1987-06-17

Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, over the last several years I have had many inquiries from veterans denied War Veterans Allowance because of a technicality. When the definition of "theatre of war" was extended in 1981 to include persons who had been transported by ship or aircraft beyond Canada's three-mile territorial water limit while on duty, those veterans of Canada's forces who had crossed the Northumberland Strait became eligible.
However, one class of veterans was left out. These veterans, after preliminary documentation in Charlottetown, had received government warrants to travel from P.E.I. to the mainland. However, years later, when they applied for War Veterans Allowance benefits, they were told they were not considered forces because they had not been attested, or sworn in, in Halifax. But these men had in fact crossed the Strait on orders of the Department of National Defence. They were no longer civilians.
For years, I have written letters and made representations on their behalf.
One veteran, Mr. Douglas Maclaren, did not take no for an answer. He took his case to court. I am indeed pleased to learn that yesterday the Federal Court ruled in his favour.
I hope the Department of Veterans Affairs will now act quickly to give those veterans the benefits which should have never been denied in the first place.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, for the past few years the CBC has had to cope with even stricter financial restraints, and programming choices are increasingly more difficult to make.
Quebec Games President Claude Poirier-Defoy heard that the broadcast of the Quebec Games finale, to be held from August 7 to August 16 this summer, was definitely not a sure thing.
I immediately got in touch with the CBC and, with the support of the Val-d'Or organizing committee and the President of the Quebec Games, we made strong representations to CBC Vice-President Franklin Delaney so that 4,000 young Quebec athletes might be able to perform before the viewers in the Province of Quebec and before their friends and relatives.
It was in a difficult context that the CBC reconsidered its decision and, following this new examination, President Pierre Juneau assured me on June 11, 1987 that the French network will telecast the 1987 edition of the Quebec Games finale in Val-d'Or.
I can only commend the CBC team, and I thank Mr. Pierre Juneau.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, today the national leaders of the youth wings of Canada's three major political Parties issued an unprecedented joint statement urging Canada's Parliament to vote against the reinstatement of the death penalty. In part they said:
We are young Canadians, active in the political process, who have come together to express our opposition to the reinstatement of the death penalty. Although we differ on many issues, there are those, crossing all party lines, in which there is clearly a right path and a wrong path to take. While we do not- claim to speak for all those we represent in our respective party organizations, nonetheless, we are allowed, as you are, freedom of conscience and expression as individuals. We agree with the Leaders of our Parties that the death penalty has no place in the Canadian system of justice.

June 17, 1987
The statement is signed by Elaine Fox, Chairperson of the Youth Steering Committee of the New Democratic Party; Johnathan Schneiderman, President of the Young Liberals of Canada; and Irene Porter, President of the Progressive Conservative Youth Federation.
All Members of Parliament should salute these young people for their courage and should take heed of their very important message.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada gave the workers of Canada Post the right to strike, and now we have a legal strike that can continue indefinitely or until agreement is reached.
In the meantime, Canada Post, the workers, and their families are inconvenienced, but the real sufferers will be the people of Canada-individuals, families, and small businesses.
The last long strike by Canada Post employees caused several businesses to go bankrupt. In other words, a strike injures the innocent third parties, in this case the people, the industry, the farmers, and the businesses. Strikes and lock-outs once had their place, but today the wrong people suffer because of them.
Businesses, industry-everybody depends on getting and receiving their mail, and the country cannot operate without a good postal system. Canada Post is an essential service. Once this legal strike ends, I recommend that the right to strike and the right to lock out workers by Canada Post be withdrawn and a system be set up that will be fair to the workers, the employer, and to the Canadian people.


SEAMANSHIP
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons, Nova Scotians, and all other Canadians will want to congratulate John Hughes, a Nova Scotian who, on Sunday, arrived back in his home port of Halifax-Dartmouth. He had successfully achieved his goal of travelling around the world by sea, a trip of 27,000 nautical miles.
Mr. Hughes was voted as the most courageous and inspirational participant in the race for the BOC Spirit of Challenge Award. What made his voyage outstanding was his ability to overcome an enormous obstacle-the loss of his mast-by fastening a jury-rigged sail. With his makeshift mast, only 80
square feet of sail, John Hughes travelled from the southeast of New Zealand for an incredible 4,400 miles around Cape Horn to the Falkland Islands. His achievement is outstanding.
By the time he reached his final destination, his trip totalled 224 days, 13 hours, 55 minutes, and 24 seconds. John Hughes arrived in Newport, Rhode Island, in time for the awards dinner on May 30, 1987. His perseverance and courage in his yacht, The Joseph Young, were recognized by the playing of the Canadian National Anthem.


TAX SYSTEM
Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, in a few hours the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will table the long-awaited tax reform project. Once again, by revamping the tax system, we will honour one of the major election commitments made in September 1984.
A number of tax reforms have already been made over the past two years. However the present system still weighs too heavily on individual taxpayers, a situation we have inherited from the previous administration. The only way to improve the situation is to strengthen our economy and create jobs. This happens to be one of the first objectives of the reform.
Canadians want a fairer, less complicated and more understandable tax system, a system which more faithfully reflects our commitment to economic growth and social justice. We can achieve our objectives by taking a concerted and comprehensive approach to the removal of unproductive tax privileges, the review of corporate taxation and federal sales taxes, and through reform propositions based of past progress.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, Canada can no longer continue to promote vigorous trade ties with South Korea while ignoring the brute force imposed by the vicious dictatorship of President Chun Doo Hwan. We cannot turn a blind eye to the scores of human rights abuses documented by Amnesty International, or to the military force used to suppress the cries of students, religious leaders and others who are fighting for democratic reform,
June 17, 1987

freedom of the press, the right to assembly and other civil liberties that we in Canada take for granted.
In 1985 South Korea had a $831 million trade surplus with Canada and a two-way trade of $2.38 billion. About 85 per cent of its exports to Canada, led by the sale of Hyundai passenger cars, are job-creating manufactured products. How long do we continue to provide preference for the products of a country where injustice cheapens wages at the expense of Canadian workers?
How can we meet a commitment to send our athletes to the Olympic Games in a country where oppression sustains national unrest?
How long will the Government pursue a policy of silence before the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) speaks out for an end to repression in South Korea?


350TH ANNIVERSARY OF CITY OF SILLERY


TRIBUTE TO ORGANIZERS AND CONGRATULATIONS TO CITIZENS
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, one of the oldest towns in North America is celebrating its 350th anniversary with ten days of festivities. I am referring to Sillery, which is in my riding.
I want to congratulate the organizers under the leadership of Mr. Jacques Ouellet and Mayor Margaret Delisle, as well as their team of advisers, on the beauty and simplicity of these festivities and the many cultural events that are being offered. Everything is being done to show Canadians the breathtaking beauty of our natural sites, and to tell them about the various historic events that took place and especially the people who made those events.
During the last two centuries, the town has been famous the world over for its shipbuilding industry. The climax of the festivities will undoubtedly be the signing of a document, twinning Sillery with the small town of Sillery, in France.
I want to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations, on behalf of the Canadian Government, to all the people of Sillery.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian people should censure this
Conservative Government for the way it is behaving in the Post Office dispute.
First of all, the Conservative Government is responsible for the confrontation and for the postal strike we are having now, because of the cutbacks introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
Second, it is absolutely disgraceful that this Government and its Prime Minister, who was personally involved in labour relations, should side with the Canada Post Corporation, a Crown corporation that is fooling the unemployed into thinking they will get jobs with Canada Post.
Third, this Government is guilty of aiding and abetting the confrontation we are seeing on the picket lines.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge Conservative Members, who I know disagree privately with the Government's attitude, to make their views known to the Prime Minister and urge him to bring Canada Post into line.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, a recent study estimates that about one million Canadian women are psychologically and often physically abused by their husbands or boyfriends. Services for battered women have increased dramatically over the last five years and yet, for every woman staying in a shelter, another is turned away.
Moreoever, existing shelters, including one in my hometown, are experiencing financial funding difficulties. Although church and community volunteers have laboured hard in the past to provide such services and initially without any government financial assistance, the extent of the problem is now such that Governments at all levels must accept a continuing role to ensure that shelters and services are available on a reasonably uniform basis. For that reason I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and his provincial counterparts to act quickly to ensure that women's shelters have the necessary core funding to guarantee both urban and rural women access to shelters and well-trained counsellors.
While we continue to wish the problem of battered women did not exist, the reality is that it does. Therefore, Governments at all levels must respond both quickly and adequately.

June 17, 1987
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


NATURAL SUGAR SWEETENER INDUSTRY
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, sugar-beet and high fructose corn producers need a natural sugar sweetener policy to bring some stability to the industry and hope for the future. The Tariff Board recently released its report on the industry. It studied three possibilities-a minimum floor price, stabilization, or buy-out schemes.
The researchers did not think a floor price of 12 cents a pound was necessary because they believed raw sugar prices are on the upswing and will eventually approach this figure. However, they did not consider cyclical price variations, nor did they address the issue of countries dumping sugar on Canada's doorstep and depressing our price.
The report expresses fear of increasing the price to industrial users and having it passed on to consumers, yet it did not worry about the fact that the price of products with a substantial sugar content has increased substantially since 1981 even though world sugar prices have plummeted. Nor did the researchers they explain why U.S. sugar products sell at less than Canadian prices even though U.S. producers have a substantial floor price.


REHABILITATION SALON
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: 

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, what is the Prime Minister doing about the fact that today 20 leading tax consultants have inside information about tomorrow night's tax reform statement and documents? What is the Prime Minister doing about the fact that these lawyers and accountants, whose firms make millions of dollars from providing tax advice, are in Ottawa today reviewing that White Paper? Why do some wealthy Canadians have privileged access to information which Members of Parliament and average Canadian taxpayers do not yet have? What is the reason? What is the justification? What is he going to do about it?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that surprises me coming from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I understand that when he was Minister of Finance this same sort of thing went on.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: If Hon. Members would let me continue? Experts are brought in and asked to take the same oath of secrecy that public servants take. Then they provide guidance to departmental officials on the technical aspects of the proposals put forward on a range of issues.
As I said, this has been going on for a number of years. It was increased following the 1981 Budget because of the problems which arose at that time, in order to avoid the glitches which can come into this type of proposal.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this incident is unbelievable, unjustifiable and very alarming for the country. These tax reform propositions to be unveiled tomorrow are so important that the Minister of Finance will wait until all Canadian stock markets have closed down before making his presentation tomorrow night. They are so important that he will make them public in a countrywide televised speech. How can the Prime Minister justify the fact that the Minister of Finance has held secret meetings where 20 accountants and lawyers specializing in tax matters were able to scrutinize these confidential propositions ahead of
June 17, 1987

the Canadian people and even ahead the Members of this House?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is the same process as that followed by previous administrations, including the Government of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, if I am not mistaken. The process is the same, we invite tax experts to avoid the kind of problems we had with earlier budgets, so the situation is the same as in the past.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is not the same procedure at all. Previous Ministers of Finance, myself included, sought all the advice possible, decided how their Budget was to be written, and then closed the doors. This document has already been put to bed. These tax experts can give the Minister no advice now. The document has already been written.
They have been co-opted by the Minister of Finance to try to sell the message across the country. In return for that they get an advantage over their competitors and over every other Canadian. That is exactly what happens.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Minister can look for precedents but he will look in vain because this is absolutely unprecedented.


Mr. Crosbie:: Question.


John Napier Turner: How does the Prime Minister respond to this outrageous conduct on the part of the Minister of Finance? Does he not feel that with regard to the importance of this tax reform paper that Minister ought to be fired?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw one single fact to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition. This is not a Budget. It is a White Paper. It is a proposal on tax reform.


John Napier Turner: Why have a lock-up? Why have national television?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we do not have to have a lock-up.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We are trying to allow people from the opposition benches as well as the media to become aware of the range of things in the paper in order that they can make appropriate comments based on more than just
Oral Questions
hearing me speak from my place at eight o'clock tomorrow evening.
The Hon. Member may want to think back to what happened when he and every other Minister of Finance was in office.


Mr. Gauthier:: Not after the fact.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I can give him chapter and verse that, when previous Governments were in office, throughout the year they took the advice of experts from the tax community, whether it be lawyers or accountants, in order to make the process work better and to make the product better.


INQUIRY WHY TAX REFORM WILL BE KNOWN BY EXPERTS BEFORE BEING MADE PUBLIC
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is trying to play with words. Nobody, including the Leader of the Opposition and myself, is blaming the Minister for seeking expert advice.
But, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I see that, 48 hours before public release, a supposedly confidential document has been given to experts who simply cannot be expected to advise the Minister since the documents have all been printed.
So I would ask the Minister why 20 experts, friends of his, are meeting in Ottawa today to study a document which will be released only tomorrow night to the Canadian people and the Members of this House?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Members for their applause.


An Hon. Member:: It's not for you.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me remind the Hon. Member that this is a White Paper, not a Budget. That is a very clear distinction that the Hon. Member should recognize.
These people have been involved in this process for, I believe, some six or seven months. They have added immeasurably to the process in order to look at the detailed technical aspects from a practical standpoint so that we have the combination of advice from the officials of the Department and the advice from these experts from the private sector, acting as a sounding board. I think that makes a better process and that Hon. Members opposite should be applauding me for proceeding in this way so that we can have a better process.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance does not seem to appreciate the gravity of the situation. We are not talking about consultation. We are talking about a paper that has already been written

June 17, 1987
Oral Questions
and its privileged access to a few tax people, who are probably friends of the Party, who are allowed to see the paper and seek special advantages for themselves or their firms.
If they are allowed to see the White Paper today, why do Members of this House not have the same privilege? Why should we have to wait until tomorrow to prepare our answer to the Minister when people outside the House have read the paper? Why did the Minister not wait until tomorrow and give the same advantage to all people at the same time? Why this special treatment for your friends?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear. It is not special treatment for my friends. I do not know many of those people.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think I know three or four of them. They are technical advisers to the Department of Finance officials. I met with a small group of them on one occasion, but they have been meeting with finance officials on an ongoing basis to provide technical advice, as a sounding board, on a range of alternatives, some of which might be in the White Paper, some of which might not.
The answer to the specific comment that the Hon. Member made is that they have not read the White Paper as a whole.


ROLE OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is about the propriety of the situation of which we just learned, that the Minister of Finance has given privileged access to information about his tax White Paper to a group of professionals in the hope of inspiring favourable comment on the tax reform when it is made public in a couple of days.
Is it appropriate in a parliamentary setting that the Prime Minister's Office should have drawn aside groups of journalists from CTV and CBC and other places to try to ensure that they give favourable treatment to the tax White Paper, and that the Minister of Finance should be doing the same? Where does Parliament come in all of this, and why is Parliament not put first?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Parliament has been a part of this. Parliament has been involved. I think the Hon. Member himself has been part of briefing sessions-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -from finance officials on various components of the tax reform. If the Hon. Member is referring to backgrounders which are being given to members of the media, that is exactly the same process, with the possible
exception that the Hon. Member has been getting more detail than the members of the media.


INQUIRY IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO GIVE DETAILS OF WHITE PAPER TO EXPERTS WHILE EXCLUDING PARLIAMENTARIANS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance.
In the past few days, the experts, acountants and people in the investment industry have all had the details on tax reform in the White Paper prepared by the Minister of Finance and his department. Meanwhile, Opposition Members have to stay in a lock-up tomorrow until noon to get the details on the tax reform proposals prepared by the Minister of Finance and his department during the last two years.
My question is as follows: Is it fair for the Minister of Finance to give all these details to the experts and try and influence the opinion of professionals, while at the same time excluding parliamentarians from this process?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has got it wrong, all wrong. These experts have taken an oath of secrecy. I do not believe the Hon. Member would submit himself to an oath of secrecy on this particular issue.
This group of experts, a small group of experts, has been asked by the Department of Finance to act as a sounding board for a range of proposals, some of which may be in the White Paper and some of which may not. That is the basis on which they are doing this and it is a practice which has been followed for years and years by the Department of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: That is not true.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is not true.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are really desperate now. Why don't you get an issue with substance? It is a nightmare to come back and listen to you.


John Napier Turner: Why don't you go back to Paris and stay there?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre has the floor.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Just because it was done by the Liberals doesn't make it right to be done by the Progressive Conservatives.


Ms. Copps:: False, false, false.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON CONSULTATION
Michael Morris Cassidy: My question is about the ordinary Canadians who have not been consulted in this
June 17, 1987

way by the Government. Did the Government bounce off its ideas on people from the trade unions, on farmers, on fishermen, on small businesses? Did the Government consult them? Or did it just consult tax lawyers and accountants and ask them for their opinions? What kind of equity is there in that, Mr. Speaker?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the development of tax policy-and I am not trying to make a distinction between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party-


Mr. Riis:: There isn't any. You can't do it. Don't even try.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -I am just saying that this is a practice which has been going on for years within the Department of Finance. The officials of the Department of Finance have found it useful to bounce ideas off a group of experts-


Michael Morris Cassidy: What about ordinary Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -so they can understand the technical impact of these proposals to make sure that when the proposals are brought in in the form of either a White Paper or a Budget, they are going to be far sounder than was the case of instances in the past when this sort of advice was not taken as fully as it might have been. That is the purpose for this exercise.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post.
The Government caused the postal strike by putting impossible restrictions on the Canada Post Corporation. Union members would be willing to settle for the status quo plus protection against inflation, but the Canada Post Corporation cannot even give them that, because the Government has put it in a financial straitjacket.
If we want to settle this dispute, we will have to deal with the crux of the problem, and the question is: Is the Government prepared to take the only step that would help solve this problem, which is to reconsider its priorities with respect to postal services and give Canada Post the financial flexibility it needs if it is to pursue these negotiations with any hope of success?
Oral Questions


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the Marchment Committee pointed out in its study released last year, the previous administration left the Post Office in a terrible mess-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Baloney to you, too.


Harvie Andre: -and its virtual survival is in question. This House agreed unanimously in 1981 to the creation of a Crown corporation with the intent that the Crown corporation, under the direction of its board of directors, would manage that operation in a sound fashion. That is what it is trying to do. The Hon. Member, by bringing issues from the table onto the floor of the House of Commons, is going against the position taken by his Party, the New Democratic Party, and this Party.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Quit cheerleading.


Harvie Andre: No one wants a strike. Everyone wants to see a resolution negotiated at the table. But it is not healthy to have the Hon. Member bringing forward false, misleading, inaccurate information-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is not true.


Harvie Andre: -before the House, claiming he knows what needs to be done.


ROOM FOR MANOEUVRING IN NEGOTIATIONS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Canada Post is very far out to lunch. If he had read the Marchment report, he would remember that it recommended giving the corporation until 1990 to balance its budget, not just until the end of this fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, the worst of it is that the Government, by using replacements to deliver the mail, is manipulating the unemployed and forcing them into confrontations with regular workers. This can only lead to violence and deterioration of the system-


John Carnell Crosbie: Question.


Jacques Guilbault: You are going to get the question. Don't worry about that.


John Carnell Crosbie: That's a relief.


An Hon. Member:: It will be in Chinese for you, John.


Mr. Rossi:: Hey, Crosbie, go back to sleep.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question, please.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the solution is not to use temporary workers but, and I am sure Hon. Members opposite are anxious to hear what I have

June 17, 1987
Oral Questions
to say . . . The question is simple: Will the Government give Canada Post the flexibility it needs to continue negotiations and have some hope of reaching a settlement? That is the kind of action we expect from this Government. Nothing else will work.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, again the question is based on the totally false premise that the Government is somehow initiating the strike, or the Government is somehow involved.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You sure as heck are. Exactly.


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member was here in 1981 when the Canada Post Corporation was created. He knows that right into Bill was incorporated the mandate that it should operate in a fiscally sound, break-even manner.


Jacques Guilbault: In 1990.


Harvie Andre: He knows that this House has provided in that mandate for collective bargaining which can lead to strikes. He knows that what is happening is perfectly legal and understandable. The economic stakes have been raised by both sides. Is he now asking for this House to overturn the decision taken in 1981 -


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, Sir!


Harvie Andre: -and legislate an end to strikes in Canada Post? If so I think it would be useful. The House would benefit from that position on behalf of the Liberal Party, if that is the Hon. Member's position.


Jacques Guilbault: We told you what to do.


SECURITY CHECKS FOR CASUAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. I am sure he is aware from newscasts this morning that the Post Office is hiring casuals to deliver the mail without proper security checks. They are given keys to apartment blocks and they are handling family allowance and pension cheques. Will the Minister take a hand in this situation and make sure that there are some limits here, that the security of the mail will be respected while these work stoppages are going on?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, when I heard those reports I inquired of the Post Office. I was informed that the procedure being followed in regard to replacement workers is exactly the same-


Mr. Murphy:: Off the streets!


Harvie Andre: -as in regard to regular carriers-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is false, completely false!


Harvie Andre: If the New Democratic Party would allow me to answer, as well as the vice-president of the students union over there, I will.
A reliability check is undertaken on all employees following their hiring. That reliability check is being undertaken in terms of replacement workers as well. If any workers fail to pass the test, so to speak, they will be dismissed immediately.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister for his assurance that the Post Office is following those regulations. I hope that if evidence turns up that, in fact, they are not, he will take action on his commitment here in the House today.
My question relates to the conciliator's report-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Scabs are okay, eh?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, if I could have some order in this place-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has called on the Chair for assistance. The Chair, without naming the Hon. Member, will ask her for her assistance, too.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CORPORATION'S DEADLINE TO ATTAIN FINANCIAL SELFSUFFICIENCY
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister responsible for the Post Office is this. The conciliator's report acknowledged that the kind of policy framework that the Government puts in place for the negotiations has an impact on those negotiations.
Is the Minister prepared now to reconsider the deadline that he has put out for financial self-sufficiency by next spring in light of the fact that considerable progress has been made with regard to deficit reduction? As long as the trend line of deficit reduction is downward, will he not give the Post Office some elbow-room so that it can negotiate in a real sense? In this way there can be some give and take at the bargaining table and we can get the postal workers back to work and avoid a national strike.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, first, I point out that in addition to stating in the legislation of 1981 that the Post Office should break even within two years, that deadline was postponed until 1984-85. It was postponed again by our Government to 198586. It was postponed again to 1987-88. How many postponements are necessary before it becomes ridiculous?
The important point is that it is not the restrictions of the corporate plan which are causing the difficulties. The Hon. Member knows that it is not on financial matters that the
June 17, 1987

negotiations are difficult. It has to do with work rules and flexibility. I do not think that we should get into that type of debate on the floor of the House of Commons.
It is simply false for anyone to claim that it is an artificial fiscal discipline that this Government has imposed which is the cause of the difficulties in resolving this particular negotiation.


SECURITY OF MAIL-ADMISSION OF CASUAL EMPLOYEES TO APARTMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has announced the closure of thousands of rural post offices and the replacement of letter carriers by supermailboxes. Today, we witnessed the dangerous erosion of the security of our mail.
I ask the Minister responsible for the Post Office this. Does he not realize that Canadians do not want hired hands off the street, who have passed no security check because they have refused to sign release forms for the RCMP to do the check, to handle the keys to their apartment buildings, their private mail and their personal cheques?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, first, in dealing with the Hon. Member's preamble, it is false to claim that thousands of rural post offices have closed. It is false to claim that letter carriers are being replaced by superboxes because not a single letter carrier has been replaced by a superbox anywhere in Canada ever in history, nor will that occur at any time in the future that I can see.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: As I said in reply to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, all proper security checks are being conducted. I can assure the Hon. Member that I will keep in touch with the Post Office to ensure that the security of the mail continues. I will take whatever action is necessary should it be threatened. However, I do not think that it will be.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, mail boxes certainly have been replaced with supermailboxes. In these negotiations the Post Office wants to replace the mailman with a supermailman who does not need a lunch hour, who does not need a wage increase, who does not need public transportation, and who can deliver mail twice as fast. It is not a bird, it is not a plane-it is supermailman.
Will the Minister not admit now in the House that the Government, through the postal plan and these negotiations, is deliberately taunting the mail carriers to launch a strike?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as usual, supermouth has got it wrong.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Perhaps I should remind the Hon. Member that it was in 1974 under the Liberal administration that a freeze was placed on future door-to-door delivery in suburban areas. It so happened that prior to each election in Liberal ridings that freeze tended to thaw a little bit. But that was the policy of the previous Government.
I can assure Hon. Members that, contrary to statements being made by numerous people, the Government absolutely does not want a strike. No one wants a strike. What we want is a settlement. What we want to see is a Post Office that operates efficiently and delivers the mail that is turned over to it for delivery, on time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TAX REFORM
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the elite group of tax lawyers and tax accountants who, reports made clear today, are having an opportunity to view the tax documents as late as today. Is the Minister of Finance saying that if this elite group of tax lawyers and tax accountants find problems as they act as a sounding board for his proposals for tax change, he is prepared to make changes between now and his speech tomorrow night?


Geoff Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance then explain to the House and, more appropriately, to the people of Canada why he feels that it is appropriate for 20 elite corporate lawyers and corporate accountants to have an opportunity to view the documents concerning this very critical matter today, hours before the Minister will make it public? Will he explain why they have this privileged information when he has not provided even the same sounding board opportunity to ordinary Canadians, small businessmen and farmers? Why will the Minister not extend the same opportunity if we are going to have this privileged peek in terms of a sounding board? Why on earth would he provide this inside information to this handful of elite people?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can only think of one instance in the past when there was a change made as recently as the day before a Budget or a White Paper was tabled. That was when a previous Minister of Finance spent $200 million more of Canadians' money because someone looked over his shoulder at the time he was staging a photo opportunity.

June 17, 1987
Oral Questions


Nelson Andrew Riis: These people are viewing the entire document, not just one page.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked a couple of times before. These are experts who have been used from time to time over the years by Department of Finance officials as a sounding board. I presume-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why today?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The reason why they are in today-


Mr. Speaker:: We will probably move ahead somewhat better if the Member who asks the question encourages his or her colleagues to allow the Minister to answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have answered the question two or three times. These people are here to act as a sounding board for the Department of Finance on technical matters relating to tax reform. We are not trying to do tax reform in the way it has been done in the past, when problems have arisen. We are trying to anticipate the problems as much as we can through the advice of technical people working with the officials on an ongoing basis. That is the basis for their being here today.


REASON FOR CONSULTANTS' ACCESS TO INFORMATION
John Napier Turner: Several of these privileged tax experts have admitted that the fact that they are being given privileged access to the tax reform documentation today gives them an advantage over their competitors.
A Mr. Allan Taitz, a tax partner with Thorne Ernst & Whinney, chortled: "This gives us a bit more time to digest it . . . don't forget, every firm in town is going to write a report for their clients."
My question for the Minister is: Isn't the real reason for this privileged free information to give a select group of tax experts a head start on the tax reform package to the advantage of their clients and at the expense of their competitors, in return for which they are co-opted to sell the Minister's message across the country?


An Hon. Member:: Absolutely.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is a member of the same profession and has in fact practised with a number of these people, or I presume he has practised with them. He knows them, and I think he probably respects their integrity. I presume he would respect-


An Hon. Member:: It is your integrity that is being questioned.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I presume he would respect the nature of the relationship that these people have with the
Department of Finance and that he would not call into question the motives of these people-


An Hon. Member:: It is your judgment that is being called into question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -the motives of these people in coming to work with the officials of the Department of Finance-


An Hon. Member:: It is your integrity.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -to provide advice and to help make the tax policies of this country better.


PURPOSE OF ACCESS
John Napier Turner: We
are trying to get at the real purpose for this peekaboo head start. The books are closed. The Minister has admitted that the books are closed. In response to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap he has admitted that, no matter what advice they might give him today, he will not change his mind or amend the document. Their presence seems superfluous. For what other reason are they there than to give them a head start, at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer and at the expense of their competitors?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I should thank the Leader of the Opposition for putting the spotlight on tomorrow night at eight o'clock. When people turn on their television sets right across the country, they are going to have one thing on their minds, and that is whether or not the advice that was given to the Minister of Finance was good advice and is it reflected in the quality of the White Paper.


An Hon. Member:: Good for whom?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think people across the country are going to decide that, yes, it is reflected and it was good quality advice.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
The demand by the B.C. Government for $200 million in compensation for designating South Moresby as a national park reserve bears no relation to government or independent evaluations.
Since knowledgeable Canadians and British Columbians know that the federal offer of $106 million is realistic, and since this House just one month ago unanimously adopted a resolution calling for the designation of South Moresby as a
June 17, 1987

national park reserve, including MPs from all three Parties, from British Columbia as well as the rest of Canada, will the Prime Minister take on the political role of finding a political solution to this national issue?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am gratified by the observations of my hon. friend that indeed the offer put forward by the federal Government is realistic and is supported by him and, I presume, by members of his Party, as it is no doubt by members of the Official Opposition.
It is indeed a very realistic and powerful commitment to the environment that the federal Government, on behalf of all parliamentarians, has sought. It is our view that this offer is one that ought to be accepted by the Government of British Columbia.
I have strongly urged, in private, the Premier of British Columbia and his colleagues to ensure that this matter is resolved on behalf of all British Columbians and all Canadians.
As described yesterday by the Minister of the Environment, we put on the table an offer of unprecedented generosity to ensure that British Columbians and Canadians benefit from this magnificent habitat forever.
That is the way it was done, and we believe that the Government of British Columbia will indeed endorse that concept.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER COMMUNICATE WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA PREMIER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Prime Minister is aware, more Canadians have written to the Prime Minister and to his cabinet colleagues on this issue than on any other environmental issue in the history of Canada.
The Minister of the Environment has done his best to bring this about, as has the Deputy Prime Minister. This Parliament has unanimously expressed itself as wanting that area set aside as a national park reserve.
Knowing that one week from today the B.C. Cabinet is going to make its final decision, I would ask the Prime Minister to contact Premier Vander Zalm and express to him one more time the view that from co-operation comes cooperation in this nation, and on this issue he should understand that very well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have met with Premier Vander Zalm in the past on this issue, and on other matters affecting British Columbia. Most recently, we dealt with each other on the Meech Lake Accord. He played a very positive role in the elaboration of that instrument, an instrument that is very beneficial for Canada.
This environmental question in British Columbia is one that has national implications. I have spoken with the Premier on it,
Oral Questions
and I shall do so again. I shall use every lever to persuade the Premier of British Columbia that this is an issue that should be resolved, not only in the interests of British Columbians but of all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AUTO PACT INQUIRY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister concerning the existing perilous state of the negotiations on the free trade deal with the United States.
Just a few days ago a group of key Congressmen, representing members of the major trade commissions of the U.S. Congress, said that they would not agree to any free trade arrangement that did not include major revisions to the Auto Pact.
Yet today we have in front of us a letter sent to the Prime Minister by the Premier of Ontario saying that he could not agree to any free trade deal that in any way tampers with the existing arrangements on duties or safeguards under the Auto Pact.
My question for the Prime Minister is: What is the Government's position on this issue? Is it the Government's position that there will no change or modification to the existing formula of duties and safeguards under the Auto Pact, and will he give us the assurance that the Auto Pact will in no way be affected by the ongoing negotiations?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, this Government's position on the Auto Pact has been stated many times in the House. We shall repeat it once again for the Hon. Member's benefit.
This Government has not requested that the Auto Pact be on the table for negotiation. To date, neither has the American side requested that it be part of the negotiations.
If they do put the Auto Pact on the table, we naturally will take a look at what their proposals are. But, the proposals, insofar as Canada is concerned, should increase employment for Canada and assure the strengthening of the auto industry, an industry which is so important to this country.


ONTARIO PREMIER'S LETTER
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will address my supplementary to the Prime Minister.
He has been quoted several times in the past, in Venice and elsewhere, as saying that the U.S. administration must
June 17, 1987

Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
convince the Congress of the necessity of accepting a free trade arrangement. Yet we have a clear condition put down by members of that Congress that they will not accept such an agreement unless there are changes to the Auto Pact. We also have the Premier of Ontario saying that he cannot accept changes to the Auto Pact.
I do not want any more of this gobbledegook about whether or not it is on the table. I want the assurance today from the Prime Minister that the negotiators for the Canadian side will not accept any changes to the Auto Pact, as requested by the Premier of Ontario.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the record will show that from the very beginning the Hon. Member opposite has done every conceivable thing he can do to sabotage the free trade talks with the United States of America.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


An Hon. Member:: So has the U.S. Congress.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The record will show that his contributions to this debate have been spurious and negative right from the very beginning. And today is not-


Lloyd Axworthy: Are you going to answer the question?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will answer the question. He has been consistent right up today-


Lloyd Axworthy: And you haven't. That is the problem. Why don't you try being consistent.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In reference to the letter sent by the Premier of Ontario-and it was a confidential letter, by the way-the letter I received from Premier Peterson is headed: "To the Prime Minister. Confidential." And now I see in The Toronto Star today "that some industry sources say the letter, apparently drafted by deputy industry minister, Patrick Lavelle, raises an old bogyman without bringing the issues into focus."
This is a quote from The Toronto Star. If it is from The Toronto Star, it has got to be dead accurate. Indeed, this is a mischievous attempt if indeed-


Lloyd Axworthy: Did you get a letter or not?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Of course I got a letter from Premier Peterson. I get all kinds of letters from Premier Peterson and from the other Premiers-


Lloyd Axworthy: What was your reply to him?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is question number four. Let's go for question number five.


Lloyd Axworthy: Let's go for question number six.


Martin Brian Mulroney: What is the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


AGRICULTURE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the Special Canadian Grains Program, a program which was recently modified to permit payments to irrigation farmers in certain designated areas of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Southwestern Saskatchewan has over 40 per cent of the irrigated land in Saskatchewan and is not one of the designated areas.
Could the Minister explain to irrigation farmers in southwestern Saskatchewan why they would be excluded from the program? Could he undertake to re-examine the situation in conjunction with the western advisory group under the Special Canadian Grains Program?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate and understand the interest which the Hon. Member has taken in this particular subject. He realizes that the guidelines, the rules, and the criteria were laid down by farm leaders in concert with ourselves. We have established the advisory group to ensure fairness and equity.
The Hon. Member has raised a rather unique and particular problem in respect of his own region of the province. I want to give him the commitment today that I am taking his recommendation under advisement and that I am placing some priority on it. I am arranging a meeting this afternoon with the advisory committee to deal with that specific problem, and I invite the Hon. Member to attend.


PRIVILEGE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege of which I gave you notice earlier today. It relates to the principle of secrecy of fiscal matters, whereby information relating to proposed tax changes is revealed first only to the House of Commons. This has been, in my submission to Your Honour, breached by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
June 17, 1987

The reason for this principle is to ensure that no one is able to use inside information for personal advantage,
I rely in part upon a report in this morning's edition of The Globe and Mail by Jan Wong, which has since been confirmed by telephone calls from our office. It indicates:
An elite group of tax lawyers and accountants today will get a privileged first peek at the new White Paper on taxation in Ottawa-one day before the rest of Canada does.
But this hand-picked group of 20 already has a pretty good idea of who wins and who loses. They have been on the inside of the process since last fall. So, before most people have time to read through the five volumes of tax proposals, they will hit the road, giving speeches and seminars.
All have signed sworn statements pledging not to divulge any secrets until Finance Minister Michael Wilson reads his speech to the nation on Thursday night. Still, they admit their insider status gives them a coveted head start on the competition.
During Question Period I read one or two citations from those favoured few.
The Minister of Finance goes to the trouble of scheduling a full presentation in the House tomorrow night at eight o'clock. He deliberately waits until all stock exchanges in the country have been closed in order that no information revealed in the paper can adversely affect individual interests on the exchange or in the money markets; in other words, the full panoply of a budget presentation is attached to this economic statement.
We do not know whether or not there will be budget changes announced in the paper. Of course the Minister has been ambiguous in earlier replies to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). In any event, the Minister has given notice of a Ways and Means motion which implies that there must be something affecting the Ways and Means of the country either in terms of tax changes or in terms of expenditure changes.
The story in The Globe and Mail and the facts we have substantiated substantiate that people actively involved in giving the Government tax advice have been provided on a systematic basis with information on the Government's final tax proposals which has not been made available to the public at large, including their own commercial competitors.
I am not taking issue with the Minister of Finance requesting, seeking, and obtaining the best advice he can get on his tax reform proposals. What I am complaining about and where I believe the privilege of Members of the House has been breached is that after the books were closed, after the Minister and his departmental officials had drawn their own conclusions and made up their minds, 20 of these experts were given privileged, advance access to the material. This was at a time when their advice was no longer relevant, because the Minister admitted in the House this afternoon that the books had been closed and that, no matter what advice was obtained during this 24 hours, no changes would be made to the paper.
It is clear from the story that these people not only intend to use this information for their immediate personal and professional advantage, but their competitors are already vocally complaining that this unfair advantage has created preference
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
in the professional world of the tax accountant and the tax lawyer.
The precedents show the importance of the principle of secrecy surrounding fiscal matters.
In 1936 in Britain, a Minister was obliged to resign from Cabinet because a friend to whom he had casually mentioned some of the details of the pending Budget used the information to make an advantageous investment.
In 1947, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to resign because he told a reporter one small item in his Budget when he was on his way into the House to deliver it, which resulted in premature publication of the information. That was the famous case when a well-known reporter at Westminster saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer walking into the House and smoking a cigarette, and the Minister said, "I hope you bought a number of those before my getting up". That was a budget leak which cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer his job.
This is not the first time that Ministers of Finance have felt it necessary to consult persons outside their Department about tax changes. The most memorable occasion revolved around the 1963 Budget. I was then the Hon. Member for St. Lawrence-St. George, and it was brought to the attention of the House by the then Hon. Member for Port Arthur, Douglas Fisher, who is now a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. That promoted and provoked a very serious crisis for the Pearson Government of the day, and I say justifiably so.
However, I want to suggest that at that time there was a major difference. The outside specialists in 1963 retained by the Department of Finance under the authority of Walter Gordon were not only sworn to secrecy but were removed from their commercial activities while the Budget was in preparation; that is to say, they took leave of absence for a specific period of time from their respective firms. For several weeks following the Budget presentation they were kept in Ottawa and were not allowed to return to the practice of their professions, either in accountancy or in law, and one of them was an investment banker. It was made certain that none of the three gentleman concerned at that time could take any professional advantage out of the special relationship they had been given by Mr. Gordon in his capacity as Minister of Finance.
What we have here are people who have been consulted extensively and in detail while they have continued to carry out their own business activities that are directly related to the proposals on which they are working. They have advance information in the course of their regular practices. Not only did they have the opportunity of discussing with the Minister and his senior officials the ideas which were being bruited about, but today they see the final document which can no longer be changed, and the Minister says it will not be changed. They have an advantage over the country, over Members of Parliament, and over their competitors.
The quotes which The Globe and Mail reporter retrieved from various of these experts make it quite clear that they have

June 17, 1987
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
every intention of advertising their information and using it for their own commercial advantage. This flies in the face of the letter and spirit not only of financial secrecy but of commonly accepted conflict of interest post-employment principles.
This has been done flagrantly, openly, and even boastfully in full contempt of the traditions and practices of the House of Commons.
You, Mr. Speaker, sit in the most revered chair in Canadian democracy. You are the Speaker of the House of Commons. When Parliament became an institution as it evolved in British practice, there were two reasons for people wanting to unite. One was to approve expenditures proposed by the King and the Crown, the other was to approve or disapprove taxes imposed by the Crown.
Nothing is more fundamental to the institution of Parliament, nothing is more relevant to the privileges of Members of this House, than that we as representatives of the Canadian people have the first opportunity in a privileged way, not to be shared with anyone else, to see what the Government proposes in the way of expenditures and taxes. That privilege has been breached by the Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I would submit that we are dealing not merely with a White Paper but with something that approximates an actual Budget presentation. It anticipates an entire overhaul of the tax system. It involves the personal affairs of every individual Canadian. It will affect the course and conduct of business in Canada for the next generation.
The special order of the House governing tomorrow's presentation clearly refers to the tabling of Notices of Ways and Means, notices of immediate tax changes. This means that we must consider this matter in the full context of a Budget presentation.
I submit to Your Honour that there is a prima facie case of privilege here. I submit that there is nothing more fundamental to the role of Parliament than the review of Ways and Means, expenditures on the one hand and proposed tax changes on the other. Enveloped as it is with all the sanctity, all the paraphernalia and all the panoply of a Budget presentation, nothing goes more to the heart of the privileges of every single Member of Parliament than this breach that I submit has been perpetrated by the Minister of Finance.
If you find that there has been a prima facie breach of the privileges of the House, I would of course be prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate thing that has occurred today. As the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) has indicated, the
White Paper that will be presented tomorrow is a very special White Paper. It is one that touches upon the lives of every Canadian. For all intents and purposes, it is being treated in the same way as a Budget. As a matter of fact, it is being treated even more importantly than have some of the Budgets we have seen in the past.
Tomorrow's lockup will last for a full eight hours, the assumed time required for Members of Parliament and others to be fully apprised of the contents of the document. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) decided that the appropriate time to make a speech outlining the high points of the changes to the tax laws of Canada would be after the stock-market closed, and that means obvious things.
As a matter of fact, when asked on a number of occasions to justify why it was necessary to present the White Paper at eight o'clock at night after the markets had closed, a satisfactory explanation was never given, other than to say that the markets in western Canada would be fully closed at that time. Obviously we are talking about changes to the income tax system of Canada that will have profound implications for all Canadians.
Today there have been people quoted in the media who presumably were participants on a panel of 20 tax lawyers and tax accountants, an elite group of tax advisers, which has now had access to the final documents regarding the tax changes. I think it is only appropriate that since this matter has been raised today this list be made public. It has been referred to by the Minister of Finance throughout today's Question Period and it is only appropriate that the people of Canada know who have been included in this assembly of experts with special information, acquired before Members of Parliament, the duly elected representatives of the people of Canada, have had an opportunity to be apprised of the contents of the tax reform statement.
In today's newspaper, a Mr. Boulanger who worked with the Finance Department from 1978 to 1982 said that he knows how those people are picked, that they are usually the guys who get their names mentioned in the paper, that it is strictly political. Another individual said that he was very flattered because his peers think he is worth talking to, peer recognition being a big thing in this business.
It has been made clear on a number of occasions the value of peer recognition when it comes to tax advice. These 20 special people will now have an obvious advantage when offering advice to corporate clients, and that is something about which we as Members of Parliament must be very concerned. We are concerned about confidentiality and about fairness when it comes to divulging this information.
It is perfectly clear that what has happened is that the Minister of Finance, through the admission of people who know the system well, has politically appointed 20 people who have received special and privileged information. Earlier the Minister of Finance was asked if he would be prepared to make changes to the documents if this so-called sounding
June 17, 1987

board was to identify problems. Ele responded by saying no. One must ask what was the purpose of this panel of 20 reviewing the documents of the tax reform if the Minister of Finance had no intention whatsoever of changing his mind on any of the aspects of the tax reform proposal.
It is obvious that these people now have privileged information and they will be in a position to take advantage of that privileged information on behalf of their corporate clients.


John Napier Turner: A 24-hour head start.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As the Leader of the Official Opposition has indicated, they will have a 24-hour head start. The fact that the statement will be made after market hours and the fact that there is an extensive lockup involved indicates that this is very important information and those people who are able to take advantage of this information of course stand to gain substantially.
I believe that this is in fact an infringement on the privileges of Members of Parliament. It is perfectly clear that it has always been the tradition in Canada that the first people to view the final documents after the Minister of Finance has put his final stamp on them are the duly elected representatives of the people of Canada. That a handful of politically chosen elite tax advisers have been given preliminary information and know exactly what the new tax Act will be 24 hours prior to Members of Parliament having an opportunity to be apprised of it is obviously an infringement on the privileges of Members of Parliament.
Flon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the arguments of Members opposite and I think I should draw to the attention of Hon. Members just exactly what we are discussing here. We are discussing the lead- up to a White Paper, we are not discussing a Budget. It is a White Paper and a White Paper is a proposal. It does not represent Budget policy. I believe that is a fundamental point that must be made here.


Some Hon. Members:: Why the Ways and Means Motion?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has said that under no circumstances should this information be made available to anyone prior to the time it is presented in the House of Commons. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that there are Members of Parliament who are privy to this information prior to my rising in the House of Commons. Members of the Press Gallery are also privy to information-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The matter that has been raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is a serious one. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has taken the same position. The Chair is listening to argument on a matter which all Hon. Members know is a serious one and I must say that it is easier for the Chair to pay attention to the
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
arguments that are being made if Hon. Members would refrain from arguing with each other across the floor.
I noted that when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was giving his precise and cogent arguments he was received with respectful silence. I ask that all Hon. Members give the Minister the same courtesy when he is responding.
If Hon. Members have something to add in opposition to what the Minister is saying or may say, they know the Chair tends to be generous and always tries to be gracious in making sure those points of view are heard. I will recognize Hon. Members if it is appropriate to do so.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate your comments.
I believe when I was interrupted by Members opposite I was talking about the fact that there are people who are given information prior to my standing up in the House tomorrow evening. That is understood. We all understand the importance of helping Members of Parliament and members of the media make themselves knowledgeable about what is in the White Paper.
I want to make this point in the context of the discussion paper of May, 1985, called the Canadian Budgetary Process, Proposals for Improvement. This was a continuation of a Department of Finance paper put out in 1982. The comment was made in the 1982 paper and quoted again in the 1985 paper that when a political controversy might be precipitated by a budget leak, however trivial it might be and regardless of how it occurs, meaningful pre-budget consultations are naturally inhibited. Budget secrecy impedes consultation when it prevents groups from knowing which options the Government has under serious consideration.
What we are trying to do with this process is take advice from knowledgeable people in advance of making the final decision so we can get the benefit of their technical ability, using them as a sounding board so we are not making budgetary policy in a vacuum. As I said, that process was started many years ago. After the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition took exception to the fact that I said technical advisors were advising the department during his term of office as Minister of Finance, I checked and, yes, that is true. The same types of advisors were providing advice to officials in the Department of Finance at that time.
There is nothing new here. These people take the same oath of secrecy as do members of the Public Service. They are then given a range of things under consideration by department officials. They are asked to give their advice as to what problems or technical questions there might be in certain elements of the proposals being considered. They are asked for their opinion and they continue on through the process. This has been going on for the better part of six or eight months.

June 17, 1987
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
I think it has been a very useful process. They report directly to the Assistant Deputy Minister of taxation in the Department of Finance. I know the advice he received from them is greatly appreciated. Certainly he hopes this process will be able to continue unimpeded by the type of controversy that the Right Elon. Leader of the Opposition is trying to generate today with his question of privilege.
In response to the comments of the NDP House Leader, these people are chosen by Department of Finance officials. I was not asked to designate people who might participate.


Mr. Orlikow:: Who are they?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As a matter of fact, I think I know about one-fifth of them. Some of them I never heard of before I was involved in this process. It is casting aspersions on the integrity of these individuals for the NDP House Leader to suggest that they are political appointees. That is not true. They are chosen by officials in the Department of Finance based on their professional competence.
I listened carefully to what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was saying about how we had chosen these people to give them a head start. I would love to have more people involved in the process, but there is a certain limit, still making it a useful process. There has to be sufficient dialogue with the people involved, so there is a good understanding of the range of proposals which would be involved and decisions can be taken accordingly. To say they are political appointees, or to imply that they are doing this so they can get a head start on their competition casts very serious doubt on the motivations of these people. They are serving as advisors without pay-


Some Hon. Members:: Poor them.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -because they are good Canadians. I think the Right Hon. Member should think very carefully about whether he should be casting the motivation of these individuals in doubt, because again-Mr. Speaker, Members opposite cannot keep their mouths shut. They will not listen to the argument on this side of the House.


Mr. Frith:: Who are they?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If Hon. Members would care to listen they might learn something.


Mr. Speaker:: I know Hon. Members will want to hear the Minister. As I said, there may be points he makes that Hon. Members will wish to comment on. I indicated I will recognize Hon. Members for that purpose. I ask Hon. Members to allow the Minister to finish.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I draw this to your attention because I feel it is a very important consideration in the whole process. We have to be able to have the appropriate consultation during the budget process in order that the best advice can be given to the Government to make the whole process of tax policy a better one which will result in
fewer problems. That is why I think it is important that Hon. Members refrain from casting aspersions on the motivation of the people involved or the whole process.
As I said, the thing I found difficult to follow in what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was saying was whether he was concerned that these people got a head start, or whether there is something new in this whole business of seeking advice from this type of individual. It should not be a matter for consideration by this House of whether or not one group of lawyers, because of their involvement in this process, is involved before the actual paper is brought down. The facts are that there is a rotation. I know people who have been involved in this process in the past and who were not involved in the process prior to this White Paper. That is an important consideration.
Both the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the NDP House Leader made an important point of the fact that this is being done at eight o'clock after the markets are closed. Why are we doing it then? I want to point out that the timing of my three Budgets was 4.30 in the afternoon. That is when markets close. If we stayed at 4.30 then there might be some reason to say why then and not at three in the afternoon because we had chosen that time as precisely the time when markets close so we would not have that problem with this statement tomorrow.
The precise reason for choosing the time of eight o'clock for the statement is, as many Hon. Members have said, that tax reform is going to affect a large number of Canadians. In fact, every Canadian will be affected by tax reform in one way or another. For that reason I believed that eight o'clock, when the White Paper proposals could receive maximum exposure, was the best time to choose in order to serve our constituents well.
I know Hon. Members opposite may not like that because they are afraid that there will be a lot of good news in this White Paper on tax reform. That concern is very valid. The point is that that was the reason for choosing the time of eight o'clock.
The Leader of the Opposition has referred to the fact that I have given notice of a Ways and Means motion. It is quite clear that a Ways and Means motion will be tabled tomorrow evening. However, I want to make it very clear that the people who have been involved in this process have not in any way been party to the details of anything that will be in that Ways and Means motion. That is a statement of fact.
The point of the matter which we are discussing is related to whether the Department should expose itself to advice from experts. I think it is very important that we have this advice and recognize that the advice is on-going. The advice from the people who have been involved did not stop two or three weeks ago. It continues today and will continue into the future after the presentation of the White Paper. We have asked them to participate in order to learn whether technical elements in the
June 17, 1987

White Paper will cause problems of which we can be aware as soon as possible after the presentation of the White Paper.
That is the substance of my presentation, Mr. Speaker. However, I do want to underscore one point very clearly. This is a White Paper of proposals on tax reform. It is not a Budget. That is the fundamental difference which is at the heart of what we are talking about.
In addition, it is very important that we be careful, in order to maintain the validity of the consultation process, not to use the opportunity to make political points which will undermine the integrity of this consultation process thus setting ourselves back a number of years and reverting to the bad old ways of making Budgets in a vacuum, which leads to the problems about which the Party opposite has a good deal of knowledge.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) to make a short point.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a small point to the comments. It is important that we put on the record very clearly that no one is suggesting that the Minister of Finance ought not consult with people from all walks of life in developing a package for tax reform. We are suggesting, however, that to consult with those people virtually hours before making the tax reform public, after all the t's have been crossed and the i's have been dotted, is simply to give a preview and advance notice of what is in the documentation.
The Minister of Finance has not responded to my request for a list of the participants. There is a quarter-page ad in the newspapers today which says:
On June 18, he'll-
-that is the Minister of Finance-
-present his white paper on tax reform. On June 19, we'll explain it in black and white.
They will move very quickly. That is an ad by Wood Gundy.
Another firm, Financial Concept Group Inc., is going to hold a seminar to explain the new tax reform proposals, the impact on investments and retirement planning, and what is next, starting at seven o'clock tomorrow night. In other words, at a seminar which will begin an hour before the Minister of Finance stands in this House to deliver his proposals, advisers from Financial Concept Group Inc., Mr. Don Bridgman and Mr. Brian Costello, will be commenting on the new tax changes.
I think it is important that the list of the 20 experts be made public. If that list includes Don Bridgman or other people from Financial Concept Group Inc., it means that they are prepared to start talking about this privileged information before the Minister of Finance even stands in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has alluded to a matter which, understandably, is giving me some concern. Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) can clarify this.
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
As I understand it, the oath which this group of advisers has taken would forbid them from releasing any information which they have acquired in the course of their advisory work for the Government of Canada and the Department of Finance until after the Minister of Finance rises in this House at eight o'clock tomorrow night.
I want to know whether I understand completely the effect of that oath. Perhaps the Minister of Finance can give some confirmation of that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the oath these people have taken is the same oath as members of the Public Service take. They are sworn, therefore, not to release any of this information and not to take advantage of this information in any way prior to the time that I stand in my place and announce it in the course of my presentation tomorrow.
As a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, these are lawyers and tax accountants. One of the firms mentioned by the House Leader of the New Democratic Party is an investment dealer. I believe the other is an investment advisory firm. This type of firm has not been involved in this process, only lawyers and accountants have been involved.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker,
I think the question at issue here is far more serious than many Members of this House would care to believe, especially those on the Government benches.
I had the privilege of working on tax matters for seven consecutive years. I have brought down seven budgets in a legislature, and I am aware of what has to be done to surround ministerial decisions with the greatest possible confidentiality to prevent certain groups and individuals from taking undue advantage of Government decisions.
Mr. Speaker, what is at stake here is Members' privileges, my privileges and the privileges of all Members of this House. I listened carefully to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and to the explanations he gave, and I think he does not understand what is at stake here. No one is saying that a Minister of Finance cannot consult with any number of experts and various groups, including chambers of commerce, social partners, tax experts, people in the financial sector and others in the social sector. No one is denying that the Minister of Finance is free to hold such consultations. The reason why the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) rose on a question of privilege is, that after the Minister and the Government made their decision, an elite group of about twenty people met here in Ottawa today to be told, before the Members of this House and before the rest of the Canadian public, about the contents of the tax reform proposal that will be tabled tomorrow at 8 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister says it is happening behind closed doors. I have a very simple question for him: Will these people who are given preferential treatment today remain sworn in

June 17, 1987
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
and behind closed doors, to the extent that they cannot and will not be able to get in touch with their offices, their wives and their children, that even when they go to the washroom they will be accompanied by guards, as is the practice when they are in a Budget lock-up, or tomorrow when Members will gather in a room to examine this question and kept incommunicado until 8 p.m.? Will these 20 privileged people mentioned in today's newspapers be allowed to sleep at home tonight, or will they be locked up in the same room, unable to communicate with the outside world? Mr. Speaker, I have already been led to believe that some of them did in fact get in touch with their offices.
What we are questioning here, Mr. Speaker, and I am not suggesting that these people have revealed the contents-


Mr. Speaker:: If I understood the Hon. Member correctly, he seems to be indicating that he has some information that some of these people who have sworn an oath of secrecy have already contacted their offices. This puts the Chair in a great deal of difficulty. If that is so, then somebody has breached their oath.
I want to be sure whether that is, in effect, what the Hon. Member is putting forward as a fact, other than perhaps some rumour that he has heard.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, what I said is this, and I want to repeat it: I did not suggest that these people had revealed the contents.

I never said that they talked about the content. My argument is in the context of the lock-up. Tomorrow, some of our colleagues will be in a lock-up with research people. We will be kept there from noon until eight o'clock. We will not even be able to go to the bathroom without a guard. That is the rule of the lock-up.
Today, there are 20 specialists who received the privilege of reading the White Paper before any other Member of the House. I am asking the Minister whether the same rule that we are going to follow tomorrow will apply? Will those people stay in their hotel room or a room somewhere on Parliament Hill or in the Minister's office? Will they be there under guard, with no communication?

