in Canada.
Many people on this side of the House want to speak, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]
Personally, I should like to continue and use up entirely my ten minutes, but it is quite possible, if I allow other Hon. Members to rise, that we may have the chance on our side to continue. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my sincere regrets that the Government, again through one of its promises, uses a very emotive issue to try and distract Canadians from the very serious problems for which the Government is responsible.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of debate I do not think any of us relish. It is one that I have been through a couple of times before in this place. I want to say at the outset that I respect my colleague, the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) and those who share his views. I fully respect his right to try to bring before Parliament an issue on which he feels very strongly. I must say to my hon. friend that I think he has, to be as nice as I can about it, misused the desires and the wishes of the church groups and other organizations in Canada who oppose capital punishment. I am not aware of any of them demanding hearings at a special committee or the regular committee in order to discuss the viewpoints and the pros and cons of capital punishment. One thing I am aware of is that if they have raised $50,000, probably a lot more than that, they have raised it to fight just in case some Hon. Members want to return us to the 19th century.
I resent that kind of misuse of the motives, the capacities and the practices of all the church groups, the law societies, other organizations and so forth in using their names as some kind of a vehicle to justify the establishment of a special committee or use a regular committee of the House to discuss the pros and cons of capital punishment. I am not that desperate, Mr. Speaker, for any arguments I try to make on various measures in this place, and I sure as heck would not call upon those who disagree with me as evidence to support my case.
It has been said for decades to all Members of this House from all political Parties and on both sides of any issue that crops up that gathered a lot of public attention-and it has been said to us by many people in our respective constituencies-that you have to vote according to the wishes of your constituents. If all of us were to do that, we would be on one side of an issue one year and on the other side of an issue the next. If we were to do that, all of us would be all over the lot all the time on every issue, humming and hawing. To paraphrase Sir Edmund Burke, we owe our constituents our diligence, our best attention to their opinions and our maximum consideration of their views, but we are not their delegates. We are their representatives and we do not owe them our consciences.
While every Hon. Member has a perfect right to raise a matter such as this individually by way of a motion or a Private Member's Bill, it seems to me that if there is a commitment to change our laws by reinstating capital punishment, surely that is something that is a Government's responsibility. It is not up to a private Member. If the Government wants an expression of Parliament's views, it can put forward a resolution respecting the Criminal Code which would come to a vote that would be free for every Member of the House including members of the Government, i.e., the Cabinet. That would happen if the Government means business. If it is only going through the motions and is saying that there will be some kind of a free vote on the matter some way or another between now and the next election, methinks there is a lack of sincerity somewhere.
I can remember a famous Canadian who was once in this House with whom I agreed not too often but whom I always admired, and that was Mr. Diefenbaker. He always opposed the death penalty. I can recall him regaling us many times with stories of his out in the lobby or up in his office on his birthday. He told us that starting back in the early 1920s, he defended many people who were charged with murder about whom he has said: "I will go to my deathbed still convinced of their innocence".
I, like Mr. Diefenbaker and hundreds of thousands of others, would rather see a thousand guilty men remain in jail than take the chance of seeing one innocent person hang. As good as the courts are, even they make mistakes. With all our human frailties, I would rather see a person convicted of first-degree murder spend the next 25 years in jail than take the chance, no matter how remote it may be, of an innocent person hanging. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), has mentioned Donald Marshall as an example. Had capital punishment still existed, Mr. Marshall would be dead now and pardoned later. Surely no civilized society can countenance that kind of a risk.
Mr. Diefenbaker told a story about his great-grandfather who saw a boy hanged in Upper Canada for picking pockets in 1837. The boy was 17 years of age and everyone gathered for
February 2, 1987

the public execution. Mr. Diefenbaker's great-grandfather said that those Scottish people in North York turned up in large numbers and there was a great celebration. During the ceremonies at the execution, four people had their pockets picked. This simply indicates that the argument that the fear of capital punishment will greatly reduce the number of offences is not completely tenable or indeed tenable at all.
