1987-06-15

Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Second Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.

This report makes some comments upon, and some recommendations about, the trade development activities of the Department of External Affairs.


PETITION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many people in southern Manitoba who are presently represented by Conservative Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, but only until the next election.
The petitioners are concerned about the Government's intention to change the Patent Act with regard to the purchase of prescription drugs. They believe this will result in higher costs to provincial Governments through their drug plans. They also believe it is unfair to Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis and this is being done at the expense of average Canadians because of the Government's wish to accommodate the United States in the free trade negotiations.
Therefore, the petitioners humble pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

["It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.\nAt 1 p.m. the House took recess."]
Philip Derek Lewis: Motions?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair may have moved too quickly. I understand the Government wishes to proceed on a motion. I am sure there will be consent for that.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, if the Government wants to proceed on Motions, I must say that we have already had Petitions which follow Motions. I do not want to create any difficulties here, but I know that if we wanted to revert back to some stage in the proceedings we would not be allowed to do so. I do not see any reason why we should do so at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has raised a caveat on this matter. However, I have considered it. The motion does not require consent and can now be moved on Orders of the Day. 1 think this is a situation which arises as a result of the new orders.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Under Orders of the Day?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I had called Orders of the Day. Perhaps I created a problem because I did not realize what motion it was. I thought that the Government wanted to revert back to Motions. I have taken the Hon. Member's caveat as notice.



Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (for Mr. Mazankowski) moved:: That, further to the notice given on Thursday, June 1 1, 1987, by the Deputy
Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council, and pursuant to the
provisions of Standing Order 117, in relation to Bill C-18, An Act respecting
national transportation, four further hours be allotted to the consideration of

June 15, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
the report stage and four hours to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the end of the four hours allotted to the report stage consideration and to the third reading stage consideration of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to begin the debate on the two-hour time allocation motion with respect to Bill C-18. While I have only recently come to the transport dossier I do not think that in my entire eight years here on the Hill have I seen a Bill that has had more consultation and had more evidence given about it by witnesses than Bill C-18. In my entire eight years I have never seen a Bill that has been so well briefed. I would like to pay a compliment to the members of the Standing Committee on all sides of the House who worked very hard on this Bill.
I wish to emphasize that the Government places a high priority on transportation. Bills C-18, C-19 and C-21 reinforce that high priority. The over-all objective of Bill C-18 is summarized in Clause 3 of the Bill. It is to create the conditions necessary for a safe, adequate, effective and efficient transportation system that best serves the needs of shippers and travellers. The promotion of greater competition among carriers will improve efficiency and effectiveness in the transportation sector. This will make Canadian products more competitive in both domestic and international markets.
I am sure that most Canadians do not appreciate that, on average, our cost of transportation is 1 per cent to 2 per cent higher than costs in other countries and that, on average, the cost of transportation across the country is about 6 per cent. However, in some industries such as potash and other resource industries the cost can rise to as high as between 20 per cent and 30 per cent. I know that in the case of certain types of coal the cost of transportation can be as high as 50 per cent. Thus while we live in a huge country and cannot get away from such costs the fact of the matter is that we can reduce them so that the over-all effectiveness of our system is maximized.
Since I only have 10 minutes 1 want Hon. Members to appreciate the extent of consultation that has gone into Bill C-18. The reforms were forged as a result of extensive consultation with shippers, carriers, labour, the travelling public and other levels of government. This process commenced in early 1985. The previous Minister of Transport, now the esteemed Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), set in motion a two-pronged process, that is, a policy review and consultation with those interested in transportation.
The result of that long consultation was a position paper entitled Freedom to Move which was released in July, 1985. That paper proposed a comprehensive set of reforms of economic regulation of each mode of transportation. The document was widely distributed. It provoked many critical but thoughtful responses. The Minister and his officials continued to meet with as many people as possible to clarify
viewpoints and suggestions. In addition, the Freedom to Move paper was referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
The Standing Committee heard the views of many witnesses, both in Ottawa and across the country. It produced a report recommending modifications and improvements to the White Paper Freedom to Move. Because of the concerns about the regulation of air services for our northern and remote communities the committee subsequently visited the North and produced a further report on that part of transportation. Based on all of this feedback in over 500 individual meetings, innumerable briefs and the committee's report, the Bill was drafted as Bill C-18 and was tabled in the House last June.
The extensive round of consultations was repeated and, after second reading approval in principle, the Bill was sent to the Standing Committee which again entered into a broad process, including hearing from witnesses across the country. Over 400 witnesses who made their views known with respect to this legislation appeared before the Standing Committee. Then, during clause-by-clause study the committee introduced several significant improvements.
As a result, I am personally convinced that this Bill represents a balanced package of reforms. The needs and interests of both the users and providers of transportation services will be well served by this Bill because they have had an opportunity to contribute at each and every stage of its development.
No Bill is ever perfect for all times since the economy and the Canadian way of life are constantly changing. I think one of the greatest additions to the Bill is that there will be annual reports on how the Bill is progressing and how the economy is adapting to it. There will be a comprehensive review at the end of four years. Personally, I think that is all we can do as legislators.
The Bill had enormous consultation before a White Paper was produced. The White Paper was then widely distributed and consulted upon, after which the Bill was introduced. The Standing Committee crossed the country again, heard all the views that were to be heard and then made some significant changes. Surely that is sufficient for the Bill. 1 think that this time allocation motion will pass. I hope Members will agree with me that the Bill has had sufficient consultation so that we can get on to finish report stage and third reading and get it out as the law of the land. As a result of the annual reports during the first four-year comprehensive review we can make whatever changes are necessary.
As I reflect on these regulatory reforms in transportation I see five or six guiding principles. Safety is the first priority. The committee in all its deliberations directed that safety regulations be improved. Second, transportation exists to serve the needs of shippers and travellers. In the past the nation has succumbed to the temptation that transportation is an end in itself as opposed to merely a service to shippers and travellers, to more efficiently ship goods across the country so that we
June 15, 1987

can put our products at tide water at a price level that is competitive with other countries.
We must never forget that over 30 per cent of our GNP comes from trade with other nations. Every time we spend $10, $3 of it has come from other countries. If we do not remain competitive with those other countries we will lose that $3 and our standard of living could drop by 30 per cent to 50 per cent practically overnight if we do not keep our transportation system running efficiently.
The third principle is that we need greater reliance on market forces and less reliance on economic regulation, a situation that will lead to more innovation and more enterprise, and a more competitive transportation system, both intramodally and intermodally. As a result of past regulation, competition within the various modes and certainly between the various modes has been distorted. This Bill would go a long way toward lessening that regulation-caused distortion.
Another principle is that, whenever necessary, the public interest must be protected through continued economic regulation. That is truer in the North than anywhere else, where there is a much smaller population, and more fragile markets. The Government has accepted the principle that we need to continue regulation in the North.
Wherever there is going to be regulation, another principle of the Bill is that it should be open, accessible, and not costly. All of us have had the occasion to talk to companies which have almost gone bankrupt as a result of bringing applications before the CTC in an effort to bring about more efficient and wider-ranging operations. That is just not the way regulation should operate. Under this Bill, the cost of regulation will be very much reduced.
Widespread consultation with all interested parties has produced a balanced package of reforms, a package which will best serve the needs of shippers and travellers while at the same time providing a good economic climate for efficient well-managed carriers.
Under this Bill, there are no losers. This Bill is clearly a win-win situation.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Government has taken the easy way out. Once again, it has preferred to cut short debate instead of facing the widespread criticism of this Bill. Once again, it has decided to gag the Opposition. The Government has made a nasty habit of this. It imposed closure to pass a Bill that would benefit the oil multinationals. It imposed closure to pass a Bill that would benefit the multinational drug companies. And now, it is imposing closure for a Bill that is definitely biased towards this country's major shippers.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that because we are talking about deregulation of our transportation industry, the Government's
National Transportation Act, 1986
decision is entirely unacceptable. I agree that the transportation industry is of vital importance to the development of the Canadian economy. That is why we say the Government should have consulted more and listened to those who testified against this Bill before the various parliamentary committees, instead of listening only to associations controlled by the big rich shippers, as the Government did. It should listen to the small shippers from the Maritimes and Western Canada who told us, for instance, that confidential contracts on domestic traffic might make them go out of business.
The Government should have listened to the unions that pointed out how many jobs would be lost in the industry if the Government persisted in its single-minded pursuit of deregulation.
The Government should have listened to professionals in the aviation industry, included pilots and others, who testified before the Transport Committee and told us in no uncertain terms that deregulation would unavoidably lead to a reduction in the quality of service and, even more important, in safety.
Representatives of the railway sector-both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific-told the Government that Bill C-18 was a threat to their survival.

The railroads told us that by opening up the Canadian market to competition from the American railways we would be reducing revenues, and investment in equipment and plant would suffer, leading in turn to a reduction in service and safety.
Did this Government listen? No, not at all.

Instead, he decided to set totally unrealistic deadlines, both for the Committee when it was considering the White Paper "Freedom to Move" and during consideration of Bill C-18 itself. Even now, at the report and third reading stage, we are still being saddled with absolutely unacceptable deadlines. The Government has systematically opted for closure just to please a few big Canadian shippers.
This Government has no regard for the democratic consultation process. Even worse, the transportation industry and thousands of Canadian workers will pay dearly for the Conservative Government's total lack of concern.
Mr. Speaker, when revising a general act that is so fundamental to the socio-economic well being of this country, the Government should have taken a more thoughtful approach.
During the debate on second reading, we in the Official Opposition, we in the Liberal Party said that considering the changes being sought, the Government could at least have taken steps to measure the impact of deregulation on such areas as: traveller safety; consumers, especially in connection with air transportation rates; employment in the industry; acceptable levels of foreign control; and finally, impact on regional development.

June 15, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
In all five areas, the Government has not budged an inch. We hoped it would use clause-by-clause consideration in committee to make some changes. We on our side suggested a number of amendments to improve the Bill. Unfortunately, the Conservative majority on the Committee, obeying the signals from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, systematically refused any changes that made sense in social and economic terms.
On the subject of regional development, for instance, the Government rejected an amendment by the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) which would have given some political clout to the statement of principles contained in Clause 3 (d) of the Bill.
As for employment, a measure aimed at protecting workers, which I proposed, was rejected. Regarding confidential contracts, I think we should listen to what was said by Prairie Malt Limited, a small Saskatchewan shipper, when he appeared before the Committee, and I quote:

We are of the opinion that the suggested confidentiality in rate setting will work out to the serious detriment of small and medium companies competing within a given industrial sector with large and more powerful conglomerates. Confidential rate negotiations on contracts will almost surely enable physically well-situated and financially flexible industrial entities-especially those with more than one plant site-to utilize transportation contracts, and through them the railways themselves, to serve as marketing tools-or, to say it stronger, as accomplices in power-plays-against smaller competitors.
We tried to deal with that concern, Mr. Speaker, by ensuring that confidential contracting could only occur on transborder traffic. The Government refused.
The Government has been totally inflexible in crafting this legislation, legislation which is totally and unequivocally biased toward the large conglomerates in Canada.
It is a disgrace that this Government has not taken into account the over-all interests of Canadians, whether involving small, medium or large expenditures, taking into account an industry that has, throughout the years, been prosperous.
The transportation industry in Canada is a good industry. It is an industry that provides well-paying employment. Bill C-18 is a threat to the prosperity of the transportation industry. That is a point that has been made by the railways, by the trucking associations, and observers of the airline industry.
Why is the Government moving so rapidly and vigorously in this direction? It is incredible. There is no possibility for us in the Opposition to stop the Government. We are awaiting the result of this catastrophe a few years down the line. When we have another chance to form the Government, we will certainly amend legislation which already will have been very bad for the workers, the transportation industry, and the Canadian public at large.

Madam Speaker, the Government's decision-I bow to the Chair, I see that you have taken over from your colleague, Madam Speaker-the Government's decision to introduce time limitation is the logical result of a process that reflects the lack of courage and political maturity of a Government that is practically hand in glove with the "big guys" in our society.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, the whole effort by the Government to deregulate transportation for the past 2.5 years has been nothing but a litany of intransigence. The past and present Ministers have said that the Bill was not engraved in stone, that they would be flexible, that they would listen, and that they were open to amendments, et cetera. As far as I can recall, I think they have accepted one amendment in the House and two amendments in committee.
It all started with Freedom to Move, the government White Paper on transportation. The Government did not want the committee to travel. It took a lot of pressure from scores of organizations and Members of the House to get the Government to agree to committee travel.
The committee went to four places in Canada-Vancouver, Winnipeg, Halifax, and Ottawa. It left out the villages of Montreal and Toronto! It left out all the northern territories and all northern parts of the provinces. It did not go near southwestern Ontario.
It makes one wonder why the Government is in such a hurry. It brought in a Bill in the previous session which remained on the Order Paper for some 13 months. Then, in the next session of Parliament it was given a new number and was placed on the Order Paper again. The Government called it for debate, and we had four partial days at second reading in principle, on closure. It then went to the standing committee, and we had to fight, argue, and plead continually-not only us but scores of organizations, companies, and individuals-for the committee to travel to a number of locations.
The committee went to nine locations-Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, St. John's, Halifax, Moncton, Montreal, and Ottawa. At least 36 places were worthy of consideration to hold parliamentary hearings and hear witnesses. I submitted a list of locations and thought if we could get to at least 16 or 20 of them that would suffice.
Again the Government refused to allow the committee to go to Yellowknife or Whitehorse. It wouldn't go to Labrador or to any of the northern parts of the provinces. The municipalities, the trade union movement, and the forest industry wanted hearings in Prince George and Prince Rupert in northern British Columbia and got none. The southern half of the Province of Alberta was left out, and I think the committee heard from one witness from the Peace River country. There should have been a hearing in Dawson Creek, British Columbia to cover the Peace River country. The committee should have gone to Dauphin or Thompson in northern
June 15, 1987

Manitoba. It should have at least gone to Thunder Bay and Sudbury in northern Ontario.
There have been at least five dozen requests from boards of trade, city and town councils, and trade union groups in southwestern Ontario asking for hearings. They did not get them.
The Government put a time limit on when the committee had to report. It reported within the time limit ordered by the House, and the report sat for six weeks before the Bill was called for report stage consideration. Suddenly the Government is in a big hurry.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the legislation would increase competition, competitiveness, et cetera. When the Freedom to Move hearings started, there were six relatively large regional airlines and two national carriers. Now we have two, and the Government says that there will be more competition. Those two carriers will control something in the order of 80 per cent to 90 per cent of all airline traffic through their major national networks as well as the operating and licensing agreements for a bunch of little feeder airlines all over Canada. They control it, and the Government tells us that there will be more competition. Competition has been reduced by two-thirds.
The Government talks about confidential contracts and confidential freight rates. If there were anything more anticompetitive than secret deals between large corporate shippers and one or two railroads, I do not know what it would be. No one is about to build another railroad; there are only two of them in Canada.
The trucking industry asked for a delay of at least one year until all things were in place. The Parliamentary Secretary said that safety was a number one priority and that there would be no compromise on safety. We have heard that from both Ministers; we have heard it ad nauseam.
Where is the railway safety board? Where is the rail safety Act? Where is the board on highway trucking safety? Where is the legislation, the regulations, and rules for that? All those things will take at least a year to implement.
The aviation safety board has just been established for a year. It is still setting up, and we do not have all the regulations governing it.
The Canadian Trucking Association pleaded with us not to proceed until all these things were in place-safety, security, proper regulations, and the people necessary to enforce them, such as inspectors and what not.
We have three amendments on the Order Paper, and the Government does not want us to get to them. There is one it will not be able to avoid. I call them the Fred Turner amendments. They would guarantee that never again could the new transportation agency, the air safety board-whoever will administer the Aeronautics Act, or whoever inherits the duties of the air transport committee of the CTC-do what was done to Fred Turner, bankrupt his airline because he was late filing
National Transportation Act, 1986
his statistical reports. The Government admitted that there had been 1,600 occasions when airlines or aircraft operators were late filing their reports.
We are anxious to have these matters dealt with in the House, but the Government does not want to deal with them; it is afraid. It refuses to listen to witnesses. It said that it would be open and that it would consult. It heard witnesses but it did not listen.
We want the legislation to establish appeal procedures so that operators have some protection and some rights, so that they cannot be victims of bureaucratic overkill or the Government ignoring them. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) became involved in this one. Mr. Turner has been haunting the House of Commons for almost four months. Members of Parliament from all three Parties support him, but the Government refuses to act. It offered a $15,000 payment without prejudice. It bankrupted the man. He lost five aircraft, his hangar, and all his equipment. He is scheduled to lose his house next month. The Government offers $15,000, which in itself is an admission of guilt. It is a pittance. All Mr. Turner is asking for is an independent arbitrator to hear his case and the government side of the story and make a decision. Mr. Turner has filed a lawsuit in the courts. The Government is now saying, "Well, you can't sue us". First the Government said "Go ahead and sue". Mr. Turner cannot afford a lawyer for one day, let alone the months and months a lawsuit would take. I am confident that with a reasonable settlement put forward by an independent arbitrator there will be no court case. The Government can afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and can spend months and years in court at the expense of an innocent individual Canadian citizen.
It is patent nonsense that all of a sudden the Government is in a big hurry. Three full days on report stage would have finished all the amendments and half a day would have been sufficient on third reading. That would not be unreasonable. We were proceeding with all dispatch dealing with amendments during the one day we have had so far. We have had a dozen or 14 motions dealt with and out of the way. It would take two more days to deal with each one of them. Why will the Government not let us have that time, Madam Speaker? Why did the Government take so long to get to work on the Bill? Why is the Government all of a sudden in a big hurry? It is bludgeoning Parliament into accepting bad legislation while we have amendments trying to make a bad Bill less bad.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak today on the subject of Bill C-18. I feel that the issue of this Bill will have a favourable impact for the shippers and for the citizens of my province of Alberta and western Canada generally.
I listened with interests to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and I found it hard to believe that he indeed was a westerner speaking the way he did. This Bill is to the ultimate benefit of ordinary citizens, to small and

June 15, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
medium businesses and to the people of western Canada generally. It is about competition and fairness and the restoration of justice. It goes a long way to cap the well known well-springs of discontent in western Canada and it leads toward that noblest of all goals, national reconciliation. I believe that the socialist alliance with the CPR will result in some electoral bringing into account come 1989.
I have received voluminous correspondence from the citizens of Alberta on the subject of this Bill. A typical example is one received recently from an employee of Alberta Gas Chemicals in Medicine Hat, which letter in part reads:
-we currently ship approximately 90 per cent of our product by rail. As I am sure you are aware competition is the essence of good business. Without competition there is no need to be efficient and you can demand whatever the traffic will bear for your product or service.
With Competitive Line Rates we will be able to be more competitive on pricing of our Methanol which should allow us to sell and ship more product.
If Bill C-18 does not pass, we are in a position where without fair competitive freight rates we could go out of business. If we are forced out of business, it will mean a loss of approximately 100 jobs at AGCL in Medicine Hat for a starter. If we go out of business, that means the CPR, locally, will probably also have lay-offs as there will be approximately 400 to 800 fewer rail cars to ship each month from Medicine Hat.
It is employment we are talking about, Madam Speaker. It is also justice in terms of freight rates.
I have a letter from a constituent in Edmonton:
I have been involved on more than one occasion with respect to encouraging incoming businesses. After the second look at expenses at the freighting end of production the early enthusiasm pales and we are again losers.
1 believe that it is imperative that we have a drastic change in the freight rates for western Canada.
I have a note from the Alberta Government:
Rail provides the life-force for many landlocked Alberta manufacturers and producers. Their products and distance from markets make them dependent on rail.
In 1985, Alberta generated 48 million tonnes of freight for CN and CP, 20 per cent of their total business. Sixty per cent of this came from producers that are captive to rail and in most cases captive to one carrier.
Under existing legislation, rail carriers are comparatively free from market competition. The rates they choose can create winners and losers in Alberta's major commodity industries.
The results of this are clear. In 1982, Alberta related shipments generated 28 per cent of the total system of traffic that paid over 70 per cent of the total contribution to railway constant costs for Canada.
The rates applied to Alberta rail shippers for the past several years have been increasing faster than railway costs. Rates offered to captive shippers have received a disproportionate share of this increase.
I will continue with a note from the Hinton, Alberta District Chamber of Commerce:
We are very concerned, at this time, because it is our understanding that CN, a Crown corporation, and the CP whose relationship within this country parallels the CNs are both amassing a fierce lobby against the competitive line rates provisions of this Bill.
We are a resource-based community depending on pulp, paper and coal; a western Canadian community whose welfare and survival is dependent upon exporting our goods to national and international markets. Because our community is located in western Canada, we are disadvantaged in our ability to compete due to this fact. The transportation component in exporting our goods to those market does not and will not reflect market conditions as long as the CN and CP have for all intents and purposes a monopoly. Subsidies are
not our forte, however, we cannot and will not stand by and see our only hope to enhance our ability to compete in the market-place dashed by a Crown corporation and, if I may say, "A semi-Crown Corporation".
The whole concept of this Bill is to assure employees and shippers that safety will be maintained and that the benefits of deregulation will redound and that the disadvantages will not prevail. Safety we know is a major priority for all those involved in transportation. This legislation is a product of the viewpoints and ideas advanced over a very extensive cross Canada consultative process over the past two years involving contact with over 450 groups and organizations.
I would venture to say that the reverse is the case of that painted by the Hon. Member for Regina West. Consultation has been of the essence in the drafting and in the amendment of this Bill. Those consultations involved labour, users, business, transportation companies, the travelling public and provincial and territorial governments. In addition, of course, there were the hearings of the standing committee to which the Hon. Member referred.
I would like to touch on a submission from Sultran Ltd. based in Calgary. This is not a minor player.
-Sultran ships up to six million tonnes of sulphur per year from 14 Alberta plants and three northeastern British Columbia plants to Vancouver for export. This volume generates about $200 million a year in rail freight.
Because of its relatively low value and long distances to tidewater, sulphur is effectively captive to rail transport, and generally captive to one carrier.
Since there is neither an effective transport alternative nor effective economic regulation control over railway rates, the railways are, at present, free to engage in monopoly pricing. Bill C-18 remedies this condition by introducing competitive provisions which attempt to limit the monopoly power of railways over captive commodities and at locations served by only one carrier.
This new policy statement in the Bill provides that all carriers must meet acceptable safety standards, that competition and market forces are to be the prime agent in determining price and service levels, that government intervention will occur only when necessary to protect the public interest, but carriers are to be fairly compensated for any imposed public duty, and carriers pricing policies are not to be discriminatory.
Canadians have imbued within them an innate sense of fairness and Canadians react in a rather forceful manner when they feel that they are being discriminated against. This piece of legislation responds to that sense of discrimination which has bedevilled western Canadians, and I submit, other Canadians for the past century. It gives, for the first time, to western Canadians the opportunity to compete on a level playing field with their brothers and sisters in central and eastern Canada. Thus, I am saddened when I hear Members opposite decrying this legislation. The Minister has responded to Members opposite and has agreed to a number of amendments. These amendments have accommodated the major objections that were raised when the Bill was first introduced.
This piece of legislation will bring to Alberta and to western
Canada a response to the needs of users of transportation
services. Our ability to expand markets will depend upon our
June 15, 1987

ability to produce goods and services at the lowest possible costs.
Of particular importance to my province are the provisions of the legislation relating to railway freight transportation. The long distances to markets for exports and the dominance of one major carrier in the northern part of the province and another in the south has limited alternatives available to shippers for transporting products. The current National Transportation Act provides rail carriers with considerable pricing freedoms and little incentive to compete while provisions to protect shippers against excessive rail rates have proven ineffective. As a result, the province incurs a significant freight rate burden.
If Alberta is to maintain its position in increasingly competitive world markets, this burden must be reduced. The provisions of this Bill to increase competition between carriers and to provide shippers with more effective mechanisms for resolving rate disputes with carriers go a long way toward allowing this to be accomplished.
In view of the criticism the Bill has received from railways, labour unions and the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), there are a few points that I would like to address in concluding. First, there is no direct causal relationship between deregulation and safety in the Canadian context. Regulations pertaining to safety are not changed adversely in this Bill. In fact, they are augmented. Recent changes to strengthen aeronautic safety and the proposed new rail safety Bill should address safety concerns.
Second, there is the principle of the railway's desire to reduce costs. However, with the exception of branch lines which are covered in the new legislation, the railways have not been specific on what legislation or regulation they believe should be changed.
The legislative package contained in Bill C-18 addresses concerns of westerners expressed since the time of the 1973 Western Economic Opportunities Conference. We in the West believe that the quick passage of this legislation is vital. A key provision in the legislation for many shippers in Alberta and indeed in the rest of Canada is the mechanism for competitive line rates. This provision will allow shippers who are now captive to a single carrier to gain access to a competing alternate carrier for the movement of goods. Removal of this provision from the Bill would have eliminated a large part of the industry's support of the legislation and removal of such a proposal from the Bill as suggested by Members opposite would have gutted this piece of legislation.
In conclusion, I submit that this Bill should pass swiftly through all stages. The people of the West are waiting to see how the the House disposes of the Bill and are watching with great care to see how Members on all sides vote on this vital piece of legislation which will go a long way toward realizing the destiny of western Canada.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to offer some comments at
National Transportation Act, 1986
this point in the debate on Bill C-18. I have something more than a passing interest in the initiatives that are proposed because I do believe that the strengthening and augmenting of the transportation system of Canada is one of the primary responsibilities of any national Government.
Because of our geography and the peculiar nature of our economic system, it is very important that a national Government maintain a clear and overriding responsibility for the way we move people, goods and services across Canada. This should be done in a way that not only maximizes efficiency but also ensures that there is a maximum of service. That is why I find it so dismaying that the Government would impose a closure motion on this very important topic. This is a matter that requires a continuing and ongoing examination by Parliament in order to ensure that the legislation is right. It should not be approached in a way that would simply ensure that it meets the parliamentary timetable, but in a way that would ensure that the vast array of important interests across Canada are properly and effectively reflected in the legislation.
We do not change the Transportation Act that often, so when we do it we had better make sure that what we are doing is carefully conceived and integrated into a package that will respond, not only to contemporary needs but to future needs. That is why we object so strenuously to the fact that the very important evidence that was brought forward during the hearings of the Transport Committee was ignored in the Bill. We were not given the time or effort required to reconsider, reexamine and redefine the legislation.
Let me tell the House of one example of this that comes to mind. Three or four weeks ago I had the opportunity to meet with the national executive of the organization representing the physically handicapped in Canada. When I was Minister of Transport I felt that one of the most important contributions the national Government could make to alleviate the disadvantage suffered by those with various handicaps would be to ensure that the transportation system reflected their needs and concerns and was adapted in a way that would give them the kind of mobility they require to pursue their occupations and their rights as Canadians. We set forward a series of guidelines that we felt should be incorporated in the transportation system, and those guidelines should now be reflected in the legislation. However, they are not. It was clear from my discussions with the group representing the various organizations that speak for the handicapped that this would be an opportunity lost.
Members of Parliament should reflect on why they would support a closure motion to forestall any further examination of the legislation when it is clear that a major constituency is being ignored and in fact rejected as evidenced by the lack of measures put forward in the Bill. We must ask ourselves why the representations made by these organizations across Canada were treated with such indifference. We must ask why there was not a willingness during the consideration of this legislation in the House to take account of those representations and, even at this late date, to provide for a modification. It seems

June 15, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
that we are in an unfortunate position. The imperatives of political timetabling are taking precedence over the necessity for passing good legislation. It seems to me that what is before us is an indication of what has become all too common and frequent. It seems to be important to acquire a so-called list of accomplishments without really examining the substance, the details and the ramifications of those accomplishments. It seems to be far more important to get the headlines than to get the substance right. As my seatmate, the transportation spokesman for my Party, has said, the decision of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to impose a suffocation of the consideration of this Bill by the House stands as evidence of a clear and unmistakable calumny on the part of the Government, as evidence of its unwillingness to take its responsibilities seriously, considering the importance placed on this matter during the last election.
I will point to another reason why we should be examining this legislation with more thorough care than we will be able to because of the closure motion. Through a wide variety of activities we are observing the serious reduction of the powers and abilities of the national Government to form successfully an economic union to meet the imperatives of international competition. As I said earlier in my remarks, transportation is not only a clear responsibility of the national Government but should be even more seriously recognized when we are talking about giving the provinces further powers, when there is serious consideration of severe limitations of federal powers as a consequence of free trade negotiations, and when there is a move toward the privatization of various Crown corporations.
The collective impact of these initiatives is an erosion of the capacity of the national Government to meet effectively and successfully the national goals and objectives. That will not become apparent overnight, but in the months and years ahead as the country tries to respond to new demands this incredible move by the Conservative Government to disband the national Government's role in the economic and social life of the country will be decried. The Government may have to pay a price for that in the judgment of historians, but it should certainly be more carefully examined now.
I raise this concern, particularly in the field of transportation, because I can recall the discussions and negotiations of which I was a part when we were beginning to consider our own form of reforms in this field. One of the most important questions that we raised at that time was with regard to safety and whether deregulation afforded sufficient protection to maintain high quality standards and maintenance of the transportation system. We did not want to have the continuing problems with which we were faced in the rail, air and trucking industries with regard to the continuing incidents of danger and disaster. Yet there is nothing in this legislation or in the corollary of complementary moves of the Government to give assurance that there was a fair recognition of those facts.
Similarly, when we were considering the role of transportation we had to consider the role of regional development. That role cannot be judged only by the criteria, the accounts or the economists. We knew from the history of the country that if we were to maintain a national fabric we had to ensure that all parts of the country were involved. I must say that those have not been involved.
In the short time I have remaining I must say that this is an unfinished piece of legislation which requires much more examination and work. We can only regret the fact that the Government seems to be unwilling to give the people of Canada that opportunity.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I always considered the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) to be the father of this legislation. I thought that in his speech he would apologize to the House and the country for his sponsorship of the attempts by the previous Liberal Government to introduce a regime of deregulation in Canada.
I have a number of concerns with what is happening in the House at this time. Despite what you have heard from a number of the previous speakers, we are not actually debating Bill C-18 at this time. We are involved in the process of time allocation which limits debate on report stage and third reading of this very important piece of legislation. As you know, Madam Speaker, time allocation is just another way of saying closure. It is a way of cutting off debate, limiting the number of people who can participate in the debate, and guaranteeing that only a few of the proposed amendments are debated and voted upon by the House.
This is a very difficult process for the House. The Government cannot claim that we have instigated a filibuster on this piece of legislation. When this Bill was finally brought back to the House for debate we in the Opposition announced that we would move quickly to introduce all of our amendments in order that we could have a recorded vote on them in the House. We believe this is necessary because we have been told by government spokespersons that the Government is willing to accept some of the amendments standing in the name of the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and in the name of one of the Liberal Members. However, the Government has refused to tell us which of those amendments it is willing to accept.
W'e are in an ironic situation. The Government, which says that it will accept some of the amendments but will not tell us which, is now introducing time allocation which will not allow us to reach some of the amendments which the Government may or may not favour. Talk about parliamentary democracy. I hear a voice from the wilderness, that of the Parliamentary Secretary, saying that we are stalling. We are not stalling. We have said that we would move as quickly as possible through the amendments. We said that we would forego debate on some of the amendments.
The first speaker from our Party on this time allocation
motion, the Member for Regina West, pointed out that with
June 15, 1987

two or three days at report stage we could deal with every one of the amendments. Two or three days debate is not very much to change fundamentally the way in which the transportation industry is regulated. That is the purpose of Parliament. We should ensure that our amendments, some of which are acceptable to the Government, are debated and voted upon. The Government's insinuation that we have been stalling is patently not true.
As the Member for Regina West said, the reason that this legislation is before the Elouse in the latter half of June is because the Government stalled. The Government took a year before finally introducing this legislation in the House. It took a second session of the House before the Government finally brought the legislation into the House for debate. After committee stage the Government delayed for weeks and weeks before introducing it for third reading. All of that speaks of the Government delaying this legislation, although it knows the legislation will be passed. What the Government is doing now is preventing a full debate and decision by this House.
One of the things we discovered was a government memorandum talking about lowering the public profile on free trade. The Cabinet had papers which suggested the Government should do all it could to make sure there was no public debate, that the public was not aroused or made aware of the implications of free trade. The Government was afraid that if that happened there would be even more opposition to the attempt to negotiate a free trade pact with the Americans. Obviously some industries and towns are going to be hurt and some people are going to lose their jobs under free trade. That was the Government strategy. It is following that same strategy with deregulation.
The Opposition has said it is not going to stall the legislation but we want to introduce the amendments and have them debated for a short time and then make a decision. Yet the Government, for its own reasons, has moved time allocation. It is completely unnecessary. This is a major piece of legislation. The Opposition has indicated a willingness to co-operate-not to bend over and play dead but to co-operate. That is the most the Government can expect when we are opposed to a piece of legislation. We are willing to co-operate but we are not willing to rush the legislation through the House.
We recognize that this legislation will fundamentally change the way the transportation industry works. It is ironic that in the long time it has taken the Government to move forward with this legislation-not the Opposition but the Government-we have seen less and less competition in Canada. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West talked about the air transportation industry. We have had merger after merger lately, the most famous and most recent being CP and PWA getting married to form CAI or Canadian Airlines International. We know during that same period of time more and more management agreements came into place. CAI has agreements with Calm Air in northern Manitoba and Time
National Transportation Act, 1986
Air in parts of Alberta and B.C. Air Canada has management arrangements with a number of other feeder airlines. This has been done in such a way that competition is being further and further reduced.
Conservative Members speak about how we are going into a market economy and deregulation will expand the number of operators. We will have more service. Yet the facts show the exact opposite. By the time this legislation is passed we will be down to one or two airline conglomerates for the most part.
We have seen examples of how service can be altered. Just after the announcement that CP and PWA were merging, we had CP cutting its service to Yukon. Obviously; why should they compete against each other? The management and feeder systems in that airline are such that if you are coming from one of the more remote parts of Canada it is almost impossible to make connections with other airlines. You have to stay within that management system. That is good for their business and you expect them to do it, but it is going to get worse and worse.
It is not a matter of all of a sudden freeing up the system. There are problems with the CTC and over-regulation in some areas. There is no question about that. Yet we are taking away the protection of Government regulation and giving control to a small group of owner-operators, especially in the airline industry. We move from one monopoly-Government regulation, which at least allowed a number of different operators to be involved in a competitive sense-to a monopoly of the large airlines which will control the air transportation industry.
At the same time we know the Government intends to do what it can to privatize Air Canada. We have no idea what form that will take. Will the Government allow CAI to buy Air Canada? Will a system be in place such that Air Canada will not really be competing? Will those parts of Canada now served by Air Canada, on what may or may not be profitable runs, be in a situation where those runs will be cut once Air Canada is privatized?
Those are all legitimate questions which should be addressed and answered in this House before the legislation is allowed to pass. That is one of the reasons we are seeing a rush after so many months and months of delay. The Government wants the legislation passed before it has the courage to announce what it is doing with Air Canada.
I recognize I am out of time; that is one of the problems with this process. There is a lot in the transportation industry that concerns me and my constituents. I am afraid that the process the Government is using for its own political agenda is actually destroying the input of Parliament on a very important piece of legislation.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, there is a time for talk and there is a time for action. In my view we have talked enough about the Bill and it is now time to see what the Bill will do.

June 15, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Every illustration the Opposition gave happened in a regulated society, not under Freedom To Move. Yet they want more regulation, particularly the NDP. Of course that is understandable. Socialists love regulations. They love to tell people what is good for them. That is part of their philosophy. The philosophy of this Party is to let the people speak and then carry out their wishes to the greatest possible degree. That is what we are trying to do.
The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) said it took us too long. "There have been a lot of delays!" The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) said we are going too fast. Which is it, too slow or too fast? I do not think it is either. I think we are going at just about the right speed.
The Hon. Member talked about delays. What do they expect? We had week after week of committee meetings. We listened to everyone who came along. Then we sat day after day going over the scores of amendments brought forward by the Opposition, as well as some from the Government. That takes time. Should we not have done that? Is that what they are complaining about? Every amendment they presented was discussed. Then they complain because they cannot bring them back to the House. How much time do they want to waste? We set up a committee to go into the details, not so we could bring them all back here again. If we are going to do that, why have committees at all?
This Bill is an example of what should happen under a free enterprise Government. It removes not all but many of the shackles which have stopped free enterprise from working. That is why the NDP particularly is opposed to it. They love regulation. They want to tell the people what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and where to do it. This Government does not do that. We believe the people are mature and can make up their own minds. We will give them the opportunity to go into business without Government regulations and red tape. That is what this Bill does.
The Hon. Member from Regina, who is a member of the Committee, said we did not travel enough. Let me tell the House that in 1985 we travelled to Vancouver, Winnipeg and Halifax. I do not know how many briefs we received at every one of those hearings. That was under Freedom to Move. The Opposition says that we did not go to the North. In 1986 we went to Churchill, Rankin Inlet, Cambridge Bay, Yellowknife, Inuvik, and Whitehorse. This year we had hearings at Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina and Winnipeg, to say nothing of the days and days of hearings here in Ottawa. How much travelling does the Opposition want? Does it want to spend the whole year travelling at Government expense, or a whole month?
I think the Government has been pretty liberal in providing us with the amount of time it did, and I think the people of Canada appreciated it. We were thanked by the people who came to us from various places. They did not complain, because what we were doing was trying to give the people of
Canada a chance, to the greatest possible degree, to say what they thought about Freedom to Move. A majority of the people want Freedom to Move to come into being as fast as possible.
I wish I had with me today the letters and wires I received so that Hon. Members could see just how high the pile is, and they all say in effect, "Move it. Do not talk anymore. We want some action. The time for talking is over". I think Freedom to Move will be wonderful for the country. In the first place, it involves all modes of transportation from the pipelines to trains, from small airplanes to the mighty jets, from small trucks to 18 wheelers. It includes every type of transportation. One correspondent said this country is very far flung, in fact it is flung too far. But whatever way we look at it, Canada is a vast country and transportation is probably the number one essential which keeps our country together. We want transportation to be efficient.
We want transportation to not only do the job, we want it to cost the lowest cost possible to the consumer. The consumer is the one who pays in the final analysis. This Bill will help the shippers give better prices to the consumer. We are doing our utmost in this Bill to eliminate monopoly and replace it with competition. That is exactly what the Bill is designed to do.
This is the first time in the history of this nation that transportation for the regions has been included in a transportation Bill. We are not only concerned about the country as a whole, we are concerned about the people in various parts of the Maritimes, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They have transportation problems and this Bill is designed not to ignore the problems but to look after them. There are regions in the west as well, in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and in British Columbia, with regional transportation problems.
The Opposition said we did not listen to the North. A number of these submissions we received told us not to go too fast in the North because it has a sparse population and vast distances. They told us to go a little slower in the North, so the Government went a little slower. We established a line, and north of that line there will continue to be regulations, for the time being. We will work gradually into a Freedom to Move atmosphere. That is the principle upon which we are working.
We have set up a transport board which will look into all of these items and ensure that there is fairness and competition, and that we give every mode of transportation a chance to compete. Many times I have seen a regulated society stop people from investing their money in a service they thought they could provide better than anyone else. A transport board told them they could not do it. Under the regulated society the franchise would be give to one trucking firm and it could add truck after truck after truck and no one else could get in. It was not just a franchise, it was an monopoly. I have seen it happen scores of time. Individuals and small companies which wanted to go into the trucking business could not because the board would not let them. The Government bureaucrats said "No, you cannot do it. We have enough trucks in the system".
June 15, 1987

The new Bill will give the people a chance to act. If I want to invest my money in a small plane or truck or even a train, if I want to take a chance and compete with the big boys, all I have to do is meet the safety requirements. I must have proper insurance and meet safety standards, but if I have those, the Government will not say I cannot invest my money. The Government will say, "You make sure that you protect the public interests and that safety is looked after and then you can go to town and invest your money". I would have the right to lose and I would have the right to gain. Everyone who goes into business under a free enterprise system has that right. It is a right to win and a right to lose. They take the chance and if they lose it is on their own initiative, not on the initiative of some bureaucrat sitting in some office who perhaps never operated a business, never had to meet a payroll and never had to toe the mark in order to stay alive in the free enterprise system.
Let me say once again that this is good legislation for Canada. It removes some of the shackles which have stopped free enterprise from working. Watch it over the next few years it is going to do great things for our nation.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, I regret that the Government has seen fit to introduce closure on report stage of this particular Bill, a move which removes from consideration a number of very serious, reasoned and careful amendments which had been put down by my Party in order to improve this Bill. The Bill is designed to revamp the National Transportation Act and its stated purpose is to increase competition in the transportation sector by removing certain regulations which hindered the ability to compete. It will affect rail, air and trucking.
The major economic benefit expected from the legislation is that Canadian goods and products will get to market more efficiently, faster, and in a less expensive way. This will include Canadian exports to the U.S. which the Government says will reach their destination at a lower cost, and therefore will be more competitive.
This is very laudable but, unhappily, the Government in its rush to get this Bill through has sacrificed consideration of amendments which would have improved the Bill. The Bill reflects, perhaps, a certain commitment to ideology over practicality. I want to mention some of the things about which we have concerns and on which we have amendments which the Government will not now consider.
To begin with, there is the introduction of confidential contracts. Under this Bill the railway companies, CN and CP, will be allowed to enter into confidential contracts with large bulk shippers. In other words, the rates charged by the railway company to the shipper remain confidential and do not have to be published. Any rebate or allowance provided by a railway company on a published rate must also remain confidential.
National Transportation Act, 1986
We in the Liberal Party were in favour of confidential contracts for transborder movements. We thought it would help to reduce the competitive advantage enjoyed by U.S. railways over CN and CP in transborder shipping rates and therefore enhance the competitiveness of our goods in U.S. markets.
We are not in favour of confidential contracts for domestic rates. It seems to us that what will happen is that the large bulk shippers will clearly benefit. They will be able to negotiate favourable low rates for their voluminous shipments. Railway company revenues will decrease and there will be a tendency to fill that gap at the expense of the small and medium-sized shippers who will end up cross-subsidizing the rate decreases to the large bulk shippers.
CP Rail, Canada's only other railway company apart from the federal Crown corporation CN, is of the view that in competing with CN to offer the lowest rate to shippers through confidential contracts it will not be able to absorb as much lost revenues as CN will be able to absorb and may in fact be forced out of business by the year 1992.
Our other concern is with respect to the trucking industry which is already suffering as a result of the Government's large increases in gasoline prices. Canadian trucking companies are already at a disadvantage in terms of competing with American trucking companies. They will certainly face unfair competition in this respect since they are not entitled to negotiate confidential contracts.
Another concern I have is with respect to foreign ownership since this Bill has no limitations on foreign takeovers of Canadian transportation companies. There are two guidelines in this respect. First, mergers and takeovers over $20 million and involving over 10 per cent of the voting shares of a Canadian transportation firm will be reviewed by the Governor in Council. Takeovers or mergers below those ceilings would be reviewed by Investment Canada. This means that very large takeovers will only be subject to political review, which leaves the potential for patronage decisions rather than decisions based on clear criteria which Canadians know, understand and accept. There is quite a risk that many good Canadian companies will pass into foreign hands.
Nowhere in the Bill is much concern shown for regional development. The concern is for competition, for market rates. In a country as vast as Canada clearly what will happen is that the centres that are profitable, such as those in the Montreal, Toronto, Windsor corridor, will be well serviced, while isolated communities in which there is not much traffic will increasingly find themselves with less and less service as time goes on, and as the only motive is profit. The history of our country shows that our transportation system has been used to aid regional development, and as a way of opening up communications links and trade links. This Bill will put an end to that.