Mr. Speaker, I submit, the question of privilege I am raising is that 20 people are now aware of a document which will not be made public until tomorrow, and it is to that extent that I believe the privileges of the House have been breached.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister referred to consultations a few times. Consultations may open the way to a number of options, and the difference between consultation, with which I agree,
and what is going on now is that the people who are consulted have no idea what the Minister's decision will be. While today, the 20 privileged individuals who have gathered somewhere in the Department of Finance are not there to give advice, but to get acquainted with the decisions which have been taken and in that sense they are violating the privileges of this House, since no member, except the Minister or perhaps members of the Cabinet, but certainly no private member of this House has looked at that document.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that there is a breach of the privileges of this House. It is an extremely serious matter and the Leader of the Opposition has raised several points of order and quoted several precedents. Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put to you the following question: Why today and not tomorrow? Why have those privileged individuals met today instead of being subjected to a confidential in camera meeting tomorrow with all the others. Why give them that privilege? I think that we cannot question the intellectual honesty of those people, the tax specialists who have been consulted. If we can question something, it is the judgment of the Minister of Finance who allowed those highly qualified persons to be placed in an untenable position. So I rise on a point of order and I believe that there has been a breach of my privileges and if I must question the judgment of someone, it is unfortunately that of the Minister of Finance who allowed such a thing to happen.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take too long in this debate because I believe the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has made most of the relevant points. However, I want to reiterate one or two points.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has alleged that there are newspaper articles indicating that certain professionals have advance information and that they are going to seek to use this to undue advantage. He went on to cite what we all have come to know as various political controversies over whether or not a budget leak has occurred and whether anything politically harmful has been flowing from that budget leak. I compliment him on his excellent research, but there is absolutely no guilt by association and there is absolutely no question of privilege.
My hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, has indicated that he is bringing forward a White Paper. No one in the House knows why there is a Ways and Means Motion connected to it and I am sure that this will become evident tomorrow. I am sure there are reasons for that, knowing the Minister of Finance. He is bringing forward proposals for consideration by the taxpayer, by the public, and by this Parliament.
I do take exception to one thing. As a professional, both a chartered accountant and a lawyer, I am sure that the individuals who the Hon. Minister of Finance asked to come to Ottawa to assist in this process could probably have made a lot
June 17, 1987

more money elsewhere and could probably have spent their time doing other things.


Ms. Jewett:: So what?


Philip Derek Lewis: The "so what" is that if we are to have the best advice of the professionals of the country, then we should bring them to Parliament and not castigate or smear them for political purposes. I take objection to that as a professional.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Make the list public.


Philip Derek Lewis: I will deal with the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) in a minute. If Members of Parliament want the best advice, whether it is at committee level or at the ministerial level, I think we must treat people properly.
My hon. friend, the former finance critic of the New Democratic Party, has suddenly discovered that on the night and the day after the presentation of a financial paper, accountants and lawyers hold meetings with clients to discuss it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Before his speech begins?


Philip Derek Lewis: One might have a cup of coffee or a cocktail or even dinner before it happens. I cannot believe that my friend spent two years as finance critic of the NDP and did not realize that those meetings went on shortly after or even during the budget presentation.


David Orlikow: How about before?


Philip Derek Lewis: Welcome to the world of finance. While we heard an outpouring of emotion over the question of a breach of privilege, there was one thing missing from the presentations across the way. That missing element was precedent. Unfortunately, it has fallen to me to give the Chair the precedents.
First, let me quote from a paper that was written by Mr. Joseph Maingot, Q.C., Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons. He states:
Furthermore, parliamentary privilege is concerned with the special rights of members, not in their capacity as ministers or as party leaders, whips, or parliamentary secretaries, but strictly in their capacity as members in their parliamentary work.
Therefore, allegations of misjudgment, or mismanagement, or maladministration on the part of a minister in the performance of his ministerial duties do not come within the purview of parliamentary privilege. And neither does an allegation that a minister permitted a budget leak constitute a matter of privilege.
In November, 1981, when a budget leak was raised as a possible question of privilege, the Speaker stated, "I will not pass judgment on whether it is or is not a leak or whether the words chosen were wise or cautious". The Speaker went on to state, "I do not feel that in this particular case I can make any kind of pronouncement or judgment on the fact that the secrecy of the Budget may have been breached".
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
Let me refer to another precedent by Speaker Jerome on April 17, 1978. It is a reference to a question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) regarding a leak of budget information.
After allowing a brief discussion, the Speaker intervened to defer the matter. He said, "It awaits the presentation of the Budget this evening and will be subject to further discussion at this time tomorrow". The following day the matter was raised and there was a finding that there was no question of privilege. One of the comments of the Chair was, "The Chair has serious doubts as to whether the convention of budgetary secrecy falls within the area of privilege at all".
The Opposition has, in an effort to smear the whole question of the White Paper, tried to raise a question of privilege. I think the argument has gone well beyond prima facie and I have no difficulty with that. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that based on the precedents which have been decided in this House and elsewhere there is absolutely no question that the allegation of a budget leak does not constitute a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. It seemed to me that at least part of the alleged question of privilege which was raised was that some information which was to be given to all Members tomorrow night had been given to some people outside this place earlier. It seems to me that there was some suggestion that that in itself is a breach of privilege. I am not for one minute putting aside the other issue. However, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could address that. I am familiar with the precedents he has helpfully cited on the other matter, but perhaps the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary could just address that particular point because I would like to hear his view.


Philip Derek Lewis: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, given the time of day and what my hon. friend is quite rightly basing his case on, that is, comments in the newspaper, I think at that point then the Chair is in a position of having to decide for itself as to whether or not the evidence brought forward in support of the prima facie case of privilege is sufficient for the Chair to decide that those individuals had an advantage over Members of Parliament.
I guess you could go beyond that, Sir, to suggest whether or not that position of privilege is being exercised to the detriment of any Member of Parliament. I just raise that in answer to your question. I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to make a prima facie case at this point. One has to lead the best evidence one has to lead, and my right hon. friend obviously did that.
Based on the precedents, if the issue is a question of budget secrecy being breached, which is what has been suggested, then it seems to me the precedents say that no matter how annoyed one might be, it is a question for another forum, and not a question of a breach of privilege to be sent to the Committee on Privileges, Elections and Procedures.

June 17, 1987
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and will come to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) in a moment.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in my many years as a Member of this Parliament I have never experienced a situation similar to this. What the Minister has been promising for months now are not some minor changes in our tax system. What he has been intimating is that we are going to get a very fundamental reorganization of the whole system. It has been said, indeed, reported, that we are going to see that the system will be simpler and fairer, that income tax rates will come down, that consumption taxes such as the business transfer tax will go up, that corporation taxes will go up, and many of the loopholes in the present system for corporations and individuals will be plugged.
If these reforms take place, as has been intimated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and other members on the government side, they will be very important changes which will affect, as the Minister said a few moments ago, virtually every Canadian.
So what we have here is that 20 tax lawyers and accountants have been consulted. I am certain that they have not just given some advice on minor technical points. I am certain that in the period during which they were being consulted they expressed their views on some of the proposed changes, whether they were in agreement or whether they thought they would be detrimental.
A couple of things happened as a result of that. First, these 20 tax lawyers and accountants obviously have an advantage. I am not saying they are going to use their knowledge before eight o'clock tomorrow night, but at eight o'clock tomorrow night when all the Members of Parliament, tax lawyers and accountants are beginning to study what is in the report, these people will have had days or weeks of advantage over all the other tax lawyers and accountants who are in the same business.
I have another major concern. I am sure that the kind of accountant who does my income tax was not consulted. So what we have are 20 lawyers and accountants who, I am certain, have as clients some of the biggest corporations in this country, expressing their views to the Minister and his department. If they are there to express their views and the views of the corporations they represent, where were the representatives of ordinary Canadians? Where were the representatives of the workers, the farming community, the consumers? Are their views, their feelings and philosophical approach to taxation and their desire to see a fair tax system not as valid as these 20 so-called experts? It seems to me that that is a question the Minister ought to answer.
If the Minister wanted consultation, and we all agree that consultation is a good idea, why did he not have consultation with a wide spectrum of our society? Why did he go for advice to representatives who, I am certain we will find out when we receive the list, represent big business? I think that is a very
important question to which the Minister should address himself.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by addressing briefly the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) with respect to precedents. Obviously, I have not had the time to get out the precedents and study them, but the second precedent quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary, I think is relevant. He said that the Speaker in making his ruling said only that he had serious doubts that budgetary secrecy is a matter of privilege. He did not rule conclusively that budgetary secrecy is not a matter of privilege. Therefore, I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that that precedent, at least, is one the Chair does not have to consider binding upon itself.
The Minister of Finance himself has argued that the issue as to whether we have a prima facie case of privilege turns on, among other things, whether or not this group of 20 experts looked at material which was part of a budget. The Minister of Finance himself argued that that was a very relevant consideration and in effect he was saying that if the group of 20 experts did not look at material to be contained in a budget then we are not dealing with a prima facie case of privilege. However, if the group of 20 experts was looking at material which was to be contained in a budget, that would be a different matter.
What did the Minister of Finance himself say in this House in answer to the motion of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) on this point? At first he said the White Paper is a proposal, it does not represent budgetary policy. But later when trying to explain why he had this group of 20 experts looking at material that he originally said was to go into a White Paper, he said, "I am getting technical advice so we are not making budgetary policy in a vacuum".
The Minister of Finance has therefore admitted exactly what it is he will be presenting to the House at eight o'clock. This is confirmed by the fact that he will at that time, as he admitted a few minutes ago, table a Ways and Means motion.
Why else would he be tabling a Ways and Means motion if his so-called White Paper was not in fact in the nature of a budget? Is he trying to get us to believe that he is tabling a Ways and Means motion about something completely unrelated to the White Paper and is just choosing this convenient opportunity tomorrow night to table it?
The Minister of Finance has made some valiant attempts to convince people of the unbelievable. But I am sure that even he will not take seriously that type of effort, if that is what he intends.
The evidence from the Minister himself is clear. What he is submitting tomorrow at eight o'clock is in the nature of a budget. If that is the case, then on the argument of the Minister of Finance himself what he has done by allowing this group of 20 to have access to the material to be presented in
June 17, 1987

his document tomorrow night amounts to a prima facie breach of privilege.
There is a second point I wish to make in support of the motion of the Leader of the Opposition which is this. If we are talking about harm to the role, that is to say the privileges of Members of Parliament, then it is clear that we have the evidence of this, again from the mouth of the Minister of Finance, since he has admitted that this group of 20 is looking at the very material that is to be presented to the House at eight o'clock tomorrow night. They are looking at it today, a full 24 hours before the group of Canadians elected by the people of Canada as Members of Parliament to receive the material from the Minister of Finance have had a chance to receive that material formally in the House of Commons.
He has offered no convincing explanation as to why this group of 20 should today see this material to be presented to the Members of the House of Commons tomorrow night. He has said that the books are closed. He has said that no matter what advice this group of 20 gives him it will be too late.
What we see here then is an attempt to put a group of private citizens in a superior position, a position to which they are not entitled by law or by custom, over the position of Members of Parliament elected to receive the type of information the Minister is presenting to the House and to other people in the country. I again say that out of the mouth of the Minister of Finance himself we see the admission at least of a prima facie breach of privilege.
The Minister, and I believe the Parliamentary Secretary, have asked why Members on this side of the House should be concerned about this group of 20 getting this information today. After all, the Minister says, they are all honourable people. I am not getting up to challenge that. However, what we are dealing with here is appearances. Appearances count when it comes to what happens in the House of Commons, when it comes to the conduct of Members of Parliament who happen to be Ministers. After all, the report by Jan Wong in The Globe and Mail quotes one of the people in this group of 20, a Mr. Allan Taitz, a tax partner at Thorne Ernst & Whinney, as saying about the advance look at the material he has, compared to that available to Members of Parliament: "This gives us a bit more time to digest it-every firm in town is going to write a report for their clients." I do not understand why the Minister of Finance is not concerned about what is allowed to happen in terms of the appearances of the matter for himself and his advisors in the Government and this group of 20.
I conclude by saying that I think on the facts and in the absence of clear, convincing and binding precedents to the contrary upon Your Honour you are entitled to find that there is in fact a prima facie breach of privilege. I wish to underscore that point by saying that we are talking not simply about a press report but about what the Minister of Finance himself has admitted in the House in reply to the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, that this group of 20 are looking at the document today in advance of elected Members of Parliament.
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
For all these reasons the Chair is well entitled to find that there is a prima facie breach of privilege. I hope and say this with the utmost respect, Sir. In view of the importance and significance of this issue, I hope it will be possible to hear from Your Honour, in the difficult decision you have to make in this matter, before the Minister of Finance presents what he calls a White Paper, but what we now know will in fact be a budget with all the consequences for the people of Canada and all the consequences for the Minister because of this inappropriate and questionable release of information to this group of 20 today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I raised some questions with the Minister today on this matter of privilege which is of utmost importance for the House of Commons because I was deeply concerned that the Government had shared its intentions with a group of senior consultants, accountants and lawyers with an expertise on tax matters, people who had previously been hired without pay to act as a sounding board for the Minister.
However, now that they have the advantage of being privy to every intention of the Minister 48 hours before the Minister himself makes those intentions known to the general public, I am somewhat concerned with this matter of privilege in view of the fact that I had a conversation yesterday with the Minister and I asked him why he insisted to designate the people from the New Democratic party who may take part in tomorrow's lock up to review the draft White Paper.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister insisted that some experts whom we wanted to involve in that process would not be allowed to do so, but that we should have at least four Members of the House out of eight people allowed to take part in the process.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the private sector is entitled to bring in 20 experts who are the trusted friends of the Minister and who will be fully informed of the contents of that Paper. This is clearly indicated for instance in the comments of Mr. Couzin, a lawyer with Stikeman Elliott. He said specifically that the task of those experts will be to provide their colleagues and their clients with an explanation of the Governments' intentions. It is indeed clear why those people accepted to work without pay, since they will be deriving virtually boundless benefits from that process. It means that they will get an appreciation of that Tax Reform Paper well in advance of their colleagues who will get to know the details after 8 p.m. tomorrow when this White Paper is disclosed.

I have to admit somewhat personally-


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

June 17, 1987
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), on a point of order.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I take umbrage at the remark of the Hon. Member. Individuals who might be persuaded to participate in the political process in any way should not be subjected to the accusation that it is being done only for personal benefit. The Hon. Member's remark is improper. It is critical of individuals who have no opportunity to defend themselves. In the face of such accusations, who would want to participate in an advisory capacity to governments in any way, shape or form? This is a rank case of impropriety on the part of a Member of Parliament.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it is an impropriety on the part of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). That is the problem before us right now.
In response to the comments made by the Hon. Member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has drawn to the attention of the House his concerns about some individuals who are acting in an advisory capacity to the Government of Canada and the Hon. Member has indicated that, as much as is possible in this place, unless it is very much in the public interest, there should be no aspersions cast on the motivation of those who are in a position of assisting the Government of Canada.
The Chair has noted the point, and I would ask the Hon. Member to be careful.
At least one of the individuals concerned has made it quite clear that he looks upon the information gained as providing some kind of an advantage in the world in which he moves. However, I would ask Hon. Members to avoid that aspect of the matter.
The point that the Chair has to decide is whether or not there has been a breach of privilege. While some of the comments are of interest and may be matters of considerable concern in another context, I would ask Hon. Members to concern themselves with the matter of privilege only.
As the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has said, the finding on a question of privilege is a difficult one for the Chair. However, it is that which I have to decide. I know that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre will assist me in that regard.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the point that should be made is that when we look at questions which might involve conflict of interest, it is not a matter of proving that a conflict exists; rather, we need to prove only that there is the appearance of conflict.
What we have to decide here is whether there is the perception that there can be some potential advantage in the hands of someone in the private sector. That is a matter on which you, Mr. Speaker, will have to reach a judgment.
I should like to speak for a moment about the question of process and about how, as the complexity of legislation increases, it is possible in fact to deal with a question like this.
If the Minister of Finance felt he wanted to get a device from the private sector, it seems to me that he did have some avenues open to him which would have avoided the charge of breach of privilege which has been made in this House today.
For example, he could have raised this matter with the House headers in order to get all-Party consent to a procedure whereby certain people from outside government, people with technical or other forms of expertise, could have been consulted. That, unfortunately, was not done.
As well, he could have raised the matter with the Finance Committee. He could have sought the advice of the Finance Committee, explaining to the committee what he wanted to do and why he wanted to do it. He could have cited the problems experienced in 1981 by the then Minister of Finance, whose proposals, on being made public, were found to be unworkable and unacceptable. He could have sought the advice of the Finance Committee on proposals to avoid a recurrence of that type of outcome. As a member of the Finance Committee, I can tell you that that was not done.
It is, of course, open to the House, through resolution or other means, to agree to change what have been the accepted practices in the past. It is regrettable, in my opinion, that the Minister of Finance did not seek such a resolution.
One recalls what happened in 1963 when the then Minister of Finance brought down a dramatic Budget, a Budget which incorporated a number of very substantial changes designed to reinforce Canadian nationalism. In formulating that Budget, the then Minister of Finance had the aid of "the four wise men" as they became known. These were experts from private sector accounting and tax law firms who were brought in to assist the Minister.
You will no doubt recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Official Opposition of the day, the Progressive Conservative Party, was extremely critical of the fact that those persons had been bought in. The view was expressed that, regardless of the fact that they had taken an oath, they had confidential information.
To what extent the precedents have changed between then and now, I am not sure, but it seems to me that when there is room for legitimate doubt and question, as there most definitely is in this case, the Minister of Finance ought to take the necessary steps to gain consent.
Had our consent been sought, we might have suggested that in addition to consulting with tax lawyers and accountants the Minister might have sought the views of farmers, of fishermen, of the small business community, of women, of immigrants, and others. All sectors of society are affected by potential tax changes. Rather than confine the consultation to the in camera type of consultation that it was, the confidential consultation that it was, the Minister might have consulted more widely.
June 17, 1987

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that far more was revealed in this confidential consultative process than was revealed to me as a member of the Finance Committee. In the one briefing that the Finance Committee had on this, no secrets were revealed. Yet, this group of 20 has been privy to secrets from last fall up until the present.
It seems to me that a better process for consultation might have been worked out. It is regrettable that one wasn't.
It is also my concern, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance has applied a double standard when it comes to his dealings with Parliament and his dealings with outside groups. It is not unremarkable that the media, which has a lot of columns to fill, a lot of air time to fill between eight o'clock on Thursday evening and the next day, is being allowed almost unlimited access in terms of the number of journalists who may participate in the lock-up. As well, they are permitted to bring in outside tax experts.
My office did not ask for that, Mr. Speaker, when we negotiated with the Minister. We simply asked for some modest increase in the number of people that we could get into the lock-up. The Minister, in his great generosity, said that we could have eight people go in, rather than the six or seven who were permitted for the last Budget lock-up; but then, when we asked for access for five of our researchers along with three MPs, he refused, saying that he would decide who would make up the eight. So, the Minister, in his wisdom, chose to tell each parliamentary caucus who would represent it at the lock-up. And, of course, while the experts from these private sector firms are looking at the documentation today-


Philip Derek Lewis: What does this have to do with the question of privilege?


Michael Morris Cassidy: -we will not be able to look at it until tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While the Chair understands the point the Hon. Member is making, it seems to me that it is a point to be made at another time and place.
The issue before the Chair relates to the fact that there is apparently a group of 20 people who have access to the tax reform papers in advance of the Minister of Finance rising in his place and outlining his White Paper on tax reform. All of these people have taken an oath of secrecy not to reveal anything they learn as a result of that advance look until the Minister of Finance has delivered his statement tomorrow evening.
There is the suggestion that the members of this group of 20 may have some advantage as a consequence of what they have learned in the course of their giving advice to the Government, not just today but over a period of time. That may well be. However, there does not seem to be any suggestion that any member of this group of 20 has wrongfully revealed any information he or she may have, or that the oath of secrecy has been violated. I want to be absolutely sure that I have interpreted the comments of all Hon. Members correctly. It seems
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
to me that no one is making that suggestion. I want to be absolutely sure that that suggestion is not being made.
As well, I want to be absolutely assured that all Hon. Members are confident that I have grasped the point of the question of privilege, the point being that these advisers, notwithstanding that they have taken an oath, are being given information which is being withheld from Members of Parliament. That seems to me to be the essential basis upon which it is being claimed that there has been a breach of privilege.
If I have not fully appreciated the point, I would ask Hon. Members to ensure that I do.
I see that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is rising.


Michael Morris Cassidy: May I conclude, Mr. Speaker?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is no allegation from this quarter of the House that, on the facts as we now know them, any of these 20 people have breached their oath. The Minister of Finance has admitted, however, that at the meetings being held today they are getting advance information. The issue is not that they have breached their oath-nobody suggests that from this quarter-but that they have a 24-hour head start over the rest of Canadians in the use of that information. By the time they are allowed to publish it, they have a lead and an unfair advantage over their competitors, over other Canadians, and over Members of Parliament.
The second submission, just in a word, is that the very fact they have been allowed to see this fiscal information,-and I will not argue the point of budget or non-budget-to be followed by a Ways and Means motion, and the fact that they heard this information prior to any Member of the House of Commons in our regular lock-up and prior to the media participating in that lock-up, in so far as Members of Parliament are concerned is a breach of our privileges. As the custodians of the Ways and Means of the country, the power of Parliament to review taxation or proposed taxation or proposed expenditures, our rights have been infringed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to support the point made by the Leader of the Official Opposition that the actions and attitude of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) breached our privileges.
Mr. Speaker, I could blame the Government for not consulting senior citizens who had been misled by this Government and on two occasions forced the Minister of Finance to backstep in the matter of OAS pension deindexing, and in the matter of unemployment insurance for older workers.

June 17, 1987
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
Mr. Speaker, I could easily blame the Government for not having consulted families. But my purpose is to prove clearly that this Government is in breach of privilege.
First, this is no accidental but intentional in my view. To begin with, the Minister of Finance announced that on June 18, there would be a reading at 8 p.m. on tax reform.
Second, he informed-that decision was planned-that on June 18, at noon, reporters and representatives of each Party would be locked up. And this is where there has been a serious breach of privilege-and it is your role, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the rights of all Members, not only Opposition Members but Progressive Conservative members as well-at the same time, this Government, this same Minister of Finance summoned 20 people for privileged information, not to be consulted but to hear privileged information, and that was on June 17. Fie went through that trouble, everything was planned, it is not an accident or an error.
Everything was planned, it was done on purpose to infringe upon Member's privilege. And the Minister of Finance, in answer to questions today, never denied that that was his plan, his scenario.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I could easily have blamed workers, senior citizens, the absence or the lack of these people there. And the Minister of Finance answered questions and said it was not a budget, it was a paper and it was not urgent. But what was it? That answer proves again that the Minister is wrong. If there was no urgency, why select 20 people, 20 accounting firms selected from across the country, and have them meet beforehand? If the Minister wanted to be fair, he could have waited until next week until Friday, to meet all businesses, all accountants, tax experts, to brief them, in order to correctly inform the public.
I do hope that the Chair will protect the privileges of the House. We could accept excuses and understand that, overwhelmed by his great many responsibilities, the Minister could have made a mistake. This time, however, this is clearly a decision not only of the Minister of Finance, but also of the Cabinet on such an important issue.
This may have serious consequences. Let us assume that you are the customer of an accounting firm and you discover suddenly that it has no privileged connection with the government, contrary to the firm next door which had an opportunity to secure privileged information from the government even before the other ministers and ordinary government members and opposition leaders. Under these circumstances, it is clear that you are going to turn to the other accounting firm to get more benefits and opportunities. The Minister has certainly goofed. If the Prime Minister chose this strategy, he goofed too. But the real issue here, Mr. Speaker, is about the privileges of the House.
Today, a ruling is necessary to protect all Hon. Members, because if this planning strategy is accepted today, I feel Hon. Members will become irrelevant, for there would be no point fighting for a seat and asking people to lect them as their
representatives, because 20 tax specialists in the country would enjoy advantages accountable Parliamentarians would not have.
Mr. Speaker, I rely very much on your ruling to protect the privileges of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I will come to the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) in a moment. The Hon. Minister.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a comment on a point of order. I understand that I am not allowed to make any further comments on the question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: May I correct the Hon. Minister. I did not suggest that the Minister could not make another point on the question of privilege if it was important in respect of anything which has been said in argument. I would not close off the Minister. I will certainly hear the Minister.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the point of order I want to make is pursuant to something which I said in my remarks and something which the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) said.
The Hon. Member has drawn a distinction between an accounting firm, one of whose members is part of this group, and another accounting firm, one of whose members is not part of this group.
It gets right to the heart of the point I was making, when people draw politically advantageous conclusions or try to make political points on something like this at the expense of the integrity of the people involved in the process. What the Hon. Member is implying is that the accounting firm, whose member is involved in this process, is allowed some inside information and is using that inside information for the benefit of that accounting firm's clients and to the disadvantage of the people in the other firm.
If that is the case, the Hon. Member is saying that the accounting firm, whose employee or partner is part of this, is breaching the oath of secrecy, and that is quite contrary to what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said.
I ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that because it is an entirely wrong conclusion to draw and it undermines the total process we are trying to use here of drawing good people into the process so that we can have proper consultations in advance and avoid mistakes of the past.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair may not have taken quite the same point as have others in the Chamber. I thought we had clearly established that there was no suggestion by anybody-and I must say that I am not sure I got that suggestion from the Hon. Member from	Montreal-Sainte-Marie	(Mr. Malepart)-that any one of the 20 persons who took an oath of secrecy has breached that oath of secrecy.
June 17, 1987

There is a suggestion that even if they have not, their firms get some kind of advantage because of the earlier information which they have and some other firms do not have. That may or may not be the case. I will consider it carefully, but it may not go to the question of privilege at all.
The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie may wish to clarify this, and I would ask him to do so as quickly as possible.
[ Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reassure the Minister by saying that maybe the interpretation-or maybe I was not very clear: I never meant to blame these 20 people; I simply wanted to explain, and I am sure the Minister will concur, that the public will feel it is in its interest to do business with someone who appears to have the upperhand a head start. I am blaming those 20 people, but I do blame the Minister who is guilty of creating the impression that those 20 people have a privileged status above the Leader of the Opposition, other Members of the House and even Ministers. It is the Minister who is to blame, not the 20 people.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I have been following the comments made this afternoon. Understanding the importance of the question of privilege that has been raised, I must admit to the fact that I am perplexed by the contributions of many Hon. Members sitting opposite. I say that because, from the outset, they have questioned whether or not there should be any consultation involved in the preparation of this White Paper. Indeed, that has been the basis on which they have laid their arguments, skate around it as they might.
If Hon. Members had been listening for the last number of weeks and months to the intent of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who will be presenting the White Paper on tax reform, they would have known that he was consulting widely, and he has re-emphasized that day after day. He has been consulting with farm groups, with labour organizations, with business groups, with women's groups, with social groups and with groups right across the board. He has been dealing with these people so that the process will be better informed than it has been in the past.
The method of consultation is a two-way street. It benefits the Minister of Finance and his officials in their undertakings and it benefits those who will be most affected by tax reform policy. That is the one thing that he has been saying.
He has also made it clear today and on other occasions that the Department of Finance would draw on experts from the community involved with tax policy, including accountants and tax lawyers, in order to better inform the process within the Department. That is what has been occurring over a number of weeks and indeed months.
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
Experts have been sworn under oath to work with the Department in the preparation of this material. The question arises, has that given them any kind of special advantage? Obviously if we are to say that there should never be experts attached in any way to the Department of Finance or indeed any other Department when preparing policy, then we are saying that all the answers reside solely within this Chamber or solely within the expertise that can be offered by officials. We have not seen the situation that way.
We know that in the past, tax reform policy has been presented to the House inadequately studied, inadequately researched and inadequately informed by expertise. In fact, a previous Minister of Finance, having introduced tax reform policy in the House just a few years ago, made so many mistakes in the way he went about it that he set the whole question of tax reform back by many years. Canadian people were the ones who suffered as a result of that.
The Minister of Finance has explained clearly that there has been use of experts in the field who have been under oath. These experts have honoured that oath and there is nothing more to it than that. It might be that members of the Opposition do not want to see that process carried on, but they should be honest enough to say so and not try to impugn the characters, integrity or motives of people involved in this process.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) asked whether or not this process could be skewed somehow or other by the introduction of a Ways and Means motion. He has been in this House long enough to know that Ways and Means motions are introduced a good many other times than at budget time and because a Ways and Means Motion is introduced, that does not automatically signal that whatever then happens is a budgetary process.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to be too long. I believe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) as well, touched on one of the central points here. The question is not whether people broke their oaths, the question surely is whether some people, advertently or inadvertently, are in an advantaged position.
The tradition for the secrecy surrounding budgets is based upon the notion that no individual should be in an advantaged position, that the knowledge that might be gained from a budget or related documents before those documents are made public would put them in an advantaged position. Through the years, a tradition has arisen whereby there is the utmost secrecy surrounding the budget so that no individual would be put in an advantaged position. Whether an individual takes advantage of that position or not is a second matter.
Throughout the years, Ministers of Finance have had to resign when inadvertently aspects of budgets became public or known to a few unauthorized people. We are dealing with a most serious situation.
Twenty individuals who are highly knowledgeable in the field of taxation have, over some months, been in constant

June 17, 1987
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
consultation with the Department or the Department has been in consultation with them. They have known the intricacies of the papers and material the Minister will be making public tomorrow. They have given advice to the department. It is not a question of whether these people have given advice on a little area here or there or have given advice on broad social or policy areas. These are experts in law and in the tax system. They have been asked to advise on the wording of particular measures, how particular aspects of the documents that will be released tomorrow will actually work when implemented.
I am sure the Department of Finance will have asked these people what effect it will have on the market if the document is worded in certain ways, what opportunities will there be-


Mr. Speaker:: I hate to interrupt the Hon. Member and I will certainly let him continue, but the Hon. Member has been putting forth a series of rhetorical questions. The Chair would like him to address the question that is before it, and that is, under what circumstances can a Government go into the private sector, swear people to secrecy and take their advice and their efforts as help in the preparation of matters of finance. Is the Hon. Member saying that that cannot be done under any circumstances or is there something about this particular matter which goes to the question of whether or not there has been a breach of the privilege of Members?
Perhaps I am not completely understanding the Hon. Member, but I felt that the effect of what he was saying is that no Government could go to outside sources even though those sources are sworn to secrecy, because what they learn may in one way or another give them some advantage over someone else at some future time.
I am having some difficulty in understanding how you can ever have a situation where, one way or another, for at least a short period of time, these advisors will not have some kind of advantage over others in their field. It seems to me that advantage goes with the fact they have been selected to assist. The Chair is having a little bit of difficulty understanding how you could ever have a situation where you seek advice and the advisor does not then have some knowledge that someone else did not have. I am having difficulty with that being a barrier to receiving advice.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the point I wanted to establish very clearly is that these people are now in a position of advantage. That is a very crucial and important point. They will know the intricacies of the document long before Members of Parliament, the general public, and their professional peers.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt again but we have been listening to a good deal of discussion, all of which is helpful. But let us assume for the moment that they are in a position of advantage. Please direct your thoughts and argument, which is cogent and helpful, to whether or not that is a breach of the privilege of Members of this House. Perhaps the Hon. Member could help me on that.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, that was the second point I wanted to deal with, the role of advisors to the Government. I do not object to that. In fact, I encourage and congratulate the Minister for having wider consultation than the previous Government. That Government ran into quite a few problems because it did not do that. I think of the scientific research tax credit where the Department of Finance did not consult and did not have the street smarts to deal with the people who took advantage of this measure at a cost to Canadian taxpayers of well over $3 billion. That is a prime example of the need for outside consultation.
I would now like to ask this question. What kind of consultation can there be 24 hours before the document is released? That is the key question. I understand consultations from time to time, but to see the final document is to know what advice the Government has or has not taken. These people are now in a position of being more than just advisors and consultants. They now know what the final decision is. They have seen the complete document.
My second concern about their advisory role is what further role is there for them? My understanding is that they are to fan out across the country-their role as advisors is not finished. They are to give seminars and explain exactly what is in the package and what the Government means. Therefore, is the Government expanding the very needed role of advisors to that of propagandists for the proposal? In that sense surely there is a breach of our privilege.
On the one hand these individuals have been used as advisors in the preparation of these documents. On the other hand, we in the Opposition will not have had detailed information, yet we will be required after only eight hours in the lockup to respond to the document. We may very well be facing people who have had knowledge of these documents many days before.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Or months.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Or months. That puts the Opposition in a very disadvantaged position.
I ask you to consider these two vital elements. There is no disagreement that the Government should have advisors. Yet is their role of advisor finished and another role begun when they see the documents 24 or 48 hours before they are released? Second, what is their role in fanning out across the country to speak on these documents? Those are the two important factors you have to consider and I submit that our privilege has been breached and that the Government and Minister seriously erred in this procedure.
If the Minister wishes to institutionalize the practice of having advisors, which I encourage him to do, he should do so by consulting with the House as a whole so we can help him do it while ensuring that our privileges are not breached and that these people will not be in a position of having an unfair advantage.
June 17, 1987


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of precedent. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), as a former Minister of Finance, sought advice in the process of developing and framing a Budget. From the day the consultative process begins I suppose it can be assumed that anyone party to that process may be in a position to take advantage of the knowledge accumulated by virtue of the agreement or disagreement displayed on the subject matter discussed. There are indicators in the consultative process which those advising the Government could take advantage of.
However, I am very disappointed that this has been presented as a precedent. I am deeply disappointed that we should cast aspersions on any person who has been part of that process at any time unless we have unqualified proof. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is a distinguished lawyer and is certainly familiar with the fact that proof is required. None has been offered, either in verbal or documentary form.
Neither do I think it proper to cast aspersions on the consultative process. That is part of the development of virtually every policy of Government, whether it be budgetary or anything else. Experts have been consulted, sometimes they are paid and sometimes they work for nothing, and I do not think we should cast aspersions, because we need them very badly. If criticism is deserved, and I do not believe it is, it should be levelled purely and simply at the Minister, and not on those employed to advise. The possibility of a breach of confidence has always existed. If we prove breach of confidence at a later date, and it apparently cannot be proven now, then it becomes a very serious matter.
There have been historic examples of opportunity. Did they call their office today? I think that is an irrelevant question because they are under oath. There is no reason why they should not call their offices although there is a major reason why they should not discuss the subject matter on which they were sought as advisers. That would be a gross breach of confidentiality and should be punished as such. However, it has not been suggested that there is proof that such a thing happened. There has been no suggestion that they broke their oath. There has only been an assumption that they could break it. That assumption could have been made for years with regard to the consultative budgetary process.
Was it withheld from Members of Parliament? That has been the subject of discussion in this House for many years but it has never been placed in the rules of the House as an obligation of any Minister of the Crown. If there were a rule of this House which stated that Ministers of the Crown are obligated to make their statements within the House first, there would be a breach of privilege. However, there is no such rule of the House. Therefore, there has been no breach of any rule or any practice of the House with regard to traditional behaviour of cabinet Ministers, including Finance Ministers.
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
While we may possibly wish to adopt a rule, there is no such rule of this House which has been breached.
The only difference between this and other questions which have arisen in the House, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), is that these people who are under oath, not the newspapers, have been given a copy of the work to which they have made a contribution. If it can be proven that they have taken any advantage of the information or have disseminated it in any way, I believe they are subject to criminal prosecution.
The question is not whether there is precedent for what has happened, because there is indeed precedent. The question is whether the House is of a mind to adopt rules which would deny Ministers outside advice because we question the confidentiality. Are we treating outsiders as we treat Members of the House? We have breached confidentiality in this House. I have not, but others have. I say unequivocally that I have not, but other Members of this House have breached in camera confidentialities. They have gone to the press with them and that has been discussed in this House.


John Napier Turner: Name them.


Fred Alward McCain: If we want to assume that everyone outside of this House will breach confidentiality, as has been charged, I suppose it is just that we raise this as a question of privilege. However, I am very concerned about the aspersions which have been cast and the innuendoes which have been made. It is not in the best interests of good government or the consultative process to question the ability of advisers to keep a secret.


Mr. Speaker:: I may be able to help the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) whom I am going to hear. It is the clear understanding of the Chair that, whether or not these 20 have some advantage, there is no suggestion being made by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), or any of his colleagues, that these 20 people have broken their oath or done anything illegal or contrary to the position of trust which they are in. There is a suggestion that because of what they know they will have some advantage. However, that does not go to the question of moral turpitude.
As I understand the position of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and members of the New Democratic Party, they are not making an accusation against the honour or integrity of these people. They have made the suggestion, for me and others to consider, that apart from integrity they may well have some advantage in the commercial world in which they move as a consequence of what they have learned.
There is no doubt in the mind of the Chair that that is the position of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and others. I see them nodding. I want Hon. Members to disabuse themselves of any concern that the Chair is in any way moved by any suggestion, innocent or otherwise, that there is any wrongdoing or lack of moral propriety and honour on the part

June 17, 1987
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
of these 20 people. I would like to exclude that from the debate entirely.
I ask the Hon. Member for Papineau to close the debate as I believe the Chair has heard most of the points, although I think the Hon. Member for Papineau may have one very key point which I should hear.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, naturally, I quite appreciate your latest intervention following the comments made by the Conservative Member. Basically, both this Member and the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), in coming to the defense of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), are trying to lead the discussion to a very different subject matter than that raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The subject of our concern is not the group of twenty friends of the Minister of Finance, but the Minister of Finance himself, and I submit that the Minister has abused my rights and privileges as a Member of Parliament, as well as the privileges of all the Members of this House, both in the Opposition and in the Government.
As Members of Parliament, we must wait until tomorrow evening to hear the Minister announce his decisions. Some of us will have to spend part of the day locked up in a room to receive information on the document which will be made public tomorrow evening by the Minister of Finance.
We have now learned that twenty friends of the Minister of Finance will be able today to learn that we shall hear only tomorrow, without knowing who these twenty friends are. My colleague for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has asked the Minister of Finance to publish the names of these twenty privileged people. The Minister of Finance did not have the courage to give us these names.
Second, we do not know where these twenty pals will go this evening. Where will they sleep? What will they do when the lock-up is imposed on those who, tomorrow-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Papineau is repeating an argument which was heard earlier. These 20 persons are not on a jury. They have taken an oath covering the period of time during which they have been in a particular relationship with the Department. Once the oath is taken it is not the practice to follow the people around or keep them enclosed in a special room or building.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: They do it to us. They do it to the press.


Mr. Speaker:: The lock-up is, of course, something else. No oath is taken in that situation.
1 know the Hon. Member from Papineau wants to assist the Chair. Perhaps he could put aside that argument and get back to the question of privilege which he is addressing very effectively.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate naturally that the twenty pals of the Minister of Finance are sworn to secrecy. In fact, all our argumentation on the violation of parliamentary privilege is based on the fact that the Minister of Finance will disclose to an elite group information which will be given to the public only tomorrow evening, and to a few Members of Parliament and media representatives only tomorrow afternoon, and on the fact that these Members of Parliament and reporters will be confined to a room where they will have to wait until the last minute, right up to the time when the Minister is ready to make his statement, to discuss the contents of the White Paper.
We have never questioned the need for consultation. Yet, the Minister of Communications, who is trying to help her colleague, the Minister of Finance, and who has a long experience in this House and is well aware of our Standing Orders and parliamentary traditions, is attempting to invent an argument to get the Minister of Finance out of this mess. Speaking about consultations is perhaps a way to shield the Minister of Finance, but the fact is that we have nothing against the consultation process. We have never opposed the fact that the Minister of Finance might want to have consultations. What we are object to is that, on this very day, as we are objecting in this House to the attitude of the Minister of Finance, twenty pals of the Minister already know what the Minister will say tomorrow evening.
Mr. Speaker, in our opinion, this constitutes a serious abuse of the privileges of this House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: I think there is a discretion on the part of the Chair to say that after a very lengthy discussion on an important matter I would ask Hon. Members to bear with the Chair and close off the debate. I want to thank all Hon. Members for their interventions. I think that the answers that some Hon. Members have been able to give to some of my specific queries will be of help to the Chair. I shall try to return to the Chamber as quickly as possible and see if my comments will be of assistance to Hon. Members.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that you want to end the debate, but I want to add one point that might help with your deliberations. There was a precedent concerning this kind of outside adviser. I believe it was when Walter Gordon-


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the Hon. Member's contribution, but that point was made. It was in 1963 and the point has been referred to in argument by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), I believe, and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) in his earlier address.
Some of us were not in this place but, nonetheless, we can well remember exactly what happened at that time. I thank
June 17, 1987

the Hon. Member for his contribution. I am closing off debate, I shall reserve and return as soon as I can.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), I have the honour to present the Government's response to the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in both official languages. That report was made on February 17, 1987, and was entitled: "CBC's Financial Management and Accountability: Review and Recommendations arising from the 1985-86 Annual Report".


PETITIONS
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions nos. 332-2103, 332-2148, 332-2149, 332-2311 to 3322317 inclusive, 332-2382 to 332-2385 inclusive, 332-2425, 332-2428, 332-2437, 332-2438, 332-2447, 332-2452, 3322453, 332-2455, 332-2497, 332-2575 to 332-2581 inclusive, 332-2583 to 332-2585 inclusive; 332-2587, 332-2588, 3322590 to 332-2594 inclusive, 332-2597, 332-2599, 332-2637 and 332-2638.



FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in relation to Bill C-42, an Act respecting financial institutions and the deposit insurance system.
Introduction of Private Members' Bills ANIMAL PEDIGREE ACT



MEASURE TO ENACT

Hon. Thomas Siddon (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-67, an Act respecting animal pedigree associations.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Thomas Edward Siddon: for leave to introduce Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

['Agreed.\nMotor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986']
Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-259, an Act to extend the term of a patent relating to a certain food additive.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to have this Bill adopted as soon as possible since the date limit is July 8 and it will require Royal Assent before it can become law.
Is there any possibility that it be adopted tomorrow?


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

June 17, 1987
Petitions


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
['Agreed.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
* *
*



Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and, indeed, my honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Hinton, Alberta; Edmonton, Alberta; Kaslo, New Denver, Ainsworth, Meadow Creek, Nelson, Winlaw, Slocan, South Slocan, Fruitvale, Johnsons Landing and other centres.
These petitioners are concerned about the increasing number of chemicals used as herbicides and insecticides that have been proven to have harmful effects on human health. They believe that these chemicals also produce short and longterm harmful effects on non-target organisms, soil and water.
They call on the House of Commons to initiate a full public inquiry into the safety, testing, registration and regulation of the use of pesticides, and the examination of alternative ways of controlling pests such as biological control and plant derived pesticides.


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present to the House of Commons a petition signed by many members of the riding of Lachine.
This petition supplements an earlier petition to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) signed by more than 1,300 residents. They are concerned about a proposal made by the Department of Transport to expand the Dorval Airport, which would mean taking over the Dorval Municipal Golf Course which has acted as a recreational buffer zone between their community and the airport for 27 years. The petitioners are concerned that the loss of this green space will negatively affect the quality of life in their community.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reconsider the present development plans and to maintain the existing golf course which guarantees an adequate buffer zone between the Dorval International Airport and the neighbouring residential area.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table the reply to Questions Nos. 123 and 132.


Mrs. Finestone: 1.	Since June 1, 1986, did the Government issue instructions to Canada's ambassador to the United Nations with regard to halting payment by the United Nations of an annual retirement allowance to Mr. Kurt Waldheim and, if so, what were the instructions and what specific steps have been taken by the ambassador to halt payment of the said retirement allowance?
2.	Since June 1, 1986, has Canada consulted with other nations about the Kurt Waldheim dossier and, if so (a) which countries (b) with what results?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The Canadian mission to the United Nations in New York was instructed to find out and report if it was possible for the UN to cancel the retirement allowance of an ex-Secretary General.
The Mission reported that Mr. Waldheim's pension was established by a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly. To rescind that pension a resolution to that effect would be required. This being a budgetary item, a two-thrids majority would be needed. It is very doubtful that such a resolution would carry a sufficient number of votes.
2. Yes. (a) U.S.A., Austria, Israel, the U.K., Yugoslavia, the Netherlands, France, Australia, New Zealand, Greece, (b) These consultations have helped to keep the Government abreast of developments and were helpful in determining Canada's position.


Mr. Howie: In 1986, did the Government assist New Brunswick farmers with payments for
the potato crop and, if so, what was the total amount paid?


John Wise: Yes,


Philip Derek Lewis: I ask that all the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 17, 1987


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for production of papers on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question with regard to a matter which was on the Order Paper on June 10, 1987. On page 6963 of Hansard, I put a motion as follows:
That a humble address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Cape Breton Development Corporation's five-year plan.
That motion was agreed to by the House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader indicated that the five-year plan would indeed be given to the House. What I received instead was a summary of the five-year plan. I indicated to the Government office that that was not satisfactory, that it was not what I was asking for in my motion. I would think by the very fact that the House has actually passed this motion that I am entitled, and the House is entitled, to a complete five-year plan and not an office summary.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, I have given the Parliamentary Secretary some notice of this.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have investigated my hon. friend's suggestion. We are talking about terminology here. Summaries of five-year plans are customarily tabled in the House. In fact, I believe this one was tabled on May 26, 1987. It is my understanding that that is the normal practice, and that has been done.
My hon. friend has asked for something which I understand has Privy Council confidences in it. We are unable table the complete five-year corporate plan referred to by my hon. friend. I think it is a matter of terminology. I would be glad to take another look at it for my friend and see if we cannot come up with a compromise.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to delay matters because I realize we have a lot before the House this afternoon. However, I would ask the Speaker if this is not strictly a matter of the Parliamentary Secretary looking at what the Government may or may not wish to make public?
I would submit that by the very fact this motion has been passed by the House, which calls for a copy of the Cape Breton Development Corporation's five-year plan, that indeed this House has said it will be given to us. There is no reference to a summary. There is no reference to which items the Government wishes to give. The House has indeed spoken and that motion was agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 16, consideration of Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra provincial undertakings, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made Tuesday, June 16, 1987, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra provincial undertaking.
Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 2. Mr. Benjamin moved:		
Motion No. 2		
That Bill C-19, be amended in Clause 8 by striking out lines 36 and 37 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:		
"satisfies the board that there are reasonable grounds to believe, the operations of the"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps Your Honour might inquire as to whether or not the House, in the interest of proceeding with business, would be willing to apply the same vote to Motions Nos. 3, 4, and 7A.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, 1 think we would be in agreement, with the condition that the name of the Hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mrs. Vezina) who just came in is added. Otherwise, her vote would not be counted.


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a point of order. That would require unanimous consent. I would be glad to add my consent, provided my vote is counted with the Government.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I notice that a moment ago my colleague from Montreal-Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) referred only to the absence of Conservative Members. I would like to have my name recorded on the division list with the Liberal Party.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to have my name added.


Mrs. Vezina:: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to have my vote recorded.


Mr. Hamelin:: I would like my vote to be recorded for the next four divisions, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand there is unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on Motion No. 2 to Motions Nos. 3, 4, and 7A, with the addition of Hon. Members who have asked that their names be counted.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Therefore, the next question is on Motion No. 3. Mr. Angus moved:
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-19, be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 15 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"taking or not, while at the same time accounting for the impact on the continued viability of existing motor carrier undertakings; and"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.		
The next question is on Motion No.		4. Mr. Ouellet moved:
Motion No. 4.		
That Bill C-19, be amended in Clause 9 by adding immediately after line 16		
at page 6 the following:		
"(0 to prevent unfair pricing practices		by an extra-provincial truck
undertaking;"


John Carnell Crosbie: that the Bill be concurred in.
Members
Gray
(Windsor West) Grondin Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap
Henderson
Hopkins
Hovdebo
Kaplan
Keeper
Killens
Langdon
MacLellan
Malepart
Manly
McCurdy
Murphy
++NAYS
Members
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Gass
Gottselig
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greenaway Grise Gustafson Hamelin Hamilton Harvey Hawkes Hicks Hnatyshyn Hockin Holtmann Jelinek Joncas Jourdenais Kelleher Kempling King
Ladouceur Lawrence Layton Lewis Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands)
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
Mailly
Malone
Mantha
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDougall (St. Paul's)
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
Merrithew
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nunziata
Nystrom
Orlikow
Ouellet
Parry
Penner
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rossi
Skelly
Waddell
Young-47
Minaker Mitges Nickerson Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Porter Ravis Redway Reid Ricard St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow Stackhouse Stewart Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor Thacker Towers Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tremblay
(Lotbiniere)
Tupper
Van De Walle
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Weiner
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek) Winegard-122


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I reverse the vote and apply it to the motion for concurrence?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
When shall the Bill be read the third time? Later this day, pursuant to the Order made on Tuesday, June 16, 1987?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Customs Tariff and the Duties Relief Act, laid upon the table on Wednesday, February 18, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Thomas Hockin: that Bill C-69, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff and the Duties Relief Act, be read the first time and be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, of course I regret that I have not been here for the last several days to listen to all the points made by my hon. friends in the Opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure all Hon. Members would want to listen with great care to the speech of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie).


John Carnell Crosbie: However, I am happy to say that I have been most capably represented by my Parliamentary Secretary, the
National Transportation Act, 1986
Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), who has done a first-class job. He is a gentleman upon whom I intend to continue relying heavily because he is a man of great talent and great capacity.
While speaking on third reading of the Bill, I should like to say a special word about the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). He deserves special recognition because it was his drive, vision, and comprehension of the national transportation system of Canada which provided the genesis of the reforms that are known collectively as Freedom to Move. Much, if not all, of the credit for the work now before the House, which will pass in the next day or two, is due to him.
In addition, I want to thank the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) for his fine work in this connection. I should also like to thank all members of the committee, including those of the Official Opposition and those of the unofficial opposition or the New Democratic Party. They all attended diligently to their responsibilities and made many worthwhile suggestions.
Of course I also thank the government members of the committee for their hard work. I do not know whether I have the full list of their names, but I want to thank the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) who was a constant attender. As well I thank the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) who is an enduring miracle and an expert in the field of transportation. For many years he was the Minister in Alberta. Also, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) was a diligent worker on the committee, as was the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher). I think I have covered all government members of the committee but in any event-
[DOT] (U50)


André Ouellet: London-Middlesex.