I would like to close my remarks by reminding Hon. Members of something we should all remember. Crime rates invariably go up in direct proportion to rates of unemployment and poverty. When, in a country like this, there are one million more people below the poverty line in the last five years, one can Find the origins of crime. People are left with no choice and they act out of desperation. How many Canadians without previous records have been convicted of murder, first or second-degree, after holding up a service station or a convenience store-although that is a little risky nowadays-and out of fright, terror and desperation ending up shooting people?
I am not allocating political blame, but am trying to be as non-partisan as possible. When we do something about the ills of society, the things that lead people to crime, when we put people to work so they may live in some kind of dignity and comfort, when people have reasonably equal opportunities in this dog-eat-dog world of ours, I submit that crime rates will go down and the feelings of those who want to reinstate the death penalty will change remarkably.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes remaining, it will be very difficult to put forward the basic principles that emerge in a debate like this. One principle is the question of the deterrence of capital punishment, and the other is the ethics of a state regulating the behaviour of society at any given time.
I will hardly be able to deal with the first point in the limited time available. I would simply say that so far, all studies produced for those who believe that capital punishment is a deterrent have failed to give that assurance by demonstrating that capital punishment is the answer that will ensure that crime is reduced and society is safer as a result of the imposition of such a measure.
In the United States, capital punishment has been introduced in some states. All studies done there point to the fact that society suffers from the same or perhaps even a greater rate of crime and murders, regardless of whether or not a particular state has introduced the measure of capital punishment.
The question that brings me into this debate is whether or not it is ethical for any state which has been given the responsibility by society to govern to introduce capital punishment and in that manner to reply to a murder in the cold-blooded way of taking another life. The question is whether or not such behaviour on the part of a state is ethical. I would be happy if time permitted me to go into this in greater length, but I would submit that it is definitely not ethical for a state to adopt that
Adjournment Debate
method of dealing with murder in a civilized society. I would call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the issue of food irradiation is one that preoccupies many Canadians from coast to coast. It is best represented by way of an example of a letter I received just two weeks ago from a person in North Vancouver. I will read a couple of paragraphs from the letter just to give the House an indication of the sentiments that accompany this issue. The letter says:
After learning of arguments pro and con, it is my position that irradiation of food presents potential health hazards that cannot be ignored.
I am requesting that all proposals and changes to regulations that would allow food irradiation be stopped; that all importation or sale of irradiated food be stopped and that all existing regulations that allow irradiation, importation or sale of irradiated food, be immediately rescinded.
This letter sets the tone for my brief intervention and I am very grateful to see the Parliamentary Secretary here tonight.
You will recall that on November 27, 1986, at page 1595 of Hansard the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) said on this question:
Mr. Speaker, the process of irradiating certain foods, such as in the treatment of potatoes, onions, wheat, and flour, has been used in the United States for some period of time. It is being used in Canada as well.
As a result of research I conducted since then it turns out that the irradiation of food has been legal in the U.S. for some time but not widely used. Mr. Sheppard, Chief of the Manufactured Food Division of Canada's Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, when he testified in committee on December 3, 1986, in response to the question as to whether or not irradiated food products from the U.S. are imported into Canada, said:
Spices are irradiated and it is quite possible, although I am not aware of it, that certain American products with irradiated spices are available on the Canadian market.
There are, I am told, some small experimental stations but no commercial food irradiation operations in the U.S. At present there are no regulations governing the importation of irradiated food and, perhaps more important, no practical

February 2, 1987
Adjournment Debate
method to prove that food has been irradiated and with what dose. As to the existence of any irradiated food in Canada, Mr. Paul O'Neill, President of the Atomic Energy of Canada Radio-Chemical Company, testifying in committee on December 11, 1986, said:
In fact, in Canada there really is no plant that is irradiating food products on a commercial basis. One or two may have done some test work, but there is no commercial irradiation of food in Canada at this time.
I am informed that in 1982, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration conducted a review of 441 studies done with regard to the potential toxicity of eating irradiated foods. Only "five studies appeared to support safety". Yet the Minister said on November 27, 1986, in reply to my question:
-it is a safe process within the limits which have been prescribed. All international studies have indicated that.