June 15, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Before us is a measure that has been protested by the Premiers and, in particular, the Council of Maritime Premiers. The Government has decided to ignore their recommendations.
We also have a great many concerns about safety. As an example, before us we have the U.S. deregulation of airlines. No one can say that travelling on an American airline these days is a comfortable experience. As more and more companies get into the airline business the service gets less and less. It becomes more of a no-frills service. Inside the passenger cabin that is not such a problem. But when economies are made on safety one has to be very worried.
The figures in the United States give cause for concern. For instance, in 1979 the Federal Aviation Administration had 2,000 inspectors monitoring 237 air carriers. In 1984 it had 1,300 inspectors for 407 air carriers. In Canada, the Auditor General reported in 1985 that Transport Canada was unable to inspect all air carriers in its jurisdiction once a year.
If the Government encourages small aircraft companies to come into existence, not necessarily well-capitalized ones with new equipment, and not necessarily well-staffed, what guarantees of safety will we have? The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has been telling Canadians that airfares on Canadian airlines will drop as a result of deregulation. How will airline fares drop? Clearly, only if staff are laid off and if services are reduced. There is nothing in the Bill to guarantee that there will be the same concentration on air safety as we have had in the past.
For all those reasons I regret that the Government has chosen to introduce closure on this Bill. I hope that even at this stage it might reconsider and be prepared to examine some of the very thoughtful and careful amendments that have been laid before the House.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I want to start out by indicating that I think the questions that need to be put to the House are these. Why is the Government moving to cut off debate? Why is the Government using the heavy hand of closure in order to rush this Bill through the House? Why is it limiting debate? Why does it no longer want to hear from Members of Parliament with regard to transportation and deregulation? Why does it not want to hear from Canadians? Why has it closed its ears instead of giving this legislation the type of thorough and full debate that it needs? Is it simply trying to sweep the potential consequences from this deregulation package under the rug? Does it not want to look at possible implications of what it is doing before it gives it the full force of law?
This leaves one with the impression that what it has tried to do is force-feed Canadians with its particular brand of free enterprise deregulation ideology instead of encouraging a full and comprehensive debate on the legislation that is before the House, instead of allowing for public input and instead of allowing for this legislation to be examined in a full and complete way.
Just what is the approach that the Government is taking to deregulation? I think there are a number of options that the Government could look at. One of the ways it might approach the question of regulation of transportation, whether it is in the air, by way of trucking or other means, is to simply maintain the status quo.
Not being an expert in the transportation field, I am unaware of the number of years that the present legislation has been in place. Certainly after legislation has been in place for a number of years there is probably a need for review. Circumstances change. The economy changes. The needs of people change to some degree.
The Government could have taken the approach of freezing things as they now stand and simply continuing the status quo. Another approach would be to eliminate any effective regulation. It is this latter approach that the Government has adopted. In doing so, it has dressed it up with the fine-sounding slogan, "freedom to move."
Obviously, every Canadian is a lover of freedom. Rather than being frank with the Canadian public and coming straight out and telling the public that it is eliminating any effective regulation in the transportation sector in order to meet the concerns of the industry itself and the consumers of transportation, it attaches a nice public relations-type slogan to the Bill, calling it Freedom to Move.
So, we have those two approaches, continuing the status quo, or eliminating any effective regulation in transportation. But, were those the only choices available to the Government? Are those the only routes available?
When listening to the government Members one gets the impression that it was a choice only between the status quo, no change at all, and radical change, a radical cutting away of the regulatory environment relating to safety and service, consumer needs, and the needs of the industry itself.
I suggest that the Government had another option. It could continue the debate on this measure in the House; it could continue the examination of the regulatory environment that exists in this country.
The whole subject could be approached from the point of view of re-regulation. In other words, we could examine the present regime in the light of present-day requirements. Such a course would result in a rational and reasonable approach to the regulation of the transportation sector. Instead of Bill C-18, we could have had a participatory approach. The Government could have said to Canadians, "We have confidence in your opinions, and in the opinions of your representatives. We want to ensure that all Canadians have an opportunity for input into the whole question of regulation of the transportation sector. To that end, it is our intention to canvass the opinion of Canadians, regardless of where they live."
That is an alternate approach to the one taken by the
Government. Instead of looking for the alternative, the
June 15, 1987

Government has decided to close down debate. It has chosen to try to force-feed Canadians a particularly ideological point of view on regulation.
Ordinary Canadians do have some legitimate concerns when it comes to the transportation industry in this country. There are good and valid reasons why the present regulatory regime has been built up. There are good reasons why we seek to regulate transportation in this country. One reason, of course, is the whole question of safety.
As a consumer, one cannot check out every carrier that one may want to use for vacation or business travel. One simply cannot investigate each carrier in order to assure oneself of one's safety in transit. One of the legitimate purposes of regulation is to ensure the safety of the traveller.
When regulation is virtually eliminated and there is put in its stead an Adam Smith survival-of-the-fittest approach to competition, an environment of cutthroat competition, there is a great deal of temptation on the part of those seeking to survive to cut corners. Someone has to be looking over the shoulders of the industry to ensure that, in cutting corners, the safety of the traveller is not jeopardized. We need to have someone who will ensure that safety standards are of the highest possible.
These are the kinds of concerns that must be dealt with in the debate on the regulation of the transportation sector. The cutting off of debate can only result in there being an inadequate response to these concerns.
Canadians are concerned about the whole question of price. The Government indicates that we are going to have a honeymoon with regard to price; that we are going to get very low air fares. The impression is that one is going to be able to travel almost free. Well, while there may be a honeymoon with regard to air fares between such centres as Toronto and Montreal, the high density areas of the country, I doubt very much that there will be any such honeymoon in respect of regional centres such as Winnipeg. As well, a honeymoon is a short-term proposition. We all know that. What about the long term? What are the long-term consequences for price in a deregulated environment?
In that regard, let me quote from an article which deals with some of the research on deregulation in the United States. I quote from an article in Traffic World of April 20, 1987:
Deregulation has spurred rail, motor and airline carriers toward an "oligopoly in each of the modes," said L. Leslie Waters, Indiana University professor emeritus of transportation and business history-
Up to now, there has been "an enormous volume of rate cutting and many have been pleased; we as shippers have been enjoying a lengthy period of reasonably good service at moderate rates in relation to the economy," -But he warned, "shippers had better enjoy it, because the forces of oligopoly will prevail, and even without overt collusion, rates will increase and shippers will be lobbying for reimposition of regulations-just as some are now in the case of railroads."
What Professor Waters is saying is that while we may get lower prices at the beginning of deregulation, given that the ownership of the industry will fall into fewer and fewer hands,
National Transportation Act, 1986
which is what I understand the term "oligopoly" to mean, prices will eventually increase.
These are the kinds of questions that have to be answered before this Bill passes into law. In terms of the situation south of the border, we hear that the Americans are getting a good deal on price. Well, the U.S. presents a much different circumstance from that which exists in Canada. We are walking blind if we think that deregulation will have a similar impact in Canada to that in the U.S., with its much larger population and much different geography.
In summary, what I am saying is that the Government, rather than closing off debate on this measure, cutting off the input of Canadians, should be opening up this legislation to further examination. Canadians have real concerns in the area of safety, in the area of price. The Government should permit the continuation of the discussion until those concerns are met in an adequate way, rather than pushing this legislation through.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I should like to relate the importance of the economic benefits which will follow the passage of the transportation Bills, but after listening to Hon. Members opposite, I am mindful of the ancient quote, "Nero fiddles while Rome burns".
I do not have to say anything to Hon. Members of the House about the great economic benefits and importance of freer trade to Canada as an exporting nation, nor do I have to point out that our higher standard of living is primarily based upon our export trade. We in this country are, perhaps more than any other country, concerned about the cost of transporting our goods to market, be they manufactured goods or raw products. Goodness knows, many of us are still hewers of wood and drawers of water, vendors of raw resources. The problem is that the world around us is becoming much more competitive. As each country becomes more competitive minded, it looks at ways and means of reducing its costs. Canada cannot do otherwise. Canada must do likewise, because the cost of getting goods to market is of extreme importance.
These reforms are needed because the existing economic regulatory scheme for transportation, introduced over 20 years ago, now impedes rather than helps our competitive growth. Competition has been stifled while the regulatory process has become cumbersome, time consuming, and costly. Put simply, the market-place demands that economic regulation catch up to this reality.
If we did not manufacture and produce or sell what we manufacture and produce, perhaps we would not have to be concerned about the carrier. However, the shippers are saying, "Get on with the job that you started over two years ago". The Coalition of Concerned Shippers and shippers generally, particularly rail captive shippers, cry out, "How long will we continue to be so captive?" In their great numbers they are saying, "We support the Government in its desire to introduce

June 15, 1987
regulatory reform so that transportation will carry our goods to market at a cheaper, more economic cost".
Undoubtedly shippers whole-heartedly support the early passage of Bill C-18. Shippers, industrial associations, and exporters urge early passage of the Bill. Every day that the Bill is not the law of the land means additional cost to them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Baloney.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: I have heard that comment before.
I am somewhat nonplused by the air deregulation comments of the Official Opposition in particular. We are already embarked upon a smooth, final approach to the deregulation process. No new drastic change is anticipated in the way that Canadian carriers will do business safely and efficiently.
While on the other side of the river in the United States the consolidation or rationalization process may have caused some concern, it should not do so here. Canadian Airlines International Limited has simply replaced Canadian Pacific Airlines. Along with Air Canada it is assembling rival networks and is acquiring feeder lines to establish two main national carriers. This consolidation started to take place prior to the introduction of Bill C-18 with the implementation of regulation and the encouragement and otherwise of a former Minister of Transport who is now in the Official Opposition. The process was initiated and ongoing, and now it is being openly proposed by the Government in this Bill. It seems somewhat inconsistent to hear the former Minister of Transport urge Members of Parliament to delay the process which he started.
Deregulation has taken place in all modes of transportation in the United States. Each day the Americans draw business away from our carriers. The provisions contained in the Bill will make our railways more competitive with one another. Indeed, we hope that with the passage of the Bill they will be more competitive with that major U.S. carrier, Burlington Northern, which is competitive when it comes to carrying our resources.
As the Bill will show, shippers will have more competitive access to our railways. There will be a continuance of the economic viability of Canadian railways. The Bill strikes at the right, fair, and just balance.
Turning to truckers, that segment of the transportation industry will be dealt with more fully in Bill C-19. However, let me say that in Alberta they have played successfully with the deregulation process and Canadian truckers have not done badly in trans-border markets. One southern Ontario carrier, an established truck carrier, put it the following way: "Deregulation as proposed would eliminate much of the unnecessary red tape and the delays in getting licences and will create a more efficient transportation system".
I should like to conclude by referring to a factor of national concern-safety. It has been raised time and time again by members of the Opposition. There is no doubt that those persons who operate in any segment of the transportation
industry will put safety first. As the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and the earlier Minister of Transport both said, safety will be a priority concern of the Government. No step in the reregulatory process will endanger any safety factor in any segment of transportation. We have acted and will continue to act in the interests of improving air safety. There is no question; safety will not be impaired by reason of the passage of these transportation Bills.
I urge, along with other members of the Government, the early passage of Bill C-18 so that our carriers can have an equal opportunity to be competitive with national carriers of the United States and our shippers, whoever they are, will be able to get their products to market at a competitive price.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, may I call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, this morning on Parliament Hill a presentation of petitions to the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) signaled the end of the "Countdown to Childcare" campaign launched in mid-April by three national organizations, the Canadian Daycare Advocacy Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. In addition, 14 national organizations supported this campaign to make the Government aware of the urgency to take action with respect to daycare centres. The "Countdown to Childcare" campaign was designed to make Canadian men and women more conscious of the problems faced by our children and their parents. The petition was circulated throughout Canada and many thousands of signatures were gathered in the course of activities in various communities.
If the Government is prepared to invest several billion dollars for nuclear submarines and other military hardware, and these figures may prove to be very conservative, what are we waiting for to invest in our own children? Daycare services
June 15, 1987

are in a crisis. We need additional space in daycare centres. Time is of the essence.



REFUGEES


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, across Canada, church people, trade unionists, immigrants and other ordinary Canadians are joining together to defend justice for refugees and to oppose Bill C-55.
In Victoria a thousand people signed a petition against Bill C-55 and presented it Friday to their Member of Parliament.
In Calgary, yesterday, the Cathedral Church of the Redeemer made special prayers for refugees and heard a Salvadoran family speak of gratitude for protection Canadians have given and also of their longing to be able to return home.
In Hamilton yesterday a Salvadoran priest celebrated a special Mass for refugees. The mayor declared Refugee Day recognizing the many benefits brought to Canada by generations of immigrants, including, recently, South East Asians, Caribbeans, and Central Americans, and the Nansen Medal given last year for the Canadian people's humane care for refugees.
In Thunder Bay, members of a dozen congregations have helped 50 refugees to cross the U.S. border since February 20 and have provided them with food, shelter and clothing.
Canadians are welcoming refugees, and ask the Government to do the same by first withdrawing Bill C-55.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, since September, 1984, over one million new jobs have been created and unemployment has fallen by 3 per cent. Unfortunately, these figures also underline the growth of economic regional disparities in our country. The Atlantic provinces and the west lag dramatically behind southern Ontario and Manitoba. The figures show, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said, two Canada's, one rich and promising, the other underdeveloped and underemployed.
What can we about it? A trade agreement with the United States, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and the soon to be announced western economic diversification program will all help. But I believe we can do something more as well. We need a government purchasing policy aimed specifically at creating jobs in regions of traditional high
unemployment, a policy with all criteria known in advance of tendering. The Americans do it now with their defence procurement budget. Understandably, many benefiting from the current government policy will not like it, but we must close the gap between the haves and the have-nots. We must have one Canada with equal opportunity for all.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the headlines today are full of references to a possible strike at the Post Office. I must say that this is of concern to most Canadians.
Are we as parliamentarians or is the Government simply powerless in this situation? Do we simply have to stand by and suffer the consequences of a strike on small business, on the public, with reduced service? Are we to end up blaming the unions or management, whichever we choose, and allow the Government simply to take pot-shots at the NDP because we believe in collective bargaining? Or is there an alternative? Is there a way of taking effective action in this situation? If the Government would read the report of conciliator Swan, it would see that he points out specifically that the deadline for financial self-sufficiency by next spring has forced the management of the Post Office to take long-term goals and make them into short-term objectives.
I suggest an option for the Government. The Government could say to the Post Office: "As long as your trend line is down with regard to the deficit, that is fine". This would offer some elbow room to the Post Office to negotiate a settlement rather than leaving us on a collision course leading to a postal strike.



HARBOURS AND PORTS


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, once again the federal Government has ignored the worsening state of our harbours and wharfs across the country. On May 12, 1987, the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans informed the chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that over the next five years the possibility of 30 wharfs in the Province of Nova Scotia would be closed down as a result of lack of funds. The budget for small craft harbours is simply a drop in the bucket.

June 15, 1987



*S. O. 21

[Stage Direction]
Dependable and well maintained harbours and wharfs are absolutely essential. The Government's neglect is a threat to the safety of Canadian fishermen and boaters. While the Government bails out banks and squeezes low and middle-income taxpayers for every last cent, the real needs of Canadians are ignored.
In my own constituency, the fishermen in Lingan, South Bar, Glace Bay, the Barrachois Cove, Louisbourg, Main-aDieu, Gabarouse, L'Archeveque, Port Morien and all other ports are waiting patiently for much needed moneys to make repairs to their wharfs. I urge the Government and all Members of Parliament to fulfil their responsibilities and to allocate some new, badly needed assistance to the harbours and wharfs across Canada.


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, last week while in my riding I finally came across someone who had been phoned by one of those polling organizations. She told me she was asked the usual unbiased question which went something like this: "Despite the Conservative Government's problems and their mistakes, you really wouldn't want to vote Conservative in the next election, would you?" Her reply was interesting. She said of course she would.
She told the pollsters that the Vancouver Island unemployment rate was 17 per cent two years ago. Now it is down to 10 per cent under a Progressive Conservative Government. She said that British Columbia's share of federal Supply and Services contracts had doubled over the past two years from 16 per cent to over 30 per cent. She then told the pollster that housing starts are up 50 per cent since the 1984 election and that that was good news for the foresters of Nanaimo- Alberni.
Finally, she informed her caller that she had seen more federal cabinet Ministers on Vancouver Island in the last two years than she had seen in the past 20 because the Conservative Government obviously cares.
This lady is obviously very knowledgeable and very positive. She saw the glass as being more than half full, not half empty as the media would have us believe. I am proud to have her as a constituent and she is proud to have a dynamic Progressive Conservative Government in Ottawa.



RESEARCH


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that last Friday, June 12, the riding of Matapedia-Matane which I represent was the site of an event which will be recorded in the history of my region, namely the official opening of Mont-Joli's Maurice Lamontagne Institute specializing in the sciences of the sea. My colleagues the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and the Minister of Supply and Services (Mrs. Vezina) attended the ceremonies.
Mr. Speaker, I was able to see how proud and pleased the people were, and I believe they had every reason to be because this research centre is a success, or better still, I should say a masterpiece.
Mr. Speaker, it would be appropriate to point out that this project of more than $50 million was entirely financed by the federal Government. The economic impact of the research centre will go a long way towards curing the aching sore of high unemployment in my region. I might add that this is proof positive of the significance our Government attaches to regional development.



NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, last week Ken Howland, a member of the National Parole Board, gave details of a study which showed that in Alberta between 1979 and 1985, full parole was granted to 43 per cent of non-native prisoners who applied but to only 20 per cent of natives because of a lack of parole supervisors in rural areas. This lack of services means that native prisoners have less than half the chance of being paroled of non-natives.
This kind of discrimination goes a long way toward explaining why there is a much higher percentage of natives than nonnatives in the prison system. It helps to explain the feeling among many native peoples that they are not equal under the law. It should also explain to all of us why aboriginal peoples want Canada to recognize their right to self-government with adequate finances so that they can provide proper services to their own people.
This kind of built-in discrimination must end. It will end
only when aboriginal people get the right and the resources to
control their own lives.
June 15, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



SUPPORT FOR COMMITTEE'S TRADE DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to draw attention to the Second Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. This report concerns the trade development function of the Department of External Affairs. I support the recommendations of the committee and would particularly urge the Government to ensure that trade development receives the highest possible priority in the Department and that the programs offered by trade development be made better known to Members of Parliament.
We, the Members, are willing and able to promote trade, particularly in our ridings, with the right kind of information in a readable and practical form. I also urge Canadian business and private sector associations to do more to promote export trade. They should not rely entirely upon government.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on September 25, 1986, CN Rail sent a letter to some of its employees saying:
In the context of the rationalization of our rail infrastructure, some lines have
been identified as being potential candidates for abandonment in the coming
years.
Any effort to attract new traffic on these lines is to be abandoned immediately.
For the traffic already on these lines, we must consider either, and preferably,
converting this traffic onto the intermodal system-
Two of the lines identified in this document are in the Alexandria subdivision, which is the only rail line linking Ottawa and Montreal. That would effectively end all train passenger and freight services between those two cities.
Other lines identified in the same document are the Alderdale and Beachburg subdivisions linking Ottawa to North Bay and Sudbury. That would effectively eliminate all train service between Sudbury and Montreal, including the cities of North Bay, Pembroke and Ottawa.
Someone should tell CN Rail to smarten up. This afternoon we are having a meeting of interested eastern Ontario municipalities in the Railway Committee Room and we intend to
adopt resolutions there and bring this to the attention of the Government. Hopefully the Government will tell CN Rail to sharpen up and stop attacking eastern Ontario.



CHILD CARE


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, today there was a child care lobby outside the House of Commons. Part of the reason for that lobby was the Minister of National Health and Welfare's (Mr. Epp) declaration that there would not be a federal-provincial agreement on child care prior to the end of June.
This is an issue about which many Canadians, especially women with young children, are concerned. They believe the Government promised there would finally be some action. They are very disappointed that the Minister said there will be no agreement between now and the end of June. Many of those people wanted to present a petition to the House and I would like to read from it.
WHEREAS there is a child care crisis in Canada; and
WHEREAS tax credits will not create an accessible quality child care system; and
WHEREAS an accessible child care system is an essential element for women's equality
WHEREFORE, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to provide the Provinces and Territories with immediate short-term funding to strengthen and expand non-profit child care while a new cost-sharing agreement is being negotiated; and further, to take this measure as a first step toward the public funding needed to create a system of quality, non-profit child care, accessible to all parents who wish to use it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, there is a story in this morning's Globe and Mail date-lined London, England, about a series of interviews held with so-called British experts. The experts questioned the ability of Canadian shipyards to build nuclear submarines, the capacity of the Canadian Navy to recruit and train crews, and the expertise of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to supervise safe installation and operation of reactors.
I think that is a bunch of nonsense.
1 think Canadian shipyards are capable of building any vessel that can float.
Canadian mariners and submariners are among the best in
the world.

June 15, 1987
Oral Questions
The engineering capability of AECL and other members of the Canadian nuclear engineering fraternity is of a world standard.
Quite frankly I do not think we need a bunch of foreigners to tell us whether or not we can build submarines in Canada.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is in the process of introducing questionable and Draconian security practices in its larger operations. It appears that on the same day that in Calgary searches of inside workers leaving and coming to the job were being started, Canada Post was opening in Dryden, Ontario, a pick-up outlet for parcels where security of the mails, which after all is the main objective, left a great deal to be desired.
Canada Post is setting itself up for a confrontation with its unions. It has not undertaken any sensible or intelligent discussion with those unions in regard to security procedures that may be desirable to protect the mail. This sort of provocative action, contrasted with other measures which, in effect, diminish the security of mail, will stand as a stain on the corporation's record if not erased.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sort of at a loss as to whom in the Government of Canada one directs questions on general matters today.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: The holidays haven't started yet.


John Napier Turner: I take no comfort from the sudden, belated arrival of the Minister of Justice.
I have a question on the White Paper on National Defence and do not know to whom I should address it. If I direct it to the Acting Minister of National Defence I am sure Canadians will sleep better knowing that he-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Here's the big shot now.


John Napier Turner: It's just a matter of waiting, Mr. Speaker. I was going to say, in the Prime
Minister's absence, that if the Acting Minister of National Defence delivers defence the way he is delivering the mail, the country is in real trouble.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. The debate about the White Paper on National Defence produced by the Minister of National Defence has provoked some extraordinary comments from Conservative cabinet Ministers and Conservative Members of Parliament.
However, the paper has produced some very intelligent criticism. The world's leading submarine experts have said that the Government's plan to spend billions and billions of dollars on a nuclear-powered submarine fleet is, to use the words of these experts, "incredible", "totally unreal", and "political posturing".
How can the Government justify spending up to $16 billion on a nuclear-powered submarine fleet plus unlimited maintenance costs when this project has already been labelled "unnecessary" and "rubbish"?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the White Paper on National Defence was designed specifically, among other things, to invite discussion and debate among Canadians and others as a result of 16 years of very substantial neglect by our predecessors in regard to this vital aspect of our national well-being.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That's a Green Paper, not a White Paper.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Everyone and his brother will have an opinion on various variables of this very important matter. We are satisfied that the effect of the White Paper will strengthen Canada's sovereignty and will make a major commitment to the well-being of our Armed Forces which can serve Canada in a strengthened and very important way both here and around the world.


WHITE PAPER-EFFICIENCY-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the nuclear powered submarines project proposed by the Minister of National Defence, to use the Prime Minister's words, is not a subject for discussion but rather a subject of ridicule on the international scene.
Does it not embarrass the Prime Minister that one of the great world experts on naval matters, Captain John Moore, qualified the White Paper as rubbish? Couldn't the Prime Minister find a better way to spend billions of dollars than spending it on a project that is of no use either to Canadian sovereignty or national defence?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are not the slightest bit concerned about the opinions of all and sundry on the scope of the White Paper. It is a national document and its purpose is to make up for fifteen years of lost time and lost spending, as a result of which the
June 15, 1987

previous Government left Canada in such a deplorable state in terms of our national defence. We have made proposals which will not necessarily meet with unamimous approval but the White Paper's objectives and what it intends to achieve are, in fact, to strengthen Canada's position as a military power, a military power that has certain responsibilities to its alliances and its partners, but especially to Canada's sovereignty and to the Canadian people.


John Napier Turner: It appears that some very large egos in Cabinet have gotten in the way of common sense in producing this paper.


VIEWS OF AMBASSADOR FOR DISARMAMENT
John Napier Turner: The
latest person to attack the White Paper on Defence produced by the Minister of National Defence is Canada's Ambassador for Disarmament, Douglas Roche, who was, as Hon. Members know, a distinguished Conservative Member of Parliament and is the Prime Minister's personal appointee to this post. Why has the Government introduced a defence policy which is inconsistent, in the opinion of Ambassador Roche, with Canada's arms reduction policy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already indicated that the White Paper, which is a major initiative on the behalf of Canada's defence, will provoke commentary, not all of it unanimous or favourable, from different sources, which is quite normal and natural in a democracy.
The fact is that we are trying to make up for 16 years of lost time by the predecessor Government where the Canadian Armed Forces fell into a shameful state of disrepair and neglect. This Government is making up in a profound commitment to NATO, NORAD and to our alliances to ensure that Canadian men and women who serve in the Armed Forces are given the instruments they need to do so at all times with courage and pride, which was what was lacking because of the neglect of the previous Government.
My right hon. friend says that the ambassador stands here and some expert stands there. The Liberals will be given an opportunity to tell the Canadian people where they stand on the question of national defence.


DEFENCE EQUIPMENT PURCHASING POLICY
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, with the speed at which this Government is working, I hope we do not hit a crisis.
The Minister of Supply and Services has strongly condemned the Minister of National Defence for not understanding what regional development is all about. She went on to state that she will be requesting approval from Cabinet for a new federal purchasing policy for defence equipment which
Oral Questions
will relate to regional economic development because she does not feel that the Government is doing enough.
Will the Government support the Minister of Supply and Services for such a policy? Or will there be another split in Cabinet with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Supply and Services holding the fort for regional development in this country? Where does the Prime Minister stand on that question?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any doubt where this Party stands; it stands behind the White Paper and what it stands for. We are not too sure about the Liberal Party, given statements made by the Hon. Jean-Jacques Blais, former Minister of Defence for the Liberal Government, in favour of the nuclear submarines about which the current Party seems to have some questions.
On the question of defence purchases, getting full value for the dollar is the fundamental goal of defence. There is no question that the Government recognizes that defence spending is an important economic tool, and there is also no question that regional development and those factors will be, as they were in the past, taken into account when these major purchases are made.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: There is an obvious split in Cabinet given the words of the Minister of Supply and Services and of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs right now.


STATEMENT MADE BY MEMBER FOR SCARBOROUGH EAST
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, following the remarks of the Minister of Supply and Services about the Minister of National Defence, the Hon. Member for Scarborough East has been quoted as saying: "I hope the PM would shove a dish rag in her mouth." The Hon. Member for Scarborough East is Chairman of the NATO Parliamentary Association. He is also Chairman of his Party's caucus committee on national defence.
Will the Prime Minister be asking the Hon. Member for Scarborough East to apologize to the Minister of Supply and Services for these unfortunate remarks or is he in agreement with them? Will he confirm by his refusal to answer that there is indeed a serious split in his Cabinet?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, of course there is no split in Cabinet at all. The Minister of Supply and Services fully endorses the position of the Government in regard to the White Paper and has so conveyed that in answer to questions from the media.
In regard to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Scarborough East, he has written to the Minister to withdraw his statement, which I think all Members of Parliament would agree was unfortunate.

June 15, 1987
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions about some promises the Government has been making for the past seven months. First, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. According to the latest figures from Statistics Canada, Canadian companies owe $28 billion in deferred taxes. Could the Minister guarantee that these companies will not receive a retroactive reduction of these taxes as a result of his tax reform?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have said from time to time here in the House that Hon. Members should wait for the White Paper on tax reform to be tabled. 1 think I said all the questions the Hon. Member has asked will be answered.


MINISTER'S IMPENDING ANNOUNCEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I heard what the Minister had to say. I hope that he will at least begin to clarify his approach. He talked about his approach in the past before the day of his White Paper.
Since corporations in Canada, according to the most recent figures, owe some $28 billion in deferred taxes, and since any tax reform will not give retroactively a benefit to individual taxpayers, will the Minister guarantee the people of Canada that any general corporate tax reduction that he may announce on Thursday will not enable those companies to make any retroactive saving on the money that they now owe to the people of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that the Hon. Member has said from time to time about which we can agree. There need to be a number of changes made to the corporate tax system, which is one of the objectives of tax reform.
As I stated in my previous answer, I think it is important for him to be a little bit more patient and to wait until the White Paper comes down on Thursday. It will deal with a number of these questions in a very full way.


CHILD CARE
John Edward Broadbent: 
Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, the Government, as the Hon. Member knows, has made a very strong commitment to child care. There is no question that it is an urgent situation. The Prime Minister has said as much, as has the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as have I.
This was first declared an urgent problem in 1971-


John Edward Broadbent: Right!


Barbara Jean McDougall: -by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. What is important to point out is that we have spent two years making progress on this issue. We are working toward coming up with the best quality system possible.
That is the commitment of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. And, believe me, under this Government the delay will not be 17 years.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. We all know that negotiations between Canada Post and the unions are not going smoothly, which means that we may be faced with a strike as of midnight tonight. Thousands of Canadians may be deprived of a service they consider essential, and thousands of small businesses may be faced with problems that may lead to lay-offs and even the outright loss of jobs.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he realizes that he now has a golden opportunity to demonstrate that his much vaunted reputation as a conciliator is based on fact, and that he could take the kind of action that is needed and take it now-the kind of action that most of his Ministers have refused to take so far-and intervene directly in the negotiations between Canada Post and the unions to forestall a strike that nobody wants.
June 15, 1987


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member just said, negotiations are going on, and I think that any comment at this critical stage in the negotiations would be inappropriate and inopportune.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTERVENE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Government's policy seems to be to watch the negotiations from an arm's length position and to wait until we have a strike on our hands before it will act.
This is a golden opportunity for the Prime Minister to prove to the Canadian public that there is a basis for his reputation as the so-called "great conciliator". I urge him to get involved personally in an attempt to avoid a strike by the letter carriers. Let's not wait until there is a strike before action is taken.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend that the Prime Minister is an excellent conciliator. That is a matter about which there is no doubt.
At this point we are following the negotiation process. As provided by the Canada Labour Code, the Government, through the Department of Labour, has appointed a conciliator and a commissioner. A report has been tabled. The parties are now negotiating head to head, a very critical stage in the process, and we should not intervene at this point other than by way of encouraging the parties to come to an agreement.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that parents are very concerned with the delay in taking action on child care. The children are getting older as the weeks go by. I should like to ask-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I do not think many parents consider this a laughing matter. Child care is urgently needed.


An Hon. Member:: It is your statement that is the laughing matter.


An Hon. Member:: Only Tories think it is a laughing matter.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Will the Government introduce the federal legislation outlining the national objectives for a national child care program, and will it do so before we recess for the summer?
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, both at the First Ministers' Conference and at the Symposium on the Family sponsored by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, outlined the principles for a day care program supported by this Government, those principles being affordability, accessibility, flexibility, and quality.


John Edward Broadbent: And delay!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Those are principles about which we care a great deal. We have been working very hard on a child care program. While we considered the June 30 deadline an ambitious one, it was one that we had hoped to meet.
This Government's commitment to a child care program remains, and we will have a system in place that all Hon. Members will be able to support.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: If those are the principles, why can't they be put into a Bill to be introduced in the House? In that way the federal objectives would be clear, thus facilitating the negotiations with the provinces.


PETITIONS SEEKING SHORT-TERM FUNDING
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Today, thousands of petitions were presented to the Government and to the Prime Minister personally, requesting that the federal Government provide immediate short-term funding to strengthen and expand non-profit child care while the new cost-sharing agreement is being negotiated.
What is the Prime Minister's response to those petitioners?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the petitions that were presented have been organized for the Prime Minister and for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This Government is strongly committed to child care and is moving toward that goal.
Throwing money at the problem is not the answer. We must first have in place a policy and an agreement with the provinces. We must know what it is we are paying for. That is what Canadians want.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.
Several newspapers state today that the Government will not table its response on daycare before next Fall. We have been listening to the answers of the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, and since the Prime Minister himself has made a commitment to make this a priority item, I would like the Prime Minister to tell me whether or not the answer will be tabled by June 30. It is a very important question and also a very simple one to answer. Are we or are we not going to have an answer on the matter of daycare before June 30?

June 15, 1987
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has already said that we will not be meeting the June 30 deadline. That is not to say that we are not making progress on the issue or that we will not have a commitment in place for the Prime Minister when he meets with the First Ministers in November.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I would also like the Prime Minister to tell me how much money his Government is willing to spend on quality daycare services, considering that the Government is willing to spend several billion dollars to track submarines. Given those circumstances, is the Government ready to tell us how much money it intends to allot for quality daycare services?

We want to know where the Prime Minister stands on this issue.


Ms. Copps:: Absolutely.
[ Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member stating a policy of the Liberal party against the provisions of the White Paper on National Defence? That would be most interesting. If it is the position of the Official Opposition, we would be very interested to know about it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What is your position on day care?


Martin Brian Mulroney: With respect to daycare, we have inherited, as the Hon. Member knows, a very difficult situation. We are amending, developing and identifying with the provinces a new position which will be proudly acknowledged by all Hon. Members including the Hon. Member for Outremont when our great national project on behalf of women and children in Canada is submitted to the House.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance relates to the impact of tax reform on the $28 billion's worth of deferred taxes owed the Canadian Government by Canadian Corporations, since a 20 per cent reduction in the corporate tax rate could put $6 billion in the pockets of those corporations.
We know that where a Canadian would have taxes owing Revenue Canada, he would pay the full 100 per cent. Would that policy apply to corporate deferred taxes, or does the Minister intend to retroactively grant corporations a tax reduction worth $6 billion?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful if the finance critic for the New Democratic Party were to collaborate with his Leader before Question Period, because that is the precisely the same question that his Leader just put to me.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my simple reason for asking the question is to determine whether deferred corporate taxes will be paid in full, or whether the Government intends to give a retroactive tax cut to corporations through a corporate tax cut which would apply to deferred taxes.



POSSIBLE EFFECT OF TAX CUT ON CORPORATIONS

Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, taking three companies alone, Canadian Pacific, Bell Canada, and Imperial Oil, they have among them $5.4 billion of deferred taxes sitting on their books.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Michael Morris Cassidy: If the tax rate on corporations is cut by 20 per cent, those companies will realize a windfall of $1 billion by way of tax savings.
Is it the Minister's intention to give these three companies a windfall of $1 billion, or will he ensure that tax cuts are only available in the future and that corporations do not get a retroactive tax cut as well?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is exactly the same as the one I gave to his Leader a few minutes ago.
The White Paper will be brought in on Thursday evening. At that time this question and a number of other questions which the Hon. Member has been putting to me in relation to the taxation of corporations and individuals will be answered.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, my question is directed to whomever might be answering for him.
In light of the very serious allegations made last week in
respect of design flaws in the Perry nuclear generating station
June 15, 1987

in Ohio, just some 50 miles south of the Canadian border, will the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister advise the Elouse whether, since the allegations were made public, we have had discussions with the United States specifically about the matter?
Will he also advise the Elouse if the Canadian Government feels confident that we can rely on the word of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to protect the welfare of Canadian citizens, in light of the allegation that they have covered up the situation in recent weeks?