John Carnell Crosbie: Oh, we mustn't forget Middlesex.
I would like to put on the record as well the names of government officials who I think deserve special mention in connection with the tremendous work put into this Bill over a period of two and a half years. Mr. Keith Thompson was certainly one of the architects of this legislation. Mrs. Margaret Bloodworth, the Acting General Counsel to the CTC, is a very capable woman who did a marvellous amount of work on this legislation. Mr. Nick Mulder, Assistant Deputy Minister for Policy and Co-ordination; Mr. Jim Miller, the Director General of Strategic Policy; Mr. John Pringle, Director of Motor Carrier Policy; and Mr. Jacques Pigeon who was Legal Counsel to Transport Canada and is now with the Treasury Board, all helped out as well. Of course, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East who attended committee meetings very diligently on behalf of the Government.
I do not want to take too long because this has been a long process in any event. The White Paper containing the Freedom

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
to Move proposals was released almost two years ago. During the fall of 1985, it was studied extensively by the standing committee which held hearings across Canada. Its findings were a key element in shaping Bill C-18. This spring, the committee studied the Bill in depth again, heard witnesses, received briefs and travelled from coast to coast.
I do not think that anyone can say that this legislation has been hurried or rushed through the House. It was carefully thought out and everyone interested has been given every chance to put forward views and to have them considered.
I think the committee examined this matter in the spirit of parliamentary collegiality. We benefited from its analysis of the issues and I believe the committee provides another example of the success of parliamentary reform and the rules that give committees more power. The amendments proposed by the committee have made the Bill a better Bill.
I would like to reiterate the principles of the Bill. The first and overriding principle is that our transportation system must be safe. Our commitment to this is firm. Clause 3 of the Bill enshrines that principle in legislation for the first time. Safety is part of the entry test and the ongoing operating requirements for carriers in every mode.
As well, and this has to be repeated time and time again because opponents of the Bill are constantly putting out erroneous information on this, a uniform national safety code for trucks and buses has been implemented by both the federal and the provincial Governments. It will be incorporated in regulations under Bill C-19, the Bill which accompanies this Bill. Those Bills complement other initiatives the Government has taken to improve safety.
Hon. Members will recall major safety amendments to the Aeronautics Act and the Canada Shipping Act. In the fall, we will bring forward a rail safety Bill and a Bill to create an independent board to investigate accidents in rail, air and marine travel. We are improving safety requirements in all modes.
What about economic regulation, the focus of this Bill? We are adding two important principles to complement the longstanding objective which has been to have an efficient, effective and adequate transportation system. This Bill adds several other important principles to that.
First, transportation systems exist to serve the needs of shippers and of travellers. That is one important principle. Second, competition and market forces wherever possible should be the prime agents in providing for or spurring on viable and effective transportation systems. Those principles are not new, they are not foreign, but they do represent a major shift in the philosophy of regulation for transportation in Canada.
The current regime was put in place in 1967. Since then, the world economy, the Canadian economy and Canada's transportation industry have changed significantly. The regulatory regime simply did not keep pace. As a result, at the present
time it impedes rather than supports growth and development, it stifles competition in all modes of transportation, it reduces the competitiveness of producers and it hinders the free movement of goods and people. That is why the Freedom to Move legislation has received such widespread support.
Bills C-18 and C-19 will affect air travellers and shippers throughout Canada and businesses of all types in all regions, from the small family-operated concern to the large integrated corporation, from the manufacturers of goods to resource producers. All will have new choices in getting their goods to market.
The Bill will increase competition in air, rail and trucking. The objective is to provide the best service at the best price to shippers and to air passengers through competition. We need an efficient transportation system for economic growth in all regions of Canada. This is part of the Government's over-all economic framework and its commitment to put Canadians back to work.
Enduring, meaningful jobs will be created or maintained in all regions wherever transportation service at a better price will make a resource producer, a manufacturer or any other business more competitive in the market-place. This Bill and the principles behind it are badly needed and more than warranted in the cause of regional economic development. The producers and those who have had to deal with non-competitive conditions in transportation will be most benefited.
There were a number of amendments made to the Bill by the Standing Committee on Transport. First, the Bill as tabled recognized the principle that transportation is a key to regional economic development. However, committee members felt that that statement in the Bill should be strengthened, and I agreed. The question of commercial viability of transportation links will be balanced with regional development objectives so that the economic strengths of each region can be realized. That principle will be part of the definition of public interest to be applied by the new agency in the decisions it makes.
Bill C-18 will give us what is required for lasting economic development in all regions and for an efficient, effective and competitive transportation system. As well, to ensure that the agency takes full account of regional needs and opportunities, the legislation will now require that at least one member of the agency be from British Columbia, and that there be one from the prairie provinces, one from Ontario, one from Quebec and one from the Atlantic provinces. The Bill now provides that if the agency establishes regional offices, one will be in Atlantic Canada and one will be in western Canada.
The Government is also ensuring that disabled persons have access to the transportation system. That commitment is reflected in the policy statement contained in Clause 3 of the Bill. A year ago the Government announced its intention to fulfil this commitment through human rights legislation. Transport officials and the Advisory Committee on Transportation of Disabled Persons have been drafting accessibility standards to be adopted as regulations. Representations were
June 17, 1987

made to me and to the standing committee arguing that transportation legislation rather than human rights legislation should be used to enforce these accessibility standards, and I have agreed.
I am pleased to inform the House that accessibility standards when finalized will be adopted as regulations pursuant to transportation legislation, either new or existing. We make a commitment to consult with the disabled in all aspects of that work. In the meantime, the disabled will not lose any rights they now have for access to the transportation system. The Bill has been amended to remove any uncertainty on this point.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The standing committee heard a great deal of evidence concerning competitive access provisions for rail. Manufacturers explained why they need extended interswitching limits and bulk-resource shippers explained why they need competitive line rates. These competitive access provisions are Canadian solutions to Canadian problems.
The committee was not persuaded nor am I that lower rail rates arising from greater competition between Canadian railways or with American railways on transborder traffic will threaten the viability of our railways. I believe Canadian railroads can and should compete.
I agree with the committee that we should proceed with the inter-switching and competitive line rate reforms. I appreciate as well the committee's wisdom in adding a safety net just in case rail revenues are too hard hit or the U.S. Government takes steps that disadvantage our rail carriers.
To accomplish these ends the Bill now authorizes the Governor in Council to suspend the competitive line rate provisions if the annual or four-year reviews of the Act show that the financial viability of Canadian railways is in jeopardy as a result of these provisions. It provides the Governor in Council with the authority to take appropriate retaliatory action if the U.S. Government engages in unfair, discriminatory or restrictive practices against Canadian railways and consultations fail to result in the elimination of those practices.
The Bill has also been amended to delete the third competitive access provision, that being terminal running rights. It would have benefited a few shippers, but the committee was persuaded it should be deleted because of the serious problems it might cause for small railways and the type of short line railway we hope to encourage as an alternative in some cases to branch line abandonment.
Concern has been expressed, especially in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, that new branch line abandonment procedures might result in the loss of many branch lines soon after this legislation is proclaimed. Obviously it is in the interests of a more efficient transportation system to deal first with those lines which incur the greatest losses. This is also the most understandable approach for shippers and affected
National Transportation Act, 1986
communities. From a practical point of view the new National Transportation Agency can only deal with a certain number of applications at any time. In view of those factors the committee added a provision to limit abandonments by any railway to 4 per cent of its total mileage in any of the first five years after proclamation. 1 think that should provide the necessary safeguards for those in Quebec and eastern Canada who are concerned about it.
As well the Bill, when introduced, did not recognize that it may be necessary to continue operating passenger service and branch lines no longer needed for freight operations. Therefore the Bill has been amended first to give VIA an opportunity to acquire a line which is to be abandoned but is currently used for rail passenger service. Second, it was amended to remove any obligation on VIA to provide freight operations should it acquire a rail line. Third, it has been amended to protect VIA's interest in the event that another railway acquires the line. These and other amendments are contained in the revised version of Bill C-18 reported to the House by the standing committee, and certain other fine tuning has been done by the House during report stage.
As we all know, our job is to seek the best balance among competing interests if we are going to achieve reforms that will best serve the interests of Canadians in all regions. There is always strong pressure on every side, particularly in the field of transportation, from conflicting and competing interests. I believe this Bill has successfully achieved the best balance among all those competing interests. If it has not, and if in the future it turns out we have gone too far in one direction or another, then the annual and four-year reviews will point that out and the Government can ask the House to pass any amendments that may be found to be necessary.
We sought a balanced package. We sought to advance the interests of all Canadians by removing obstacles to growth in international trade. We believe Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 achieve that. The work of the standing committee gives me even greater confidence that that belief is correct. The need for these reforms is clear. The benefits are clear. Now is the time to complete the job of making these reforms a reality.
I might say that the Government is responsible for the Bill now before the House. We have listened to all of the competing interests. We have listened to Members on both sides of this House. We have listened to the standing committee and acted on many of the changes it suggested. That is the proper process, but we remain responsible for the Bill. We stand behind it. We believe it is going to mean a great breakthrough for success in transportation, giving us a better, more efficient and viable transportation system. It will help our shippers and help economic growth, and regional development. We persisted in this direction despite a great deal of opposition, some of it from my good friend from Regina West who has been very active and vociferous in committee and in the House in opposition to the Bill. We know there are strong groups, including organized labour, who have not been supportive of the Bill. However, I believe history will show that this has been

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
a great move forward in the history of transportation in this country. When people look back in 15 or 20 years they will say that the Deputy Prime Minister, who initiated this, and the people who supported it did a great job for Canada and that is has worked well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), on a point of order.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, as the Official Opposition Critic, I would normally have the right to speak now for an unlimited period. However, as many Members of this House are aware, we are celebrating a very important anniversary today, that of the Hon. Member for Regina West, (Mr. Benjamin), who has now been sitting in Parliament for nineteen years. There is a reception the Hon. Member will have to attend very shortly, and with the consent of the House, I would like to give him the opportunity to speak now, without of course waiving my right to speak subsequently, for an unlimited period.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Papineau for allowing me to speak now. 1 also thank government Members for agreeing that the Hon. Member for Papineau retain his right to the time he is allowed under the rules as the second speaker even though he is speaking third.
For some two years now we have been engaged with the issue of deregulation. We started with a paper called Freedom to Move in the summer of 1985 and we are now in the summer of 1987. I want to say at the outset that as far as we are concerned, there is a three-part package being put together: Deregulation, privatization, and free trade. They are all inextricably linked. That is why the Government, as well as the previous Government, is and was in such a hurry to try to deregulate, privatize, and what-have-you. It has little or nothing to do with the welfare and good order of Canada and her people. It has to do with pacifying and satisfying the United States on things it does not like about the way we do things in Canada.
The U.S. does not like our freight rate programs. It does not like the Maritime Freight Assistance Act, the Atlantic Provinces' Freight Assistance Act, or the Western Grain Transportation Act. That Act in itself was a betrayal of the Crowsnest Pass rate. The U.S. does not like our marketing boards, including the Canadian Wheat Board. These efforts to deregulate and privatize are essentially to satisfy American complaints about the way we do things because the Government is desperate to get a free trade agreement. I submit that that is the is the main agenda behind this Bill and others like it.
The Americans do not like compulsory public medical care plans. They do not like the Canada Pension Plan or our unemployment insurance plan. They say that our fishermen are subsidized because they are eligible for UIC. I do not give a damn whether they like it or not.


John Carnell Crosbie: Neither do we.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yeah, it sounds like it. It looks like it. If I have ever seen an example of supine acquiescence, grovelling, and crawling on hands and knees to Washington, it is the Government, which is even worse than the previous one.


John Carnell Crosbie: Bunk. Absolute bunk.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Okay, you are just as bad.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The United States' conditions for a free trade deal mean that they will demand things of Canada which will be a direct interference with our sovereignty and independence. This Bill is one of them. The attitude over there is to do anything to make a buck. They will go to any length on an ideological binge that competition and free market forces will be the end-all and be-all. The Tories are working hard to prove that Karl Marx was right that capitalism and free enterprise will destroy itself.
There is a perfectly good reason why there are rules and regulations in Canada and in the United States about cartels and monopolies. There are regulations to control stock markets, corporations, et cetera, because when the market is open wide to a free enterprise jungle it becomes dog-eat-dog, what's in it for me, to hell with everybody else, and I don't care what happens to my country as long as I can make a buck. That is the attitude behind this Bill and others like it.
I for one, Mr. Speaker, do not want to be party to the kind of thing which makes us nothing more than a fifty-first state, a groveller and sniveller to Washington.


John Carnell Crosbie: Such trash. We don't grovel or snivel to anyone. I don't. I certainly am not going to grovel or snivel to that kind of talk.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have been doing that for a long time.


John Carnell Crosbie: Cut it out and get to the Bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This attempt to-


John Carnell Crosbie: That's political garbage.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. gentleman talks about competition and the market forces. How has it been working so far?


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Minister is leaving.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He has not been around for most of the Bill anyway so it does not matter. I wish we would get a Minister who is interested in it.
June 17, 1987

The Minister and the Government talk about competition and free market forces. There has been more concentration in the airline industry. We used to have eight large airlines, six regional and two national, and we now have the two. Both of them have operating and licensing arrangements with small feeder airlines which ensure that between the two of them they will control between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of all airline traffic in the country, and these guys talk about competition.
The market is only large enough for a certain number of airlines. When it is thrown wide open one of two things result. There are either a whole lot of new entrants which take turns going broke, or mergers, takeovers, bankruptcies and concentration. There were new entrants, which are now all tied in with the two majors. There are very few left which are not tied in because they could not survive by themselves out in the jungle in competition with the big boys.
The Government talks about market forces. A good free-enterpriser in the free market lets the market decide whether you have to cut the cost down to damn near nothing or charge all you can get. If the Government believes that, why are there confidential rates? That is probably the most anti-competitive thing that can be done.
It is inevitable that small shippers and not-so-small shippers in the Atlantic provinces and western Canada, such as small manufacturers of farm implements in western Canada which might ship 50, 100, or 200 carloads a year, will be unable to negotiate a confidential contract in competition with J.I. Case IHC or Massey-Ferguson which ship thousands of carloads a year. When the Tories say that they will be able to do that, they are dreaming in technicolour. It is anticompetitive. The very principles expressed at the beginning of the Bill are destroyed by the subsequent sections of the legislation.
Canada will always have a higher cost of economy, particularly in transportation. It is interesting to note that for years railroads in the United States have benefited from a better tax environment. As a consequence, they have higher levels of investment which has led to younger fleets of rolling-stock and has assisted them in other plant investment. That comparative tax environment is changing, but the U.S. continues to have a major advantage over Canadian railroads. U.S. railways have a much higher traffic density than Canadian roads which provides a larger base over which to spread their fixed cost load, particularly Canadian Pacific Rail's two main competitors, Burlington Northern and Conrail.
In addition to that, joint line rates are nothing more than a licence to raid the revenues of Canadian railroads, both of which have been in some financial difficulties for the past year or two and will continue to be for another year or two. To allow American railroads to do things in Canada which Canadian railroads cannot do in the United States is more grovelling and snivelling to Washington.
The Americans do not allow competitive line rates, but we do. Therefore, Burlington Northern, Conrail and Milwaukee Road, with their connections at the Canadian border, can
National Transportation Act, 1986
move their trains on Canadian tracks at less than the fixed costs of Canadian railroads. What kind of competition is that?
Deregulation leads to another kind of extension of the jungle, the ease of entry and exit in the case of the airline and trucking industries. If you can get a loan at the bank, lease some tractors or second-hand aircraft, hire laid-off crews at one-third the pay, and get your insurance, you are in business. That is why there are so many jerkwater, fly-by-night trucking companies and airlines operating in the United States today, some of which are trying to operate in Canada. The reputable, long-established transporter who has good maintenance and safety practices, infrastructure, mechanics, and employees in all categories, are given a bad name because of this.
The whole Bill is an appeal to mediocrity and a decrease in the quality and frequency of service for Canadians. It destroys job security. We have lost tens of thousands of jobs in the transport sector, particularly on the railroads. Both railroads have told us that by 1991 they want to get rid of another 15,000 miles of track and another 15,000 employees.
They forget that transportation is a public utility whether publicly or privately owned. It is there to provide a service. Transportation is the foundation of any economy which will grow and thrive. To turn it into a deregulated jungle will be doing a major disservice to the people of this country.
We are not objecting to getting rid of obsolete regulations that no longer apply. We are not objecting to making the CTC function better so that it is more responsive. Elowever, the lengths to which the Government has gone prevents that from happening. We need constructive regulations that balance the public interest, the interests of the shippers and receivers with the requirements of the transportation industry to be economically viable. That is an economic imperative.
The transportation industry must relate to the size of our country, our geography and our climate. It must relate to the size of our markets, the viability of the carriers and to the rights of the public the and employees.
This legislation is another classic example of union busting by contracting out and leaving employees, who are highly trained technical people, feeling insecure about their jobs. Men and women who worked from 20 to 30 years at the Moncton shops were kept on the edge for three years until the axe fell. Employees of their calibre cannot simply be found at the downtown Canada Employment Office.
Constructive regulation must make both the publicly and privately-owned transportation sector compete under a deregulated regime. Otherwise, reputable railways, airlines and trucking companies will have to make the bottom line their top priority. These reputable companies with good business practices and standards will be forced to cheat. Corners will be cut and safety, security and maintenance will not be the prime requisite in the transportation industry. It is not good enough for the parties to agree that there will be no

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
downgrading of safety, maintenance and security, and that safety will not be compromised. While safety pays, it also costs money and reduces the bottom line, particularly if companies are forced to cut one another's throats by reducing the cost of freight rates or airline tickets.
That is the worst kind of risk management because it not only places transporters at risk, more important, it places the employees and the public at risk.
No sector in the transportation industry in Canada for the last 150 years, whether private or public, has been able to start up and continue functioning without public funding for the infrastructure and capital.
I suggest that no private airline would be operating in this country if it were not for the public purse. Last year, the deficit on airports was almost $700 million because the public provides the navigational and meteorological aids, the airports, the fire-fighting and rescue services. The airlines would be unable to function if they had to provide such services.


An Hon. Member:: That is the same in all modes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Exactly. All of them are and continue to be subsidized. Those who believe that these industries can operate in a deregulated free market regime with minimal regulations and be able to provide the same quality of service to Canadians are dreaming in technicolour.
Canada has always attempted to find mechanisms which try to equalize as much as possible the delivery of transportation service no matter where one lives. There is still too much discrimination against people because of where they live, where they produce or manufacture their goods. I would be a fool to invest $100 million in a manufacturing plant in the Prairies, in Atlantic Canada, or up North rather than near Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. This legislation is designed to inhibit regional and economic growth.
The railroads have already indicated the length of line they want to remove, and even want to remove a thousand miles of tracks in the Laurentian Division, mostly in the Ottawa Valley from North Bay to Montreal. I suspect that CN wants to do this in order to force the Government into buying the track and giving it to VIA Rail, thereby relieving Canadian National of the responsibility.
It wants to get rid of all the track in Prince Edward Island and would like to eliminate the Newfoundland Railway if a deal can be made with Newfoundland. However, that railway comes under the 49 Articles of Confederation with Newfoundland. Yet the railway is in jeopardy if a deal can be made to remove the tracks and build some roads in Newfoundland.
We are scheduled to lose not less than 3,000 more miles of track in the prairie provinces.
Air Canada has already pulled out of six or seven cities. Today, I read the application by Air Canada to pull out of Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. Before Pacific Western Airlines took over Canadian Pacific, it pulled out of eight locations in
northern British Columbia and Manitoba. These are the areas taken over by the jerk water fly-by-nighters who do not even have mechanics or the proper equipment.


An Hon. Member:: And the accidents.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As I indicated yesterday during debate on one of the report stage amendments, an airline operator can lose his licence and go bankrupt, while there is an airline in Schefferville in which seven passengers and a pilot were killed. That operator had no operating authority but had the licence to fly. That airline still has no operating authority, yet eight people were killed. One must wonder with this deregulation whether the Tory transportation agency would consider cancelling the licence of Air Canada or Canadian Airlines International for filing late statistics with respect to fuel consumption and the number of passengers carried. It boggles the mind.
This legislation is based on a bad principle and poor philosophy. We attempted to move 107 amendments to make this bad Bill less offensive.
It is ironic that today's paper contains a front page headline: "U.S. Airlines Reeling From Deregulation". Let us consider what is happening to the travelling public in that country. The last six times I visited the United States, I was in 12 different airports. I have yet to find a clean airport, let alone arrive on time. One never knows whether one has a reservation or must stand in a long line trying to get a boarding pass. That is deregulation. That is the Tory version of competition and the role of free market forces. American airlines cancel flights at will and feel no responsibility to the travelling public because the bottom line is its primary motive of operation. There are not enough inspectors and insufficient regulations.
The Canadian Trucking Association, which is not made up of a bunch of socialists, is pleading with the Government not to bring in deregulation of the trucking industry for at least another year. Until those national safety regulations and the safety board are in place we should not bring in deregulation. We do not have a railway safety Act or a railway safety board. The Canadian Aviation Safety Board is understaffed. It is only a year old but it is under-equipped and it cannot do the kinds of inspections it should do. But the Government wants to bring in deregulation and throw it wide open for competition. That is an invitation to disaster. It is a compelling reason for otherwise reputable transporters to cheat. It is an invitation to disaster and it will cost hundreds and hundreds of Canadian lives.


Mr. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-Ia-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if my hon. colleague, who has travelled so extensively, both nationally and internationally, having travelled on airlines, buses, cars and whatnot, would explain why since 1978, with the beginning of economic regulatory reform, the airlines are so safe?
June 17, 1987


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) had finished his speech so I will allow that comment in the question and comment period. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Regina West would like to reply.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The two remaining major airlines in Canada are still safer, more efficient, the cleanest, and still have a reliable reservations system far ahead of all the airlines in the United States, and we are inviting them to join the ranks of that mediocrity south of the 49th parallel. I am not about to agree to that and neither are my colleagues.
The other tragedy in this country is that we do not have decent passenger trains because this Government starves the passenger service, treats it like an orphan. We have had, relatively speaking, a good transportation system. That does not mean that it does not need a lot of improvement. It needs billions of dollars more of investment over the next 10 to 20 years. However, we used to lead the world, and now in many areas we are running 20 or 30 years behind. It does not matter whether it is rail, the trucking industry or our highways, we need a massive amount of public investment to keep our status as one of the leading countries in the world in transportation. We need that investment to make sure that Atlantic Canada, the North and the West receive equitable treatment compared to the three or four major market centres in Canada.
I invite my hon. friends to talk to the people in southwestern Ontario, who sent in scores of requests for the Transport Committee to come there. The Transport Committee did not go to Yellowknife or Whitehorse. It did not go to Prince George or Prince Rupert. They should talk to the mayors of those two towns and all the municipalities around them. The Transport Committee did not go to the Peace River country or talk to the folks in Dawson Creek, British Columbia or Grand Prairie, Alberta. This thing has been a sham. The deck has been stacked and loaded ever since the White Paper Freedom to Move came down. That is why I submit it is an ideological binge which is going to cost this country dearly.


Mr. Clifford:: Mr. Speaker, I am just delighted to have the opportunity to address the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) formally because I really believe the Hon. Member has missed the point. Bill C-18 is an invitation to Canadians to access. It is an invitation for the Canadian public to travel in at least 20th century style. I hope the Hon. Member for Regina West can understand this.
He talks about Bill C-18 and the market-place and all the worries Canadians should have. I want to tell him that there are no worries in southwestern Ontario. The people there did not get the luxury of having the Transport Committee go there and listen to them, but they are really pleased because action is a lot louder than going to a meeting hall. There has been action on the part of this Government to move ahead with Bill C-18 and offer opportunities to the good burghers in southwestern Ontario so they can finally travel in the style of the 20th century before we get into the 21st century.
National Transportation Act, 1986
Let us just talk about London, Ontario and the opportunities which have arisen there. A year and a half ago Members opposite all said to me: "Air Canada is pulling out. There go the jets. There goes the service. Nothing else will happen in southwestern Ontario because the lights are going out". I did not know how I was ever going to travel between Ottawa and London. But what has happened in the interim? We did not just have one airline come forward and say that it wanted to provide that service. We did not have two come forward or even three. Yesterday it was announced that the fourth airline has come forward in southwestern Ontario. It wants to be a part of Bill C-18 and the future of transportation in Canada. I am sorry the Hon. member for Regina West missed this page.
I am sorry about that.
We are frequently seeing all kinds of airlines coming to our community and giving us this opportunity to travel. It is like the Americans in 1978 when they passed their legislation. We expect 51 per cent more travellers to have access to this kind of transportation. They should not all have to walk and carry a lunch pail. They should have the opportunity to fly. They should have time on their hands and be able to move silently and quickly in the skies of Canada.
The jets are back in London, Ontario, and those Members opposite said that they would never come back. The marketplace brought the jets back. We now have the regular service of jets, and safety came with them. Members opposite said we would never have safety, that safety would be finished because of this new Bill C-18. I want to tell those Hon. Members that Amertek brought in state-of-the-art fire crash rescue equipment to Canada and to the world. It came first to London, Ontario. We have it there to protect our travelling public. We have the best. We have all kinds of frequency of service. We are a model for Canada. We have all kinds of airlines which want to come into the market-place. They want to provide cheap transportation and state of the art technology for Canadians, and they want to do it with safety. The Minister has ensured that the standards will never be surpassed by any country in the world. So we have it all, and this Government should be congratulated.
I want to ask the Hon. Member for Regina West what this is all about? What is this bogeyman? What is wrong with the market-place deciding? What is your problem? What happened to Regina West? Does no one want to fly out there?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, that was a combination of the Hon. Member's third reading speech, I guess. I thought the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) was scheduled to be the next speaker.
I want to tell my hon. friend from London that what happened in Regina is going to happen in London. The Government threw it open. We got one airline and then a second airline. We were told we had to have more competition, and we got a third airline. The market is not big enough for three airlines, so one of them stayed for a year and then pulled out. Then we have to become an international airport, so we

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
get Frontier Airlines which flew to Saskatoon, Regina, North Dakota, Denver, and so on. That lasted 14 months. Frontier Airlines is now belly-up. It is bankrupt.
We see this chamber of commerce syndrome, champagne ideas in a beer market. Mark my words, all these little jerkwater airlines will end up merged, taken over or entering into an operating agreement with one of the majors. The result will be that air fares will not be reduced. The going rate will have to be paid, something which has taken place in cities the size of London and cities even bigger than London in the great U.S. of A.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) point out that the transportation system is a good, safe system. Can the Hon. Member produce any evidence with respect to differences in attention given to safety between the publicly-owned Air Canada and the private sector operation of Canadian Airlines International? Since 1983 or 1984, whenever deregulation in the air industry commenced, has there been any diminution of the airlines' concern for safety? Is the Hon. Member's concern with respect to the majors in the industry? Or is he saying that the smaller airlines are less conscious about safety? Why does the Hon. Member respond with such concern when there is a rationalization or consolidation of the airlines industries under major carriers which have as an obvious concern the safety of their passengers?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I was not complaining about being down to two airlines. That is about all that Canada can handle. I was not complaining about that. I was just pointing out how that occurrence came about under the aegis of the so-called deregulation which threw the doors wide open to free enterprising market forces. It is inevitable to see either bankruptcies or mergers in such cases. It is one or the other. There cannot be too many fellows trying to warm the same spot on the bench.
When it comes to safety procedures, Air Canada has received an international medal for safety three years out of the last six or seven. It is one of the most efficient and safe airlines in the world. We rank in the top 10 airlines in the world. It still remains that way.
The same thing applied to Canadian Pacific and Pacific Western. Rate setting, exit and entry requires cutting costs to the bone, as any good corporate manager will do. It is inevitable. It has been shown and proven many times. The Arrow Airlines accident was a deregulation accident. The Florida Air airplane which hit the bridge in Washington was a deregulation accident. Because there are not very many accidents that is no reason to sit around all self-satisfied and say: "Well, we have not had any accidents lately". What are Members opposite doing? Begging for one?
The operations of an airline and the amount of money it needs for capital investment and so on will perhaps be reduced
when put into deregulated regimes. They have to cut corners, and they will cut them.
I do not believe for one minute that Air Canada or Canadian Airlines International will cut corners on safety. I do not believe it. I do not think they will. But they will cut a great many other things. They will reduce the number of places they serve. The ones I worry about are the ones that are called the Schedule 3 or Schedule 4 operators which do not have the wherewithal to carry on a safety and maintenance regime, something which a big airline can do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would remind the House that the period for questions and comments is over.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. When the Hon. Member quotes the differences between the United States and Canada, is he in a position to point out figures to back up his statement as to air carrier fatalities in the United States versus air carrier fatalities in Canada?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: To conclude the intervention of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), would Hon. Members consider allowing the Hon. Member to have one minute in which to complete his remarks? We will then proceed to the speech of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I only wish that I could join with the Hon. Member for Papineau in his unlimited time. If I had that I would be glad to read a whole book to the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid). I would be glad to recite all these statistics to the Hon. Member. Much of this information he received from witnesses and in submissions given to the Transport Committee, something which he and his colleagues chose to ignore.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak at this point in the debate on third reading of Bill C-18. Bill C-18, an Act respecting National Transportation, has been the subject of comments and debate and has aroused the attention of the public in general far more than many other Bills.
At this stage, I think it would be interesting to go back in time to provide a brief historic overview and see how we got to where we are today, when we are debating the last stage of a Bill that will most certainly cause disruptions in Canada's transportation industry. In my view, there will be a disastrous impact on safety and on several sectors of our economy. The transport sector and our regulatory system have helped to strengthen the unity of this country since Confederation.
Except for coastal regions and the centre of the country, where maritime transport was possible, railway companies at the time had a nearly exclusive monopoly on freight and passenger transport, except perhaps over what can be considered short distances.
June 17, 1987

This had two important consequences. First, the railway companies developed major sectors and, second, the Government got involved in regulating their operations, obviously in the public interest because these companies had control over economic activities, and over the industry and the regions which depended on them.

The 1920s saw massive government expenditures in the field of transportation. The federal Government unified several financially-troubled railways into CN Rail, advanced massive funds for improved shipping, expanded other enterprises and provinces greatly expanded their network of highways.
This was also a period of legislation imposing public duties on railways. For example, the Crow grain rates were extended by law across the West and subsidies were begun for Maritime provinces transport.

About the middle of the century the monopoly of the railway companies began to weaken as a result of progress in the trucking industry, particularly with the advent of powerful diesel engines, road construction, competition from ships plying the new seaway between the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, new pipelines carrying oil to regions where railway companies used to deliver coal, and the growth of airlines and bus companies transporting passengers who were once railway customers. From then on, shippers and travellers then had several options. They abandoned the train and turned increasingly to transport by truck, bus or even airplane when speed was of the essence, cost not a significant factor, and in the case of goods, the weight not too high.
Of course, what followed was to be expected. The railroads focussed on the sectors they found most profitable because of their very nature, such as the transport of heavy goods over long distances, while local interest services and passenger service were losing ground to other means of transport.
Unfortunately, the heavy regulation which had been necessary to control the monopolizing expansion of railway companies in their glory years was not relaxed soon enough to take into account the evolution of transport in this country. The Governments continued to regulate railway freight transport. The railroads had to interfinance their various services to continue to meet the commitments imposed on them in the name of national interest many years before, especially the transport at regulatory rates of grain and grain products for the export market,the maintenance of unprofitable passenger services, and the provision of local services which they could abandon only under very strict conditions.
These circumstances led to the creation of the MacPherson Royal Commission on Transport, which examined this issue from 1959 to 1962 and did some very useful work. I submit that the latest major reform of the National Transportation Act came as the result of a royal commission which took two
National Transportation Act, 1986
years to examine the issues involved. We of the Official Opposition are shocked to see how quickly the Conservative Government is imposing this measure which will fundamentally transform the whole transportation sector in Canada.
I would remind the House that the recommendations of the MacPherson Commission led to passage of the National Transportation Act in 1967, to the decision of the then Government to subsidize directly railway companies in compensation for some of the commitments imposed on them by the national interest, such as passenger service, and even, to a certain extent, to passage of the Western Grain Transportation Act in 1983 which set new tariffs for grain transport.
With the adoption of the National Transportation Act, the Canadian Government ceased to be actively involved in rate setting within a rather wide margin which existed between the minimum rate as set under section 276 of the Railway Act and the maximum rate set under section 278 of the same Act. The legislation thus allowed the railways to set their freight rates as they saw fit, after due consultation and agreement with their clients, of course. At the same time, the Act defined a procedure for the abandonment of local services and provided mechanisms to compensate railway companies which were not allowed to drop certain services.
The results of this legislative review were impressive. New specialized freight services were offered and Canadian railways became more and more competitive. In effect, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that this National Transportation Act which was put in place by the Honourable Jack Pickersgill in 1967 has been a great asset for the Canadian economy over the last 20 years. The transport industry is not ailing. The Canadian rail, air, and sea transportation industry as well as the trucking industry provides a decent livelihood for vast numbers of workers throughout Canada.
Some changes are indeed required to accommodate a new situation. Some of the regulations of the National Transportation Act must of course be streamlined. But the Government is not trying to streamline or to accommodate. It is in fact litterally trying to do a hatchet job and destroy everything we have now to start again from scratch and it is willing to do so in fact just to accommodate a request by the large Canadian carriers and shippers.
The bill before us is the Government's response to the pressing demands of large Canadian shippers. Although the provinces, most transportation companies and the public in general as well as workers in the field of transportation in particular, oppose this bill, the Goverment has decided to stick with it and go ahead in forcing this new transportation act upon Canadians in spite of all the objections that have been put forward.
People often say: If it works, why change it? And we should indeed be asking ourselves at this moment: why is the Government insisting to overhaul the National Transportation Act and jeopardize thousands of stable and well-paid jobs with transportation companies throughout Canada?

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
As I said earlier, the Canadian transport industry is not static. It is indeed a dynamic, developing industry which changes constantly. As everything else, its reactions to change may be good or bad. But the change which we are undergoing is in many ways a technological change. Sometimes, it takes the shape of a competitive challenge from our neighbours south of the border, and it is indeed this change, those developments and those challenges which prompted the previous Liberal Government at the time to review the industry's regulatory framework. In fact, in 1984, my colleague, the Honourable Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), the then Minister of Transport, first suggested that some deregulation might take place in the transport industry. I am saying "some deregulation" on purpose, for what our Government had in mind at the time was the implementation of a more flexible regulatory framework, a framework that would be more in keeping with new economic structures and with the changing face of the transport industry. Our purpose at the time was to set up a regulatory framework to ensure the full development of that industry, thereby improving our competitive position.
But the major difference between us and the current Tory government is that if our policy was future-oriented, it was also deeply rooted in the best traditions of the transport industry in Canada, in both realism and pragmatism which have demonstrated their usefulness in the past.
So, the government is asking us to approve this very heavy and all transforming bill. It had expressed its views in its White Paper entitled Freedom to Move.
Well, Freedom to Move means going full speed and without any limitation towards full, urgent and complete deregulation. My colleague, the former Liberal Minister of Transport, on the contrary, had proposed a strategy of regulatory flexibility which we had described as small-step progression. At first, this strategy was directed to the air transportation industry. We meant to soften the impact on the Canadian economy. This Tory government, by electing to change the whole transportation industry all at once, has caused a wind of panic to blow on several sectors of our economy.
I must say that the small-step approach adopted by the former Liberal government had already started to be felt, resulting in a reduction of the rates granted to the travelling public by the airlines of the day.
Guarantees have been provided for services in distant areas of this country to make sure that those with vested interests, such as those held by various airlines, would be protected by the measures announced by the then Minister of Transport.
Well, we need only look at what has been happening for the past two years to realize to what extent the hasty and misdirected action of this Tory government has resulted in a disturbingly large number of small airlines being taken over by major carriers. Also, the trucking industry in Canada is
starting to experience a disturbing concentration. When he introduced his bill, the Tory Minister of Transport told us: the purpose of this deregulation is to favour and encourage competition. Well, both in the air and highway transportation industries, we see the opposite happening. We do not have more competition, but a larger degree of concentration in the hands of a few big carriers, and the danger is clear-more concentration leads to lesser competition and greater disruption of market forces. And needless to say, it is clear the transport industry in Canada is very much concerned by the Conservative Government's Bill C-18.
So, while accepting the major thrusts of the bill, the Liberal position is quite different from that of the New Democratic Party. While the latter want no change, we say: A degree of de-regulation is needed, existing rules must be made more flexible. We therefore support the principle of Bill C-18. But while accepting the major thrusts of the legislation, we cannot support the way it was put forward by the Conservative Government, nor the hasty legislative process chosen by the Government that to us is totally unacceptable and shameful in the circumstances. Indeed, the importance of the transport industry to our Canadian economy's development is clear. The Government itself recognizes that in the policy statement included in Clause 3. And it is because of that basic importance that we feel the Government should have used a much more balanced approach. And that same basic importance leads us also to suggest the Government should have held wider consultations, it should have listened to the many representations it received when it tabled the White Paper, the Freedom to Move document, and also when Bill C-18 was discussed. What is unfortunate is that apparently the Government only listened to associations controlled by large, affluent shippers in Canada. Clearly, it should have listened as much and perhaps more so to small shippers, small shippers from the Maritimes and some small shippers from Western Canada who made representations and submitted that confidential contracts for domestic traffic in particular may force them out of business.
When small and medium size business people in Canada appear before a commons committee, they make urgent representations, saying: Be careful, if you provide for confidential contracts as proposed in your bill, this may force us into bankruptcy, please do not do that. It seems to me that a Government that has the public interest to mind, a Minister who finally wants to have the best possible legislation, should listen and accept that kind of representations. We cannot understand that the Conservative Government turned a deaf ear to the many urgent representations made by small and medium size businesses that opposed major aspects of Bill C-18.
Evidently, I do not have to tell you that if the Tories did not listen to small businessmen, they listened even less to the unions which also appeared before the Committee on Transport and made very insistent and eloquent representations about the inherent dangers of the legislation for a number of
June 17, 1987

jobs which could be lost in the transport industry if the government blindly proceeded with total deregulation. Some statistics which I find indisputable were given by Canadian unions which appeared before the Committee on Transport and which told us explicitly that to copy the Americans as this Tory government wants to do in the deregulation of transport would have in Canada the same results as the deregulation of transport has had in the United States, that is the loss of many jobs in that industry. However, the government has been entirely relentless as far as those representations were concerned.
The government could have also consulted, Mr. Speaker, all aviation professionnals, pilots and others, who appeared before the Committee on Transport and clearly told us that deregulation would inevitably lead to reduced service and what is more important, reduced safety. We are not imagining those things, this is what those experts, the pilots who earn their living in that field and are the first ones on the line told us: "Take care, what has been done in the United States resulted in decreased air safety." Now the present Minister of Transport as well as the former one told us time and time again that everything would be done to maintain total safety. At one point, the Prime Minister even said that we were going to be number one on safety. We were going to make sure we would have the best safety record. However, if we take a closer look and analyze what the Government has done, we realize that these were just empty promises. We have nothing in our legislation to protect safety standards, and as for the Department of Transport and the various agencies that would be created to monitor Canada's new transportation system, they do not have the person-years and will therefore be unable to provide for the necessary resources to monitor and enforce the most important safety standards.
Only yesterday, when we were considering the report stage of this Bill, we tried to amend the legislation to ensure that the most important safety standards would be enshrined in the text of the Bill. However, the Government would not accept our amendment.
So we have nothing tangible here at all. When the Government talks about safety, it is just talk, since no concrete action has been taken in this respect.
Furthermore, the Government should have listened to our Canadian railway companies when they told us that Bill C-18 constituted a threat to their survival. The railway companies, both CN and CP, testified before our Committee and told us that the new constraints imposed by Bill C-18 would be a threat to their survival, lead to a substantial drop in revenue and business, and force them to cut back severely their operations across the country.
The Government was unmoved by these representations. In fact, it preferred to impose time frames that were entirely unrealistic. For instance, when the Transport Committee was to study the White Paper Freedom to Move, we were handed
National Transportation Act, 1986
the document and told to submit our report within two months. We would be able to hear a number of witnesses, but the report had to be tabled in Parliament before Christmas. Next, when we got the Bill, we were told the Bill had to be reported back to the House before Easter and that it was all very urgent.
Mr. Speaker, I may remind the House that the last time the legislation was revised, a Royal Commission of Inquiry sat for three years before any changes were made in the National Transportation Act.
In fact, in addition to the very short time frames, the Government even had the gall to impose time allocation on consideration of the report stage, and we are now limited to a maximum of four hours at third reading. I think this is hardly the way to deal with a sector that is one of the most important components of our economy. And I think it is hardly acceptable and entirely inappropriate to make such radical changes in the legislation that regulates transportation in this country.
Gagging the Opposition may be something the Government can afford to do in the circumstances because of its crushing majority, but although the Government may be able to gag us here, although it may be able to force Parliament's hand to pass this legislation, it cannot gag the general public. It cannot gag the workers in the transportation industry who will be affected by this Bill. It cannot gag the transport companies whose activities will be seriously disrupted by this new legislation. I am convinced that within a very short while, we of the Official Opposition will have to repair the damage done by this Government which has set its mind on forcing us to adopt a bad piece of legislation much too quickly. I have no hesitation in predicting that, within two or three years at the most, the Government will have to deal with a new Bill to correct the harmful impact of Bill C-18 on our transport industry.
We of the Liberal Party are vigorously opposed to many of the provisions contained in this Bill as we believe that they will seriously harm the economy of Canada for several years. We regret that this Bill does not contain the provisions required to provide such things as serious and credible safety standards for air travellers; adequate services for handicapped travellers; measures to protect jobs in the transport industry; and guarantees that the national transportation network will remain the cornerstone of regional development in Canada.
In a few words, those are the major points on which we of the Official Opposition have tried to suggest improvements, and I am thinking especially of my college, the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) who has proposed several amendments. We have not been as successful as we had hoped.
We believe that the review of such a blue-print legislation, which is essential to the socio-economic balance of this country, deserves a much more responsible approach than that taken by the Conservative Government. I emphasize that, in such a major review, much more care should have been taken

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
to measure the impact of the deregulatory process on such matters as passenger safety, consumers, especially as far as rates are concerned, jobs, the acceptable level of foreign control, and finally, regional development.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the next few minutes to try to point a picture which we Liberals want to be as objective as possible of the harmful effects of comprehensive deregulation such as proposed by the Government in Bill C-18 now under consideration at the third reading stage.
I would also like to review some of the most noteworthy comments made on these issues before the transport committee. To some extent, we Liberals want to act as spokesmen for all Canadians whose views were not taken into account by the Minister of Transport when the Bill was being prepared, and later when the Opposition proposed amendments on their behalf. In so doing, we wish to join those Canadians in denouncing a piece of legislation which, while it may have been based on a sound principle, has become very bad in its various provisions.
First, I would like to deal with the issue which is of greatest concern to the users of our various means of transport. In my opinion, when they hear the word "deregulation", people are most worried and scared about the safety issue.
We Liberals regret that this Bill contains no provision to prevent situations which could actually reduce air safety. The American experience has shown that this is a real danger.
I will not refer to trucking safety-I will get back to that when dealing with Bill C-19-which is also a source of deep concern. Nor will I say anything about safety in rail transport because, as we see it, the Government has proved to be utterly unrealistic by failing to provide adequate financial backing to the railway companies, and particularly the two Crown corporations-CN and Via Rail-for which the Government has the responsibility to meet minimum safety standards in the railway sector.
Every week or every two weeks we are told about derailments, we are told about railway accidents, a clear indication that the Government has failed to take urgent action to revamp a defective system.
But here is where our fears are the greatest and what I want to emphasize again, three fundamental observations in the field of air safety. First, deregulation encourages the arrival of new companies on what is supposed to be a free market. Oftentimes these new airline companies have inexperienced workers who have not been properly trained in aircraft maintenance. Second, one of the effects of deregulation is that carriers are forced to exact concessions from their workers, which often results in longer shifts, stress, lower wages and fatigue, so many factors which can translate into human errors. Sadly enough, more carriers does not automatically mean more inspectors.
As we have seen, in 1979 the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration had 2,000 inspectors for 237 air carriers.
Well, five years later, in 1984, it had 1,300 inspectors for 407 air carriers. The same situation is bound to develop in Canada.
The Government is imposing budget restraints on the Department of Transport. Since the number of inspectors will not match the increase in air traffic, it can be expected that the same shortcomings which prevail in the United States will also prevail in Canada.
In our opinion, these three situations speak for themselves. It is inconceivable that these direct consequences of deregulation might lead to anything other than reduced air safety.
There is more. Indeed, in the U.S. the number of near misses has increased steadily over the last five years, from 311 in 1982, to 776 in 1985. In the first five months of 1986, 305 were recorded, an increase over the same period in 1985. While the number of commercial flights has grown by 31 per cent from 14.7 million in 1980 to 19.2 million in 1986, the number of air traffic controllers has declined by 13 per cent. While the number of aircraft increased by 68 per cent between 1980 and 1984, the percentage of operating revenues spent on maintenance has declined from 8.9 per cent in 1980, to 7.6 per cent in 1984. Clearly that indicates the American skies are not as safe today under deregulation as they were before 1978.
Earlier today my hon. friend from Regina West was asking for statistics. I am giving him uncontested statistics which are a clear indication that deregulation has created a lowering of safety in the U.S., and it is predictable that exactly the same thing will happen in Canada.

Indeed, in the United States air travel is not as safe as it was before deregulation. Accident and mortality rates are on the rise, and I would like to quote Mr. Ronald Cape, President of the US Cetus Corporation, who has this to say: "Commercial flights are less safe now than they were before deregulation". The President of Bache Prudential Securities, Mr. Harry Jacob Jr., stated: "Air travel is now much more dangerous". To us in the Liberal Party, and not only to us but to a countless list of organizations that appeared before the Committee on Transport, the US deregulation experience should have been more closely studied by the Conservative Government. That American experience should have led the Conservative Government to be more cautious before acting with such haste to de-regulate air transport. I cannot understand such haphazardness, such irresponsibility from this Government. I would like to quote from the evidence given by Mr. John Nance, professor, author, and himself a former Braniff Airlines pilot, who appeared before the Committee on Transport. Here is what Mr. Nance revealed, and I am quoting from his evidence before the Committee on Transport:
June 17, 1987



"The most serious objection of all, and the one taken with the least degree of seriousness on Capitol Hill, was the issue of airline safety. It seems obvious to the technically adept members of the airline industry that price wars will lead to cost cutting, and cost cutting will lead to cut-backs in the amount of money available within any carrier to fund training programs for pilots, flight attendants, maintenance workers, operational line workers, and hundreds of others, and would lead to cut-backs in the funds available for maintenance personnel and parts.
With abject ignorance of the realities of the very delicate balance in the human systems of airline operations, the proponents of the deregulatory experiment assume without justification that safety standards will not be compromised as long as the Federal Aviation Administration maintains its surveillance of the airline industry in order to prevent a decline in standards. In addition, they reason it is not good business to denigrate safety standards and cause crashes which kill people and destroy public confidence in one's airlines. Therefore, the natural propensity of airline managers will be to maintain their safety standards regardless of cost pressures.
Based on those two incredibly naive assumptions, the Congress promised that deregulation will never be allowed to lower the level of safety then enjoyed by the people of the U.S., and the government agency charged with maintaining that promise would be the FAA".
That is exactly what the Minister is telling us. That is what the officials in the Department of Transport are telling us. Do not worry. We will continue to carry on business as usual. There will be no problem. We will not compromise safety. That is exactly what was promised to the U.S. Congress and it never materialized. That is exactly what will happen here, to the peril of the Canadian public.
I will cite another part of the text submitted to us by Mr. Nance. He said:
Congress never understood these basic truths:
A.	The level of safety in the airline system of the U.S. in 1978 was, and historically always has been, far, far above the minimum standards mandated by the Federal Air Regulations;
B.	The FAA was empowered to enforce only the Federal Air Regulations, also referred to as the "minimums" in airlines operations-the lowest level of compliance to which any carrier would be allowed to drop before the FAA would be empowered and required to step in and take action to prevent further decline.
Since it was obvious that deregulation would bring massive cost-pressure to bear on established carriers in the sure-to-result feeding frenzy of competition, and since existing carriers would have to find ways to cut their costs to match the lower costs of new entry carriers with overheads no greater than a PSA or Southwest, airline leaders were sure to notice that their level of compliance in many areas of maintenance, training, and operations was far above the minimums mandated by the FAA. Since the FAA was powerless to stop or even influence the decision of any carrier to cut its previous level of standards as long as it remained above the minimums, the FAA would thus be powerless to prevent a general decline in the standards of safety-as long as those standards did not sink below the FAR minimums.
National Transportation Act, 1986
Thus, from the very first, the promise of the Congress to absolute guarantee that there would be no cost-pressure generated decline in the levels of safety of the U.S. airline industry was inoperative and impossible to keep. Furthermore, through ignorance and refusal to do their homework, Congress virtually guaranteed that those standards would have to drop in order for the existing carriers to have a fighting chance to remain in business.
I want to point out to the Ministers and government Members that the same situation could prevail in Canada. My colleague, the Member for Westmoreland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud), says that that is exactly what will happen, and he is right. Mr. Nance was saying that Congress was naive in thinking that safety would be preserved. I submit that the Ministers and the government Members are naive to think that safety will be protected. I am afraid that there will be a repetition of the terrible American experience.
I will continue quoting Mr. Nance's remarks as follows:
But what of the natural propensity of airline managers to have and maintain the highest level of safety available? Once again ignorance plays a role in the story of the U.S.'s experience.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, ignorance cannot be pleaded by the Minister and the Government because they know of the American experience. It may be that the U.S. Congress could plead ignorance, but the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), who knows what happened in the U.S., does not want to look and see the danger. He continued:
Because of the entry into the business of thousands of bright and honorable business school graduates and other managers with no exposure to the nuts-and-bolts operational realities of the human system we refer to as an airline system, the incorrect idea was sure to grow rapidly that the highest level of airline safety and the FAA minimums were actually one and the same, and that as long as an airline complied faithfully with the minimum standards the public trust had been upheld. Therefore new entry carriers run by non-airline people were certain to enter the business at a lower level of safety compliance (fewer hours of training, lower maintenance stocks, lesser quality of operational experience in the people hired) than the major carriers whose routes they were determined to raid.
Since cost control would now become the arbiter of who would succeed and who would fail, arguments on the Vice Presidents of Operations or Vice Presidents of Maintenance for extra funds over and above the minimum necessary were increasingly discounted even in the established carriers, and never considered in too many new entry carriers. While there was and is no doubt that the national propensity of airline managers is to have the greatest level of safety possible-
-and I think the same is true in Canada-
-the definition of what was possible was arrived at through cost analysis and examination of the subterranean FAR minimums, and thus the overall level of safety of the system began to decline.
This is exactly what we think will happen in Canada. The new entries will try to compete and take away some of the routes of the existing companies. The danger is grave that we will have a lower level of safety in Canada.

In his book Blind Trust, Mr. Nance had this to say:

The airline business is a human business. Humans think and act subjectively, try as technology may to mold us into objective perfection, humans fail in the cockpit, on the ramp, in the executive office-and in Congress. Such failures are predictable, and if we do not build in enough of a safety buffer that is being thinned drastically and dangerously by the free-market forces of cost accountability unleashed by deregulation.

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
[ Translation]
In Canada, Mr. Speaker, we simply want to ensure that we do not take the same route. On the other hand, we want for Canada a safe, comfortable air transport system, with fair rates and a high quality of service, and we sincerely believe that on those matters, Bill C-18 fails miserably. This leads us to the matter of air fares over the last two years.
The Minister of Transport attempted to promote his deregulation proposal by suggesting to Canadians that Canada's air carrier rates would be reduced because of de-regulation. In the meantime, both the President of Air Canada and the President of CP Air stated in evidence before the Committee on Transport that air fares had reached their lowest level, that was the bottom line, there would be of course competition between the main airlines but across Canada air fare reductions were no longer to be expected. In other words, the Canadian consumer was misled by the Minister who wanted him to believe air fares would fall significantly because of deregulation. Indeed, the former Minister of Transport attempted to tell the same story. But to his credit, I must add the Deputy Prime Minister had the courage in June, 1986 to admit that the new National Transportation Act would have no impact on rates.

So much for lower fares, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that again the Government has lost one of its reasons for bringing total deregulation in the air industry.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this Government was elected almost three years ago by promising jobs, jobs, jobs. Those were the three commitments made by the Conservative Government and, at that time, by Mr. Mulroney. Jobs, jobs, jobs! Unfortunately, he has been forced to admit that, in this area as well, the Government has not delivered. We believe that this bill will have a detrimental effect on the employment level in the transport industry. Far from creating employment, Bill C-18 will bring about a drop in highly paid full-time employment in the transport sector. Workers in the air transport industry face important layoffs and displacements. The United States transportation industry was deregulated in 1978. From 1978 to 1985, 40,000 workers in that industry lost their jobs. We think that repeating the American experience here would have the same effects. It is obvious to us that in their effort to rationalize their operations, the air carriers would cut down on their staff. This is already being felt ever since CP Air has been taken over by Pacific Western and there is talk of rationalizing operations. And I predict that we will see between 1,200 and 2,000 layoffs or job losses in that Canadian company alone.
And I am not talking about other companies which could be affected by the bill but about the new company which is now called Canadian Airlines and which, in a context of deregulation, has benefited from the happy-go-lucky attitude displayed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre),
who is responsible for competitions policy in Canada, in allowing an excessive degree of concentration in the air transport sector which will directly result in the layoff of hundreds of workers of the former companies, that is to say Quebecair, Nordair, Pacific Western or Canadian Pacific, or even Eastern Provincial.
What will happen as a result of the consolidation of these five companies into one? Jobs will be lost. It is bound to happen. What we in the Liberal party find is wrong with this legislation is that it does nothing to protect jobs in the air transportation industry. Nothing is provided to force air carriers to compensate workers who would have to move in order to keep their jobs or give them proper notice in case of lay off. We consider that the increased competition will lead the companies to cut their costs, to take up a strategy of bare minimum, to abandon certain routes and to run a greater risk of bankruptcy. All those consequences will result in less job opportunities and more lay offs.
This legislation does not include any provision able to counter the likely negative impacts deregulation will have on the work force in the transport industry, while we have before us the most eloquent example of problems generated in the United States by deregulation.
Allow me to quote from the brief presented by the Brotherhood of Railways and Airline Clerks before the Standing Committee on Transport at our hearings in Vancouver last March. We would have hoped that the Government had paid careful attention to that brief submitted by that union which had done an outstanding work to bring to the attention of the committee members some very relevant points of view, and I quote:
However, one fact about deregulation that we will not dispute is that the airlines will use it as an opportunity to cut costs. The supporters of deregulation have clearly indicated that the major portion of this cost-cutting will be achieved at the expense of workers.
At a hearing of this Committee in November, 1985, when asked "what specific steps would an organization" such as his take in order to change the profit picture, Donald Carty, (then President of CP Air), provided the following action plan: 1. "go from three-fleet types to two" 2. increase the use of "automation"; and 3. make changes to "our labour contracts."
It would appear accurate to suggest that such cost-cutting measures would have a negative impact on both present and future workers of any organization. The recognition of who will suffer most in the implementation of deregulation has also been highlighted by transport economists. Professor Tretheway of UBC has suggested that, "some of the gainers from deregulation, consumers, may have some obligation to the losers, the employees-"
While the proposed Canadian legislation has followed the U.S. direction of recognizing the needs of shippers, consumers and carriers, it has failed to follow the U.S. legislators in at least attempting to provide for the needs of workers in the transportation industry. The Transport Minister has suggested that the Canadian Bill is an improvement on the U.S. law as "We (learned) our lessons from what has happened there." One improvement which we believe Canada should have made on the U.S. legislation, is a more effective employment protection package ... To ignore this issue is to fail to recognize that the elements which have created the stable industrial relations system in the airline sector are a natural product of having operated in a regulated environment.
June 17, 1987

The results of such a failure for Canada can be extrapolated from the U.S. experience. For as Professor John T. Dunlop has asserted in reviewing the U.S. scene: the inadequate consideration given to the question of "how deregulation would impact on the relevant labour markets and the process of collective bargaining "exacerbates the industrial relations problems created by deregulation.
[ Translation]
It is clear that the government has failed to take into account this proposal made before the Transport Committee. And this is regrettable because there is no doubt that Canadian workers, in the transportation area, deserved more protection.
Now, I should like to deal briefly with the issue of foreign control over our industry. Always anxious to kowtow to our neighbours to the South, the government introduced a bill without any provision limiting foreign control over Canadian transportation companies. Mr. Speaker, this is surprising, when we know that even in a country as powerful as the United States, there is a 25 per cent limit on foreign takeovers in the transportation industry. We fear that a great many Canadian companies will fall into foreign hands. We said so to the government. We have tried to move amendments to protect against this possibility. But the Tory government has decided to live dangerously.
While disregarding the need to safeguard Canadian control over our transportation industry, leaving everything to the discretion of the Minister responsible for Investment Canada, and failing to set any statutory limit to foreign control, the government, we feel, has left the door open to foreign control over this industry which is so important to the economic wellbeing of Canada.
We have tried to move an amendment which could have offered a certain protection to the workers within the transportation industry by incorporating to Bill C-18 the provisions of the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to refresh the memory of some of our colleagues on this major legislation which was adopted by Parliament in May 1982. The purpose of this legislation, which comes under the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) is to extend protection through income support to some workers who have been permanently laid off by industries designated by the federal government, who are no longer entitled to collect unemployment insurance benefits and who have no employment outlook. These last resort benefits, authorized by the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act, are aimed at people who have been laid off and who, because of their age or particular qualifications, could not avail themselves of the manpower placement programs and who experience therefore tremendous adjustment problems.
1 respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that many railway and other Canadian transportation employees who worked for 20, 25, 30 or even 35 years in the industry will soon loose their jobs as a result of this deregulation process.
If in its great wisdom, the Government could in the past offer benefits to laid off workers of designated industries until
National Transportation Act, 1986
they reached the age of 65 so they would not rely entirely on welfare assistance, if the Government could offer such a useful program to textile, shoe, and mine workers in many areas of Canada, I think that it would only be fair to offer a similar treatment to transportation workers because these Government measures will undoubtedly create absolute chaos for many experienced workers.
If, for example, such a program had been set up for the workers at the CN shops in Moncton, we would not see as we do now, a Conservative member of Parliament being contradicted by his own Government after having declared that the Minister of Transport abdicated his responsibilities by allowing the Crown Corporation to go ahead and lay off many good workers from Moncton who spent many years working for the government. Well, these adjustment benefits have been in existence for several years and are helping many Canadians. In reality, these adjustment benefits account for about 60 per cent of the average weekly insurable earnings, based generally on the last 20 weeks of employment preceding the lay-off. These benefits are entirely geared to the inflation rate and are paid until the beneficiary finds a job or reaches the age of 65.
I therefore submit that the Conservative gouvernment has a responsibility towards all these workers that could be laid-off in the transport industry. The amendement I had moved which would have made it possible for these workers to take advantage of this program was of course rejected by the government. Yet, I think that sooner or later, in view of the slump that this bad legislation will eventually create, the government will have to intervene and I think that this program, however imperfect, could meet to a large degree some of the pressing needs of these workers who will be faced with unemployment and no job opportunities.
Another striking deficiency of Bill C-18 is the fact that it includes no qualification tying the enforcement of the legislation to the aims of regional development. We are now told at the very most that the commercial viability of transport services is to be weighed against the aims of regional economic development. It is an amendment which I introduced in the Committee on Transport, amendment that was reintroduced as such by my colleague the Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane) and that was also introduced at the same time in the Committee on Transport. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot but be pleased to see that the amendment was accepted. However, while I was pleased to have my amendment approved by the government, I must indicate that 1 find it insufficient. The amendment is not strong enough to compel the government and its officials to take regional development into account when decisions are made and transport policies are drawn up.
Mr. Speaker, history has clearly shown us that if we want an efficient regional development policy, all federal departments must take it into account. If the aims of regional development are only weighed against the commercial viability of transport services, there is no guarantee. It is too vague, too general for a minister or his officials to take that into consideration. The

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
aims of regional development must prevail over commercial interests when both are in conflict. Such was the view of several witnesses which were heard when the Standing Committee on Transport visited the different regions in Canada. Indeed, that opinion was almost unanimously held in the Atlantic provinces. For example, let me tell you what the Leader of the Official Opposition in New Brunswick and very soon the Premier of New Brunswick, Mr. Frank McKenna said in Moncton on April 1 last and 1 quote:
[DOT]	(1950)

It is essential that Bill C-18 be amended to ensure that economic development objectives will take precedence over commercial viability when the two objectives conflict.
There is bi-partisan agreement across the Maritimes on this fundamental point. In its present form, Bill C-18 does not offer this assurance. It is not acceptable to Maritimers. It is not acceptable to New Brunswickers.
The inclusion of this clause will reaffirm transportation as an important instrument of economic development.
It will clearly indicate that the federal Government will not allow commercial viability to be the sole determinate in any decision affecting the transportation service.
As it now stands, Bill C-18 stresses the right of the market place to regulate itself through competition. The point of the included clause will be to insist that the transportation services essential for our economic development will not be endangered by the more competitive atmosphere.
It will ensure that we will continue to enjoy full access to these services even if they cannot prove commercially viable. It will ensure that we are recognized as equal Canadians even though we do not live in central Canada.
[ Translation]
One could say that this is a Liberal speaking and playing politics but, Mr. Speaker, it is not only the Leader of the Opposition in New Brunswick who said that but also the present Premier who appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport on April 1 last and said:
[DOT]	(2000)

The federal government's reluctance to date to incorporate into Bill C-18 satisfactory protection against the possible downside effects of the proposed legislation has increased the province's concern regarding the potential negative impacts of the new act on transportation services in New Brunswick, and in the Maritime provinces in general.
This is why New Brunswick is adamant that paragraph 3(1 )(d) of Bill C-18, recognizing transportation as a key to regional economic development, be expanded to include the statement that regional economic development objectives will take precedence over commercial viability objectives when the two are in conflict.