Some people believe the real impetus behind the irradiation concept is the fact that industrial society now has a fantastic accumulation of radioactive waste from nuclear plants for which no suitable disposal system has yet been found. The radioactive isotope used in food irradiation can be produced in the Candu nuclear reactor. Therefore, not surprisingly, Atomic Energy of Canada is a strong supporter of food irradiation.
I am told that when food is irradiated, unstable secondary products called free radicals are formed within the cells. These free radicals have been found to be a major potential factor in the formation of cancer, heart disease and other degenerative diseases. Destroyed cells putrefy and create toxic products. Muted cells multiply out of control and create malignancies and tumours.
I am told that according to a 1986 publication by the Health and Energy Institute of Washington, D.C., there is evidence suggesting that genetic and reproductive irregularities may be associated with the consumption of irradiated food, that aflatoxins, potent cancer-causing chemicals created by fungi occurring naturally in foods, were produced more abundantly than normal on irradiated foods in several studies; that vitamins A, C, E and especially B, may be destroyed by the process; that amino-acids and fats in foods may also be altered; and that irradiation does not protect food from contamination that may occur after the treatment unless, of course, it is tightly sealed at the time of irradiation. Also, meats must be irradiated in a vacuum since irradiation in the presence of oxygen causes rancidity in fat-containing foods. It states finally, that chemicals called "radiolytic products" are produced in foods by the radiation process. These include formaldehyde, peroxide, and others.
Other interesting aspects relating to food irradiation include the fact that bacteria which cause botulism are highly resistant to irradiation and can proliferate without competition in foods irradiated to get rid of other bacteria. Foods must be exposed to 5,000 to 5 million rads of radiation. Approximately 500 rads over a short period of time is a lethal dose for most humans, raising the question of worker safety in food irradiation plants.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On that note I would like to call upon the Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. Roger Clinch (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, as evidenced by the interest expressed by the Hon. Member, food irradiation is also a topic of considerable interest to many Canadians. This House, through the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs, has heard a number of witnesses and has additional meetings scheduled.
Let me reiterate the response made in the House on November 27 by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). Our concern for safety is overriding and continuing. In this regard, food irradiation has been extensively studied by various agencies world-wide. Within the dose levels that would be used in practice, the process is safe.
The irradiation of some foods has been permitted under the Food and Drug Act for some time. Treatment of potatoes and onions to prevent sprouting, of wheat, flour and whole wheat flour for insect disinfestation, and of spices for microbial control are allowed by the regulation. However, I have been advised that no irradiated food is currently being sold in Canada.
By way of background, the former Government put forward an information letter in 1983, proposing new regulations applicable to the process. The Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare has been reviewing comments received in response to this information letter. A second information letter will be issued in the next calendar year. This second information letter will respond to the comments and concerns that have been expressed by the Hon. Member and other interested parties and will enunciate the Department of National Health and Welfare's final position in this process.
In keeping with the Government's policy of ensuring public input on major regulatory initiatives, there will be a period in which further public comment will be solicited.
There have been many questions raised about the United States Food and Drug Administration's position on food irradiation versus that of Canada. While the United States Food and Drug Administration has recently approved the irradiation of any food item up to an absorbed dose of 1 kiloGray, only those foods listed in Division 16 of the Canadian Food and Drug Regulations may be irradiated and offered for sale in Canada.
In addition to those foods previously mentioned, wheat, whole wheat, flour and spices are also permitted to be irradiated. Any proposals to irradiate additional food items will have to be evaluated by the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare, irrespective of the applied dose, and only those foods deemed to be acceptable will be added to the approved list. Thus irradiated foods are, and will continue to be, strictly controlled in Canada.