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to respond to that question on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Clearly, Canadians are increasingly concerned with nuclear issues, and since the Chernobyl accident especially those concerns have been increasing.
Mr. Speaker, I have checked and it has been proven that officials from the Department of External Affairs have made known to the US Department our concerns in that respect, and we are expecting reports on that incident or allegations.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-POSTPONEMENT OF FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING

Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. His office confirmed this morning that the scheduled meeting of First Ministers to discuss Canada-U.S. free trade negotiations has been postponed several weeks into July.
It is a surprising development considering that negotiators on both sides have indicated that major political decisions must be taken by the end of the month on crucial matters such as investments, subsidies, services, and others.
Does the postponement for several weeks of these meetings indicate that the Government of Canada intends to go it alone and make these decisions on crucial issues without active involvement with or consultation by the provincial Premiers so that they will be able to determine and indicate what is their stand on these very vital matters in the negotiations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker, not at all; quite the contrary.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONSULTATION

Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is so forthcoming, perhaps he is prepared to tell us why it is the meetings were delayed so long
Oral Questions
and why decisions will be made in the negotiations involving these major issues without the involvement of the First Ministers of the provinces.
Is it an example of the new federalism about which the Prime Minister is talking, that matters involving crucial issues affecting the provinces will be undertaken without their consultation or involvement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend is referring to the new federalism whereby the Auto Pact was negotiated without so much as a by your leave of the Government of Ontario under the previous Government, then of course we are doing things quite differently. There is a much greater degree of consultation, as my hon. friend knows.
He says: "Why has the meeting been delayed so long?" It has not been delayed so long. It has been rolled over for a couple of weeks, simply because the Americans have yet to respond in concrete terms to a number of very important issues put forward by Canada.
In the absence of any kind of specific response on these matters, it was felt prudent to await their tabling of answers in the coming days so that we can then seize the First Ministers with tangible realities as opposed to opinions which sometimes come from the newspapers and via the newspapers.
I think my hon. friend would agree that a postponement, even of modest duration, in the circumstances would be extremely prudent and helpful not only to the negotiations but to the consultative process involving the First Ministers.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It concerns the proposed purchase of nuclear-powered submarines.
I should like the Prime Minister to explain to the people of Canada how his Government expects to pay under $500 million each for nuclear-powered submarines for which the Royal Navy today, in 1987, is paying $530 million?
In the White Paper it is proposed that the purchase of our submarines would be over a 10-year period. What would the price be over the 10-year period? What is the estimated price?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Defence has pointed out, the anticipated price is about 1.6 times the cost of conventional submarines. We stand by those figures. They are not wild guesses. They are not inaccurate. The person quoted in the newspaper happened to be a consultant employed by DND on conventional submarines.

June 15, 1987
Oral Questions
These figures are quite accurate. I might point out to the Hon. Member that no decision has been taken to purchase British subs. The French are also in the game.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We on this side of the House are finding it increasingly difficult to get factual answers to a very serious question. Both Ministers are away again today.



GOVERNMENT'S PROJECTED COST

Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has stated that the total cost, including infrastructure, will be about $7.5 billion over the lifetime of the contract, which would be about 15 years. However, the editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, one of the great experts in the world, says that it will be at least $11 billion, and other experts put it as high as $16 billion.
When will the Government tell the people of Canada what is its cost estimate as of now?


Harvie Andre: The Minister of Defence has-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: No, he hasn't.


Harvie Andre: The cost of nuclear submarines is approximately 1.6 times the cost of conventional submarines; support services, about 1.8. In exchange for that we get a submarine which is several times more effective in terms of allowing Canada to meet its defence commitments.
The facts are there. If the Hon. Member does not want to accept them, that is his problem, not the Government's.



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Minister of Public Works, but in his absence I will put it to the Prime Minister.
According to a report published last week, one out of eight women suffers psychological, economic, sexual or verbal abuse. At a time when the Government should be acting rather than enforcing, it is forcing a friendship centre in my constituency out of existence by hitting it with a more than $3,000 monthly rent increase. Can the Minister, or in his absence the Prime Minister answer the question?
Is he prepared to ask the National Capital Commission, owner of the building, to reverse that decision-enjoin the NCC to keep on subsidizing the Maison d'amitie, and as in the past, until we have a national policy on abused women, to keep on not only subsidizing but put forward a national policy along
with its provincial counterparts in order to reach a solution on such a difficult problem?


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the case of the friendship residence is very well known at the Public Works Department. For ten years it has been rented for $1 a year with a goal to encourage that cause. Recently however the National Capital Commission took the view that it was not its responsibility to directly subsidize that kind of activity and it has urged people to get funding from more adequate sources. It is not a matter of cutting funds, but simply of restoring profitability to a property that had not been reviewed for the past 10 years.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Maison d'amitie pays all the costs of a usual tenant. It does not pay rent on the basis of the market value of the building, but the previous Government accepted for ten years to subsidize that undertaking because it meets a serious need in the Ottawa-Vanier constituency.



REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CONVENE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SUBJECT OF BATTERED WOMEN

Jean-Robert Gauthier: My supplementary question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister again. Will the Prime Minister take it upon himself to convene a national conference on the question of battered women? Will he ask his provincial counterparts when they meet in November to put that question on the agenda so that we can come to grips with this most difficult and serious problem?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the problem of battered women in Canada represents one of our most serious social and legal challenges. As a country we have not come to grips with what is not only a societal problem but a very serious malady which is affecting women, families, and children, the fibre of our society. The response collectively of this country, provincial, federal and so on, has been inadequate to a very grave, damaging problem.
I want to give my hon. friend the assurance that we are working with all levels of government and will commit all the resources required to ensure that women so affected by these violent crimes receive full justice in Canada-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Start with the National Capital Commission.


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 will be working with my hon. friend and other Members of Parliament on this very sensitive matter to ensure that Canada deals effectively and firmly with the problem affecting battered women in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 15, 1987



FILM INDUSTRY


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns film distribution policy in Canada and his Government's objectives. Is it the Government's objective that film distribution in Canada be under the ownership and control of Canadians? Yes or no?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will have noticed we have indicated that we intend to bring in legislation which will help to correct a situation which has existed in this country for far too long where the domestic distribution system is, in fact, controlled from outside the country. We want to take steps to correct that.



REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

Lynn McDonald: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. What answer has he given the American Senators who, on June 2 of this year, sent him a scathing letter denouncing film distribution policy in this country? What reply has he given? Wouldn't the best reply be to introduce that legislation, which I understand is ready, and proceed with debate so that we can actually have something happen to improve the situation concretely?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, again I would say to the Hon. Member that we have indicated the steps that we are prepared to take. Certainly the decision of the Government is to introduce legislation. I want to assure the Hon. Member, however, that the legislation will be introduced as quickly as possible.
Last week the Member was protesting when I brought in copyright legislation. That was long overdue as well. I want to be able to take these steps one by one. I hope the Hon. Member will not have the same negative reaction when I bring in the film legislation.


Lynn McDonald: That is untrue, Flora.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last week at the Economic Summit we learned that there will no let up in the grain and agriculture trade wars at least for the next two years. We also know that the U.S. Congress recently passed legislation to put another billion into the Export Enhancement Program and broaden the number of countries on which the U.S. can use that program.
Oral Questions
In the Prime Minister's meeting last Thursday morning with the President of the United States did he raise the matter with the United States about using its Export Enhancement Program against Canada's traditional grain customers, such as Russia and Saudi Arabia? Did he get any commitment from the President that the Americans would not use this Export Enhancement Program against Canada's traditional grain customers, a program which is having a devastating impact on the price of wheat and grain for Canadian farmers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I raised this matter with the President and with other leaders at the Venice Summit.
I know my hon. friend will have been pleased by the results in agriculture where we reaffirmed the strong commitment to agricultural reform agreed to at the OECD and Canada's proposal for a mid-term review to implement these commitments. I think the leadership taken by the Government of Canada at Tokyo, where agricultural problems were placed on the agenda of the summit for the first time, and now the thorough airing which resulted in some concrete steps, will be of a nature to encourage western and eastern farmers. I know my hon. friend will want to applaud that very sincerely.
With regard to the specific problem involved in American agriculture, yes, indeed, I brought that to the attention of the President, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury. This is part and parcel of the reforms that we hope the seven have agreed on to improve the conditions of agriculture in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Algoma, a short supplementary, please.



POSITION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister say whether or not he got a commitment from the United States administration that it will not use the increased Export Enhancement Program against Canada's traditional customers? Would he mention that because obviously there is not going to be a drawback by the European Community of those subsidies for at least the next two years? Surely we can get a commitment from our best trading customer, the United States, that it will not use that Export Enhancement Program against our traditional customers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have received no specific commitment in regard to action that the United States is contemplating in the next couple of weeks or months.
Clearly the communique and the results of the discussions are very encouraging in that they deal with the acceptance by the United States and Europe of the fact that the debilitating war of subsidies cannot go on. It is killing all the participants. It is damaging countries such as Canada, such as representatives of the Cairns Group who are free and fair traders in agriculture and who are being driven out of traditional

June 15, 1987
Oral Questions
markets by artificial subsidies granted to American and European farmers.
I made that case, very, very strongly and strenuously in Tokyo and in Venice. One of the results finally is an acknowledgement that this situation cannot go on and we have to sit down at the GATT and together deal with it to bring it to an end. In the process of so doing, we hope that Canada will recapture its traditional market shares without these debilitating subsidies being carried on the backs of the Canadian taxpayers.



AGRICULTURAL POLICY-INTRODUCTION OF NEW PROGRAMS

Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. After the Ottawa round of the Cairns Group, the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board announced that Canada would participate with the Cairns Group to stop subsidizing agriculture production and begin subsidizing incomes, something which the Prime Minister translated fairly closely into supporting farmers rather than farming, at the Venice Summit.
Since Canada's Minister of Agriculture has always advocated a market oriented approach to subsidization, with payments being based on production, what kinds of programs does the Government intend to put in place in order to meet this new policy commitment?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the programs that the Government will introduce on behalf of agriculture-we have introduced many as my hon. friend knows-will be adapted to the circumstances and designed to help Canadian farmers who work so hard, make so many sacrifices and who are now being unfairly penalized. We will be working with farmers. I will be out meeting with farmers and farm groups again and with provincial Governments, and the policies, we hope, will be adapted to the wellbeing of Canadian farmers.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre, a short supplementary.



REVIEW OF DOMESTIC PROGRAMS

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, given the international commitment, can the Prime Minister tell this House what the Government has done with regard to studying the existing domestic programs in Canada which have been, as he knows, following the theory that the market and production are things that should determine the level of subsidization. Does he have a study under way which will determine which programs, if any, meet the Cairns criteria- which of our own programs?
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr, Speaker, you can rest assured-


An Hon. Member:: Hold on.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was so taken with the opening comments of the Minister that I too would like to hear the answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Merrithew:: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Prime Minister.
The whole matter of subsidies to our own farm groups and farmers around the world is one of great concern to the Minister. We have undertaken a complete review of all the programs for subsidies. They are presently being reviewed again. Undoubtedly there has been no firm decision on any programs which would need to be cut in the near future.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the House that this will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Windsor West.



CHILD CARE


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for the status of women. Earlier in Question Period she said the Government would not meet the June 30 deadline for making a response to the report of the House of Commons committee on child care. The new rules of the House indicate that such a response must be made within 150 days, an extension of the 120 days in the previous rules.
Will the Government make a commitment right now to meet that deadline of 150 days as of July 30, and if not, why not?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member has been working too hard, or I have, or someone has. I understood that he mentioned in the question June 30. The response is due in July, as I understand it. If the Hon. Member would like, we could reconvene in July.



GOVERNMENT POSITION

Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House indicate that when the committee requests that there be a comprehensive response by the Government, it is due within 150 days of tabling the report. The original rules indicated that it was due within 120 days and that is why we were speaking of a June 30 response. We have added another 30 days to the deadline according to the interim rules which we have just made permanent, so I would like the Minister to tell us whether or not the Government will meet the new deadline and if not, why not.
June 15, 1987


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there shall be a response within the time frame and there shall be in Canada a comprehensive child care program.



WAYS AND MEANS


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask with regard to Ways and Means Motion No. 16 that an Order of the Day be designated.



POINT OF ORDER


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order with regard to a petition I tried to present today. If I may, I would like to indicate to the Chair the contents of the petition so the Chair will be able to understand of what I am speaking.
The petition is that, whereas there is a child care crisis in Canada and whereas tax credits will not create an accessible quality child care health system and whereas an accessible child care system is an essential element for women's equality, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to provide the provinces and territories with the immediate short-term funding to strengthen and expand non-profit child care while a new cost-shared agreement is being negotiated, and further, to take this measure as a first step toward the public funding needed to create a system of quality non-profit child care accessible to all parents who wish to use it.
According to the rules of the House of Commons, I tried to present that petition to the Clerk of Petitions and I was refused permission to do so on the grounds of Beauchesne's Citation No. 685(3) which reads as follows:
The House will refuse to receive any petition that directly asks for a grant of money out of the public revenues unless such grant has first been recommended by the Crown. But the House does not reject petitions which ask simply for legislation or for "such measures as the House may think expedient to take" with respect to public works.
I respect the Citation in Beauchesne's cited by the Clerk of Petitions in refusing my petition. However, I believe that in the history of petitions presented to the Crown there has been an effort by petitioners to make it clear that they wish the Government to act. I believe it to be historically correct that many petitions received by the Crown and later by Parliament
Point of Order-Mr. Murphy
have in fact required the expenditure of public funds. I believe it goes against the principle of the public petitioning Parliament to be told that petitioners cannot do so when there is a requirement for an expenditure of funds.
I would like the Chair to review the Citation, to look at the precedents and the present necessity and to recognize that people who sign petitions of their own volition and who ask Parliament or the Government to act are making a request of Parliament. They should have a right just like any other group of citizens to have their petitions heard. I hope you would so rule, Mr. Speaker.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have heard my hon. friend's comments and I have no difficulty with them, and in fact would encourage you to review my friend's case. I am looking at the citation my colleague cited and I would hope that in 1987, we would not bear too heavily on a precedent listed in Beauchesne's as being set in 1869.
As my hon. friend has said, Members of Parliament are often presented with petitions which are general in nature. I would suggest that the citation is probably specific in nature. Perhaps you might take a look at the petition and, if it is general in nature as are petitions received by all Members from time to time, perhaps you could bring down a ruling which would be of assistance to the Clerk of Petitions when considering future petitions.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any further Hon. Members rising on this point of order?
I have listened carefully to the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). The matter is one of interest and is perhaps one of importance. I am intrigued because the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Lewis) has risen in support of the position the Hon. Member for Churchill is urging on the Chair, which is specifically that a ruling in Beauchesne's should be considered very carefully as to whether it is applicable when petitions are presented to the House which may involve the expenditure of public money but which are general enough in nature that they do not specifically refer to a particular grant to a particular person, organization or group. I think that is the distinction the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has fastened onto with appropriate cogency.
The Chair will consider the matter and will report back to the House as soon as possible. I will look very carefully at the ruling, keeping in mind what the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out about its date, and keeping in mind what the Hon. Member for Churchill has said about the right of Canadians to present petitions to this place, a right which undoubtedly is important and should be interpreted as broadly as possible. I thank Hon. Members.

June 15, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn (for the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):
That, further to the notice given on Thursday, June 11, 1987, by the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council, and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 117, in relation to Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, four further hours be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and four hours to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the end of the four hours allotted to the report stage consideration and to the third reading stage consideration of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, government propaganda would have us believe that because of Bill C-18, we in Canada will in time have an efficient and low-cost transportation service. It would have us believe that it will provide a balance between the interests of the shipper on the one hand and the transportation carrier on the other. Government propaganda would have us believe that Bill C-18 will give us a more flexible and competitive transportation environment. However, when I listened to the Government's very carefully prepared message indicating that Bill C-18 will achieve an efficient, low-cost transportation system, I was aware that to a significant extent this thesis is based upon the results of deregulation in the country to the south of us, our neighbour, the United States of America.
It has been said by some that the Staggers Act of 1980, for example, is working well in the United States. It is working well, it is claimed, with respect to the relatively low increases in railway freight rates. It is working well, its advocates claim, with respect to increased rail sensitivity to shippers' needs. It is working well, its advocates say, because there are significant gains in railroad economic efficiency. All of these conclusions are supported by the Economics and Finance Department of the Association of American Railroads.
If the propaganda ended there I think we could promptly support C-18 and we would see no reason to oppose a time allocation measure. However, many Members of this House know there is another side to this story of deregulation, and that other side has at least three facets. There are probably many more but since my time is limited I mention only three: safety; impact on regional development; and the effect upon jobs in the transportation industry.
Many Members have said there is nothing to be concerned about with respect to safety. They have asked us to take their
assurances on that. The Standing Committee on Transport was given no mandate in its terms of reference to deal with safety in a deregulated environment. Indeed, witnesses repeatedly expressed their amazement that the committee was attempting to comment on deregulation in the total absence of any analysis of safety standards. No less a reputable organization than the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association said:
Even in Freedom to Move itself, safety is mentioned but in passing, with unsupported statements to the effect that economic regulatory reform will not be permitted to be detrimental to safety standards.
CALPA also said:
Safety concerns had so grown by last year that the U.S. Secretary of Transportation ordered a "white gloves" safety audit which resulted in 16 of 43 airlines, both old and new, being disciplined. Since that time, in-depth inspections have resulted in further action, the most notable being the record $1.5 million fine recently levied against American Airlines for numerous safety deficiencies.
When Hon. Members tell us that we should not worry about safety, that we have looked into it sufficiently, that we should accept their assurances, I say no, we cannot. There are concerns about safety and we need more evidence before this House gives its approval to C-18.
My second point is with respect to regional development. There is growing concern in this country that the Conservative Government is abandoning its role in regional economic development. I do not have the time now to cite all the evidence to support that concern, but C-18 as amended offers no more than a weak and feeble nod in the direction of concern for regional development.
I am aware that the original Bill was amended in committee. I am aware that Clause 3(1 )(d) now says that transportation is recognized as a key to regional economic development and commercial viability of transportation links is balanced with regional economic development objectives in order that the potential economic strengths of each region may be realized. I say that is weak and ineffectual.
I compare that to the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud). Rather than saying commercial viability must be balanced with regional development, the Hon. Member argued that where a service or facility is required for the achievement of national or regional social and economic development objectives, these objectives should take precedence over the objective of commercial viability whenever the two are in conflict.
Thus on the one hand in the amendment to the Bill which was accepted we have no more than a tacit recognition that somehow regional development may be important. Through this Bill we are opening the door to a more efficient and competitive industry but we are paying a price with respect to nation building. We all know we cannot build a nation if we simply write off the regions of this country. The federal and provincial Governments must be able to take combined action in order to maintain and build transportation facilities if it is in the public interest to do so.
June 15, 1987

For many years the Governments of the maritime provinces have advocated that the National Transportation Act should endorse the following regional development principles: First, transportation is recognized as a key to regional economic development; and second, where there is a conflict between regional economic development objectives and commercial viability, regional economic development must take precedence. Without a commitment to that second principle the development objectives of the first bear no weight and are of no significance whatsoever.
My third point has to do with jobs. Again we have to look at deregulation in the U.S. Some 30 labour organizations in Canada appeared before the committee and each expressed fear that the deregulation proposals would result in significant job loss, displacement or wage reduction. There is very little hard evidence available in Canada about the effects of deregulation. We just do not know what they will be. However, we do have the American experience.
It is indicated that in the U.S. some 40,000 workers in the airline industry have lost their jobs since 1980. Over the same time 150,000 jobs were lost in the railway industry. The trucking sector is somewhat more difficult to assess, but it is estimated that employment was reduced by as much as one-third. Somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 union members were put out of work in that sector and they have not been replaced.
Direct job loss is one aspect of deregulation, but only one. Those who were able to retain their jobs have been under tremendous and persistent pressure to make concessions, to reduce their wages, to give up their hard won benefits, and to relax the standards of working conditions. As companies seek to cut costs in order to compete with one another the first people they turn to are their employees. The reduced cost to shippers being held out as a carrot by the proponents of deregulation is being paid for in very large part by the workers in the transportation industry.
There is no doubt that a new regulatory regime will create job dislocation and it is therefore imperative that this legislation, Bill C-18, contain some measures to deal with that. Because it does not, I say that this time allocation motion is not one that we on this side of the House and in this Party can accept.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 3.19 o'clock p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 117 have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
The question is the following one. Mr. Hnatyshyn (for Mr. Mazankowski) moved:
That, further to the notice given on Thursday, June 11, 1987, by the Deputy
Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council, and pursuant to the
National Transportation Act, 1986
provisions of Standing Order 117, in relation to Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, four further hours be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and four hours to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the end of the four hours allotted to the report stage consideration and to the third reading stage consideration of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Motion adopted.


BELL CANADA ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-13, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada, as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are two motions standing on the Order Paper and Notices in amendment to Bill C-13, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada. One stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) and the other in the name of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). They will be grouped together for debate but voted on separately.


Mrs. Finestone:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like some clarification from the Chair with respect to this issue. The Chair has just announced that the two amendments will be dealt with together. Is that correct?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: They will be grouped together for debate but voted on separately.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I respectfully suggest that these are two separate issues. Clause 7 and the amendment which I have proposed to it deal with the possibility of Bell
Canada and its affiliates moving into the communication, cable and broadcast field, whereas Clause 12 deals with information required by the CRTC with respect to Bell Canada and its affiliates.
I respectfully suggest to the Chair that these motions are not related and that they should be debated separately.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. As the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) has just said, my motion is quite different from hers. I think it would be appropriate that they be kept quite separate since they deal with different aspects of the legislation and different clauses.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, in an attempt to help you and enable the House to get on with its work, could we not begin the debate on Motion No. 1 in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone)? While you take the matter under advisement, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member might begin her remarks and perhaps later you might let us know what your ruling is in this case.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair has considered the interventions of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). It is true that the motions apply to different clauses of the Bill. However, as both relate to a change in the definition of a person vis-a-vis an affiliate, they are sufficiently related that they can be debated concurrently. There will, however, be separate votes.


Sheila Finestone: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask how you are planning to deal with the time allocation with respect to the debate on each of the motions?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There is no time allocation. It will depend upon the number of Members who will participate in the debate.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-13, be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 8 and 9 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"7. Neither the Company nor any affiliate of the Company shall directly or"


Lynn McDonald: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-13, be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 36 to 39 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
June 15, 1987

"in respect of any affiliate in the same manner and to the same extent as if
the affiliate were the Company."


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, at the outset I wish to point out that I regret the decision of the Chair in respect of these two motions. I do not think the decision allows for the kind of debate that these motions deserve. I sincerely regret the decision of the Chair. Nonetheless, I shall comply with it.
Clause 7 of Bill C-13 would prohibit Bell Canada or any company controlled by it from operating a broadcasting undertaking.
This is a continuation of the prohibition contained in the 1968 Bell Canada Special Act. Parliament has consistently opposed Bell Canada entering the broadcasting field. Due to the recent reorganization of Bell Canada, it is now in a position to circumvent the prohibition contained in Clause 7.
Consider the following example: the new holding company, Bell Canada Enterprises, could incorporate a subsidiary such as Bell Canada TV and, for very little cost, connect the transmission facilities of that subsidiary, through its affiliate, Bell Canada, at a very reasonable rate, to virtually every home in Canada. Such a transaction would not run afoul of Clause 7 as it now reads.
The problem we are looking at here, Madam Speaker, is the endeavour by Bell Canada Enterprises to become involved in cable and broadcasting. The Canadian Cable and Television Association, the CCTA, has voiced its concern about this gap in Clause 7 of the Bill, a gap which could have a very important and negative impact on its members.
The broadcasting industry is fragmented at the base already. It has the fragmentation of the advertising dollar and a fragmentation of audience. The last thing it needs is further competition.
We are in the midst of examining and evaluating the impact of a changed Broadcasting Act on our society, and it would be most ill-advised to bring a new player into the game at this juncture. I know that the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) has been spoken to. She has made statements supporting the cable industry, statements contrary to the view of Bell Canada. However, she has not translated those views into action.
The Minister has obviously not been listening to the cable companies, and has perhaps had her arm twisted or her ear bent by Bell Canada.
It is significant that the CRTC, in its April, 1983 report to Cabinet on the proposed reorganization of Bell Canada, concluded that the Bell Canada group should continue to be prohibited by law from holding broadcasting licences.
There was an extensive review, an exhaustive review, with public hearings and a great deal of public discussion, all indicating a concern over the degree of concentration of control and conflict of interest that could arise in the Canadian broadcasting industry if affiliates of Bell Canada Enterprises were allowed to hold broadcasting licences.
Bell Canada Act
The commission concluded that the public interest would best be served by the separate, and to some extent, competitive evolution of the cable and telephone industries as separate entities. The conclusions of the CRTC are as valid today as they were then.
I should like to bring to the attention of Hon. Members what the commission had to say. I quote from the 1983 report of the CRTC, as follows:
The Commission is of the view that Bell and the other members of the Bell group should continue to be subject to the limitation prohibiting the holding of broadcasting licences, which under the Broadcasting Act includes licences to operate cable television systems.
At this stage of rapid evolution in the communications industry, the Commission would be concerned with the degree of concentration that could arise in the industry if the Bell group were allowed to enter the broadcasting field.
The commission went on to point out that the book value of the telecommunications assets of Bell Canada at that point was in excess of $13 billion, whereas the book value of the assets held by the private television, radio and cable industry was around $1.2 billion. So we are looking at a giant ready to gobble up an industry.
It would be most unhealthy for Canadians if such acquisitions by Bell could take place. I urge the Minister to consider the proposed amendments favourably. I know that she has made certain observations in this regard. I should like to underscore that the CRTC has assessed the situation on a number of occasions and has consistently affirmed and reaffirmed its resolve that Bell Canada and other members of the Bell group of companies be prohibited from applying for or holding broadcast licences.
I draw the attention of Hon. Members to the fact that 60.7 per cent of all telephone lines in Canada are in the hands of Bell Canada. In other words, of the 11.2 million telephone lines in Canada, including business and private, 6.8 million are in the hands of Bell Canada.
Given the strength of Bell Canada in the telephone field, it should concentrate its efforts on that area. It should not concern itself with competing in the broadcasting field, where we have other interests and other concerns. It would be in the best interests of Canada to prohibit, by statute, the holding of broadcasting licences by Bell Canada, including licences to operate a cable television system.
My amendment would restore Clause 7 of the Bill to the way in which it read when Bill C-19 was introduced in this House in December of 1984 by the previous Minister.
Spokespersons for Bell Canada have made the argument that there are adequate safeguards already in place. I suggest to you that the CRTC is not in agreement.
Mr. John Lawrence, the Vice-Chairman of the CRTC, at page 5 of his remarks to our legislative committee, presented on April 28 last, stated:
With respect to the removal of the word "affiliate" from Clause 7 the CRTC is already on record, both in terms of the Bell Canada Reorganization Report,

June 15, 1987
Bell Canada Act
1983, and in submissions made to this legislative committee reviewing Bill C-
And now again in the review of Bill C-13.
-that Bell Canada and all the other companies within the Bell family of
companies should continue to be subject to the limitation prohibiting the
holding of broadcasting licences.
Because you have limited the time, Madam Speaker-and I think in a most repressive way-I should like to bring to your attention the fact that I cannot now read into the record the words of the Minister of Communications. However, she did make a very strong statement on May 5, 1987, to the Canadian Cable Television Association acknowledging that there was a serious concern and that she intended to deal with the issue of mixing television, cable and broadcasting with the telecommunications companies through the issuance of a directive.
I do not think the issuance of a directive is the answer. The Minister pointed out that she was very proud of what cable companies do, yet she noted their monopoly in the area. She also said that the cable companies were protected from intrusion into their market by Bell Canada and other common carriers, which otherwise would be presumably only too eager to expand their range of services.
If the Minister acknowledges that the telephone companies would only be too happy to intrude into this field, I do not understand why she has not acted and used her directive to indicate that she was serious in her intent.
Cable television undertakings should be the privileged users of broadcasting in this area; it is not the place for telephone companies. The issue has been clearly defined and articulated by cable people, and it was acknowledged by the Minister. She supported the observation that it was not the place for telephone companies.
I wish the Minister, who spoke so loudly to the cable people, would put into action what she says she meant, would retain Clause 7 of the original Bill C-19, and would accept my amendment. I think it would be in the best interests of all not to use the directive power under Section 22. It is obvious that the Minister has not used it yet and has had plenty of time to do so. It is very important that the matter be addressed and that the amendment be adopted.
In the end we are left very uncertain about the predicament of not knowing how, if at all, the Minister will exercise her discretionary powers, and they are only discretionary. If the Minister truly believes that BCE should not be involved in the cable business, and if she recognizes its strength in general to go into that business unless so prevented, I suggest that she should take the opportunity to set her intentions in legislative form and accept my amendment.
I was about to deal with Clause 12, but since you are indicating, Madam Speaker, that I have no time left I cannot do so.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I should like to deal with both Clause 7 and Clause 12. The difficulty with the piece of legislation is that in effect the Government is writing policy without having any long-term goals. We are left rather perplexed with technological change and the possibility of fibre optics coming in. The Government itself is not sure what roles should be played by the telephone companies and by the cable companies. It says that it wants to keep telephone companies out of broadcasting, yet it does not seem to favour an amendment to the legislation which would make very clear that they could not be involved.
The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture has been holding hearings on broadcasting questions. We have had representations made to us that because of technological change and fibre optics technology-running new fibre wires into houses-telephone companies might be the appropriate carriers for broadcasting undertakings. We are very perplexed now about what is the right way to turn. It is unfortunate that we must make decisions on these immediate matters without some long-term policy to guide the decisions.
The purpose of my amendment to Clause 12 would be to have the clause, as amended, read as follows:
The provisions of the National Transportation Act and the Railway Act that provide for the obtaining of information by the Commission for the purposes of carrying out its powers, duties and functions in relation to the Company apply for those purposes to and in respect of any affiliate in the same manner and to the same extent as if the affiliate were the Company.
With this reorganization we want to ensure that there is not an escape clause so that the affiliates will be able to do what the parent company was unable to do or what would have been prohibited under the old Bell Canada Act. It would be simply to ensure that there would be no organizational way around it.
I note that a number of organizations made similar recommendations. For example, the Public Service Advocacy Centre recommended that a simple amendment to the Bill was required to ensure that Bell Canada could be effectively regulated in the interests of its subscribers. It wants Clause 12 to be amended to encompass the obtaining of information relevant to the mandate of CRTC from all Bell Canada affiliates, not just its parent.
It is absolutely essential for the CRTC to have full financial information. Information does not get out to the public at large. It is essential that the CRTC be able to get the information on the affiliates as well, so that rates can be regulated in a manner which is fair to consumers. That is the purpose of the amendment to the clause.
The proposal of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) deals with a different matter. It seeks to amend Clause 7 to make it very clear that telephone and broadcasting activities are kept strictly separate. If this amendment does not go through, the difficulty will be that the CRTC could be pressed very hard by telephone company affiliates to permit them to become involved in broadcasting undertakings. It is true that such a matter could be regulated under the Broadcasting Act. However, without an actual statement to the
June 15, 1987

contrary, the CRTC could be under a lot of pressure. A company could say: "If Parliament has not said that we cannot do it, you do not have a good reason for saying 'no' when an application is made".
In committee I asked representatives of the CRTC what they would do if they received an application. Mr. Lawrence, speaking for the commission, said the following:
The commission holds public hearings. In the course of those public hearings, we hear arguments that often determine an issue ... In this case, we would be looking for what interveners would tell us about how we should conduct ourselves in this situation. A situation was posed to me and I said I thought Bell might say, on public policy grounds, that the commission should not refuse a licence or refuse allowing BCE or an affiliate into that cable market.
Clearly the commission is anticipating that it might get this kind of proposal and that it would be very hard to say "no". We need some direction in the legislation.
The commission would be left having to decide under a great deal of pressure from an extremely powerful corporation saying that Parliament had not said that the commission could not do it and that it was a change in legislation from the old Bell Canada Act to the new one which clearly allowed them the opportunity to enter that market.
I think the Government is talking out of both sides of its mouth on the issue. We are not entirely clear what it wants. The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture is concerned about seeing that the lines of division are kept clear, yet we are aware that with technological change there may be new elements in the situation which will have to be taken care of. We need some long-term telecommunications policy to address the issues.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, two amendments have been put before the House at report stage of Bill C-13. The first one, in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), deals with the question of whether or not those who control the means of delivering a message, that is telephone companies, should also have the liberty of controlling the message itself. That is the gist of her amendment.
It has been a long-standing principle of communications policy in Canada that these two areas should not be mixed. Consistent with this policy, Clause 7 of Bill C-13, prohibits Bell Canada, the telephone company, and any person controlled by Bell Canada company from holding a broadcasting licence. I have also taken steps-this was indicated to the committee when I met with it on May 1 and subsequently reaffirmed, as stated by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Finestone), in a speech that I gave to the cable associations of Canada-to request the Governor in Council to issue a directive under Section 22 of the Broadcasting Act that will clarify the role of telephone companies and their involvement in broadcasting. That directive allows the flexibility that is needed in a situation like this. It allows the situation to change as we go into the further development of telecommunications
Bell Canada Act
technology, it allows for a response that is flexible to the exigencies of the time. It also gives, I may say, the CRTC the policy guidance that it requires and that it has requested. When I spoke to the committee and later to the cable associations of Canada the response was, I think, quite favourable in following this path. I believe that this message of addressing the issue of the broadcasting prohibition meets the concerns that have been raised.
I would remind you, Madam Speaker, that the CRTC has broad powers under the Broadcasting Act, and obviously with regard to any directive, to evaluate applications for broadcasting licences. The commission must be satisfied that the application is in the public interest before granting a licence. I expect that any application for a broadcasting licence from Bell Canada Enterprises or any of its subsidiaries would be fully addressed by the commission, and that any potential problems or conflicts could be dealt with through the licencing procedure. For that reason the Government cannot support the amendment as proposed by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.
With regard to the second amendment that has been put forward by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), I would say that the CRTC already has very broad powers under the Railway Act and the National Transportation Act to require that information be provided for regulatory purposes.
Moreover, the CRTC is granted the powers of a superior court in respect to the appearance of witnesses, the production of documents and such other matters as are necessary in the conduct of its regulatory business. These are very extensive powers, Madam Speaker. Clause 12 as currently drafted reinforces these powers as they apply to the persons that control the company, Bell Canada Enterprises. In other words, the Bill as currently drafted permits the CRTC to request information from any BCE affiliate, so long as the information is relevant to the regulation of Bell Canada. Moreover, the Bill provides that the CRTC may determine what information is relevant and request it in any form.
The proposed amendment would radically extend the commission's powers beyond those provided in Clause 12 to include all the unregulated activities of BCE subsidiaries, many of which are completely unrelated to the activities of Bell Canada. This could open the way to what you might call fishing trips, requests for information that are irrelevant to the regulation of the telephone monopoly. This means that many of the internationally competitive activities of BCE subsidiaries would be exposed to regulatory scrutiny. Only Canada's competitiveness in international markets would benefit from this exposure of BCE affairs in this way.
The logic of the Bill is precisely to leave the competitive affiliates of BCE unregulated, while ensuring the CRTC has the power to regulate the telephone monopoly. The powers in Section 12 maintain this balance and ensure that the commission can gain all the information it needs to regulate the monopoly.

June 15, 1987
Bell Canada Act
When this Bill was in committee, the CRTC itself indicated that Clause 12 as drafted was sufficient to the commission's needs. For these reasons the Government does not support the proposed amendment. Clause 12, as currently drafted, together with the other powers available to the commission, is more than adequate to permit the CRTC to regulate Bell Canada effectively and at the same time protect the interests of its subscribers.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I am taking part in the report stage debate because the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) who spoke before me has asked me to explain why the Liberal Party will not support Motion No. 2 of our colleague from Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), whose amendment reads as follows:
"in respect of any affiliate in the same manner and to the same extent as if the
affiliate were the Company."
Indeed, this amendment would give the Company powers which, in our view, are now amply covered by the CRTC.

I would like to start by saying that we will support the amendment of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) to Clause 7 because it gives us-I think I mentioned it at second reading-some assurance that Bell Canada will not become involved in the cable or broadcasting industry. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I would like to support that.
Speaking to Clause 12, the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) has proposed an amendment which I understand was suggested to the legislative committee by CN-CP Telecommunications. CN-CP observed that Clause 12 would give the CRTC power to compel production of information in the possession of the parent company, Bell Canada, but not information in the possession of Bell Canada's affiliates, for example, Northern Telecom. CN-CP recommended that Section 12 be amended to include affiliates of Bell Canada. The Member for Broadview-Greenwood now proposes an amendment of similar effect. 1 want to explain why we will not support the motion.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal was concerned about whether Clause 12 gave the CRTC sufficient powers to demand information from Bell Canada's affiliates. She wanted to ensure that the CRTC was given and is given sufficient regulatory powers to gather information from all the members of the group to ensure that the CRTC had the power to detect intercorporate subsidies, known as cross-subsidization among the members of the Bell group. In other words, the Member for Mount Royal was concerned about the possibility of the Bell group assigning to Bell Canada some unprofitable and high risk activity so that any losses incurred by the company would be subsidized by charging higher rates to Bell Canada's telephone subscribers.
The Member for Mount Royal was concerned, as is the Hon. Member from Broadview-Greenwood, that Bell Canada would be allowed to cross-subsidize its competitive businesses from revenues derived from its monopoly in the telephone business. For example, the Member for Mount Royal wanted to know from the CRTC if it was in a legal position to examine the recent acquisition by Bell Canada of BCSI, Bell Communications Systems Incorporated. She wanted to find out if Bell Canada paid a fair price to the members of the Bell group and if Bell Canada had to cover any of Bell Communications Systems Incorporated financial losses. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal, was concerned about ensuring that the CRTC had the legal right to obtain information about the SI.5 billion contract between Bell Canada International Incorporated of Ottawa and the Government of Saudi Arabia to determine whether telephone subscribers in Canada were or could be subsidizing Bell's work abroad. Therefore, when the CRTC appeared before the legislative committee, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal asked about the CN-CP proposed amendment to Clause 12 of the Bill.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal put to the witnesses the amendment the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood has put to the House today and asked the representatives of the CRTC if in their opinion they thought it was necessary. The Vice-Commissioner of CRTC Telecommunications, Mr. John Lawrence, and legal counsel for the CRTC both told the committee in unequivocal terms that not only was the amendment my colleague is proposing today not necessary but they went so far as to say that due to a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, such an amendment could restrict rather than expand the right of the CRTC to gather information.
I requested and received transcripts of those two meetings. Pages 219 and 220 of the transcript of the April 28 committee meeting read as follows, beginning with the Hon. Member for Mount Royal speaking:
-I wonder if the amendment that would be useful for you would be an amendment in clause 12 that would state something to the effect that: . . . "and to and in respect of any affiliate of the company engaged in a telecommunications activity in the same manner and to the same extent as if the person or affiliate were the company". Is this what you require in this particular amendment in Clause 12? What would be required to ensure that you first of all get the required access to the necessary information organized in a way that is useful?


Mr. J. Lawrence:: Under the present provisions of the National Transportation Act regarding Bell Canada as interpreted in the Interprovincial Pipe Line case in the Federal Court of Appeal, it was held that a parent company can be required to disclose information from all of its subsidiaries in a form required by the regulator. By virtue of this interpretation of the provision of the National Transportation Act, we think the present provision in clause 12, which in effect says that BCE will now be treated the same as Bell Canada would under those provisions, is going to be adequate without adding the word "affiliates" into the clause.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal then went on to ask
another question which was answered as follows:
June 15, 1987


Mr. Allan  Rosenzveig@Legal Counsel, Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission: It was appealed as far as the Federal Court of Appeal. The commission considers this is good law; we are not worried about it; we are confident about it. The same question arose in the Senate committee discussion on consideration of this bill and we said we were satisfied with it at that time.
Further, dealing with the Saudi Arabia question of whether or not offshore contracts would be subsidized by domestic telephone users, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal asked the following question:
Saudi Arabia-we went there. I want to know how much we cost the Canadian telephone user. Can you get the information organized in the way you want?