On of the best briefs presented to the Committee on Transport was that of the Flarmon Corporation of Stephen-ville, Newfoundland. This is what they had to say:

Section 3 of Bill C-18 contains the statement of policy governing the whole of the proposed legislation. The Section accentuates commercial viability. In subsection (d) it states that transportation is a key to regional economic development. Sprinkled throughout the bill are provisions relating to the
maintenance of essential rail and air services, however, it is not a positive commitment to foster economic development. There is no evidence of a positive commitment whereby regional economic development is given greater status than commercial viability.
It was a condition precedent to British Columbia joining Confederation that a railway be built through the mountains.
It was a condition precedent in the Terms of Union with Canada that a ferry and rail link be continued between Newfoundland and Canada. One of the key reasons for these conditions was economic development.
The Canadian Premiers, in 1985, met in St. John's, Newfoundland and stated that they desire economic development objectives to have supremacy over the objective of commercial viability where the two conflict.
It is therefore the position of Harmon Corporation, in accordance with its mandate in the public statement of Canada's provincial Premiers that Section 3, subsection (d) of Bill C-18 be amended to read as follows:
"(d) Transportation is recognized as a key to regional economic development and where commercial viability objectives conflict with regional economic development objectives the latter objectives shall prevail."
[ Translation]
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, all those evidences should have moved the minister of Transport and touched the Conservative members sitting on the Transport Committee, because I want to underline that the governments of Nova-Scotia, Prince Edward Island and that of New Brunswick which I just mentioned, as well as several other witnesses, all approved that amendment to the Bill. They wanted that section to be amended. They clearly wanted a firm undertaking that regional development would be preserved. Such a position had also been expressed by the Transport Commission of the Atlantic Provinces and by the Atlantic section of Transport 2000. I repeat, all those parties wanted and still want that regional development objectives to prevail over the commercial viability whenever the two are in conflict.
We think as Liberals that the priorities and understandings concerning regional development should never be jeopardized by transport policies that do not take into account the special needs of the most distant, the most remote regions of this country.
In the absence of such a declaration in the act, it is clear that the impact on regional development will be negative, because until now it is through regulations that we could alleviate a number of difficulties linked to regional economic development.
In a framework devoid of any transport regulation, Government intervention no longer will be possible. The Conservative Government would not recognize the importance of regional economic development. Such a position is totally unacceptable in our view, and points to a lack of awareness of the fact that Canada is a nation with a population that is relatively sparce and scattered over the second largest country in the world.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleague the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud), who worked very hard to put the case submitted by all Maritime representatives, who himself moved a very important amendment that incorporated almost word for word
June 17, 1987

the agreement reached between the then Minister of Transport (Mr. Otto Lang) and the Maritime Premiers after Mr. Lang submitted a draft that met the aspirations and hopes of Maritime representatives and was committed to include in the National Transportation Act, when that act would be amended, the very clause we attempted to have accepted by this Government, and that we Liberals, had we been in Government and had we put the legislation forward, would have enacted.
I must say that the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent did everything to convince his Conservative colleagues on the Committee on Transport to accept his amendment that met the expections of Atlantic witnesses who appeared before us. It was a splendid fight, but unfortunately Conservative Members closed their eyes, pinched their noses and blindly followed the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary by rejecting the motion. Nobody was more embarrassed than the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-


An Hon. Member:: -Annapolis Valley-Hants!


André Ouellet: -Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), Mr. Speaker, who as Chairman could of course not vote, but probably was at a pain when he called the vote and saw his colleagues, especially the Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Marin), the Committee Vice-Chaiman, vote against such an important move to Canada's regional development. But we now realize why the Government refused that amendement. It is because the Government does not believe in regional development. As we just found out, the Minister in charge of Regional Development is being stripped of everything. Like a strip-teaser, he is stripped of one responsibility after another. Very soon he will be stark naked, without any power to look after the interests of Canadian regions. Not only is the Conservative Government rejecting an amendment that would protect regional development interests under the transportation legislation, but it is also dismantling the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion which had been set up in the best interests of Canada and specially for the prosperity of the regions of Canada. We cannot help become indignant when we see this Government destroy what was built by the Hon. Jean Marchand and created out of a deep concern for social justice to allow Canadians wherever they live to share in Canada's prosperity. And the main mandate of the regional development department is to ensure that this prosperity enjoyed by major urban centres of Canada and some wealthy areas of the country be spread around in the interest of everybody, in all regions of Canada.
I say this: the Government has rejected our amendment. That is reason enough for us to vote against Bill C-18, because a fundamental pillar of the Canadian economy is missing, that is the recognition of an economic development opportunity for all Canadians who live outside the big cities of Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton.
National Transportation Act, 1986
Outside those large cities, there are people who are entitled to an opportunity to work and prosper, and we have tried to amend the legislation. The Government did not go along. We will vote against the bill because we believe it is totally unacceptable under the circumstances.
1 wish to revert to the suggestion made repeatedly by the Minister of Transport to the effect that this legislation is the result of successful consultations with the provinces. Such a statement is absolutely unfounded. We know how deeply the Premiers of the Maritime provinces are disappointed and aggravated by this lack of understanding on the part of the Minister of Transport. But let me tell you a little about the reaction of the Quebec Minister of Transport on Bill C-18.
As free trade negotiations are underway between Canada and a partner which spares us no blow, what with restrictions on lumber, pork, potash, etc., how can we justifiably give free access to our railway system without any counterpart? This is what the Quebec Minister of Transport, Mr. Marc-Yvan Cote, was asking his Federal counterpart, Mr. John Crosbie, when he submitted a paper outlining the official position of the province of Quebec with respect to Bill C-18, a Bill to redraft the National Transportation Act.
We should remember that under this Bill, a shipper may enter an agreement with a company which does not serve his area, including a U.S. company, for the purpose of transporting his goods. The province of Quebec as well as several western provinces have seriously questioned the relevance of such a concession, for it is obvious that, although those shippers might benefit from it in the short term, it might have a negative impact on the economy in the long run.
The submission sent by Minister Yvan Cote to Mr. Crosbie was drafted in line with a decision of the Cabinet, and therefore represents the official position of Quebec on this matter. Here is a brief outline of some of the amendments to Bill C-18 suggested in that memorandum:
Specifying the powers of the Governor General in Council and providing for early consultations with the provinces on matters of concern to those provinces.
Extending the funding provisions for modal conversion to include the rehabilitation of lines that may be taken over by other companies.
Establishing at net salvage value the sale price of businesses and lines abandoned by a railway company when an interested party is willing to take over.
Including in the branch line grant mechanisms some form of incentive for businesses to try and upgrade their revenues and services.
Provide for the preservation of unused branch lines for five years, with a possible further delay as required.
Giving provinces which may subsidize or take over services which are about to be abandoned an assurance that they will be provided with the cost and market data of railway companies.

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Granting provinces a right of appeal to the Governor in Council with respect to maintaining services subsidized for reasons of public interest.
Establishing a consultation process with the provinces with respect to the reciprocal agreements on international air transportation.
Finally, use accessibility rather than geographic criteria to identify protected areas in the North under air regulations.
Mr. Speaker, not only the federal Minister of Transports has not studied carefully the representations from his provincial colleague, or taken them into consideration, but he has not accepted a single recommandation from the Quebec Minister of Transport. Nevertheless, the federal Minister would have us believe that he has the support of the provinces to proceed with his Bill. He does not. Provincial Premiers are very upset by the attitude of the Minister.
One of the biggest aberrations of this Bill deals with the competitive line rates. I do not know whether people watching us understand what is involved in this Bill C-18, which is divided in several parts. The first one deals with the new National Transportation Agency; the second with air transportation, about which I was talking just now; the third part is about railway transportation and includes a section about railway lines which sets out various terms and conditions for the railway companies regarding their lines. A fourth part concerns motor vehicle transport, and has a section on trucking, although there is a separate Bill C-19 also about motor vehicle transport. The fifth part is about northern marine resupply services, the sixth about commodity pipelines, the seventh about acquisitions of Canadian transportation undertakings. The last part contains a series of general and transitional provisions and related and consequential amendments.
One of the most complex and difficult sections in this Bill is the one about railways and the new constraints the Government has decided to impose on them. Whereas, on one hand, he recommends a comprehensive deregulation of air, road and sea transportation industries, he says he wants to deregulate rail transportation but at the same time, he is imposing conditions and commitments on both Canadian railways, which is hard to believe. It is for good reason that Minister Cote referred earlier to the free trade negotiations with the Americans when he said: You are about to give everything to the Americans in the transportation area without asking for anything in return. In particular, it is true for rail transportation. American railways will enjoy benefits that their Canadian counterparts will not have. In order to please a few major shippers, the Government is jeopardizing the future of both Canadian railways, but to whose benefit? To the benefit of American railways and trucking companies that will soon be under U.S. control.
One of the worst nonsense which we heard of is the section on competitive line prices. An American expert, Mr. Dempsey, has appeared before the Committee on Transport, and what he
had to say is very significant. I will quote him because this will enlighten us about the lack of concern and the recklessness of the Minister, who was fully at the mercy of a few officials of the Department of Transport who had decided to play a dirty trick on the railways. And if, on one hand, the Liberal Party has no objection and indeed supports this process, namely that we should enable major Canadian shippers to have better prices, we are not prepared on the other hand to go as far as undermining at the same time the very viability of railway companies. As I said in the second reading debate, some officials of the Department of Transport are vengeful or have a hidden agenda. They want to hurt railways, and they used this legislation on deregulation to substantially undermine their viability and prosperity. This is entirely unacceptable, I find it hard to believe that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has not been perceptive, brave or competent enough to see what was happening. Mr. Dempsey said the following:
We do not have anything in the United States comparable, as you know, to your proposed competitive line rates. It might be or it might not be and I pass no value judgment on it-
He is an American citizen who obviously does not want to put his nose into Canadian activities. The President of the United States and some Congressmen are not following his example, and they should. Indeed, sometimes we wonder who is running this country, whether it is the President of the United States or the Prime Minister of Canada. However, he said:
It might be or it might not be and I pass no value judgment on it, a good thing to have a rail system in the United States that is like the interstate highway system. It might be a good thing to have railroads compete with one another like supermarkets do. All that I can say about it, without passing a value judgment, is that it would wreck the system in the United States, it would just wreck it, that is all.
He is one of the authorities in the United States who is telling us that competitive line rates in the U.S. would wreck the system.
However, the Minister of Transport of Canada joyfully goes ahead with the competitive line rates idea and imposes it upon Canadian railway companies. It is absolutely unacceptable.
CN, which is a Crown corporation under the umbrella of the Minister of Transport, despite the obvious displeasure of the Minister, had the courage to say the following about competitive line rates:
Nowhere in the world is the arrangement of physical access to one railway's line from another forced by legislation.
Some of us have called the provision a confiscation of assets, because our railways, respectively, have spent millions upon millions in building roadbeds, tunnels, bridges and other infrastructures to win freight and intermodal customers.
Others refer to the idea as turning the railways into a communal right of way over which anyone could move without guaranteed proper recompense to the owner.
Certainly the view of CN is shared by CP. The idea of competitive line rates is unprecedented; nowhere has it been
June 17, 1987

done. As Mr. Dempsey said, it only means one thing: it means big, big trouble for Canadian railways.
We are wondering why the Government wants to do it. The Canadian Industrial Transportation League has been following the testimony, advocating the passage of the Bill without amendment, urging us to speed up the process, and advocating the change. Obviously the league had the ear of the Minister much more than the workers and the companies. Elere is what the league had to say about it:
The CITL believes that competitive joint line rates will only be used as an exceptional safeguard procedure for the following reasons: Imagine yourself a shipper who is local to one Canadian railway after Bill C-18 has become enacted. If you wished to apply for competitive line rates, you would have to go through a formal legal proceeding which might take several months, whereby the specific CLR which you would pay would be argued before the National Transportation Agency, as well as whether your designated routing was "cost effective" or to the "nearest" interchange, et cetera.
Once you have endured these additional legal expenses and delays to obtain your competitive line rate, the merchandise might be further delayed by a day or more per shipment due to the local railway's resistance in adjusting their work schedules for an hostile interchange with the competing railway which was obtaining the long haul.
I did not invent these words. These were the words submitted to us on April 3 by the Canadian Industrial Transportation League.
On one hand, the railways do not want it and, on the other hand, those who might benefit from it are saying that it is unworkable, too costly, and unproductive.
Why on earth is the Minister of Transport insisting upon bringing in legislation with measures that are not satisfactory to anyone? I submit that the Minister, who unfortunately has not been very studious, to say the least, about Bill C-18, did not know what he was doing and what he was pushing. I also believe that he has been badly influenced and misled by some of his officials in the Department of Transport who wanted to get at the railway companies. Again this is an aspect of the legislation which is terribly bad.

This policy, by substantially reducing the revenue of railroads, will provoke abandonment of many branch lines in Canada. I must say that, in this regard, both our railroad companies, that is the CNR and the Canadian Pacific, were very frank with the members of the parliamentary committee. When they appeared before us and were asked this question, they replied quite honestly that, in the case of the Canadian Pacific, over one third of existing lines would be abandoned. Even more, the CNR will abandon half its lines. There is no doubt that the railway companies have no other option than to abandon branch lines throughout Canada.
The Hon. Member for Jonquiere-


Clément M. Côté: The most beautiful riding in Canada!


André Ouellet: The Hon. Member from Lac-Saint-Jean in Quebec says it is the most beautiful riding in Canada. Even though he interrupts me constantly

National Transportation Act, 1986


Mr. Robichaud:: He thinks he is a Minister.


André Ouellet: -he will probably pay attention to what I am about to tell him-


Clément M. Côté: It will be the third time you say it.


Louis J. Robichaud: Not at all. You are not listening.


André Ouellet: -because the documents clearly show that the Canadian National in particular is about to abandon important services. I suggest to the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) that he should take notes and have enough courage to take part in this debate later on, because the only thing he seems to be warming up right now is his backside, not his brain.
The Department of Transport in the province of Quebec contemplates a whole string of actions to counter this now almost irrevocable decision by the CN. Indeed, according to the document made public by the Quebec Minister of Transport, Mr. Cote, many applications are anticipated from the CP for the abandonment of the following subdivisions, that is the Chaudiere Line (Valley-Jonction to Lac-Frontiere) and the Tring Line (Tring-Jonction to Courcelles). And as for the CP, Chandler Line (Sainte-Adelaide to Gaspe), Taschereau Line (Cochrane to La Sarre and Miquelon to Chapais), in the Danville area, Charny to Plessisville Line, and in the Val-D'Or area, Senneterre to Rouyn Line are all at stake.
I recognize that the Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St-Julien) has been the only Conservative member to make active and sound representations for the sake of his own region, so that Val-D'Or would not be deprived of its Senneterre to Rouyn line. And because of his representations, we have heard evidence from representatives in the Abitibi region who appeared before the Transport Committee in an effort to have some amendments made so as to protect concerned regions from those unilateral abandonments of railways by the CN.
Some colleagues in the Opposition are tempting me with a sandwich in order to make me conclude now. I feed myself with all those documents we have been handed in the transportation committee. They contain a wealth of good sense and ideas on how to amend this piece of legislation.
It is unfortunate that the Minister of Transport is not with us now. He did not show up often neither in the committe when we considered this bill. He could have found food for thought in all those briefs submitted by various people and we could have made use of them to make this bill acceptable. Unfortunately, because the Minister of Transport was so uncompromising, so eager to sabotage the transportation sector in Canada, none of those briefs have been considered and accepted. Now, the Department of Transport of Quebec is protesting against those abandonment orders at a time when the Federal Government itself admits that the present system is obsolete by proposing a reform of the corresponding economic regulations.

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
In all those instances, the track could be dismantled, and it would then be very costly to put it back in place. In the case of the above-mentioned CN subdivisions, the request concerns a section of transit line which would then become sidings and which would be less useful for inter-regional transport. Moreover, the great flexibility given to railways in this regard could lead to requests for the abandonment of lines which are presumed viable now.
In this respect, the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please!


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was just wondering if my friend opposite would like to put in his order for breakfast because we are having bacon and eggs brought in. I wondered if he wanted his eggs over easy or straight up.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the kindness of the Parliamentary Secretary who allowed me to take a few seconds' rest to continue with more enthusiasm to criticize this bad Government legislation.
I was quoting from a memorandum prepared by the Governmment of Quebec-


Darryl L. Gray: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
_ Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Hon. Member for Bonaventure- Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray).


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if my hon. colleague from Papineau could give some indication to the House of the length of time he will be speaking. What he has been saying we spent the last 16 years living and I wonder if he intends to go for another 16 years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) has the floor.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that on third reading the spokesman for the Official Opposition has unlimited time. Considering that the Government wants to speed up things and has imposed time limits, we were prevented from discussing properly a series of amendments we would have liked to introduce, we had to vote without debate on a number of significant amendments introduced at the report stage. Since debate on third reading will be limited to four hours, I feel perfectly free to speak for as long as I wish.
Moreover, I am not really speaking for myself, I am merely speaking for the thousands of Canadians who made representations to the Standing Committee on Transports and were ignored by the Government. I am sure that they are glad to see that, through me, their objections will be on the official record of proceedings of the House of Commons Debates.
I was talking about a document put out by the Quebec Government which says, and I quote:
"A leaked internal document from the CNR, about ceasing all marketing efforts for about 1,600 kilometers of lines in the St. Lawrence area, has the Quebec Minister of Transports worried and he is asking the federal Minister of Transports to act to prevent the CNR from destroying a rail system which is very useful to Quebec."
It is essential, before these transport infrastuctures are finally withdrawn from service, that all parties involved have access to a range of alternative services better suited to the present needs of the economy. This underscores the need for an abandonment policy flexible enough to take into account the different requirements of the various regions of Canada.
Obviously, this Government which is tightening the budgets of its Crown Corporations and is laterally starving a company such as the CN will do nothing to convince it not to abandon some of its branch lines.
So, it must be recognized that in spite of our efforts and the amendments we have presented, the Government decided to go ahead. Our railways will have problems because American railways and trucking companies will take a large share of the Canadian market, and all the Government has to say is this: You are going to incur losses, but if you wish, you will be allowed to abandon some lines in order to save on maintenance costs.
This is a short-sighted policy which is indeed contrary to the national interest and which is not only going to impede regional development and disadvantage the most remote areas of the country, but also completely strangle Canadian railways in the short or medium term.
Furthermore, this is a bad and deficient legislation because this Government refused to establish clear accessibility standards for the disabled in the National Transportation Act.
We have witnessed some kind of a tragi-comedy in the Transport Committee when the time come to vote on the amendments that our party moved-there was also one amendment from the NDP-relating to the legitimate requests of the associations for the disabled.
The Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister felt suddenly in a minority position because a few tender hearted Tories were ready to support our amendments, which would have allowed us to amend Bill C-18 as requested by the groups representing the disabled.
At the last minute, the Parliamentary Secretary said: No, do not vote now, I would first like to consult with the Department's officials and legal advisors to make sure that this
June 17, 1987

amendment is in order and meets the requirements of the Justice Department.
Instead of being passed in the morning, the amendment was deferred to the afternoon sitting, when the Parliamentary Secretary came back with a new wording which was, I must admit, more atuned to some of the concerns expressed by the associations of handicapped people, although it did not go exactly as far as a legislation on transportation services accessibility standards for handicapped persons. Consequently, we were satisfied with the amendment because it was better than nothing, although the handicapped certainly expected more than that. Of course, we agreed to the amendment in the afternoon, and the Conservative Members, who felt good about it, voted in favour.
Since then, we have received a letter-
We have just received a letter from the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped. They said that Bill C-18 was coming back to the House for third reading and they wrote to request that we move further amendments which will permit the enactment and enforcement of accessibility standards. That is what we were ready to do in the morning. The amendment would have been accepted in the morning except at the last minute the Parliamentary Secretary saved the day for the Minister and the Government and said "do not vote immediately, wait until the afternoon". We have an amendment which has been accepted, but it is imperfect. The Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped is now telling us that what we did is far short of what they were expecting. They are absolutely right.
The letter goes on to say that these standards have been under development since 1983. They are concerned that it may be many years before the Act is open again. They say now is the ideal time to make legislative provisions for standards which are nearing completion. The Minister has been informed through the chairperson of the Transportation for the Disabled Implementation Committee of its support for these amendments. They ask that we contact the Minister and indicate our support for this objective and agree to work in a co-operative fashion to develop a mutually acceptable set of amendments.
Last night, in the spirit of co-operation, I rose in the House to indicate to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he wanted to bring in the amendments referred to in this letter, we would accommodate the Government and allow it to implement the change requested. The Parliamentary Secretary said no. He refused the offer of the Liberal Party, seconded by the NDP. If the Government had wanted to do so, with the help and support of the two opposition Parties, it could have amended the Act to favour the handicapped.
They also refer to an enclosed letter to Transport Canada official Jim Miller which makes clear that these amendments were under active consideration by the Minister. The
National Transportation Act, 1986
Minister's executive assistant, and they even give his phone number, (613)-996-7501, indicated the Minister was still hoping for an all-Party agreement which would allow for this insertion prior to third reading. It said that senior officials in Transport Canada support the intent of the amendment and the Minister is known to be personally supportive.
Either the Parliamentary Secretary did not know what he was talking about last night, or the executive assistant to the Minister has misled the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped. It is one or the other. According to this letter and the Minister's executive assistant, he was ready to accept the amendment. In fact, he is supposed to have been studying these amendments since 1983. Surely they should be ready to be implemented now.


Clément M. Côté: 1983?


André Ouellet: Yes. We have no difficulty in saying that the Liberal Government was ready to implement in legislation amendments that would guarantee appropriate enforcement of accessible standards for the handicapped.
I do not think the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Government have come clean with the handicapped on this issue. I think it is a shame. This is a major and regrettable flaw in the legislation and there is no doubt that the handicapped have been, to say the least, short-circuited by officials or the Minister's staff. That is not the way to treat the handicapped and I regret it very much.
To conclude, I would like to refer to the new agency created under Bill C-18 to replace the Canadian Transport Commission. It has been said and repeated time and again that this new agency will not enjoy the same authority and independence as the former CTC. The latter had an exceptional expertise and could count on conscientious and dedicated employees and commissioners who looked after the interests of transportation in Canada.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal party, I want to thank all those who worked for many years at the Canadian Transport Commission and who well served their country. I must say that I deeply regret that the Government, in its desire to dismantle, to change and to rebuild everything, has decided to abolish the Canadian Transport Commission. Clearly, the Conservative Government could have made a few changes in the best interests of orderly operations at the Canadian Transport Commission. But there was absolutely no need to abolish the Commission to meet their new need for deregulation. There was a research team, an outstanding pool of expertise which could have carried on and be quite useful to the new National Transportation Agency. However the Conservatives wanted to start again from scratch,they wanted to start afresh, they wanted to do everything over again and consequently they abolished an organization which in my view

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
has played an important and useful role in the transport sector in Canada.
I hope that several of the employees and even some of the present members of the Commission will be transferred to the new National Transportation Agency.
I thank the Parliamentary Secretary who on behalf of the government agreed, following my request last evening, to introduce an amendment which to some extent will protect the employees of the Canadian Transportation Agency.
As I said yesterday, at the very last minute, before the proceedings of the Committee on Transport ended, the legal adviser of the Department of Transport introduced an amendment to clause 273 of the bill which, with all the adjustments, became section 272. Moreover, he added a subsection which was liable to frighten greatly the employees of that agency. 1 refer specifically to section 272 to which was added at the very last minute that clause which stated: Exclusion from compensation. The persons appointed as Members of the former authority, the former Canadian Transport Commission, are in no way entitled to claim or receive compensation for damages, indemnity or any other form of indemnification from Her Majesty in right of Canada nor her agents by reason of the abolition of their functions under subsection 9 and under this Act, except for any indemnification the Governor in Council may authorize or provide for by order in council.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this was much more than a minor technical amendment, it was purely and simply carte blanche for the Government to fire outright people who, in good faith, a few years ago, three or four or five years ago accepted to leave their jobs or their communities and come to Ottawa to work for the Canadian Transport Commission and take a position for a specified period of time.


Louis J. Robichaud: -to work for Canadians.


André Ouellet: And as my colleague for Westmorland-Kent suggests, to work for Canadians.
Clearly, that amendment allowed the Government to decide the next day that a Member of the Commission was fired, he had to go, because the Commission no longer existed, and he was stripped of everything he became entitled to when he accepted that appointment.
This is a kind of retroactive legislation that should not be done, and if there is something that is ignominious it is to pass a retroactive legislation that strips individuals from rights and privileges that were freely and properly conveyed to them. I commend and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for accepting that we add subclause 11 to clause 272 of Bill C-18, thereby inserting an exception to subclause 10, the preceding paragraph, which states that notwithstanding subsection 10:
The Governor in Council may, by order, authorize or provide relief of a form described in that subsection.
I therefore take for granted that this is an indication of magnanimity from the Government. I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for having very rapidly corrected the situation, and I hope that good intention that is now inserted in the act will be reflected in concrete steps, appropriate, fair and
proper settlements for all those who are now employed by the Canadian Transport Commission and who, because that Commission is abolished, will not be unfairly and rudely treated by the Government.
In conclusion, let me say that the Liberal Party not only has reservations on Bill C-18 and that desire for quick deregulation, but is also concerned about what this Government will want to do with its Crown Corporations. We also believe that regional development is a major component of any transportation policy, that transportation in Canada must be complemented by Crown Corporations. We cannot leave Canadian transportation in the hands of private enterprise alone.
That is why the Liberal Party has always believed in the usefulness of such Crown corporations as the CN, Air Canada and VIA Rail. We are concerned about this desire to privatize at any cost which seem to haunt the minds of Tory ministers.
One of the finest success stories in the area of Crown corporations is Air Canada. When it marked its 50th Anniversary, the Liberal Party emphasized the important role played by this Crown corporation. Together with my colleagues the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) and the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (M. Tobin), we prepared a press release to demonstrate that we continued to believe in the important and crucial role played by this Crown corporation in the development of our country, a role which we felt it should continue to play, especially in the light of deregulation.
It was as a response to that persistent rumour to the effect that the Tory government was about to privatize Air Canada that my colleague, our party's critic in the area of privatization, and my other colleague, who is associate critic in the area of transportation, and I prepared this document and insisted on emphasizing the raison d'etre of Air Canada, our national carrier.
From the time it was established to this day, Air Canada has provided the travelling public with transportation services from sea to sea, while reflecting the federal government's commitment to the principles of bilingualism, employment equity and regional procurement policy.
A privatized Air Canada would no longer pursue the same objectives and there would be a definite danger of certain routes and regions being abondoned, because they are not so profitable as some others.
Henceforth, the objective of a universally accessible air passenger transportation service, for which Trans-Canada lines were first created, would become out of reach.
We wanted to emphasize that Air Canada has played a significant role in the past and that it will have to play a similar one in the context of deregulation. For as the Tory government is about to adopt Bill C-18, which will bring about the complete deregulation of the air transportation industry, we must wonder what is the wisdom and the need at this time to privatize Air Canada.
June 17, 1987

We suggest that Air Canada is a profitable and well administered corporation. It was awarded in the past on several occasions a number of international prizes. We believe that this Crown corporation, especially in view of the great concentration which seems now to happen in the air transportation industry, ever since the government implemented its deregulation program-it is becoming more than ever essential for the Government to retain, through its own Crown corporation, a vehicle to provide services, maintain and even further develop services in some regions which would be completely abondoned by the private sector which would concentrate its operations in the most lucrative centers in the central regions of Canada where the costs of operation are lower and which are more densely populated.
I said a moment ago that Canada is a country with a small population scattered over an immense territory. Air transportation is therefore a necessity for many Canadians, and not only for travelers but also to move goods to people who need them in remote areas. Air Canada, a Crown corporation, is essential in the new context of deregulation, because the Government will have a company to provide transportation services to those remote areas.
Of course, this may not be the opinion of the Governement and of the Conservative Party. Tories want to privatize all Crown corporations. The Governement does not believe in regional development. It is not aware of all those essential services remote areas need.
That is why we fear that Air Canada will be sacrified for the sake of deregulation and privatization.
I will conclude with a word of warning. The battle the Minister had to fight to get Bill C-18 through is nothing compared to what he should expect if he ever tries to privatize Air Canada. We are going to oppose such an initiative systematically and relentlessly, because we think that public interest dictates that we keep this Crown corporation.


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of listening to my friend, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), for some two hours. He has been very successful in turning off every television set on the parliamentary channel. I simply want to ask if he intends to make us numb on both ends in this exercise he is going through?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have had the opportunity to give not only my point of view, but also the point of view of all my colleagues in the Liberal caucus, and to say that we are deeply concerned with this hectic, hasty and thoughtless deregulation process by the Conservative Government.
National Transportation Act, 1986
In the few moments which I have been able to use, I have not only given the views of the Liberal caucus, but also acted as the spokesperson for countless Canadians who do not approve of that decision by the Government, and in particular thousands of Canadian workers in the transportation sector who feel that their jobs are threatened by Bill C-18. I have been very pleased to be able to put that disagreement on the record on their behalf, for the Government has proceeded with such haste, has refused to let the Parliamentary Committee travel to all those areas of the country, all the cities, all the villages which requested hearings of the Transport Committee, which would have liked the Committee to visit them and hear their views.
I wish Members from both sides of the House had been able to travel throughout the country to listen to what the people have to say about this Bill. Since that was not possible, I have tried tonight in their name to exercise the privilege of an Opposition Member who feels frustrated, thwarted, and stifled by this Government which has restricted the time for this debate, I have tried at least, as I said, to convey the disagreement not just of one person, but of a very large number of Canadians throughout the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, now that we have heard all the speeches by the Members of the NDP and the Official Opposition, and I am thinking of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), I think we can say that today in the House, and I say this as a junior Member of Parliament who was elected in 1984, that two hours of the precious time of Canadians have been wasted, listening to the foolishness we have just heard from the Liberal Party. Mr. Speaker, as politicians from every part of this country, we feel this is a disgrace.
We have had some very serious messages from NDP Members who told us they were against the Bill and against deregulation.
As usual, the Liberal Party told us it was for but then again it was against. And it took the Hon. Member two and a half hours to put his case.
Mr. Speaker, as a very good Conserative, I would like to take at least five or six minutes to give you some idea of what the Government, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and our Transport Committee have been doing.
For the people who have been listening this afternoon, I think it is important that we understand what has been going on for 20 years. We listened to the Official Opposition for the 16 years when it formed the Government. It did absolutely nothing for our transportation sector. We have taken charge

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
now and it is important for all Canadians, carriers, users and consumers, to know the impact of Bill C-18 and Bill C-19. My Hon. Colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), said we were bullying through the Bill. There was a three-year Royal Commission in 1961. The former Liberal Government had 16 years to do something about that and it did nothing.
On February 21, 1985, the then Minister of Transport for the Conservative Government stated the Government's objectives regarding economic regulatory reform. When we talk about economic regulatory reform in transportation, there should be no fear placed in the hearts and minds of Canadians because of a couple of Opposition Parties which do not believe that we should advance and develop in our country. After extensive consultations with the former Minister of Transport and our present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), we set up a committee and travelled across the country with our Freedom to Move.

Alter sans entraves, in French. The committee was set up in July 1985. We consulted the Canadian people across the country, from East to West.

I come from the riding of Bonaventure-lies-de-la-Madeleine and 1 know the importance of transportation to our economic development, and it will become even more important to Canadians with Bill C-18 and Bill C-19. In the past we have always gone with the carriers, and 1 allude to the reference made by the Hon. Member for for Papineau in his hour and 45 minute speech. He was saying the lines from-
[ Translation]
-Chandler to Ste. Adelaide in Gaspe were closing. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. As vice-chairman of the Committee on Transport, I spoke on that matter and CN has given a written in a letter, guarantee, that the line would remain open for us. What the Hon. Member says is false, Mr. Speaker. For him to spread false rumours is not doing Canadian men and women any good.

Our transport committee travelled in May of 1986 to the North. You know as well as I, Mr. Speaker, that transportation in our great North is a problem because of our isolated regions. I come from an isolated region. That problem is covered in our Bill. The Minister of Transport and all Members of the Government will continue the commitment we as Conservatives made in 1984 to the Canadian population. We are not only interested in talking in the House of Commons. We want to take action, and we are doing so.
On November 4, 1986, after we had our discussion in committee on Bill C-18 and Bill C-19, we heard from other witnesses who came to Ottawa. We remodified our Bill. We listened to Canadians from the West Coast and the East Coast. This Bill is made in Canada.
It makes me angry when I, a Member who spent 16 years on the government side, stands up and uses a reference from the United States. We looked at how deregulation has affected the United States and we have a made in Canada policy for us, and that is important for all Canadians.
The over-all objective, as summarized in Clause 3 of Bill C-18, is clear. The objective is to create the conditions necessary for a safe, adequate, effective and efficient transportation system which best serves the needs of shippers and travellers. That is what we will do with this legislation. In total, the various transportation Bills will reform the economic and safety regulation of each and every mode of transportation within the federal jurisdiction. They will remove obstacles to economic growth and make the system safer for everyone. They will put Canadians in a position to meet the challenges of the late 1980s and the 1990s. We will be competitive.
I would like to briefly mention four points with regard to Bill C-18 and Bill C-19.
[ Translation]
The first concerns mostly safety. The matter has been raised several times in committee and even here in the House. What I want to say has been said before by our Minister of Transport and also by his predecessor. There is no question that safety will never be neglected, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transport said that safety is and will remain the first concern of our Government. That commitment was set forth in our national transport policy, in clause 3 of the Bill, and it is reiterated every time we talk about transportation in Canada.
Allegations that the National Transportation Act will jeopardize air safety are unfounded. For all modes of transport, individuals or corporations applying for a licence will first have to prove the safety of their methods of operation. This is important, Mr. Speaker. The air transport industry has always given the highest priority to safety. Under the new safety regulations, the Government will ensure that this remains a priority concern by requiring any new carrier to implement the training, inspection and application programs of the Government. This remains our priority.

Point number two is a greater reliance on our market forces. We have spent the last 20 years with absolutely no development in our transportation system. We know that to get to markets we must have an efficient transportation system. Greater reliance on market forces and less reliance on economic regulation is a very important factor. This will lead to more innovation and enterprise and to more competitive transportation services and prices. It will give a fair and level playing field for everyone.
My third point is that widespread consultation has been done and will continue to be done, and we have produced a balanced package of reforms in our legislation. I have already mentioned point number four. A gradual relaxation of regulation enables all concerned to adapt to change with a minimum of dislocation. That is very important because our
June 17, 1987

country is vast and our transportation system must adapt to what we have in 1987, and what we will have in 1990 and the year 2000.
The Minister of Transport, my honourable colleague and friend from St. John's West, in his usual eloquent style has said that it is important for Canadians on all the four points I have mentioned. With the cost of transportation as it is in our country, we must compete. We must have fair prices in the transportation market.
The increased competition between railways which will result from Bill C-18 will have a significant impact on the relationship between shippers and carriers. This impact has implications for the role of the regulatory agency.
Currently, all rail rates are in the public domain, and any shipper may take advantage of them. Under Bill C-18 confidential contracts will be permitted, that is, a shipper will be able to negotiate with a railway for a rate and terms of service unique to his circumstances. We have not seen that in the past. Shippers have been unjustly prejudiced because they have not had fair rates for the transportation of their products. We are addressing that problem.
This new way of doing business may in some instances lead to difficulties between the parties in reaching an agreement. To resolve any such private disputes, Bill C-18 introduces the concept of mediation and final offer arbitration. It is important that the federal Government, with 10 provinces and two Territories, says that it is willing to listen to the people who use our modes of transportation.
If a shipper and carrier are having difficulty reaching agreement on a rate or service conditions, they may jointly request a mediator from the proposed national regulatory agency. The mediator is simply a facilitator of communication between the parties. If the two parties reach a true deadlock, with or without the help of the mediator, the shipper may ask the agency to appoint an arbitrator. Arbitrators will be independent persons knowledgeable in the transportation field.
The arbitration process will be quite straightforward and speedy. That has not been the case in the past. The arbitrator will assess the parties involved and choose one or the other of them. Unless they have otherwise agreed, the parties will be bound by the result for one year.
I could go on to talk about the number of hours that we spent in the Transport Committee. I would not be fair to the committee if 1 did not pay tribute to its work. As the vicechairman of the committee, I commend the work of the chairman, the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary Secretary. To push it to the limit, I even have to mention members of the Opposition in this regard. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we know where the NDP stand. It is against development. The Liberal Party does not know where it is. I congratulate the people who had a positive input into our committee. I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, and the
National Transportation Act, 1986
Canadian population, if they have not already been put to sleep by the former speaker from the Liberal Party, an efficient, safe and secure transportation system for Canada under a Progressive Conservative Government.


Louis J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the Hon. Member told us that he was concerned about the regions as he is himself from Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine which could itself be called a remote region. He also tried to suggest that he is concerned about regional development.
My question is very simple. How can he explain to the people of his region that he voted against Motion No. 5 which dealt with regional development, as my motion would have provided for a mechanism to save jobs and protect our transportation system, especially in remote areas? How can he explain to his constituents that he voted against this motion which dealt with regional development?


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to reply to the question asked by my colleague for Westmorland-Kent.
As 1 mentioned earlier, if we look at Bills C-18 and C-19, we find, as the Minister himself and his predecessor have both pointed out, that the transportation system is a key to regional development.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add something. I was elected in 1984 in the constituency of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine. The situation I inherited on September 4, 1984 in the Gaspe peninsula and my own constituency of Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine included an unemployment rate of 28 per cent and the transportation network of the former Government supported by my colleague for Westmorland Kent and others.
Within twelve months, the Progressive Conservative Government had lowered unemployment from 28 per cent to 18.4 per cent in Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine. Is that not wonderful, Mr. Speaker? It is. This was not done by myself as a Member of Parliament, but by the Government. The proof is there. We wanted change.
My hon. friend for Westmorland-Kent is saying that I am voting against regional development. His party did nothing for sixteen years. We lowered unemployment by 10 per cent and brought in a new transportation network. Indeed, the old Liberal transportation system is finished. Bills C-18 and C-19 will address the problem, and because of this, there will be regional development in the Maritimes, in Newfoundland, in Eastern Quebec and everywhere else in Canada.


Louis J. Robichaud: I realize now the reason why, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine voted no. He is trying to convince us an 18 per cent plus unemployment rate is acceptable.

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
So now I can understand what frame of mind that Member was in when he voted. But he did not answer my question, namely, how he would explain to his people why he voted against the motion that dealt with regional development.


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think that at the same time the Hon. Member wants to play with figures. But as I said, during 16 years 28 per cent unemployment rate was acceptable in my area, at home. Never will I say that 18 per cent is acceptable. It will never be as long as I am a Member in this House.
But under the Liberal Government, such was the situation- 28 per cent was okay. Because we, in the Gaspe Peninsula, in the Madeleine Islands, we did not count. That is not the situation, Mr. Speaker.
As far as regional development is concerned, since he is mentioning that in respect of transportation, we voted for the clause under which transportation is a key to regional development.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague says that I am against regional development, but past experience shows that his own colleagues have always been against any development.
But, Mr. Speaker, we in the Progressive Conservative Party are in favour of our regional development.


Mr. Belsher:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) on his excellent address to us concerning Bill C-18 and also the balanced explanation that he has given of the Bill that is before us. What I would like to ask the Hon. Member is this. He will recall that when representatives of CN and CP appeared before the committee, they drew attention to the fact that they felt that their revenue was at risk. Yet, under questioning, we heard their freight would not be at risk, that there would not be any lessening in the amount of goods that would have to be carried because of the two Bills under discussion.
Would the Hon. Member care to comment in terms of whether or not we have been able to strike a reasonable balance between the interests of the shippers and the carriers in the Bill that is before us.


Darryl L. Gray: Insofar as the railroads are concerned, the evidence is clear that there will be no lack of volume of traffic. There is always the matter of competition.
This Bill strikes a balance between the interests of the users and the carriers. In the past, our transportation system has always benefited the carrier. Under Bill C-18 and Bill C-19, not only will the carrier benefit, but so too will the shipper and the consumer. This country is made up of not only carriers,
Mr. Speaker, but users and consumers, and this Government is ensuring fairness for all sectors.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on a question or comment.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, no Member of Parliament from Winnipeg, regardless of the Party to which he or she belongs, could do other than take a vital interest in the question of transportation and the need of the Canadian people for an efficient and safe transportation system.
Transportation is the reason that Winnipeg became an important city. It is a city that has had an historic role in terms of the evolution of road, rail and air traffic in this country. Even before Winnipeg became a city, the lakes and rivers of Manitoba served as important highways for goods moving from eastern Canada to the West.
Winnipeg is home to a large number of CNR, CPR and VIA employees. As well, it is home to a large number of airline employees-and this despite the fact that Air Canada, in the Liberal Government years, saw fit to move its headquarters and most of its main operations from Winnipeg, where it started, to Montreal. As well, Winnipeg is the historic centre of the Canadian grain industry.
We would support any legislation, Mr. Speaker, which enhanced the role of transportation in the West, and in Winnipeg in particular. But in looking at Bill C-18, we see that it fails spectacularly in terms of meeting the coming needs of the Canadian people for the efficient and safe movement of goods and people. Bill C-18 does nothing, Mr. Speaker, to make good on the many promises which have been made concerning rail safety.
I remind Hon. Members that in recent years we have had the disastrous crash at Hinton, Alberta; a major failure of equipment in Mississauga which could have led to a tremendous loss of life; and in the City of Winnipeg, a major spill along the main line of the CPR. This Bill does nothing to stop the pending lay-off of air traffic controllers, 17 of whom work in the Winnipeg area. This Bill does nothing to meet the problems caused by deregulation in the air transport area, problems that are documented almost daily in the United States.
What we see in the U.S. as a result of airline deregulation is lateness, overcrowding, poor service, dangerous flying conditions, and galloping mergers which limit rather than promote competition. Coincidentally, Mr. Speaker, in today's Globe and Mail, the Globe and Mail of June 17, 1987, we have an article headed: "U.S. airlines reeling from deregulation." This is the kind of thing that this Government invites in passing Bill C-18.
Let me just read a couple of sentences from that article. I quote:
Lineups, sloppy service, flight delays, missed connections and unexplained cancellations have plagued U.S. air passengers since economic deregulation of the airlines went into effect in 1978.
June 17, 1987

Further along in the article, we read the following:
-there were 1,144 flight delays daily in 1986 and 367,000 delays throughout the year.
Let me ask Members of Parliament who live away from Ottawa and who try to get home on a fairly regular basis how they would like to have the kinds of delays that U.S. passengers experience. They will, Mr. Speaker, experience these types of delays once Bill C-18 comes into force.
Bill C-18, Mr. Speaker, does nothing to meet the concerns of the Canadian railways in terms of opening their traffic to U.S. competition without any reciprocal concessions from U.S. carriers. That is typical of this Government, Mr. Speaker. It bargains when it shouldn't bargain; and when it bargains, it bargains badly when it comes to the interests and concerns of the Canadian people.
This Bill does nothing to meet the concerns of Canadian truckers, who are aware that U.S. deregulation in that sector has brought intense competition for truckload shipments but very little for less than truckload shipments.
Steinbach, which is a few miles from Winnipeg, Mr. Speaker, is headquarters for many of the major trucking companies in Canada. I know the owners and managers of those companies, and no one could be further away from the philosophy of the New Democratic Party than those owners and managers. For the first time in my years in Parliament, Mr. Speaker, I find myself advocating the same position, the same point of view, as the owners and managers of the trucking companies.
The Manitoba Trucking Association, the Ontario Trucking Association, and the Canadian Trucking Association have all voiced opposition and criticism in relation to major clauses of this Bill. The New Democratic Party is opposed to this Bill, Mr. Speaker. We are totally unconvinced of the Progressive Conservative ideology that the free market offers solutions. We are totally unconvinced that deregulation will lead to a comprehensive and efficient transportation system for Canada.
Let us look at some of the problems which should be dealt with by this Bill but which are ignored. Let us start with railway safety, something which has been a long-time preoccupation in Canada. We have tens of thousands of miles of rail lines in Canada. We have a small population. The rail lines are used frequently. We have had too many accidents, some of which, Mr. Speaker, have been very serious.
The lack of safety provisions, Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-18, the lack of provisions which would force the railways to operate as safely as they should, the fact that the need for competition will cut back on the already too few safety precautions taken in terms of the maintenance of rail stock and rail lines in this country, means that we are going to see more rather than fewer accidents.
The fear that there will be more accidents and more problems has been voiced by many people in the railway
National Transportation Act, 1986
workforce-carmen, maintenance of way, shop crafts, and operating crews. In order to cut costs and to reduce personnel, the railways are moving to substitute, increasingly, technological solutions for safety problems.
I should like to quote just a couple of paragraphs from an article which appeared in the May 1, 1987 edition of The Toronto Star entitled "Layoffs signal rail disaster unions charge" and written by Pat McNenly. In part the article reads:
Canadian National Railways without fanfare has switched the inspection of freight trains and their hazardous cargoes from experienced carmen to members of the train crew at many check points across Canada.
It continues:
Since 1980 the reassignment of inspection duties and the installation of rail-side electronic devices to detect "hot boxes" (overheated wheel bearings) have cost 2,250 carmen jobs in CP Rail and another 1,900 CN jobs.
It goes on to explain that carmen serve a five-year apprenticeship and knew what they were doing. CN has now cut back on carmen, and the prediction is that there will be many more accidents.
Let us look at what is happening with air traffic controllers. Perhaps no issue is more controversial or vital to the travelling public. A few minutes ago I spoke about what was happening in the United States as a result of deregulation. We have seen a dramatic increase in U.S. air traffic, and we have seen a similar increase in Canada. Each deregulated airline in the United States wants to fly at the optimum peak period time. They want to get as many customers as they can.
U.S. air traffic controllers are understaffed and greatly overworked as a result of the firing of air traffic controllers a few years ago by President Reagan. What is happening in Canada? The same conditions are now being replicated with lay-offs of air traffic controllers at a time of increasing air traffic.
I should now like to quote from an article which appeared in the June 3, 1987 edition of the Winnipeg Free Press entitled "Job-cut proposal angers air traffic controllers". I want Hon. Members on the government side to keep in mind what I pointed out is happening in the United States. In part the article reads:
A federal consultant's report recommends Transport Canada eliminate 17 of 99 air traffic control jobs in the Winnipeg control area.
It continues:
CATCA vice-president Carl Fisher said the proposed cuts come at a time when controllers in the Winnipeg control area have handled 27 per cent more traffic in the first quarter of this year (57,543 aircraft) than in the same quarter of 1984-
Then the article goes on to say:
"It is only a matter of time before we have a major disaster on our hands," said Jack Butt, president of the 19,000-member CATCA. "There is Russian roulette in air traffic control."
If that is happening in Winnipeg, one can imagine that the situation in Toronto is much more serious and much more dangerous. There has been a number of near misses in many Canadian cities.

June 17, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
We are following the American example. I do not mind following American examples when they are successes. What bothers or disturbs me is how often the Government follows American examples even when there is ample evidence that they are a failure.
Let us look at the U.S. experience; perhaps it is the biggest fallacy of all. The success of deregulation in the United States is supposed to solve all our problems in Canada, but we must ask ourselves: Was the American experience a success? It was not a success if we measure consumer complaints, safety, and corporate concentration.
Even as pro business a publication as Business Week in the United States showed the defects of the U.S. experience in its December 22, 1986 issue, when it found considerable fault with the United States airline, railway, trucking, and telephone system. I should like to quote a couple of paragraphs from the Business Week article. With regard to airlines, it indicated:
The six largest carriers control 84 per cent of the market, vs. 73 per cent in 1978. Consultant Lee R. Howard of Airline Economics Inc. foresees by 1990 a "tight oligopoly" with a share of more than 90 per cent.
That is the real effect of deregulation. It is not more competition but less competition. With regard to railroads, the same article indicated:
Mergers have reduced the ranks of large rail freight carriers from 13 in 1978 to 6 huge regional systems-3 in the West and 3 in the East-that carry 86 per cent of the rail freight and earn 93 per cent of the profits.
Our railways, CN and CP, will have to compete with those giants that can compete for Canadian traffic. However, American law will not permit Canadian railway companies to compete for American business.
We say that the Bill is a mistake of colossal proportions. We also say that the people of Canada will get less service and that we will see more accidents on the railways, airlines, and trucking systems. Consumers, particularly consumers in small and isolated areas, will pay through the nose for the folly contained in the Bill brought forward by the Conservative Government.
We intend to vote against the Bill, and time will show that we are right.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to be the first to offer best wishes to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on his twenty-fifth anniversary in the House of Commons tomorrow.
I thought he would speak until midnight so that we could celebrate it then. However, we are ahead of time and we wish him a good start to his twenty-fifth anniversary in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 9.48 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, June 15, 1987, the four hours allotted to the
consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill now before the House have expired.
Accordingly it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill C-18.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Order made Tuesday, June 16, 1987, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until the completion of Routine Proceedings on Thursday, June 18, 1987.


MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT, 1986 MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Bill McKnight (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings, be read the third time and passed.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, it is a very great honour for me to move on behalf of the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) third reading of Bill C-19, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986. This Bill will bring Canada closer and closer to nationhood.
Bill C-19 is a companion to Bill C-18, the new National Transportation Act which is close to being passed by the House and will likely be passed tomorrow morning. It contains the reforms to economic regulation of trucking and buses.

Is the House ready for the question?
June 17, 1987

The Bill has undergone some changes since it was first introduced last November. Members of the Standing Committee on Transport have worked hard and are to be commended for their diligence in revising the Bill. They have listened to Canadians from coast to coast express their satisfaction and in some areas their dissatisfaction with this Bill. Provincial Governments have also expressed their views, both to the committee and to the Minister. We have listened carefully, and when appropriate, changes have been made.
Over three decades ago, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act of 1954 gave the provinces responsibility for trucking regulation in both their own and federal government jurisdictions. That delegation worked reasonably well at the beginning when interprovincial and international trucking was an immature industry but now, the for-hire trucking industry generates close to half the total surface freight revenue in Canada. Furthermore, trucks carry over 50 per cent of our exports to the United States.
If the industry has grown, so have economic regulations. Since 1954, different regulations have sprung up across the country. Each province has its own requirement for entry, for rates, for commodities, for safety regulations and so on. Instead of a nation, we now almost have 10 Balkan states.
These inconsistencies from province to province have placed a burden on truckers, the costs of which are inevitably passed on to their customers, the consumers. For instance, costly and time-consuming hearings are required to obtain an operating licence in each province a carrier wishes to serve or even to drive through. Needless to say, such practices have frustrated both carriers and shippers alike. Effectively, services have been restricted and unnecessary costs have been imposed on the industry, its customers and ultimately on the economy as a whole. In the final analysis, the consumer pays it all.
It became increasingly evident over time that this was no way to meet future needs and no way to build a nation. An efficient, flexible transportation system is critical to Canada to link up East and West, to connect us to major markets in the United States and to provide good transportation in the far North and to every nook and corner of this vast country.
The origins of this Bill are to be found in the February 1985 Memorandum of Understanding agreed upon by provincial and federal Governments. It was the source of three main initiatives.
First, all jurisdictions agreed to eliminate public convenience and necessity as an entry test and to move to a reverse-onus public-interest test as soon as possible. That date has now been established as January 1, 1988.
Second, all jurisdictions agreed to implement a uniform fitness entry test. They subsequently agreed to make it effective January 1, 1988, as well. The latter test requires that all applicants have insurance and demonstrate that they can operate safely. It was approved by all provinces eight months ago. While the test will apply to all extra-provincial traffic,
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
most provinces have agreed to apply it intra-provincially as well.
We hear many people decrying the accidents that will arise out of this legislation. We must recall that the provinces that have been administering this have been working on it for a number of years and are now presenting an excellent if not a perfect package.
Third, the federal and provincial Governments have agreed in principle to the elements of a uniform national safety code, its implementation and its cost sharing.
Using these building blocks and several concepts from the existing law, this Bill contains these basic principles: first, it will shift the regulatory emphasis from entry and price control to safety performance. That is an excellent move toward better and safer highways and streets. Second, it links entry into the industry with safe performance, not simply necessity. Third, it will provide the Governor in Council the power to make national safety regulations for trucks and buses. That is something we need as well, national regulations that will be effective across the entire nation.
Fourth, it will continue the delegation of administrative responsibility to the provinces. The provinces are becoming more and more mature. They have grown greatly in the administration of motor vehicle laws over the last 15 or 20 years and now they are becoming mature and can work with the federal Government to put in place an excellent system across the nation. Fifth, it will provide a transition period for existing transportation companies to adapt to change.
Many people have said that we are doing the same thing as the United States did. The Hon. Member for Bonaventure- iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) mentioned that a few moments ago. This is a Canadian-made policy. They may have deregulation in the United States but we are not going into it holus-bolus without preparation. We will provide existing transportation companies time to adapt to change, and that is important.
As I said earlier, this Bill has undergone some changes since second reading. The transition period during which economic regulation will be phased out has been extended from three years to five, to January 1, 1993. The provinces have generally been relaxing economic controls on the industry for some time so this gradual approach to change is already under way. The extension of the transition period will give truckers well over a decade to adjust to a less regulated environment.
That transition period will vary from province to province. Those in the Province of Alberta have been working under a more or less deregulated system, a Freedom to Move type system, for a number of years. Other provinces have not, but they will have a good long time to adapt to change. There will not be suddenly one thing one day and then the next day a complete change. It will be done gradually and effectively.
Some shippers feel that this may be too long to wait. Some of the people who appeared before the committee cried about

June 17, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
the fact that the Minister of Transport had extended the transition period. As we indicated in Montreal, the provinces will administer this. Why should we go against their wishes when we want to have a safe and gradual approach to this change? The change was made because we listened to the provinces. The Government has listened to the provinces and the trucking industry. A five-year transition represents a reasonable balance of opinions as well as a consensus among the provinces that will be implementing the reforms.
The Minister met with the provinces and they came to these agreements. I believe they even signed written agreements indicating that they want these things to be done and done gradually. After all, the provinces are the ones that have had experience in administering this for the last 20 or so years.
In response to uneasiness expressed by a few provinces concerning the final step to fitness only, Bill C-19 now includes a provision to study the effect of the reform in the fourth year of the transition phase, which will be 1991. I am confident this study will not show serious problems but if it does, the Governor in Council has the authority to extend the transition period.
I see your sign, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave now to adjourn the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 10 p.m., pursuant to order made Friday, June 12, 1987, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 10 p.m. the House adjourned.