February 2, 1987


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION ANNOUNCED IN SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Alan Redway: I do not know how you feel, Mr. Speaker, but every time I turn on the water tap in my home, I wonder how long I will have the opportunity to drink that water. I wonder just how long that water will be fit for my consumption, for the use of my family and of other Canadians. As I turn on the tap in my home and I see the water flowing into the basin or sink, I cannot help but think of the hideous problem of the chemical dumps along the south side of the Niagara River in the State of New York. I cannot help but think of those four in particular which were formerly owned by Hooker Chemical and now owned by Occident Chemical, the Love Canal, the 102nd Street Dump, the S-Area Dump and the Hyde Park Dump, all of which are seeping slowly through the rocks along the river banks into the Niagara River and filling it with deadly Dioxin as well as other chemicals.
In one area in particular, as you know, Mr. Speaker, there is a sewer which flows from one of these dumps directly into the Niagara River carrying deadly Dioxin. If that continues, it will not be very long before the drinking water in the Niagara River, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River will be destroyed forever. That drinking water is utilized by some six million Canadians who stand to have their drinking water wiped out just like that.
The problem of pollution of the water is only one of the many problems we face in our environment with respect to pollution in general. However, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, and all Canadians know, the problems of pollution in our environment are not just problems I feel personally, but problems all Canadians feel. In fact in a recent poll, environmental problems were identified as the number one concern of all Canadians.
Bearing that in mind, I know that other Canadians as well as myself and you, Mr. Speaker, were very pleased when in the Speech from the Throne there was a promise to give us some new environmental protection legislation. In fact, I was pleased that shortly after I asked my question of the Minister in the House, he unveiled a draft form of new environmental protection legislation. That set out a number of proposals or principles. First, it introduced the concept of life cycle management of toxic chemicals; second, it would require industry to test and evaluate all new chemicals for environmental or other human health hazards before being introduced into the Canadian market-place; third, existing chemicals would also be more strictly tested and controlled; fourth, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of the Environment would be authorized to order companies to recall toxic chemicals at their own expense, and fifth, the Ministers would have the power to order industry to clean up environmental spills and to monitor compliance with those orders. In addition, there would also be the power to temporarily shut down any activity which is judged to be dangerous. In addition to all of that, there are new penalties which would impose a maximum fine of up to $1 million and a five-
Adjournment Debate
year maximum term of imprisonment as opposed to the present penalties.
The Environmental Contaminants Act provides for a maximum fine of $100,000 and two years imprisonment, while the Clean Air Act provides for a maximum fine of $200,000. In my view those are great improvements. I was delighted to see the draft legislation introduced into the House. However, I was disappointed by the fact that while the legislation deals with what goes on from now on, from the date of the passage of the legislation into the future, it does not deal with cleaning up problems created in the past. It does not deal with cleaning up the toxic chemical dumps to which I have referred. It does not deal with cleaning up the St. Lawrence River, the St. Clair River, Lake Ontario or the Niagara River.
There are a great many problems in our country at this time. We may not be able to force the United States to adopt some environmental protection or to clean up some of the spots in the U.S. which impact on us in Canada. There are also a great many hot spots, a great many environmental problems, in Canada to which we can address our attention and which we can clean up.
As the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, there are a great number of these spots around the Great Lakes. In fact, there are a number of hazardous waste chemical dumps in Canada. The Ontario Minister of the Environment, for instance, has identified the 10 most dangerous and serious of those as being at Sarnia, London, Acton, Tiny Township, Burlington, Streetsville, Oakville, Niagara Falls and Oshawa.
In addition, there are 32 municipalities in Ontario, including three sewage treatment plants in Metropolitan Toronto, which are discharging into the Great Lakes in excess of the levels set out in their operating permits.
There are 45 industries discharging levels in excess of their operating permits-


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


Alan Redway: I hope tonight, Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary will give us the answer to the question of dealing with the clean-up of the past as well as the future.


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry and Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to compliment personally the Hon. Member who never misses an opportunity to raise the issue which he has brought up this afternoon. He makes his points very forcefully. This is an extremely important issue. It is one that is very important to me and it should be important to all Canadians.