Mr. Allan  Rosenzveig@Legal Counsel, Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission: We feel we could with clause 12. If it was enacted it would then allow us to get information through BCE from anyone BCE controls, namely, Bell's affiliates. If we add the word "affiliate" we think it might wash backward and disturb the principles expressed by the Federal Court of Appeal in the Interprovincial Pipe Line case to the effect that a regulator can get the information it requires to regulate the utility through anyone controlled by the utility. Clause 12 would put us in the same position vis-a-vis BCE and anyone it controls.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal went on to say:
I see. You feel if we leave the provision as it is, it would capture the concerns we might have.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: That is right. As presently interpreted by the court-and that is a court ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal. It is a very high court.
I wanted to put that on the record to ensure that Hon. Members understand that evidently the CRTC is happy with Clause 12 as it now stands and advises against any amendment. The CRTC has considerable experience in regulating Bell Canada. If the CRTC is happy with that clause, I for one am prepared to accept it and to pass judgment on it by voting against the amendment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner)-Narcotics-Increase in drug abuse-Government position; the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Situation of francophones-Inquiry whether Solicitor General has action plan. Reduction in francophone manpower; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Parole-British Columbia experiment using electronic monitoring ankle bracelets.
Bell Canada Act


BELL CANADA ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-13, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada, as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee; and Motions No. 1 (Mrs. Finestone, p. 7100) and No. 2 (Mrs. McDonald, p. 7100).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Motion No. 1 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.
Motion No. 2 (Ms. McDonald) negatived.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: that the Bill be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you would find that there is unanimous consent to proceed with third reading at this time, and at this time Hon. Members who wish to make comments on third reading stage may do so.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, there certainly is agreement that we proceed, provided that there is an understanding that the time be shared equitably among all three Parties between now and 5 p.m.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I think we could give that undertaking on behalf of the Government. We would hope to clear third reading stage by five o'clock and that would mean speeches of 10 minutes per Party. There has been an understanding among the Parties that we would be successful in achieving third reading today. I would hope that we could do that, and we are certainly agreeable with the NDP to split the time equally.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, although I appreciate the communication here, I think it could be improved if we could take just a few minutes behind the curtains to talk about the proposal which, as I understand, is to pass this Bill before 5 p.m. by sharing the time between 4.30 and 5 p.m. equally among all Parties. My understanding is that the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) has some hesitation and I would like to discuss it with her if I could.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I think we would be in
agreement with that. The motion could be moved for third
reading and the debate could commence. The Minister could

June 15, 1987
Bell Canada Act
initiate the debate and we will have the meetings which my hon. colleague has suggested.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
She said: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to move third reading of Bill C-13, the Bell Canada reorganization Bill. The issues addressed in this Bill have been examined and commented on in committee and in the House several times already. I would like to take these few minutes to stress the importance of this legislation. It is important, both for Bell Canada and its affiliates, as well as for the general public.
Bell Canada, as we know, is the largest telephone company in Canada. Like the rest of the industry it provides an excellent standard of service that we sometimes take for granted. Until very recently telephone service has been provided on a monopoly basis in Canada and elsewhere. To prevent the abuse of this monopoly power the industry has traditionally been subject to stringent regulation of its rates and services. It appears certain that for the foreseeable future many of the basic services offered by Bell Canada and other telephone companies will continue to be operated on that monopoly basis. Therefore, the services will continue to be regulated by the CRTC.
At the same time we know the telecommunications industry is experiencing a period of rapid and accelerating change. These changes are occurring both domestically and internationally, and they have been brought about by advances in technology, by new and varied user requirements, and a belief that competition will spur further innovation and growth.
Because many of its activities are now subject to growing international competition, in 1982 Bell Canada reorganized to create a new parent company, Bell Canada Enterprises. Bell's objective in this reorganization was to distinguish clearly between its regulated monopoly activities and its non-regulated competitive activities. As a result of its reorganization the telephone part of Bell Canada became a subsidiary of Bell Canada Enterprises. This resulted in a very uncertain regulatory environment because questions were raised about the ability of the CRTC to regulate effectively the monopoly activity of Bell Canada.
Because of these changed circumstances the Government asked the CRTC to report on the reorganization, which it did in 1983. It concluded that specific legislative amendments would be necessary to clarify and confirm its authority to regulate Bell Canada effectively within the reorganized group of Bell companies.
The Bill before us takes into account the specific recommendations of the CRTC and the concerns expressed by a wide variety of interest groups. The legislative powers in this Bill will permit the CRTC to regulate the company effectively. This Bill reaffirms the long-standing provisions of Bell's special Act and confers three specific new powers on the
CRTC which will enable it to carry out its mandate to regulate the monopoly telephone service of Bell Canada. This Bill will ensure the continuation of the high quality level of universal telephone service to which we are accustomed, establishing a clear and unambiguous regulatory regime.
Equally important, the provisions of the Bill allow BCE to engage freely in a wide range of unregulated activity on a national and international basis. BCE and its affiliates are major players in the international information technology revolution and they must be allowed to compete without undue regulation.
In the last session Bill C-19, which was almost identical to the present Bill, was subject to a thorough examination by the standing committee and this Bill has again been looked at by a legislative committee of this House. I should point out that only one amendment was made to Bill C-13 by the legislative committee and that involves a rather technical provision that was overlooked by Bell in its original recommendation in drafting the Bill.
Bill C-13 has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny over the last number of months, as was its predecessor. I want specifically to thank the standing committee, members of the legislative committee and those who have worked on this through a series of reviews, for the very diligent work carried out. At this point we have gone over this Bill so many times that I think the best thing to do is to give it speedy passage.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, this is not the first time a Bill concerning the reorganization of Bell Canada was introduced to Parliament by the Government. In the last session the previous Minister of Communications introduced an almost identical Bill called Bill C-19. That Bill died on the Order Paper when the Government chose to prorogue the session.
Before embarking on an analysis of Bill C-13 it may be useful to review the history which led up to its introduction. In view of the importance of the Bell group of companies and the potential impact its corporate reorganization under the Canada Business Corporations Act could have, the CRTC was directed on October 25, 1982, by the then Minister, Francis Fox, to conduct an inquiry under Section 15 of the National Transportation Act into Bell Canada's proposed reorganization. The CRTC was directed to report its findings by March 31, 1983, so that the Government could take its recommendations into account in its over-all analysis of the reorganization. The Liberal Government also called for consultation hearings to be open to all interested persons.
Mr. Fox indicated that the general form of the reorganization was consistent with the Liberal Government's attitude toward increased competition and industrial development in the high technology telecommunication sector. He stressed that the Government had been indicating for some time that all Canadian companies should make changes to enable them to be more competitive in the international as well as the domestic markets.
June 15, 1987

The Bell Canada group of companies forms a vital part of the telecommunication sector in Canada. While Bell Canada is most readily identified with the provision of telephone services in Ontario and Quebec, the Bell group is also involved in many other activities. Therefore, this most major corporate reorganization of this important group of companies is obviously of great interest to the Government.
At that time Mr. Fox pointed out that the proposed reorganization had raised questions and concerns regarding the impact on Bell's subscribers and on the ability of the CRTC to continue to regulate Bell's monopoly in the provision of telecommunication services. That refers to our telephones in particular. He added that the Government must be satisfied that the reorganization was in the over-all public interest. It was in the over-all public interest that I put forward an amendment, and I will come back to that in a moment because I personally believe it is not in the over-all public interest to have rejected that amendment.
The CRTC held its hearings in February of 1983 and many points of view were expressed on the issue. On the basis of briefs and recommendations submitted to it, and on the basis of its own study of the matter, the CRTC made its recommendations on April 18, 1983. It recommended that the proposed reorganization be implemented on condition that certain legislative provisions be adopted to strengthen and clarify the CRTC's powers over Bell Canada and its affiliates, thereby protecting the interests of the subscriber. That is the bottom line, protecting the interests of the subscriber.
On April 23, 1983, the Liberal Government announced its intention to study the CRTC recommendations and draft the necessary legislative provisions to protect the interests of Bell Canada's customers. We had first reading of Bill C-20 on February 8, 1984. It was an omnibus Bill which covered a number of other issues.
The Bill we are speaking to today, Bill C-13, has some of the legislative provisions initially recommended by the previous Liberal Government. It should be noted, however, that the present Government has introduced some changes which I do not think are in the public interest. The Government says that the purpose of Bill C-13 is not to increase the regulatory powers of the CRTC but to recapture the powers lost due to the reorganiztion of Bell Canada.
I am not going to go into detail on Clause 6(2)(c) with which I was not particularly pleased which relates to telephone subscribers paying in advance. Suffice it to say that I think that whole clause should have been dropped. The matter is in the hands of the CRTC and has been dealt with in a series of regulations which I think are quite clear. I doubt that we need that regulation. Nonetheless, it is there and I will not argue with it.
Bell Canada Act
I remember questioning the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) with regard to the regulation about payment six months in advance. The Minister said:

"I have gone through a whole scenario on that, which I do not care to bore you with again. However, the CRTC brought to our attention at the hearing the other day that they are already regulating the amount of the advance payment. They pased a regulation that does not require a six-month advance payment.
Do you or the deputy minister believe there is any reason to keep paragraph 6(2)(c) from the bill and leave it up to the CRTC? They have already issued that regulation."
I'm sorry, this was my question to the Minister, not the Minister's answer. The Minister answered that she felt it made sense to leave it as is, so I thought it would not be very useful to argue that point and that it would be better to focus on Clause 7. I still think we should have been more careful about Clause 7.

With respect, the commission had strongly recommended on three different occasions that we prohibit Bell Canada and all members of the Bell group from applying for or holding a broadcasting licence. I mentioned that 60.7 per cent of all the telephone lines in Canada are held by Bell Canada. What better way to indicate one's intention and wishes than to have dealt with Bell Canada and the potential conflict of interest, the potential conflict of control over content and carriage, and the potential of common ownership and control with one company controlling both ends of the stick, telephone on one side, cable on the other. It seems to me that that is where we should have put some energy, closed the gap, and indicated directly to the telephone company.
I find that the Minister's failure to have issued a directive under Section 22 as an Order in Council directive is an abrogation of her responsibility to indicate the pleasure of the Crown in this instance.

As the Minister said, "Generally I do not favour telephone company investment in broadcast undertakings, whether directly or through affiliated companies. Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak to the CCA in Montreal. I said at that time that with the advent of optical fibre in the local distribution network, which is expected in the next 20 years, the phone companies will have the capacity to carry television signals to the home. We are not against this development. We are concerned, however, that the entity licence to carry these signals remain amenable to broadcasting regulations."
"In our view, cable television undertakings should continue to be licensed for this purpose and not the telephone companies. We will be diligent about ensuring that broadcasting receiving undertakings are not taken over by telephone companies."

June 15, 1987
Bell Canada Act

I hope that we will see that action and that the telecommunications companies outside of Bell Canada will not feel a sense of discrimination. If it is good enough for Bell Canada and covers them in Section 7 of this Act, it should certainly cover B.C. Tel and others.
We are left in a predicament and I find it most regrettable that that is the case with this particular statute. I would like to understand why the Minister would not prohibit by statute the holding of broadcasting licences. Why was the former Minister of Communications concerned enough to use the wording I am proposing today for Clause 7 while the current Minister is not? Why is there inconsistency between two Ministers of the Government with regard to the same clause of the Bill?
Nonetheless, it looks as though this Bill will be passed. The CRTC, Bell Canada, and the Minister of Communications will be happy. I guess that as the world turns so shall Bell Canada. Let us hope that it shall continue to be in the best interests of the subscribers and the telephone industry in Canada, particularly with such a large force which provides such fine dollars to another corporation which seems to be using them in a very rentable maniere.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, we are dealing with Bill C-13 with regard to the reorganization of Bell Canada and Bell Canada Enterprises which, of course, is an enormous company. In terms of ownership the Financial Post lists Bell Canada Enterprises as number four in sales at $13 billion a year; number one in profit, of which it has over $1 billion; and number two in number of employees, of which it has over 100,000. It is a massive company which has, so far, managed to thumb its nose at the CRTC.
Bell Canada had excess profits in 1985 and 1986 estimated by the CRTC at over $200 million. It has refused to comply with the direction of the CRTC to pay back some of these excess profits. Instead it has gone to court to fight the case. Meanwhile, the CRTC is preparing another view of Bell's revenue requirements for this and coming years in conjunction with its review of Bell's application for rate rebalancing. The saga goes on.
We are dealing with this Bill because Bell Canada managed to reorganize itself. Bell Canada Enterprises is a fait accompli. There is much I do not like about the situation, but now that we have it there must be regulation. We need legislation to ensure that the CRTC can get the information it needs to regulate the monopoly telephone-telecommunications aspects of Bell Canada's business.
Bell Canada is an enormous provider. It is the largest telephone company in the country with a monopoly. Monopolies make money hand over fist. This one has been enormously profitable in the past and we are naturally concerned that unfair advantage is not taken of the subscribers in this monopoly situation. People need a telephone. It is an absolute
essential in today's life and people will pay the rate demanded of them.
Therefore, the rates must be fairly set. If Bell can increase them, it will and make money hand over fist, which money, if there is not proper regulation, can be taken out of the company and put into other affiliates or the parent company in a way which will take very unfair advantage of the monopoly situation of the company in the telephone-telecommunications business. That is what we are trying to ensure will not happen.
The question with regard to Bell and broadcasting is a more complex one. The amendments to Clause 7 have already been overturned. It is debatable whether the prohibition against the mixing of functions and business should be done through this Act or by some other means. It can well be argued that if it is in this Act with regard to Bell Canada it will not take care of B.C. Tel or other telephone companies and that it will be a limited and discriminatory policy to put it in there. It has to be addressed elsewhere in legislation. It has to be absolutely clear so that the CRTC is not put into a position of being asked for approval of a sale, for example, being told there is no prohibition against it and being put under a great deal of pressure to okay it, because if Parliament has allowed it, why should the CRTC step in? If Parliament wanted to forbid the access of telephone and telecommunications companies into broadcasting, Parliament would have said so. Therefore, this is something we are going to have to pronounce, and we should do so before very long.
I am concerned about some other policy questions. We are dealing with this Bill somewhat in a vacuum. We still do not have long-term policy decisions in the telecommunications area. We still have not received answers to questions on competition, on the role of the telephone company as a utility, what should be the principles in regulating it, what should be the responsibilities to consumers and subscribers, and should a telephone company be a major investment firm? Should this kind of expansion be appropriate for a utility which is providing an absolutely essential service? Who is going to develop fibre optics? What about technological change? We have some long-term issues to address, and this Bill does not really take us anywhere in addressing these long-term questions and what kind of policy should be made for Canadians in this absolutely vital area of communication. These are basic essentials for Canadian families and for business enterprises, so they can have first-class services and the innovations which are being developed. Yet there is a great deal of uncertainty as to what the appropriate principles should be for guiding development in this area.
I simply want to flag some of these problems the Bill is intending to address such as cross-subsidization, the need for long-term policy and the utility role. I think we have to get on with addressing these kinds of very important questions. In the meantime, this legislation is vital. We have to get it through. We are not holding it up. We are flagging concerns which have
June 15, 1987

to be dealt with in due course. In the meantime, the reorganization has already taken place. It is essential for consumers in areas which now have services that it be possible for the CRTC to regulate and to have access to financial information from Bell and its affiliates, however defined, so that they can do a regulatory job which is in the interests of Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


COPYRIGHT ACT
Flora Isabel MacDonald: that Bill C-60, an Act to amend the Copyright Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
She said: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to rise in this House and speak at second reading of Bill C-60, an Act to amend the Copyright Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof. I realize we are beginning the debate on this very important Bill with just five minutes left before we enter into Private Members' Hour. However, I trust that given the importance and significance of this Bill, we will be able to continue the debate at second reading tomorrow or the next day and that we will be able to move it through debate at second reading very quickly so we can get into committee to give the opportunity to witnesses to present their views. We can then bring it back into the House for quick passage so that the changes which so many people want to see enacted through the amendment to the Copyright Act will be in place at the earliest possible day.
This Bill is good news for creators and artists. It is good news, indeed, for the economy. As I am sure Hon. Members know, our present Copyright Act has been outdated for a good many years in a good many areas. It no longer offers the protection it should to products of the mind and spirit. The Copyright Act was first passed in this country in 1924 and has not been significantly revised since that time. It clearly does not respond to the needs of our transformed cultural and technological environment in this communications age.
Creators have an essential right to control the production of their minds and to be rewarded for that production. However,
Copyright Act
this right is not clearly protected in many present circumstances because of major social, technical and cultural transformations which I suppose the drafters of the 1924 Act could never have envisaged.
The Bill before the House will respond in part to this situation which has been created over a number of years by addressing several specific areas in which there is broad agreement among Canadians as to measures which can be taken to safeguard the rights of our artists and creators. This will, I am sure, encourage cultural activity and thus bring about social, economic and cultural benefits to all Canadians.
I would like to mention that this particular set of amendments presented in this Bill deals with certain specific aspects of copyright. It is not the total package the Government will be producing because we have undertaken to revise the total Copyright Act. There will be a second package with regard to revisions to the Copyright Act which we hope to introduce later this year. They are presently in the drafting stage.
I would like to speak briefly about the various measures which are being addressed in Bill C-60. The first has to do with collectives. Modern reproduction technologies like photocopiers and video cassette recorders have made it increasingly difficult to ensure that authorization is obtained from individual copyright owners whenever a book, a play, or whatever it might be, is copied. Indeed, the tendency is for a great number of different users to want immediate access to a wide variety of protected works all at the same time. Monitoring potential infringements on an individual basis in such circumstances becomes almost impossible. That is why Bill C-60 explicitly encourages the creation of new collective societies of copyright owners.
This system has been in operation for about 50 years for musical performances and is working well. Under our present Bill, the practice which now pertains to those who provide musical performances would be expanded to other areas to be covered by copyright and would result in collectives of authors, visual artists and so forth.

A collective licensing body is basically a group of copyright owners who form an association responsible for exercising, on their behalf, some aspect of copyright such as photocopy reproduction rights.
This group, representing a substantial number of copyright owners, negotiates with users, on behalf of its members, a general licence fixing the royalties and the conditions under which the licence is valid.
Provided the licensee observes the conditions of the licence and pays the royalties, he is free to exercise the right in question.
The collective approach has many advantages-

June 15, 1987
Criminal Code


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is with deep regret that I must interrupt the Hon. Minister.
It being 5 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener) moved: that Bill C-216, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, the central issue of my Bill, Bill C-216, is the following. Is a foetus a potential life or a life with potential? If it is a life with potential, then we must protect that life with the full weight of the law.
My assumption in saying this is that we can only then take that life if the fact of the pregnancy will, according to a therapeutic abortion committee, endanger the life of the mother by the continuation of that pregnancy to term. In this case the rationale for taking the unborn person's life is selfdefence, to protect the life of the mother.
Further, this Bill would not allow abortions for reasons of health. My rationale here is that one simply cannot take a life on grounds of physical, social or mental health unless there is a demonstrable and direct threat to the mother's life per se.
The World Health Organization has defined the word "health" as follows:
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
That is exactly where much of the problem in this abortion debate begins.
In 1969, the then Minister of Justice, who is now the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), introduced the present law on abortion. In defending the wording of our present law he stated as reported at page 8398 of Hansard:
The word "endanger" -imparts or connotes the elements of hazard, peril or risk ... It appears to us that the elements of seriousness, directness and impairment are all present when a person's health is said to be in danger. The word "danger" in itself implies the existence of direct peril or risk.
However, if we look at abortion rates since 1969 we have to ask some serious questions. In 1985, there were 60,956 abortions. Does that mean that all of these mothers were in real "hazard, peril or risk" to their lives or health?
Why is it that today, with all our modern advanced medical knowledge and technology, so many mothers are in such real danger to life or health while pregnant? I think that part of the answer can be found in what the present Right Hon. Leader of
the Opposition said in 1969. At that time he was the Minister of Justice. He said the following:
-there are those on the one hand who abhor abortion for any cause. There are
those on the other hand who would make abortion wholly permissive or at the
personal option of the woman. We have not reached a consensus between those
views. We have reached only what I call an accommodation.
There is the rub. The present law is an accommodation to allow those who want abortions, for whatever reasons, to obtain them. Of course those who are opposed to abortions will obviously not seek them.
There can be no accommodation between life and not-life. Either one believes that the unborn child in his mother's womb is a human being and one protects it, or one does not believe it is a human being and one aborts it at will.
When I was a board member at the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital we conducted an in-depth study of abortions at the hospital. We found that there were 66 combinations of various interpretations of the word "health" that were used to approve abortions. The 66 ranged from history of post-partum reactions, to interruption of education, to failure of contraception or failure of sterilization, I ask Hon. Members: What have those got to do with health?
Responsibility for this state of affairs cannot entirely be laid at the feet of the doctors, nurses or the hospital therapeutic abortion committees-although they do bear some complicity given their medical knowledge as to the nature of the procedure being performed. Rather, I would suggest that the primary culprit is the law itself. The real question in the abortion debate is whether or not we are dealing with a human life and the need for our abortion laws to conform accordingly.
If we are talking about a human life, then we must protect that life, since a life cannot be taken except in self-defence. However, if we are not dealing with a human life but rather with a piece of tissue, then we should take abortion out of the Criminal Code and treat the foetus in the same way we do infected tonsils or appendices.
Let us not hear ridiculous arguments in this debate today such as the unavailability of access, socio-economic disadvantage, freedom of choice and so on. One does not kill people for reasons such as these. The only way in which such arguments can have validity is if those arguments and those arguing in their favour are prepared to claim that the foetus is just a piece of worthless tissue and that therefore abortion should be taken out of the Criminal Code. At least then there would be some measure of honesty and some consistency to this debate instead of the hypocritical games that are usually played when this topic is raised in the House.
I am convinced that from conception to birth we are dealing with the life of a new human being. Surely, when we speak of abortion we are talking about two lives-the life of the mother and the life of the child. Why else would we call a pregnant woman a mother?
Further, when we look at the medical, scientific and legal
facts surrounding abortion the evidence is overwhelmingly on
June 15, 1987

the side of the life of the unborn. From the very first day after conception the unborn child is a complex and rapidly growing organism with its own unique genetic endowment. By the end of the first month the child completes the period of relatively greatest size increase and the greatest physical change of a lifetime.
As early as the seventh week we can observe a well-proportioned baby that bears the familiar external features and all the internal organs of an adult. The brain already sends out impulses that co-ordinate the functions of the other organs. At eight weeks it is possible to record individual electroencephalogram readings of brain activity. Today, the absence of signs of brain activity is taken as evidence of death. Why then do we not also consider signs of brain activity in the developing child as evidence that human life is present?
Keeping pace with scientific knowledge of development within the womb, the law has increasingly recognized the rights of the unborn without attempting to draw lines at any particular stage of its development. For example, within tort law it is now clearly recognized that the unborn child in the path of an automobile is as much a person in the street as is the mother. It has even been held that constitutional rights of the parents in the free exercise of religion must give way to the unborn's need for a blood transfusion. The property rights of the unborn are well established.
Finally, when the West German Supreme Court was asked by its equivalent to our House of Commons when does the foetus gain the civil rights to life, I think its answer is highly instructive. It said:
Life, in the sense of historical existence of a human individual, exists according
to definite biological-physiological knowledge, in any case, from the 14th day
after conception (nidation, individuation).
In other words, from conception to the fourteenth day, the fertilized egg could divide, leading to a multiple birth; but after the fourteenth day, it is purely a question of growth. So, at the very least, we have life from the fourteenth day after conception. That is even before a woman knows she is pregnant!
Surely the medical, scientific and legal facts unanimously move in the direction of life and not mere tissue. I respectfully submit that our actions had better start catching up with the facts. We need to begin to do what our laws surely must do, that being to protect every life, particularly the defenceless within our society, and we can do so by having our Criminal Code reflect these facts.
It is my hope that as Members debate this issue, they will deal with the question of whether or not we are dealing with a life. If in fact we are dealing with a life, it should be protected; if we are not, abortion should be removed from the Criminal Code.
I urge Hon. Members to avoid bringing into the debate all of the other nonsense. If we focus on the issue of whether or
Criminal Code
not we are dealing with a life, we will have a good debate. If we focus on other aspects, we will have the debate we usually do on abortion in this House.
I commend to you, Mr. Speaker, the second reading of the Bill and its referral to committee.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-216, presented by the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), concerns a very important and indeed very sensitive issue. As you know, I have some very definite views on the subject of abortion. Like so many Canadians, recent events such as the Mortgentaler case have made me think about abortion. However, I do not want to use the time of this House to discuss the principle behind a Bill that seeks to amend the provisions in the Criminal Code concerning abortion. We are all very much aware it is an important issue and one that has aroused considerable interest.
I am convinced that the Hon. Member's initiative a rises from the conviction that such amendments are necessary.
Madam Speaker, I would like to repeat in today's debate what I said on June 2 of this year, in the course of a debate on Motion M-37, and I quote:
Our time should be spent developing a true family policy, a policy concerned with the prevention and support that the State should be bringing to families or women pregnant with an unwanted child, in order to help those women, through adequate action keep their child until he or she is born instead of having an abortion.
Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kitchener is proposing to amend the Criminal Code which reads, and I quote:
Every one who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female person, whether or not she is pregant, uses any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
Madam Speaker, here again, the onus is on the woman, and the man who contributed to this unwanted pregnancy, unwanted since the woman wants an abortion, what kind of sentence should he get, since after all, he made his contribution one night, perhaps with his partner's consent, but it is clear neither partner wanted a child, after all! So if the Hon. Member's motion to deal with the consequences of that sexual act were accepted, it would be the woman who would face a criminal charge. And that is a serious matter.
I would like to take the next few minutes to discuss two aspects of the abortion issue. First, the attitude of Canadians to this question and second, the manner in which the provisions of the Criminal Code on therapeutic abortion are applied across Canada.
To get a thourough understanding of the situation with respect to abortion, we should first take a broader look at the reaction of Canadian men and women on this question. In the past few years, the Canadian way of life has undergone several major changes which have had an impact on the basic standards of the population. Those changes dealt with the

June 15, 1987
Criminal Code
number of children that people want to have, their sexual behaviour and the patterns of use of contraceptive devices.
As our country developed from a rural society into a highly industrialized state, different social expectations and improved standards of living have resulted in drastic changes in people's activities, in their expectations in life and in their attitude to planned abortion. Although attitudes in that respect are no longer what they used to be, there is no consensus on the present situation or the action to take in the future.
Since abortion may become an explosive subject, as this House has seen in the past two months, I humbly submit that the public has chosen to ignore that debate. It has not tried to find efficient and direct solutions to those deep differences of opinion. Some people have chosen to say: "Let us ignore the problem, it will disappear eventually". Other people with different views have retaliated and said: "These are our facts, this is what we must do".
Between those two positions, there is a whole range of deep feelings, which are not always easily expressed, but which recur steadily, whatever the region, the religion, the partisan considerations, the language spoken, and other social characteristics of the people concerned. Those opinions insist on the one hand on preserving the life and physical health of the mother, and are concerned on the other hand with the whole social environment of women and family situations. Each of these two attitudes, shared by a great many Canadian men and women, is based on a different notion of the family and the changing role of women within the Canadian society.
Madam Speaker, because the abortion issue is deeply rooted in moral principles, the professional ethic is highly charged with emotion. It will continue to be so, for there is no easy solution. As is the case for other major issues involving the concepts of life and death, the abortion issue is of concern to many people who would have preferred to avoid it.
It is one of the delicate choices which any woman of childbearing age may have to consider. A large number of women who have had an abortion have been ostracized and have experienced pressures which have left them in a permanent state of anxiety. Which brings me to the second aspect of the general abortion issue.
In 1975, the Government of Canada established the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law. Among the members of this committee were Denyse Fortin Caron, Marion G. Powell and Robin F. Badgley, its chairman, who was asked to carry out a study to determine whether the Criminal Code provisions concerning therapeutic abortion practices were applied equitably everywhere in Canada. Madam Speaker, I am sure that, as a woman, you have read the Badgley report just as I have.
The Committee found that the abortion law was not equitably applied throughout Canada as all sorts of provincial guidelines and regulations had been added concerning the establishment of therapeutic abortion committees in hospitals. Moreover, hospital administrators and members of the medical
profession have different ways of interpreting the prescriptions for allowing this procedure. These factors have resulted in profound inequalities in the distribution and accessibility of therapeutic abortion services, regular trips by Canadian women to the United States to secure an abortion and long waiting periods for women who have an induced abortion in Canada.
Madam Speaker, these social inequalities do not result only from our abortion legislation. They reflect the manner in which Canadian society reacts to a delicate social issue which can lead to ostracism and fear.
No law can offer easy and effective solutions to those inequalities, as long as the matter is not addressed with more frankness and a deeper sense of social responsibility in the face of something that has affected over these last few years many hundred thousand Canadian women, a figure that is multiplied many times over if we include the partners and the families involved.
While the abortion legislation specifies the procedure to be followed, its assessment criteria are flexible enough to meet a diversity of needs and experiences of people from across the country. It is not the law nor its implementation that led to existing unjustices and to significant inequalities in the access to therapeutic abortion from city to city, region to region and province to province-Canadians, their health care services and the medical profession are responsible for that situation.
The social cost paid by women who use abortion has been the tolerance of widespread, deep-rooted social unjustice, and for some physicians and hospitals an excessive work burden.
Madam Speaker, abortion is a subject that a majority of people would rather avoid, wether it be the women involved, health care specialists or the public. But the problem is here to stay, only the dimension can change.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I appreciate and I recognize the value of the legislation put forward by the Hon. Member, but I share a conviction with most Canadian women, especially Quebec women I know, that a true family policy that would encourage pregnancy as opposed to abortion would solve the moral problem many people have with abortion.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Private Member's Bill of my colleague. As I read it, it would have the effect of allowing for the issuance of a certificate to enable an abortion only when the life of the female is in question, not when her life or health were endangered. I appreciate my hon. colleague's concern for the issue. I compliment him for the way in which he has always brought forward that concern. I know he is vitally interested in it.
June 15, 1987

However, I must tell the House that I hold a different viewpoint, which I have reached through a great deal of personal thought and consideration and which I have discussed with my wife and others at length. I am sure my colleague will accept my comments in good faith.
There exists in Canada today a very profound divergence of views on the question of abortion. These views are strongly held and often emotionally charged. While the depth of feelings on the issue must be understood and respected, the very fact that opinions on abortion are so widely divergent poses a problem for Members of Parliament.
1 remember during the deliberations on the Constitution Bill and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1980 and 1981 that the rights of the unborn were raised on several occasions. Some argued that the Charter should clearly include the right to life of the foetus. Others contended that a woman's right to privacy and security of the person should not be put in jeopardy. Because of the fundamental differences of opinion on the issue, the decision was made not to entrench one view or the other in the Constitution.
It was felt that the question should be left as a question of criminal law, for Parliament to decide in the context of criminal law, which is where it is today and which is what my colleague seeks to change. I believe the decision not to entrench was the correct one.
Public opinion over the years has shown a growing acceptance of choice as the view of most Canadians on abortion. I believe that public opinion is possibly split in thirds-a third of Canadians feel that the present law does not go far enough, a third believe that the law is correct as it stands, and a third believe that it has gone too far. It is prudent for Parliament to allow for an adjustment to existing laws rather than to entrench, as was suggested a week or so ago, a single view to which a larger segment of the population is opposed. I would use the same argument in speaking to this particular Bill and say that a third of Canadians believe the law is correct as it stands and a third would have it widened.
Abortion is not an abstract concept. It represents one of the most difficult, painful choices which can confront a woman. As a man, 1 would suggest that the men involved find the decision no easier. I cannot believe that a decision to have an abortion is ever taken lightly or ever forgotten. We should not be forcing people to take sides if we believe that each of us is entitled to his or her viewpoint on the subject.
Surely it is possible to accommodate the views of the many thinking, feeling Canadians who believe, as I do, in the right of women to exercise control over their own lives. However, having said that, it concerns me that nearly one-quarter of the abortions performed in the country involve women under the age of 20 years. Obviously our methods of educating and preparing young people to handle their sexual maturity are not adequately meeting their needs. I lay no blame on any political Party or on any level of government. I just say that somewhere
Criminal Code
we who are charged with those responsibilities are not making our point.
The impact on all society of teenage pregnancies is serious. It interrupts, perhaps forever, young people's education, putting their future economic security on a very shaky footing. In many instances it also places upon them burdens which are too heavy for a young person to carry.
Certainly studies have shown that the babies of these early pregnancies face a very high risk of abuse, poor health, and poor development.
Discussion and debate is healthy when they provide a frank and expansive airing of views. Therefore, when my colleague brings forward this subject and we focus debate on it, I think it is helpful. The issue must be faced with an open mind and, more important, with an open heart. We must work at mitigating the circumstances which lead women to face this most difficult of choices. At the same time, having made their choice, Canadian women should be able to count on appropriate access to the necessary caring and safe services.
In the final analysis, I believe the current law should not be changed. Women must be allowed to make their own choice and decision. No one on either side of the issue suggests that the choice is easy. However, we as legislators must allow that choice to be made by the person most intimately involved and concerned with the results of the decision-the woman.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, in rising to speak to the Bill proposed by the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), I must say that I do so with some regret and disappointment.
This is not the first occasion upon which male Conservative Members of Parliament have risen in the House and made suggestions which I believe are deeply offensive to Canadian women in respect of the fundamental question of abortion.
I think, for example, of the remarks made recently by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). He rose in this House approximately a month ago-a Conservative Member of Parliament from Toronto-and suggested that he was concerned about the number of abortions in Canada because had these abortions not taken place, in fact, school classrooms would have been filled with children, and teachers would have been hired to teach those classrooms full of children. The arrogance of that approach, which reduces a woman effectively to a machine to produce children and which totally denies the individuality, the humanity and the uniqueness in that woman herself, is breathtaking.
Another Conservative Member of Parliament, the Hon. Member for Gray-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), went even further. He suggested that those women who choose to have an abortion-and my colleague who just spoke pointed out that this is a decision which is never an easy decision, it is often an agonizingly painful decision-and who do so when their own

June 15, 1987
Criminal Code
life is not being threatened should be charged with murder. That Conservative Member of Parliament went further. Not only did he suggest that they should be charged with, and presumably convicted of, murder, but that Tory Member of Parliament who has such reverence for life, such respect for life, suggested that those women should be executed as murderers. So much for the respect for the life that this Conservative Member of Parliament so piously proclaims. He is prepared to sacrifice the life of the woman, the mother of that child, to protect the foetus.
When I rose in the House today, as I have risen on other occasions, to speak on this question, it is with a certain sense of anger at the arrogance of those men in this House who would tell the women of this country that they have no right, after having agonized over this difficult decision, to make for themselves the fundamental decision on abortion.
What does the Bill, which the Conservative Member of Parliament is proposing here, say? It says that no longer can a woman whose health is being threatened seek an abortion. No longer, Madam Speaker, can a woman who might suffer serious physical harm, who might, in fact, be disabled, seek an abortion. What right does this Member or any other Member of this House have to tell a woman, who is crying out in desperation, who has been told by her doctor that if she carries that child to term she will be permanently disabled, that her health will be deeply affected? What right does that Member have to tell that woman, "No, you must bear that child even if it means that your health will be permanently damaged as a result".
That is what this Member is telling the women of Canada. He is repealing the requirement in the Criminal Code which states that if a woman's health is threatened, she is entitled to make that difficult choice and she is entitled to have an abortion. Just so that it is clear beyond any doubt, the Member goes on to say this in his Bill:
-the life of a female person is endangered where her life is in actual physical danger, irrespective of any consideration of her mental, social or economic condition.
Once again, let us look at the situation of a young woman who is pregnant in Kamloops, British Columbia or in Corner-brook, Newfoundland and is 14 or 15 years of age. She goes in to see her doctor and her doctor makes it very clear that for this young woman, this girl, to have a child means she would suffer terribly, whether it be mentally or physically-her health would be threatened. This Member who proposes this Bill would say to that young girl, "You must bear this child. We don't care about your health. We don't care about your mental well-being or your physical health. We place above that the value of the foetus." This is arrogance and insensitivity that surely we in this House must reject, Madam Speaker.
This Bill refuses to deal with the reality of the life of a woman. It basically reduces the life of a woman to her physical existence or the physical functioning of her body. To remove the question of a woman's general health, her mental health, her social relationships or her economic situation from the
consideration of her life is simplistic to say the least, and is degrading and dangerous in practice. There must be more to a consideration of danger to life than merely physical harm. I find incredible the suggestion by this Hon. Member that that is not the case. Over and over again we hear a similar argument made by those who would deny choice to Canadian women.
1 am pleased that the significant majority of Canadians reject this destructive, dangerous and arrogant approach. For example, the Reverend Dr. Robin Smith of the Family Ministries Division of the United Church of Canada, in speaking to the motion which was introduced previously by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe said this:
-this motion precludes consideration of the rights and situation of all other members of a family. It robs women entirely of responsibility for their own bodies and their moral action. For many this could mean serious hardship. It takes no account of the life and needs of siblings, which can be deeply affected.
Finally, this motion gives absolute value to one element in a complex moral situation: the right to existence of the foetus. It thereby reduces all other factors to insignificance. While life is sacred, it is not, as many of our national policies and practices illustrate, of absolute value.
Yes, Madam Speaker, our abortion laws clearly need attention. Recently in the Supreme Court of Canada, for example, the Supreme Court justices questioned these laws. In questioning counsel, Justice Willard Estey said this:
So you've got zones in this country where there is no access. You've got whole provinces that are carved out of the process. Is this some kind of local option which has slid into the Criminal Code? I can't think of any other section of the Code which lays itself open to this practice.
Rather than restricting access even further in the manner proposed by the Hon. Member for Kitchener, I suggest that we should recognize the weakness of the existing law, the fact that women in Prince Edward Island are denied access totally to safe therapeutic abortions. Even those women whose lives are threatened, which is the concern of the Hon. Member for Kitchener, cannot have abortions in Prince Edward Island. Women in Newfoundland, women in Kamloops, B.C., where the hospital board has adopted a very narrow approach, cannot.
I would suggest, in closing, that we as parliamentarians listen to the voice of the people in Canada who have spoken through their juries which have refused to convict those doctors who have courageously assisted women in seeking access to safe therapeutic abortions. I suggest that we place emphasis on sex education, on birth control awareness and availability and on economic support for women and particularly those poor women who in some cases actually decide that they cannot support their children.
I reject the Bill of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kitchener. I hope that Members of the House as well will reject this Bill which fundamentally denies the reality of Canadian women.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I
rise today to speak to the private Member's Bill of the Hon.
June 15, 1987

Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer). This Bill is of great moral and ethical significance to society today. The Bill seeks to protect the life of the unborn except where the continuation of a pregnancy would or would be likely to endanger the life of a pregnant woman.
This Bill is very important because it recognizes that a human being does not just become a person the moment he or she is delivered from the security of his or her mother's womb but that he or she is a member of the human race from the moment of his or her conception. Self-defence is the only rationale given in this Bill to end the life of an unborn child. Proof must be given that the female person is in actual physical danger irrespective of her mental, social or economic condition. The addition of Section 8 gives a more succinct reason for ending the life of the unborn. No longer would women be able to use the excuse of mental strain or of not having the financial capabilities to raise children as a reason for ending the lives inside them.
I believe that life begins at conception, and I have stated previously and in letters to my constituents that I cannot support abortion unless the life of the mother is in danger. I would like to explain my reasons for this stand.
The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child states that the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth. Why do some people believe that an unborn child is not a human being until it is born? Do they not recognize that even at its earliest development, say at one or two weeks, the unborn child is simply at one special stage in a whole series of steps which will eventually lead him or her to old age?
The only difference in the existence of a child at one or two weeks or at two or three years old lies in the process of maturing and aging, in other words, in developing. By assuming that one only becomes a person when one is at full term or is capable of sustaining life independently of the womb, we might as well say that the nine months the unborn child spends inside its mother's womb is irrelevant to the rest of its life because it was not a person anyway. Of course, this is a ridiculous assertion.
What of the full-term infant who is not capable of sustaining life independently due to some physiological deformation or serious health problem? Do we then not consider him a person either? Have we the power to say that this is not a life as we perceive it and therefore we can disallow this non-person's existence? We can certainly see how deep this issue goes when it comes to moral and ethical decisions.
From a fertilized egg will come 100 trillion cells, the average number of cells in an adult. Before it is even 30 days old, an unborn child is one-quarter inch long and has all the genetic programming which will determine his height, eye colour, hair colour, the shape of his nose and all the characteristics he has inherited from his parents. At 60 days, the same unborn child is the size of a thumb and responds to painful stimuli. At 16
Criminal Code
weeks, he is 5.5 inches long and weighs less than a pound. At 40 weeks, he weighs over seven pounds, is 20 inches long and is ready to be delivered. At what point in this continuum can we say that this unborn child became a human being?
The British Columbia Government has permitted communities to run local hospitals with elected boards, and their guidelines have resulted in dramatic decreases in abortions in some hospitals. Despite this, however, there are still many abortions being done in other hospitals around the province. In 1984, there were 11,509 abortions in B.C. In 1985, B.C.'s abortion rate was 50 per cent higher than the national average. For every 100 live births, there are 26.1 abortions. What makes this figure even more horrendous is that 25 per cent of these were repeats.
A repeat abortion means that the woman having an abortion has had a least one other. The number of repeat abortions has risen dramatically over the last 10 years on the national level. In 1975, 8.6 per cent of all women who had abortions were repeats. In 1985, that figure was 20.3 per cent. In fact, more women were repeaters in 1985 than the total of all the officially recorded abortions in 1970.
Prior to 1969, doctors performed abortions on rare occasions when they believed the mother would die if the pregnancy continued. It is only since 1969 that induced abortions have come to mean a deliberate decision to terminate the life of an unborn child. We should make the changes to the Criminal Code which will protect the life of the unborn child except when the continuation would endanger the life of the pregnant woman.
The number of Canadian hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees is given as either 250 or 253. Of this figure, 39 hospitals have reported a total of 45,369 abortions or 74.4 per cent of the Canadian total. In other words, 15.6 per cent of hospitals with therapeutic abortion clinics are performing three-quarters of the abortions.
This makes one wonder about the use of the word "therapeutic". In The Concise Oxford Dictionary, it is defined as the branch of medicine concerned with the treatment of disease and the action of remedial agents in disease or health. I think we could all agree that pregnancy is not a disease and abortion is not therapeutic. It heals no disease but kills human beings.
When therapeutic abortion committees were originally developed, the intent of the law was to ensure that all alternative methods of preserving the mother's life or health would be used before the drastic step of aborting a child was permitted. I do not believe that the 11,509 abortions performed in B.C. alone in 1984 were to preserve the life and health of the mothers. It is hard to accept that the women of British Columbia are that unhealthy.
A few weeks ago, the B.C. Ministry of Social Services conducted the province's first-ever apprehension of a foetus. This seizure occurred after a woman, 36 weeks pregnant, told doctors at the Vancouver Grace Hospital that she did not intend to consent to medical treatment for her child after it

June 15, 1987
Criminal Code
was born. The doctors used the word "child" when referring to the foetus. The social worker conferred with a supervisor and superintendent and all three of them agreed that the child should be apprehended. The province's Family and Child Services Act empowers the Government to seize any child in need of protection.
The B.C. seizure is not the only case in which the rights of the foetus have been recognized. Two months ago, a judge in Ontario ordered a 36-week-old foetus made a ward of the Belleville Children's Aid Society after its mother, who planned to give birth in the underground parking lot in which she made her home, refused medical treatment. I think these are landmark cases.
The Bill we are debating today is very important. The unborn child, the foetus or whatever one wants to call the person who is developing in his mother's womb, deserves the protection of all Canadians. Only in situations where the mother is in actual physical danger should an abortion even be considered. I fully support this Bill to change the Criminal Code as it relates to abortion.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Madam Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity, as I did last week, to take part in a debate that I consider very important. Madam Speaker, the question at issue is still the same: Can we be for or against abortion? I don't think we have a choice. No one in this House can be for abortion. We are necessarily against abortion. However, since we live in a society that always judges in terms of punishment, what kind of punishment should there be for an act that from the outset is deemed to be reprehensible? The same attitude is reflected in all our social and political relationships. Sometimes you meet people for the first time, and they start in right away saying, rather condescendingly; By the way, what's your salary bracket? We are always trying to classify and categorize people. He earns more than somebody else. That job is better than this one. Policemen in Montreal have to earn more than their colleagues in Beloeil school. Teachers academic standards are high or not so high .. . Our society has always tended to categorize. And this, of course, works both positively and negatively.
Madam Speaker, I am a practising Catholic. I have no negative feelings about my religious upbringing. I remember that as a boy, at school, we spent whole catechism classes discussing whether a given sin was venial or mortal. It was practically a sin, the way we were thinking what kinds of sins would be venial and what kind would be mortal! I don't hold it against my religion that I was raised that way. It was the system. The system classified faults as major and minor.
What we have before us today, Madam Speaker, is much the same. I am against abortion. But not to the extent that I want to see someone who wants an abortion declared a criminal. Some women use abortion as a contraceptive. I find them silly, if I may say so. Women who had five, six, seven
abortions are not those are I was refering to, but does that make them criminals automatically? That is the basic question. That has always been the basic debate. So I should make them criminals but then, what kind of society I am going to have? I do not want a permissive society, a society where anyone can do anything. The sense of values has been lost. When children were raised in a closed circle, within the family, it was easy to transmit the right values. But today, the best mind-shaper in the world, because often the father and mother desert the home, is more often than not television.
But try to think at what happens on TV. What kind of values does it carry? We will realize we will have to adapt our values to a larger context. Try and imagine for a second what it means for a four year old child to look at TV and to see someone being killed, an actor that is being killed one way or another in a program. The following week he sees him alive in another program. Try and imagine how that child will be raised. What does that mean a murder to him, what does death means? It is not the same as for me. That child tells himself: He is being killed, blood spills, etc., he falls down. Nothing serious, he will come back. The kind of education and values we tend to give him today are completely destroyed by other, violent values.
I remember it was in Nicaragua I think, two or three years ago, an American TV newsman was killed before the cameras. It appeared on the 6 o'clock news. Really terrible! When the regime was toppled in Haiti and Duvalier fled, I saw people being killed with machetes. It was broadcast on the 6 o'clock news. That is our kind of society.
Is society more permissive when making murderers out of those who get abortion, or when allowing that kind of thing to be viewed?


An Hon. Member:: Come back to conservative values.


Jean-Guy Hudon: No, not conservative values.
But there is something else, Madam Speaker. We are a bit cautious in this worthy House of Commons, with a majority of male Members. We are prudent. We do not refer to those 100,000 incest cases in Canada. No, we must not refer to that! We do not refer to those 100,000 incest cases. Women who are raped twice, we do not refer to that. They are raped once on the street, and the second time in court because we are never sure if they did not entice the male in the first place. We do not refer to that. But contrary to my pal across the aisle, from Burnaby maybe, who spoke earlier, the one from the New Democratic Party. Not one of them is here to listen to us, of course. I am not accusing them of being conservative. He patronized earlier "those conservatives". I am happy, Madam Speaker, to be part of a political party that lets people of whatever faction to be heard, to put their views forward and to debate something in a democratic way. We can talk about a House of Commons with right or left leanings, but I reject the accusation of conservatism. There are in this House people from the 10 provinces. Who do they think they are in this so called democratic party to believe that everybody should think
June 15, 1987

the way they do. I do not know what the sexual orientation of my friend is, but if it departs from the conventional norm, he could not expect everybody to be the same.
Here is the New Democratic Party, trying to force its values on everyone! Madam Speaker, I am glad to belong to a Party which allows it members to speak, to understand, to state their views, to discuss and then says: "Good, we are now going to vote to see whose value is most acceptable." If, in the New Democratic Party, they have found the truth and are able to mass produce it, I am very happy for them. However, I have my doubts, and we suspect, considering what is happening in Quebec presently, that their beautiful unanimity is coming to an end.
So, Madam Speaker, here we are, as members of a society, of the highest Chamber in the land. I believe we should look after things which challenge our values rather than try to grade the various categories of punishment for those who commit some crime. 1 repeat my first sentence, Madam Speaker: Can we be for or against abortion? I think we must be against. But executing somebody for that is another kettle of fish.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, this debate goes straight to the fundamental issue of what we believe life to be. I know many Canadians on both sides of the issue. I like and admire them. They are honest, decent, ethical and moral citizens. Indeed, many countries differ on this issue as well. The harshest restrictions on abortion exist in countries such as Ireland, Portugal and the Philippines. In those countries there is no exemption from the absolute prohibition against abortion, not even for the narrow purpose of saving the mother's life. Less restrictive nations permit abortions for medical reasons affecting the mother. However, the restrictions are usually minimal, and countries with those minimal restrictions are Japan, the U.K., the Scandinavian countries, and the countries of eastern Europe. Abortions are legally performed there for such reasons as difficult domestic situations, often too many other children, financial hardship, unmarried status, or ill health. The least restrictive type of abortion law permits abortion upon demand, although that is usually within a limited time. Countries with such laws are the People's Republic of China, Denmark, the German Democratic Republic, Tunisia, the Soviet Union, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and the United States. People on both sides of this issue cover all political persuasions in other countries, as they do in ours.
It is obvious that each of us must speak entirely on a personal basis. Having read and thought about this a lot, there is no doubt in my mind, not a shadow of a doubt, that life starts at birth. We are then faced with the question of where we draw the line between the historic right of the mother to make certain choices about herself and her body, and the right
Adjournment Debate
of the child to have the protection of law. Our ancestors decided on the date of natural childbirth as the cut-off. Clearly that is unsustainable in our modern society. At six or seven months we can take a child out of the womb, operate on it, and put it back in the womb again. When the child is out of the womb it has all the legal rights of any person. When it goes back in the womb again it suddenly loses those rights. We have to move the cut-off time forward, the question is how far. I look forward to debating this further so I can present my views to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for consideration of Private Member's Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



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

Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Madam Speaker, on May 20, 1987, I rose in this House to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) with regard to when the National Drug Strategy would be brought forward and what it would contain. Usually to take part in the Adjournment Debate, according to the Standing Orders, one must be dissatisfied with the response of the Minister. I want to go on record as saying that I am certainly not dissatisfied. As a matter of fact, I am very, very satisfied. I only wish to expand and make some recommendations.
In the Throne Speech of October 1, 1986, one reads:
A national drug strategy and a comprehensive program dealing with impaired
drivers will be brought forward to support the prevention of drug and alcohol
abuse.
This was one of the commitments of the Government and was applauded by almost everyone as a positive step. An exception was the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) who said on October 3, 1986:
It seems that when Ronald Reagan has a drug problem Canada gets an
epidemic.
I think this is a very cynical view which was not shared by most Canadians.
On May 25, 1987, and during the following week a group of Ministers of the Crown made statements. Statements were made by the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay), the Secretary

June 15, 1987
Adjournment Debate
of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The program that was brought in was a new strategy which includes a public education campaign in concert with the provinces, support for both prevention and treatment initiatives at the community level, increased federal funding for drug and alcohol treatment and rehabilitation, development of training programs and resources for professionals and volunteers, greater availability of information through such means as telephone information lines, new legislation to replace the Narcotics Control Act and the Food and Drug Act, and a task force to consider the creation of a national focus to ensure that expertise in the drug abuse field is shared for the benefit of all.
Once again the Liberal Party was not satisfied and attacked. I would like to quote from an editorial in support of this initiative in a Toronto paper. It says:
We have to save a generation.
We could argue that this detailed plan of attack is late, but never that it's a
waste. Nonetheless, and to no one's surprise, Liberal health critic Sheila Copps
did some shrill carping.
She thinks Epp has put this together "because he wants to make a name for
himself at the United Nations."
Spare us from such nonsense.
All parties should unite behind this complex and thorough anti-drug program.
There's no room for party politics in the war on dope.
Another Toronto newspaper, the name of which I will not mention, which makes no bones about its support for the Liberal Party, carried an editorial headlined: "Fuzzy message on drug abuse". This was no "fuzzy message". This is a strict stand which the Government is about to take which will do something about our greatest natural resource, our youth. The Government has a superb record in the initiatives it has taken and those it is currently working on.
We can talk about the Meech Lake Accord and freer trade with the United States. We can talk about our anti-pornography legislation, our White Paper on defence or tax reform. But what good is any of this if we do not protect our most important and valuable natural resource, our youth? We must support this initiative, and I thank the Minister for bringing it forward.
In conclusion, I feel that improved enforcement is necessary for the initiative. However, it is somewhat like locking the stable door after the horse has gone. I believe that most of these funds should be allocated for public education. I want to say I am very supportive and proud of the Peel Board of Education, which is the largest school board in Ontario. It did a survey last year of views of students, educators and parents on alcohol, drugs and tobacco. It was a very comprehensive review at its own expense. I think some of these funds should
be allocated to the people who have hands-on experience working with youth who abuse drugs and alcohol. The Peel Board of Education will implement a program "Not so Tough to Say No"-I think that is a great name for a program-in all senior elementary classes no later than September 1988. The Peel Board of Education recommends the expansion of a Values, Influence and Peers program to all grade six classes not later than September 1988.
I support what this Government has done. I believe it is a very worth-while initiative and I look forward to seeing it implemented in the years to come.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his representations and support for the Government program on drug abuse. I must say that while I am not directly involved with justice and Solicitor General issues, I did spend two and a half years as chairman of the committee on which my hon. colleague served very well indeed. That committee put through some 14 justice Bills and, I believe, two or three Solicitor General Bills. By hard work we were able to get through a lot of legislation which has been helpful to the nation at large.
On May 25 the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) outlined the main features of this Government's action on drug abuse. Specific components of the plan were announced by other Ministers over the course of that week. The focus of our national drug strategy, for which the Government will be committing over $210 million, is an emphasis on education and prevention as the key line of defence against the harm caused to individuals, their families and our communities by the abuse of drugs.
I think all Canadians agree we have to move on that. When Members opposite were trying to belittle the program, they just brought themselves into disrepute and looked silly because all people want to have actions taken which will save the next generation. At the young age which most get started, they really do not appreciate the damage they are doing to themselves and ultimately to our whole society.
My colleague referred to the Peel Board of Education. I must say to him that I do not know offhand the mechanism which will be used to gain access to the $210 million. However, I would strongly encourage him to send a copy of today's Hansard to the Minister and solicit the Minister's response because it may well be that that would be the very best application of the $210 million, so that the school boards and educational boards could handle the problem. Indeed, the Minister today, in terms of our international effort, is in Vienna signing an international treaty or agreement to act cooperatively around the globe in fighting abuse of drugs.
June 15, 1987


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-SITUATION OF FRANCOPHONES-INQUIRY WHETHER SOLICITOR GENERAL HAS ACTION PLAN-REDUCTION IN FRANCOPHONE MANPOWER
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, again I rise to say how disappointed and somewhat disillusioned I feel with respect to the linguistic situation in Royal Canadian Mounted Police services. Again I am very sorry that I have to raise the issue, for it would seem some people are reluctant to discuss this matter.
Incidentally, Madam Speaker, tomorrow the Committee on Official Languages will be hearing the Solicitor General, the man responsible for these cases, be it the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or Correctional Service Canada. As I said, tomorrow we will have an opportunity to ask the Minister a few questions and perhaps, at least I hope, secure a commitment about his taking the necessary corrective measures and making whatever arrangements may be required with the deputy heads of the various agencies so they will not only report to him on progress made but also ensure that they will rectify and change their attitude concerning the linguistic question.
Madam Speaker, the problems experienced by the RCMP with respect to the official languages are not new, everybody knows that. I raised them in the House 13 times in the past seven or eight months, and I am not the only one doing that because the Commissioner of Official Languages had this to say in his 1981 annual report, and I quote:
-the RCMP's foot-dragging in the areas of language of work and Francophone participation among police personnel is disquieting.
This was in 1981, and things have not changed since then. The problem is not new, we are in 1987 and the problem is just as disquieting and worrying.
In August one could read in the Pony Express-an official internal RCMP publication-that they were planning a reduction in the number of regular officers hired by the RCMP from the 20 per cent established, on the basis of figures set a number of years ago already, and this was to be done as a result of an agreement between the Government and the RCMP, a reduction to 14 per cent.
There was a flurry of activities at the time, several questions were raised in the House, there were debates, and when we know how the government machinery works ... I thought that the day when I received from the President of the Treasury Board a firm commitment that the Solicitor General was going to get personally involved in this question, this problem, and set everything straight by means of a comprehensive plan which was to be submitted to him in the very near future ... In fact, in his answer to me in early May he had told me: Within a week! Here we are, June 15, and I have been waiting for this RCMP comprehensive plan for more than a month.
When I raised this question last week, Thursday when speaking on the supply motion, to make this Government
Adjournment Debate
understand that what we want is to obtain firm guidelines, specific policies, clear objectives, I was told: A report will be released. Sure enough, they released the report of the internal group on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and I read it. Tomorrow we will have time to put questions to the Minister, I hope, concerning this famous report, and I am grateful to the Government for making this report public.
What I am concerned about and what I should like to get is the official comprehensive plan of the RCMP, approved by the Solicitor General and delivered, at his request, to the President of the Treasury Board. I want this plan because it was promised to the House and because it might help us to better understand and appreciate the objectives of this Government concerning official languages.
Madam Speaker, this is a serious problem which means that today we are in difficulty, and not only for the language of work, because the RCMP is almost entirely anglophone.
There have been problems obtaining services in French; we have received complaints; the Committee has examined several. Instead of ensuring an equitable participation of both linguistic groups to reflect Canada's respect for both these groupes and for our duality, the RCMP wanted to reduce the proportion of francophone staff from 20 to 14 per cent. I protested vigorously. Apparently, there is now a trend to a more generous policy. Madam Speaker, I just do not understand why, again today, on June 15, the Government is still so reluctant to make these linguistic guidelines, policies and plans public.
To conclude, Madam Speaker, I want the House to know that I wrote the Prime Minister a four-page letter. I must confess that I was feeling quite discouraged. I was getting nowhere with the Minister: one day he was telling me one thing, and the next something else. I therefore wrote the Prime Minister a well thought out four-page letter in which I described step by step how this issue had developed. I received first an acknowledgement. Then, a little later, specifically on May 25 (I had written the Prime Minister on May the 5th), I received a letter signed by Mr. Donald J.M. Cummer, which stated:
Further to your letter dated May 5, the Prime Minister has asked me to thank
you for your comments on this issue-
-concerning the RCMP, the Security Intelligence Service of Canada, and the Correctional Service Canada. I quote further:
-and to send a copy of your letter to the Hon. James Kelleher, that it may
receive the undivided attention it deserves. Rest assured that Mr. Kelleher will
contact you shortly.
Madam Speaker, when I write the Prime Minister and ask him to do something about a minister whose resignation I have been seeking because he is unable to manage his own affairs, I find it quite insulting to be told: "Your letter has been forwarded to the accused and he will reply himself." Madam Speaker, I find that totally unacceptable because this letter asked the Prime Minister to give particular attention to the

June 15, 1987
Adjournment Debate
serious problems which exist in the RCMP, and I would have thought that the Prime Minister could have written himself to say: Jean-Robert, do not worry, I am taking care of this; we are going to do something. Madam Speaker, nothing has happened, absolutely nothing. Tonight, I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary first what has happened to the RCMP report which was supposed to be submitted to the President of the Treasury Board and, finally, when we will have answers to our questions.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has again raised the question of the future direction of the Official Languages Program of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The question is an important one, and the Hon. Member is to be commended for the perseverance and tenacity with which he has pursued this important issue.
As recently as last Thursday, June 11, 1987, the Hon. Member was assured in the House that the Minister had submitted certain proposals to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) with respect to the Official Languages Program of the RCMP. It was further indicated at that time that these proposals would include the initiatives which would allow the RCMP to achieve the long-term objective of becoming a more bilingual institution, representative of the two official language groups in this country.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is also aware that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) will be appearing before the Joint Committee on Official Languages tomorrow afternoon. As a member of that committee, the Hon. Member will have the opportunity at that time to pose his questions directly to the Solicitor General.
The Solicitor General has placed the Official Languages Programs within the RCMP and CSIS high on the list of his immediate personal priorities. Indeed, when he became aware of the complaints by CSIS personnel in respect of the use of the official languages in that organization, he pursued an initiative undertaken by his predecessor, who asked the Security Intelligence Review Committee to examine closely the entire question. The Security Intelligence Review Committee submitted its report to him, and the Minister endorses its recommendations.
The RCMP submission on official languages was considered by Treasury Board last week. I do not wish to pre-empt the Solicitor General in any statements or announcements he may wish to make concerning this submission when he appears before the Joint Committee on Official Languages tomorrow; however, I can assure the Hon. Member that he will be pleased with the official languages initiatives to be undertaken by the RCMP. I am sure he will find himself agreeing that the areas of concern previously identified by him and his colleagues on the Joint Committee will have been addressed.


PAROLE-BRITISH COLUMBIA EXPERIMENT USING ELECTRONIC MONITORING ANKLE BRACELETS
Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, what sort of summer jobs did you have when you were a student? I suspect that at least some of them were involved with the theatre. However, personally, I had quite a variety of summer jobs.
I remember, for instance, working for two summers in what was then called the IBM department of Imperial Life. It was a department which used at that time things called punch cards and huge machines called sorters, collators, and calculators. You remember that sort of thing, Madam Speaker.
Of course times have changed and they have changed very rapidly since that time. Now we have smaller and faster machines, machines with greater capabilities and greater capacity. Those machines are not now called calculators but are called computers.
Computers have a great many functions and uses. In fact, no office can be without one. You may have one in your own office, Madam Speaker. You certainly have a word processor and an electronic mail machine. Industry cannot be without them.
Recently I have found even relatively small industries in my constituency using computers. For example, Erno Manufacturing, which makes office equipment, has computerized machinery. Dorothea Knitting Mills-and you probably have a Parker sweater, Madam Speaker, which was made in my riding by Dorothea Knitting Mills-has computerized knitting machines.
The Government has computers for sending out tax bills. Computers are used to send out water bills and hydro bills. The Government has econometric models for calculating the effects on the economy of different problems. Of course we have computers in our homes. For instance, it was interesting the other day to find out from the architect of the Dome Stadium in Toronto that it would have been impossible to build the retractable roof on the stadium without computers to make all the mathematical calculations.
With all these computers being used, it is no wonder that someone has thought of applying the computer to our parole system. This concept provides that offenders who are nearing the end of their prison terms can actually volunteer to be fitted with a tamper-proof bracelet around the arm or ankle and, when they finish their sentence, they finish it at home rather than at a half-way house. There is a tiny computer in the bracelet which is linked to a central computer. It records every time the offender strays outside a 50-metre range of his or her home telephone. That is how the electronic arm or ankle bracelet works. Officials are immediately notified by way of the transmitter and computer of a possible escape or a possible curfew violation by the offender on parole.
June 15, 1987

It has the effect of cutting the costs of looking after prisoners. For instance, it has been estimated that it could cut costs down from $70 per day to a mere $10 per day. It also reduces the overcrowding which we have in many prisons.
People scoff at the idea of electronic arm or ankle bracelets. When I asked the question of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) in the House not long ago, opposition Members actually laughed at the idea. They said it was a ridiculous idea and that people could be excused from parole violations perhaps by a battery failure.
Some members of the Opposition oppose the concept. The John Howard Society in Toronto actually opposes it as well. It feels that it would be a violation of personal freedom. Many other civil rights groups and prisoners' groups feel that it would be a violation of civil rights, perhaps a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and a violation of the freedom of movement concept. Ole Instrup, the Chairman of the National Parole Board, says that he is fundamentally opposed to the concept. However, we know that the concept is in fact in use in 20 different jurisdictions in the United States.
Presently there are some 900 prisoners who are released with this sort of electronic surveillance which the Americans call an electronic leash. As well, British Columbia is starting to experiment with this system. Just this very month, the Province of Ontario says it is considering putting an experimental model into use by the end of this year. Fortunately, our own Solicitor General has indicated that the Canadian Correctional Service's mind is not closed to the concept and that it is going to be watching these other experiments very closely.
I do not know whether this idea will work or not. I cannot help but think of the case that I brought to your attention before, Madam Speaker, of Leander Savoury. You will remember that he was the prisoner who was released on parole back in October, 1984. Before he was killed in a police shootout in January, 1985-he was three short months on parole- he had committed nine armed robberies and killed one man. While he was on parole he apparently was in contact with his parole officer once in person and he spoke to him twice on the telephone. Of course, he was warned to stay in regular contact with his parole officer, but in spite of all of that, he committed nine armed robberies and killed one man.
Would electronic monitoring by way of an electronic leash or bracelet on the ankle or the wrist have prevented those armed robberies? Would it have prevented the killing or the
Adjournment Debate
death of Leander Savoury himself in the police shoot-out? I do not know, Madam Speaker. You probably do not know right at this stage but I think it is worth trying to find out. I think it is worth trying this experiment.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us tonight that he agrees and that the Canadian Correctional Service will be getting involved and utilizing this experiment to see if it will improve our parole system and help to solve this sort of problem.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak further to the question put to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) concerning the possible use of electronic bracelets to help supervise federal inmates on parole.
The Correctional Service of Canada has at this time no plans to introduce such a program. However, it will be monitoring those in the United States and in British Columbia to see whether they yield any positive results.
While there may be potential applications of this concept to federal inmates, the Correctional Service would first want to satisfy itself as to all of the various ethical and legal ramifications of using monitoring technology. Moreover, it would not consider using this type of system for high risk offenders or those not willing to wear the device. It also would not view electronic supervision as eliminating the need for the continuing face to face contacts that parole officers have with offenders.
On balance, the Correctional Service of Canada is not currently in favour of implementing an electronic monitoring program and the Parole Board shares this position. However, the Solicitor General and his agencies will be keeping an open mind on the issue and for that reason will be watching to see what emerges from the various initiatives now under way, including that in British Columbia, so that we can ultimately decide if and how the federal jurisdiction should proceed in this area.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, June 16, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Second Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.

This report makes some comments upon, and some recommendations about, the trade development activities of the Department of External Affairs.


PETITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many people in southern Manitoba who are presently represented by Conservative Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, but only until the next election.
The petitioners are concerned about the Government's intention to change the Patent Act with regard to the purchase of prescription drugs. They believe this will result in higher costs to provincial Governments through their drug plans. They also believe it is unfair to Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis and this is being done at the expense of average Canadians because of the Government's wish to accommodate the United States in the free trade negotiations.
Therefore, the petitioners humble pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

["It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.\nAt 1 p.m. the House took recess."]
Philip Derek Lewis: Motions?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair may have moved too quickly. I understand the Government wishes to proceed on a motion. I am sure there will be consent for that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if the Government wants to proceed on Motions, I must say that we have already had Petitions which follow Motions. I do not want to create any difficulties here, but I know that if we wanted to revert back to some stage in the proceedings we would not be allowed to do so. I do not see any reason why we should do so at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has raised a caveat on this matter. However, I have considered it. The motion does not require consent and can now be moved on Orders of the Day. 1 think this is a situation which arises as a result of the new orders.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Under Orders of the Day?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I had called Orders of the Day. Perhaps I created a problem because I did not realize what motion it was. I thought that the Government wanted to revert back to Motions. I have taken the Hon. Member's caveat as notice.



Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That, further to the notice given on Thursday, June 1 1, 1987, by the Deputy
Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council, and pursuant to the
provisions of Standing Order 117, in relation to Bill C-18, An Act respecting
national transportation, four further hours be allotted to the consideration of

June 15, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
the report stage and four hours to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the end of the four hours allotted to the report stage consideration and to the third reading stage consideration of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to begin the debate on the two-hour time allocation motion with respect to Bill C-18. While I have only recently come to the transport dossier I do not think that in my entire eight years here on the Hill have I seen a Bill that has had more consultation and had more evidence given about it by witnesses than Bill C-18. In my entire eight years I have never seen a Bill that has been so well briefed. I would like to pay a compliment to the members of the Standing Committee on all sides of the House who worked very hard on this Bill.
I wish to emphasize that the Government places a high priority on transportation. Bills C-18, C-19 and C-21 reinforce that high priority. The over-all objective of Bill C-18 is summarized in Clause 3 of the Bill. It is to create the conditions necessary for a safe, adequate, effective and efficient transportation system that best serves the needs of shippers and travellers. The promotion of greater competition among carriers will improve efficiency and effectiveness in the transportation sector. This will make Canadian products more competitive in both domestic and international markets.
I am sure that most Canadians do not appreciate that, on average, our cost of transportation is 1 per cent to 2 per cent higher than costs in other countries and that, on average, the cost of transportation across the country is about 6 per cent. However, in some industries such as potash and other resource industries the cost can rise to as high as between 20 per cent and 30 per cent. I know that in the case of certain types of coal the cost of transportation can be as high as 50 per cent. Thus while we live in a huge country and cannot get away from such costs the fact of the matter is that we can reduce them so that the over-all effectiveness of our system is maximized.
Since I only have 10 minutes 1 want Hon. Members to appreciate the extent of consultation that has gone into Bill C-18. The reforms were forged as a result of extensive consultation with shippers, carriers, labour, the travelling public and other levels of government. This process commenced in early 1985. The previous Minister of Transport, now the esteemed Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), set in motion a two-pronged process, that is, a policy review and consultation with those interested in transportation.
The result of that long consultation was a position paper entitled Freedom to Move which was released in July, 1985. That paper proposed a comprehensive set of reforms of economic regulation of each mode of transportation. The document was widely distributed. It provoked many critical but thoughtful responses. The Minister and his officials continued to meet with as many people as possible to clarify
viewpoints and suggestions. In addition, the Freedom to Move paper was referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
The Standing Committee heard the views of many witnesses, both in Ottawa and across the country. It produced a report recommending modifications and improvements to the White Paper Freedom to Move. Because of the concerns about the regulation of air services for our northern and remote communities the committee subsequently visited the North and produced a further report on that part of transportation. Based on all of this feedback in over 500 individual meetings, innumerable briefs and the committee's report, the Bill was drafted as Bill C-18 and was tabled in the House last June.
The extensive round of consultations was repeated and, after second reading approval in principle, the Bill was sent to the Standing Committee which again entered into a broad process, including hearing from witnesses across the country. Over 400 witnesses who made their views known with respect to this legislation appeared before the Standing Committee. Then, during clause-by-clause study the committee introduced several significant improvements.
As a result, I am personally convinced that this Bill represents a balanced package of reforms. The needs and interests of both the users and providers of transportation services will be well served by this Bill because they have had an opportunity to contribute at each and every stage of its development.
No Bill is ever perfect for all times since the economy and the Canadian way of life are constantly changing. I think one of the greatest additions to the Bill is that there will be annual reports on how the Bill is progressing and how the economy is adapting to it. There will be a comprehensive review at the end of four years. Personally, I think that is all we can do as legislators.
The Bill had enormous consultation before a White Paper was produced. The White Paper was then widely distributed and consulted upon, after which the Bill was introduced. The Standing Committee crossed the country again, heard all the views that were to be heard and then made some significant changes. Surely that is sufficient for the Bill. 1 think that this time allocation motion will pass. I hope Members will agree with me that the Bill has had sufficient consultation so that we can get on to finish report stage and third reading and get it out as the law of the land. As a result of the annual reports during the first four-year comprehensive review we can make whatever changes are necessary.
As I reflect on these regulatory reforms in transportation I see five or six guiding principles. Safety is the first priority. The committee in all its deliberations directed that safety regulations be improved. Second, transportation exists to serve the needs of shippers and travellers. In the past the nation has succumbed to the temptation that transportation is an end in itself as opposed to merely a service to shippers and travellers, to more efficiently ship goods across the country so that we
June 15, 1987

can put our products at tide water at a price level that is competitive with other countries.
We must never forget that over 30 per cent of our GNP comes from trade with other nations. Every time we spend $10, $3 of it has come from other countries. If we do not remain competitive with those other countries we will lose that $3 and our standard of living could drop by 30 per cent to 50 per cent practically overnight if we do not keep our transportation system running efficiently.
The third principle is that we need greater reliance on market forces and less reliance on economic regulation, a situation that will lead to more innovation and more enterprise, and a more competitive transportation system, both intramodally and intermodally. As a result of past regulation, competition within the various modes and certainly between the various modes has been distorted. This Bill would go a long way toward lessening that regulation-caused distortion.
Another principle is that, whenever necessary, the public interest must be protected through continued economic regulation. That is truer in the North than anywhere else, where there is a much smaller population, and more fragile markets. The Government has accepted the principle that we need to continue regulation in the North.
Wherever there is going to be regulation, another principle of the Bill is that it should be open, accessible, and not costly. All of us have had the occasion to talk to companies which have almost gone bankrupt as a result of bringing applications before the CTC in an effort to bring about more efficient and wider-ranging operations. That is just not the way regulation should operate. Under this Bill, the cost of regulation will be very much reduced.
Widespread consultation with all interested parties has produced a balanced package of reforms, a package which will best serve the needs of shippers and travellers while at the same time providing a good economic climate for efficient well-managed carriers.
Under this Bill, there are no losers. This Bill is clearly a win-win situation.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Government has taken the easy way out. Once again, it has preferred to cut short debate instead of facing the widespread criticism of this Bill. Once again, it has decided to gag the Opposition. The Government has made a nasty habit of this. It imposed closure to pass a Bill that would benefit the oil multinationals. It imposed closure to pass a Bill that would benefit the multinational drug companies. And now, it is imposing closure for a Bill that is definitely biased towards this country's major shippers.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that because we are talking about deregulation of our transportation industry, the Government's
National Transportation Act, 1986
decision is entirely unacceptable. I agree that the transportation industry is of vital importance to the development of the Canadian economy. That is why we say the Government should have consulted more and listened to those who testified against this Bill before the various parliamentary committees, instead of listening only to associations controlled by the big rich shippers, as the Government did. It should listen to the small shippers from the Maritimes and Western Canada who told us, for instance, that confidential contracts on domestic traffic might make them go out of business.
The Government should have listened to the unions that pointed out how many jobs would be lost in the industry if the Government persisted in its single-minded pursuit of deregulation.
The Government should have listened to professionals in the aviation industry, included pilots and others, who testified before the Transport Committee and told us in no uncertain terms that deregulation would unavoidably lead to a reduction in the quality of service and, even more important, in safety.
Representatives of the railway sector-both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific-told the Government that Bill C-18 was a threat to their survival.

The railroads told us that by opening up the Canadian market to competition from the American railways we would be reducing revenues, and investment in equipment and plant would suffer, leading in turn to a reduction in service and safety.
Did this Government listen? No, not at all.

Instead, he decided to set totally unrealistic deadlines, both for the Committee when it was considering the White Paper "Freedom to Move" and during consideration of Bill C-18 itself. Even now, at the report and third reading stage, we are still being saddled with absolutely unacceptable deadlines. The Government has systematically opted for closure just to please a few big Canadian shippers.
This Government has no regard for the democratic consultation process. Even worse, the transportation industry and thousands of Canadian workers will pay dearly for the Conservative Government's total lack of concern.
Mr. Speaker, when revising a general act that is so fundamental to the socio-economic well being of this country, the Government should have taken a more thoughtful approach.
During the debate on second reading, we in the Official Opposition, we in the Liberal Party said that considering the changes being sought, the Government could at least have taken steps to measure the impact of deregulation on such areas as: traveller safety; consumers, especially in connection with air transportation rates; employment in the industry; acceptable levels of foreign control; and finally, impact on regional development.

June 15, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
In all five areas, the Government has not budged an inch. We hoped it would use clause-by-clause consideration in committee to make some changes. We on our side suggested a number of amendments to improve the Bill. Unfortunately, the Conservative majority on the Committee, obeying the signals from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, systematically refused any changes that made sense in social and economic terms.
On the subject of regional development, for instance, the Government rejected an amendment by the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) which would have given some political clout to the statement of principles contained in Clause 3 (d) of the Bill.
As for employment, a measure aimed at protecting workers, which I proposed, was rejected. Regarding confidential contracts, I think we should listen to what was said by Prairie Malt Limited, a small Saskatchewan shipper, when he appeared before the Committee, and I quote:

We are of the opinion that the suggested confidentiality in rate setting will work out to the serious detriment of small and medium companies competing within a given industrial sector with large and more powerful conglomerates. Confidential rate negotiations on contracts will almost surely enable physically well-situated and financially flexible industrial entities-especially those with more than one plant site-to utilize transportation contracts, and through them the railways themselves, to serve as marketing tools-or, to say it stronger, as accomplices in power-plays-against smaller competitors.
We tried to deal with that concern, Mr. Speaker, by ensuring that confidential contracting could only occur on transborder traffic. The Government refused.
The Government has been totally inflexible in crafting this legislation, legislation which is totally and unequivocally biased toward the large conglomerates in Canada.
It is a disgrace that this Government has not taken into account the over-all interests of Canadians, whether involving small, medium or large expenditures, taking into account an industry that has, throughout the years, been prosperous.
The transportation industry in Canada is a good industry. It is an industry that provides well-paying employment. Bill C-18 is a threat to the prosperity of the transportation industry. That is a point that has been made by the railways, by the trucking associations, and observers of the airline industry.
Why is the Government moving so rapidly and vigorously in this direction? It is incredible. There is no possibility for us in the Opposition to stop the Government. We are awaiting the result of this catastrophe a few years down the line. When we have another chance to form the Government, we will certainly amend legislation which already will have been very bad for the workers, the transportation industry, and the Canadian public at large.