Thursday, June 18, 1987


[Stage Direction]
Prayers


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, over the last several years I have had many inquiries from veterans denied War Veterans Allowance because of a technicality. When the definition of "theatre of war" was extended in 1981 to include persons who had been transported by ship or aircraft beyond Canada's three-mile territorial water limit while on duty, those veterans of Canada's forces who had crossed the Northumberland Strait became eligible.
However, one class of veterans was left out. These veterans, after preliminary documentation in Charlottetown, had received government warrants to travel from P.E.I. to the mainland. However, years later, when they applied for War Veterans Allowance benefits, they were told they were not considered forces because they had not been attested, or sworn in, in Halifax. But these men had in fact crossed the Strait on orders of the Department of National Defence. They were no longer civilians.
For years, I have written letters and made representations on their behalf.
One veteran, Mr. Douglas Maclaren, did not take no for an answer. He took his case to court. I am indeed pleased to learn that yesterday the Federal Court ruled in his favour.
I hope the Department of Veterans Affairs will now act quickly to give those veterans the benefits which should have never been denied in the first place.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, for the past few years the CBC has had to cope with even stricter financial restraints, and programming choices are increasingly more difficult to make.
Quebec Games President Claude Poirier-Defoy heard that the broadcast of the Quebec Games finale, to be held from August 7 to August 16 this summer, was definitely not a sure thing.
I immediately got in touch with the CBC and, with the support of the Val-d'Or organizing committee and the President of the Quebec Games, we made strong representations to CBC Vice-President Franklin Delaney so that 4,000 young Quebec athletes might be able to perform before the viewers in the Province of Quebec and before their friends and relatives.
It was in a difficult context that the CBC reconsidered its decision and, following this new examination, President Pierre Juneau assured me on June 11, 1987 that the French network will telecast the 1987 edition of the Quebec Games finale in Val-d'Or.
I can only commend the CBC team, and I thank Mr. Pierre Juneau.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, today the national leaders of the youth wings of Canada's three major political Parties issued an unprecedented joint statement urging Canada's Parliament to vote against the reinstatement of the death penalty. In part they said:
We are young Canadians, active in the political process, who have come together to express our opposition to the reinstatement of the death penalty. Although we differ on many issues, there are those, crossing all party lines, in which there is clearly a right path and a wrong path to take. While we do not- claim to speak for all those we represent in our respective party organizations, nonetheless, we are allowed, as you are, freedom of conscience and expression as individuals. We agree with the Leaders of our Parties that the death penalty has no place in the Canadian system of justice.

June 17, 1987
The statement is signed by Elaine Fox, Chairperson of the Youth Steering Committee of the New Democratic Party; Johnathan Schneiderman, President of the Young Liberals of Canada; and Irene Porter, President of the Progressive Conservative Youth Federation.
All Members of Parliament should salute these young people for their courage and should take heed of their very important message.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada gave the workers of Canada Post the right to strike, and now we have a legal strike that can continue indefinitely or until agreement is reached.
In the meantime, Canada Post, the workers, and their families are inconvenienced, but the real sufferers will be the people of Canada-individuals, families, and small businesses.
The last long strike by Canada Post employees caused several businesses to go bankrupt. In other words, a strike injures the innocent third parties, in this case the people, the industry, the farmers, and the businesses. Strikes and lock-outs once had their place, but today the wrong people suffer because of them.
Businesses, industry-everybody depends on getting and receiving their mail, and the country cannot operate without a good postal system. Canada Post is an essential service. Once this legal strike ends, I recommend that the right to strike and the right to lock out workers by Canada Post be withdrawn and a system be set up that will be fair to the workers, the employer, and to the Canadian people.



SEAMANSHIP


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons, Nova Scotians, and all other Canadians will want to congratulate John Hughes, a Nova Scotian who, on Sunday, arrived back in his home port of Halifax-Dartmouth. He had successfully achieved his goal of travelling around the world by sea, a trip of 27,000 nautical miles.
Mr. Hughes was voted as the most courageous and inspirational participant in the race for the BOC Spirit of Challenge Award. What made his voyage outstanding was his ability to overcome an enormous obstacle-the loss of his mast-by fastening a jury-rigged sail. With his makeshift mast, only 80
square feet of sail, John Hughes travelled from the southeast of New Zealand for an incredible 4,400 miles around Cape Horn to the Falkland Islands. His achievement is outstanding.
By the time he reached his final destination, his trip totalled 224 days, 13 hours, 55 minutes, and 24 seconds. John Hughes arrived in Newport, Rhode Island, in time for the awards dinner on May 30, 1987. His perseverance and courage in his yacht, The Joseph Young, were recognized by the playing of the Canadian National Anthem.



TAX SYSTEM


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, in a few hours the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will table the long-awaited tax reform project. Once again, by revamping the tax system, we will honour one of the major election commitments made in September 1984.
A number of tax reforms have already been made over the past two years. However the present system still weighs too heavily on individual taxpayers, a situation we have inherited from the previous administration. The only way to improve the situation is to strengthen our economy and create jobs. This happens to be one of the first objectives of the reform.
Canadians want a fairer, less complicated and more understandable tax system, a system which more faithfully reflects our commitment to economic growth and social justice. We can achieve our objectives by taking a concerted and comprehensive approach to the removal of unproductive tax privileges, the review of corporate taxation and federal sales taxes, and through reform propositions based of past progress.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, Canada can no longer continue to promote vigorous trade ties with South Korea while ignoring the brute force imposed by the vicious dictatorship of President Chun Doo Hwan. We cannot turn a blind eye to the scores of human rights abuses documented by Amnesty International, or to the military force used to suppress the cries of students, religious leaders and others who are fighting for democratic reform,
June 17, 1987

freedom of the press, the right to assembly and other civil liberties that we in Canada take for granted.
In 1985 South Korea had a $831 million trade surplus with Canada and a two-way trade of $2.38 billion. About 85 per cent of its exports to Canada, led by the sale of Hyundai passenger cars, are job-creating manufactured products. How long do we continue to provide preference for the products of a country where injustice cheapens wages at the expense of Canadian workers?
How can we meet a commitment to send our athletes to the Olympic Games in a country where oppression sustains national unrest?
How long will the Government pursue a policy of silence before the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) speaks out for an end to repression in South Korea?


350TH ANNIVERSARY OF CITY OF SILLERY



TRIBUTE TO ORGANIZERS AND CONGRATULATIONS TO CITIZENS

Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, one of the oldest towns in North America is celebrating its 350th anniversary with ten days of festivities. I am referring to Sillery, which is in my riding.
I want to congratulate the organizers under the leadership of Mr. Jacques Ouellet and Mayor Margaret Delisle, as well as their team of advisers, on the beauty and simplicity of these festivities and the many cultural events that are being offered. Everything is being done to show Canadians the breathtaking beauty of our natural sites, and to tell them about the various historic events that took place and especially the people who made those events.
During the last two centuries, the town has been famous the world over for its shipbuilding industry. The climax of the festivities will undoubtedly be the signing of a document, twinning Sillery with the small town of Sillery, in France.
I want to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations, on behalf of the Canadian Government, to all the people of Sillery.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian people should censure this
Conservative Government for the way it is behaving in the Post Office dispute.
First of all, the Conservative Government is responsible for the confrontation and for the postal strike we are having now, because of the cutbacks introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
Second, it is absolutely disgraceful that this Government and its Prime Minister, who was personally involved in labour relations, should side with the Canada Post Corporation, a Crown corporation that is fooling the unemployed into thinking they will get jobs with Canada Post.
Third, this Government is guilty of aiding and abetting the confrontation we are seeing on the picket lines.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge Conservative Members, who I know disagree privately with the Government's attitude, to make their views known to the Prime Minister and urge him to bring Canada Post into line.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, a recent study estimates that about one million Canadian women are psychologically and often physically abused by their husbands or boyfriends. Services for battered women have increased dramatically over the last five years and yet, for every woman staying in a shelter, another is turned away.
Moreoever, existing shelters, including one in my hometown, are experiencing financial funding difficulties. Although church and community volunteers have laboured hard in the past to provide such services and initially without any government financial assistance, the extent of the problem is now such that Governments at all levels must accept a continuing role to ensure that shelters and services are available on a reasonably uniform basis. For that reason I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and his provincial counterparts to act quickly to ensure that women's shelters have the necessary core funding to guarantee both urban and rural women access to shelters and well-trained counsellors.
While we continue to wish the problem of battered women
did not exist, the reality is that it does. Therefore, Governments at all levels must respond both quickly and adequately.

June 17, 1987
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE



NATURAL SUGAR SWEETENER INDUSTRY

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, sugar-beet and high fructose corn producers need a natural sugar sweetener policy to bring some stability to the industry and hope for the future. The Tariff Board recently released its report on the industry. It studied three possibilities-a minimum floor price, stabilization, or buy-out schemes.
The researchers did not think a floor price of 12 cents a pound was necessary because they believed raw sugar prices are on the upswing and will eventually approach this figure. However, they did not consider cyclical price variations, nor did they address the issue of countries dumping sugar on Canada's doorstep and depressing our price.
The report expresses fear of increasing the price to industrial users and having it passed on to consumers, yet it did not worry about the fact that the price of products with a substantial sugar content has increased substantially since 1981 even though world sugar prices have plummeted. Nor did the researchers they explain why U.S. sugar products sell at less than Canadian prices even though U.S. producers have a substantial floor price.



REHABILITATION SALON

Marcel R. Tremblay: 

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, what is the Prime Minister doing about the fact that today 20 leading tax consultants have inside information about tomorrow night's tax reform statement and documents? What is the Prime Minister doing about the fact that these lawyers and accountants, whose firms make millions of dollars from providing tax advice, are in Ottawa today reviewing that White Paper? Why do some wealthy Canadians have privileged access to information which Members of Parliament and average Canadian taxpayers do not yet have? What is the reason? What is the justification? What is he going to do about it?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that surprises me coming from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I understand that when he was Minister of Finance this same sort of thing went on.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If Hon. Members would let me continue? Experts are brought in and asked to take the same oath of secrecy that public servants take. Then they provide guidance to departmental officials on the technical aspects of the proposals put forward on a range of issues.
As I said, this has been going on for a number of years. It was increased following the 1981 Budget because of the problems which arose at that time, in order to avoid the glitches which can come into this type of proposal.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this incident is unbelievable, unjustifiable and very alarming for the country. These tax reform propositions to be unveiled tomorrow are so important that the Minister of Finance will wait until all Canadian stock markets have closed down before making his presentation tomorrow night. They are so important that he will make them public in a countrywide televised speech. How can the Prime Minister justify the fact that the Minister of Finance has held secret meetings where 20 accountants and lawyers specializing in tax matters were able to scrutinize these confidential propositions ahead of
June 17, 1987

the Canadian people and even ahead the Members of this House?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is the same process as that followed by previous administrations, including the Government of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, if I am not mistaken. The process is the same, we invite tax experts to avoid the kind of problems we had with earlier budgets, so the situation is the same as in the past.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is not the same procedure at all. Previous Ministers of Finance, myself included, sought all the advice possible, decided how their Budget was to be written, and then closed the doors. This document has already been put to bed. These tax experts can give the Minister no advice now. The document has already been written.
They have been co-opted by the Minister of Finance to try to sell the message across the country. In return for that they get an advantage over their competitors and over every other Canadian. That is exactly what happens.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Minister can look for precedents but he will look in vain because this is absolutely unprecedented.


John Carnell Crosbie: Question.


John Napier Turner: How does the Prime Minister respond to this outrageous conduct on the part of the Minister of Finance? Does he not feel that with regard to the importance of this tax reform paper that Minister ought to be fired?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw one single fact to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition. This is not a Budget. It is a White Paper. It is a proposal on tax reform.


John Napier Turner: Why have a lock-up? Why have national television?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we do not have to have a lock-up.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We are trying to allow people from the opposition benches as well as the media to become aware of the range of things in the paper in order that they can make appropriate comments based on more than just
Oral Questions
hearing me speak from my place at eight o'clock tomorrow evening.
The Hon. Member may want to think back to what happened when he and every other Minister of Finance was in office.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Not after the fact.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I can give him chapter and verse that, when previous Governments were in office, throughout the year they took the advice of experts from the tax community, whether it be lawyers or accountants, in order to make the process work better and to make the product better.


INQUIRY WHY TAX REFORM WILL BE KNOWN BY EXPERTS BEFORE BEING MADE PUBLIC
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is trying to play with words. Nobody, including the Leader of the Opposition and myself, is blaming the Minister for seeking expert advice.
But, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I see that, 48 hours before public release, a supposedly confidential document has been given to experts who simply cannot be expected to advise the Minister since the documents have all been printed.
So I would ask the Minister why 20 experts, friends of his, are meeting in Ottawa today to study a document which will be released only tomorrow night to the Canadian people and the Members of this House?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Members for their applause.


An Hon. Member:: It's not for you.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me remind the Hon. Member that this is a White Paper, not a Budget. That is a very clear distinction that the Hon. Member should recognize.
These people have been involved in this process for, I believe, some six or seven months. They have added immeasurably to the process in order to look at the detailed technical aspects from a practical standpoint so that we have the combination of advice from the officials of the Department and the advice from these experts from the private sector, acting as a sounding board. I think that makes a better process and that Hon. Members opposite should be applauding me for proceeding in this way so that we can have a better process.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance does not seem to appreciate the gravity of the situation. We are not talking about consultation. We are talking about a paper that has already been written

June 17, 1987
Oral Questions
and its privileged access to a few tax people, who are probably friends of the Party, who are allowed to see the paper and seek special advantages for themselves or their firms.
If they are allowed to see the White Paper today, why do Members of this House not have the same privilege? Why should we have to wait until tomorrow to prepare our answer to the Minister when people outside the House have read the paper? Why did the Minister not wait until tomorrow and give the same advantage to all people at the same time? Why this special treatment for your friends?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear. It is not special treatment for my friends. I do not know many of those people.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think I know three or four of them. They are technical advisers to the Department of Finance officials. I met with a small group of them on one occasion, but they have been meeting with finance officials on an ongoing basis to provide technical advice, as a sounding board, on a range of alternatives, some of which might be in the White Paper, some of which might not.
The answer to the specific comment that the Hon. Member made is that they have not read the White Paper as a whole.


ROLE OF PARLIAMENT
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is about the propriety of the situation of which we just learned, that the Minister of Finance has given privileged access to information about his tax White Paper to a group of professionals in the hope of inspiring favourable comment on the tax reform when it is made public in a couple of days.
Is it appropriate in a parliamentary setting that the Prime Minister's Office should have drawn aside groups of journalists from CTV and CBC and other places to try to ensure that they give favourable treatment to the tax White Paper, and that the Minister of Finance should be doing the same? Where does Parliament come in all of this, and why is Parliament not put first?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Parliament has been a part of this. Parliament has been involved. I think the Hon. Member himself has been part of briefing sessions-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -from finance officials on various components of the tax reform. If the Hon. Member is referring to backgrounders which are being given to members of the media, that is exactly the same process, with the possible
exception that the Hon. Member has been getting more detail than the members of the media.


INQUIRY IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO GIVE DETAILS OF WHITE PAPER TO EXPERTS WHILE EXCLUDING PARLIAMENTARIANS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance.
In the past few days, the experts, acountants and people in the investment industry have all had the details on tax reform in the White Paper prepared by the Minister of Finance and his department. Meanwhile, Opposition Members have to stay in a lock-up tomorrow until noon to get the details on the tax reform proposals prepared by the Minister of Finance and his department during the last two years.
My question is as follows: Is it fair for the Minister of Finance to give all these details to the experts and try and influence the opinion of professionals, while at the same time excluding parliamentarians from this process?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has got it wrong, all wrong. These experts have taken an oath of secrecy. I do not believe the Hon. Member would submit himself to an oath of secrecy on this particular issue.
This group of experts, a small group of experts, has been asked by the Department of Finance to act as a sounding board for a range of proposals, some of which may be in the White Paper and some of which may not. That is the basis on which they are doing this and it is a practice which has been followed for years and years by the Department of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: That is not true.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is not true.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are really desperate now. Why don't you get an issue with substance? It is a nightmare to come back and listen to you.


John Napier Turner: Why don't you go back to Paris and stay there?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre has the floor.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Just because it was done by the Liberals doesn't make it right to be done by the Progressive Conservatives.


Sheila Maureen Copps: False, false, false.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON CONSULTATION
Michael Morris Cassidy: My question is about
the ordinary Canadians who have not been consulted in this
June 17, 1987

way by the Government. Did the Government bounce off its ideas on people from the trade unions, on farmers, on fishermen, on small businesses? Did the Government consult them? Or did it just consult tax lawyers and accountants and ask them for their opinions? What kind of equity is there in that, Mr. Speaker?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the development of tax policy-and I am not trying to make a distinction between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party-


Nelson Andrew Riis: There isn't any. You can't do it. Don't even try.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -I am just saying that this is a practice which has been going on for years within the Department of Finance. The officials of the Department of Finance have found it useful to bounce ideas off a group of experts-


Michael Morris Cassidy: What about ordinary Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -so they can understand the technical impact of these proposals to make sure that when the proposals are brought in in the form of either a White Paper or a Budget, they are going to be far sounder than was the case of instances in the past when this sort of advice was not taken as fully as it might have been. That is the purpose for this exercise.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post.
The Government caused the postal strike by putting impossible restrictions on the Canada Post Corporation. Union members would be willing to settle for the status quo plus protection against inflation, but the Canada Post Corporation cannot even give them that, because the Government has put it in a financial straitjacket.
If we want to settle this dispute, we will have to deal with the crux of the problem, and the question is: Is the Government prepared to take the only step that would help solve this problem, which is to reconsider its priorities with respect to postal services and give Canada Post the financial flexibility it needs if it is to pursue these negotiations with any hope of success?
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as the Marchment Committee pointed out in its study released last year, the previous administration left the Post Office in a terrible mess-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Baloney to you, too.


Harvie Andre: -and its virtual survival is in question. This House agreed unanimously in 1981 to the creation of a Crown corporation with the intent that the Crown corporation, under the direction of its board of directors, would manage that operation in a sound fashion. That is what it is trying to do. The Hon. Member, by bringing issues from the table onto the floor of the House of Commons, is going against the position taken by his Party, the New Democratic Party, and this Party.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Quit cheerleading.


Harvie Andre: No one wants a strike. Everyone wants to see a resolution negotiated at the table. But it is not healthy to have the Hon. Member bringing forward false, misleading, inaccurate information-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is not true.


Harvie Andre: -before the House, claiming he knows what needs to be done.


ROOM FOR MANOEUVRING IN NEGOTIATIONS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Canada Post is very far out to lunch. If he had read the Marchment report, he would remember that it recommended giving the corporation until 1990 to balance its budget, not just until the end of this fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, the worst of it is that the Government, by using replacements to deliver the mail, is manipulating the unemployed and forcing them into confrontations with regular workers. This can only lead to violence and deterioration of the system-


John Carnell Crosbie: Question.


Jacques Guilbault: You are going to get the question. Don't worry about that.


John Carnell Crosbie: That's a relief.


An Hon. Member:: It will be in Chinese for you, John.


Carlo Rossi: Hey, Crosbie, go back to sleep.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question, please.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I was saying
that the solution is not to use temporary workers but, and I am
sure Hon. Members opposite are anxious to hear what I have

June 17, 1987
Oral Questions
to say . . . The question is simple: Will the Government give Canada Post the flexibility it needs to continue negotiations and have some hope of reaching a settlement? That is the kind of action we expect from this Government. Nothing else will work.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, again the question is based on the totally false premise that the Government is somehow initiating the strike, or the Government is somehow involved.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You sure as heck are. Exactly.


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member was here in 1981 when the Canada Post Corporation was created. He knows that right into Bill was incorporated the mandate that it should operate in a fiscally sound, break-even manner.


Jacques Guilbault: In 1990.


Harvie Andre: He knows that this House has provided in that mandate for collective bargaining which can lead to strikes. He knows that what is happening is perfectly legal and understandable. The economic stakes have been raised by both sides. Is he now asking for this House to overturn the decision taken in 1981 -


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, Sir!


Harvie Andre: -and legislate an end to strikes in Canada Post? If so I think it would be useful. The House would benefit from that position on behalf of the Liberal Party, if that is the Hon. Member's position.


Jacques Guilbault: We told you what to do.


SECURITY CHECKS FOR CASUAL EMPLOYEES
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. I am sure he is aware from newscasts this morning that the Post Office is hiring casuals to deliver the mail without proper security checks. They are given keys to apartment blocks and they are handling family allowance and pension cheques. Will the Minister take a hand in this situation and make sure that there are some limits here, that the security of the mail will be respected while these work stoppages are going on?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, when I heard those reports I inquired of the Post Office. I was informed that the procedure being followed in regard to replacement workers is exactly the same-


Rodney Edward Murphy: Off the streets!


Harvie Andre: -as in regard to regular carriers-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is false, completely false!


Harvie Andre: If the New Democratic Party would allow me to answer, as well as the vice-president of the students union over there, I will.
A reliability check is undertaken on all employees following their hiring. That reliability check is being undertaken in terms of replacement workers as well. If any workers fail to pass the test, so to speak, they will be dismissed immediately.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister for his assurance that the Post Office is following those regulations. I hope that if evidence turns up that, in fact, they are not, he will take action on his commitment here in the House today.
My question relates to the conciliator's report-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Scabs are okay, eh?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, if I could have some order in this place-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has called on the Chair for assistance. The Chair, without naming the Hon. Member, will ask her for her assistance, too.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CORPORATION'S DEADLINE TO ATTAIN FINANCIAL SELFSUFFICIENCY
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister responsible for the Post Office is this. The conciliator's report acknowledged that the kind of policy framework that the Government puts in place for the negotiations has an impact on those negotiations.
Is the Minister prepared now to reconsider the deadline that he has put out for financial self-sufficiency by next spring in light of the fact that considerable progress has been made with regard to deficit reduction? As long as the trend line of deficit reduction is downward, will he not give the Post Office some elbow-room so that it can negotiate in a real sense? In this way there can be some give and take at the bargaining table and we can get the postal workers back to work and avoid a national strike.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, first, I point out that in addition to stating in the legislation of 1981 that the Post Office should break even within two years, that deadline was postponed until 1984-85. It was postponed again by our Government to 198586. It was postponed again to 1987-88. How many postponements are necessary before it becomes ridiculous?
The important point is that it is not the restrictions of the
corporate plan which are causing the difficulties. The Hon.
Member knows that it is not on financial matters that the
June 17, 1987

negotiations are difficult. It has to do with work rules and flexibility. I do not think that we should get into that type of debate on the floor of the House of Commons.
It is simply false for anyone to claim that it is an artificial fiscal discipline that this Government has imposed which is the cause of the difficulties in resolving this particular negotiation.


SECURITY OF MAIL-ADMISSION OF CASUAL EMPLOYEES TO APARTMENT BUILDINGS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Government has announced the closure of thousands of rural post offices and the replacement of letter carriers by supermailboxes. Today, we witnessed the dangerous erosion of the security of our mail.
I ask the Minister responsible for the Post Office this. Does he not realize that Canadians do not want hired hands off the street, who have passed no security check because they have refused to sign release forms for the RCMP to do the check, to handle the keys to their apartment buildings, their private mail and their personal cheques?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, first, in dealing with the Hon. Member's preamble, it is false to claim that thousands of rural post offices have closed. It is false to claim that letter carriers are being replaced by superboxes because not a single letter carrier has been replaced by a superbox anywhere in Canada ever in history, nor will that occur at any time in the future that I can see.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: As I said in reply to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, all proper security checks are being conducted. I can assure the Hon. Member that I will keep in touch with the Post Office to ensure that the security of the mail continues. I will take whatever action is necessary should it be threatened. However, I do not think that it will be.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, mail boxes certainly have been replaced with supermailboxes. In these negotiations the Post Office wants to replace the mailman with a supermailman who does not need a lunch hour, who does not need a wage increase, who does not need public transportation, and who can deliver mail twice as fast. It is not a bird, it is not a plane-it is supermailman.
Will the Minister not admit now in the House that the Government, through the postal plan and these negotiations, is deliberately taunting the mail carriers to launch a strike?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as usual, supermouth has got it wrong.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Perhaps I should remind the Hon. Member that it was in 1974 under the Liberal administration that a freeze was placed on future door-to-door delivery in suburban areas. It so happened that prior to each election in Liberal ridings that freeze tended to thaw a little bit. But that was the policy of the previous Government.
I can assure Hon. Members that, contrary to statements being made by numerous people, the Government absolutely does not want a strike. No one wants a strike. What we want is a settlement. What we want to see is a Post Office that operates efficiently and delivers the mail that is turned over to it for delivery, on time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TAX REFORM
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the elite group of tax lawyers and tax accountants who, reports made clear today, are having an opportunity to view the tax documents as late as today. Is the Minister of Finance saying that if this elite group of tax lawyers and tax accountants find problems as they act as a sounding board for his proposals for tax change, he is prepared to make changes between now and his speech tomorrow night?


Geoff Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance then explain to the House and, more appropriately, to the people of Canada why he feels that it is appropriate for 20 elite corporate lawyers and corporate accountants to have an opportunity to view the documents concerning this very critical matter today, hours before the Minister will make it public? Will he explain why they have this privileged information when he has not provided even the same sounding board opportunity to ordinary Canadians, small businessmen and farmers? Why will the Minister not extend the same opportunity if we are going to have this privileged peek in terms of a sounding board? Why on earth would he provide this inside information to this handful of elite people?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can only think of one instance in the past when there was a change made as recently as the day before a Budget or a White Paper was tabled. That was when a previous Minister of Finance spent $200 million more of Canadians' money because someone looked over his shoulder at the time he was staging a photo opportunity.

June 17, 1987
Oral Questions


Nelson Andrew Riis: These people are viewing the entire document, not just one page.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked a couple of times before. These are experts who have been used from time to time over the years by Department of Finance officials as a sounding board. I presume-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why today?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The reason why they are in today-


Mr. Speaker:: We will probably move ahead somewhat better if the Member who asks the question encourages his or her colleagues to allow the Minister to answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have answered the question two or three times. These people are here to act as a sounding board for the Department of Finance on technical matters relating to tax reform. We are not trying to do tax reform in the way it has been done in the past, when problems have arisen. We are trying to anticipate the problems as much as we can through the advice of technical people working with the officials on an ongoing basis. That is the basis for their being here today.


REASON FOR CONSULTANTS' ACCESS TO INFORMATION
John Napier Turner: Several of these privileged tax experts have admitted that the fact that they are being given privileged access to the tax reform documentation today gives them an advantage over their competitors.
A Mr. Allan Taitz, a tax partner with Thorne Ernst & Whinney, chortled: "This gives us a bit more time to digest it . . . don't forget, every firm in town is going to write a report for their clients."
My question for the Minister is: Isn't the real reason for this privileged free information to give a select group of tax experts a head start on the tax reform package to the advantage of their clients and at the expense of their competitors, in return for which they are co-opted to sell the Minister's message across the country?


An Hon. Member:: Absolutely.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is a member of the same profession and has in fact practised with a number of these people, or I presume he has practised with them. He knows them, and I think he probably respects their integrity. I presume he would respect-


An Hon. Member:: It is your integrity that is being questioned.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I presume he would respect the nature of the relationship that these people have with the
Department of Finance and that he would not call into question the motives of these people-


An Hon. Member:: It is your judgment that is being called into question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -the motives of these people in coming to work with the officials of the Department of Finance-


An Hon. Member:: It is your integrity.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -to provide advice and to help make the tax policies of this country better.


PURPOSE OF ACCESS
John Napier Turner: We
are trying to get at the real purpose for this peekaboo head start. The books are closed. The Minister has admitted that the books are closed. In response to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap he has admitted that, no matter what advice they might give him today, he will not change his mind or amend the document. Their presence seems superfluous. For what other reason are they there than to give them a head start, at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer and at the expense of their competitors?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I should thank the Leader of the Opposition for putting the spotlight on tomorrow night at eight o'clock. When people turn on their television sets right across the country, they are going to have one thing on their minds, and that is whether or not the advice that was given to the Minister of Finance was good advice and is it reflected in the quality of the White Paper.


An Hon. Member:: Good for whom?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think people across the country are going to decide that, yes, it is reflected and it was good quality advice.


NATIONAL PARKS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
The demand by the B.C. Government for $200 million in compensation for designating South Moresby as a national park reserve bears no relation to government or independent evaluations.
Since knowledgeable Canadians and British Columbians know that the federal offer of $106 million is realistic, and since this House just one month ago unanimously adopted a resolution calling for the designation of South Moresby as a
June 17, 1987

national park reserve, including MPs from all three Parties, from British Columbia as well as the rest of Canada, will the Prime Minister take on the political role of finding a political solution to this national issue?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am gratified by the observations of my hon. friend that indeed the offer put forward by the federal Government is realistic and is supported by him and, I presume, by members of his Party, as it is no doubt by members of the Official Opposition.
It is indeed a very realistic and powerful commitment to the environment that the federal Government, on behalf of all parliamentarians, has sought. It is our view that this offer is one that ought to be accepted by the Government of British Columbia.
I have strongly urged, in private, the Premier of British Columbia and his colleagues to ensure that this matter is resolved on behalf of all British Columbians and all Canadians.
As described yesterday by the Minister of the Environment, we put on the table an offer of unprecedented generosity to ensure that British Columbians and Canadians benefit from this magnificent habitat forever.
That is the way it was done, and we believe that the Government of British Columbia will indeed endorse that concept.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER COMMUNICATE WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA PREMIER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Prime Minister is aware, more Canadians have written to the Prime Minister and to his cabinet colleagues on this issue than on any other environmental issue in the history of Canada.
The Minister of the Environment has done his best to bring this about, as has the Deputy Prime Minister. This Parliament has unanimously expressed itself as wanting that area set aside as a national park reserve.
Knowing that one week from today the B.C. Cabinet is going to make its final decision, I would ask the Prime Minister to contact Premier Vander Zalm and express to him one more time the view that from co-operation comes cooperation in this nation, and on this issue he should understand that very well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have met with Premier Vander Zalm in the past on this issue, and on other matters affecting British Columbia. Most recently, we dealt with each other on the Meech Lake Accord. He played a very positive role in the elaboration of that instrument, an instrument that is very beneficial for Canada.
This environmental question in British Columbia is one that has national implications. I have spoken with the Premier on it,
Oral Questions
and I shall do so again. I shall use every lever to persuade the Premier of British Columbia that this is an issue that should be resolved, not only in the interests of British Columbians but of all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AUTO PACT INQUIRY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister concerning the existing perilous state of the negotiations on the free trade deal with the United States.
Just a few days ago a group of key Congressmen, representing members of the major trade commissions of the U.S. Congress, said that they would not agree to any free trade arrangement that did not include major revisions to the Auto Pact.
Yet today we have in front of us a letter sent to the Prime Minister by the Premier of Ontario saying that he could not agree to any free trade deal that in any way tampers with the existing arrangements on duties or safeguards under the Auto Pact.
My question for the Prime Minister is: What is the Government's position on this issue? Is it the Government's position that there will no change or modification to the existing formula of duties and safeguards under the Auto Pact, and will he give us the assurance that the Auto Pact will in no way be affected by the ongoing negotiations?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, this Government's position on the Auto Pact has been stated many times in the House. We shall repeat it once again for the Hon. Member's benefit.
This Government has not requested that the Auto Pact be on the table for negotiation. To date, neither has the American side requested that it be part of the negotiations.
If they do put the Auto Pact on the table, we naturally will take a look at what their proposals are. But, the proposals, insofar as Canada is concerned, should increase employment for Canada and assure the strengthening of the auto industry, an industry which is so important to this country.


ONTARIO PREMIER'S LETTER
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will address my supplementary to the Prime Minister.
He has been quoted several times in the past, in Venice and
elsewhere, as saying that the U.S. administration must
June 17, 1987

Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
convince the Congress of the necessity of accepting a free trade arrangement. Yet we have a clear condition put down by members of that Congress that they will not accept such an agreement unless there are changes to the Auto Pact. We also have the Premier of Ontario saying that he cannot accept changes to the Auto Pact.
I do not want any more of this gobbledegook about whether or not it is on the table. I want the assurance today from the Prime Minister that the negotiators for the Canadian side will not accept any changes to the Auto Pact, as requested by the Premier of Ontario.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the record will show that from the very beginning the Hon. Member opposite has done every conceivable thing he can do to sabotage the free trade talks with the United States of America.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


An Hon. Member:: So has the U.S. Congress.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The record will show that his contributions to this debate have been spurious and negative right from the very beginning. And today is not-


Lloyd Axworthy: Are you going to answer the question?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will answer the question. He has been consistent right up today-


Lloyd Axworthy: And you haven't. That is the problem. Why don't you try being consistent.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In reference to the letter sent by the Premier of Ontario-and it was a confidential letter, by the way-the letter I received from Premier Peterson is headed: "To the Prime Minister. Confidential." And now I see in The Toronto Star today "that some industry sources say the letter, apparently drafted by deputy industry minister, Patrick Lavelle, raises an old bogyman without bringing the issues into focus."
This is a quote from The Toronto Star. If it is from The Toronto Star, it has got to be dead accurate. Indeed, this is a mischievous attempt if indeed-


Lloyd Axworthy: Did you get a letter or not?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Of course I got a letter from Premier Peterson. I get all kinds of letters from Premier Peterson and from the other Premiers-


Lloyd Axworthy: What was your reply to him?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is question number four. Let's go for question number five.


Lloyd Axworthy: Let's go for question number six.


Martin Brian Mulroney: What is the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


AGRICULTURE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the Special Canadian Grains Program, a program which was recently modified to permit payments to irrigation farmers in certain designated areas of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Southwestern Saskatchewan has over 40 per cent of the irrigated land in Saskatchewan and is not one of the designated areas.
Could the Minister explain to irrigation farmers in southwestern Saskatchewan why they would be excluded from the program? Could he undertake to re-examine the situation in conjunction with the western advisory group under the Special Canadian Grains Program?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate and understand the interest which the Hon. Member has taken in this particular subject. He realizes that the guidelines, the rules, and the criteria were laid down by farm leaders in concert with ourselves. We have established the advisory group to ensure fairness and equity.
The Hon. Member has raised a rather unique and particular problem in respect of his own region of the province. I want to give him the commitment today that I am taking his recommendation under advisement and that I am placing some priority on it. I am arranging a meeting this afternoon with the advisory committee to deal with that specific problem, and I invite the Hon. Member to attend.


PRIVILEGE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege of which I gave you notice earlier today. It relates to the principle of secrecy of fiscal matters, whereby information relating to proposed tax changes is revealed first only to the House of Commons. This has been, in my submission to Your Honour, breached by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
June 17, 1987

The reason for this principle is to ensure that no one is able to use inside information for personal advantage,
I rely in part upon a report in this morning's edition of The Globe and Mail by Jan Wong, which has since been confirmed by telephone calls from our office. It indicates:
An elite group of tax lawyers and accountants today will get a privileged first peek at the new White Paper on taxation in Ottawa-one day before the rest of Canada does.
But this hand-picked group of 20 already has a pretty good idea of who wins and who loses. They have been on the inside of the process since last fall. So, before most people have time to read through the five volumes of tax proposals, they will hit the road, giving speeches and seminars.
All have signed sworn statements pledging not to divulge any secrets until Finance Minister Michael Wilson reads his speech to the nation on Thursday night. Still, they admit their insider status gives them a coveted head start on the competition.
During Question Period I read one or two citations from those favoured few.
The Minister of Finance goes to the trouble of scheduling a full presentation in the House tomorrow night at eight o'clock. He deliberately waits until all stock exchanges in the country have been closed in order that no information revealed in the paper can adversely affect individual interests on the exchange or in the money markets; in other words, the full panoply of a budget presentation is attached to this economic statement.
We do not know whether or not there will be budget changes announced in the paper. Of course the Minister has been ambiguous in earlier replies to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). In any event, the Minister has given notice of a Ways and Means motion which implies that there must be something affecting the Ways and Means of the country either in terms of tax changes or in terms of expenditure changes.
The story in The Globe and Mail and the facts we have substantiated substantiate that people actively involved in giving the Government tax advice have been provided on a systematic basis with information on the Government's final tax proposals which has not been made available to the public at large, including their own commercial competitors.
I am not taking issue with the Minister of Finance requesting, seeking, and obtaining the best advice he can get on his tax reform proposals. What I am complaining about and where I believe the privilege of Members of the House has been breached is that after the books were closed, after the Minister and his departmental officials had drawn their own conclusions and made up their minds, 20 of these experts were given privileged, advance access to the material. This was at a time when their advice was no longer relevant, because the Minister admitted in the House this afternoon that the books had been closed and that, no matter what advice was obtained during this 24 hours, no changes would be made to the paper.
It is clear from the story that these people not only intend to use this information for their immediate personal and professional advantage, but their competitors are already vocally complaining that this unfair advantage has created preference
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
in the professional world of the tax accountant and the tax lawyer.
The precedents show the importance of the principle of secrecy surrounding fiscal matters.
In 1936 in Britain, a Minister was obliged to resign from Cabinet because a friend to whom he had casually mentioned some of the details of the pending Budget used the information to make an advantageous investment.
In 1947, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to resign because he told a reporter one small item in his Budget when he was on his way into the House to deliver it, which resulted in premature publication of the information. That was the famous case when a well-known reporter at Westminster saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer walking into the House and smoking a cigarette, and the Minister said, "I hope you bought a number of those before my getting up". That was a budget leak which cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer his job.
This is not the first time that Ministers of Finance have felt it necessary to consult persons outside their Department about tax changes. The most memorable occasion revolved around the 1963 Budget. I was then the Hon. Member for St. Lawrence-St. George, and it was brought to the attention of the House by the then Hon. Member for Port Arthur, Douglas Fisher, who is now a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. That promoted and provoked a very serious crisis for the Pearson Government of the day, and I say justifiably so.
However, I want to suggest that at that time there was a major difference. The outside specialists in 1963 retained by the Department of Finance under the authority of Walter Gordon were not only sworn to secrecy but were removed from their commercial activities while the Budget was in preparation; that is to say, they took leave of absence for a specific period of time from their respective firms. For several weeks following the Budget presentation they were kept in Ottawa and were not allowed to return to the practice of their professions, either in accountancy or in law, and one of them was an investment banker. It was made certain that none of the three gentleman concerned at that time could take any professional advantage out of the special relationship they had been given by Mr. Gordon in his capacity as Minister of Finance.
What we have here are people who have been consulted extensively and in detail while they have continued to carry out their own business activities that are directly related to the proposals on which they are working. They have advance information in the course of their regular practices. Not only did they have the opportunity of discussing with the Minister and his senior officials the ideas which were being bruited about, but today they see the final document which can no longer be changed, and the Minister says it will not be changed. They have an advantage over the country, over Members of Parliament, and over their competitors.
The quotes which The Globe and Mail reporter retrieved
from various of these experts make it quite clear that they have

June 17, 1987
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
every intention of advertising their information and using it for their own commercial advantage. This flies in the face of the letter and spirit not only of financial secrecy but of commonly accepted conflict of interest post-employment principles.
This has been done flagrantly, openly, and even boastfully in full contempt of the traditions and practices of the House of Commons.
You, Mr. Speaker, sit in the most revered chair in Canadian democracy. You are the Speaker of the House of Commons. When Parliament became an institution as it evolved in British practice, there were two reasons for people wanting to unite. One was to approve expenditures proposed by the King and the Crown, the other was to approve or disapprove taxes imposed by the Crown.
Nothing is more fundamental to the institution of Parliament, nothing is more relevant to the privileges of Members of this House, than that we as representatives of the Canadian people have the first opportunity in a privileged way, not to be shared with anyone else, to see what the Government proposes in the way of expenditures and taxes. That privilege has been breached by the Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I would submit that we are dealing not merely with a White Paper but with something that approximates an actual Budget presentation. It anticipates an entire overhaul of the tax system. It involves the personal affairs of every individual Canadian. It will affect the course and conduct of business in Canada for the next generation.
The special order of the House governing tomorrow's presentation clearly refers to the tabling of Notices of Ways and Means, notices of immediate tax changes. This means that we must consider this matter in the full context of a Budget presentation.
I submit to Your Honour that there is a prima facie case of privilege here. I submit that there is nothing more fundamental to the role of Parliament than the review of Ways and Means, expenditures on the one hand and proposed tax changes on the other. Enveloped as it is with all the sanctity, all the paraphernalia and all the panoply of a Budget presentation, nothing goes more to the heart of the privileges of every single Member of Parliament than this breach that I submit has been perpetrated by the Minister of Finance.
If you find that there has been a prima facie breach of the privileges of the House, I would of course be prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate thing that has occurred today. As the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) has indicated, the
White Paper that will be presented tomorrow is a very special White Paper. It is one that touches upon the lives of every Canadian. For all intents and purposes, it is being treated in the same way as a Budget. As a matter of fact, it is being treated even more importantly than have some of the Budgets we have seen in the past.
Tomorrow's lockup will last for a full eight hours, the assumed time required for Members of Parliament and others to be fully apprised of the contents of the document. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) decided that the appropriate time to make a speech outlining the high points of the changes to the tax laws of Canada would be after the stock-market closed, and that means obvious things.
As a matter of fact, when asked on a number of occasions to justify why it was necessary to present the White Paper at eight o'clock at night after the markets had closed, a satisfactory explanation was never given, other than to say that the markets in western Canada would be fully closed at that time. Obviously we are talking about changes to the income tax system of Canada that will have profound implications for all Canadians.
Today there have been people quoted in the media who presumably were participants on a panel of 20 tax lawyers and tax accountants, an elite group of tax advisers, which has now had access to the final documents regarding the tax changes. I think it is only appropriate that since this matter has been raised today this list be made public. It has been referred to by the Minister of Finance throughout today's Question Period and it is only appropriate that the people of Canada know who have been included in this assembly of experts with special information, acquired before Members of Parliament, the duly elected representatives of the people of Canada, have had an opportunity to be apprised of the contents of the tax reform statement.
In today's newspaper, a Mr. Boulanger who worked with the Finance Department from 1978 to 1982 said that he knows how those people are picked, that they are usually the guys who get their names mentioned in the paper, that it is strictly political. Another individual said that he was very flattered because his peers think he is worth talking to, peer recognition being a big thing in this business.
It has been made clear on a number of occasions the value of peer recognition when it comes to tax advice. These 20 special people will now have an obvious advantage when offering advice to corporate clients, and that is something about which we as Members of Parliament must be very concerned. We are concerned about confidentiality and about fairness when it comes to divulging this information.
It is perfectly clear that what has happened is that the Minister of Finance, through the admission of people who know the system well, has politically appointed 20 people who have received special and privileged information. Earlier the Minister of Finance was asked if he would be prepared to make changes to the documents if this so-called sounding
June 17, 1987

board was to identify problems. Ele responded by saying no. One must ask what was the purpose of this panel of 20 reviewing the documents of the tax reform if the Minister of Finance had no intention whatsoever of changing his mind on any of the aspects of the tax reform proposal.
It is obvious that these people now have privileged information and they will be in a position to take advantage of that privileged information on behalf of their corporate clients.


John Napier Turner: A 24-hour head start.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As the Leader of the Official Opposition has indicated, they will have a 24-hour head start. The fact that the statement will be made after market hours and the fact that there is an extensive lockup involved indicates that this is very important information and those people who are able to take advantage of this information of course stand to gain substantially.
I believe that this is in fact an infringement on the privileges of Members of Parliament. It is perfectly clear that it has always been the tradition in Canada that the first people to view the final documents after the Minister of Finance has put his final stamp on them are the duly elected representatives of the people of Canada. That a handful of politically chosen elite tax advisers have been given preliminary information and know exactly what the new tax Act will be 24 hours prior to Members of Parliament having an opportunity to be apprised of it is obviously an infringement on the privileges of Members of Parliament.
Flon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the arguments of Members opposite and I think I should draw to the attention of Hon. Members just exactly what we are discussing here. We are discussing the lead- up to a White Paper, we are not discussing a Budget. It is a White Paper and a White Paper is a proposal. It does not represent Budget policy. I believe that is a fundamental point that must be made here.


Some Hon. Members:: Why the Ways and Means Motion?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has said that under no circumstances should this information be made available to anyone prior to the time it is presented in the House of Commons. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that there are Members of Parliament who are privy to this information prior to my rising in the House of Commons. Members of the Press Gallery are also privy to information-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The matter that has been raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is a serious one. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has taken the same position. The Chair is listening to argument on a matter which all Hon. Members know is a serious one and I must say that it is easier for the Chair to pay attention to the
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
arguments that are being made if Hon. Members would refrain from arguing with each other across the floor.
I noted that when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was giving his precise and cogent arguments he was received with respectful silence. I ask that all Hon. Members give the Minister the same courtesy when he is responding.
If Hon. Members have something to add in opposition to what the Minister is saying or may say, they know the Chair tends to be generous and always tries to be gracious in making sure those points of view are heard. I will recognize Hon. Members if it is appropriate to do so.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate your comments.
I believe when I was interrupted by Members opposite I was talking about the fact that there are people who are given information prior to my standing up in the House tomorrow evening. That is understood. We all understand the importance of helping Members of Parliament and members of the media make themselves knowledgeable about what is in the White Paper.
I want to make this point in the context of the discussion paper of May, 1985, called the Canadian Budgetary Process, Proposals for Improvement. This was a continuation of a Department of Finance paper put out in 1982. The comment was made in the 1982 paper and quoted again in the 1985 paper that when a political controversy might be precipitated by a budget leak, however trivial it might be and regardless of how it occurs, meaningful pre-budget consultations are naturally inhibited. Budget secrecy impedes consultation when it prevents groups from knowing which options the Government has under serious consideration.
What we are trying to do with this process is take advice from knowledgeable people in advance of making the final decision so we can get the benefit of their technical ability, using them as a sounding board so we are not making budgetary policy in a vacuum. As I said, that process was started many years ago. After the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition took exception to the fact that I said technical advisors were advising the department during his term of office as Minister of Finance, I checked and, yes, that is true. The same types of advisors were providing advice to officials in the Department of Finance at that time.
There is nothing new here. These people take the same oath of secrecy as do members of the Public Service. They are then given a range of things under consideration by department officials. They are asked to give their advice as to what problems or technical questions there might be in certain elements of the proposals being considered. They are asked for their opinion and they continue on through the process. This has been going on for the better part of six or eight months.

June 17, 1987
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
I think it has been a very useful process. They report directly to the Assistant Deputy Minister of taxation in the Department of Finance. I know the advice he received from them is greatly appreciated. Certainly he hopes this process will be able to continue unimpeded by the type of controversy that the Right Elon. Leader of the Opposition is trying to generate today with his question of privilege.
In response to the comments of the NDP House Leader, these people are chosen by Department of Finance officials. I was not asked to designate people who might participate.


David Orlikow: Who are they?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As a matter of fact, I think I know about one-fifth of them. Some of them I never heard of before I was involved in this process. It is casting aspersions on the integrity of these individuals for the NDP House Leader to suggest that they are political appointees. That is not true. They are chosen by officials in the Department of Finance based on their professional competence.
I listened carefully to what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was saying about how we had chosen these people to give them a head start. I would love to have more people involved in the process, but there is a certain limit, still making it a useful process. There has to be sufficient dialogue with the people involved, so there is a good understanding of the range of proposals which would be involved and decisions can be taken accordingly. To say they are political appointees, or to imply that they are doing this so they can get a head start on their competition casts very serious doubt on the motivations of these people. They are serving as advisors without pay-


Some Hon. Members:: Poor them.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -because they are good Canadians. I think the Right Hon. Member should think very carefully about whether he should be casting the motivation of these individuals in doubt, because again-Mr. Speaker, Members opposite cannot keep their mouths shut. They will not listen to the argument on this side of the House.


Royce Herbert Frith: Who are they?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If Hon. Members would care to listen they might learn something.


Mr. Speaker:: I know Hon. Members will want to hear the Minister. As I said, there may be points he makes that Hon. Members will wish to comment on. I indicated I will recognize Hon. Members for that purpose. I ask Hon. Members to allow the Minister to finish.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I draw this to your attention because I feel it is a very important consideration in the whole process. We have to be able to have the appropriate consultation during the budget process in order that the best advice can be given to the Government to make the whole process of tax policy a better one which will result in
fewer problems. That is why I think it is important that Hon. Members refrain from casting aspersions on the motivation of the people involved or the whole process.
As I said, the thing I found difficult to follow in what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was saying was whether he was concerned that these people got a head start, or whether there is something new in this whole business of seeking advice from this type of individual. It should not be a matter for consideration by this House of whether or not one group of lawyers, because of their involvement in this process, is involved before the actual paper is brought down. The facts are that there is a rotation. I know people who have been involved in this process in the past and who were not involved in the process prior to this White Paper. That is an important consideration.
Both the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the NDP House Leader made an important point of the fact that this is being done at eight o'clock after the markets are closed. Why are we doing it then? I want to point out that the timing of my three Budgets was 4.30 in the afternoon. That is when markets close. If we stayed at 4.30 then there might be some reason to say why then and not at three in the afternoon because we had chosen that time as precisely the time when markets close so we would not have that problem with this statement tomorrow.
The precise reason for choosing the time of eight o'clock for the statement is, as many Hon. Members have said, that tax reform is going to affect a large number of Canadians. In fact, every Canadian will be affected by tax reform in one way or another. For that reason I believed that eight o'clock, when the White Paper proposals could receive maximum exposure, was the best time to choose in order to serve our constituents well.
I know Hon. Members opposite may not like that because they are afraid that there will be a lot of good news in this White Paper on tax reform. That concern is very valid. The point is that that was the reason for choosing the time of eight o'clock.
The Leader of the Opposition has referred to the fact that I have given notice of a Ways and Means motion. It is quite clear that a Ways and Means motion will be tabled tomorrow evening. However, I want to make it very clear that the people who have been involved in this process have not in any way been party to the details of anything that will be in that Ways and Means motion. That is a statement of fact.
The point of the matter which we are discussing is related to whether the Department should expose itself to advice from experts. I think it is very important that we have this advice and recognize that the advice is on-going. The advice from the people who have been involved did not stop two or three weeks ago. It continues today and will continue into the future after the presentation of the White Paper. We have asked them to participate in order to learn whether technical elements in the
June 17, 1987

White Paper will cause problems of which we can be aware as soon as possible after the presentation of the White Paper.
That is the substance of my presentation, Mr. Speaker. However, I do want to underscore one point very clearly. This is a White Paper of proposals on tax reform. It is not a Budget. That is the fundamental difference which is at the heart of what we are talking about.
In addition, it is very important that we be careful, in order to maintain the validity of the consultation process, not to use the opportunity to make political points which will undermine the integrity of this consultation process thus setting ourselves back a number of years and reverting to the bad old ways of making Budgets in a vacuum, which leads to the problems about which the Party opposite has a good deal of knowledge.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) to make a short point.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a small point to the comments. It is important that we put on the record very clearly that no one is suggesting that the Minister of Finance ought not consult with people from all walks of life in developing a package for tax reform. We are suggesting, however, that to consult with those people virtually hours before making the tax reform public, after all the t's have been crossed and the i's have been dotted, is simply to give a preview and advance notice of what is in the documentation.
The Minister of Finance has not responded to my request for a list of the participants. There is a quarter-page ad in the newspapers today which says:
On June 18, he'll-
-that is the Minister of Finance-
-present his white paper on tax reform. On June 19, we'll explain it in black and white.
They will move very quickly. That is an ad by Wood Gundy.
Another firm, Financial Concept Group Inc., is going to hold a seminar to explain the new tax reform proposals, the impact on investments and retirement planning, and what is next, starting at seven o'clock tomorrow night. In other words, at a seminar which will begin an hour before the Minister of Finance stands in this House to deliver his proposals, advisers from Financial Concept Group Inc., Mr. Don Bridgman and Mr. Brian Costello, will be commenting on the new tax changes.
I think it is important that the list of the 20 experts be made public. If that list includes Don Bridgman or other people from Financial Concept Group Inc., it means that they are prepared to start talking about this privileged information before the Minister of Finance even stands in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has alluded to a matter which, understandably, is giving me some concern. Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) can clarify this.
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
As I understand it, the oath which this group of advisers has taken would forbid them from releasing any information which they have acquired in the course of their advisory work for the Government of Canada and the Department of Finance until after the Minister of Finance rises in this House at eight o'clock tomorrow night.
I want to know whether I understand completely the effect of that oath. Perhaps the Minister of Finance can give some confirmation of that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the oath these people have taken is the same oath as members of the Public Service take. They are sworn, therefore, not to release any of this information and not to take advantage of this information in any way prior to the time that I stand in my place and announce it in the course of my presentation tomorrow.
As a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, these are lawyers and tax accountants. One of the firms mentioned by the House Leader of the New Democratic Party is an investment dealer. I believe the other is an investment advisory firm. This type of firm has not been involved in this process, only lawyers and accountants have been involved.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker,
I think the question at issue here is far more serious than many Members of this House would care to believe, especially those on the Government benches.
I had the privilege of working on tax matters for seven consecutive years. I have brought down seven budgets in a legislature, and I am aware of what has to be done to surround ministerial decisions with the greatest possible confidentiality to prevent certain groups and individuals from taking undue advantage of Government decisions.
Mr. Speaker, what is at stake here is Members' privileges, my privileges and the privileges of all Members of this House. I listened carefully to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and to the explanations he gave, and I think he does not understand what is at stake here. No one is saying that a Minister of Finance cannot consult with any number of experts and various groups, including chambers of commerce, social partners, tax experts, people in the financial sector and others in the social sector. No one is denying that the Minister of Finance is free to hold such consultations. The reason why the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) rose on a question of privilege is, that after the Minister and the Government made their decision, an elite group of about twenty people met here in Ottawa today to be told, before the Members of this House and before the rest of the Canadian public, about the contents of the tax reform proposal that will be tabled tomorrow at 8 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister says it is happening behind closed
doors. I have a very simple question for him: Will these people
who are given preferential treatment today remain sworn in

June 17, 1987
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
and behind closed doors, to the extent that they cannot and will not be able to get in touch with their offices, their wives and their children, that even when they go to the washroom they will be accompanied by guards, as is the practice when they are in a Budget lock-up, or tomorrow when Members will gather in a room to examine this question and kept incommunicado until 8 p.m.? Will these 20 privileged people mentioned in today's newspapers be allowed to sleep at home tonight, or will they be locked up in the same room, unable to communicate with the outside world? Mr. Speaker, I have already been led to believe that some of them did in fact get in touch with their offices.
What we are questioning here, Mr. Speaker, and I am not suggesting that these people have revealed the contents-


Mr. Speaker:: If I understood the Hon. Member correctly, he seems to be indicating that he has some information that some of these people who have sworn an oath of secrecy have already contacted their offices. This puts the Chair in a great deal of difficulty. If that is so, then somebody has breached their oath.
I want to be sure whether that is, in effect, what the Hon. Member is putting forward as a fact, other than perhaps some rumour that he has heard.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, what I said is this, and I want to repeat it: I did not suggest that these people had revealed the contents.

I never said that they talked about the content. My argument is in the context of the lock-up. Tomorrow, some of our colleagues will be in a lock-up with research people. We will be kept there from noon until eight o'clock. We will not even be able to go to the bathroom without a guard. That is the rule of the lock-up.
Today, there are 20 specialists who received the privilege of reading the White Paper before any other Member of the House. I am asking the Minister whether the same rule that we are going to follow tomorrow will apply? Will those people stay in their hotel room or a room somewhere on Parliament Hill or in the Minister's office? Will they be there under guard, with no communication?