He raises a good point when he says that the legislation fails to look into the past. I recommend that when the hearings are held and the committee work is being done on the Bill that

February 2, 1987
Adjournment Debate
that should be something the Hon. Member could personally look into and see if he can have it remedied.
As Hon. Members are aware, on December 18, 1986, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) tabled a proposed environmental protection Act for discussion purposes. This draft Bill will lead to eventual legislation that will be introduced to Parliament for first reading before the summer recess.
The Minister and the Government are committed to preserving human health and to ensuring the safety and protection of our environment. We recognize that those who make chemicals, those who regulate them and those who use them have a shared responsibility to safeguard our common life support systems from the dangers that chemicals pose.
The proposed environmental protection Act provides for cradle-to-grave management of chemicals from their development, through their manufacture, transport, use and storage, to their release into the environment in such forms as waste or emissions. It emphasizes prevention of harm to the environment and human health. It consolidates the environmental protection provision of the Clean Air Act and certain sections of the Canada Water Act. The proposed Act also includes the section of the Department of Environment Act which allows the Minister of the Environment to establish environmental protection guidelines for federal departments and agencies to use in exercising their mandates.
The consultation and comment period of the draft Bill will run from January I to the end of March, 1987. In January, Environment Canada held information sessions on the proposed environmental protection Act which were open to all interested parties. Departmental officials explained the intent and key elements of the draft Bill. In February and March, formal and open consultation meetings will be held to discuss with participants any problems involving the proposed Act and potential solutions, culminating in a national meeting in Ottawa on March 23 and 24. Anyone is welcome to submit comments in writing to the Minister of the Environment during the three month consultation period. All observations and comments will be considered during the drafting of the Bill before its first reading.
In conclusion, I can assure the Hon. Member that the Government has these matters well in hand, and it is moving forward on this issue.


AGRICULTURE-FUEL TAX REBATE-DENIAL TO FARMERS USING VEHICLES ON-HIGHWAYS. (B) REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF REBATE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my concern is with elements of the federal fuel sales tax rebate program, and follows my questions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on January 26, 1987.
The federal fuel sales tax rebate program was announced in
the Economic Statement of November, 1984. It became
effective December 1, 1984. Its purpose was to provide temporary fuel sales tax relief to primary producers, including farmers. It would run from December 1, 1984, to January 1, 1987. That sunset was later extended to January 1, 1988.
The initial sales tax rebate was 3 cents per litre. It was increased to 5.5 cents per litre effective May 1, 1986. It was increased to 6.5 cents a litre on January 1, 1987.
The legislation states that eligible users must use the fuel off-highway for commercial purposes. Use of on-highway or off-highway as a criterion for any type of agricultural program simply flies in the face of the practical facts. Obviously, farmers have to use the highways for the purposes of hauling grain, fertilizers and chemicals, to move machinery, to secure parts and to go for repairs. Some pieces of equipment have multiple uses. Some trucks have attached to them spraying equipment and snowploughs. The point is that whether the farm business is done on-highway or off-highway, it has no relevance to a farming operation, and the drafters of the legislation should know that.
It is interesting to note that the federal excise gasoline tax refund program, which rebates 1.5 cents excise tax per litre on gasoline, is based on fuel used in the course of business, and it excludes fuel used for personal usage.
What should be important is whether the fuel was used in the business of farming. If it was, then it is a legitimate expense for income tax purposes, and I submit that it should be eligible for the fuel sales tax rebate, regardless of whether it is used on the highway or off.
The provisions in the Income Tax Act are one thing, and the criteria for the excise rebate are another. The fuel sales tax rebate provisions are a third item, and supposedly separate and distinct. Yet, in the mind of any responsible person in the business of farming, it is extremely difficult to make that distinction. Surely the answer is to change either the Act, which would be the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, or to change the enforcement procedure, which would be the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay).
Earlier, concern was expressed about the procedure to be followed by Revenue Canada in the verification of claims for rebate of the federal fuel sales tax. Finally, in July of 1986 the Minister of National Revenue issued guidelines which were supposed to simplify and reduce the paper burden for farmers.