Madam Speaker, the Government's decision-I bow to the Chair, I see that you have taken over from your colleague, Madam Speaker-the Government's decision to introduce time limitation is the logical result of a process that reflects the lack of courage and political maturity of a Government that is practically hand in glove with the "big guys" in our society.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, the whole effort by the Government to deregulate transportation for the past 2.5 years has been nothing but a litany of intransigence. The past and present Ministers have said that the Bill was not engraved in stone, that they would be flexible, that they would listen, and that they were open to amendments, et cetera. As far as I can recall, I think they have accepted one amendment in the House and two amendments in committee.
It all started with Freedom to Move, the government White Paper on transportation. The Government did not want the committee to travel. It took a lot of pressure from scores of organizations and Members of the House to get the Government to agree to committee travel.
The committee went to four places in Canada-Vancouver, Winnipeg, Halifax, and Ottawa. It left out the villages of Montreal and Toronto! It left out all the northern territories and all northern parts of the provinces. It did not go near southwestern Ontario.
It makes one wonder why the Government is in such a hurry. It brought in a Bill in the previous session which remained on the Order Paper for some 13 months. Then, in the next session of Parliament it was given a new number and was placed on the Order Paper again. The Government called it for debate, and we had four partial days at second reading in principle, on closure. It then went to the standing committee, and we had to fight, argue, and plead continually-not only us but scores of organizations, companies, and individuals-for the committee to travel to a number of locations.
The committee went to nine locations-Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, St. John's, Halifax, Moncton, Montreal, and Ottawa. At least 36 places were worthy of consideration to hold parliamentary hearings and hear witnesses. I submitted a list of locations and thought if we could get to at least 16 or 20 of them that would suffice.
Again the Government refused to allow the committee to go to Yellowknife or Whitehorse. It wouldn't go to Labrador or to any of the northern parts of the provinces. The municipalities, the trade union movement, and the forest industry wanted hearings in Prince George and Prince Rupert in northern British Columbia and got none. The southern half of the Province of Alberta was left out, and I think the committee heard from one witness from the Peace River country. There should have been a hearing in Dawson Creek, British Columbia to cover the Peace River country. The committee should have gone to Dauphin or Thompson in northern
June 15, 1987

Manitoba. It should have at least gone to Thunder Bay and Sudbury in northern Ontario.
There have been at least five dozen requests from boards of trade, city and town councils, and trade union groups in southwestern Ontario asking for hearings. They did not get them.
The Government put a time limit on when the committee had to report. It reported within the time limit ordered by the House, and the report sat for six weeks before the Bill was called for report stage consideration. Suddenly the Government is in a big hurry.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the legislation would increase competition, competitiveness, et cetera. When the Freedom to Move hearings started, there were six relatively large regional airlines and two national carriers. Now we have two, and the Government says that there will be more competition. Those two carriers will control something in the order of 80 per cent to 90 per cent of all airline traffic through their major national networks as well as the operating and licensing agreements for a bunch of little feeder airlines all over Canada. They control it, and the Government tells us that there will be more competition. Competition has been reduced by two-thirds.
The Government talks about confidential contracts and confidential freight rates. If there were anything more anticompetitive than secret deals between large corporate shippers and one or two railroads, I do not know what it would be. No one is about to build another railroad; there are only two of them in Canada.
The trucking industry asked for a delay of at least one year until all things were in place. The Parliamentary Secretary said that safety was a number one priority and that there would be no compromise on safety. We have heard that from both Ministers; we have heard it ad nauseam.
Where is the railway safety board? Where is the rail safety Act? Where is the board on highway trucking safety? Where is the legislation, the regulations, and rules for that? All those things will take at least a year to implement.
The aviation safety board has just been established for a year. It is still setting up, and we do not have all the regulations governing it.
The Canadian Trucking Association pleaded with us not to proceed until all these things were in place-safety, security, proper regulations, and the people necessary to enforce them, such as inspectors and what not.
We have three amendments on the Order Paper, and the Government does not want us to get to them. There is one it will not be able to avoid. I call them the Fred Turner amendments. They would guarantee that never again could the new transportation agency, the air safety board-whoever will administer the Aeronautics Act, or whoever inherits the duties of the air transport committee of the CTC-do what was done to Fred Turner, bankrupt his airline because he was late filing
National Transportation Act, 1986
his statistical reports. The Government admitted that there had been 1,600 occasions when airlines or aircraft operators were late filing their reports.
We are anxious to have these matters dealt with in the House, but the Government does not want to deal with them; it is afraid. It refuses to listen to witnesses. It said that it would be open and that it would consult. It heard witnesses but it did not listen.
We want the legislation to establish appeal procedures so that operators have some protection and some rights, so that they cannot be victims of bureaucratic overkill or the Government ignoring them. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) became involved in this one. Mr. Turner has been haunting the House of Commons for almost four months. Members of Parliament from all three Parties support him, but the Government refuses to act. It offered a $15,000 payment without prejudice. It bankrupted the man. He lost five aircraft, his hangar, and all his equipment. He is scheduled to lose his house next month. The Government offers $15,000, which in itself is an admission of guilt. It is a pittance. All Mr. Turner is asking for is an independent arbitrator to hear his case and the government side of the story and make a decision. Mr. Turner has filed a lawsuit in the courts. The Government is now saying, "Well, you can't sue us". First the Government said "Go ahead and sue". Mr. Turner cannot afford a lawyer for one day, let alone the months and months a lawsuit would take. I am confident that with a reasonable settlement put forward by an independent arbitrator there will be no court case. The Government can afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and can spend months and years in court at the expense of an innocent individual Canadian citizen.
It is patent nonsense that all of a sudden the Government is in a big hurry. Three full days on report stage would have finished all the amendments and half a day would have been sufficient on third reading. That would not be unreasonable. We were proceeding with all dispatch dealing with amendments during the one day we have had so far. We have had a dozen or 14 motions dealt with and out of the way. It would take two more days to deal with each one of them. Why will the Government not let us have that time, Madam Speaker? Why did the Government take so long to get to work on the Bill? Why is the Government all of a sudden in a big hurry? It is bludgeoning Parliament into accepting bad legislation while we have amendments trying to make a bad Bill less bad.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak today on the subject of Bill C-18. I feel that the issue of this Bill will have a favourable impact for the shippers and for the citizens of my province of Alberta and western Canada generally.
I listened with interests to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and I found it hard to believe that he indeed was a westerner speaking the way he did. This Bill is to the ultimate benefit of ordinary citizens, to small and

June 15, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
medium businesses and to the people of western Canada generally. It is about competition and fairness and the restoration of justice. It goes a long way to cap the well known well-springs of discontent in western Canada and it leads toward that noblest of all goals, national reconciliation. I believe that the socialist alliance with the CPR will result in some electoral bringing into account come 1989.
I have received voluminous correspondence from the citizens of Alberta on the subject of this Bill. A typical example is one received recently from an employee of Alberta Gas Chemicals in Medicine Hat, which letter in part reads:
-we currently ship approximately 90 per cent of our product by rail. As I am sure you are aware competition is the essence of good business. Without competition there is no need to be efficient and you can demand whatever the traffic will bear for your product or service.
With Competitive Line Rates we will be able to be more competitive on pricing of our Methanol which should allow us to sell and ship more product.
If Bill C-18 does not pass, we are in a position where without fair competitive freight rates we could go out of business. If we are forced out of business, it will mean a loss of approximately 100 jobs at AGCL in Medicine Hat for a starter. If we go out of business, that means the CPR, locally, will probably also have lay-offs as there will be approximately 400 to 800 fewer rail cars to ship each month from Medicine Hat.
It is employment we are talking about, Madam Speaker. It is also justice in terms of freight rates.
I have a letter from a constituent in Edmonton:
I have been involved on more than one occasion with respect to encouraging incoming businesses. After the second look at expenses at the freighting end of production the early enthusiasm pales and we are again losers.
1 believe that it is imperative that we have a drastic change in the freight rates for western Canada.
I have a note from the Alberta Government:
Rail provides the life-force for many landlocked Alberta manufacturers and producers. Their products and distance from markets make them dependent on rail.
In 1985, Alberta generated 48 million tonnes of freight for CN and CP, 20 per cent of their total business. Sixty per cent of this came from producers that are captive to rail and in most cases captive to one carrier.
Under existing legislation, rail carriers are comparatively free from market competition. The rates they choose can create winners and losers in Alberta's major commodity industries.
The results of this are clear. In 1982, Alberta related shipments generated 28 per cent of the total system of traffic that paid over 70 per cent of the total contribution to railway constant costs for Canada.
The rates applied to Alberta rail shippers for the past several years have been increasing faster than railway costs. Rates offered to captive shippers have received a disproportionate share of this increase.
I will continue with a note from the Hinton, Alberta District Chamber of Commerce:
We are very concerned, at this time, because it is our understanding that CN, a Crown corporation, and the CP whose relationship within this country parallels the CNs are both amassing a fierce lobby against the competitive line rates provisions of this Bill.
We are a resource-based community depending on pulp, paper and coal; a western Canadian community whose welfare and survival is dependent upon exporting our goods to national and international markets. Because our community is located in western Canada, we are disadvantaged in our ability to compete due to this fact. The transportation component in exporting our goods to those market does not and will not reflect market conditions as long as the CN and CP have for all intents and purposes a monopoly. Subsidies are
not our forte, however, we cannot and will not stand by and see our only hope to enhance our ability to compete in the market-place dashed by a Crown corporation and, if I may say, "A semi-Crown Corporation".
The whole concept of this Bill is to assure employees and shippers that safety will be maintained and that the benefits of deregulation will redound and that the disadvantages will not prevail. Safety we know is a major priority for all those involved in transportation. This legislation is a product of the viewpoints and ideas advanced over a very extensive cross Canada consultative process over the past two years involving contact with over 450 groups and organizations.
I would venture to say that the reverse is the case of that painted by the Hon. Member for Regina West. Consultation has been of the essence in the drafting and in the amendment of this Bill. Those consultations involved labour, users, business, transportation companies, the travelling public and provincial and territorial governments. In addition, of course, there were the hearings of the standing committee to which the Hon. Member referred.
I would like to touch on a submission from Sultran Ltd. based in Calgary. This is not a minor player.
-Sultran ships up to six million tonnes of sulphur per year from 14 Alberta plants and three northeastern British Columbia plants to Vancouver for export. This volume generates about $200 million a year in rail freight.
Because of its relatively low value and long distances to tidewater, sulphur is effectively captive to rail transport, and generally captive to one carrier.
Since there is neither an effective transport alternative nor effective economic regulation control over railway rates, the railways are, at present, free to engage in monopoly pricing. Bill C-18 remedies this condition by introducing competitive provisions which attempt to limit the monopoly power of railways over captive commodities and at locations served by only one carrier.
This new policy statement in the Bill provides that all carriers must meet acceptable safety standards, that competition and market forces are to be the prime agent in determining price and service levels, that government intervention will occur only when necessary to protect the public interest, but carriers are to be fairly compensated for any imposed public duty, and carriers pricing policies are not to be discriminatory.
Canadians have imbued within them an innate sense of fairness and Canadians react in a rather forceful manner when they feel that they are being discriminated against. This piece of legislation responds to that sense of discrimination which has bedevilled western Canadians, and I submit, other Canadians for the past century. It gives, for the first time, to western Canadians the opportunity to compete on a level playing field with their brothers and sisters in central and eastern Canada. Thus, I am saddened when I hear Members opposite decrying this legislation. The Minister has responded to Members opposite and has agreed to a number of amendments. These amendments have accommodated the major objections that were raised when the Bill was first introduced.
This piece of legislation will bring to Alberta and to western Canada a response to the needs of users of transportation services. Our ability to expand markets will depend upon our
June 15, 1987

ability to produce goods and services at the lowest possible costs.
Of particular importance to my province are the provisions of the legislation relating to railway freight transportation. The long distances to markets for exports and the dominance of one major carrier in the northern part of the province and another in the south has limited alternatives available to shippers for transporting products. The current National Transportation Act provides rail carriers with considerable pricing freedoms and little incentive to compete while provisions to protect shippers against excessive rail rates have proven ineffective. As a result, the province incurs a significant freight rate burden.
If Alberta is to maintain its position in increasingly competitive world markets, this burden must be reduced. The provisions of this Bill to increase competition between carriers and to provide shippers with more effective mechanisms for resolving rate disputes with carriers go a long way toward allowing this to be accomplished.
In view of the criticism the Bill has received from railways, labour unions and the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), there are a few points that I would like to address in concluding. First, there is no direct causal relationship between deregulation and safety in the Canadian context. Regulations pertaining to safety are not changed adversely in this Bill. In fact, they are augmented. Recent changes to strengthen aeronautic safety and the proposed new rail safety Bill should address safety concerns.
Second, there is the principle of the railway's desire to reduce costs. However, with the exception of branch lines which are covered in the new legislation, the railways have not been specific on what legislation or regulation they believe should be changed.
The legislative package contained in Bill C-18 addresses concerns of westerners expressed since the time of the 1973 Western Economic Opportunities Conference. We in the West believe that the quick passage of this legislation is vital. A key provision in the legislation for many shippers in Alberta and indeed in the rest of Canada is the mechanism for competitive line rates. This provision will allow shippers who are now captive to a single carrier to gain access to a competing alternate carrier for the movement of goods. Removal of this provision from the Bill would have eliminated a large part of the industry's support of the legislation and removal of such a proposal from the Bill as suggested by Members opposite would have gutted this piece of legislation.
In conclusion, I submit that this Bill should pass swiftly through all stages. The people of the West are waiting to see how the the House disposes of the Bill and are watching with great care to see how Members on all sides vote on this vital piece of legislation which will go a long way toward realizing the destiny of western Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to offer some comments at
National Transportation Act, 1986
this point in the debate on Bill C-18. I have something more than a passing interest in the initiatives that are proposed because I do believe that the strengthening and augmenting of the transportation system of Canada is one of the primary responsibilities of any national Government.
Because of our geography and the peculiar nature of our economic system, it is very important that a national Government maintain a clear and overriding responsibility for the way we move people, goods and services across Canada. This should be done in a way that not only maximizes efficiency but also ensures that there is a maximum of service. That is why I find it so dismaying that the Government would impose a closure motion on this very important topic. This is a matter that requires a continuing and ongoing examination by Parliament in order to ensure that the legislation is right. It should not be approached in a way that would simply ensure that it meets the parliamentary timetable, but in a way that would ensure that the vast array of important interests across Canada are properly and effectively reflected in the legislation.
We do not change the Transportation Act that often, so when we do it we had better make sure that what we are doing is carefully conceived and integrated into a package that will respond, not only to contemporary needs but to future needs. That is why we object so strenuously to the fact that the very important evidence that was brought forward during the hearings of the Transport Committee was ignored in the Bill. We were not given the time or effort required to reconsider, reexamine and redefine the legislation.
Let me tell the House of one example of this that comes to mind. Three or four weeks ago I had the opportunity to meet with the national executive of the organization representing the physically handicapped in Canada. When I was Minister of Transport I felt that one of the most important contributions the national Government could make to alleviate the disadvantage suffered by those with various handicaps would be to ensure that the transportation system reflected their needs and concerns and was adapted in a way that would give them the kind of mobility they require to pursue their occupations and their rights as Canadians. We set forward a series of guidelines that we felt should be incorporated in the transportation system, and those guidelines should now be reflected in the legislation. However, they are not. It was clear from my discussions with the group representing the various organizations that speak for the handicapped that this would be an opportunity lost.
Members of Parliament should reflect on why they would support a closure motion to forestall any further examination of the legislation when it is clear that a major constituency is being ignored and in fact rejected as evidenced by the lack of measures put forward in the Bill. We must ask ourselves why the representations made by these organizations across Canada were treated with such indifference. We must ask why there was not a willingness during the consideration of this legislation in the House to take account of those representations and, even at this late date, to provide for a modification. It seems

June 15, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
that we are in an unfortunate position. The imperatives of political timetabling are taking precedence over the necessity for passing good legislation. It seems to me that what is before us is an indication of what has become all too common and frequent. It seems to be important to acquire a so-called list of accomplishments without really examining the substance, the details and the ramifications of those accomplishments. It seems to be far more important to get the headlines than to get the substance right. As my seatmate, the transportation spokesman for my Party, has said, the decision of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to impose a suffocation of the consideration of this Bill by the House stands as evidence of a clear and unmistakable calumny on the part of the Government, as evidence of its unwillingness to take its responsibilities seriously, considering the importance placed on this matter during the last election.
I will point to another reason why we should be examining this legislation with more thorough care than we will be able to because of the closure motion. Through a wide variety of activities we are observing the serious reduction of the powers and abilities of the national Government to form successfully an economic union to meet the imperatives of international competition. As I said earlier in my remarks, transportation is not only a clear responsibility of the national Government but should be even more seriously recognized when we are talking about giving the provinces further powers, when there is serious consideration of severe limitations of federal powers as a consequence of free trade negotiations, and when there is a move toward the privatization of various Crown corporations.
The collective impact of these initiatives is an erosion of the capacity of the national Government to meet effectively and successfully the national goals and objectives. That will not become apparent overnight, but in the months and years ahead as the country tries to respond to new demands this incredible move by the Conservative Government to disband the national Government's role in the economic and social life of the country will be decried. The Government may have to pay a price for that in the judgment of historians, but it should certainly be more carefully examined now.
I raise this concern, particularly in the field of transportation, because I can recall the discussions and negotiations of which I was a part when we were beginning to consider our own form of reforms in this field. One of the most important questions that we raised at that time was with regard to safety and whether deregulation afforded sufficient protection to maintain high quality standards and maintenance of the transportation system. We did not want to have the continuing problems with which we were faced in the rail, air and trucking industries with regard to the continuing incidents of danger and disaster. Yet there is nothing in this legislation or in the corollary of complementary moves of the Government to give assurance that there was a fair recognition of those facts.
Similarly, when we were considering the role of transportation we had to consider the role of regional development. That role cannot be judged only by the criteria, the accounts or the economists. We knew from the history of the country that if we were to maintain a national fabric we had to ensure that all parts of the country were involved. I must say that those have not been involved.
In the short time I have remaining I must say that this is an unfinished piece of legislation which requires much more examination and work. We can only regret the fact that the Government seems to be unwilling to give the people of Canada that opportunity.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I always considered the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) to be the father of this legislation. I thought that in his speech he would apologize to the House and the country for his sponsorship of the attempts by the previous Liberal Government to introduce a regime of deregulation in Canada.
I have a number of concerns with what is happening in the House at this time. Despite what you have heard from a number of the previous speakers, we are not actually debating Bill C-18 at this time. We are involved in the process of time allocation which limits debate on report stage and third reading of this very important piece of legislation. As you know, Madam Speaker, time allocation is just another way of saying closure. It is a way of cutting off debate, limiting the number of people who can participate in the debate, and guaranteeing that only a few of the proposed amendments are debated and voted upon by the House.
This is a very difficult process for the House. The Government cannot claim that we have instigated a filibuster on this piece of legislation. When this Bill was finally brought back to the House for debate we in the Opposition announced that we would move quickly to introduce all of our amendments in order that we could have a recorded vote on them in the House. We believe this is necessary because we have been told by government spokespersons that the Government is willing to accept some of the amendments standing in the name of the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and in the name of one of the Liberal Members. However, the Government has refused to tell us which of those amendments it is willing to accept.
W'e are in an ironic situation. The Government, which says that it will accept some of the amendments but will not tell us which, is now introducing time allocation which will not allow us to reach some of the amendments which the Government may or may not favour. Talk about parliamentary democracy. I hear a voice from the wilderness, that of the Parliamentary Secretary, saying that we are stalling. We are not stalling. We have said that we would move as quickly as possible through the amendments. We said that we would forego debate on some of the amendments.
The first speaker from our Party on this time allocation motion, the Member for Regina West, pointed out that with
June 15, 1987

two or three days at report stage we could deal with every one of the amendments. Two or three days debate is not very much to change fundamentally the way in which the transportation industry is regulated. That is the purpose of Parliament. We should ensure that our amendments, some of which are acceptable to the Government, are debated and voted upon. The Government's insinuation that we have been stalling is patently not true.
As the Member for Regina West said, the reason that this legislation is before the Elouse in the latter half of June is because the Government stalled. The Government took a year before finally introducing this legislation in the House. It took a second session of the House before the Government finally brought the legislation into the House for debate. After committee stage the Government delayed for weeks and weeks before introducing it for third reading. All of that speaks of the Government delaying this legislation, although it knows the legislation will be passed. What the Government is doing now is preventing a full debate and decision by this House.
One of the things we discovered was a government memorandum talking about lowering the public profile on free trade. The Cabinet had papers which suggested the Government should do all it could to make sure there was no public debate, that the public was not aroused or made aware of the implications of free trade. The Government was afraid that if that happened there would be even more opposition to the attempt to negotiate a free trade pact with the Americans. Obviously some industries and towns are going to be hurt and some people are going to lose their jobs under free trade. That was the Government strategy. It is following that same strategy with deregulation.
The Opposition has said it is not going to stall the legislation but we want to introduce the amendments and have them debated for a short time and then make a decision. Yet the Government, for its own reasons, has moved time allocation. It is completely unnecessary. This is a major piece of legislation. The Opposition has indicated a willingness to co-operate-not to bend over and play dead but to co-operate. That is the most the Government can expect when we are opposed to a piece of legislation. We are willing to co-operate but we are not willing to rush the legislation through the House.
We recognize that this legislation will fundamentally change the way the transportation industry works. It is ironic that in the long time it has taken the Government to move forward with this legislation-not the Opposition but the Government-we have seen less and less competition in Canada. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West talked about the air transportation industry. We have had merger after merger lately, the most famous and most recent being CP and PWA getting married to form CAI or Canadian Airlines International. We know during that same period of time more and more management agreements came into place. CAI has agreements with Calm Air in northern Manitoba and Time
National Transportation Act, 1986
Air in parts of Alberta and B.C. Air Canada has management arrangements with a number of other feeder airlines. This has been done in such a way that competition is being further and further reduced.
Conservative Members speak about how we are going into a market economy and deregulation will expand the number of operators. We will have more service. Yet the facts show the exact opposite. By the time this legislation is passed we will be down to one or two airline conglomerates for the most part.
We have seen examples of how service can be altered. Just after the announcement that CP and PWA were merging, we had CP cutting its service to Yukon. Obviously; why should they compete against each other? The management and feeder systems in that airline are such that if you are coming from one of the more remote parts of Canada it is almost impossible to make connections with other airlines. You have to stay within that management system. That is good for their business and you expect them to do it, but it is going to get worse and worse.
It is not a matter of all of a sudden freeing up the system. There are problems with the CTC and over-regulation in some areas. There is no question about that. Yet we are taking away the protection of Government regulation and giving control to a small group of owner-operators, especially in the airline industry. We move from one monopoly-Government regulation, which at least allowed a number of different operators to be involved in a competitive sense-to a monopoly of the large airlines which will control the air transportation industry.
At the same time we know the Government intends to do what it can to privatize Air Canada. We have no idea what form that will take. Will the Government allow CAI to buy Air Canada? Will a system be in place such that Air Canada will not really be competing? Will those parts of Canada now served by Air Canada, on what may or may not be profitable runs, be in a situation where those runs will be cut once Air Canada is privatized?
Those are all legitimate questions which should be addressed and answered in this House before the legislation is allowed to pass. That is one of the reasons we are seeing a rush after so many months and months of delay. The Government wants the legislation passed before it has the courage to announce what it is doing with Air Canada.
I recognize I am out of time; that is one of the problems with this process. There is a lot in the transportation industry that concerns me and my constituents. I am afraid that the process the Government is using for its own political agenda is actually destroying the input of Parliament on a very important piece of legislation.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, there is a time for talk and there is a time for action. In my view we have talked enough about the Bill and it is now time to see what the Bill will do.

June 15, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Every illustration the Opposition gave happened in a regulated society, not under Freedom To Move. Yet they want more regulation, particularly the NDP. Of course that is understandable. Socialists love regulations. They love to tell people what is good for them. That is part of their philosophy. The philosophy of this Party is to let the people speak and then carry out their wishes to the greatest possible degree. That is what we are trying to do.
The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) said it took us too long. "There have been a lot of delays!" The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) said we are going too fast. Which is it, too slow or too fast? I do not think it is either. I think we are going at just about the right speed.
The Hon. Member talked about delays. What do they expect? We had week after week of committee meetings. We listened to everyone who came along. Then we sat day after day going over the scores of amendments brought forward by the Opposition, as well as some from the Government. That takes time. Should we not have done that? Is that what they are complaining about? Every amendment they presented was discussed. Then they complain because they cannot bring them back to the House. How much time do they want to waste? We set up a committee to go into the details, not so we could bring them all back here again. If we are going to do that, why have committees at all?
This Bill is an example of what should happen under a free enterprise Government. It removes not all but many of the shackles which have stopped free enterprise from working. That is why the NDP particularly is opposed to it. They love regulation. They want to tell the people what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and where to do it. This Government does not do that. We believe the people are mature and can make up their own minds. We will give them the opportunity to go into business without Government regulations and red tape. That is what this Bill does.
The Hon. Member from Regina, who is a member of the Committee, said we did not travel enough. Let me tell the House that in 1985 we travelled to Vancouver, Winnipeg and Halifax. I do not know how many briefs we received at every one of those hearings. That was under Freedom to Move. The Opposition says that we did not go to the North. In 1986 we went to Churchill, Rankin Inlet, Cambridge Bay, Yellowknife, Inuvik, and Whitehorse. This year we had hearings at Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina and Winnipeg, to say nothing of the days and days of hearings here in Ottawa. How much travelling does the Opposition want? Does it want to spend the whole year travelling at Government expense, or a whole month?
I think the Government has been pretty liberal in providing us with the amount of time it did, and I think the people of Canada appreciated it. We were thanked by the people who came to us from various places. They did not complain, because what we were doing was trying to give the people of
Canada a chance, to the greatest possible degree, to say what they thought about Freedom to Move. A majority of the people want Freedom to Move to come into being as fast as possible.
I wish I had with me today the letters and wires I received so that Hon. Members could see just how high the pile is, and they all say in effect, "Move it. Do not talk anymore. We want some action. The time for talking is over". I think Freedom to Move will be wonderful for the country. In the first place, it involves all modes of transportation from the pipelines to trains, from small airplanes to the mighty jets, from small trucks to 18 wheelers. It includes every type of transportation. One correspondent said this country is very far flung, in fact it is flung too far. But whatever way we look at it, Canada is a vast country and transportation is probably the number one essential which keeps our country together. We want transportation to be efficient.
We want transportation to not only do the job, we want it to cost the lowest cost possible to the consumer. The consumer is the one who pays in the final analysis. This Bill will help the shippers give better prices to the consumer. We are doing our utmost in this Bill to eliminate monopoly and replace it with competition. That is exactly what the Bill is designed to do.
This is the first time in the history of this nation that transportation for the regions has been included in a transportation Bill. We are not only concerned about the country as a whole, we are concerned about the people in various parts of the Maritimes, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They have transportation problems and this Bill is designed not to ignore the problems but to look after them. There are regions in the west as well, in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and in British Columbia, with regional transportation problems.
The Opposition said we did not listen to the North. A number of these submissions we received told us not to go too fast in the North because it has a sparse population and vast distances. They told us to go a little slower in the North, so the Government went a little slower. We established a line, and north of that line there will continue to be regulations, for the time being. We will work gradually into a Freedom to Move atmosphere. That is the principle upon which we are working.
We have set up a transport board which will look into all of these items and ensure that there is fairness and competition, and that we give every mode of transportation a chance to compete. Many times I have seen a regulated society stop people from investing their money in a service they thought they could provide better than anyone else. A transport board told them they could not do it. Under the regulated society the franchise would be give to one trucking firm and it could add truck after truck after truck and no one else could get in. It was not just a franchise, it was an monopoly. I have seen it happen scores of time. Individuals and small companies which wanted to go into the trucking business could not because the board would not let them. The Government bureaucrats said "No, you cannot do it. We have enough trucks in the system".
June 15, 1987

The new Bill will give the people a chance to act. If I want to invest my money in a small plane or truck or even a train, if I want to take a chance and compete with the big boys, all I have to do is meet the safety requirements. I must have proper insurance and meet safety standards, but if I have those, the Government will not say I cannot invest my money. The Government will say, "You make sure that you protect the public interests and that safety is looked after and then you can go to town and invest your money". I would have the right to lose and I would have the right to gain. Everyone who goes into business under a free enterprise system has that right. It is a right to win and a right to lose. They take the chance and if they lose it is on their own initiative, not on the initiative of some bureaucrat sitting in some office who perhaps never operated a business, never had to meet a payroll and never had to toe the mark in order to stay alive in the free enterprise system.
Let me say once again that this is good legislation for Canada. It removes some of the shackles which have stopped free enterprise from working. Watch it over the next few years it is going to do great things for our nation.


Aideen Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I regret that the Government has seen fit to introduce closure on report stage of this particular Bill, a move which removes from consideration a number of very serious, reasoned and careful amendments which had been put down by my Party in order to improve this Bill. The Bill is designed to revamp the National Transportation Act and its stated purpose is to increase competition in the transportation sector by removing certain regulations which hindered the ability to compete. It will affect rail, air and trucking.
The major economic benefit expected from the legislation is that Canadian goods and products will get to market more efficiently, faster, and in a less expensive way. This will include Canadian exports to the U.S. which the Government says will reach their destination at a lower cost, and therefore will be more competitive.
This is very laudable but, unhappily, the Government in its rush to get this Bill through has sacrificed consideration of amendments which would have improved the Bill. The Bill reflects, perhaps, a certain commitment to ideology over practicality. I want to mention some of the things about which we have concerns and on which we have amendments which the Government will not now consider.
To begin with, there is the introduction of confidential contracts. Under this Bill the railway companies, CN and CP, will be allowed to enter into confidential contracts with large bulk shippers. In other words, the rates charged by the railway company to the shipper remain confidential and do not have to be published. Any rebate or allowance provided by a railway company on a published rate must also remain confidential.
National Transportation Act, 1986
We in the Liberal Party were in favour of confidential contracts for transborder movements. We thought it would help to reduce the competitive advantage enjoyed by U.S. railways over CN and CP in transborder shipping rates and therefore enhance the competitiveness of our goods in U.S. markets.
We are not in favour of confidential contracts for domestic rates. It seems to us that what will happen is that the large bulk shippers will clearly benefit. They will be able to negotiate favourable low rates for their voluminous shipments. Railway company revenues will decrease and there will be a tendency to fill that gap at the expense of the small and medium-sized shippers who will end up cross-subsidizing the rate decreases to the large bulk shippers.
CP Rail, Canada's only other railway company apart from the federal Crown corporation CN, is of the view that in competing with CN to offer the lowest rate to shippers through confidential contracts it will not be able to absorb as much lost revenues as CN will be able to absorb and may in fact be forced out of business by the year 1992.
Our other concern is with respect to the trucking industry which is already suffering as a result of the Government's large increases in gasoline prices. Canadian trucking companies are already at a disadvantage in terms of competing with American trucking companies. They will certainly face unfair competition in this respect since they are not entitled to negotiate confidential contracts.
Another concern I have is with respect to foreign ownership since this Bill has no limitations on foreign takeovers of Canadian transportation companies. There are two guidelines in this respect. First, mergers and takeovers over $20 million and involving over 10 per cent of the voting shares of a Canadian transportation firm will be reviewed by the Governor in Council. Takeovers or mergers below those ceilings would be reviewed by Investment Canada. This means that very large takeovers will only be subject to political review, which leaves the potential for patronage decisions rather than decisions based on clear criteria which Canadians know, understand and accept. There is quite a risk that many good Canadian companies will pass into foreign hands.
Nowhere in the Bill is much concern shown for regional development. The concern is for competition, for market rates. In a country as vast as Canada clearly what will happen is that the centres that are profitable, such as those in the Montreal, Toronto, Windsor corridor, will be well serviced, while isolated communities in which there is not much traffic will increasingly find themselves with less and less service as time goes on, and as the only motive is profit. The history of our country shows that our transportation system has been used to aid regional development, and as a way of opening up communications links and trade links. This Bill will put an end to that.

June 15, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Before us is a measure that has been protested by the Premiers and, in particular, the Council of Maritime Premiers. The Government has decided to ignore their recommendations.
We also have a great many concerns about safety. As an example, before us we have the U.S. deregulation of airlines. No one can say that travelling on an American airline these days is a comfortable experience. As more and more companies get into the airline business the service gets less and less. It becomes more of a no-frills service. Inside the passenger cabin that is not such a problem. But when economies are made on safety one has to be very worried.
The figures in the United States give cause for concern. For instance, in 1979 the Federal Aviation Administration had
2,000	inspectors monitoring 237 air carriers. In 1984 it had 1,300 inspectors for 407 air carriers. In Canada, the Auditor General reported in 1985 that Transport Canada was unable to inspect all air carriers in its jurisdiction once a year.
If the Government encourages small aircraft companies to come into existence, not necessarily well-capitalized ones with new equipment, and not necessarily well-staffed, what guarantees of safety will we have? The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has been telling Canadians that airfares on Canadian airlines will drop as a result of deregulation. How will airline fares drop? Clearly, only if staff are laid off and if services are reduced. There is nothing in the Bill to guarantee that there will be the same concentration on air safety as we have had in the past.
For all those reasons I regret that the Government has chosen to introduce closure on this Bill. I hope that even at this stage it might reconsider and be prepared to examine some of the very thoughtful and careful amendments that have been laid before the House.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I want to start out by indicating that I think the questions that need to be put to the House are these. Why is the Government moving to cut off debate? Why is the Government using the heavy hand of closure in order to rush this Bill through the House? Why is it limiting debate? Why does it no longer want to hear from Members of Parliament with regard to transportation and deregulation? Why does it not want to hear from Canadians? Why has it closed its ears instead of giving this legislation the type of thorough and full debate that it needs? Is it simply trying to sweep the potential consequences from this deregulation package under the rug? Does it not want to look at possible implications of what it is doing before it gives it the full force of law?
This leaves one with the impression that what it has tried to do is force-feed Canadians with its particular brand of free enterprise deregulation ideology instead of encouraging a full and comprehensive debate on the legislation that is before the House, instead of allowing for public input and instead of allowing for this legislation to be examined in a full and complete way.
Just what is the approach that the Government is taking to deregulation? I think there are a number of options that the Government could look at. One of the ways it might approach the question of regulation of transportation, whether it is in the air, by way of trucking or other means, is to simply maintain the status quo.
Not being an expert in the transportation field, I am unaware of the number of years that the present legislation has been in place. Certainly after legislation has been in place for a number of years there is probably a need for review. Circumstances change. The economy changes. The needs of people change to some degree.
The Government could have taken the approach of freezing things as they now stand and simply continuing the status quo. Another approach would be to eliminate any effective regulation. It is this latter approach that the Government has adopted. In doing so, it has dressed it up with the fine-sounding slogan, "freedom to move."
Obviously, every Canadian is a lover of freedom. Rather than being frank with the Canadian public and coming straight out and telling the public that it is eliminating any effective regulation in the transportation sector in order to meet the concerns of the industry itself and the consumers of transportation, it attaches a nice public relations-type slogan to the Bill, calling it Freedom to Move.
So, we have those two approaches, continuing the status quo, or eliminating any effective regulation in transportation. But, were those the only choices available to the Government? Are those the only routes available?
When listening to the government Members one gets the impression that it was a choice only between the status quo, no change at all, and radical change, a radical cutting away of the regulatory environment relating to safety and service, consumer needs, and the needs of the industry itself.
I suggest that the Government had another option. It could continue the debate on this measure in the House; it could continue the examination of the regulatory environment that exists in this country.
The whole subject could be approached from the point of view of re-regulation. In other words, we could examine the present regime in the light of present-day requirements. Such a course would result in a rational and reasonable approach to the regulation of the transportation sector. Instead of Bill C-18, we could have had a participatory approach. The Government could have said to Canadians, "We have confidence in your opinions, and in the opinions of your representatives. We want to ensure that all Canadians have an opportunity for input into the whole question of regulation of the transportation sector. To that end, it is our intention to canvass the opinion of Canadians, regardless of where they live."
That is an alternate approach to the one taken by the Government. Instead of looking for the alternative, the
June 15, 1987

Government has decided to close down debate. It has chosen to try to force-feed Canadians a particularly ideological point of view on regulation.
Ordinary Canadians do have some legitimate concerns when it comes to the transportation industry in this country. There are good and valid reasons why the present regulatory regime has been built up. There are good reasons why we seek to regulate transportation in this country. One reason, of course, is the whole question of safety.
As a consumer, one cannot check out every carrier that one may want to use for vacation or business travel. One simply cannot investigate each carrier in order to assure oneself of one's safety in transit. One of the legitimate purposes of regulation is to ensure the safety of the traveller.
When regulation is virtually eliminated and there is put in its stead an Adam Smith survival-of-the-fittest approach to competition, an environment of cutthroat competition, there is a great deal of temptation on the part of those seeking to survive to cut corners. Someone has to be looking over the shoulders of the industry to ensure that, in cutting corners, the safety of the traveller is not jeopardized. We need to have someone who will ensure that safety standards are of the highest possible.
These are the kinds of concerns that must be dealt with in the debate on the regulation of the transportation sector. The cutting off of debate can only result in there being an inadequate response to these concerns.
Canadians are concerned about the whole question of price. The Government indicates that we are going to have a honeymoon with regard to price; that we are going to get very low air fares. The impression is that one is going to be able to travel almost free. Well, while there may be a honeymoon with regard to air fares between such centres as Toronto and Montreal, the high density areas of the country, I doubt very much that there will be any such honeymoon in respect of regional centres such as Winnipeg. As well, a honeymoon is a short-term proposition. We all know that. What about the long term? What are the long-term consequences for price in a deregulated environment?
In that regard, let me quote from an article which deals with some of the research on deregulation in the United States. I quote from an article in Traffic World of April 20, 1987:
Deregulation has spurred rail, motor and airline carriers toward an "oligopoly in each of the modes," said L. Leslie Waters, Indiana University professor emeritus of transportation and business history-
Up to now, there has been "an enormous volume of rate cutting and many have been pleased; we as shippers have been enjoying a lengthy period of reasonably good service at moderate rates in relation to the economy," -But he warned, "shippers had better enjoy it, because the forces of oligopoly will prevail, and even without overt collusion, rates will increase and shippers will be lobbying for reimposition of regulations-just as some are now in the case of railroads."
What Professor Waters is saying is that while we may get lower prices at the beginning of deregulation, given that the ownership of the industry will fall into fewer and fewer hands,
National Transportation Act, 1986
which is what I understand the term "oligopoly" to mean, prices will eventually increase.
These are the kinds of questions that have to be answered before this Bill passes into law. In terms of the situation south of the border, we hear that the Americans are getting a good deal on price. Well, the U.S. presents a much different circumstance from that which exists in Canada. We are walking blind if we think that deregulation will have a similar impact in Canada to that in the U.S., with its much larger population and much different geography.
In summary, what I am saying is that the Government, rather than closing off debate on this measure, cutting off the input of Canadians, should be opening up this legislation to further examination. Canadians have real concerns in the area of safety, in the area of price. The Government should permit the continuation of the discussion until those concerns are met in an adequate way, rather than pushing this legislation through.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, I should like to relate the importance of the economic benefits which will follow the passage of the transportation Bills, but after listening to Hon. Members opposite, I am mindful of the ancient quote, "Nero fiddles while Rome burns".
I do not have to say anything to Hon. Members of the House about the great economic benefits and importance of freer trade to Canada as an exporting nation, nor do I have to point out that our higher standard of living is primarily based upon our export trade. We in this country are, perhaps more than any other country, concerned about the cost of transporting our goods to market, be they manufactured goods or raw products. Goodness knows, many of us are still hewers of wood and drawers of water, vendors of raw resources. The problem is that the world around us is becoming much more competitive. As each country becomes more competitive minded, it looks at ways and means of reducing its costs. Canada cannot do otherwise. Canada must do likewise, because the cost of getting goods to market is of extreme importance.
These reforms are needed because the existing economic regulatory scheme for transportation, introduced over 20 years ago, now impedes rather than helps our competitive growth. Competition has been stifled while the regulatory process has become cumbersome, time consuming, and costly. Put simply, the market-place demands that economic regulation catch up to this reality.
If we did not manufacture and produce or sell what we manufacture and produce, perhaps we would not have to be concerned about the carrier. However, the shippers are saying, "Get on with the job that you started over two years ago". The Coalition of Concerned Shippers and shippers generally, particularly rail captive shippers, cry out, "How long will we continue to be so captive?" In their great numbers they are saying, "We support the Government in its desire to introduce

June 15, 1987
regulatory reform so that transportation will carry our goods to market at a cheaper, more economic cost".
Undoubtedly shippers whole-heartedly support the early passage of Bill C-18. Shippers, industrial associations, and exporters urge early passage of the Bill. Every day that the Bill is not the law of the land means additional cost to them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Baloney.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: I have heard that comment before.
I am somewhat nonplused by the air deregulation comments of the Official Opposition in particular. We are already embarked upon a smooth, final approach to the deregulation process. No new drastic change is anticipated in the way that Canadian carriers will do business safely and efficiently.
While on the other side of the river in the United States the consolidation or rationalization process may have caused some concern, it should not do so here. Canadian Airlines International Limited has simply replaced Canadian Pacific Airlines. Along with Air Canada it is assembling rival networks and is acquiring feeder lines to establish two main national carriers. This consolidation started to take place prior to the introduction of Bill C-18 with the implementation of regulation and the encouragement and otherwise of a former Minister of Transport who is now in the Official Opposition. The process was initiated and ongoing, and now it is being openly proposed by the Government in this Bill. It seems somewhat inconsistent to hear the former Minister of Transport urge Members of Parliament to delay the process which he started.
Deregulation has taken place in all modes of transportation in the United States. Each day the Americans draw business away from our carriers. The provisions contained in the Bill will make our railways more competitive with one another. Indeed, we hope that with the passage of the Bill they will be more competitive with that major U.S. carrier, Burlington Northern, which is competitive when it comes to carrying our resources.
As the Bill will show, shippers will have more competitive access to our railways. There will be a continuance of the economic viability of Canadian railways. The Bill strikes at the right, fair, and just balance.
Turning to truckers, that segment of the transportation industry will be dealt with more fully in Bill C-19. However, let me say that in Alberta they have played successfully with the deregulation process and Canadian truckers have not done badly in trans-border markets. One southern Ontario carrier, an established truck carrier, put it the following way: "Deregulation as proposed would eliminate much of the unnecessary red tape and the delays in getting licences and will create a more efficient transportation system".
I should like to conclude by referring to a factor of national concern-safety. It has been raised time and time again by members of the Opposition. There is no doubt that those persons who operate in any segment of the transportation
industry will put safety first. As the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and the earlier Minister of Transport both said, safety will be a priority concern of the Government. No step in the reregulatory process will endanger any safety factor in any segment of transportation. We have acted and will continue to act in the interests of improving air safety. There is no question; safety will not be impaired by reason of the passage of these transportation Bills.
I urge, along with other members of the Government, the early passage of Bill C-18 so that our carriers can have an equal opportunity to be competitive with national carriers of the United States and our shippers, whoever they are, will be able to get their products to market at a competitive price.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).