Mr. Speaker, I submit, the question of privilege I am raising is that 20 people are now aware of a document which will not be made public until tomorrow, and it is to that extent that I believe the privileges of the House have been breached.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister referred to consultations a few times. Consultations may open the way to a number of options, and the difference between consultation, with which I agree,
and what is going on now is that the people who are consulted have no idea what the Minister's decision will be. While today, the 20 privileged individuals who have gathered somewhere in the Department of Finance are not there to give advice, but to get acquainted with the decisions which have been taken and in that sense they are violating the privileges of this House, since no member, except the Minister or perhaps members of the Cabinet, but certainly no private member of this House has looked at that document.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that there is a breach of the privileges of this House. It is an extremely serious matter and the Leader of the Opposition has raised several points of order and quoted several precedents. Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put to you the following question: Why today and not tomorrow? Why have those privileged individuals met today instead of being subjected to a confidential in camera meeting tomorrow with all the others. Why give them that privilege? I think that we cannot question the intellectual honesty of those people, the tax specialists who have been consulted. If we can question something, it is the judgment of the Minister of Finance who allowed those highly qualified persons to be placed in an untenable position. So I rise on a point of order and I believe that there has been a breach of my privileges and if I must question the judgment of someone, it is unfortunately that of the Minister of Finance who allowed such a thing to happen.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will not take too long in this debate because I believe the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has made most of the relevant points. However, I want to reiterate one or two points.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has alleged that there are newspaper articles indicating that certain professionals have advance information and that they are going to seek to use this to undue advantage. He went on to cite what we all have come to know as various political controversies over whether or not a budget leak has occurred and whether anything politically harmful has been flowing from that budget leak. I compliment him on his excellent research, but there is absolutely no guilt by association and there is absolutely no question of privilege.
My hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, has indicated that he is bringing forward a White Paper. No one in the House knows why there is a Ways and Means Motion connected to it and I am sure that this will become evident tomorrow. I am sure there are reasons for that, knowing the Minister of Finance. He is bringing forward proposals for consideration by the taxpayer, by the public, and by this Parliament.
I do take exception to one thing. As a professional, both a chartered accountant and a lawyer, I am sure that the individuals who the Hon. Minister of Finance asked to come to Ottawa to assist in this process could probably have made a lot
June 17, 1987

more money elsewhere and could probably have spent their time doing other things.


Pauline Jewett: So what?


Philip Derek Lewis: The "so what" is that if we are to have the best advice of the professionals of the country, then we should bring them to Parliament and not castigate or smear them for political purposes. I take objection to that as a professional.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Make the list public.


Philip Derek Lewis: I will deal with the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) in a minute. If Members of Parliament want the best advice, whether it is at committee level or at the ministerial level, I think we must treat people properly.
My hon. friend, the former finance critic of the New Democratic Party, has suddenly discovered that on the night and the day after the presentation of a financial paper, accountants and lawyers hold meetings with clients to discuss it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Before his speech begins?


Philip Derek Lewis: One might have a cup of coffee or a cocktail or even dinner before it happens. I cannot believe that my friend spent two years as finance critic of the NDP and did not realize that those meetings went on shortly after or even during the budget presentation.


David Orlikow: How about before?


Philip Derek Lewis: Welcome to the world of finance. While we heard an outpouring of emotion over the question of a breach of privilege, there was one thing missing from the presentations across the way. That missing element was precedent. Unfortunately, it has fallen to me to give the Chair the precedents.
First, let me quote from a paper that was written by Mr. Joseph Maingot, Q.C., Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons. He states:
Furthermore, parliamentary privilege is concerned with the special rights of members, not in their capacity as ministers or as party leaders, whips, or parliamentary secretaries, but strictly in their capacity as members in their parliamentary work.
Therefore, allegations of misjudgment, or mismanagement, or maladministration on the part of a minister in the performance of his ministerial duties do not come within the purview of parliamentary privilege. And neither does an allegation that a minister permitted a budget leak constitute a matter of privilege.
In November, 1981, when a budget leak was raised as a possible question of privilege, the Speaker stated, "I will not pass judgment on whether it is or is not a leak or whether the words chosen were wise or cautious". The Speaker went on to state, "I do not feel that in this particular case I can make any kind of pronouncement or judgment on the fact that the secrecy of the Budget may have been breached".
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
Let me refer to another precedent by Speaker Jerome on April 17, 1978. It is a reference to a question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) regarding a leak of budget information.
After allowing a brief discussion, the Speaker intervened to defer the matter. He said, "It awaits the presentation of the Budget this evening and will be subject to further discussion at this time tomorrow". The following day the matter was raised and there was a finding that there was no question of privilege. One of the comments of the Chair was, "The Chair has serious doubts as to whether the convention of budgetary secrecy falls within the area of privilege at all".
The Opposition has, in an effort to smear the whole question of the White Paper, tried to raise a question of privilege. I think the argument has gone well beyond prima facie and I have no difficulty with that. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that based on the precedents which have been decided in this House and elsewhere there is absolutely no question that the allegation of a budget leak does not constitute a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. It seemed to me that at least part of the alleged question of privilege which was raised was that some information which was to be given to all Members tomorrow night had been given to some people outside this place earlier. It seems to me that there was some suggestion that that in itself is a breach of privilege. I am not for one minute putting aside the other issue. However, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could address that. I am familiar with the precedents he has helpfully cited on the other matter, but perhaps the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary could just address that particular point because I would like to hear his view.


Philip Derek Lewis: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, given the time of day and what my hon. friend is quite rightly basing his case on, that is, comments in the newspaper, I think at that point then the Chair is in a position of having to decide for itself as to whether or not the evidence brought forward in support of the prima facie case of privilege is sufficient for the Chair to decide that those individuals had an advantage over Members of Parliament.
I guess you could go beyond that, Sir, to suggest whether or not that position of privilege is being exercised to the detriment of any Member of Parliament. I just raise that in answer to your question. I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to make a prima facie case at this point. One has to lead the best evidence one has to lead, and my right hon. friend obviously did that.
Based on the precedents, if the issue is a question of budget secrecy being breached, which is what has been suggested, then it seems to me the precedents say that no matter how annoyed one might be, it is a question for another forum, and not a question of a breach of privilege to be sent to the Committee on Privileges, Elections and Procedures.

June 17, 1987
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and will come to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) in a moment.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in my many years as a Member of this Parliament I have never experienced a situation similar to this. What the Minister has been promising for months now are not some minor changes in our tax system. What he has been intimating is that we are going to get a very fundamental reorganization of the whole system. It has been said, indeed, reported, that we are going to see that the system will be simpler and fairer, that income tax rates will come down, that consumption taxes such as the business transfer tax will go up, that corporation taxes will go up, and many of the loopholes in the present system for corporations and individuals will be plugged.
If these reforms take place, as has been intimated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and other members on the government side, they will be very important changes which will affect, as the Minister said a few moments ago, virtually every Canadian.
So what we have here is that 20 tax lawyers and accountants have been consulted. I am certain that they have not just given some advice on minor technical points. I am certain that in the period during which they were being consulted they expressed their views on some of the proposed changes, whether they were in agreement or whether they thought they would be detrimental.
A couple of things happened as a result of that. First, these 20 tax lawyers and accountants obviously have an advantage. I am not saying they are going to use their knowledge before eight o'clock tomorrow night, but at eight o'clock tomorrow night when all the Members of Parliament, tax lawyers and accountants are beginning to study what is in the report, these people will have had days or weeks of advantage over all the other tax lawyers and accountants who are in the same business.
I have another major concern. I am sure that the kind of accountant who does my income tax was not consulted. So what we have are 20 lawyers and accountants who, I am certain, have as clients some of the biggest corporations in this country, expressing their views to the Minister and his department. If they are there to express their views and the views of the corporations they represent, where were the representatives of ordinary Canadians? Where were the representatives of the workers, the farming community, the consumers? Are their views, their feelings and philosophical approach to taxation and their desire to see a fair tax system not as valid as these 20 so-called experts? It seems to me that that is a question the Minister ought to answer.
If the Minister wanted consultation, and we all agree that consultation is a good idea, why did he not have consultation with a wide spectrum of our society? Why did he go for advice to representatives who, I am certain we will find out when we receive the list, represent big business? I think that is a very
important question to which the Minister should address himself.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by addressing briefly the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) with respect to precedents. Obviously, I have not had the time to get out the precedents and study them, but the second precedent quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary, I think is relevant. He said that the Speaker in making his ruling said only that he had serious doubts that budgetary secrecy is a matter of privilege. He did not rule conclusively that budgetary secrecy is not a matter of privilege. Therefore, I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that that precedent, at least, is one the Chair does not have to consider binding upon itself.
The Minister of Finance himself has argued that the issue as to whether we have a prima facie case of privilege turns on, among other things, whether or not this group of 20 experts looked at material which was part of a budget. The Minister of Finance himself argued that that was a very relevant consideration and in effect he was saying that if the group of 20 experts did not look at material to be contained in a budget then we are not dealing with a prima facie case of privilege. However, if the group of 20 experts was looking at material which was to be contained in a budget, that would be a different matter.
What did the Minister of Finance himself say in this House in answer to the motion of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) on this point? At first he said the White Paper is a proposal, it does not represent budgetary policy. But later when trying to explain why he had this group of 20 experts looking at material that he originally said was to go into a White Paper, he said, "I am getting technical advice so we are not making budgetary policy in a vacuum".
The Minister of Finance has therefore admitted exactly what it is he will be presenting to the House at eight o'clock. This is confirmed by the fact that he will at that time, as he admitted a few minutes ago, table a Ways and Means motion.
Why else would he be tabling a Ways and Means motion if his so-called White Paper was not in fact in the nature of a budget? Is he trying to get us to believe that he is tabling a Ways and Means motion about something completely unrelated to the White Paper and is just choosing this convenient opportunity tomorrow night to table it?
The Minister of Finance has made some valiant attempts to convince people of the unbelievable. But I am sure that even he will not take seriously that type of effort, if that is what he intends.
The evidence from the Minister himself is clear. What he is submitting tomorrow at eight o'clock is in the nature of a budget. If that is the case, then on the argument of the Minister of Finance himself what he has done by allowing this group of 20 to have access to the material to be presented in
June 17, 1987

his document tomorrow night amounts to a prima facie breach of privilege.
There is a second point I wish to make in support of the motion of the Leader of the Opposition which is this. If we are talking about harm to the role, that is to say the privileges of Members of Parliament, then it is clear that we have the evidence of this, again from the mouth of the Minister of Finance, since he has admitted that this group of 20 is looking at the very material that is to be presented to the House at eight o'clock tomorrow night. They are looking at it today, a full 24 hours before the group of Canadians elected by the people of Canada as Members of Parliament to receive the material from the Minister of Finance have had a chance to receive that material formally in the House of Commons.
He has offered no convincing explanation as to why this group of 20 should today see this material to be presented to the Members of the House of Commons tomorrow night. He has said that the books are closed. He has said that no matter what advice this group of 20 gives him it will be too late.
What we see here then is an attempt to put a group of private citizens in a superior position, a position to which they are not entitled by law or by custom, over the position of Members of Parliament elected to receive the type of information the Minister is presenting to the House and to other people in the country. I again say that out of the mouth of the Minister of Finance himself we see the admission at least of a prima facie breach of privilege.
The Minister, and I believe the Parliamentary Secretary, have asked why Members on this side of the House should be concerned about this group of 20 getting this information today. After all, the Minister says, they are all honourable people. I am not getting up to challenge that. However, what we are dealing with here is appearances. Appearances count when it comes to what happens in the House of Commons, when it comes to the conduct of Members of Parliament who happen to be Ministers. After all, the report by Jan Wong in The Globe and Mail quotes one of the people in this group of 20, a Mr. Allan Taitz, a tax partner at Thorne Ernst & Whinney, as saying about the advance look at the material he has, compared to that available to Members of Parliament: "This gives us a bit more time to digest it-every firm in town is going to write a report for their clients." I do not understand why the Minister of Finance is not concerned about what is allowed to happen in terms of the appearances of the matter for himself and his advisors in the Government and this group of 20.
I conclude by saying that I think on the facts and in the absence of clear, convincing and binding precedents to the contrary upon Your Honour you are entitled to find that there is in fact a prima facie breach of privilege. I wish to underscore that point by saying that we are talking not simply about a press report but about what the Minister of Finance himself has admitted in the House in reply to the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, that this group of 20 are looking at the document today in advance of elected Members of Parliament.
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
For all these reasons the Chair is well entitled to find that there is a prima facie breach of privilege. I hope and say this with the utmost respect, Sir. In view of the importance and significance of this issue, I hope it will be possible to hear from Your Honour, in the difficult decision you have to make in this matter, before the Minister of Finance presents what he calls a White Paper, but what we now know will in fact be a budget with all the consequences for the people of Canada and all the consequences for the Minister because of this inappropriate and questionable release of information to this group of 20 today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I raised some questions with the Minister today on this matter of privilege which is of utmost importance for the House of Commons because I was deeply concerned that the Government had shared its intentions with a group of senior consultants, accountants and lawyers with an expertise on tax matters, people who had previously been hired without pay to act as a sounding board for the Minister.
However, now that they have the advantage of being privy to every intention of the Minister 48 hours before the Minister himself makes those intentions known to the general public, I am somewhat concerned with this matter of privilege in view of the fact that I had a conversation yesterday with the Minister and I asked him why he insisted to designate the people from the New Democratic party who may take part in tomorrow's lock up to review the draft White Paper.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister insisted that some experts whom we wanted to involve in that process would not be allowed to do so, but that we should have at least four Members of the House out of eight people allowed to take part in the process.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the private sector is entitled to bring in 20 experts who are the trusted friends of the Minister and who will be fully informed of the contents of that Paper. This is clearly indicated for instance in the comments of Mr. Couzin, a lawyer with Stikeman Elliott. He said specifically that the task of those experts will be to provide their colleagues and their clients with an explanation of the Governments' intentions. It is indeed clear why those people accepted to work without pay, since they will be deriving virtually boundless benefits from that process. It means that they will get an appreciation of that Tax Reform Paper well in advance of their colleagues who will get to know the details after 8 p.m. tomorrow when this White Paper is disclosed.

I have to admit somewhat personally-


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

June 17, 1987
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), on a point of order.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I take umbrage at the remark of the Hon. Member. Individuals who might be persuaded to participate in the political process in any way should not be subjected to the accusation that it is being done only for personal benefit. The Hon. Member's remark is improper. It is critical of individuals who have no opportunity to defend themselves. In the face of such accusations, who would want to participate in an advisory capacity to governments in any way, shape or form? This is a rank case of impropriety on the part of a Member of Parliament.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it is an impropriety on the part of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). That is the problem before us right now.
In response to the comments made by the Hon. Member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has drawn to the attention of the House his concerns about some individuals who are acting in an advisory capacity to the Government of Canada and the Hon. Member has indicated that, as much as is possible in this place, unless it is very much in the public interest, there should be no aspersions cast on the motivation of those who are in a position of assisting the Government of Canada.
The Chair has noted the point, and I would ask the Hon. Member to be careful.
At least one of the individuals concerned has made it quite clear that he looks upon the information gained as providing some kind of an advantage in the world in which he moves. However, I would ask Hon. Members to avoid that aspect of the matter.
The point that the Chair has to decide is whether or not there has been a breach of privilege. While some of the comments are of interest and may be matters of considerable concern in another context, I would ask Hon. Members to concern themselves with the matter of privilege only.
As the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has said, the finding on a question of privilege is a difficult one for the Chair. However, it is that which I have to decide. I know that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre will assist me in that regard.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the point that should be made is that when we look at questions which might involve conflict of interest, it is not a matter of proving that a conflict exists; rather, we need to prove only that there is the appearance of conflict.
What we have to decide here is whether there is the perception that there can be some potential advantage in the hands of someone in the private sector. That is a matter on which you, Mr. Speaker, will have to reach a judgment.
I should like to speak for a moment about the question of process and about how, as the complexity of legislation increases, it is possible in fact to deal with a question like this.
If the Minister of Finance felt he wanted to get a device from the private sector, it seems to me that he did have some avenues open to him which would have avoided the charge of breach of privilege which has been made in this House today.
For example, he could have raised this matter with the House headers in order to get all-Party consent to a procedure whereby certain people from outside government, people with technical or other forms of expertise, could have been consulted. That, unfortunately, was not done.
As well, he could have raised the matter with the Finance Committee. He could have sought the advice of the Finance Committee, explaining to the committee what he wanted to do and why he wanted to do it. He could have cited the problems experienced in 1981 by the then Minister of Finance, whose proposals, on being made public, were found to be unworkable and unacceptable. He could have sought the advice of the Finance Committee on proposals to avoid a recurrence of that type of outcome. As a member of the Finance Committee, I can tell you that that was not done.
It is, of course, open to the House, through resolution or other means, to agree to change what have been the accepted practices in the past. It is regrettable, in my opinion, that the Minister of Finance did not seek such a resolution.
One recalls what happened in 1963 when the then Minister of Finance brought down a dramatic Budget, a Budget which incorporated a number of very substantial changes designed to reinforce Canadian nationalism. In formulating that Budget, the then Minister of Finance had the aid of "the four wise men" as they became known. These were experts from private sector accounting and tax law firms who were brought in to assist the Minister.
You will no doubt recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Official Opposition of the day, the Progressive Conservative Party, was extremely critical of the fact that those persons had been bought in. The view was expressed that, regardless of the fact that they had taken an oath, they had confidential information.
To what extent the precedents have changed between then and now, I am not sure, but it seems to me that when there is room for legitimate doubt and question, as there most definitely is in this case, the Minister of Finance ought to take the necessary steps to gain consent.
Had our consent been sought, we might have suggested that in addition to consulting with tax lawyers and accountants the Minister might have sought the views of farmers, of fishermen, of the small business community, of women, of immigrants, and others. All sectors of society are affected by potential tax changes. Rather than confine the consultation to the in camera type of consultation that it was, the confidential consultation that it was, the Minister might have consulted more widely.
June 17, 1987

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that far more was revealed in this confidential consultative process than was revealed to me as a member of the Finance Committee. In the one briefing that the Finance Committee had on this, no secrets were revealed. Yet, this group of 20 has been privy to secrets from last fall up until the present.
It seems to me that a better process for consultation might have been worked out. It is regrettable that one wasn't.
It is also my concern, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance has applied a double standard when it comes to his dealings with Parliament and his dealings with outside groups. It is not unremarkable that the media, which has a lot of columns to fill, a lot of air time to fill between eight o'clock on Thursday evening and the next day, is being allowed almost unlimited access in terms of the number of journalists who may participate in the lock-up. As well, they are permitted to bring in outside tax experts.
My office did not ask for that, Mr. Speaker, when we negotiated with the Minister. We simply asked for some modest increase in the number of people that we could get into the lock-up. The Minister, in his great generosity, said that we could have eight people go in, rather than the six or seven who were permitted for the last Budget lock-up; but then, when we asked for access for five of our researchers along with three MPs, he refused, saying that he would decide who would make up the eight. So, the Minister, in his wisdom, chose to tell each parliamentary caucus who would represent it at the lock-up. And, of course, while the experts from these private sector firms are looking at the documentation today-


Philip Derek Lewis: What does this have to do with the question of privilege?


Michael Morris Cassidy: -we will not be able to look at it until tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While the Chair understands the point the Hon. Member is making, it seems to me that it is a point to be made at another time and place.
The issue before the Chair relates to the fact that there is apparently a group of 20 people who have access to the tax reform papers in advance of the Minister of Finance rising in his place and outlining his White Paper on tax reform. All of these people have taken an oath of secrecy not to reveal anything they learn as a result of that advance look until the Minister of Finance has delivered his statement tomorrow evening.
There is the suggestion that the members of this group of 20 may have some advantage as a consequence of what they have learned in the course of their giving advice to the Government, not just today but over a period of time. That may well be. However, there does not seem to be any suggestion that any member of this group of 20 has wrongfully revealed any information he or she may have, or that the oath of secrecy has been violated. I want to be absolutely sure that I have interpreted the comments of all Hon. Members correctly. It seems
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
to me that no one is making that suggestion. I want to be absolutely sure that that suggestion is not being made.
As well, I want to be absolutely assured that all Hon. Members are confident that I have grasped the point of the question of privilege, the point being that these advisers, notwithstanding that they have taken an oath, are being given information which is being withheld from Members of Parliament. That seems to me to be the essential basis upon which it is being claimed that there has been a breach of privilege.
If I have not fully appreciated the point, I would ask Hon. Members to ensure that I do.
I see that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is rising.


Michael Morris Cassidy: May I conclude, Mr. Speaker?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is no allegation from this quarter of the House that, on the facts as we now know them, any of these 20 people have breached their oath. The Minister of Finance has admitted, however, that at the meetings being held today they are getting advance information. The issue is not that they have breached their oath-nobody suggests that from this quarter-but that they have a 24-hour head start over the rest of Canadians in the use of that information. By the time they are allowed to publish it, they have a lead and an unfair advantage over their competitors, over other Canadians, and over Members of Parliament.
The second submission, just in a word, is that the very fact they have been allowed to see this fiscal information,-and I will not argue the point of budget or non-budget-to be followed by a Ways and Means motion, and the fact that they heard this information prior to any Member of the House of Commons in our regular lock-up and prior to the media participating in that lock-up, in so far as Members of Parliament are concerned is a breach of our privileges. As the custodians of the Ways and Means of the country, the power of Parliament to review taxation or proposed taxation or proposed expenditures, our rights have been infringed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to support the point made by the Leader of the Official Opposition that the actions and attitude of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) breached our privileges.
Mr. Speaker, I could blame the Government for not consulting senior citizens who had been misled by this Government and on two occasions forced the Minister of Finance to backstep in the matter of OAS pension deindexing, and in the matter of unemployment insurance for older workers.

June 17, 1987
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
Mr. Speaker, I could easily blame the Government for not having consulted families. But my purpose is to prove clearly that this Government is in breach of privilege.
First, this is no accidental but intentional in my view. To begin with, the Minister of Finance announced that on June 18, there would be a reading at 8 p.m. on tax reform.
Second, he informed-that decision was planned-that on June 18, at noon, reporters and representatives of each Party would be locked up. And this is where there has been a serious breach of privilege-and it is your role, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the rights of all Members, not only Opposition Members but Progressive Conservative members as well-at the same time, this Government, this same Minister of Finance summoned 20 people for privileged information, not to be consulted but to hear privileged information, and that was on June 17. Fie went through that trouble, everything was planned, it is not an accident or an error.
Everything was planned, it was done on purpose to infringe upon Member's privilege. And the Minister of Finance, in answer to questions today, never denied that that was his plan, his scenario.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I could easily have blamed workers, senior citizens, the absence or the lack of these people there. And the Minister of Finance answered questions and said it was not a budget, it was a paper and it was not urgent. But what was it? That answer proves again that the Minister is wrong. If there was no urgency, why select 20 people, 20 accounting firms selected from across the country, and have them meet beforehand? If the Minister wanted to be fair, he could have waited until next week until Friday, to meet all businesses, all accountants, tax experts, to brief them, in order to correctly inform the public.
I do hope that the Chair will protect the privileges of the House. We could accept excuses and understand that, overwhelmed by his great many responsibilities, the Minister could have made a mistake. This time, however, this is clearly a decision not only of the Minister of Finance, but also of the Cabinet on such an important issue.
This may have serious consequences. Let us assume that you are the customer of an accounting firm and you discover suddenly that it has no privileged connection with the government, contrary to the firm next door which had an opportunity to secure privileged information from the government even before the other ministers and ordinary government members and opposition leaders. Under these circumstances, it is clear that you are going to turn to the other accounting firm to get more benefits and opportunities. The Minister has certainly goofed. If the Prime Minister chose this strategy, he goofed too. But the real issue here, Mr. Speaker, is about the privileges of the House.
Today, a ruling is necessary to protect all Hon. Members, because if this planning strategy is accepted today, I feel Hon. Members will become irrelevant, for there would be no point fighting for a seat and asking people to lect them as their
representatives, because 20 tax specialists in the country would enjoy advantages accountable Parliamentarians would not have.
Mr. Speaker, I rely very much on your ruling to protect the privileges of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I will come to the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) in a moment. The Hon. Minister.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a comment on a point of order. I understand that I am not allowed to make any further comments on the question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: May I correct the Hon. Minister. I did not suggest that the Minister could not make another point on the question of privilege if it was important in respect of anything which has been said in argument. I would not close off the Minister. I will certainly hear the Minister.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the point of order I want to make is pursuant to something which I said in my remarks and something which the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) said.
The Hon. Member has drawn a distinction between an accounting firm, one of whose members is part of this group, and another accounting firm, one of whose members is not part of this group.
It gets right to the heart of the point I was making, when people draw politically advantageous conclusions or try to make political points on something like this at the expense of the integrity of the people involved in the process. What the Hon. Member is implying is that the accounting firm, whose member is involved in this process, is allowed some inside information and is using that inside information for the benefit of that accounting firm's clients and to the disadvantage of the people in the other firm.
If that is the case, the Hon. Member is saying that the accounting firm, whose employee or partner is part of this, is breaching the oath of secrecy, and that is quite contrary to what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said.
I ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that because it is an entirely wrong conclusion to draw and it undermines the total process we are trying to use here of drawing good people into the process so that we can have proper consultations in advance and avoid mistakes of the past.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair may not have taken quite the same point as have others in the Chamber. I thought we had clearly established that there was no suggestion by anybody-and I must say that I am not sure I got that suggestion from the Hon. Member from	Montreal-Sainte-Marie	(Mr. Malepart)-that any one of the 20 persons who took an oath of secrecy has breached that oath of secrecy.
June 17, 1987

There is a suggestion that even if they have not, their firms get some kind of advantage because of the earlier information which they have and some other firms do not have. That may or may not be the case. I will consider it carefully, but it may not go to the question of privilege at all.
The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie may wish to clarify this, and I would ask him to do so as quickly as possible.
[ Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reassure the Minister by saying that maybe the interpretation-or maybe I was not very clear: I never meant to blame these 20 people; I simply wanted to explain, and I am sure the Minister will concur, that the public will feel it is in its interest to do business with someone who appears to have the upperhand a head start. I am blaming those 20 people, but I do blame the Minister who is guilty of creating the impression that those 20 people have a privileged status above the Leader of the Opposition, other Members of the House and even Ministers. It is the Minister who is to blame, not the 20 people.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have been following the comments made this afternoon. Understanding the importance of the question of privilege that has been raised, I must admit to the fact that I am perplexed by the contributions of many Hon. Members sitting opposite. I say that because, from the outset, they have questioned whether or not there should be any consultation involved in the preparation of this White Paper. Indeed, that has been the basis on which they have laid their arguments, skate around it as they might.
If Hon. Members had been listening for the last number of weeks and months to the intent of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who will be presenting the White Paper on tax reform, they would have known that he was consulting widely, and he has re-emphasized that day after day. He has been consulting with farm groups, with labour organizations, with business groups, with women's groups, with social groups and with groups right across the board. He has been dealing with these people so that the process will be better informed than it has been in the past.
The method of consultation is a two-way street. It benefits the Minister of Finance and his officials in their undertakings and it benefits those who will be most affected by tax reform policy. That is the one thing that he has been saying.
He has also made it clear today and on other occasions that the Department of Finance would draw on experts from the community involved with tax policy, including accountants and tax lawyers, in order to better inform the process within the Department. That is what has been occurring over a number of weeks and indeed months.
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
Experts have been sworn under oath to work with the Department in the preparation of this material. The question arises, has that given them any kind of special advantage? Obviously if we are to say that there should never be experts attached in any way to the Department of Finance or indeed any other Department when preparing policy, then we are saying that all the answers reside solely within this Chamber or solely within the expertise that can be offered by officials. We have not seen the situation that way.
We know that in the past, tax reform policy has been presented to the House inadequately studied, inadequately researched and inadequately informed by expertise. In fact, a previous Minister of Finance, having introduced tax reform policy in the House just a few years ago, made so many mistakes in the way he went about it that he set the whole question of tax reform back by many years. Canadian people were the ones who suffered as a result of that.
The Minister of Finance has explained clearly that there has been use of experts in the field who have been under oath. These experts have honoured that oath and there is nothing more to it than that. It might be that members of the Opposition do not want to see that process carried on, but they should be honest enough to say so and not try to impugn the characters, integrity or motives of people involved in this process.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) asked whether or not this process could be skewed somehow or other by the introduction of a Ways and Means motion. He has been in this House long enough to know that Ways and Means motions are introduced a good many other times than at budget time and because a Ways and Means Motion is introduced, that does not automatically signal that whatever then happens is a budgetary process.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to be too long. I believe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) as well, touched on one of the central points here. The question is not whether people broke their oaths, the question surely is whether some people, advertently or inadvertently, are in an advantaged position.
The tradition for the secrecy surrounding budgets is based upon the notion that no individual should be in an advantaged position, that the knowledge that might be gained from a budget or related documents before those documents are made public would put them in an advantaged position. Through the years, a tradition has arisen whereby there is the utmost secrecy surrounding the budget so that no individual would be put in an advantaged position. Whether an individual takes advantage of that position or not is a second matter.
Throughout the years, Ministers of Finance have had to resign when inadvertently aspects of budgets became public or known to a few unauthorized people. We are dealing with a most serious situation.
Twenty individuals who are highly knowledgeable in the field of taxation have, over some months, been in constant

June 17, 1987
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
consultation with the Department or the Department has been in consultation with them. They have known the intricacies of the papers and material the Minister will be making public tomorrow. They have given advice to the department. It is not a question of whether these people have given advice on a little area here or there or have given advice on broad social or policy areas. These are experts in law and in the tax system. They have been asked to advise on the wording of particular measures, how particular aspects of the documents that will be released tomorrow will actually work when implemented.
I am sure the Department of Finance will have asked these people what effect it will have on the market if the document is worded in certain ways, what opportunities will there be-


Mr. Speaker:: I hate to interrupt the Hon. Member and I will certainly let him continue, but the Hon. Member has been putting forth a series of rhetorical questions. The Chair would like him to address the question that is before it, and that is, under what circumstances can a Government go into the private sector, swear people to secrecy and take their advice and their efforts as help in the preparation of matters of finance. Is the Hon. Member saying that that cannot be done under any circumstances or is there something about this particular matter which goes to the question of whether or not there has been a breach of the privilege of Members?
Perhaps I am not completely understanding the Hon. Member, but I felt that the effect of what he was saying is that no Government could go to outside sources even though those sources are sworn to secrecy, because what they learn may in one way or another give them some advantage over someone else at some future time.
I am having some difficulty in understanding how you can ever have a situation where, one way or another, for at least a short period of time, these advisors will not have some kind of advantage over others in their field. It seems to me that advantage goes with the fact they have been selected to assist. The Chair is having a little bit of difficulty understanding how you could ever have a situation where you seek advice and the advisor does not then have some knowledge that someone else did not have. I am having difficulty with that being a barrier to receiving advice.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the point I wanted to establish very clearly is that these people are now in a position of advantage. That is a very crucial and important point. They will know the intricacies of the document long before Members of Parliament, the general public, and their professional peers.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt again but we have been listening to a good deal of discussion, all of which is helpful. But let us assume for the moment that they are in a position of advantage. Please direct your thoughts and argument, which is cogent and helpful, to whether or not that is a breach of the privilege of Members of this House. Perhaps the Hon. Member could help me on that.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, that was the second point I wanted to deal with, the role of advisors to the Government. I do not object to that. In fact, I encourage and congratulate the Minister for having wider consultation than the previous Government. That Government ran into quite a few problems because it did not do that. I think of the scientific research tax credit where the Department of Finance did not consult and did not have the street smarts to deal with the people who took advantage of this measure at a cost to Canadian taxpayers of well over $3 billion. That is a prime example of the need for outside consultation.
I would now like to ask this question. What kind of consultation can there be 24 hours before the document is released? That is the key question. I understand consultations from time to time, but to see the final document is to know what advice the Government has or has not taken. These people are now in a position of being more than just advisors and consultants. They now know what the final decision is. They have seen the complete document.
My second concern about their advisory role is what further role is there for them? My understanding is that they are to fan out across the country-their role as advisors is not finished. They are to give seminars and explain exactly what is in the package and what the Government means. Therefore, is the Government expanding the very needed role of advisors to that of propagandists for the proposal? In that sense surely there is a breach of our privilege.
On the one hand these individuals have been used as advisors in the preparation of these documents. On the other hand, we in the Opposition will not have had detailed information, yet we will be required after only eight hours in the lockup to respond to the document. We may very well be facing people who have had knowledge of these documents many days before.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Or months.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Or months. That puts the Opposition in a very disadvantaged position.
I ask you to consider these two vital elements. There is no disagreement that the Government should have advisors. Yet is their role of advisor finished and another role begun when they see the documents 24 or 48 hours before they are released? Second, what is their role in fanning out across the country to speak on these documents? Those are the two important factors you have to consider and I submit that our privilege has been breached and that the Government and Minister seriously erred in this procedure.
If the Minister wishes to institutionalize the practice of having advisors, which I encourage him to do, he should do so by consulting with the House as a whole so we can help him do it while ensuring that our privileges are not breached and that these people will not be in a position of having an unfair advantage.
June 17, 1987


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of precedent. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), as a former Minister of Finance, sought advice in the process of developing and framing a Budget. From the day the consultative process begins I suppose it can be assumed that anyone party to that process may be in a position to take advantage of the knowledge accumulated by virtue of the agreement or disagreement displayed on the subject matter discussed. There are indicators in the consultative process which those advising the Government could take advantage of.
However, I am very disappointed that this has been presented as a precedent. I am deeply disappointed that we should cast aspersions on any person who has been part of that process at any time unless we have unqualified proof. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is a distinguished lawyer and is certainly familiar with the fact that proof is required. None has been offered, either in verbal or documentary form.
Neither do I think it proper to cast aspersions on the consultative process. That is part of the development of virtually every policy of Government, whether it be budgetary or anything else. Experts have been consulted, sometimes they are paid and sometimes they work for nothing, and I do not think we should cast aspersions, because we need them very badly. If criticism is deserved, and I do not believe it is, it should be levelled purely and simply at the Minister, and not on those employed to advise. The possibility of a breach of confidence has always existed. If we prove breach of confidence at a later date, and it apparently cannot be proven now, then it becomes a very serious matter.
There have been historic examples of opportunity. Did they call their office today? I think that is an irrelevant question because they are under oath. There is no reason why they should not call their offices although there is a major reason why they should not discuss the subject matter on which they were sought as advisers. That would be a gross breach of confidentiality and should be punished as such. However, it has not been suggested that there is proof that such a thing happened. There has been no suggestion that they broke their oath. There has only been an assumption that they could break it. That assumption could have been made for years with regard to the consultative budgetary process.
Was it withheld from Members of Parliament? That has been the subject of discussion in this House for many years but it has never been placed in the rules of the House as an obligation of any Minister of the Crown. If there were a rule of this House which stated that Ministers of the Crown are obligated to make their statements within the House first, there would be a breach of privilege. However, there is no such rule of the House. Therefore, there has been no breach of any rule or any practice of the House with regard to traditional behaviour of cabinet Ministers, including Finance Ministers.
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
While we may possibly wish to adopt a rule, there is no such rule of this House which has been breached.
The only difference between this and other questions which have arisen in the House, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), is that these people who are under oath, not the newspapers, have been given a copy of the work to which they have made a contribution. If it can be proven that they have taken any advantage of the information or have disseminated it in any way, I believe they are subject to criminal prosecution.
The question is not whether there is precedent for what has happened, because there is indeed precedent. The question is whether the House is of a mind to adopt rules which would deny Ministers outside advice because we question the confidentiality. Are we treating outsiders as we treat Members of the House? We have breached confidentiality in this House. I have not, but others have. I say unequivocally that I have not, but other Members of this House have breached in camera confidentialities. They have gone to the press with them and that has been discussed in this House.


John Napier Turner: Name them.


Fred Alward McCain: If we want to assume that everyone outside of this House will breach confidentiality, as has been charged, I suppose it is just that we raise this as a question of privilege. However, I am very concerned about the aspersions which have been cast and the innuendoes which have been made. It is not in the best interests of good government or the consultative process to question the ability of advisers to keep a secret.


Mr. Speaker:: I may be able to help the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) whom I am going to hear. It is the clear understanding of the Chair that, whether or not these 20 have some advantage, there is no suggestion being made by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), or any of his colleagues, that these 20 people have broken their oath or done anything illegal or contrary to the position of trust which they are in. There is a suggestion that because of what they know they will have some advantage. However, that does not go to the question of moral turpitude.
As I understand the position of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and members of the New Democratic Party, they are not making an accusation against the honour or integrity of these people. They have made the suggestion, for me and others to consider, that apart from integrity they may well have some advantage in the commercial world in which they move as a consequence of what they have learned.
There is no doubt in the mind of the Chair that that is the position of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and others. I see them nodding. I want Hon. Members to disabuse themselves of any concern that the Chair is in any way moved by any suggestion, innocent or otherwise, that there is any wrongdoing or lack of moral propriety and honour on the part

June 17, 1987
Privilege-Mr. J. Turner
of these 20 people. I would like to exclude that from the debate entirely.
I ask the Hon. Member for Papineau to close the debate as I believe the Chair has heard most of the points, although I think the Hon. Member for Papineau may have one very key point which I should hear.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, naturally, I quite appreciate your latest intervention following the comments made by the Conservative Member. Basically, both this Member and the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), in coming to the defense of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), are trying to lead the discussion to a very different subject matter than that raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The subject of our concern is not the group of twenty friends of the Minister of Finance, but the Minister of Finance himself, and I submit that the Minister has abused my rights and privileges as a Member of Parliament, as well as the privileges of all the Members of this House, both in the Opposition and in the Government.
As Members of Parliament, we must wait until tomorrow evening to hear the Minister announce his decisions. Some of us will have to spend part of the day locked up in a room to receive information on the document which will be made public tomorrow evening by the Minister of Finance.
We have now learned that twenty friends of the Minister of Finance will be able today to learn that we shall hear only tomorrow, without knowing who these twenty friends are. My colleague for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has asked the Minister of Finance to publish the names of these twenty privileged people. The Minister of Finance did not have the courage to give us these names.
Second, we do not know where these twenty pals will go this evening. Where will they sleep? What will they do when the lock-up is imposed on those who, tomorrow-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Papineau is repeating an argument which was heard earlier. These 20 persons are not on a jury. They have taken an oath covering the period of time during which they have been in a particular relationship with the Department. Once the oath is taken it is not the practice to follow the people around or keep them enclosed in a special room or building.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: They do it to us. They do it to the press.


Mr. Speaker:: The lock-up is, of course, something else. No oath is taken in that situation.
1 know the Hon. Member from Papineau wants to assist the Chair. Perhaps he could put aside that argument and get back to the question of privilege which he is addressing very effectively.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate naturally that the twenty pals of the Minister of Finance are sworn to secrecy. In fact, all our argumentation on the violation of parliamentary privilege is based on the fact that the Minister of Finance will disclose to an elite group information which will be given to the public only tomorrow evening, and to a few Members of Parliament and media representatives only tomorrow afternoon, and on the fact that these Members of Parliament and reporters will be confined to a room where they will have to wait until the last minute, right up to the time when the Minister is ready to make his statement, to discuss the contents of the White Paper.
We have never questioned the need for consultation. Yet, the Minister of Communications, who is trying to help her colleague, the Minister of Finance, and who has a long experience in this House and is well aware of our Standing Orders and parliamentary traditions, is attempting to invent an argument to get the Minister of Finance out of this mess. Speaking about consultations is perhaps a way to shield the Minister of Finance, but the fact is that we have nothing against the consultation process. We have never opposed the fact that the Minister of Finance might want to have consultations. What we are object to is that, on this very day, as we are objecting in this House to the attitude of the Minister of Finance, twenty pals of the Minister already know what the Minister will say tomorrow evening.
Mr. Speaker, in our opinion, this constitutes a serious abuse of the privileges of this House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: I think there is a discretion on the part of the Chair to say that after a very lengthy discussion on an important matter I would ask Hon. Members to bear with the Chair and close off the debate. I want to thank all Hon. Members for their interventions. I think that the answers that some Hon. Members have been able to give to some of my specific queries will be of help to the Chair. I shall try to return to the Chamber as quickly as possible and see if my comments will be of assistance to Hon. Members.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that you want to end the debate, but I want to add one point that might help with your deliberations. There was a precedent concerning this kind of outside adviser. I believe it was when Walter Gordon-


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the Hon. Member's contribution, but that point was made. It was in 1963 and the point has been referred to in argument by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), I believe, and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) in his earlier address.
Some of us were not in this place but, nonetheless, we can
well remember exactly what happened at that time. I thank
June 17, 1987

the Hon. Member for his contribution. I am closing off debate, I shall reserve and return as soon as I can.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), I have the honour to present the Government's response to the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in both official languages. That report was made on February 17, 1987, and was entitled: "CBC's Financial Management and Accountability: Review and Recommendations arising from the 1985-86 Annual Report".


PETITIONS
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions nos. 332-2103, 332-2148, 332-2149, 332-2311 to 3322317 inclusive, 332-2382 to 332-2385 inclusive, 332-2425, 332-2428, 332-2437, 332-2438, 332-2447, 332-2452, 3322453, 332-2455, 332-2497, 332-2575 to 332-2581 inclusive, 332-2583 to 332-2585 inclusive; 332-2587, 332-2588, 3322590 to 332-2594 inclusive, 332-2597, 332-2599, 332-2637 and 332-2638.



FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in relation to Bill C-42, an Act respecting financial institutions and the deposit insurance system.
Introduction of Private Members' Bills ANIMAL PEDIGREE ACT



MEASURE TO ENACT

Thomas Edward Siddon: for leave to introduce Bill C-67, an Act respecting animal pedigree associations.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Thomas Edward Siddon: for leave to introduce Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

['Agreed.\nMotor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986']
Claude Lanthier: for leave to introduce Bill C-259, an Act to extend the term of a patent relating to a certain food additive.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to have this Bill adopted as soon as possible since the date limit is July 8 and it will require Royal Assent before it can become law.
Is there any possibility that it be adopted tomorrow?


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

June 17, 1987
Petitions


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
['Agreed.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
* *
*



Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and, indeed, my honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Hinton, Alberta; Edmonton, Alberta; Kaslo, New Denver, Ainsworth, Meadow Creek, Nelson, Winlaw, Slocan, South Slocan, Fruitvale, Johnsons Landing and other centres.
These petitioners are concerned about the increasing number of chemicals used as herbicides and insecticides that have been proven to have harmful effects on human health. They believe that these chemicals also produce short and longterm harmful effects on non-target organisms, soil and water.
They call on the House of Commons to initiate a full public inquiry into the safety, testing, registration and regulation of the use of pesticides, and the examination of alternative ways of controlling pests such as biological control and plant derived pesticides.


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present to the House of Commons a petition signed by many members of the riding of Lachine.
This petition supplements an earlier petition to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) signed by more than 1,300 residents. They are concerned about a proposal made by the Department of Transport to expand the Dorval Airport, which would mean taking over the Dorval Municipal Golf Course which has acted as a recreational buffer zone between their community and the airport for 27 years. The petitioners are concerned that the loss of this green space will negatively affect the quality of life in their community.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reconsider the present development plans and to maintain the existing golf course which guarantees an adequate buffer zone between the Dorval International Airport and the neighbouring residential area.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table the reply to Questions Nos. 123 and 132.


Mrs. Finestone: 1.	Since June 1, 1986, did the Government issue instructions to Canada's ambassador to the United Nations with regard to halting payment by the United Nations of an annual retirement allowance to Mr. Kurt Waldheim and, if so, what were the instructions and what specific steps have been taken by the ambassador to halt payment of the said retirement allowance?
2.	Since June 1, 1986, has Canada consulted with other nations about the Kurt Waldheim dossier and, if so (a) which countries (b) with what results?


Charles Joseph Clark: 1. The Canadian mission to the United Nations in New York was instructed to find out and report if it was possible for the UN to cancel the retirement allowance of an ex-Secretary General.
The Mission reported that Mr. Waldheim's pension was established by a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly. To rescind that pension a resolution to that effect would be required. This being a budgetary item, a two-thrids majority would be needed. It is very doubtful that such a resolution would carry a sufficient number of votes.
2. Yes. (a) U.S.A., Austria, Israel, the U.K., Yugoslavia, the Netherlands, France, Australia, New Zealand, Greece, (b) These consultations have helped to keep the Government abreast of developments and were helpful in determining Canada's position.


Mr. Howie: In 1986, did the Government assist New Brunswick farmers with payments for
the potato crop and, if so, what was the total amount paid?


John Wise: Yes,


Philip Derek Lewis: I ask that all the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 17, 1987


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for production of papers on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question with regard to a matter which was on the Order Paper on June 10, 1987. On page 6963 of Hansard, I put a motion as follows:
That a humble address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Cape Breton Development Corporation's five-year plan.
That motion was agreed to by the House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader indicated that the five-year plan would indeed be given to the House. What I received instead was a summary of the five-year plan. I indicated to the Government office that that was not satisfactory, that it was not what I was asking for in my motion. I would think by the very fact that the House has actually passed this motion that I am entitled, and the House is entitled, to a complete five-year plan and not an office summary.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, I have given the Parliamentary Secretary some notice of this.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have investigated my hon. friend's suggestion. We are talking about terminology here. Summaries of five-year plans are customarily tabled in the House. In fact, I believe this one was tabled on May 26, 1987. It is my understanding that that is the normal practice, and that has been done.
My hon. friend has asked for something which I understand has Privy Council confidences in it. We are unable table the complete five-year corporate plan referred to by my hon. friend. I think it is a matter of terminology. I would be glad to take another look at it for my friend and see if we cannot come up with a compromise.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to delay matters because I realize we have a lot before the House this afternoon. However, I would ask the Speaker if this is not strictly a matter of the Parliamentary Secretary looking at what the Government may or may not wish to make public?
I would submit that by the very fact this motion has been passed by the House, which calls for a copy of the Cape Breton Development Corporation's five-year plan, that indeed this House has said it will be given to us. There is no reference to a summary. There is no reference to which items the Government wishes to give. The House has indeed spoken and that motion was agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 16, consideration of Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra provincial undertakings, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made Tuesday, June 16, 1987, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra provincial undertaking.
Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 2. Mr. Benjamin moved:		
Motion No. 2		
That Bill C-19, be amended in Clause 8 by striking out lines 36 and 37 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:		
"satisfies the board that there are reasonable grounds to believe, the operations of the"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps Your Honour might inquire as to whether or not the House, in the interest of proceeding with business, would be willing to apply the same vote to Motions Nos. 3, 4, and 7A.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, 1 think we would be in agreement, with the condition that the name of the Hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mrs. Vezina) who just came in is added. Otherwise, her vote would not be counted.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a point of order. That would require unanimous consent. I would be glad to add my consent, provided my vote is counted with the Government.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I notice that a moment ago my colleague from Montreal-Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) referred only to the absence of Conservative Members. I would like to have my name recorded on the division list with the Liberal Party.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to have my name added.


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to have my vote recorded.


Charles-André Hamelin: I would like my vote to be recorded for the next four divisions, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand there is unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on Motion No. 2 to Motions Nos. 3, 4, and 7A, with the addition of Hon. Members who have asked that their names be counted.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Therefore, the next question is on Motion No. 3. Mr. Angus moved:
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-19, be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 15 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"taking or not, while at the same time accounting for the impact on the continued viability of existing motor carrier undertakings; and"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.		
The next question is on Motion No.		4. Mr. Ouellet moved:
Motion No. 4.		
That Bill C-19, be amended in Clause 9 by adding immediately after line 16		
at page 6 the following:		
"(0 to prevent unfair pricing practices		by an extra-provincial truck
undertaking;"


John Carnell Crosbie: that the Bill be concurred in.
Members
Gray
(Windsor West) Grondin Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap
Henderson
Hopkins
Hovdebo
Kaplan
Keeper
Killens
Langdon
MacLellan
Malepart
Manly
McCurdy
Murphy
++NAYS
Members
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Gass
Gottselig
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greenaway Grise Gustafson Hamelin Hamilton Harvey Hawkes Hicks Hnatyshyn Hockin Holtmann Jelinek Joncas Jourdenais Kelleher Kempling King
Ladouceur Lawrence Layton Lewis Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands)
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
Mailly
Malone
Mantha
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDougall (St. Paul's)
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
Merrithew
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nunziata
Nystrom
Orlikow
Ouellet
Parry
Penner
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rossi
Skelly
Waddell
Young-47
Minaker Mitges Nickerson Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Porter Ravis Redway Reid Ricard St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow Stackhouse Stewart Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor Thacker Towers Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tremblay
(Lotbiniere)
Tupper
Van De Walle
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Weiner
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek) Winegard-122


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I reverse the vote and apply it to the motion for concurrence?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
When shall the Bill be read the third time? Later this day, pursuant to the Order made on Tuesday, June 16, 1987?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


WAYS AND MEANS
Thomas Hockin: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Customs Tariff and the Duties Relief Act, laid upon the table on Wednesday, February 18, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Thomas Hockin: that Bill C-69, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff and the Duties Relief Act, be read the first time and be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, of course I regret that I have not been here for the last several days to listen to all the points made by my hon. friends in the Opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure all Hon. Members would want to listen with great care to the speech of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie).


John Carnell Crosbie: However, I am happy to say that I have been most capably represented by my Parliamentary Secretary, the
National Transportation Act, 1986
Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), who has done a first-class job. He is a gentleman upon whom I intend to continue relying heavily because he is a man of great talent and great capacity.
While speaking on third reading of the Bill, I should like to say a special word about the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). He deserves special recognition because it was his drive, vision, and comprehension of the national transportation system of Canada which provided the genesis of the reforms that are known collectively as Freedom to Move. Much, if not all, of the credit for the work now before the House, which will pass in the next day or two, is due to him.
In addition, I want to thank the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) for his fine work in this connection. I should also like to thank all members of the committee, including those of the Official Opposition and those of the unofficial opposition or the New Democratic Party. They all attended diligently to their responsibilities and made many worthwhile suggestions.
Of course I also thank the government members of the committee for their hard work. I do not know whether I have the full list of their names, but I want to thank the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) who was a constant attender. As well I thank the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) who is an enduring miracle and an expert in the field of transportation. For many years he was the Minister in Alberta. Also, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) was a diligent worker on the committee, as was the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher). I think I have covered all government members of the committee but in any event-
[DOT] (U50)


André Ouellet: London-Middlesex.