Revenue Canada advised that for farmers who did not have detailed records for on-highway/off-highway use of fuel, the Department would accept rebate claims for 80 per cent of the fuel purchases only after the claimant had deducted fuel purchases for personal use. In other words, the farmer would first subtract his personal usage, and then be entitled to claim on 80 per cent of what was left, the deduction of 20 per cent intended to cover on-highway usage.
As one would expect, after eliminating their personal usage factor, many farmers are claiming the sales tax rebate on the
February 2, 1987

balance of their fuel, because they have used it in the business of farming, whether on-highway or off-highway. Predictably, Revenue Canada auditors are having a field day. They are inquiring of the farmer as to proof of business use of fuel, whether the farmer has daily mileage records, logs, completed schedules of fuel and gasoline purchases, and vehicle inventory. I have a letter from an excise auditor who wishes detailed descriptions of usage of gasoline or diesel consumed in each vehicle used in the fields, and detailed descriptions of gas or diesel consumed in each vehicle used off the fields.
That may make sense to a Revenue Canada auditor, but it makes no sense whatever on the farm. Unless the farmer can prove that the business fuel was used off-highway, his claim is reduced to 80 per cent. Also he is reassessed for any excess rebate paid, plus interest, plus a penalty, and the resultant hard feelings. The point is that this is being done in the name of a completely artificial and arbitrary standard of on-highway/off-highway which simply has no relevance to today's farming.
The fuel tax rebate program is a good one. I think the farm community is very happy with it. Given the problems facing agriculture, 1 think the rebate should carry on beyond January 1, 1988. In fact conditions dictate that. I urge the Minister to carry on with the program or to replace it with something similar in his upcoming Budget.
Finally, the farm community likes the fuel tax rebate. All it asks is that the Ministers involved consider either changing the legislation so as to eliminate this inane distinction of on-highway/off-highway as one of the criterion or, in the alternative, that the Minister of National Revenue instruct the field auditors of Revenue Canada to permit farmers to take the rebate on 80 per cent of their total fuel bill, not on what is left after their personal expenses have been taken.
I suggest that either of these changes will enable the Government to say truly that it has effectively offset federal taxes on farm fuels.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) who, on the one hand, has presented a very up-to-date view of the issue he has raised
Adjournment Debate
and who, on the other hand, has demonstrated ever since he came to the House a deep interest for all matters dealing with agriculture and his sincere interests in the farmers of his ridings and the rest of Canada.
Since 1984, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has made major changes to federal consumer taxes, especially those affecting fuel used in farming. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to present a brief summary, somewhat like my Hon. friend did.
In the fall of 1984, the Conservative Government set up a fuel tax rebate program as a response to the special problems primary producers were experiencing. This rebate amounted to 3 cents a litre. Since May 1986, the rebate for farmers is 3 1/2 cents a litre. In addition to that, there is a special 2 cents a litre rebate on excise tax which applied and which, effective January 1987, applies to 3 cents a litre.
Finally, on top of all that, there is a 1 1/2 cent a litre reimbursement of the excise tax which applies to all Canadians, including farmers.
My colleague from Swift Current-Maple Creek is asking that a distinction no longer be made between on-highway and off-highway fuel used for agricultural purposes. In my opinion, his request is justified when we look at it from his own viewpoint. But in a more practical approach, Mr. Speaker, think of the very complex system that would be required to ensure fairness and equity. One might draw a parallel between a farmer who uses his own vehicles and claims the tax rebate, and another one who uses a carrier. Well, would this carrier as well be eligible for the tax rebate? Just to be on the safe side, we would also have to define just what kind of farm commodities can be transported. Mr. Speaker, you can well imagine the forms and red tape-perhaps even a system not quite as fair as the one we have now-we would need to meet the requirements of my colleague.
Moreover, we know that Revenue Canada decided to grant farmers 80 per cent of the tax rebate without asking them to submit any evidence.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel the present situation is fair to farmers. Thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, February 3, 1987