B. Keith Penner: Madam Speaker, may I call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, this morning on Parliament Hill a presentation of petitions to the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) signaled the end of the "Countdown to Childcare" campaign launched in mid-April by three national organizations, the Canadian Daycare Advocacy Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. In addition, 14 national organizations supported this campaign to make the Government aware of the urgency to take action with respect to daycare centres. The "Countdown to Childcare" campaign was designed to make Canadian men and women more conscious of the problems faced by our children and their parents. The petition was circulated throughout Canada and many thousands of signatures were gathered in the course of activities in various communities.
If the Government is prepared to invest several billion dollars for nuclear submarines and other military hardware, and these figures may prove to be very conservative, what are we waiting for to invest in our own children? Daycare services
June 15, 1987

are in a crisis. We need additional space in daycare centres. Time is of the essence.



REFUGEES


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, across Canada, church people, trade unionists, immigrants and other ordinary Canadians are joining together to defend justice for refugees and to oppose Bill C-55.
In Victoria a thousand people signed a petition against Bill C-55 and presented it Friday to their Member of Parliament.
In Calgary, yesterday, the Cathedral Church of the Redeemer made special prayers for refugees and heard a Salvadoran family speak of gratitude for protection Canadians have given and also of their longing to be able to return home.
In Hamilton yesterday a Salvadoran priest celebrated a special Mass for refugees. The mayor declared Refugee Day recognizing the many benefits brought to Canada by generations of immigrants, including, recently, South East Asians, Caribbeans, and Central Americans, and the Nansen Medal given last year for the Canadian people's humane care for refugees.
In Thunder Bay, members of a dozen congregations have helped 50 refugees to cross the U.S. border since February 20 and have provided them with food, shelter and clothing.
Canadians are welcoming refugees, and ask the Government to do the same by first withdrawing Bill C-55.



THE ECONOMY


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, since September, 1984, over one million new jobs have been created and unemployment has fallen by 3 per cent. Unfortunately, these figures also underline the growth of economic regional disparities in our country. The Atlantic provinces and the west lag dramatically behind southern Ontario and Manitoba. The figures show, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said, two Canada's, one rich and promising, the other underdeveloped and underemployed.
What can we about it? A trade agreement with the United States, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and the soon to be announced western economic diversification program will all help. But I believe we can do something more as well. We need a government purchasing policy aimed specifically at creating jobs in regions of traditional high
unemployment, a policy with all criteria known in advance of tendering. The Americans do it now with their defence procurement budget. Understandably, many benefiting from the current government policy will not like it, but we must close the gap between the haves and the have-nots. We must have one Canada with equal opportunity for all.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the headlines today are full of references to a possible strike at the Post Office. I must say that this is of concern to most Canadians.
Are we as parliamentarians or is the Government simply powerless in this situation? Do we simply have to stand by and suffer the consequences of a strike on small business, on the public, with reduced service? Are we to end up blaming the unions or management, whichever we choose, and allow the Government simply to take pot-shots at the NDP because we believe in collective bargaining? Or is there an alternative? Is there a way of taking effective action in this situation? If the Government would read the report of conciliator Swan, it would see that he points out specifically that the deadline for financial self-sufficiency by next spring has forced the management of the Post Office to take long-term goals and make them into short-term objectives.
I suggest an option for the Government. The Government could say to the Post Office: "As long as your trend line is down with regard to the deficit, that is fine". This would offer some elbow room to the Post Office to negotiate a settlement rather than leaving us on a collision course leading to a postal strike.



HARBOURS AND PORTS


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, once again the federal Government has ignored the worsening state of our harbours and wharfs across the country. On May 12, 1987, the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans informed the chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that over the next five years the possibility of 30 wharfs in the Province of Nova Scotia would be closed down as a result of lack of funds. The budget for small craft harbours is simply a drop in the bucket.

June 15, 1987



*S. O. 21

[Stage Direction]
Dependable and well maintained harbours and wharfs are absolutely essential. The Government's neglect is a threat to the safety of Canadian fishermen and boaters. While the Government bails out banks and squeezes low and middle-income taxpayers for every last cent, the real needs of Canadians are ignored.
In my own constituency, the fishermen in Lingan, South Bar, Glace Bay, the Barrachois Cove, Louisbourg, Main-aDieu, Gabarouse, L'Archeveque, Port Morien and all other ports are waiting patiently for much needed moneys to make repairs to their wharfs. I urge the Government and all Members of Parliament to fulfil their responsibilities and to allocate some new, badly needed assistance to the harbours and wharfs across Canada.


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, last week while in my riding I finally came across someone who had been phoned by one of those polling organizations. She told me she was asked the usual unbiased question which went something like this: "Despite the Conservative Government's problems and their mistakes, you really wouldn't want to vote Conservative in the next election, would you?" Her reply was interesting. She said of course she would.
She told the pollsters that the Vancouver Island unemployment rate was 17 per cent two years ago. Now it is down to 10 per cent under a Progressive Conservative Government. She said that British Columbia's share of federal Supply and Services contracts had doubled over the past two years from 16 per cent to over 30 per cent. She then told the pollster that housing starts are up 50 per cent since the 1984 election and that that was good news for the foresters of Nanaimo- Alberni.
Finally, she informed her caller that she had seen more federal cabinet Ministers on Vancouver Island in the last two years than she had seen in the past 20 because the Conservative Government obviously cares.
This lady is obviously very knowledgeable and very positive. She saw the glass as being more than half full, not half empty as the media would have us believe. I am proud to have her as a constituent and she is proud to have a dynamic Progressive Conservative Government in Ottawa.



RESEARCH


Jean-Luc Joncas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that last Friday, June 12, the riding of Matapedia-Matane which I represent was the site of an event which will be recorded in the history of my region, namely the official opening of Mont-Joli's Maurice Lamontagne Institute specializing in the sciences of the sea. My colleagues the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and the Minister of Supply and Services (Mrs. Vezina) attended the ceremonies.
Mr. Speaker, I was able to see how proud and pleased the people were, and I believe they had every reason to be because this research centre is a success, or better still, I should say a masterpiece.
Mr. Speaker, it would be appropriate to point out that this project of more than $50 million was entirely financed by the federal Government. The economic impact of the research centre will go a long way towards curing the aching sore of high unemployment in my region. I might add that this is proof positive of the significance our Government attaches to regional development.



NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, last week Ken Howland, a member of the National Parole Board, gave details of a study which showed that in Alberta between 1979 and 1985, full parole was granted to 43 per cent of non-native prisoners who applied but to only 20 per cent of natives because of a lack of parole supervisors in rural areas. This lack of services means that native prisoners have less than half the chance of being paroled of non-natives.
This kind of discrimination goes a long way toward explaining why there is a much higher percentage of natives than nonnatives in the prison system. It helps to explain the feeling among many native peoples that they are not equal under the law. It should also explain to all of us why aboriginal peoples want Canada to recognize their right to self-government with adequate finances so that they can provide proper services to their own people.
This kind of built-in discrimination must end. It will end only when aboriginal people get the right and the resources to control their own lives.
June 15, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



SUPPORT FOR COMMITTEE'S TRADE DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to draw attention to the Second Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. This report concerns the trade development function of the Department of External Affairs. I support the recommendations of the committee and would particularly urge the Government to ensure that trade development receives the highest possible priority in the Department and that the programs offered by trade development be made better known to Members of Parliament.
We, the Members, are willing and able to promote trade, particularly in our ridings, with the right kind of information in a readable and practical form. I also urge Canadian business and private sector associations to do more to promote export trade. They should not rely entirely upon government.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on September 25, 1986, CN Rail sent a letter to some of its employees saying:
In the context of the rationalization of our rail infrastructure, some lines have
been identified as being potential candidates for abandonment in the coming
years.
Any effort to attract new traffic on these lines is to be abandoned immediately.
For the traffic already on these lines, we must consider either, and preferably,
converting this traffic onto the intermodal system-
Two of the lines identified in this document are in the Alexandria subdivision, which is the only rail line linking Ottawa and Montreal. That would effectively end all train passenger and freight services between those two cities.
Other lines identified in the same document are the Alderdale and Beachburg subdivisions linking Ottawa to North Bay and Sudbury. That would effectively eliminate all train service between Sudbury and Montreal, including the cities of North Bay, Pembroke and Ottawa.
Someone should tell CN Rail to smarten up. This afternoon we are having a meeting of interested eastern Ontario municipalities in the Railway Committee Room and we intend to
adopt resolutions there and bring this to the attention of the Government. Hopefully the Government will tell CN Rail to sharpen up and stop attacking eastern Ontario.



CHILD CARE


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, today there was a child care lobby outside the House of Commons. Part of the reason for that lobby was the Minister of National Health and Welfare's (Mr. Epp) declaration that there would not be a federal-provincial agreement on child care prior to the end of June.
This is an issue about which many Canadians, especially women with young children, are concerned. They believe the Government promised there would finally be some action. They are very disappointed that the Minister said there will be no agreement between now and the end of June. Many of those people wanted to present a petition to the House and I would like to read from it.
WHEREAS there is a child care crisis in Canada; and
WHEREAS tax credits will not create an accessible quality child care system; and
WHEREAS an accessible child care system is an essential element for women's equality
WHEREFORE, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to provide the Provinces and Territories with immediate short-term funding to strengthen and expand non-profit child care while a new cost-sharing agreement is being negotiated; and further, to take this measure as a first step toward the public funding needed to create a system of quality, non-profit child care, accessible to all parents who wish to use it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, there is a story in this morning's Globe and Mail date-lined London, England, about a series of interviews held with so-called British experts. The experts questioned the ability of Canadian shipyards to build nuclear submarines, the capacity of the Canadian Navy to recruit and train crews, and the expertise of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to supervise safe installation and operation of reactors.
I think that is a bunch of nonsense.
1 think Canadian shipyards are capable of building any vessel that can float.
Canadian mariners and submariners are among the best in the world.

June 15, 1987
Oral Questions
The engineering capability of AECL and other members of the Canadian nuclear engineering fraternity is of a world standard.
Quite frankly I do not think we need a bunch of foreigners to tell us whether or not we can build submarines in Canada.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is in the process of introducing questionable and Draconian security practices in its larger operations. It appears that on the same day that in Calgary searches of inside workers leaving and coming to the job were being started, Canada Post was opening in Dryden, Ontario, a pick-up outlet for parcels where security of the mails, which after all is the main objective, left a great deal to be desired.
Canada Post is setting itself up for a confrontation with its unions. It has not undertaken any sensible or intelligent discussion with those unions in regard to security procedures that may be desirable to protect the mail. This sort of provocative action, contrasted with other measures which, in effect, diminish the security of mail, will stand as a stain on the corporation's record if not erased.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am sort of at a loss as to whom in the Government of Canada one directs questions on general matters today.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: The holidays haven't started yet.


John Napier Turner: I take no comfort from the sudden, belated arrival of the Minister of Justice.
I have a question on the White Paper on National Defence and do not know to whom I should address it. If I direct it to the Acting Minister of National Defence I am sure Canadians will sleep better knowing that he-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Here's the big shot now.


John Napier Turner: It's just a matter of waiting, Mr. Speaker. I was going to say, in the Prime
Minister's absence, that if the Acting Minister of National Defence delivers defence the way he is delivering the mail, the country is in real trouble.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. The debate about the White Paper on National Defence produced by the Minister of National Defence has provoked some extraordinary comments from Conservative cabinet Ministers and Conservative Members of Parliament.
However, the paper has produced some very intelligent criticism. The world's leading submarine experts have said that the Government's plan to spend billions and billions of dollars on a nuclear-powered submarine fleet is, to use the words of these experts, "incredible", "totally unreal", and "political posturing".
How can the Government justify spending up to $16 billion on a nuclear-powered submarine fleet plus unlimited maintenance costs when this project has already been labelled "unnecessary" and "rubbish"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the White Paper on National Defence was designed specifically, among other things, to invite discussion and debate among Canadians and others as a result of 16 years of very substantial neglect by our predecessors in regard to this vital aspect of our national well-being.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That's a Green Paper, not a White Paper.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Everyone and his brother will have an opinion on various variables of this very important matter. We are satisfied that the effect of the White Paper will strengthen Canada's sovereignty and will make a major commitment to the well-being of our Armed Forces which can serve Canada in a strengthened and very important way both here and around the world.


WHITE PAPER-EFFICIENCY-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the nuclear powered submarines project proposed by the Minister of National Defence, to use the Prime Minister's words, is not a subject for discussion but rather a subject of ridicule on the international scene.
Does it not embarrass the Prime Minister that one of the great world experts on naval matters, Captain John Moore, qualified the White Paper as rubbish? Couldn't the Prime Minister find a better way to spend billions of dollars than spending it on a project that is of no use either to Canadian sovereignty or national defence?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are not the slightest bit concerned about the opinions of all and sundry on the scope of the White Paper. It is a national document and its purpose is to make up for fifteen years of lost time and lost spending, as a result of which the
June 15, 1987

previous Government left Canada in such a deplorable state in terms of our national defence. We have made proposals which will not necessarily meet with unamimous approval but the White Paper's objectives and what it intends to achieve are, in fact, to strengthen Canada's position as a military power, a military power that has certain responsibilities to its alliances and its partners, but especially to Canada's sovereignty and to the Canadian people.


John Napier Turner: It appears that some very large egos in Cabinet have gotten in the way of common sense in producing this paper.


VIEWS OF AMBASSADOR FOR DISARMAMENT
John Napier Turner: The
latest person to attack the White Paper on Defence produced by the Minister of National Defence is Canada's Ambassador for Disarmament, Douglas Roche, who was, as Hon. Members know, a distinguished Conservative Member of Parliament and is the Prime Minister's personal appointee to this post. Why has the Government introduced a defence policy which is inconsistent, in the opinion of Ambassador Roche, with Canada's arms reduction policy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already indicated that the White Paper, which is a major initiative on the behalf of Canada's defence, will provoke commentary, not all of it unanimous or favourable, from different sources, which is quite normal and natural in a democracy.
The fact is that we are trying to make up for 16 years of lost time by the predecessor Government where the Canadian Armed Forces fell into a shameful state of disrepair and neglect. This Government is making up in a profound commitment to NATO, NORAD and to our alliances to ensure that Canadian men and women who serve in the Armed Forces are given the instruments they need to do so at all times with courage and pride, which was what was lacking because of the neglect of the previous Government.
My right hon. friend says that the ambassador stands here and some expert stands there. The Liberals will be given an opportunity to tell the Canadian people where they stand on the question of national defence.


DEFENCE EQUIPMENT PURCHASING POLICY
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, with the speed at which this Government is working, I hope we do not hit a crisis.
The Minister of Supply and Services has strongly condemned the Minister of National Defence for not understanding what regional development is all about. She went on to state that she will be requesting approval from Cabinet for a new federal purchasing policy for defence equipment which
Oral Questions
will relate to regional economic development because she does not feel that the Government is doing enough.
Will the Government support the Minister of Supply and Services for such a policy? Or will there be another split in Cabinet with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Supply and Services holding the fort for regional development in this country? Where does the Prime Minister stand on that question?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any doubt where this Party stands; it stands behind the White Paper and what it stands for. We are not too sure about the Liberal Party, given statements made by the Hon. Jean-Jacques Blais, former Minister of Defence for the Liberal Government, in favour of the nuclear submarines about which the current Party seems to have some questions.
On the question of defence purchases, getting full value for the dollar is the fundamental goal of defence. There is no question that the Government recognizes that defence spending is an important economic tool, and there is also no question that regional development and those factors will be, as they were in the past, taken into account when these major purchases are made.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: There is an obvious split in Cabinet given the words of the Minister of Supply and Services and of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs right now.


STATEMENT MADE BY MEMBER FOR SCARBOROUGH EAST
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, following the remarks of the Minister of Supply and Services about the Minister of National Defence, the Hon. Member for Scarborough East has been quoted as saying: "I hope the PM would shove a dish rag in her mouth." The Hon. Member for Scarborough East is Chairman of the NATO Parliamentary Association. He is also Chairman of his Party's caucus committee on national defence.
Will the Prime Minister be asking the Hon. Member for Scarborough East to apologize to the Minister of Supply and Services for these unfortunate remarks or is he in agreement with them? Will he confirm by his refusal to answer that there is indeed a serious split in his Cabinet?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, of course there is no split in Cabinet at all. The Minister of Supply and Services fully endorses the position of the Government in regard to the White Paper and has so conveyed that in answer to questions from the media.
In regard to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Scarborough East, he has written to the Minister to withdraw his statement, which I think all Members of Parliament would agree was unfortunate.

June 15, 1987
Oral Questions


FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions about some promises the Government has been making for the past seven months. First, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. According to the latest figures from Statistics Canada, Canadian companies owe $28 billion in deferred taxes. Could the Minister guarantee that these companies will not receive a retroactive reduction of these taxes as a result of his tax reform?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have said from time to time here in the House that Hon. Members should wait for the White Paper on tax reform to be tabled. 1 think I said all the questions the Hon. Member has asked will be answered.


MINISTER'S IMPENDING ANNOUNCEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I heard what the Minister had to say. I hope that he will at least begin to clarify his approach. He talked about his approach in the past before the day of his White Paper.
Since corporations in Canada, according to the most recent figures, owe some $28 billion in deferred taxes, and since any tax reform will not give retroactively a benefit to individual taxpayers, will the Minister guarantee the people of Canada that any general corporate tax reduction that he may announce on Thursday will not enable those companies to make any retroactive saving on the money that they now owe to the people of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that the Hon. Member has said from time to time about which we can agree. There need to be a number of changes made to the corporate tax system, which is one of the objectives of tax reform.
As I stated in my previous answer, I think it is important for him to be a little bit more patient and to wait until the White Paper comes down on Thursday. It will deal with a number of these questions in a very full way.


CHILD CARE
John Edward Broadbent: 
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Government, as the Hon. Member knows, has made a very strong commitment to child care. There is no question that it is an urgent situation. The Prime Minister has said as much, as has the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as have I.
This was first declared an urgent problem in 1971-


John Edward Broadbent: Right!


Barbara Jean McDougall: -by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. What is important to point out is that we have spent two years making progress on this issue. We are working toward coming up with the best quality system possible.
That is the commitment of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. And, believe me, under this Government the delay will not be 17 years.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. We all know that negotiations between Canada Post and the unions are not going smoothly, which means that we may be faced with a strike as of midnight tonight. Thousands of Canadians may be deprived of a service they consider essential, and thousands of small businesses may be faced with problems that may lead to lay-offs and even the outright loss of jobs.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he realizes that he now has a golden opportunity to demonstrate that his much vaunted reputation as a conciliator is based on fact, and that he could take the kind of action that is needed and take it now-the kind of action that most of his Ministers have refused to take so far-and intervene directly in the negotiations between Canada Post and the unions to forestall a strike that nobody wants.
June 15, 1987


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member just said, negotiations are going on, and I think that any comment at this critical stage in the negotiations would be inappropriate and inopportune.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTERVENE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Government's policy seems to be to watch the negotiations from an arm's length position and to wait until we have a strike on our hands before it will act.
This is a golden opportunity for the Prime Minister to prove to the Canadian public that there is a basis for his reputation as the so-called "great conciliator". I urge him to get involved personally in an attempt to avoid a strike by the letter carriers. Let's not wait until there is a strike before action is taken.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend that the Prime Minister is an excellent conciliator. That is a matter about which there is no doubt.
At this point we are following the negotiation process. As provided by the Canada Labour Code, the Government, through the Department of Labour, has appointed a conciliator and a commissioner. A report has been tabled. The parties are now negotiating head to head, a very critical stage in the process, and we should not intervene at this point other than by way of encouraging the parties to come to an agreement.


CHILD CARE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that parents are very concerned with the delay in taking action on child care. The children are getting older as the weeks go by. I should like to ask-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I do not think many parents consider this a laughing matter. Child care is urgently needed.


An Hon. Member:: It is your statement that is the laughing matter.


An Hon. Member:: Only Tories think it is a laughing matter.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Will the Government introduce the federal legislation outlining the national objectives for a national child care program, and will it do so before we recess for the summer?
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, both at the First Ministers' Conference and at the Symposium on the Family sponsored by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, outlined the principles for a day care program supported by this Government, those principles being affordability, accessibility, flexibility, and quality.


John Edward Broadbent: And delay!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Those are principles about which we care a great deal. We have been working very hard on a child care program. While we considered the June 30 deadline an ambitious one, it was one that we had hoped to meet.
This Government's commitment to a child care program remains, and we will have a system in place that all Hon. Members will be able to support.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: If those are the principles, why can't they be put into a Bill to be introduced in the House? In that way the federal objectives would be clear, thus facilitating the negotiations with the provinces.


PETITIONS SEEKING SHORT-TERM FUNDING
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Today, thousands of petitions were presented to the Government and to the Prime Minister personally, requesting that the federal Government provide immediate short-term funding to strengthen and expand non-profit child care while the new cost-sharing agreement is being negotiated.
What is the Prime Minister's response to those petitioners?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the petitions that were presented have been organized for the Prime Minister and for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This Government is strongly committed to child care and is moving toward that goal.
Throwing money at the problem is not the answer. We must first have in place a policy and an agreement with the provinces. We must know what it is we are paying for. That is what Canadians want.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.
Several newspapers state today that the Government will not table its response on daycare before next Fall. We have been listening to the answers of the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, and since the Prime Minister himself has made a commitment to make this a priority item, I would like the Prime Minister to tell me whether or not the answer will be tabled by June 30. It is a very important question and also a very simple one to answer. Are we or are we not going to have an answer on the matter of daycare before June 30?

June 15, 1987
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has already said that we will not be meeting the June 30 deadline. That is not to say that we are not making progress on the issue or that we will not have a commitment in place for the Prime Minister when he meets with the First Ministers in November.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I would also like the Prime Minister to tell me how much money his Government is willing to spend on quality daycare services, considering that the Government is willing to spend several billion dollars to track submarines. Given those circumstances, is the Government ready to tell us how much money it intends to allot for quality daycare services?

We want to know where the Prime Minister stands on this issue.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Absolutely.
[ Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member stating a policy of the Liberal party against the provisions of the White Paper on National Defence? That would be most interesting. If it is the position of the Official Opposition, we would be very interested to know about it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What is your position on day care?


Martin Brian Mulroney: With respect to daycare, we have inherited, as the Hon. Member knows, a very difficult situation. We are amending, developing and identifying with the provinces a new position which will be proudly acknowledged by all Hon. Members including the Hon. Member for Outremont when our great national project on behalf of women and children in Canada is submitted to the House.



INCOME TAX


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance relates to the impact of tax reform on the $28 billion's worth of deferred taxes owed the Canadian Government by Canadian Corporations, since a 20 per cent reduction in the corporate tax rate could put $6 billion in the pockets of those corporations.
We know that where a Canadian would have taxes owing Revenue Canada, he would pay the full 100 per cent. Would that policy apply to corporate deferred taxes, or does the Minister intend to retroactively grant corporations a tax reduction worth $6 billion?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful if the finance critic for the New Democratic Party were to collaborate with his Leader before Question Period, because that is the precisely the same question that his Leader just put to me.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my simple reason for asking the question is to determine whether deferred corporate taxes will be paid in full, or whether the Government intends to give a retroactive tax cut to corporations through a corporate tax cut which would apply to deferred taxes.



POSSIBLE EFFECT OF TAX CUT ON CORPORATIONS

Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, taking three companies alone, Canadian Pacific, Bell Canada, and Imperial Oil, they have among them $5.4 billion of deferred taxes sitting on their books.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Michael Morris Cassidy: If the tax rate on corporations is cut by 20 per cent, those companies will realize a windfall of $1 billion by way of tax savings.
Is it the Minister's intention to give these three companies a windfall of $1 billion, or will he ensure that tax cuts are only available in the future and that corporations do not get a retroactive tax cut as well?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is exactly the same as the one I gave to his Leader a few minutes ago.
The White Paper will be brought in on Thursday evening. At that time this question and a number of other questions which the Hon. Member has been putting to me in relation to the taxation of corporations and individuals will be answered.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, my question is directed to whomever might be answering for him.
In light of the very serious allegations made last week in respect of design flaws in the Perry nuclear generating station
June 15, 1987

in Ohio, just some 50 miles south of the Canadian border, will the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister advise the Elouse whether, since the allegations were made public, we have had discussions with the United States specifically about the matter?
Will he also advise the Elouse if the Canadian Government feels confident that we can rely on the word of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to protect the welfare of Canadian citizens, in light of the allegation that they have covered up the situation in recent weeks?


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to respond to that question on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Clearly, Canadians are increasingly concerned with nuclear issues, and since the Chernobyl accident especially those concerns have been increasing.
Mr. Speaker, I have checked and it has been proven that officials from the Department of External Affairs have made known to the US Department our concerns in that respect, and we are expecting reports on that incident or allegations.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-POSTPONEMENT OF FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING

Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. His office confirmed this morning that the scheduled meeting of First Ministers to discuss Canada-U.S. free trade negotiations has been postponed several weeks into July.
It is a surprising development considering that negotiators on both sides have indicated that major political decisions must be taken by the end of the month on crucial matters such as investments, subsidies, services, and others.
Does the postponement for several weeks of these meetings indicate that the Government of Canada intends to go it alone and make these decisions on crucial issues without active involvement with or consultation by the provincial Premiers so that they will be able to determine and indicate what is their stand on these very vital matters in the negotiations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker, not at all; quite the contrary.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONSULTATION

Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is so forthcoming, perhaps he is prepared to tell us why it is the meetings were delayed so long
Oral Questions
and why decisions will be made in the negotiations involving these major issues without the involvement of the First Ministers of the provinces.
Is it an example of the new federalism about which the Prime Minister is talking, that matters involving crucial issues affecting the provinces will be undertaken without their consultation or involvement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend is referring to the new federalism whereby the Auto Pact was negotiated without so much as a by your leave of the Government of Ontario under the previous Government, then of course we are doing things quite differently. There is a much greater degree of consultation, as my hon. friend knows.
He says: "Why has the meeting been delayed so long?" It has not been delayed so long. It has been rolled over for a couple of weeks, simply because the Americans have yet to respond in concrete terms to a number of very important issues put forward by Canada.
In the absence of any kind of specific response on these matters, it was felt prudent to await their tabling of answers in the coming days so that we can then seize the First Ministers with tangible realities as opposed to opinions which sometimes come from the newspapers and via the newspapers.
I think my hon. friend would agree that a postponement, even of modest duration, in the circumstances would be extremely prudent and helpful not only to the negotiations but to the consultative process involving the First Ministers.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It concerns the proposed purchase of nuclear-powered submarines.
I should like the Prime Minister to explain to the people of Canada how his Government expects to pay under $500 million each for nuclear-powered submarines for which the Royal Navy today, in 1987, is paying $530 million?
In the White Paper it is proposed that the purchase of our submarines would be over a 10-year period. What would the price be over the 10-year period? What is the estimated price?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Defence has pointed out, the anticipated price is about 1.6 times the cost of conventional submarines. We stand by those figures. They are not wild guesses. They are not inaccurate. The person quoted in the newspaper happened to be a consultant employed by DND on conventional submarines.

June 15, 1987
Oral Questions
These figures are quite accurate. I might point out to the Hon. Member that no decision has been taken to purchase British subs. The French are also in the game.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We on this side of the House are finding it increasingly difficult to get factual answers to a very serious question. Both Ministers are away again today.



GOVERNMENT'S PROJECTED COST

Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has stated that the total cost, including infrastructure, will be about $7.5 billion over the lifetime of the contract, which would be about 15 years. However, the editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, one of the great experts in the world, says that it will be at least $11 billion, and other experts put it as high as $16 billion.
When will the Government tell the people of Canada what is its cost estimate as of now?


Harvie Andre: The Minister of Defence has-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: No, he hasn't.


Harvie Andre: The cost of nuclear submarines is approximately 1.6 times the cost of conventional submarines; support services, about 1.8. In exchange for that we get a submarine which is several times more effective in terms of allowing Canada to meet its defence commitments.
The facts are there. If the Hon. Member does not want to accept them, that is his problem, not the Government's.



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Minister of Public Works, but in his absence I will put it to the Prime Minister.
According to a report published last week, one out of eight women suffers psychological, economic, sexual or verbal abuse. At a time when the Government should be acting rather than enforcing, it is forcing a friendship centre in my constituency out of existence by hitting it with a more than $3,000 monthly rent increase. Can the Minister, or in his absence the Prime Minister answer the question?
Is he prepared to ask the National Capital Commission, owner of the building, to reverse that decision-enjoin the NCC to keep on subsidizing the Maison d'amitie, and as in the past, until we have a national policy on abused women, to keep on not only subsidizing but put forward a national policy along
with its provincial counterparts in order to reach a solution on such a difficult problem?


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, the case of the friendship residence is very well known at the Public Works Department. For ten years it has been rented for $1 a year with a goal to encourage that cause. Recently however the National Capital Commission took the view that it was not its responsibility to directly subsidize that kind of activity and it has urged people to get funding from more adequate sources. It is not a matter of cutting funds, but simply of restoring profitability to a property that had not been reviewed for the past 10 years.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Maison d'amitie pays all the costs of a usual tenant. It does not pay rent on the basis of the market value of the building, but the previous Government accepted for ten years to subsidize that undertaking because it meets a serious need in the Ottawa-Vanier constituency.



REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CONVENE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SUBJECT OF BATTERED WOMEN

Jean-Robert Gauthier: My supplementary question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister again. Will the Prime Minister take it upon himself to convene a national conference on the question of battered women? Will he ask his provincial counterparts when they meet in November to put that question on the agenda so that we can come to grips with this most difficult and serious problem?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the problem of battered women in Canada represents one of our most serious social and legal challenges. As a country we have not come to grips with what is not only a societal problem but a very serious malady which is affecting women, families, and children, the fibre of our society. The response collectively of this country, provincial, federal and so on, has been inadequate to a very grave, damaging problem.
I want to give my hon. friend the assurance that we are working with all levels of government and will commit all the resources required to ensure that women so affected by these violent crimes receive full justice in Canada-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Start with the National Capital Commission.


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 will be working with my hon. friend and other Members of Parliament on this very sensitive matter to ensure that Canada deals effectively and firmly with the problem affecting battered women in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 15, 1987



FILM INDUSTRY


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns film distribution policy in Canada and his Government's objectives. Is it the Government's objective that film distribution in Canada be under the ownership and control of Canadians? Yes or no?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will have noticed we have indicated that we intend to bring in legislation which will help to correct a situation which has existed in this country for far too long where the domestic distribution system is, in fact, controlled from outside the country. We want to take steps to correct that.



REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

Lynn McDonald: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. What answer has he given the American Senators who, on June 2 of this year, sent him a scathing letter denouncing film distribution policy in this country? What reply has he given? Wouldn't the best reply be to introduce that legislation, which I understand is ready, and proceed with debate so that we can actually have something happen to improve the situation concretely?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, again I would say to the Hon. Member that we have indicated the steps that we are prepared to take. Certainly the decision of the Government is to introduce legislation. I want to assure the Hon. Member, however, that the legislation will be introduced as quickly as possible.
Last week the Member was protesting when I brought in copyright legislation. That was long overdue as well. I want to be able to take these steps one by one. I hope the Hon. Member will not have the same negative reaction when I bring in the film legislation.


Lynn McDonald: That is untrue, Flora.



AGRICULTURE


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last week at the Economic Summit we learned that there will no let up in the grain and agriculture trade wars at least for the next two years. We also know that the U.S. Congress recently passed legislation to put another billion into the Export Enhancement Program and broaden the number of countries on which the U.S. can use that program.
Oral Questions
In the Prime Minister's meeting last Thursday morning with the President of the United States did he raise the matter with the United States about using its Export Enhancement Program against Canada's traditional grain customers, such as Russia and Saudi Arabia? Did he get any commitment from the President that the Americans would not use this Export Enhancement Program against Canada's traditional grain customers, a program which is having a devastating impact on the price of wheat and grain for Canadian farmers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I raised this matter with the President and with other leaders at the Venice Summit.
I know my hon. friend will have been pleased by the results in agriculture where we reaffirmed the strong commitment to agricultural reform agreed to at the OECD and Canada's proposal for a mid-term review to implement these commitments. I think the leadership taken by the Government of Canada at Tokyo, where agricultural problems were placed on the agenda of the summit for the first time, and now the thorough airing which resulted in some concrete steps, will be of a nature to encourage western and eastern farmers. I know my hon. friend will want to applaud that very sincerely.
With regard to the specific problem involved in American agriculture, yes, indeed, I brought that to the attention of the President, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury. This is part and parcel of the reforms that we hope the seven have agreed on to improve the conditions of agriculture in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Algoma, a short supplementary, please.



POSITION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister say whether or not he got a commitment from the United States administration that it will not use the increased Export Enhancement Program against Canada's traditional customers? Would he mention that because obviously there is not going to be a drawback by the European Community of those subsidies for at least the next two years? Surely we can get a commitment from our best trading customer, the United States, that it will not use that Export Enhancement Program against our traditional customers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have received no specific commitment in regard to action that the United States is contemplating in the next couple of weeks or months.
Clearly the communique and the results of the discussions are very encouraging in that they deal with the acceptance by the United States and Europe of the fact that the debilitating war of subsidies cannot go on. It is killing all the participants. It is damaging countries such as Canada, such as representatives of the Cairns Group who are free and fair traders in agriculture and who are being driven out of traditional

June 15, 1987
Oral Questions
markets by artificial subsidies granted to American and European farmers.
I made that case, very, very strongly and strenuously in Tokyo and in Venice. One of the results finally is an acknowledgement that this situation cannot go on and we have to sit down at the GATT and together deal with it to bring it to an end. In the process of so doing, we hope that Canada will recapture its traditional market shares without these debilitating subsidies being carried on the backs of the Canadian taxpayers.



AGRICULTURAL POLICY-INTRODUCTION OF NEW PROGRAMS

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. After the Ottawa round of the Cairns Group, the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board announced that Canada would participate with the Cairns Group to stop subsidizing agriculture production and begin subsidizing incomes, something which the Prime Minister translated fairly closely into supporting farmers rather than farming, at the Venice Summit.
Since Canada's Minister of Agriculture has always advocated a market oriented approach to subsidization, with payments being based on production, what kinds of programs does the Government intend to put in place in order to meet this new policy commitment?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the programs that the Government will introduce on behalf of agriculture-we have introduced many as my hon. friend knows-will be adapted to the circumstances and designed to help Canadian farmers who work so hard, make so many sacrifices and who are now being unfairly penalized. We will be working with farmers. I will be out meeting with farmers and farm groups again and with provincial Governments, and the policies, we hope, will be adapted to the wellbeing of Canadian farmers.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre, a short supplementary.



REVIEW OF DOMESTIC PROGRAMS

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, given the international commitment, can the Prime Minister tell this House what the Government has done with regard to studying the existing domestic programs in Canada which have been, as he knows, following the theory that the market and production are things that should determine the level of subsidization. Does he have a study under way which will determine which programs, if any, meet the Cairns criteria- which of our own programs?
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr, Speaker, you can rest assured-


An Hon. Member:: Hold on.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was so taken with the opening comments of the Minister that I too would like to hear the answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Prime Minister.
The whole matter of subsidies to our own farm groups and farmers around the world is one of great concern to the Minister. We have undertaken a complete review of all the programs for subsidies. They are presently being reviewed again. Undoubtedly there has been no firm decision on any programs which would need to be cut in the near future.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the House that this will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Windsor West.



CHILD CARE


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for the status of women. Earlier in Question Period she said the Government would not meet the June 30 deadline for making a response to the report of the House of Commons committee on child care. The new rules of the House indicate that such a response must be made within 150 days, an extension of the 120 days in the previous rules.
Will the Government make a commitment right now to meet that deadline of 150 days as of July 30, and if not, why not?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member has been working too hard, or I have, or someone has. I understood that he mentioned in the question June 30. The response is due in July, as I understand it. If the Hon. Member would like, we could reconvene in July.



GOVERNMENT POSITION

Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House indicate that when the committee requests that there be a comprehensive response by the Government, it is due within 150 days of tabling the report. The original rules indicated that it was due within 120 days and that is why we were speaking of a June 30 response. We have added another 30 days to the deadline according to the interim rules which we have just made permanent, so I would like the Minister to tell us whether or not the Government will meet the new deadline and if not, why not.
June 15, 1987


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there shall be a response within the time frame and there shall be in Canada a comprehensive child care program.



WAYS AND MEANS


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I would ask with regard to Ways and Means Motion No. 16 that an Order of the Day be designated.