John Carnell Crosbie: Oh, we mustn't forget Middlesex.
I would like to put on the record as well the names of government officials who I think deserve special mention in connection with the tremendous work put into this Bill over a period of two and a half years. Mr. Keith Thompson was certainly one of the architects of this legislation. Mrs. Margaret Bloodworth, the Acting General Counsel to the CTC, is a very capable woman who did a marvellous amount of work on this legislation. Mr. Nick Mulder, Assistant Deputy Minister for Policy and Co-ordination; Mr. Jim Miller, the Director General of Strategic Policy; Mr. John Pringle, Director of Motor Carrier Policy; and Mr. Jacques Pigeon who was Legal Counsel to Transport Canada and is now with the Treasury Board, all helped out as well. Of course, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East who attended committee meetings very diligently on behalf of the Government.
I do not want to take too long because this has been a long
process in any event. The White Paper containing the Freedom

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
to Move proposals was released almost two years ago. During the fall of 1985, it was studied extensively by the standing committee which held hearings across Canada. Its findings were a key element in shaping Bill C-18. This spring, the committee studied the Bill in depth again, heard witnesses, received briefs and travelled from coast to coast.
I do not think that anyone can say that this legislation has been hurried or rushed through the House. It was carefully thought out and everyone interested has been given every chance to put forward views and to have them considered.
I think the committee examined this matter in the spirit of parliamentary collegiality. We benefited from its analysis of the issues and I believe the committee provides another example of the success of parliamentary reform and the rules that give committees more power. The amendments proposed by the committee have made the Bill a better Bill.
I would like to reiterate the principles of the Bill. The first and overriding principle is that our transportation system must be safe. Our commitment to this is firm. Clause 3 of the Bill enshrines that principle in legislation for the first time. Safety is part of the entry test and the ongoing operating requirements for carriers in every mode.
As well, and this has to be repeated time and time again because opponents of the Bill are constantly putting out erroneous information on this, a uniform national safety code for trucks and buses has been implemented by both the federal and the provincial Governments. It will be incorporated in regulations under Bill C-19, the Bill which accompanies this Bill. Those Bills complement other initiatives the Government has taken to improve safety.
Hon. Members will recall major safety amendments to the Aeronautics Act and the Canada Shipping Act. In the fall, we will bring forward a rail safety Bill and a Bill to create an independent board to investigate accidents in rail, air and marine travel. We are improving safety requirements in all modes.
What about economic regulation, the focus of this Bill? We are adding two important principles to complement the longstanding objective which has been to have an efficient, effective and adequate transportation system. This Bill adds several other important principles to that.
First, transportation systems exist to serve the needs of shippers and of travellers. That is one important principle. Second, competition and market forces wherever possible should be the prime agents in providing for or spurring on viable and effective transportation systems. Those principles are not new, they are not foreign, but they do represent a major shift in the philosophy of regulation for transportation in Canada.
The current regime was put in place in 1967. Since then, the world economy, the Canadian economy and Canada's transportation industry have changed significantly. The regulatory regime simply did not keep pace. As a result, at the present
time it impedes rather than supports growth and development, it stifles competition in all modes of transportation, it reduces the competitiveness of producers and it hinders the free movement of goods and people. That is why the Freedom to Move legislation has received such widespread support.
Bills C-18 and C-19 will affect air travellers and shippers throughout Canada and businesses of all types in all regions, from the small family-operated concern to the large integrated corporation, from the manufacturers of goods to resource producers. All will have new choices in getting their goods to market.
The Bill will increase competition in air, rail and trucking. The objective is to provide the best service at the best price to shippers and to air passengers through competition. We need an efficient transportation system for economic growth in all regions of Canada. This is part of the Government's over-all economic framework and its commitment to put Canadians back to work.
Enduring, meaningful jobs will be created or maintained in all regions wherever transportation service at a better price will make a resource producer, a manufacturer or any other business more competitive in the market-place. This Bill and the principles behind it are badly needed and more than warranted in the cause of regional economic development. The producers and those who have had to deal with non-competitive conditions in transportation will be most benefited.
There were a number of amendments made to the Bill by the Standing Committee on Transport. First, the Bill as tabled recognized the principle that transportation is a key to regional economic development. However, committee members felt that that statement in the Bill should be strengthened, and I agreed. The question of commercial viability of transportation links will be balanced with regional development objectives so that the economic strengths of each region can be realized. That principle will be part of the definition of public interest to be applied by the new agency in the decisions it makes.
Bill C-18 will give us what is required for lasting economic development in all regions and for an efficient, effective and competitive transportation system. As well, to ensure that the agency takes full account of regional needs and opportunities, the legislation will now require that at least one member of the agency be from British Columbia, and that there be one from the prairie provinces, one from Ontario, one from Quebec and one from the Atlantic provinces. The Bill now provides that if the agency establishes regional offices, one will be in Atlantic Canada and one will be in western Canada.
The Government is also ensuring that disabled persons have access to the transportation system. That commitment is reflected in the policy statement contained in Clause 3 of the Bill. A year ago the Government announced its intention to fulfil this commitment through human rights legislation. Transport officials and the Advisory Committee on Transportation of Disabled Persons have been drafting accessibility standards to be adopted as regulations. Representations were
June 17, 1987

made to me and to the standing committee arguing that transportation legislation rather than human rights legislation should be used to enforce these accessibility standards, and I have agreed.
I am pleased to inform the House that accessibility standards when finalized will be adopted as regulations pursuant to transportation legislation, either new or existing. We make a commitment to consult with the disabled in all aspects of that work. In the meantime, the disabled will not lose any rights they now have for access to the transportation system. The Bill has been amended to remove any uncertainty on this point.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The standing committee heard a great deal of evidence concerning competitive access provisions for rail. Manufacturers explained why they need extended interswitching limits and bulk-resource shippers explained why they need competitive line rates. These competitive access provisions are Canadian solutions to Canadian problems.
The committee was not persuaded nor am I that lower rail rates arising from greater competition between Canadian railways or with American railways on transborder traffic will threaten the viability of our railways. I believe Canadian railroads can and should compete.
I agree with the committee that we should proceed with the inter-switching and competitive line rate reforms. I appreciate as well the committee's wisdom in adding a safety net just in case rail revenues are too hard hit or the U.S. Government takes steps that disadvantage our rail carriers.
To accomplish these ends the Bill now authorizes the Governor in Council to suspend the competitive line rate provisions if the annual or four-year reviews of the Act show that the financial viability of Canadian railways is in jeopardy as a result of these provisions. It provides the Governor in Council with the authority to take appropriate retaliatory action if the U.S. Government engages in unfair, discriminatory or restrictive practices against Canadian railways and consultations fail to result in the elimination of those practices.
The Bill has also been amended to delete the third competitive access provision, that being terminal running rights. It would have benefited a few shippers, but the committee was persuaded it should be deleted because of the serious problems it might cause for small railways and the type of short line railway we hope to encourage as an alternative in some cases to branch line abandonment.
Concern has been expressed, especially in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, that new branch line abandonment procedures might result in the loss of many branch lines soon after this legislation is proclaimed. Obviously it is in the interests of a more efficient transportation system to deal first with those lines which incur the greatest losses. This is also the most understandable approach for shippers and affected
National Transportation Act, 1986
communities. From a practical point of view the new National Transportation Agency can only deal with a certain number of applications at any time. In view of those factors the committee added a provision to limit abandonments by any railway to 4 per cent of its total mileage in any of the first five years after proclamation. 1 think that should provide the necessary safeguards for those in Quebec and eastern Canada who are concerned about it.
As well the Bill, when introduced, did not recognize that it may be necessary to continue operating passenger service and branch lines no longer needed for freight operations. Therefore the Bill has been amended first to give VIA an opportunity to acquire a line which is to be abandoned but is currently used for rail passenger service. Second, it was amended to remove any obligation on VIA to provide freight operations should it acquire a rail line. Third, it has been amended to protect VIA's interest in the event that another railway acquires the line. These and other amendments are contained in the revised version of Bill C-18 reported to the House by the standing committee, and certain other fine tuning has been done by the House during report stage.
As we all know, our job is to seek the best balance among competing interests if we are going to achieve reforms that will best serve the interests of Canadians in all regions. There is always strong pressure on every side, particularly in the field of transportation, from conflicting and competing interests. I believe this Bill has successfully achieved the best balance among all those competing interests. If it has not, and if in the future it turns out we have gone too far in one direction or another, then the annual and four-year reviews will point that out and the Government can ask the House to pass any amendments that may be found to be necessary.
We sought a balanced package. We sought to advance the interests of all Canadians by removing obstacles to growth in international trade. We believe Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 achieve that. The work of the standing committee gives me even greater confidence that that belief is correct. The need for these reforms is clear. The benefits are clear. Now is the time to complete the job of making these reforms a reality.
I might say that the Government is responsible for the Bill now before the House. We have listened to all of the competing interests. We have listened to Members on both sides of this House. We have listened to the standing committee and acted on many of the changes it suggested. That is the proper process, but we remain responsible for the Bill. We stand behind it. We believe it is going to mean a great breakthrough for success in transportation, giving us a better, more efficient and viable transportation system. It will help our shippers and help economic growth, and regional development. We persisted in this direction despite a great deal of opposition, some of it from my good friend from Regina West who has been very active and vociferous in committee and in the House in opposition to the Bill. We know there are strong groups, including organized labour, who have not been supportive of the Bill. However, I believe history will show that this has been

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
a great move forward in the history of transportation in this country. When people look back in 15 or 20 years they will say that the Deputy Prime Minister, who initiated this, and the people who supported it did a great job for Canada and that is has worked well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), on a point of order.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, as the Official Opposition Critic, I would normally have the right to speak now for an unlimited period. However, as many Members of this House are aware, we are celebrating a very important anniversary today, that of the Hon. Member for Regina West, (Mr. Benjamin), who has now been sitting in Parliament for nineteen years. There is a reception the Hon. Member will have to attend very shortly, and with the consent of the House, I would like to give him the opportunity to speak now, without of course waiving my right to speak subsequently, for an unlimited period.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Papineau for allowing me to speak now. 1 also thank government Members for agreeing that the Hon. Member for Papineau retain his right to the time he is allowed under the rules as the second speaker even though he is speaking third.
For some two years now we have been engaged with the issue of deregulation. We started with a paper called Freedom to Move in the summer of 1985 and we are now in the summer of 1987. I want to say at the outset that as far as we are concerned, there is a three-part package being put together: Deregulation, privatization, and free trade. They are all inextricably linked. That is why the Government, as well as the previous Government, is and was in such a hurry to try to deregulate, privatize, and what-have-you. It has little or nothing to do with the welfare and good order of Canada and her people. It has to do with pacifying and satisfying the United States on things it does not like about the way we do things in Canada.
The U.S. does not like our freight rate programs. It does not like the Maritime Freight Assistance Act, the Atlantic Provinces' Freight Assistance Act, or the Western Grain Transportation Act. That Act in itself was a betrayal of the Crowsnest Pass rate. The U.S. does not like our marketing boards, including the Canadian Wheat Board. These efforts to deregulate and privatize are essentially to satisfy American complaints about the way we do things because the Government is desperate to get a free trade agreement. I submit that that is the is the main agenda behind this Bill and others like it.
The Americans do not like compulsory public medical care plans. They do not like the Canada Pension Plan or our unemployment insurance plan. They say that our fishermen are subsidized because they are eligible for UIC. I do not give a damn whether they like it or not.


John Carnell Crosbie: Neither do we.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yeah, it sounds like it. It looks like it. If I have ever seen an example of supine acquiescence, grovelling, and crawling on hands and knees to Washington, it is the Government, which is even worse than the previous one.


John Carnell Crosbie: Bunk. Absolute bunk.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Okay, you are just as bad.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The United States' conditions for a free trade deal mean that they will demand things of Canada which will be a direct interference with our sovereignty and independence. This Bill is one of them. The attitude over there is to do anything to make a buck. They will go to any length on an ideological binge that competition and free market forces will be the end-all and be-all. The Tories are working hard to prove that Karl Marx was right that capitalism and free enterprise will destroy itself.
There is a perfectly good reason why there are rules and regulations in Canada and in the United States about cartels and monopolies. There are regulations to control stock markets, corporations, et cetera, because when the market is open wide to a free enterprise jungle it becomes dog-eat-dog, what's in it for me, to hell with everybody else, and I don't care what happens to my country as long as I can make a buck. That is the attitude behind this Bill and others like it.
I for one, Mr. Speaker, do not want to be party to the kind of thing which makes us nothing more than a fifty-first state, a groveller and sniveller to Washington.


John Carnell Crosbie: Such trash. We don't grovel or snivel to anyone. I don't. I certainly am not going to grovel or snivel to that kind of talk.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have been doing that for a long time.


John Carnell Crosbie: Cut it out and get to the Bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This attempt to-


John Carnell Crosbie: That's political garbage.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. gentleman talks about competition and the market forces. How has it been working so far?


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Minister is leaving.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He has not been around for most of the Bill
anyway so it does not matter. I wish we would get a Minister
who is interested in it.
June 17, 1987

The Minister and the Government talk about competition and free market forces. There has been more concentration in the airline industry. We used to have eight large airlines, six regional and two national, and we now have the two. Both of them have operating and licensing arrangements with small feeder airlines which ensure that between the two of them they will control between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of all airline traffic in the country, and these guys talk about competition.
The market is only large enough for a certain number of airlines. When it is thrown wide open one of two things result. There are either a whole lot of new entrants which take turns going broke, or mergers, takeovers, bankruptcies and concentration. There were new entrants, which are now all tied in with the two majors. There are very few left which are not tied in because they could not survive by themselves out in the jungle in competition with the big boys.
The Government talks about market forces. A good free-enterpriser in the free market lets the market decide whether you have to cut the cost down to damn near nothing or charge all you can get. If the Government believes that, why are there confidential rates? That is probably the most anti-competitive thing that can be done.
It is inevitable that small shippers and not-so-small shippers in the Atlantic provinces and western Canada, such as small manufacturers of farm implements in western Canada which might ship 50, 100, or 200 carloads a year, will be unable to negotiate a confidential contract in competition with J.I. Case IHC or Massey-Ferguson which ship thousands of carloads a year. When the Tories say that they will be able to do that, they are dreaming in technicolour. It is anticompetitive. The very principles expressed at the beginning of the Bill are destroyed by the subsequent sections of the legislation.
Canada will always have a higher cost of economy, particularly in transportation. It is interesting to note that for years railroads in the United States have benefited from a better tax environment. As a consequence, they have higher levels of investment which has led to younger fleets of rolling-stock and has assisted them in other plant investment. That comparative tax environment is changing, but the U.S. continues to have a major advantage over Canadian railroads. U.S. railways have a much higher traffic density than Canadian roads which provides a larger base over which to spread their fixed cost load, particularly Canadian Pacific Rail's two main competitors, Burlington Northern and Conrail.
In addition to that, joint line rates are nothing more than a licence to raid the revenues of Canadian railroads, both of which have been in some financial difficulties for the past year or two and will continue to be for another year or two. To allow American railroads to do things in Canada which Canadian railroads cannot do in the United States is more grovelling and snivelling to Washington.
The Americans do not allow competitive line rates, but we do. Therefore, Burlington Northern, Conrail and Milwaukee Road, with their connections at the Canadian border, can
National Transportation Act, 1986
move their trains on Canadian tracks at less than the fixed costs of Canadian railroads. What kind of competition is that?
Deregulation leads to another kind of extension of the jungle, the ease of entry and exit in the case of the airline and trucking industries. If you can get a loan at the bank, lease some tractors or second-hand aircraft, hire laid-off crews at one-third the pay, and get your insurance, you are in business. That is why there are so many jerkwater, fly-by-night trucking companies and airlines operating in the United States today, some of which are trying to operate in Canada. The reputable, long-established transporter who has good maintenance and safety practices, infrastructure, mechanics, and employees in all categories, are given a bad name because of this.
The whole Bill is an appeal to mediocrity and a decrease in the quality and frequency of service for Canadians. It destroys job security. We have lost tens of thousands of jobs in the transport sector, particularly on the railroads. Both railroads have told us that by 1991 they want to get rid of another
15,000	miles of track and another 15,000 employees.
They forget that transportation is a public utility whether publicly or privately owned. It is there to provide a service. Transportation is the foundation of any economy which will grow and thrive. To turn it into a deregulated jungle will be doing a major disservice to the people of this country.
We are not objecting to getting rid of obsolete regulations that no longer apply. We are not objecting to making the CTC function better so that it is more responsive. Elowever, the lengths to which the Government has gone prevents that from happening. We need constructive regulations that balance the public interest, the interests of the shippers and receivers with the requirements of the transportation industry to be economically viable. That is an economic imperative.
The transportation industry must relate to the size of our country, our geography and our climate. It must relate to the size of our markets, the viability of the carriers and to the rights of the public the and employees.
This legislation is another classic example of union busting by contracting out and leaving employees, who are highly trained technical people, feeling insecure about their jobs. Men and women who worked from 20 to 30 years at the Moncton shops were kept on the edge for three years until the axe fell. Employees of their calibre cannot simply be found at the downtown Canada Employment Office.
Constructive regulation must make both the publicly and privately-owned transportation sector compete under a deregulated regime. Otherwise, reputable railways, airlines and trucking companies will have to make the bottom line their top priority. These reputable companies with good business practices and standards will be forced to cheat. Corners will be cut and safety, security and maintenance will not be the prime requisite in the transportation industry. It is not good enough for the parties to agree that there will be no

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
downgrading of safety, maintenance and security, and that safety will not be compromised. While safety pays, it also costs money and reduces the bottom line, particularly if companies are forced to cut one another's throats by reducing the cost of freight rates or airline tickets.
That is the worst kind of risk management because it not only places transporters at risk, more important, it places the employees and the public at risk.
No sector in the transportation industry in Canada for the last 150 years, whether private or public, has been able to start up and continue functioning without public funding for the infrastructure and capital.
I suggest that no private airline would be operating in this country if it were not for the public purse. Last year, the deficit on airports was almost $700 million because the public provides the navigational and meteorological aids, the airports, the fire-fighting and rescue services. The airlines would be unable to function if they had to provide such services.


An Hon. Member:: That is the same in all modes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Exactly. All of them are and continue to be subsidized. Those who believe that these industries can operate in a deregulated free market regime with minimal regulations and be able to provide the same quality of service to Canadians are dreaming in technicolour.
Canada has always attempted to find mechanisms which try to equalize as much as possible the delivery of transportation service no matter where one lives. There is still too much discrimination against people because of where they live, where they produce or manufacture their goods. I would be a fool to invest $100 million in a manufacturing plant in the Prairies, in Atlantic Canada, or up North rather than near Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. This legislation is designed to inhibit regional and economic growth.
The railroads have already indicated the length of line they want to remove, and even want to remove a thousand miles of tracks in the Laurentian Division, mostly in the Ottawa Valley from North Bay to Montreal. I suspect that CN wants to do this in order to force the Government into buying the track and giving it to VIA Rail, thereby relieving Canadian National of the responsibility.
It wants to get rid of all the track in Prince Edward Island and would like to eliminate the Newfoundland Railway if a deal can be made with Newfoundland. However, that railway comes under the 49 Articles of Confederation with Newfoundland. Yet the railway is in jeopardy if a deal can be made to remove the tracks and build some roads in Newfoundland.
We are scheduled to lose not less than 3,000 more miles of track in the prairie provinces.
Air Canada has already pulled out of six or seven cities. Today, I read the application by Air Canada to pull out of Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. Before Pacific Western Airlines took over Canadian Pacific, it pulled out of eight locations in
northern British Columbia and Manitoba. These are the areas taken over by the jerk water fly-by-nighters who do not even have mechanics or the proper equipment.


An Hon. Member:: And the accidents.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As I indicated yesterday during debate on one of the report stage amendments, an airline operator can lose his licence and go bankrupt, while there is an airline in Schefferville in which seven passengers and a pilot were killed. That operator had no operating authority but had the licence to fly. That airline still has no operating authority, yet eight people were killed. One must wonder with this deregulation whether the Tory transportation agency would consider cancelling the licence of Air Canada or Canadian Airlines International for filing late statistics with respect to fuel consumption and the number of passengers carried. It boggles the mind.
This legislation is based on a bad principle and poor philosophy. We attempted to move 107 amendments to make this bad Bill less offensive.
It is ironic that today's paper contains a front page headline: "U.S. Airlines Reeling From Deregulation". Let us consider what is happening to the travelling public in that country. The last six times I visited the United States, I was in 12 different airports. I have yet to find a clean airport, let alone arrive on time. One never knows whether one has a reservation or must stand in a long line trying to get a boarding pass. That is deregulation. That is the Tory version of competition and the role of free market forces. American airlines cancel flights at will and feel no responsibility to the travelling public because the bottom line is its primary motive of operation. There are not enough inspectors and insufficient regulations.
The Canadian Trucking Association, which is not made up of a bunch of socialists, is pleading with the Government not to bring in deregulation of the trucking industry for at least another year. Until those national safety regulations and the safety board are in place we should not bring in deregulation. We do not have a railway safety Act or a railway safety board. The Canadian Aviation Safety Board is understaffed. It is only a year old but it is under-equipped and it cannot do the kinds of inspections it should do. But the Government wants to bring in deregulation and throw it wide open for competition. That is an invitation to disaster. It is a compelling reason for otherwise reputable transporters to cheat. It is an invitation to disaster and it will cost hundreds and hundreds of Canadian lives.


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if my hon. colleague, who has travelled so extensively, both nationally and internationally, having travelled on airlines, buses, cars and whatnot, would explain why since 1978, with the beginning of economic regulatory reform, the airlines are so safe?
June 17, 1987


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) had finished his speech so I will allow that comment in the question and comment period. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Regina West would like to reply.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The two remaining major airlines in Canada are still safer, more efficient, the cleanest, and still have a reliable reservations system far ahead of all the airlines in the United States, and we are inviting them to join the ranks of that mediocrity south of the 49th parallel. I am not about to agree to that and neither are my colleagues.
The other tragedy in this country is that we do not have decent passenger trains because this Government starves the passenger service, treats it like an orphan. We have had, relatively speaking, a good transportation system. That does not mean that it does not need a lot of improvement. It needs billions of dollars more of investment over the next 10 to 20 years. However, we used to lead the world, and now in many areas we are running 20 or 30 years behind. It does not matter whether it is rail, the trucking industry or our highways, we need a massive amount of public investment to keep our status as one of the leading countries in the world in transportation. We need that investment to make sure that Atlantic Canada, the North and the West receive equitable treatment compared to the three or four major market centres in Canada.
I invite my hon. friends to talk to the people in southwestern Ontario, who sent in scores of requests for the Transport Committee to come there. The Transport Committee did not go to Yellowknife or Whitehorse. It did not go to Prince George or Prince Rupert. They should talk to the mayors of those two towns and all the municipalities around them. The Transport Committee did not go to the Peace River country or talk to the folks in Dawson Creek, British Columbia or Grand Prairie, Alberta. This thing has been a sham. The deck has been stacked and loaded ever since the White Paper Freedom to Move came down. That is why I submit it is an ideological binge which is going to cost this country dearly.


Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Mr. Speaker, I am just delighted to have the opportunity to address the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) formally because I really believe the Hon. Member has missed the point. Bill C-18 is an invitation to Canadians to access. It is an invitation for the Canadian public to travel in at least 20th century style. I hope the Hon. Member for Regina West can understand this.
He talks about Bill C-18 and the market-place and all the worries Canadians should have. I want to tell him that there are no worries in southwestern Ontario. The people there did not get the luxury of having the Transport Committee go there and listen to them, but they are really pleased because action is a lot louder than going to a meeting hall. There has been action on the part of this Government to move ahead with Bill C-18 and offer opportunities to the good burghers in southwestern Ontario so they can finally travel in the style of the 20th century before we get into the 21st century.
National Transportation Act, 1986
Let us just talk about London, Ontario and the opportunities which have arisen there. A year and a half ago Members opposite all said to me: "Air Canada is pulling out. There go the jets. There goes the service. Nothing else will happen in southwestern Ontario because the lights are going out". I did not know how I was ever going to travel between Ottawa and London. But what has happened in the interim? We did not just have one airline come forward and say that it wanted to provide that service. We did not have two come forward or even three. Yesterday it was announced that the fourth airline has come forward in southwestern Ontario. It wants to be a part of Bill C-18 and the future of transportation in Canada. I am sorry the Hon. member for Regina West missed this page.
I am sorry about that.
We are frequently seeing all kinds of airlines coming to our community and giving us this opportunity to travel. It is like the Americans in 1978 when they passed their legislation. We expect 51 per cent more travellers to have access to this kind of transportation. They should not all have to walk and carry a lunch pail. They should have the opportunity to fly. They should have time on their hands and be able to move silently and quickly in the skies of Canada.
The jets are back in London, Ontario, and those Members opposite said that they would never come back. The marketplace brought the jets back. We now have the regular service of jets, and safety came with them. Members opposite said we would never have safety, that safety would be finished because of this new Bill C-18. I want to tell those Hon. Members that Amertek brought in state-of-the-art fire crash rescue equipment to Canada and to the world. It came first to London, Ontario. We have it there to protect our travelling public. We have the best. We have all kinds of frequency of service. We are a model for Canada. We have all kinds of airlines which want to come into the market-place. They want to provide cheap transportation and state of the art technology for Canadians, and they want to do it with safety. The Minister has ensured that the standards will never be surpassed by any country in the world. So we have it all, and this Government should be congratulated.
I want to ask the Hon. Member for Regina West what this is all about? What is this bogeyman? What is wrong with the market-place deciding? What is your problem? What happened to Regina West? Does no one want to fly out there?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, that was a combination of the Hon. Member's third reading speech, I guess. I thought the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) was scheduled to be the next speaker.
I want to tell my hon. friend from London that what happened in Regina is going to happen in London. The Government threw it open. We got one airline and then a second airline. We were told we had to have more competition, and we got a third airline. The market is not big enough for three airlines, so one of them stayed for a year and then pulled out. Then we have to become an international airport, so we

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
get Frontier Airlines which flew to Saskatoon, Regina, North Dakota, Denver, and so on. That lasted 14 months. Frontier Airlines is now belly-up. It is bankrupt.
We see this chamber of commerce syndrome, champagne ideas in a beer market. Mark my words, all these little jerkwater airlines will end up merged, taken over or entering into an operating agreement with one of the majors. The result will be that air fares will not be reduced. The going rate will have to be paid, something which has taken place in cities the size of London and cities even bigger than London in the great U.S. of A.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) point out that the transportation system is a good, safe system. Can the Hon. Member produce any evidence with respect to differences in attention given to safety between the publicly-owned Air Canada and the private sector operation of Canadian Airlines International? Since 1983 or 1984, whenever deregulation in the air industry commenced, has there been any diminution of the airlines' concern for safety? Is the Hon. Member's concern with respect to the majors in the industry? Or is he saying that the smaller airlines are less conscious about safety? Why does the Hon. Member respond with such concern when there is a rationalization or consolidation of the airlines industries under major carriers which have as an obvious concern the safety of their passengers?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I was not complaining about being down to two airlines. That is about all that Canada can handle. I was not complaining about that. I was just pointing out how that occurrence came about under the aegis of the so-called deregulation which threw the doors wide open to free enterprising market forces. It is inevitable to see either bankruptcies or mergers in such cases. It is one or the other. There cannot be too many fellows trying to warm the same spot on the bench.
When it comes to safety procedures, Air Canada has received an international medal for safety three years out of the last six or seven. It is one of the most efficient and safe airlines in the world. We rank in the top 10 airlines in the world. It still remains that way.
The same thing applied to Canadian Pacific and Pacific Western. Rate setting, exit and entry requires cutting costs to the bone, as any good corporate manager will do. It is inevitable. It has been shown and proven many times. The Arrow Airlines accident was a deregulation accident. The Florida Air airplane which hit the bridge in Washington was a deregulation accident. Because there are not very many accidents that is no reason to sit around all self-satisfied and say: "Well, we have not had any accidents lately". What are Members opposite doing? Begging for one?
The operations of an airline and the amount of money it needs for capital investment and so on will perhaps be reduced
when put into deregulated regimes. They have to cut corners, and they will cut them.
I do not believe for one minute that Air Canada or Canadian Airlines International will cut corners on safety. I do not believe it. I do not think they will. But they will cut a great many other things. They will reduce the number of places they serve. The ones I worry about are the ones that are called the Schedule 3 or Schedule 4 operators which do not have the wherewithal to carry on a safety and maintenance regime, something which a big airline can do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would remind the House that the period for questions and comments is over.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. When the Hon. Member quotes the differences between the United States and Canada, is he in a position to point out figures to back up his statement as to air carrier fatalities in the United States versus air carrier fatalities in Canada?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: To conclude the intervention of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), would Hon. Members consider allowing the Hon. Member to have one minute in which to complete his remarks? We will then proceed to the speech of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I only wish that I could join with the Hon. Member for Papineau in his unlimited time. If I had that I would be glad to read a whole book to the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid). I would be glad to recite all these statistics to the Hon. Member. Much of this information he received from witnesses and in submissions given to the Transport Committee, something which he and his colleagues chose to ignore.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak at this point in the debate on third reading of Bill C-18. Bill C-18, an Act respecting National Transportation, has been the subject of comments and debate and has aroused the attention of the public in general far more than many other Bills.
At this stage, I think it would be interesting to go back in time to provide a brief historic overview and see how we got to where we are today, when we are debating the last stage of a Bill that will most certainly cause disruptions in Canada's transportation industry. In my view, there will be a disastrous impact on safety and on several sectors of our economy. The transport sector and our regulatory system have helped to strengthen the unity of this country since Confederation.
Except for coastal regions and the centre of the country, where maritime transport was possible, railway companies at the time had a nearly exclusive monopoly on freight and passenger transport, except perhaps over what can be considered short distances.
June 17, 1987

This had two important consequences. First, the railway companies developed major sectors and, second, the Government got involved in regulating their operations, obviously in the public interest because these companies had control over economic activities, and over the industry and the regions which depended on them.

The 1920s saw massive government expenditures in the field of transportation. The federal Government unified several financially-troubled railways into CN Rail, advanced massive funds for improved shipping, expanded other enterprises and provinces greatly expanded their network of highways.
This was also a period of legislation imposing public duties on railways. For example, the Crow grain rates were extended by law across the West and subsidies were begun for Maritime provinces transport.

About the middle of the century the monopoly of the railway companies began to weaken as a result of progress in the trucking industry, particularly with the advent of powerful diesel engines, road construction, competition from ships plying the new seaway between the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, new pipelines carrying oil to regions where railway companies used to deliver coal, and the growth of airlines and bus companies transporting passengers who were once railway customers. From then on, shippers and travellers then had several options. They abandoned the train and turned increasingly to transport by truck, bus or even airplane when speed was of the essence, cost not a significant factor, and in the case of goods, the weight not too high.
Of course, what followed was to be expected. The railroads focussed on the sectors they found most profitable because of their very nature, such as the transport of heavy goods over long distances, while local interest services and passenger service were losing ground to other means of transport.
Unfortunately, the heavy regulation which had been necessary to control the monopolizing expansion of railway companies in their glory years was not relaxed soon enough to take into account the evolution of transport in this country. The Governments continued to regulate railway freight transport. The railroads had to interfinance their various services to continue to meet the commitments imposed on them in the name of national interest many years before, especially the transport at regulatory rates of grain and grain products for the export market,the maintenance of unprofitable passenger services, and the provision of local services which they could abandon only under very strict conditions.
These circumstances led to the creation of the MacPherson Royal Commission on Transport, which examined this issue from 1959 to 1962 and did some very useful work. I submit that the latest major reform of the National Transportation Act came as the result of a royal commission which took two
National Transportation Act, 1986
years to examine the issues involved. We of the Official Opposition are shocked to see how quickly the Conservative Government is imposing this measure which will fundamentally transform the whole transportation sector in Canada.
I would remind the House that the recommendations of the MacPherson Commission led to passage of the National Transportation Act in 1967, to the decision of the then Government to subsidize directly railway companies in compensation for some of the commitments imposed on them by the national interest, such as passenger service, and even, to a certain extent, to passage of the Western Grain Transportation Act in 1983 which set new tariffs for grain transport.
With the adoption of the National Transportation Act, the Canadian Government ceased to be actively involved in rate setting within a rather wide margin which existed between the minimum rate as set under section 276 of the Railway Act and the maximum rate set under section 278 of the same Act. The legislation thus allowed the railways to set their freight rates as they saw fit, after due consultation and agreement with their clients, of course. At the same time, the Act defined a procedure for the abandonment of local services and provided mechanisms to compensate railway companies which were not allowed to drop certain services.
The results of this legislative review were impressive. New specialized freight services were offered and Canadian railways became more and more competitive. In effect, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that this National Transportation Act which was put in place by the Honourable Jack Pickersgill in 1967 has been a great asset for the Canadian economy over the last 20 years. The transport industry is not ailing. The Canadian rail, air, and sea transportation industry as well as the trucking industry provides a decent livelihood for vast numbers of workers throughout Canada.
Some changes are indeed required to accommodate a new situation. Some of the regulations of the National Transportation Act must of course be streamlined. But the Government is not trying to streamline or to accommodate. It is in fact litterally trying to do a hatchet job and destroy everything we have now to start again from scratch and it is willing to do so in fact just to accommodate a request by the large Canadian carriers and shippers.
The bill before us is the Government's response to the pressing demands of large Canadian shippers. Although the provinces, most transportation companies and the public in general as well as workers in the field of transportation in particular, oppose this bill, the Goverment has decided to stick with it and go ahead in forcing this new transportation act upon Canadians in spite of all the objections that have been put forward.
People often say: If it works, why change it? And we should indeed be asking ourselves at this moment: why is the Government insisting to overhaul the National Transportation Act and jeopardize thousands of stable and well-paid jobs with transportation companies throughout Canada?

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
As I said earlier, the Canadian transport industry is not static. It is indeed a dynamic, developing industry which changes constantly. As everything else, its reactions to change may be good or bad. But the change which we are undergoing is in many ways a technological change. Sometimes, it takes the shape of a competitive challenge from our neighbours south of the border, and it is indeed this change, those developments and those challenges which prompted the previous Liberal Government at the time to review the industry's regulatory framework. In fact, in 1984, my colleague, the Honourable Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), the then Minister of Transport, first suggested that some deregulation might take place in the transport industry. I am saying "some deregulation" on purpose, for what our Government had in mind at the time was the implementation of a more flexible regulatory framework, a framework that would be more in keeping with new economic structures and with the changing face of the transport industry. Our purpose at the time was to set up a regulatory framework to ensure the full development of that industry, thereby improving our competitive position.
But the major difference between us and the current Tory government is that if our policy was future-oriented, it was also deeply rooted in the best traditions of the transport industry in Canada, in both realism and pragmatism which have demonstrated their usefulness in the past.
So, the government is asking us to approve this very heavy and all transforming bill. It had expressed its views in its White Paper entitled Freedom to Move.
Well, Freedom to Move means going full speed and without any limitation towards full, urgent and complete deregulation. My colleague, the former Liberal Minister of Transport, on the contrary, had proposed a strategy of regulatory flexibility which we had described as small-step progression. At first, this strategy was directed to the air transportation industry. We meant to soften the impact on the Canadian economy. This Tory government, by electing to change the whole transportation industry all at once, has caused a wind of panic to blow on several sectors of our economy.
I must say that the small-step approach adopted by the former Liberal government had already started to be felt, resulting in a reduction of the rates granted to the travelling public by the airlines of the day.
Guarantees have been provided for services in distant areas of this country to make sure that those with vested interests, such as those held by various airlines, would be protected by the measures announced by the then Minister of Transport.
Well, we need only look at what has been happening for the past two years to realize to what extent the hasty and misdirected action of this Tory government has resulted in a disturbingly large number of small airlines being taken over by major carriers. Also, the trucking industry in Canada is
starting to experience a disturbing concentration. When he introduced his bill, the Tory Minister of Transport told us: the purpose of this deregulation is to favour and encourage competition. Well, both in the air and highway transportation industries, we see the opposite happening. We do not have more competition, but a larger degree of concentration in the hands of a few big carriers, and the danger is clear-more concentration leads to lesser competition and greater disruption of market forces. And needless to say, it is clear the transport industry in Canada is very much concerned by the Conservative Government's Bill C-18.
So, while accepting the major thrusts of the bill, the Liberal position is quite different from that of the New Democratic Party. While the latter want no change, we say: A degree of de-regulation is needed, existing rules must be made more flexible. We therefore support the principle of Bill C-18. But while accepting the major thrusts of the legislation, we cannot support the way it was put forward by the Conservative Government, nor the hasty legislative process chosen by the Government that to us is totally unacceptable and shameful in the circumstances. Indeed, the importance of the transport industry to our Canadian economy's development is clear. The Government itself recognizes that in the policy statement included in Clause 3. And it is because of that basic importance that we feel the Government should have used a much more balanced approach. And that same basic importance leads us also to suggest the Government should have held wider consultations, it should have listened to the many representations it received when it tabled the White Paper, the Freedom to Move document, and also when Bill C-18 was discussed. What is unfortunate is that apparently the Government only listened to associations controlled by large, affluent shippers in Canada. Clearly, it should have listened as much and perhaps more so to small shippers, small shippers from the Maritimes and some small shippers from Western Canada who made representations and submitted that confidential contracts for domestic traffic in particular may force them out of business.
When small and medium size business people in Canada appear before a commons committee, they make urgent representations, saying: Be careful, if you provide for confidential contracts as proposed in your bill, this may force us into bankruptcy, please do not do that. It seems to me that a Government that has the public interest to mind, a Minister who finally wants to have the best possible legislation, should listen and accept that kind of representations. We cannot understand that the Conservative Government turned a deaf ear to the many urgent representations made by small and medium size businesses that opposed major aspects of Bill C-18.
Evidently, I do not have to tell you that if the Tories did not listen to small businessmen, they listened even less to the unions which also appeared before the Committee on Transport and made very insistent and eloquent representations about the inherent dangers of the legislation for a number of
June 17, 1987

jobs which could be lost in the transport industry if the government blindly proceeded with total deregulation. Some statistics which I find indisputable were given by Canadian unions which appeared before the Committee on Transport and which told us explicitly that to copy the Americans as this Tory government wants to do in the deregulation of transport would have in Canada the same results as the deregulation of transport has had in the United States, that is the loss of many jobs in that industry. However, the government has been entirely relentless as far as those representations were concerned.
The government could have also consulted, Mr. Speaker, all aviation professionnals, pilots and others, who appeared before the Committee on Transport and clearly told us that deregulation would inevitably lead to reduced service and what is more important, reduced safety. We are not imagining those things, this is what those experts, the pilots who earn their living in that field and are the first ones on the line told us: "Take care, what has been done in the United States resulted in decreased air safety." Now the present Minister of Transport as well as the former one told us time and time again that everything would be done to maintain total safety. At one point, the Prime Minister even said that we were going to be number one on safety. We were going to make sure we would have the best safety record. However, if we take a closer look and analyze what the Government has done, we realize that these were just empty promises. We have nothing in our legislation to protect safety standards, and as for the Department of Transport and the various agencies that would be created to monitor Canada's new transportation system, they do not have the person-years and will therefore be unable to provide for the necessary resources to monitor and enforce the most important safety standards.
Only yesterday, when we were considering the report stage of this Bill, we tried to amend the legislation to ensure that the most important safety standards would be enshrined in the text of the Bill. However, the Government would not accept our amendment.
So we have nothing tangible here at all. When the Government talks about safety, it is just talk, since no concrete action has been taken in this respect.
Furthermore, the Government should have listened to our Canadian railway companies when they told us that Bill C-18 constituted a threat to their survival. The railway companies, both CN and CP, testified before our Committee and told us that the new constraints imposed by Bill C-18 would be a threat to their survival, lead to a substantial drop in revenue and business, and force them to cut back severely their operations across the country.
The Government was unmoved by these representations. In fact, it preferred to impose time frames that were entirely unrealistic. For instance, when the Transport Committee was to study the White Paper Freedom to Move, we were handed
National Transportation Act, 1986
the document and told to submit our report within two months. We would be able to hear a number of witnesses, but the report had to be tabled in Parliament before Christmas. Next, when we got the Bill, we were told the Bill had to be reported back to the House before Easter and that it was all very urgent.
Mr. Speaker, I may remind the House that the last time the legislation was revised, a Royal Commission of Inquiry sat for three years before any changes were made in the National Transportation Act.
In fact, in addition to the very short time frames, the Government even had the gall to impose time allocation on consideration of the report stage, and we are now limited to a maximum of four hours at third reading. I think this is hardly the way to deal with a sector that is one of the most important components of our economy. And I think it is hardly acceptable and entirely inappropriate to make such radical changes in the legislation that regulates transportation in this country.
Gagging the Opposition may be something the Government can afford to do in the circumstances because of its crushing majority, but although the Government may be able to gag us here, although it may be able to force Parliament's hand to pass this legislation, it cannot gag the general public. It cannot gag the workers in the transportation industry who will be affected by this Bill. It cannot gag the transport companies whose activities will be seriously disrupted by this new legislation. I am convinced that within a very short while, we of the Official Opposition will have to repair the damage done by this Government which has set its mind on forcing us to adopt a bad piece of legislation much too quickly. I have no hesitation in predicting that, within two or three years at the most, the Government will have to deal with a new Bill to correct the harmful impact of Bill C-18 on our transport industry.
We of the Liberal Party are vigorously opposed to many of the provisions contained in this Bill as we believe that they will seriously harm the economy of Canada for several years. We regret that this Bill does not contain the provisions required to provide such things as serious and credible safety standards for air travellers; adequate services for handicapped travellers; measures to protect jobs in the transport industry; and guarantees that the national transportation network will remain the cornerstone of regional development in Canada.
In a few words, those are the major points on which we of the Official Opposition have tried to suggest improvements, and I am thinking especially of my college, the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) who has proposed several amendments. We have not been as successful as we had hoped.
We believe that the review of such a blue-print legislation, which is essential to the socio-economic balance of this country, deserves a much more responsible approach than that taken by the Conservative Government. I emphasize that, in such a major review, much more care should have been taken

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
to measure the impact of the deregulatory process on such matters as passenger safety, consumers, especially as far as rates are concerned, jobs, the acceptable level of foreign control, and finally, regional development.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the next few minutes to try to point a picture which we Liberals want to be as objective as possible of the harmful effects of comprehensive deregulation such as proposed by the Government in Bill C-18 now under consideration at the third reading stage.
I would also like to review some of the most noteworthy comments made on these issues before the transport committee. To some extent, we Liberals want to act as spokesmen for all Canadians whose views were not taken into account by the Minister of Transport when the Bill was being prepared, and later when the Opposition proposed amendments on their behalf. In so doing, we wish to join those Canadians in denouncing a piece of legislation which, while it may have been based on a sound principle, has become very bad in its various provisions.
First, I would like to deal with the issue which is of greatest concern to the users of our various means of transport. In my opinion, when they hear the word "deregulation", people are most worried and scared about the safety issue.
We Liberals regret that this Bill contains no provision to prevent situations which could actually reduce air safety. The American experience has shown that this is a real danger.
I will not refer to trucking safety-I will get back to that when dealing with Bill C-19-which is also a source of deep concern. Nor will I say anything about safety in rail transport because, as we see it, the Government has proved to be utterly unrealistic by failing to provide adequate financial backing to the railway companies, and particularly the two Crown corporations-CN and Via Rail-for which the Government has the responsibility to meet minimum safety standards in the railway sector.
Every week or every two weeks we are told about derailments, we are told about railway accidents, a clear indication that the Government has failed to take urgent action to revamp a defective system.
But here is where our fears are the greatest and what I want to emphasize again, three fundamental observations in the field of air safety. First, deregulation encourages the arrival of new companies on what is supposed to be a free market. Oftentimes these new airline companies have inexperienced workers who have not been properly trained in aircraft maintenance. Second, one of the effects of deregulation is that carriers are forced to exact concessions from their workers, which often results in longer shifts, stress, lower wages and fatigue, so many factors which can translate into human errors. Sadly enough, more carriers does not automatically mean more inspectors.
As we have seen, in 1979 the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration had 2,000 inspectors for 237 air carriers.
Well, five years later, in 1984, it had 1,300 inspectors for 407 air carriers. The same situation is bound to develop in Canada.
The Government is imposing budget restraints on the Department of Transport. Since the number of inspectors will not match the increase in air traffic, it can be expected that the same shortcomings which prevail in the United States will also prevail in Canada.
In our opinion, these three situations speak for themselves. It is inconceivable that these direct consequences of deregulation might lead to anything other than reduced air safety.
There is more. Indeed, in the U.S. the number of near misses has increased steadily over the last five years, from 311 in 1982, to 776 in 1985. In the first five months of 1986, 305 were recorded, an increase over the same period in 1985. While the number of commercial flights has grown by 31 per cent from 14.7 million in 1980 to 19.2 million in 1986, the number of air traffic controllers has declined by 13 per cent. While the number of aircraft increased by 68 per cent between 1980 and 1984, the percentage of operating revenues spent on maintenance has declined from 8.9 per cent in 1980, to 7.6 per cent in 1984. Clearly that indicates the American skies are not as safe today under deregulation as they were before 1978.
Earlier today my hon. friend from Regina West was asking for statistics. I am giving him uncontested statistics which are a clear indication that deregulation has created a lowering of safety in the U.S., and it is predictable that exactly the same thing will happen in Canada.

Indeed, in the United States air travel is not as safe as it was before deregulation. Accident and mortality rates are on the rise, and I would like to quote Mr. Ronald Cape, President of the US Cetus Corporation, who has this to say: "Commercial flights are less safe now than they were before deregulation". The President of Bache Prudential Securities, Mr. Harry Jacob Jr., stated: "Air travel is now much more dangerous". To us in the Liberal Party, and not only to us but to a countless list of organizations that appeared before the Committee on Transport, the US deregulation experience should have been more closely studied by the Conservative Government. That American experience should have led the Conservative Government to be more cautious before acting with such haste to de-regulate air transport. I cannot understand such haphazardness, such irresponsibility from this Government. I would like to quote from the evidence given by Mr. John Nance, professor, author, and himself a former Braniff Airlines pilot, who appeared before the Committee on Transport. Here is what Mr. Nance revealed, and I am quoting from his evidence before the Committee on Transport:
June 17, 1987



"The most serious objection of all, and the one taken with the least degree of seriousness on Capitol Hill, was the issue of airline safety. It seems obvious to the technically adept members of the airline industry that price wars will lead to cost cutting, and cost cutting will lead to cut-backs in the amount of money available within any carrier to fund training programs for pilots, flight attendants, maintenance workers, operational line workers, and hundreds of others, and would lead to cut-backs in the funds available for maintenance personnel and parts.
With abject ignorance of the realities of the very delicate balance in the human systems of airline operations, the proponents of the deregulatory experiment assume without justification that safety standards will not be compromised as long as the Federal Aviation Administration maintains its surveillance of the airline industry in order to prevent a decline in standards. In addition, they reason it is not good business to denigrate safety standards and cause crashes which kill people and destroy public confidence in one's airlines. Therefore, the natural propensity of airline managers will be to maintain their safety standards regardless of cost pressures.
Based on those two incredibly naive assumptions, the Congress promised that deregulation will never be allowed to lower the level of safety then enjoyed by the people of the U.S., and the government agency charged with maintaining that promise would be the FAA".
That is exactly what the Minister is telling us. That is what the officials in the Department of Transport are telling us. Do not worry. We will continue to carry on business as usual. There will be no problem. We will not compromise safety. That is exactly what was promised to the U.S. Congress and it never materialized. That is exactly what will happen here, to the peril of the Canadian public.
I will cite another part of the text submitted to us by Mr. Nance. He said:
Congress never understood these basic truths:
A.	The level of safety in the airline system of the U.S. in 1978 was, and historically always has been, far, far above the minimum standards mandated by the Federal Air Regulations;
B.	The FAA was empowered to enforce only the Federal Air Regulations, also referred to as the "minimums" in airlines operations-the lowest level of compliance to which any carrier would be allowed to drop before the FAA would be empowered and required to step in and take action to prevent further decline.
Since it was obvious that deregulation would bring massive cost-pressure to bear on established carriers in the sure-to-result feeding frenzy of competition, and since existing carriers would have to find ways to cut their costs to match the lower costs of new entry carriers with overheads no greater than a PSA or Southwest, airline leaders were sure to notice that their level of compliance in many areas of maintenance, training, and operations was far above the minimums mandated by the FAA. Since the FAA was powerless to stop or even influence the decision of any carrier to cut its previous level of standards as long as it remained above the minimums, the FAA would thus be powerless to prevent a general decline in the standards of safety-as long as those standards did not sink below the FAR minimums.
National Transportation Act, 1986
Thus, from the very first, the promise of the Congress to absolute guarantee that there would be no cost-pressure generated decline in the levels of safety of the U.S. airline industry was inoperative and impossible to keep. Furthermore, through ignorance and refusal to do their homework, Congress virtually guaranteed that those standards would have to drop in order for the existing carriers to have a fighting chance to remain in business.
I want to point out to the Ministers and government Members that the same situation could prevail in Canada. My colleague, the Member for Westmoreland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud), says that that is exactly what will happen, and he is right. Mr. Nance was saying that Congress was naive in thinking that safety would be preserved. I submit that the Ministers and the government Members are naive to think that safety will be protected. I am afraid that there will be a repetition of the terrible American experience.
I will continue quoting Mr. Nance's remarks as follows:
But what of the natural propensity of airline managers to have and maintain the highest level of safety available? Once again ignorance plays a role in the story of the U.S.'s experience.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, ignorance cannot be pleaded by the Minister and the Government because they know of the American experience. It may be that the U.S. Congress could plead ignorance, but the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), who knows what happened in the U.S., does not want to look and see the danger. He continued:
Because of the entry into the business of thousands of bright and honorable business school graduates and other managers with no exposure to the nuts-and-bolts operational realities of the human system we refer to as an airline system, the incorrect idea was sure to grow rapidly that the highest level of airline safety and the FAA minimums were actually one and the same, and that as long as an airline complied faithfully with the minimum standards the public trust had been upheld. Therefore new entry carriers run by non-airline people were certain to enter the business at a lower level of safety compliance (fewer hours of training, lower maintenance stocks, lesser quality of operational experience in the people hired) than the major carriers whose routes they were determined to raid.
Since cost control would now become the arbiter of who would succeed and who would fail, arguments on the Vice Presidents of Operations or Vice Presidents of Maintenance for extra funds over and above the minimum necessary were increasingly discounted even in the established carriers, and never considered in too many new entry carriers. While there was and is no doubt that the national propensity of airline managers is to have the greatest level of safety possible-
-and I think the same is true in Canada-
-the definition of what was possible was arrived at through cost analysis and examination of the subterranean FAR minimums, and thus the overall level of safety of the system began to decline.
This is exactly what we think will happen in Canada. The new entries will try to compete and take away some of the routes of the existing companies. The danger is grave that we will have a lower level of safety in Canada.

In his book Blind Trust, Mr. Nance had this to say:

The airline business is a human business. Humans think and act subjectively, try as technology may to mold us into objective perfection, humans fail in the cockpit, on the ramp, in the executive office-and in Congress. Such failures are predictable, and if we do not build in enough of a safety buffer that is being thinned drastically and dangerously by the free-market forces of cost accountability unleashed by deregulation.

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
[ Translation]
In Canada, Mr. Speaker, we simply want to ensure that we do not take the same route. On the other hand, we want for Canada a safe, comfortable air transport system, with fair rates and a high quality of service, and we sincerely believe that on those matters, Bill C-18 fails miserably. This leads us to the matter of air fares over the last two years.
The Minister of Transport attempted to promote his deregulation proposal by suggesting to Canadians that Canada's air carrier rates would be reduced because of de-regulation. In the meantime, both the President of Air Canada and the President of CP Air stated in evidence before the Committee on Transport that air fares had reached their lowest level, that was the bottom line, there would be of course competition between the main airlines but across Canada air fare reductions were no longer to be expected. In other words, the Canadian consumer was misled by the Minister who wanted him to believe air fares would fall significantly because of deregulation. Indeed, the former Minister of Transport attempted to tell the same story. But to his credit, I must add the Deputy Prime Minister had the courage in June, 1986 to admit that the new National Transportation Act would have no impact on rates.

So much for lower fares, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that again the Government has lost one of its reasons for bringing total deregulation in the air industry.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this Government was elected almost three years ago by promising jobs, jobs, jobs. Those were the three commitments made by the Conservative Government and, at that time, by Mr. Mulroney. Jobs, jobs, jobs! Unfortunately, he has been forced to admit that, in this area as well, the Government has not delivered. We believe that this bill will have a detrimental effect on the employment level in the transport industry. Far from creating employment, Bill C-18 will bring about a drop in highly paid full-time employment in the transport sector. Workers in the air transport industry face important layoffs and displacements. The United States transportation industry was deregulated in 1978. From 1978 to 1985, 40,000 workers in that industry lost their jobs. We think that repeating the American experience here would have the same effects. It is obvious to us that in their effort to rationalize their operations, the air carriers would cut down on their staff. This is already being felt ever since CP Air has been taken over by Pacific Western and there is talk of rationalizing operations. And I predict that we will see between 1,200 and
2,000	layoffs or job losses in that Canadian company alone.
And I am not talking about other companies which could be affected by the bill but about the new company which is now called Canadian Airlines and which, in a context of deregulation, has benefited from the happy-go-lucky attitude displayed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre),
who is responsible for competitions policy in Canada, in allowing an excessive degree of concentration in the air transport sector which will directly result in the layoff of hundreds of workers of the former companies, that is to say Quebecair, Nordair, Pacific Western or Canadian Pacific, or even Eastern Provincial.
What will happen as a result of the consolidation of these five companies into one? Jobs will be lost. It is bound to happen. What we in the Liberal party find is wrong with this legislation is that it does nothing to protect jobs in the air transportation industry. Nothing is provided to force air carriers to compensate workers who would have to move in order to keep their jobs or give them proper notice in case of lay off. We consider that the increased competition will lead the companies to cut their costs, to take up a strategy of bare minimum, to abandon certain routes and to run a greater risk of bankruptcy. All those consequences will result in less job opportunities and more lay offs.
This legislation does not include any provision able to counter the likely negative impacts deregulation will have on the work force in the transport industry, while we have before us the most eloquent example of problems generated in the United States by deregulation.
Allow me to quote from the brief presented by the Brotherhood of Railways and Airline Clerks before the Standing Committee on Transport at our hearings in Vancouver last March. We would have hoped that the Government had paid careful attention to that brief submitted by that union which had done an outstanding work to bring to the attention of the committee members some very relevant points of view, and I quote:
However, one fact about deregulation that we will not dispute is that the airlines will use it as an opportunity to cut costs. The supporters of deregulation have clearly indicated that the major portion of this cost-cutting will be achieved at the expense of workers.
At a hearing of this Committee in November, 1985, when asked "what specific steps would an organization" such as his take in order to change the profit picture, Donald Carty, (then President of CP Air), provided the following action plan: 1. "go from three-fleet types to two" 2. increase the use of "automation"; and 3. make changes to "our labour contracts."
It would appear accurate to suggest that such cost-cutting measures would have a negative impact on both present and future workers of any organization. The recognition of who will suffer most in the implementation of deregulation has also been highlighted by transport economists. Professor Tretheway of UBC has suggested that, "some of the gainers from deregulation, consumers, may have some obligation to the losers, the employees-"
While the proposed Canadian legislation has followed the U.S. direction of recognizing the needs of shippers, consumers and carriers, it has failed to follow the U.S. legislators in at least attempting to provide for the needs of workers in the transportation industry. The Transport Minister has suggested that the Canadian Bill is an improvement on the U.S. law as "We (learned) our lessons from what has happened there." One improvement which we believe Canada should have made on the U.S. legislation, is a more effective employment protection package ... To ignore this issue is to fail to recognize that the elements which have created the stable industrial relations system in the airline sector are a natural product of having operated in a regulated environment.
June 17, 1987

The results of such a failure for Canada can be extrapolated from the U.S. experience. For as Professor John T. Dunlop has asserted in reviewing the U.S. scene: the inadequate consideration given to the question of "how deregulation would impact on the relevant labour markets and the process of collective bargaining "exacerbates the industrial relations problems created by deregulation.
[ Translation]
It is clear that the government has failed to take into account this proposal made before the Transport Committee. And this is regrettable because there is no doubt that Canadian workers, in the transportation area, deserved more protection.
Now, I should like to deal briefly with the issue of foreign control over our industry. Always anxious to kowtow to our neighbours to the South, the government introduced a bill without any provision limiting foreign control over Canadian transportation companies. Mr. Speaker, this is surprising, when we know that even in a country as powerful as the United States, there is a 25 per cent limit on foreign takeovers in the transportation industry. We fear that a great many Canadian companies will fall into foreign hands. We said so to the government. We have tried to move amendments to protect against this possibility. But the Tory government has decided to live dangerously.
While disregarding the need to safeguard Canadian control over our transportation industry, leaving everything to the discretion of the Minister responsible for Investment Canada, and failing to set any statutory limit to foreign control, the government, we feel, has left the door open to foreign control over this industry which is so important to the economic wellbeing of Canada.
We have tried to move an amendment which could have offered a certain protection to the workers within the transportation industry by incorporating to Bill C-18 the provisions of the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to refresh the memory of some of our colleagues on this major legislation which was adopted by Parliament in May 1982. The purpose of this legislation, which comes under the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) is to extend protection through income support to some workers who have been permanently laid off by industries designated by the federal government, who are no longer entitled to collect unemployment insurance benefits and who have no employment outlook. These last resort benefits, authorized by the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act, are aimed at people who have been laid off and who, because of their age or particular qualifications, could not avail themselves of the manpower placement programs and who experience therefore tremendous adjustment problems.
1 respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that many railway and other Canadian transportation employees who worked for 20, 25, 30 or even 35 years in the industry will soon loose their jobs as a result of this deregulation process.
If in its great wisdom, the Government could in the past offer benefits to laid off workers of designated industries until
National Transportation Act, 1986
they reached the age of 65 so they would not rely entirely on welfare assistance, if the Government could offer such a useful program to textile, shoe, and mine workers in many areas of Canada, I think that it would only be fair to offer a similar treatment to transportation workers because these Government measures will undoubtedly create absolute chaos for many experienced workers.
If, for example, such a program had been set up for the workers at the CN shops in Moncton, we would not see as we do now, a Conservative member of Parliament being contradicted by his own Government after having declared that the Minister of Transport abdicated his responsibilities by allowing the Crown Corporation to go ahead and lay off many good workers from Moncton who spent many years working for the government. Well, these adjustment benefits have been in existence for several years and are helping many Canadians. In reality, these adjustment benefits account for about 60 per cent of the average weekly insurable earnings, based generally on the last 20 weeks of employment preceding the lay-off. These benefits are entirely geared to the inflation rate and are paid until the beneficiary finds a job or reaches the age of 65.
I therefore submit that the Conservative gouvernment has a responsibility towards all these workers that could be laid-off in the transport industry. The amendement I had moved which would have made it possible for these workers to take advantage of this program was of course rejected by the government. Yet, I think that sooner or later, in view of the slump that this bad legislation will eventually create, the government will have to intervene and I think that this program, however imperfect, could meet to a large degree some of the pressing needs of these workers who will be faced with unemployment and no job opportunities.
Another striking deficiency of Bill C-18 is the fact that it includes no qualification tying the enforcement of the legislation to the aims of regional development. We are now told at the very most that the commercial viability of transport services is to be weighed against the aims of regional economic development. It is an amendment which I introduced in the Committee on Transport, amendment that was reintroduced as such by my colleague the Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane) and that was also introduced at the same time in the Committee on Transport. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot but be pleased to see that the amendment was accepted. However, while I was pleased to have my amendment approved by the government, I must indicate that 1 find it insufficient. The amendment is not strong enough to compel the government and its officials to take regional development into account when decisions are made and transport policies are drawn up.
Mr. Speaker, history has clearly shown us that if we want an efficient regional development policy, all federal departments must take it into account. If the aims of regional development are only weighed against the commercial viability of transport services, there is no guarantee. It is too vague, too general for a minister or his officials to take that into consideration. The

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
aims of regional development must prevail over commercial interests when both are in conflict. Such was the view of several witnesses which were heard when the Standing Committee on Transport visited the different regions in Canada. Indeed, that opinion was almost unanimously held in the Atlantic provinces. For example, let me tell you what the Leader of the Official Opposition in New Brunswick and very soon the Premier of New Brunswick, Mr. Frank McKenna said in Moncton on April 1 last and 1 quote:
[DOT]	(1950)

It is essential that Bill C-18 be amended to ensure that economic development objectives will take precedence over commercial viability when the two objectives conflict.
There is bi-partisan agreement across the Maritimes on this fundamental point. In its present form, Bill C-18 does not offer this assurance. It is not acceptable to Maritimers. It is not acceptable to New Brunswickers.
The inclusion of this clause will reaffirm transportation as an important instrument of economic development.
It will clearly indicate that the federal Government will not allow commercial viability to be the sole determinate in any decision affecting the transportation service.
As it now stands, Bill C-18 stresses the right of the market place to regulate itself through competition. The point of the included clause will be to insist that the transportation services essential for our economic development will not be endangered by the more competitive atmosphere.
It will ensure that we will continue to enjoy full access to these services even if they cannot prove commercially viable. It will ensure that we are recognized as equal Canadians even though we do not live in central Canada.
[ Translation]
One could say that this is a Liberal speaking and playing politics but, Mr. Speaker, it is not only the Leader of the Opposition in New Brunswick who said that but also the present Premier who appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport on April 1 last and said:
[DOT]	(2000)

The federal government's reluctance to date to incorporate into Bill C-18 satisfactory protection against the possible downside effects of the proposed legislation has increased the province's concern regarding the potential negative impacts of the new act on transportation services in New Brunswick, and in the Maritime provinces in general.
This is why New Brunswick is adamant that paragraph 3(1 )(d) of Bill C-18, recognizing transportation as a key to regional economic development, be expanded to include the statement that regional economic development objectives will take precedence over commercial viability objectives when the two are in conflict.

On of the best briefs presented to the Committee on Transport was that of the Flarmon Corporation of Stephen-ville, Newfoundland. This is what they had to say:

Section 3 of Bill C-18 contains the statement of policy governing the whole of the proposed legislation. The Section accentuates commercial viability. In subsection (d) it states that transportation is a key to regional economic development. Sprinkled throughout the bill are provisions relating to the
maintenance of essential rail and air services, however, it is not a positive commitment to foster economic development. There is no evidence of a positive commitment whereby regional economic development is given greater status than commercial viability.
It was a condition precedent to British Columbia joining Confederation that a railway be built through the mountains.
It was a condition precedent in the Terms of Union with Canada that a ferry and rail link be continued between Newfoundland and Canada. One of the key reasons for these conditions was economic development.
The Canadian Premiers, in 1985, met in St. John's, Newfoundland and stated that they desire economic development objectives to have supremacy over the objective of commercial viability where the two conflict.
It is therefore the position of Harmon Corporation, in accordance with its mandate in the public statement of Canada's provincial Premiers that Section 3, subsection (d) of Bill C-18 be amended to read as follows:
"(d) Transportation is recognized as a key to regional economic development and where commercial viability objectives conflict with regional economic development objectives the latter objectives shall prevail."
[ Translation]
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, all those evidences should have moved the minister of Transport and touched the Conservative members sitting on the Transport Committee, because I want to underline that the governments of Nova-Scotia, Prince Edward Island and that of New Brunswick which I just mentioned, as well as several other witnesses, all approved that amendment to the Bill. They wanted that section to be amended. They clearly wanted a firm undertaking that regional development would be preserved. Such a position had also been expressed by the Transport Commission of the Atlantic Provinces and by the Atlantic section of Transport 2000. I repeat, all those parties wanted and still want that regional development objectives to prevail over the commercial viability whenever the two are in conflict.
We think as Liberals that the priorities and understandings concerning regional development should never be jeopardized by transport policies that do not take into account the special needs of the most distant, the most remote regions of this country.
In the absence of such a declaration in the act, it is clear that the impact on regional development will be negative, because until now it is through regulations that we could alleviate a number of difficulties linked to regional economic development.
In a framework devoid of any transport regulation, Government intervention no longer will be possible. The Conservative Government would not recognize the importance of regional economic development. Such a position is totally unacceptable in our view, and points to a lack of awareness of the fact that Canada is a nation with a population that is relatively sparce and scattered over the second largest country in the world.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleague the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud), who worked very hard to put the case submitted by all Maritime representatives, who himself moved a very important amendment that incorporated almost word for word
June 17, 1987

the agreement reached between the then Minister of Transport (Mr. Otto Lang) and the Maritime Premiers after Mr. Lang submitted a draft that met the aspirations and hopes of Maritime representatives and was committed to include in the National Transportation Act, when that act would be amended, the very clause we attempted to have accepted by this Government, and that we Liberals, had we been in Government and had we put the legislation forward, would have enacted.
I must say that the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent did everything to convince his Conservative colleagues on the Committee on Transport to accept his amendment that met the expections of Atlantic witnesses who appeared before us. It was a splendid fight, but unfortunately Conservative Members closed their eyes, pinched their noses and blindly followed the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary by rejecting the motion. Nobody was more embarrassed than the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-


An Hon. Member:: -Annapolis Valley-Hants!


André Ouellet: -Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), Mr. Speaker, who as Chairman could of course not vote, but probably was at a pain when he called the vote and saw his colleagues, especially the Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Marin), the Committee Vice-Chaiman, vote against such an important move to Canada's regional development. But we now realize why the Government refused that amendement. It is because the Government does not believe in regional development. As we just found out, the Minister in charge of Regional Development is being stripped of everything. Like a strip-teaser, he is stripped of one responsibility after another. Very soon he will be stark naked, without any power to look after the interests of Canadian regions. Not only is the Conservative Government rejecting an amendment that would protect regional development interests under the transportation legislation, but it is also dismantling the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion which had been set up in the best interests of Canada and specially for the prosperity of the regions of Canada. We cannot help become indignant when we see this Government destroy what was built by the Hon. Jean Marchand and created out of a deep concern for social justice to allow Canadians wherever they live to share in Canada's prosperity. And the main mandate of the regional development department is to ensure that this prosperity enjoyed by major urban centres of Canada and some wealthy areas of the country be spread around in the interest of everybody, in all regions of Canada.
I say this: the Government has rejected our amendment. That is reason enough for us to vote against Bill C-18, because a fundamental pillar of the Canadian economy is missing, that is the recognition of an economic development opportunity for all Canadians who live outside the big cities of Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton.
National Transportation Act, 1986
Outside those large cities, there are people who are entitled to an opportunity to work and prosper, and we have tried to amend the legislation. The Government did not go along. We will vote against the bill because we believe it is totally unacceptable under the circumstances.
1 wish to revert to the suggestion made repeatedly by the Minister of Transport to the effect that this legislation is the result of successful consultations with the provinces. Such a statement is absolutely unfounded. We know how deeply the Premiers of the Maritime provinces are disappointed and aggravated by this lack of understanding on the part of the Minister of Transport. But let me tell you a little about the reaction of the Quebec Minister of Transport on Bill C-18.
As free trade negotiations are underway between Canada and a partner which spares us no blow, what with restrictions on lumber, pork, potash, etc., how can we justifiably give free access to our railway system without any counterpart? This is what the Quebec Minister of Transport, Mr. Marc-Yvan Cote, was asking his Federal counterpart, Mr. John Crosbie, when he submitted a paper outlining the official position of the province of Quebec with respect to Bill C-18, a Bill to redraft the National Transportation Act.
We should remember that under this Bill, a shipper may enter an agreement with a company which does not serve his area, including a U.S. company, for the purpose of transporting his goods. The province of Quebec as well as several western provinces have seriously questioned the relevance of such a concession, for it is obvious that, although those shippers might benefit from it in the short term, it might have a negative impact on the economy in the long run.
The submission sent by Minister Yvan Cote to Mr. Crosbie was drafted in line with a decision of the Cabinet, and therefore represents the official position of Quebec on this matter. Here is a brief outline of some of the amendments to Bill C-18 suggested in that memorandum:
Specifying the powers of the Governor General in Council and providing for early consultations with the provinces on matters of concern to those provinces.
Extending the funding provisions for modal conversion to include the rehabilitation of lines that may be taken over by other companies.
Establishing at net salvage value the sale price of businesses and lines abandoned by a railway company when an interested party is willing to take over.
Including in the branch line grant mechanisms some form of incentive for businesses to try and upgrade their revenues and services.
Provide for the preservation of unused branch lines for five years, with a possible further delay as required.
Giving provinces which may subsidize or take over services which are about to be abandoned an assurance that they will be provided with the cost and market data of railway companies.

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Granting provinces a right of appeal to the Governor in Council with respect to maintaining services subsidized for reasons of public interest.
Establishing a consultation process with the provinces with respect to the reciprocal agreements on international air transportation.
Finally, use accessibility rather than geographic criteria to identify protected areas in the North under air regulations.
Mr. Speaker, not only the federal Minister of Transports has not studied carefully the representations from his provincial colleague, or taken them into consideration, but he has not accepted a single recommandation from the Quebec Minister of Transport. Nevertheless, the federal Minister would have us believe that he has the support of the provinces to proceed with his Bill. He does not. Provincial Premiers are very upset by the attitude of the Minister.
One of the biggest aberrations of this Bill deals with the competitive line rates. I do not know whether people watching us understand what is involved in this Bill C-18, which is divided in several parts. The first one deals with the new National Transportation Agency; the second with air transportation, about which I was talking just now; the third part is about railway transportation and includes a section about railway lines which sets out various terms and conditions for the railway companies regarding their lines. A fourth part concerns motor vehicle transport, and has a section on trucking, although there is a separate Bill C-19 also about motor vehicle transport. The fifth part is about northern marine resupply services, the sixth about commodity pipelines, the seventh about acquisitions of Canadian transportation undertakings. The last part contains a series of general and transitional provisions and related and consequential amendments.
One of the most complex and difficult sections in this Bill is the one about railways and the new constraints the Government has decided to impose on them. Whereas, on one hand, he recommends a comprehensive deregulation of air, road and sea transportation industries, he says he wants to deregulate rail transportation but at the same time, he is imposing conditions and commitments on both Canadian railways, which is hard to believe. It is for good reason that Minister Cote referred earlier to the free trade negotiations with the Americans when he said: You are about to give everything to the Americans in the transportation area without asking for anything in return. In particular, it is true for rail transportation. American railways will enjoy benefits that their Canadian counterparts will not have. In order to please a few major shippers, the Government is jeopardizing the future of both Canadian railways, but to whose benefit? To the benefit of American railways and trucking companies that will soon be under U.S. control.
One of the worst nonsense which we heard of is the section on competitive line prices. An American expert, Mr. Dempsey, has appeared before the Committee on Transport, and what he
had to say is very significant. I will quote him because this will enlighten us about the lack of concern and the recklessness of the Minister, who was fully at the mercy of a few officials of the Department of Transport who had decided to play a dirty trick on the railways. And if, on one hand, the Liberal Party has no objection and indeed supports this process, namely that we should enable major Canadian shippers to have better prices, we are not prepared on the other hand to go as far as undermining at the same time the very viability of railway companies. As I said in the second reading debate, some officials of the Department of Transport are vengeful or have a hidden agenda. They want to hurt railways, and they used this legislation on deregulation to substantially undermine their viability and prosperity. This is entirely unacceptable, I find it hard to believe that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has not been perceptive, brave or competent enough to see what was happening. Mr. Dempsey said the following:
We do not have anything in the United States comparable, as you know, to your proposed competitive line rates. It might be or it might not be and I pass no value judgment on it-
He is an American citizen who obviously does not want to put his nose into Canadian activities. The President of the United States and some Congressmen are not following his example, and they should. Indeed, sometimes we wonder who is running this country, whether it is the President of the United States or the Prime Minister of Canada. However, he said:
It might be or it might not be and I pass no value judgment on it, a good thing to have a rail system in the United States that is like the interstate highway system. It might be a good thing to have railroads compete with one another like supermarkets do. All that I can say about it, without passing a value judgment, is that it would wreck the system in the United States, it would just wreck it, that is all.
He is one of the authorities in the United States who is telling us that competitive line rates in the U.S. would wreck the system.
However, the Minister of Transport of Canada joyfully goes ahead with the competitive line rates idea and imposes it upon Canadian railway companies. It is absolutely unacceptable.
CN, which is a Crown corporation under the umbrella of the Minister of Transport, despite the obvious displeasure of the Minister, had the courage to say the following about competitive line rates:
Nowhere in the world is the arrangement of physical access to one railway's line from another forced by legislation.
Some of us have called the provision a confiscation of assets, because our railways, respectively, have spent millions upon millions in building roadbeds, tunnels, bridges and other infrastructures to win freight and intermodal customers.
Others refer to the idea as turning the railways into a communal right of way over which anyone could move without guaranteed proper recompense to the owner.
Certainly the view of CN is shared by CP. The idea of
competitive line rates is unprecedented; nowhere has it been
June 17, 1987

done. As Mr. Dempsey said, it only means one thing: it means big, big trouble for Canadian railways.
We are wondering why the Government wants to do it. The Canadian Industrial Transportation League has been following the testimony, advocating the passage of the Bill without amendment, urging us to speed up the process, and advocating the change. Obviously the league had the ear of the Minister much more than the workers and the companies. Elere is what the league had to say about it:
The CITL believes that competitive joint line rates will only be used as an exceptional safeguard procedure for the following reasons: Imagine yourself a shipper who is local to one Canadian railway after Bill C-18 has become enacted. If you wished to apply for competitive line rates, you would have to go through a formal legal proceeding which might take several months, whereby the specific CLR which you would pay would be argued before the National Transportation Agency, as well as whether your designated routing was "cost effective" or to the "nearest" interchange, et cetera.
Once you have endured these additional legal expenses and delays to obtain your competitive line rate, the merchandise might be further delayed by a day or more per shipment due to the local railway's resistance in adjusting their work schedules for an hostile interchange with the competing railway which was obtaining the long haul.
I did not invent these words. These were the words submitted to us on April 3 by the Canadian Industrial Transportation League.
On one hand, the railways do not want it and, on the other hand, those who might benefit from it are saying that it is unworkable, too costly, and unproductive.
Why on earth is the Minister of Transport insisting upon bringing in legislation with measures that are not satisfactory to anyone? I submit that the Minister, who unfortunately has not been very studious, to say the least, about Bill C-18, did not know what he was doing and what he was pushing. I also believe that he has been badly influenced and misled by some of his officials in the Department of Transport who wanted to get at the railway companies. Again this is an aspect of the legislation which is terribly bad.

This policy, by substantially reducing the revenue of railroads, will provoke abandonment of many branch lines in Canada. I must say that, in this regard, both our railroad companies, that is the CNR and the Canadian Pacific, were very frank with the members of the parliamentary committee. When they appeared before us and were asked this question, they replied quite honestly that, in the case of the Canadian Pacific, over one third of existing lines would be abandoned. Even more, the CNR will abandon half its lines. There is no doubt that the railway companies have no other option than to abandon branch lines throughout Canada.
The Hon. Member for Jonquiere-


Clément M. Côté: The most beautiful riding in Canada!


André Ouellet: The Hon. Member from Lac-Saint-Jean in Quebec says it is the most beautiful riding in Canada. Even though he interrupts me constantly

National Transportation Act, 1986


Louis J. Robichaud: He thinks he is a Minister.


André Ouellet: -he will probably pay attention to what I am about to tell him-


Clément M. Côté: It will be the third time you say it.


Louis J. Robichaud: Not at all. You are not listening.


André Ouellet: -because the documents clearly show that the Canadian National in particular is about to abandon important services. I suggest to the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) that he should take notes and have enough courage to take part in this debate later on, because the only thing he seems to be warming up right now is his backside, not his brain.
The Department of Transport in the province of Quebec contemplates a whole string of actions to counter this now almost irrevocable decision by the CN. Indeed, according to the document made public by the Quebec Minister of Transport, Mr. Cote, many applications are anticipated from the CP for the abandonment of the following subdivisions, that is the Chaudiere Line (Valley-Jonction to Lac-Frontiere) and the Tring Line (Tring-Jonction to Courcelles). And as for the CP, Chandler Line (Sainte-Adelaide to Gaspe), Taschereau Line (Cochrane to La Sarre and Miquelon to Chapais), in the Danville area, Charny to Plessisville Line, and in the Val-D'Or area, Senneterre to Rouyn Line are all at stake.
I recognize that the Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St-Julien) has been the only Conservative member to make active and sound representations for the sake of his own region, so that Val-D'Or would not be deprived of its Senneterre to Rouyn line. And because of his representations, we have heard evidence from representatives in the Abitibi region who appeared before the Transport Committee in an effort to have some amendments made so as to protect concerned regions from those unilateral abandonments of railways by the CN.
Some colleagues in the Opposition are tempting me with a sandwich in order to make me conclude now. I feed myself with all those documents we have been handed in the transportation committee. They contain a wealth of good sense and ideas on how to amend this piece of legislation.
It is unfortunate that the Minister of Transport is not with us now. He did not show up often neither in the committe when we considered this bill. He could have found food for thought in all those briefs submitted by various people and we could have made use of them to make this bill acceptable. Unfortunately, because the Minister of Transport was so uncompromising, so eager to sabotage the transportation sector in Canada, none of those briefs have been considered and accepted. Now, the Department of Transport of Quebec is protesting against those abandonment orders at a time when the Federal Government itself admits that the present system is obsolete by proposing a reform of the corresponding economic regulations.

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
In all those instances, the track could be dismantled, and it would then be very costly to put it back in place. In the case of the above-mentioned CN subdivisions, the request concerns a section of transit line which would then become sidings and which would be less useful for inter-regional transport. Moreover, the great flexibility given to railways in this regard could lead to requests for the abandonment of lines which are presumed viable now.
In this respect, the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please!


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was just wondering if my friend opposite would like to put in his order for breakfast because we are having bacon and eggs brought in. I wondered if he wanted his eggs over easy or straight up.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the kindness of the Parliamentary Secretary who allowed me to take a few seconds' rest to continue with more enthusiasm to criticize this bad Government legislation.
I was quoting from a memorandum prepared by the Governmment of Quebec-


Darryl L. Gray: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
_ Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Hon. Member for Bonaventure- Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray).


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if my hon. colleague from Papineau could give some indication to the House of the length of time he will be speaking. What he has been saying we spent the last 16 years living and I wonder if he intends to go for another 16 years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) has the floor.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that on third reading the spokesman for the Official Opposition has unlimited time. Considering that the Government wants to speed up things and has imposed time limits, we were prevented from discussing properly a series of amendments we would have liked to introduce, we had to vote without debate on a number of significant amendments introduced at the report stage. Since debate on third reading will be limited to four hours, I feel perfectly free to speak for as long as I wish.
Moreover, I am not really speaking for myself, I am merely speaking for the thousands of Canadians who made representations to the Standing Committee on Transports and were ignored by the Government. I am sure that they are glad to see that, through me, their objections will be on the official record of proceedings of the House of Commons Debates.
I was talking about a document put out by the Quebec Government which says, and I quote:
"A leaked internal document from the CNR, about ceasing all marketing efforts for about 1,600 kilometers of lines in the St. Lawrence area, has the Quebec Minister of Transports worried and he is asking the federal Minister of Transports to act to prevent the CNR from destroying a rail system which is very useful to Quebec."
It is essential, before these transport infrastuctures are finally withdrawn from service, that all parties involved have access to a range of alternative services better suited to the present needs of the economy. This underscores the need for an abandonment policy flexible enough to take into account the different requirements of the various regions of Canada.
Obviously, this Government which is tightening the budgets of its Crown Corporations and is laterally starving a company such as the CN will do nothing to convince it not to abandon some of its branch lines.
So, it must be recognized that in spite of our efforts and the amendments we have presented, the Government decided to go ahead. Our railways will have problems because American railways and trucking companies will take a large share of the Canadian market, and all the Government has to say is this: You are going to incur losses, but if you wish, you will be allowed to abandon some lines in order to save on maintenance costs.
This is a short-sighted policy which is indeed contrary to the national interest and which is not only going to impede regional development and disadvantage the most remote areas of the country, but also completely strangle Canadian railways in the short or medium term.
Furthermore, this is a bad and deficient legislation because this Government refused to establish clear accessibility standards for the disabled in the National Transportation Act.
We have witnessed some kind of a tragi-comedy in the Transport Committee when the time come to vote on the amendments that our party moved-there was also one amendment from the NDP-relating to the legitimate requests of the associations for the disabled.
The Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister felt suddenly in a minority position because a few tender hearted Tories were ready to support our amendments, which would have allowed us to amend Bill C-18 as requested by the groups representing the disabled.
At the last minute, the Parliamentary Secretary said: No, do
not vote now, I would first like to consult with the
Department's officials and legal advisors to make sure that this
June 17, 1987

amendment is in order and meets the requirements of the Justice Department.
Instead of being passed in the morning, the amendment was deferred to the afternoon sitting, when the Parliamentary Secretary came back with a new wording which was, I must admit, more atuned to some of the concerns expressed by the associations of handicapped people, although it did not go exactly as far as a legislation on transportation services accessibility standards for handicapped persons. Consequently, we were satisfied with the amendment because it was better than nothing, although the handicapped certainly expected more than that. Of course, we agreed to the amendment in the afternoon, and the Conservative Members, who felt good about it, voted in favour.
Since then, we have received a letter-
We have just received a letter from the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped. They said that Bill C-18 was coming back to the House for third reading and they wrote to request that we move further amendments which will permit the enactment and enforcement of accessibility standards. That is what we were ready to do in the morning. The amendment would have been accepted in the morning except at the last minute the Parliamentary Secretary saved the day for the Minister and the Government and said "do not vote immediately, wait until the afternoon". We have an amendment which has been accepted, but it is imperfect. The Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped is now telling us that what we did is far short of what they were expecting. They are absolutely right.
The letter goes on to say that these standards have been under development since 1983. They are concerned that it may be many years before the Act is open again. They say now is the ideal time to make legislative provisions for standards which are nearing completion. The Minister has been informed through the chairperson of the Transportation for the Disabled Implementation Committee of its support for these amendments. They ask that we contact the Minister and indicate our support for this objective and agree to work in a co-operative fashion to develop a mutually acceptable set of amendments.
Last night, in the spirit of co-operation, I rose in the House to indicate to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he wanted to bring in the amendments referred to in this letter, we would accommodate the Government and allow it to implement the change requested. The Parliamentary Secretary said no. He refused the offer of the Liberal Party, seconded by the NDP. If the Government had wanted to do so, with the help and support of the two opposition Parties, it could have amended the Act to favour the handicapped.
They also refer to an enclosed letter to Transport Canada official Jim Miller which makes clear that these amendments were under active consideration by the Minister. The
National Transportation Act, 1986
Minister's executive assistant, and they even give his phone number, (613)-996-7501, indicated the Minister was still hoping for an all-Party agreement which would allow for this insertion prior to third reading. It said that senior officials in Transport Canada support the intent of the amendment and the Minister is known to be personally supportive.
Either the Parliamentary Secretary did not know what he was talking about last night, or the executive assistant to the Minister has misled the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped. It is one or the other. According to this letter and the Minister's executive assistant, he was ready to accept the amendment. In fact, he is supposed to have been studying these amendments since 1983. Surely they should be ready to be implemented now.


Clément M. Côté: 1983?


André Ouellet: Yes. We have no difficulty in saying that the Liberal Government was ready to implement in legislation amendments that would guarantee appropriate enforcement of accessible standards for the handicapped.
I do not think the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Government have come clean with the handicapped on this issue. I think it is a shame. This is a major and regrettable flaw in the legislation and there is no doubt that the handicapped have been, to say the least, short-circuited by officials or the Minister's staff. That is not the way to treat the handicapped and I regret it very much.
To conclude, I would like to refer to the new agency created under Bill C-18 to replace the Canadian Transport Commission. It has been said and repeated time and again that this new agency will not enjoy the same authority and independence as the former CTC. The latter had an exceptional expertise and could count on conscientious and dedicated employees and commissioners who looked after the interests of transportation in Canada.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal party, I want to thank all those who worked for many years at the Canadian Transport Commission and who well served their country. I must say that I deeply regret that the Government, in its desire to dismantle, to change and to rebuild everything, has decided to abolish the Canadian Transport Commission. Clearly, the Conservative Government could have made a few changes in the best interests of orderly operations at the Canadian Transport Commission. But there was absolutely no need to abolish the Commission to meet their new need for deregulation. There was a research team, an outstanding pool of expertise which could have carried on and be quite useful to the new National Transportation Agency. However the Conservatives wanted to start again from scratch,they wanted to start afresh, they wanted to do everything over again and consequently they abolished an organization which in my view

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
has played an important and useful role in the transport sector in Canada.
I hope that several of the employees and even some of the present members of the Commission will be transferred to the new National Transportation Agency.
I thank the Parliamentary Secretary who on behalf of the government agreed, following my request last evening, to introduce an amendment which to some extent will protect the employees of the Canadian Transportation Agency.
As I said yesterday, at the very last minute, before the proceedings of the Committee on Transport ended, the legal adviser of the Department of Transport introduced an amendment to clause 273 of the bill which, with all the adjustments, became section 272. Moreover, he added a subsection which was liable to frighten greatly the employees of that agency. 1 refer specifically to section 272 to which was added at the very last minute that clause which stated: Exclusion from compensation. The persons appointed as Members of the former authority, the former Canadian Transport Commission, are in no way entitled to claim or receive compensation for damages, indemnity or any other form of indemnification from Her Majesty in right of Canada nor her agents by reason of the abolition of their functions under subsection 9 and under this Act, except for any indemnification the Governor in Council may authorize or provide for by order in council.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this was much more than a minor technical amendment, it was purely and simply carte blanche for the Government to fire outright people who, in good faith, a few years ago, three or four or five years ago accepted to leave their jobs or their communities and come to Ottawa to work for the Canadian Transport Commission and take a position for a specified period of time.


Louis J. Robichaud: -to work for Canadians.


André Ouellet: And as my colleague for Westmorland-Kent suggests, to work for Canadians.
Clearly, that amendment allowed the Government to decide the next day that a Member of the Commission was fired, he had to go, because the Commission no longer existed, and he was stripped of everything he became entitled to when he accepted that appointment.
This is a kind of retroactive legislation that should not be done, and if there is something that is ignominious it is to pass a retroactive legislation that strips individuals from rights and privileges that were freely and properly conveyed to them. I commend and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for accepting that we add subclause 11 to clause 272 of Bill C-18, thereby inserting an exception to subclause 10, the preceding paragraph, which states that notwithstanding subsection 10:
The Governor in Council may, by order, authorize or provide relief of a form described in that subsection.
I therefore take for granted that this is an indication of magnanimity from the Government. I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for having very rapidly corrected the situation, and I hope that good intention that is now inserted in the act will be reflected in concrete steps, appropriate, fair and
proper settlements for all those who are now employed by the Canadian Transport Commission and who, because that Commission is abolished, will not be unfairly and rudely treated by the Government.
In conclusion, let me say that the Liberal Party not only has reservations on Bill C-18 and that desire for quick deregulation, but is also concerned about what this Government will want to do with its Crown Corporations. We also believe that regional development is a major component of any transportation policy, that transportation in Canada must be complemented by Crown Corporations. We cannot leave Canadian transportation in the hands of private enterprise alone.
That is why the Liberal Party has always believed in the usefulness of such Crown corporations as the CN, Air Canada and VIA Rail. We are concerned about this desire to privatize at any cost which seem to haunt the minds of Tory ministers.
One of the finest success stories in the area of Crown corporations is Air Canada. When it marked its 50th Anniversary, the Liberal Party emphasized the important role played by this Crown corporation. Together with my colleagues the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) and the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (M. Tobin), we prepared a press release to demonstrate that we continued to believe in the important and crucial role played by this Crown corporation in the development of our country, a role which we felt it should continue to play, especially in the light of deregulation.
It was as a response to that persistent rumour to the effect that the Tory government was about to privatize Air Canada that my colleague, our party's critic in the area of privatization, and my other colleague, who is associate critic in the area of transportation, and I prepared this document and insisted on emphasizing the raison d'etre of Air Canada, our national carrier.
From the time it was established to this day, Air Canada has provided the travelling public with transportation services from sea to sea, while reflecting the federal government's commitment to the principles of bilingualism, employment equity and regional procurement policy.
A privatized Air Canada would no longer pursue the same objectives and there would be a definite danger of certain routes and regions being abondoned, because they are not so profitable as some others.
Henceforth, the objective of a universally accessible air passenger transportation service, for which Trans-Canada lines were first created, would become out of reach.
We wanted to emphasize that Air Canada has played a significant role in the past and that it will have to play a similar one in the context of deregulation. For as the Tory government is about to adopt Bill C-18, which will bring about the complete deregulation of the air transportation industry, we must wonder what is the wisdom and the need at this time to privatize Air Canada.
June 17, 1987

We suggest that Air Canada is a profitable and well administered corporation. It was awarded in the past on several occasions a number of international prizes. We believe that this Crown corporation, especially in view of the great concentration which seems now to happen in the air transportation industry, ever since the government implemented its deregulation program-it is becoming more than ever essential for the Government to retain, through its own Crown corporation, a vehicle to provide services, maintain and even further develop services in some regions which would be completely abondoned by the private sector which would concentrate its operations in the most lucrative centers in the central regions of Canada where the costs of operation are lower and which are more densely populated.
I said a moment ago that Canada is a country with a small population scattered over an immense territory. Air transportation is therefore a necessity for many Canadians, and not only for travelers but also to move goods to people who need them in remote areas. Air Canada, a Crown corporation, is essential in the new context of deregulation, because the Government will have a company to provide transportation services to those remote areas.
Of course, this may not be the opinion of the Governement and of the Conservative Party. Tories want to privatize all Crown corporations. The Governement does not believe in regional development. It is not aware of all those essential services remote areas need.
That is why we fear that Air Canada will be sacrified for the sake of deregulation and privatization.
I will conclude with a word of warning. The battle the Minister had to fight to get Bill C-18 through is nothing compared to what he should expect if he ever tries to privatize Air Canada. We are going to oppose such an initiative systematically and relentlessly, because we think that public interest dictates that we keep this Crown corporation.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of listening to my friend, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), for some two hours. He has been very successful in turning off every television set on the parliamentary channel. I simply want to ask if he intends to make us numb on both ends in this exercise he is going through?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have had the opportunity to give not only my point of view, but also the point of view of all my colleagues in the Liberal caucus, and to say that we are deeply concerned with this hectic, hasty and thoughtless deregulation process by the Conservative Government.
National Transportation Act, 1986
In the few moments which I have been able to use, I have not only given the views of the Liberal caucus, but also acted as the spokesperson for countless Canadians who do not approve of that decision by the Government, and in particular thousands of Canadian workers in the transportation sector who feel that their jobs are threatened by Bill C-18. I have been very pleased to be able to put that disagreement on the record on their behalf, for the Government has proceeded with such haste, has refused to let the Parliamentary Committee travel to all those areas of the country, all the cities, all the villages which requested hearings of the Transport Committee, which would have liked the Committee to visit them and hear their views.
I wish Members from both sides of the House had been able to travel throughout the country to listen to what the people have to say about this Bill. Since that was not possible, I have tried tonight in their name to exercise the privilege of an Opposition Member who feels frustrated, thwarted, and stifled by this Government which has restricted the time for this debate, I have tried at least, as I said, to convey the disagreement not just of one person, but of a very large number of Canadians throughout the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, now that we have heard all the speeches by the Members of the NDP and the Official Opposition, and I am thinking of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), I think we can say that today in the House, and I say this as a junior Member of Parliament who was elected in 1984, that two hours of the precious time of Canadians have been wasted, listening to the foolishness we have just heard from the Liberal Party. Mr. Speaker, as politicians from every part of this country, we feel this is a disgrace.
We have had some very serious messages from NDP Members who told us they were against the Bill and against deregulation.
As usual, the Liberal Party told us it was for but then again it was against. And it took the Hon. Member two and a half hours to put his case.
Mr. Speaker, as a very good Conserative, I would like to take at least five or six minutes to give you some idea of what the Government, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and our Transport Committee have been doing.
For the people who have been listening this afternoon, I think it is important that we understand what has been going on for 20 years. We listened to the Official Opposition for the 16 years when it formed the Government. It did absolutely nothing for our transportation sector. We have taken charge

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
now and it is important for all Canadians, carriers, users and consumers, to know the impact of Bill C-18 and Bill C-19. My Hon. Colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), said we were bullying through the Bill. There was a three-year Royal Commission in 1961. The former Liberal Government had 16 years to do something about that and it did nothing.
On February 21, 1985, the then Minister of Transport for the Conservative Government stated the Government's objectives regarding economic regulatory reform. When we talk about economic regulatory reform in transportation, there should be no fear placed in the hearts and minds of Canadians because of a couple of Opposition Parties which do not believe that we should advance and develop in our country. After extensive consultations with the former Minister of Transport and our present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), we set up a committee and travelled across the country with our Freedom to Move.

Alter sans entraves, in French. The committee was set up in July 1985. We consulted the Canadian people across the country, from East to West.

I come from the riding of Bonaventure-lies-de-la-Madeleine and 1 know the importance of transportation to our economic development, and it will become even more important to Canadians with Bill C-18 and Bill C-19. In the past we have always gone with the carriers, and 1 allude to the reference made by the Hon. Member for for Papineau in his hour and 45 minute speech. He was saying the lines from-
[ Translation]
-Chandler to Ste. Adelaide in Gaspe were closing. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. As vice-chairman of the Committee on Transport, I spoke on that matter and CN has given a written in a letter, guarantee, that the line would remain open for us. What the Hon. Member says is false, Mr. Speaker. For him to spread false rumours is not doing Canadian men and women any good.

Our transport committee travelled in May of 1986 to the North. You know as well as I, Mr. Speaker, that transportation in our great North is a problem because of our isolated regions. I come from an isolated region. That problem is covered in our Bill. The Minister of Transport and all Members of the Government will continue the commitment we as Conservatives made in 1984 to the Canadian population. We are not only interested in talking in the House of Commons. We want to take action, and we are doing so.
On November 4, 1986, after we had our discussion in committee on Bill C-18 and Bill C-19, we heard from other witnesses who came to Ottawa. We remodified our Bill. We listened to Canadians from the West Coast and the East Coast. This Bill is made in Canada.
It makes me angry when I, a Member who spent 16 years on the government side, stands up and uses a reference from the United States. We looked at how deregulation has affected the United States and we have a made in Canada policy for us, and that is important for all Canadians.
The over-all objective, as summarized in Clause 3 of Bill C-18, is clear. The objective is to create the conditions necessary for a safe, adequate, effective and efficient transportation system which best serves the needs of shippers and travellers. That is what we will do with this legislation. In total, the various transportation Bills will reform the economic and safety regulation of each and every mode of transportation within the federal jurisdiction. They will remove obstacles to economic growth and make the system safer for everyone. They will put Canadians in a position to meet the challenges of the late 1980s and the 1990s. We will be competitive.
I would like to briefly mention four points with regard to Bill C-18 and Bill C-19.
[ Translation]
The first concerns mostly safety. The matter has been raised several times in committee and even here in the House. What I want to say has been said before by our Minister of Transport and also by his predecessor. There is no question that safety will never be neglected, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transport said that safety is and will remain the first concern of our Government. That commitment was set forth in our national transport policy, in clause 3 of the Bill, and it is reiterated every time we talk about transportation in Canada.
Allegations that the National Transportation Act will jeopardize air safety are unfounded. For all modes of transport, individuals or corporations applying for a licence will first have to prove the safety of their methods of operation. This is important, Mr. Speaker. The air transport industry has always given the highest priority to safety. Under the new safety regulations, the Government will ensure that this remains a priority concern by requiring any new carrier to implement the training, inspection and application programs of the Government. This remains our priority.

Point number two is a greater reliance on our market forces. We have spent the last 20 years with absolutely no development in our transportation system. We know that to get to markets we must have an efficient transportation system. Greater reliance on market forces and less reliance on economic regulation is a very important factor. This will lead to more innovation and enterprise and to more competitive transportation services and prices. It will give a fair and level playing field for everyone.
My third point is that widespread consultation has been done and will continue to be done, and we have produced a balanced package of reforms in our legislation. I have already mentioned point number four. A gradual relaxation of regulation enables all concerned to adapt to change with a minimum of dislocation. That is very important because our
June 17, 1987

country is vast and our transportation system must adapt to what we have in 1987, and what we will have in 1990 and the year 2000.
The Minister of Transport, my honourable colleague and friend from St. John's West, in his usual eloquent style has said that it is important for Canadians on all the four points I have mentioned. With the cost of transportation as it is in our country, we must compete. We must have fair prices in the transportation market.
The increased competition between railways which will result from Bill C-18 will have a significant impact on the relationship between shippers and carriers. This impact has implications for the role of the regulatory agency.
Currently, all rail rates are in the public domain, and any shipper may take advantage of them. Under Bill C-18 confidential contracts will be permitted, that is, a shipper will be able to negotiate with a railway for a rate and terms of service unique to his circumstances. We have not seen that in the past. Shippers have been unjustly prejudiced because they have not had fair rates for the transportation of their products. We are addressing that problem.
This new way of doing business may in some instances lead to difficulties between the parties in reaching an agreement. To resolve any such private disputes, Bill C-18 introduces the concept of mediation and final offer arbitration. It is important that the federal Government, with 10 provinces and two Territories, says that it is willing to listen to the people who use our modes of transportation.
If a shipper and carrier are having difficulty reaching agreement on a rate or service conditions, they may jointly request a mediator from the proposed national regulatory agency. The mediator is simply a facilitator of communication between the parties. If the two parties reach a true deadlock, with or without the help of the mediator, the shipper may ask the agency to appoint an arbitrator. Arbitrators will be independent persons knowledgeable in the transportation field.
The arbitration process will be quite straightforward and speedy. That has not been the case in the past. The arbitrator will assess the parties involved and choose one or the other of them. Unless they have otherwise agreed, the parties will be bound by the result for one year.
I could go on to talk about the number of hours that we spent in the Transport Committee. I would not be fair to the committee if 1 did not pay tribute to its work. As the vicechairman of the committee, I commend the work of the chairman, the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary Secretary. To push it to the limit, I even have to mention members of the Opposition in this regard. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we know where the NDP stand. It is against development. The Liberal Party does not know where it is. I congratulate the people who had a positive input into our committee. I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, and the
National Transportation Act, 1986
Canadian population, if they have not already been put to sleep by the former speaker from the Liberal Party, an efficient, safe and secure transportation system for Canada under a Progressive Conservative Government.


Louis J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the Hon. Member told us that he was concerned about the regions as he is himself from Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine which could itself be called a remote region. He also tried to suggest that he is concerned about regional development.
My question is very simple. How can he explain to the people of his region that he voted against Motion No. 5 which dealt with regional development, as my motion would have provided for a mechanism to save jobs and protect our transportation system, especially in remote areas? How can he explain to his constituents that he voted against this motion which dealt with regional development?


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to reply to the question asked by my colleague for Westmorland-Kent.
As 1 mentioned earlier, if we look at Bills C-18 and C-19, we find, as the Minister himself and his predecessor have both pointed out, that the transportation system is a key to regional development.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add something. I was elected in 1984 in the constituency of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine. The situation I inherited on September 4, 1984 in the Gaspe peninsula and my own constituency of Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine included an unemployment rate of 28 per cent and the transportation network of the former Government supported by my colleague for Westmorland Kent and others.
Within twelve months, the Progressive Conservative Government had lowered unemployment from 28 per cent to 18.4 per cent in Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine. Is that not wonderful, Mr. Speaker? It is. This was not done by myself as a Member of Parliament, but by the Government. The proof is there. We wanted change.
My hon. friend for Westmorland-Kent is saying that I am voting against regional development. His party did nothing for sixteen years. We lowered unemployment by 10 per cent and brought in a new transportation network. Indeed, the old Liberal transportation system is finished. Bills C-18 and C-19 will address the problem, and because of this, there will be regional development in the Maritimes, in Newfoundland, in Eastern Quebec and everywhere else in Canada.


Louis J. Robichaud: I realize now the reason why, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine voted no. He is trying to convince us an 18 per cent plus unemployment rate is acceptable.

June 17, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
So now I can understand what frame of mind that Member was in when he voted. But he did not answer my question, namely, how he would explain to his people why he voted against the motion that dealt with regional development.


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think that at the same time the Hon. Member wants to play with figures. But as I said, during 16 years 28 per cent unemployment rate was acceptable in my area, at home. Never will I say that 18 per cent is acceptable. It will never be as long as I am a Member in this House.
But under the Liberal Government, such was the situation- 28 per cent was okay. Because we, in the Gaspe Peninsula, in the Madeleine Islands, we did not count. That is not the situation, Mr. Speaker.
As far as regional development is concerned, since he is mentioning that in respect of transportation, we voted for the clause under which transportation is a key to regional development.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague says that I am against regional development, but past experience shows that his own colleagues have always been against any development.
But, Mr. Speaker, we in the Progressive Conservative Party are in favour of our regional development.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) on his excellent address to us concerning Bill C-18 and also the balanced explanation that he has given of the Bill that is before us. What I would like to ask the Hon. Member is this. He will recall that when representatives of CN and CP appeared before the committee, they drew attention to the fact that they felt that their revenue was at risk. Yet, under questioning, we heard their freight would not be at risk, that there would not be any lessening in the amount of goods that would have to be carried because of the two Bills under discussion.
Would the Hon. Member care to comment in terms of whether or not we have been able to strike a reasonable balance between the interests of the shippers and the carriers in the Bill that is before us.


Darryl L. Gray: Insofar as the railroads are concerned, the evidence is clear that there will be no lack of volume of traffic. There is always the matter of competition.
This Bill strikes a balance between the interests of the users and the carriers. In the past, our transportation system has always benefited the carrier. Under Bill C-18 and Bill C-19, not only will the carrier benefit, but so too will the shipper and the consumer. This country is made up of not only carriers,
Mr. Speaker, but users and consumers, and this Government is ensuring fairness for all sectors.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on a question or comment.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, no Member of Parliament from Winnipeg, regardless of the Party to which he or she belongs, could do other than take a vital interest in the question of transportation and the need of the Canadian people for an efficient and safe transportation system.
Transportation is the reason that Winnipeg became an important city. It is a city that has had an historic role in terms of the evolution of road, rail and air traffic in this country. Even before Winnipeg became a city, the lakes and rivers of Manitoba served as important highways for goods moving from eastern Canada to the West.
Winnipeg is home to a large number of CNR, CPR and VIA employees. As well, it is home to a large number of airline employees-and this despite the fact that Air Canada, in the Liberal Government years, saw fit to move its headquarters and most of its main operations from Winnipeg, where it started, to Montreal. As well, Winnipeg is the historic centre of the Canadian grain industry.
We would support any legislation, Mr. Speaker, which enhanced the role of transportation in the West, and in Winnipeg in particular. But in looking at Bill C-18, we see that it fails spectacularly in terms of meeting the coming needs of the Canadian people for the efficient and safe movement of goods and people. Bill C-18 does nothing, Mr. Speaker, to make good on the many promises which have been made concerning rail safety.
I remind Hon. Members that in recent years we have had the disastrous crash at Hinton, Alberta; a major failure of equipment in Mississauga which could have led to a tremendous loss of life; and in the City of Winnipeg, a major spill along the main line of the CPR. This Bill does nothing to stop the pending lay-off of air traffic controllers, 17 of whom work in the Winnipeg area. This Bill does nothing to meet the problems caused by deregulation in the air transport area, problems that are documented almost daily in the United States.
What we see in the U.S. as a result of airline deregulation is lateness, overcrowding, poor service, dangerous flying conditions, and galloping mergers which limit rather than promote competition. Coincidentally, Mr. Speaker, in today's Globe and Mail, the Globe and Mail of June 17, 1987, we have an article headed: "U.S. airlines reeling from deregulation." This is the kind of thing that this Government invites in passing Bill C-18.
Let me just read a couple of sentences from that article. I quote:
Lineups, sloppy service, flight delays, missed connections and unexplained cancellations have plagued U.S. air passengers since economic deregulation of the airlines went into effect in 1978.
June 17, 1987

Further along in the article, we read the following:
-there were 1,144 flight delays daily in 1986 and 367,000 delays throughout the year.
Let me ask Members of Parliament who live away from Ottawa and who try to get home on a fairly regular basis how they would like to have the kinds of delays that U.S. passengers experience. They will, Mr. Speaker, experience these types of delays once Bill C-18 comes into force.
Bill C-18, Mr. Speaker, does nothing to meet the concerns of the Canadian railways in terms of opening their traffic to U.S. competition without any reciprocal concessions from U.S. carriers. That is typical of this Government, Mr. Speaker. It bargains when it shouldn't bargain; and when it bargains, it bargains badly when it comes to the interests and concerns of the Canadian people.
This Bill does nothing to meet the concerns of Canadian truckers, who are aware that U.S. deregulation in that sector has brought intense competition for truckload shipments but very little for less than truckload shipments.
Steinbach, which is a few miles from Winnipeg, Mr. Speaker, is headquarters for many of the major trucking companies in Canada. I know the owners and managers of those companies, and no one could be further away from the philosophy of the New Democratic Party than those owners and managers. For the first time in my years in Parliament, Mr. Speaker, I find myself advocating the same position, the same point of view, as the owners and managers of the trucking companies.
The Manitoba Trucking Association, the Ontario Trucking Association, and the Canadian Trucking Association have all voiced opposition and criticism in relation to major clauses of this Bill. The New Democratic Party is opposed to this Bill, Mr. Speaker. We are totally unconvinced of the Progressive Conservative ideology that the free market offers solutions. We are totally unconvinced that deregulation will lead to a comprehensive and efficient transportation system for Canada.
Let us look at some of the problems which should be dealt with by this Bill but which are ignored. Let us start with railway safety, something which has been a long-time preoccupation in Canada. We have tens of thousands of miles of rail lines in Canada. We have a small population. The rail lines are used frequently. We have had too many accidents, some of which, Mr. Speaker, have been very serious.
The lack of safety provisions, Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-18, the lack of provisions which would force the railways to operate as safely as they should, the fact that the need for competition will cut back on the already too few safety precautions taken in terms of the maintenance of rail stock and rail lines in this country, means that we are going to see more rather than fewer accidents.
The fear that there will be more accidents and more problems has been voiced by many people in the railway
National Transportation Act, 1986
workforce-carmen, maintenance of way, shop crafts, and operating crews. In order to cut costs and to reduce personnel, the railways are moving to substitute, increasingly, technological solutions for safety problems.
I should like to quote just a couple of paragraphs from an article which appeared in the May 1, 1987 edition of The Toronto Star entitled "Layoffs signal rail disaster unions charge" and written by Pat McNenly. In part the article reads:
Canadian National Railways without fanfare has switched the inspection of freight trains and their hazardous cargoes from experienced carmen to members of the train crew at many check points across Canada.
It continues:
Since 1980 the reassignment of inspection duties and the installation of rail-side electronic devices to detect "hot boxes" (overheated wheel bearings) have cost 2,250 carmen jobs in CP Rail and another 1,900 CN jobs.
It goes on to explain that carmen serve a five-year apprenticeship and knew what they were doing. CN has now cut back on carmen, and the prediction is that there will be many more accidents.
Let us look at what is happening with air traffic controllers. Perhaps no issue is more controversial or vital to the travelling public. A few minutes ago I spoke about what was happening in the United States as a result of deregulation. We have seen a dramatic increase in U.S. air traffic, and we have seen a similar increase in Canada. Each deregulated airline in the United States wants to fly at the optimum peak period time. They want to get as many customers as they can.
U.S. air traffic controllers are understaffed and greatly overworked as a result of the firing of air traffic controllers a few years ago by President Reagan. What is happening in Canada? The same conditions are now being replicated with lay-offs of air traffic controllers at a time of increasing air traffic.
I should now like to quote from an article which appeared in the June 3, 1987 edition of the Winnipeg Free Press entitled "Job-cut proposal angers air traffic controllers". I want Hon. Members on the government side to keep in mind what I pointed out is happening in the United States. In part the article reads:
A federal consultant's report recommends Transport Canada eliminate 17 of 99 air traffic control jobs in the Winnipeg control area.
It continues:
CATCA vice-president Carl Fisher said the proposed cuts come at a time when controllers in the Winnipeg control area have handled 27 per cent more traffic in the first quarter of this year (57,543 aircraft) than in the same quarter of 1984-
Then the article goes on to say:
"It is only a matter of time before we have a major disaster on our hands," said Jack Butt, president of the 19,000-member CATCA. "There is Russian roulette in air traffic control."
If that is happening in Winnipeg, one can imagine that the situation in Toronto is much more serious and much more dangerous. There has been a number of near misses in many Canadian cities.

June 17, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
We are following the American example. I do not mind following American examples when they are successes. What bothers or disturbs me is how often the Government follows American examples even when there is ample evidence that they are a failure.
Let us look at the U.S. experience; perhaps it is the biggest fallacy of all. The success of deregulation in the United States is supposed to solve all our problems in Canada, but we must ask ourselves: Was the American experience a success? It was not a success if we measure consumer complaints, safety, and corporate concentration.
Even as pro business a publication as Business Week in the United States showed the defects of the U.S. experience in its December 22, 1986 issue, when it found considerable fault with the United States airline, railway, trucking, and telephone system. I should like to quote a couple of paragraphs from the Business Week article. With regard to airlines, it indicated:
The six largest carriers control 84 per cent of the market, vs. 73 per cent in 1978. Consultant Lee R. Howard of Airline Economics Inc. foresees by 1990 a "tight oligopoly" with a share of more than 90 per cent.
That is the real effect of deregulation. It is not more competition but less competition. With regard to railroads, the same article indicated:
Mergers have reduced the ranks of large rail freight carriers from 13 in 1978 to 6 huge regional systems-3 in the West and 3 in the East-that carry 86 per cent of the rail freight and earn 93 per cent of the profits.
Our railways, CN and CP, will have to compete with those giants that can compete for Canadian traffic. However, American law will not permit Canadian railway companies to compete for American business.
We say that the Bill is a mistake of colossal proportions. We also say that the people of Canada will get less service and that we will see more accidents on the railways, airlines, and trucking systems. Consumers, particularly consumers in small and isolated areas, will pay through the nose for the folly contained in the Bill brought forward by the Conservative Government.
We intend to vote against the Bill, and time will show that we are right.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to be the first to offer best wishes to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on his twenty-fifth anniversary in the House of Commons tomorrow.
I thought he would speak until midnight so that we could celebrate it then. However, we are ahead of time and we wish him a good start to his twenty-fifth anniversary in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 9.48 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, June 15, 1987, the four hours allotted to the
consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill now before the House have expired.
Accordingly it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill C-18.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Order made Tuesday, June 16, 1987, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until the completion of Routine Proceedings on Thursday, June 18, 1987.


MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT, 1986 MEASURE TO ENACT
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings, be read the third time and passed.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, it is a very great honour for me to move on behalf of the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) third reading of Bill C-19, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986. This Bill will bring Canada closer and closer to nationhood.
Bill C-19 is a companion to Bill C-18, the new National Transportation Act which is close to being passed by the House and will likely be passed tomorrow morning. It contains the reforms to economic regulation of trucking and buses.

Is the House ready for the question?
June 17, 1987

The Bill has undergone some changes since it was first introduced last November. Members of the Standing Committee on Transport have worked hard and are to be commended for their diligence in revising the Bill. They have listened to Canadians from coast to coast express their satisfaction and in some areas their dissatisfaction with this Bill. Provincial Governments have also expressed their views, both to the committee and to the Minister. We have listened carefully, and when appropriate, changes have been made.
Over three decades ago, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act of 1954 gave the provinces responsibility for trucking regulation in both their own and federal government jurisdictions. That delegation worked reasonably well at the beginning when interprovincial and international trucking was an immature industry but now, the for-hire trucking industry generates close to half the total surface freight revenue in Canada. Furthermore, trucks carry over 50 per cent of our exports to the United States.
If the industry has grown, so have economic regulations. Since 1954, different regulations have sprung up across the country. Each province has its own requirement for entry, for rates, for commodities, for safety regulations and so on. Instead of a nation, we now almost have 10 Balkan states.
These inconsistencies from province to province have placed a burden on truckers, the costs of which are inevitably passed on to their customers, the consumers. For instance, costly and time-consuming hearings are required to obtain an operating licence in each province a carrier wishes to serve or even to drive through. Needless to say, such practices have frustrated both carriers and shippers alike. Effectively, services have been restricted and unnecessary costs have been imposed on the industry, its customers and ultimately on the economy as a whole. In the final analysis, the consumer pays it all.
It became increasingly evident over time that this was no way to meet future needs and no way to build a nation. An efficient, flexible transportation system is critical to Canada to link up East and West, to connect us to major markets in the United States and to provide good transportation in the far North and to every nook and corner of this vast country.
The origins of this Bill are to be found in the February 1985 Memorandum of Understanding agreed upon by provincial and federal Governments. It was the source of three main initiatives.
First, all jurisdictions agreed to eliminate public convenience and necessity as an entry test and to move to a reverse-onus public-interest test as soon as possible. That date has now been established as January 1, 1988.
Second, all jurisdictions agreed to implement a uniform fitness entry test. They subsequently agreed to make it effective January 1, 1988, as well. The latter test requires that all applicants have insurance and demonstrate that they can operate safely. It was approved by all provinces eight months ago. While the test will apply to all extra-provincial traffic,
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
most provinces have agreed to apply it intra-provincially as well.
We hear many people decrying the accidents that will arise out of this legislation. We must recall that the provinces that have been administering this have been working on it for a number of years and are now presenting an excellent if not a perfect package.
Third, the federal and provincial Governments have agreed in principle to the elements of a uniform national safety code, its implementation and its cost sharing.
Using these building blocks and several concepts from the existing law, this Bill contains these basic principles: first, it will shift the regulatory emphasis from entry and price control to safety performance. That is an excellent move toward better and safer highways and streets. Second, it links entry into the industry with safe performance, not simply necessity. Third, it will provide the Governor in Council the power to make national safety regulations for trucks and buses. That is something we need as well, national regulations that will be effective across the entire nation.
Fourth, it will continue the delegation of administrative responsibility to the provinces. The provinces are becoming more and more mature. They have grown greatly in the administration of motor vehicle laws over the last 15 or 20 years and now they are becoming mature and can work with the federal Government to put in place an excellent system across the nation. Fifth, it will provide a transition period for existing transportation companies to adapt to change.
Many people have said that we are doing the same thing as the United States did. The Hon. Member for Bonaventure- iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) mentioned that a few moments ago. This is a Canadian-made policy. They may have deregulation in the United States but we are not going into it holus-bolus without preparation. We will provide existing transportation companies time to adapt to change, and that is important.
As I said earlier, this Bill has undergone some changes since second reading. The transition period during which economic regulation will be phased out has been extended from three years to five, to January 1, 1993. The provinces have generally been relaxing economic controls on the industry for some time so this gradual approach to change is already under way. The extension of the transition period will give truckers well over a decade to adjust to a less regulated environment.
That transition period will vary from province to province. Those in the Province of Alberta have been working under a more or less deregulated system, a Freedom to Move type system, for a number of years. Other provinces have not, but they will have a good long time to adapt to change. There will not be suddenly one thing one day and then the next day a complete change. It will be done gradually and effectively.
Some shippers feel that this may be too long to wait. Some
of the people who appeared before the committee cried about

June 17, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
the fact that the Minister of Transport had extended the transition period. As we indicated in Montreal, the provinces will administer this. Why should we go against their wishes when we want to have a safe and gradual approach to this change? The change was made because we listened to the provinces. The Government has listened to the provinces and the trucking industry. A five-year transition represents a reasonable balance of opinions as well as a consensus among the provinces that will be implementing the reforms.
The Minister met with the provinces and they came to these agreements. I believe they even signed written agreements indicating that they want these things to be done and done gradually. After all, the provinces are the ones that have had experience in administering this for the last 20 or so years.
In response to uneasiness expressed by a few provinces concerning the final step to fitness only, Bill C-19 now includes a provision to study the effect of the reform in the fourth year of the transition phase, which will be 1991. I am confident this study will not show serious problems but if it does, the Governor in Council has the authority to extend the transition period.
I see your sign, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave now to adjourn the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 10 p.m., pursuant to order made Friday, June 12, 1987, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 10 p.m. the House adjourned.

Thursday, June 18, 1987