POINT OF ORDER


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order with regard to a petition I tried to present today. If I may, I would like to indicate to the Chair the contents of the petition so the Chair will be able to understand of what I am speaking.
The petition is that, whereas there is a child care crisis in Canada and whereas tax credits will not create an accessible quality child care health system and whereas an accessible child care system is an essential element for women's equality, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to provide the provinces and territories with the immediate short-term funding to strengthen and expand non-profit child care while a new cost-shared agreement is being negotiated, and further, to take this measure as a first step toward the public funding needed to create a system of quality non-profit child care accessible to all parents who wish to use it.
According to the rules of the House of Commons, I tried to present that petition to the Clerk of Petitions and I was refused permission to do so on the grounds of Beauchesne's Citation No. 685(3) which reads as follows:
The House will refuse to receive any petition that directly asks for a grant of money out of the public revenues unless such grant has first been recommended by the Crown. But the House does not reject petitions which ask simply for legislation or for "such measures as the House may think expedient to take" with respect to public works.
I respect the Citation in Beauchesne's cited by the Clerk of Petitions in refusing my petition. However, I believe that in the history of petitions presented to the Crown there has been an effort by petitioners to make it clear that they wish the Government to act. I believe it to be historically correct that many petitions received by the Crown and later by Parliament
Point of Order-Mr. Murphy
have in fact required the expenditure of public funds. I believe it goes against the principle of the public petitioning Parliament to be told that petitioners cannot do so when there is a requirement for an expenditure of funds.
I would like the Chair to review the Citation, to look at the precedents and the present necessity and to recognize that people who sign petitions of their own volition and who ask Parliament or the Government to act are making a request of Parliament. They should have a right just like any other group of citizens to have their petitions heard. I hope you would so rule, Mr. Speaker.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have heard my hon. friend's comments and I have no difficulty with them, and in fact would encourage you to review my friend's case. I am looking at the citation my colleague cited and I would hope that in 1987, we would not bear too heavily on a precedent listed in Beauchesne's as being set in 1869.
As my hon. friend has said, Members of Parliament are often presented with petitions which are general in nature. I would suggest that the citation is probably specific in nature. Perhaps you might take a look at the petition and, if it is general in nature as are petitions received by all Members from time to time, perhaps you could bring down a ruling which would be of assistance to the Clerk of Petitions when considering future petitions.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any further Hon. Members rising on this point of order?
I have listened carefully to the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). The matter is one of interest and is perhaps one of importance. I am intrigued because the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Lewis) has risen in support of the position the Hon. Member for Churchill is urging on the Chair, which is specifically that a ruling in Beauchesne's should be considered very carefully as to whether it is applicable when petitions are presented to the House which may involve the expenditure of public money but which are general enough in nature that they do not specifically refer to a particular grant to a particular person, organization or group. I think that is the distinction the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has fastened onto with appropriate cogency.
The Chair will consider the matter and will report back to the House as soon as possible. I will look very carefully at the ruling, keeping in mind what the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out about its date, and keeping in mind what the Hon. Member for Churchill has said about the right of Canadians to present petitions to this place, a right which undoubtedly is important and should be interpreted as broadly as possible. I thank Hon. Members.

June 15, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn (for the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):
That, further to the notice given on Thursday, June 11, 1987, by the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council, and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 117, in relation to Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, four further hours be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and four hours to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the end of the four hours allotted to the report stage consideration and to the third reading stage consideration of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, government propaganda would have us believe that because of Bill C-18, we in Canada will in time have an efficient and low-cost transportation service. It would have us believe that it will provide a balance between the interests of the shipper on the one hand and the transportation carrier on the other. Government propaganda would have us believe that Bill C-18 will give us a more flexible and competitive transportation environment. However, when I listened to the Government's very carefully prepared message indicating that Bill C-18 will achieve an efficient, low-cost transportation system, I was aware that to a significant extent this thesis is based upon the results of deregulation in the country to the south of us, our neighbour, the United States of America.
It has been said by some that the Staggers Act of 1980, for example, is working well in the United States. It is working well, it is claimed, with respect to the relatively low increases in railway freight rates. It is working well, its advocates claim, with respect to increased rail sensitivity to shippers' needs. It is working well, its advocates say, because there are significant gains in railroad economic efficiency. All of these conclusions are supported by the Economics and Finance Department of the Association of American Railroads.
If the propaganda ended there I think we could promptly support C-18 and we would see no reason to oppose a time allocation measure. However, many Members of this House know there is another side to this story of deregulation, and that other side has at least three facets. There are probably many more but since my time is limited I mention only three: safety; impact on regional development; and the effect upon jobs in the transportation industry.
Many Members have said there is nothing to be concerned about with respect to safety. They have asked us to take their
assurances on that. The Standing Committee on Transport was given no mandate in its terms of reference to deal with safety in a deregulated environment. Indeed, witnesses repeatedly expressed their amazement that the committee was attempting to comment on deregulation in the total absence of any analysis of safety standards. No less a reputable organization than the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association said:
Even in Freedom to Move itself, safety is mentioned but in passing, with unsupported statements to the effect that economic regulatory reform will not be permitted to be detrimental to safety standards.
CALPA also said:
Safety concerns had so grown by last year that the U.S. Secretary of Transportation ordered a "white gloves" safety audit which resulted in 16 of 43 airlines, both old and new, being disciplined. Since that time, in-depth inspections have resulted in further action, the most notable being the record $1.5 million fine recently levied against American Airlines for numerous safety deficiencies.
When Hon. Members tell us that we should not worry about safety, that we have looked into it sufficiently, that we should accept their assurances, I say no, we cannot. There are concerns about safety and we need more evidence before this House gives its approval to C-18.
My second point is with respect to regional development. There is growing concern in this country that the Conservative Government is abandoning its role in regional economic development. I do not have the time now to cite all the evidence to support that concern, but C-18 as amended offers no more than a weak and feeble nod in the direction of concern for regional development.
I am aware that the original Bill was amended in committee. I am aware that Clause 3(1 )(d) now says that transportation is recognized as a key to regional economic development and commercial viability of transportation links is balanced with regional economic development objectives in order that the potential economic strengths of each region may be realized. I say that is weak and ineffectual.
I compare that to the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud). Rather than saying commercial viability must be balanced with regional development, the Hon. Member argued that where a service or facility is required for the achievement of national or regional social and economic development objectives, these objectives should take precedence over the objective of commercial viability whenever the two are in conflict.
Thus on the one hand in the amendment to the Bill which was accepted we have no more than a tacit recognition that somehow regional development may be important. Through this Bill we are opening the door to a more efficient and competitive industry but we are paying a price with respect to nation building. We all know we cannot build a nation if we simply write off the regions of this country. The federal and provincial Governments must be able to take combined action in order to maintain and build transportation facilities if it is in the public interest to do so.
June 15, 1987

For many years the Governments of the maritime provinces have advocated that the National Transportation Act should endorse the following regional development principles: First, transportation is recognized as a key to regional economic development; and second, where there is a conflict between regional economic development objectives and commercial viability, regional economic development must take precedence. Without a commitment to that second principle the development objectives of the first bear no weight and are of no significance whatsoever.
My third point has to do with jobs. Again we have to look at deregulation in the U.S. Some 30 labour organizations in Canada appeared before the committee and each expressed fear that the deregulation proposals would result in significant job loss, displacement or wage reduction. There is very little hard evidence available in Canada about the effects of deregulation. We just do not know what they will be. However, we do have the American experience.
It is indicated that in the U.S. some 40,000 workers in the airline industry have lost their jobs since 1980. Over the same time 150,000 jobs were lost in the railway industry. The trucking sector is somewhat more difficult to assess, but it is estimated that employment was reduced by as much as one-third. Somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 union members were put out of work in that sector and they have not been replaced.
Direct job loss is one aspect of deregulation, but only one. Those who were able to retain their jobs have been under tremendous and persistent pressure to make concessions, to reduce their wages, to give up their hard won benefits, and to relax the standards of working conditions. As companies seek to cut costs in order to compete with one another the first people they turn to are their employees. The reduced cost to shippers being held out as a carrot by the proponents of deregulation is being paid for in very large part by the workers in the transportation industry.
There is no doubt that a new regulatory regime will create job dislocation and it is therefore imperative that this legislation, Bill C-18, contain some measures to deal with that. Because it does not, I say that this time allocation motion is not one that we on this side of the House and in this Party can accept.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 3.19 o'clock p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 117 have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
The question is the following one. Mr. Hnatyshyn (for Mr. Mazankowski) moved:
That, further to the notice given on Thursday, June 11, 1987, by the Deputy
Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council, and pursuant to the
National Transportation Act, 1986
provisions of Standing Order 117, in relation to Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, four further hours be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and four hours to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the end of the four hours allotted to the report stage consideration and to the third reading stage consideration of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Motion adopted.


BELL CANADA ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-13, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada, as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are two motions standing on the Order Paper and Notices in amendment to Bill C-13, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada. One stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) and the other in the name of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). They will be grouped together for debate but voted on separately.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like some clarification from the Chair with respect to this issue. The Chair has just announced that the two amendments will be dealt with together. Is that correct?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: They will be grouped together for debate but voted on separately.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I respectfully suggest that these are two separate issues. Clause 7 and the amendment which I have proposed to it deal with the possibility of Bell
Canada and its affiliates moving into the communication, cable and broadcast field, whereas Clause 12 deals with information required by the CRTC with respect to Bell Canada and its affiliates.
I respectfully suggest to the Chair that these motions are not related and that they should be debated separately.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. As the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) has just said, my motion is quite different from hers. I think it would be appropriate that they be kept quite separate since they deal with different aspects of the legislation and different clauses.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, in an attempt to help you and enable the House to get on with its work, could we not begin the debate on Motion No. 1 in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone)? While you take the matter under advisement, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member might begin her remarks and perhaps later you might let us know what your ruling is in this case.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair has considered the interventions of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). It is true that the motions apply to different clauses of the Bill. However, as both relate to a change in the definition of a person vis-a-vis an affiliate, they are sufficiently related that they can be debated concurrently. There will, however, be separate votes.


Sheila Finestone: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask how you are planning to deal with the time allocation with respect to the debate on each of the motions?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There is no time allocation. It will depend upon the number of Members who will participate in the debate.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-13, be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 8 and 9 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"7. Neither the Company nor any affiliate of the Company shall directly or"


Lynn McDonald: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-13, be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 36 to 39 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
June 15, 1987

"in respect of any affiliate in the same manner and to the same extent as if
the affiliate were the Company."


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, at the outset I wish to point out that I regret the decision of the Chair in respect of these two motions. I do not think the decision allows for the kind of debate that these motions deserve. I sincerely regret the decision of the Chair. Nonetheless, I shall comply with it.
Clause 7 of Bill C-13 would prohibit Bell Canada or any company controlled by it from operating a broadcasting undertaking.
This is a continuation of the prohibition contained in the 1968 Bell Canada Special Act. Parliament has consistently opposed Bell Canada entering the broadcasting field. Due to the recent reorganization of Bell Canada, it is now in a position to circumvent the prohibition contained in Clause 7.
Consider the following example: the new holding company, Bell Canada Enterprises, could incorporate a subsidiary such as Bell Canada TV and, for very little cost, connect the transmission facilities of that subsidiary, through its affiliate, Bell Canada, at a very reasonable rate, to virtually every home in Canada. Such a transaction would not run afoul of Clause 7 as it now reads.
The problem we are looking at here, Madam Speaker, is the endeavour by Bell Canada Enterprises to become involved in cable and broadcasting. The Canadian Cable and Television Association, the CCTA, has voiced its concern about this gap in Clause 7 of the Bill, a gap which could have a very important and negative impact on its members.
The broadcasting industry is fragmented at the base already. It has the fragmentation of the advertising dollar and a fragmentation of audience. The last thing it needs is further competition.
We are in the midst of examining and evaluating the impact of a changed Broadcasting Act on our society, and it would be most ill-advised to bring a new player into the game at this juncture. I know that the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) has been spoken to. She has made statements supporting the cable industry, statements contrary to the view of Bell Canada. However, she has not translated those views into action.
The Minister has obviously not been listening to the cable companies, and has perhaps had her arm twisted or her ear bent by Bell Canada.
It is significant that the CRTC, in its April, 1983 report to Cabinet on the proposed reorganization of Bell Canada, concluded that the Bell Canada group should continue to be prohibited by law from holding broadcasting licences.
There was an extensive review, an exhaustive review, with public hearings and a great deal of public discussion, all indicating a concern over the degree of concentration of control and conflict of interest that could arise in the Canadian broadcasting industry if affiliates of Bell Canada Enterprises were allowed to hold broadcasting licences.
Bell Canada Act
The commission concluded that the public interest would best be served by the separate, and to some extent, competitive evolution of the cable and telephone industries as separate entities. The conclusions of the CRTC are as valid today as they were then.
I should like to bring to the attention of Hon. Members what the commission had to say. I quote from the 1983 report of the CRTC, as follows:
The Commission is of the view that Bell and the other members of the Bell group should continue to be subject to the limitation prohibiting the holding of broadcasting licences, which under the Broadcasting Act includes licences to operate cable television systems.
At this stage of rapid evolution in the communications industry, the Commission would be concerned with the degree of concentration that could arise in the industry if the Bell group were allowed to enter the broadcasting field.
The commission went on to point out that the book value of the telecommunications assets of Bell Canada at that point was in excess of $13 billion, whereas the book value of the assets held by the private television, radio and cable industry was around $1.2 billion. So we are looking at a giant ready to gobble up an industry.
It would be most unhealthy for Canadians if such acquisitions by Bell could take place. I urge the Minister to consider the proposed amendments favourably. I know that she has made certain observations in this regard. I should like to underscore that the CRTC has assessed the situation on a number of occasions and has consistently affirmed and reaffirmed its resolve that Bell Canada and other members of the Bell group of companies be prohibited from applying for or holding broadcast licences.
I draw the attention of Hon. Members to the fact that 60.7 per cent of all telephone lines in Canada are in the hands of Bell Canada. In other words, of the 11.2 million telephone lines in Canada, including business and private, 6.8 million are in the hands of Bell Canada.
Given the strength of Bell Canada in the telephone field, it should concentrate its efforts on that area. It should not concern itself with competing in the broadcasting field, where we have other interests and other concerns. It would be in the best interests of Canada to prohibit, by statute, the holding of broadcasting licences by Bell Canada, including licences to operate a cable television system.
My amendment would restore Clause 7 of the Bill to the way in which it read when Bill C-19 was introduced in this House in December of 1984 by the previous Minister.
Spokespersons for Bell Canada have made the argument that there are adequate safeguards already in place. I suggest to you that the CRTC is not in agreement.
Mr. John Lawrence, the Vice-Chairman of the CRTC, at page 5 of his remarks to our legislative committee, presented on April 28 last, stated:
With respect to the removal of the word "affiliate" from Clause 7 the CRTC is already on record, both in terms of the Bell Canada Reorganization Report,

June 15, 1987
Bell Canada Act
1983, and in submissions made to this legislative committee reviewing Bill C-
And now again in the review of Bill C-13.
-that Bell Canada and all the other companies within the Bell family of
companies should continue to be subject to the limitation prohibiting the
holding of broadcasting licences.
Because you have limited the time, Madam Speaker-and I think in a most repressive way-I should like to bring to your attention the fact that I cannot now read into the record the words of the Minister of Communications. However, she did make a very strong statement on May 5, 1987, to the Canadian Cable Television Association acknowledging that there was a serious concern and that she intended to deal with the issue of mixing television, cable and broadcasting with the telecommunications companies through the issuance of a directive.
I do not think the issuance of a directive is the answer. The Minister pointed out that she was very proud of what cable companies do, yet she noted their monopoly in the area. She also said that the cable companies were protected from intrusion into their market by Bell Canada and other common carriers, which otherwise would be presumably only too eager to expand their range of services.
If the Minister acknowledges that the telephone companies would only be too happy to intrude into this field, I do not understand why she has not acted and used her directive to indicate that she was serious in her intent.
Cable television undertakings should be the privileged users of broadcasting in this area; it is not the place for telephone companies. The issue has been clearly defined and articulated by cable people, and it was acknowledged by the Minister. She supported the observation that it was not the place for telephone companies.
I wish the Minister, who spoke so loudly to the cable people, would put into action what she says she meant, would retain Clause 7 of the original Bill C-19, and would accept my amendment. I think it would be in the best interests of all not to use the directive power under Section 22. It is obvious that the Minister has not used it yet and has had plenty of time to do so. It is very important that the matter be addressed and that the amendment be adopted.
In the end we are left very uncertain about the predicament of not knowing how, if at all, the Minister will exercise her discretionary powers, and they are only discretionary. If the Minister truly believes that BCE should not be involved in the cable business, and if she recognizes its strength in general to go into that business unless so prevented, I suggest that she should take the opportunity to set her intentions in legislative form and accept my amendment.
I was about to deal with Clause 12, but since you are indicating, Madam Speaker, that I have no time left I cannot do so.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I should like to deal with both Clause 7 and Clause 12. The difficulty with the piece of legislation is that in effect the Government is writing policy without having any long-term goals. We are left rather perplexed with technological change and the possibility of fibre optics coming in. The Government itself is not sure what roles should be played by the telephone companies and by the cable companies. It says that it wants to keep telephone companies out of broadcasting, yet it does not seem to favour an amendment to the legislation which would make very clear that they could not be involved.
The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture has been holding hearings on broadcasting questions. We have had representations made to us that because of technological change and fibre optics technology-running new fibre wires into houses-telephone companies might be the appropriate carriers for broadcasting undertakings. We are very perplexed now about what is the right way to turn. It is unfortunate that we must make decisions on these immediate matters without some long-term policy to guide the decisions.
The purpose of my amendment to Clause 12 would be to have the clause, as amended, read as follows:
The provisions of the National Transportation Act and the Railway Act that provide for the obtaining of information by the Commission for the purposes of carrying out its powers, duties and functions in relation to the Company apply for those purposes to and in respect of any affiliate in the same manner and to the same extent as if the affiliate were the Company.
With this reorganization we want to ensure that there is not an escape clause so that the affiliates will be able to do what the parent company was unable to do or what would have been prohibited under the old Bell Canada Act. It would be simply to ensure that there would be no organizational way around it.
I note that a number of organizations made similar recommendations. For example, the Public Service Advocacy Centre recommended that a simple amendment to the Bill was required to ensure that Bell Canada could be effectively regulated in the interests of its subscribers. It wants Clause 12 to be amended to encompass the obtaining of information relevant to the mandate of CRTC from all Bell Canada affiliates, not just its parent.
It is absolutely essential for the CRTC to have full financial information. Information does not get out to the public at large. It is essential that the CRTC be able to get the information on the affiliates as well, so that rates can be regulated in a manner which is fair to consumers. That is the purpose of the amendment to the clause.
The proposal of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) deals with a different matter. It seeks to amend Clause 7 to make it very clear that telephone and broadcasting activities are kept strictly separate. If this amendment does not go through, the difficulty will be that the CRTC could be pressed very hard by telephone company affiliates to permit them to become involved in broadcasting undertakings. It is true that such a matter could be regulated under the Broadcasting Act. However, without an actual statement to the
June 15, 1987

contrary, the CRTC could be under a lot of pressure. A company could say: "If Parliament has not said that we cannot do it, you do not have a good reason for saying 'no' when an application is made".
In committee I asked representatives of the CRTC what they would do if they received an application. Mr. Lawrence, speaking for the commission, said the following:
The commission holds public hearings. In the course of those public hearings, we hear arguments that often determine an issue ... In this case, we would be looking for what interveners would tell us about how we should conduct ourselves in this situation. A situation was posed to me and I said I thought Bell might say, on public policy grounds, that the commission should not refuse a licence or refuse allowing BCE or an affiliate into that cable market.
Clearly the commission is anticipating that it might get this kind of proposal and that it would be very hard to say "no". We need some direction in the legislation.
The commission would be left having to decide under a great deal of pressure from an extremely powerful corporation saying that Parliament had not said that the commission could not do it and that it was a change in legislation from the old Bell Canada Act to the new one which clearly allowed them the opportunity to enter that market.
I think the Government is talking out of both sides of its mouth on the issue. We are not entirely clear what it wants. The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture is concerned about seeing that the lines of division are kept clear, yet we are aware that with technological change there may be new elements in the situation which will have to be taken care of. We need some long-term telecommunications policy to address the issues.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, two amendments have been put before the House at report stage of Bill C-13. The first one, in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), deals with the question of whether or not those who control the means of delivering a message, that is telephone companies, should also have the liberty of controlling the message itself. That is the gist of her amendment.
It has been a long-standing principle of communications policy in Canada that these two areas should not be mixed. Consistent with this policy, Clause 7 of Bill C-13, prohibits Bell Canada, the telephone company, and any person controlled by Bell Canada company from holding a broadcasting licence. I have also taken steps-this was indicated to the committee when I met with it on May 1 and subsequently reaffirmed, as stated by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Finestone), in a speech that I gave to the cable associations of Canada-to request the Governor in Council to issue a directive under Section 22 of the Broadcasting Act that will clarify the role of telephone companies and their involvement in broadcasting. That directive allows the flexibility that is needed in a situation like this. It allows the situation to change as we go into the further development of telecommunications
Bell Canada Act
technology, it allows for a response that is flexible to the exigencies of the time. It also gives, I may say, the CRTC the policy guidance that it requires and that it has requested. When I spoke to the committee and later to the cable associations of Canada the response was, I think, quite favourable in following this path. I believe that this message of addressing the issue of the broadcasting prohibition meets the concerns that have been raised.
I would remind you, Madam Speaker, that the CRTC has broad powers under the Broadcasting Act, and obviously with regard to any directive, to evaluate applications for broadcasting licences. The commission must be satisfied that the application is in the public interest before granting a licence. I expect that any application for a broadcasting licence from Bell Canada Enterprises or any of its subsidiaries would be fully addressed by the commission, and that any potential problems or conflicts could be dealt with through the licencing procedure. For that reason the Government cannot support the amendment as proposed by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.
With regard to the second amendment that has been put forward by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), I would say that the CRTC already has very broad powers under the Railway Act and the National Transportation Act to require that information be provided for regulatory purposes.
Moreover, the CRTC is granted the powers of a superior court in respect to the appearance of witnesses, the production of documents and such other matters as are necessary in the conduct of its regulatory business. These are very extensive powers, Madam Speaker. Clause 12 as currently drafted reinforces these powers as they apply to the persons that control the company, Bell Canada Enterprises. In other words, the Bill as currently drafted permits the CRTC to request information from any BCE affiliate, so long as the information is relevant to the regulation of Bell Canada. Moreover, the Bill provides that the CRTC may determine what information is relevant and request it in any form.
The proposed amendment would radically extend the commission's powers beyond those provided in Clause 12 to include all the unregulated activities of BCE subsidiaries, many of which are completely unrelated to the activities of Bell Canada. This could open the way to what you might call fishing trips, requests for information that are irrelevant to the regulation of the telephone monopoly. This means that many of the internationally competitive activities of BCE subsidiaries would be exposed to regulatory scrutiny. Only Canada's competitiveness in international markets would benefit from this exposure of BCE affairs in this way.
The logic of the Bill is precisely to leave the competitive affiliates of BCE unregulated, while ensuring the CRTC has the power to regulate the telephone monopoly. The powers in Section 12 maintain this balance and ensure that the commission can gain all the information it needs to regulate the monopoly.

June 15, 1987
Bell Canada Act
When this Bill was in committee, the CRTC itself indicated that Clause 12 as drafted was sufficient to the commission's needs. For these reasons the Government does not support the proposed amendment. Clause 12, as currently drafted, together with the other powers available to the commission, is more than adequate to permit the CRTC to regulate Bell Canada effectively and at the same time protect the interests of its subscribers.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I am taking part in the report stage debate because the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) who spoke before me has asked me to explain why the Liberal Party will not support Motion No. 2 of our colleague from Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), whose amendment reads as follows:
"in respect of any affiliate in the same manner and to the same extent as if the
affiliate were the Company."
Indeed, this amendment would give the Company powers which, in our view, are now amply covered by the CRTC.

I would like to start by saying that we will support the amendment of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) to Clause 7 because it gives us-I think I mentioned it at second reading-some assurance that Bell Canada will not become involved in the cable or broadcasting industry. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I would like to support that.
Speaking to Clause 12, the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) has proposed an amendment which I understand was suggested to the legislative committee by CN-CP Telecommunications. CN-CP observed that Clause 12 would give the CRTC power to compel production of information in the possession of the parent company, Bell Canada, but not information in the possession of Bell Canada's affiliates, for example, Northern Telecom. CN-CP recommended that Section 12 be amended to include affiliates of Bell Canada. The Member for Broadview-Greenwood now proposes an amendment of similar effect. 1 want to explain why we will not support the motion.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal was concerned about whether Clause 12 gave the CRTC sufficient powers to demand information from Bell Canada's affiliates. She wanted to ensure that the CRTC was given and is given sufficient regulatory powers to gather information from all the members of the group to ensure that the CRTC had the power to detect intercorporate subsidies, known as cross-subsidization among the members of the Bell group. In other words, the Member for Mount Royal was concerned about the possibility of the Bell group assigning to Bell Canada some unprofitable and high risk activity so that any losses incurred by the company would be subsidized by charging higher rates to Bell Canada's telephone subscribers.
The Member for Mount Royal was concerned, as is the Hon. Member from Broadview-Greenwood, that Bell Canada would be allowed to cross-subsidize its competitive businesses from revenues derived from its monopoly in the telephone business. For example, the Member for Mount Royal wanted to know from the CRTC if it was in a legal position to examine the recent acquisition by Bell Canada of BCSI, Bell Communications Systems Incorporated. She wanted to find out if Bell Canada paid a fair price to the members of the Bell group and if Bell Canada had to cover any of Bell Communications Systems Incorporated financial losses. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal, was concerned about ensuring that the CRTC had the legal right to obtain information about the SI.5 billion contract between Bell Canada International Incorporated of Ottawa and the Government of Saudi Arabia to determine whether telephone subscribers in Canada were or could be subsidizing Bell's work abroad. Therefore, when the CRTC appeared before the legislative committee, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal asked about the CN-CP proposed amendment to Clause 12 of the Bill.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal put to the witnesses the amendment the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood has put to the House today and asked the representatives of the CRTC if in their opinion they thought it was necessary. The Vice-Commissioner of CRTC Telecommunications, Mr. John Lawrence, and legal counsel for the CRTC both told the committee in unequivocal terms that not only was the amendment my colleague is proposing today not necessary but they went so far as to say that due to a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, such an amendment could restrict rather than expand the right of the CRTC to gather information.
I requested and received transcripts of those two meetings. Pages 219 and 220 of the transcript of the April 28 committee meeting read as follows, beginning with the Hon. Member for Mount Royal speaking:
-I wonder if the amendment that would be useful for you would be an amendment in clause 12 that would state something to the effect that: . . . "and to and in respect of any affiliate of the company engaged in a telecommunications activity in the same manner and to the same extent as if the person or affiliate were the company". Is this what you require in this particular amendment in Clause 12? What would be required to ensure that you first of all get the required access to the necessary information organized in a way that is useful?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Under the present provisions of the National Transportation Act regarding Bell Canada as interpreted in the Interprovincial Pipe Line case in the Federal Court of Appeal, it was held that a parent company can be required to disclose information from all of its subsidiaries in a form required by the regulator. By virtue of this interpretation of the provision of the National Transportation Act, we think the present provision in clause 12, which in effect says that BCE will now be treated the same as Bell Canada would under those provisions, is going to be adequate without adding the word "affiliates" into the clause.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal then went on to ask another question which was answered as follows:
June 15, 1987


Mr. Allan  Rosenzveig@Legal Counsel, Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission: It was appealed as far as the Federal Court of Appeal. The commission considers this is good law; we are not worried about it; we are confident about it. The same question arose in the Senate committee discussion on consideration of this bill and we said we were satisfied with it at that time.
Further, dealing with the Saudi Arabia question of whether or not offshore contracts would be subsidized by domestic telephone users, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal asked the following question:
Saudi Arabia-we went there. I want to know how much we cost the Canadian telephone user. Can you get the information organized in the way you want?


Mr. Allan  Rosenzveig@Legal Counsel, Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission: We feel we could with clause 12. If it was enacted it would then allow us to get information through BCE from anyone BCE controls, namely, Bell's affiliates. If we add the word "affiliate" we think it might wash backward and disturb the principles expressed by the Federal Court of Appeal in the Interprovincial Pipe Line case to the effect that a regulator can get the information it requires to regulate the utility through anyone controlled by the utility. Clause 12 would put us in the same position vis-a-vis BCE and anyone it controls.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal went on to say:
I see. You feel if we leave the provision as it is, it would capture the concerns we might have.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: That is right. As presently interpreted by the court-and that is a court ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal. It is a very high court.
I wanted to put that on the record to ensure that Hon. Members understand that evidently the CRTC is happy with Clause 12 as it now stands and advises against any amendment. The CRTC has considerable experience in regulating Bell Canada. If the CRTC is happy with that clause, I for one am prepared to accept it and to pass judgment on it by voting against the amendment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner)-Narcotics-Increase in drug abuse-Government position; the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Situation of francophones-Inquiry whether Solicitor General has action plan. Reduction in francophone manpower; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Parole-British Columbia experiment using electronic monitoring ankle bracelets.
Bell Canada Act


BELL CANADA ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-13, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada, as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee; and Motions No. 1 (Mrs. Finestone, p. 7100) and No. 2 (Mrs. McDonald, p. 7100).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Motion No. 1 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.
Motion No. 2 (Ms. McDonald) negatived.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: that the Bill be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you would find that there is unanimous consent to proceed with third reading at this time, and at this time Hon. Members who wish to make comments on third reading stage may do so.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, there certainly is agreement that we proceed, provided that there is an understanding that the time be shared equitably among all three Parties between now and 5 p.m.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I think we could give that undertaking on behalf of the Government. We would hope to clear third reading stage by five o'clock and that would mean speeches of 10 minutes per Party. There has been an understanding among the Parties that we would be successful in achieving third reading today. I would hope that we could do that, and we are certainly agreeable with the NDP to split the time equally.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, although I appreciate the communication here, I think it could be improved if we could take just a few minutes behind the curtains to talk about the proposal which, as I understand, is to pass this Bill before 5 p.m. by sharing the time between 4.30 and 5 p.m. equally among all Parties. My understanding is that the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) has some hesitation and I would like to discuss it with her if I could.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I think we would be in agreement with that. The motion could be moved for third reading and the debate could commence. The Minister could

June 15, 1987
Bell Canada Act
initiate the debate and we will have the meetings which my hon. colleague has suggested.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
She said: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to move third reading of Bill C-13, the Bell Canada reorganization Bill. The issues addressed in this Bill have been examined and commented on in committee and in the House several times already. I would like to take these few minutes to stress the importance of this legislation. It is important, both for Bell Canada and its affiliates, as well as for the general public.
Bell Canada, as we know, is the largest telephone company in Canada. Like the rest of the industry it provides an excellent standard of service that we sometimes take for granted. Until very recently telephone service has been provided on a monopoly basis in Canada and elsewhere. To prevent the abuse of this monopoly power the industry has traditionally been subject to stringent regulation of its rates and services. It appears certain that for the foreseeable future many of the basic services offered by Bell Canada and other telephone companies will continue to be operated on that monopoly basis. Therefore, the services will continue to be regulated by the CRTC.
At the same time we know the telecommunications industry is experiencing a period of rapid and accelerating change. These changes are occurring both domestically and internationally, and they have been brought about by advances in technology, by new and varied user requirements, and a belief that competition will spur further innovation and growth.
Because many of its activities are now subject to growing international competition, in 1982 Bell Canada reorganized to create a new parent company, Bell Canada Enterprises. Bell's objective in this reorganization was to distinguish clearly between its regulated monopoly activities and its non-regulated competitive activities. As a result of its reorganization the telephone part of Bell Canada became a subsidiary of Bell Canada Enterprises. This resulted in a very uncertain regulatory environment because questions were raised about the ability of the CRTC to regulate effectively the monopoly activity of Bell Canada.
Because of these changed circumstances the Government asked the CRTC to report on the reorganization, which it did in 1983. It concluded that specific legislative amendments would be necessary to clarify and confirm its authority to regulate Bell Canada effectively within the reorganized group of Bell companies.
The Bill before us takes into account the specific recommendations of the CRTC and the concerns expressed by a wide variety of interest groups. The legislative powers in this Bill will permit the CRTC to regulate the company effectively. This Bill reaffirms the long-standing provisions of Bell's special Act and confers three specific new powers on the
CRTC which will enable it to carry out its mandate to regulate the monopoly telephone service of Bell Canada. This Bill will ensure the continuation of the high quality level of universal telephone service to which we are accustomed, establishing a clear and unambiguous regulatory regime.
Equally important, the provisions of the Bill allow BCE to engage freely in a wide range of unregulated activity on a national and international basis. BCE and its affiliates are major players in the international information technology revolution and they must be allowed to compete without undue regulation.
In the last session Bill C-19, which was almost identical to the present Bill, was subject to a thorough examination by the standing committee and this Bill has again been looked at by a legislative committee of this House. I should point out that only one amendment was made to Bill C-13 by the legislative committee and that involves a rather technical provision that was overlooked by Bell in its original recommendation in drafting the Bill.
Bill C-13 has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny over the last number of months, as was its predecessor. I want specifically to thank the standing committee, members of the legislative committee and those who have worked on this through a series of reviews, for the very diligent work carried out. At this point we have gone over this Bill so many times that I think the best thing to do is to give it speedy passage.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, this is not the first time a Bill concerning the reorganization of Bell Canada was introduced to Parliament by the Government. In the last session the previous Minister of Communications introduced an almost identical Bill called Bill C-19. That Bill died on the Order Paper when the Government chose to prorogue the session.
Before embarking on an analysis of Bill C-13 it may be useful to review the history which led up to its introduction. In view of the importance of the Bell group of companies and the potential impact its corporate reorganization under the Canada Business Corporations Act could have, the CRTC was directed on October 25, 1982, by the then Minister, Francis Fox, to conduct an inquiry under Section 15 of the National Transportation Act into Bell Canada's proposed reorganization. The CRTC was directed to report its findings by March 31, 1983, so that the Government could take its recommendations into account in its over-all analysis of the reorganization. The Liberal Government also called for consultation hearings to be open to all interested persons.
Mr. Fox indicated that the general form of the reorganization was consistent with the Liberal Government's attitude toward increased competition and industrial development in the high technology telecommunication sector. He stressed that the Government had been indicating for some time that all Canadian companies should make changes to enable them to be more competitive in the international as well as the domestic markets.
June 15, 1987

The Bell Canada group of companies forms a vital part of the telecommunication sector in Canada. While Bell Canada is most readily identified with the provision of telephone services in Ontario and Quebec, the Bell group is also involved in many other activities. Therefore, this most major corporate reorganization of this important group of companies is obviously of great interest to the Government.
At that time Mr. Fox pointed out that the proposed reorganization had raised questions and concerns regarding the impact on Bell's subscribers and on the ability of the CRTC to continue to regulate Bell's monopoly in the provision of telecommunication services. That refers to our telephones in particular. He added that the Government must be satisfied that the reorganization was in the over-all public interest. It was in the over-all public interest that I put forward an amendment, and I will come back to that in a moment because I personally believe it is not in the over-all public interest to have rejected that amendment.
The CRTC held its hearings in February of 1983 and many points of view were expressed on the issue. On the basis of briefs and recommendations submitted to it, and on the basis of its own study of the matter, the CRTC made its recommendations on April 18, 1983. It recommended that the proposed reorganization be implemented on condition that certain legislative provisions be adopted to strengthen and clarify the CRTC's powers over Bell Canada and its affiliates, thereby protecting the interests of the subscriber. That is the bottom line, protecting the interests of the subscriber.
On April 23, 1983, the Liberal Government announced its intention to study the CRTC recommendations and draft the necessary legislative provisions to protect the interests of Bell Canada's customers. We had first reading of Bill C-20 on February 8, 1984. It was an omnibus Bill which covered a number of other issues.
The Bill we are speaking to today, Bill C-13, has some of the legislative provisions initially recommended by the previous Liberal Government. It should be noted, however, that the present Government has introduced some changes which I do not think are in the public interest. The Government says that the purpose of Bill C-13 is not to increase the regulatory powers of the CRTC but to recapture the powers lost due to the reorganiztion of Bell Canada.
I am not going to go into detail on Clause 6(2)(c) with which I was not particularly pleased which relates to telephone subscribers paying in advance. Suffice it to say that I think that whole clause should have been dropped. The matter is in the hands of the CRTC and has been dealt with in a series of regulations which I think are quite clear. I doubt that we need that regulation. Nonetheless, it is there and I will not argue with it.
Bell Canada Act
I remember questioning the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) with regard to the regulation about payment six months in advance. The Minister said:

"I have gone through a whole scenario on that, which I do not care to bore you with again. However, the CRTC brought to our attention at the hearing the other day that they are already regulating the amount of the advance payment. They pased a regulation that does not require a six-month advance payment.
Do you or the deputy minister believe there is any reason to keep paragraph 6(2)(c) from the bill and leave it up to the CRTC? They have already issued that regulation."
I'm sorry, this was my question to the Minister, not the Minister's answer. The Minister answered that she felt it made sense to leave it as is, so I thought it would not be very useful to argue that point and that it would be better to focus on Clause 7. I still think we should have been more careful about Clause 7.

With respect, the commission had strongly recommended on three different occasions that we prohibit Bell Canada and all members of the Bell group from applying for or holding a broadcasting licence. I mentioned that 60.7 per cent of all the telephone lines in Canada are held by Bell Canada. What better way to indicate one's intention and wishes than to have dealt with Bell Canada and the potential conflict of interest, the potential conflict of control over content and carriage, and the potential of common ownership and control with one company controlling both ends of the stick, telephone on one side, cable on the other. It seems to me that that is where we should have put some energy, closed the gap, and indicated directly to the telephone company.
I find that the Minister's failure to have issued a directive under Section 22 as an Order in Council directive is an abrogation of her responsibility to indicate the pleasure of the Crown in this instance.

As the Minister said, "Generally I do not favour telephone company investment in broadcast undertakings, whether directly or through affiliated companies. Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak to the CCA in Montreal. I said at that time that with the advent of optical fibre in the local distribution network, which is expected in the next 20 years, the phone companies will have the capacity to carry television signals to the home. We are not against this development. We are concerned, however, that the entity licence to carry these signals remain amenable to broadcasting regulations."
"In our view, cable television undertakings should continue to be licensed for this purpose and not the telephone companies. We will be diligent about ensuring that broadcasting receiving undertakings are not taken over by telephone companies."

June 15, 1987
Bell Canada Act

I hope that we will see that action and that the telecommunications companies outside of Bell Canada will not feel a sense of discrimination. If it is good enough for Bell Canada and covers them in Section 7 of this Act, it should certainly cover B.C. Tel and others.
We are left in a predicament and I find it most regrettable that that is the case with this particular statute. I would like to understand why the Minister would not prohibit by statute the holding of broadcasting licences. Why was the former Minister of Communications concerned enough to use the wording I am proposing today for Clause 7 while the current Minister is not? Why is there inconsistency between two Ministers of the Government with regard to the same clause of the Bill?
Nonetheless, it looks as though this Bill will be passed. The CRTC, Bell Canada, and the Minister of Communications will be happy. I guess that as the world turns so shall Bell Canada. Let us hope that it shall continue to be in the best interests of the subscribers and the telephone industry in Canada, particularly with such a large force which provides such fine dollars to another corporation which seems to be using them in a very rentable maniere.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, we are dealing with Bill C-13 with regard to the reorganization of Bell Canada and Bell Canada Enterprises which, of course, is an enormous company. In terms of ownership the Financial Post lists Bell Canada Enterprises as number four in sales at $13 billion a year; number one in profit, of which it has over $1 billion; and number two in number of employees, of which it has over 100,000. It is a massive company which has, so far, managed to thumb its nose at the CRTC.
Bell Canada had excess profits in 1985 and 1986 estimated by the CRTC at over $200 million. It has refused to comply with the direction of the CRTC to pay back some of these excess profits. Instead it has gone to court to fight the case. Meanwhile, the CRTC is preparing another view of Bell's revenue requirements for this and coming years in conjunction with its review of Bell's application for rate rebalancing. The saga goes on.
We are dealing with this Bill because Bell Canada managed to reorganize itself. Bell Canada Enterprises is a fait accompli. There is much I do not like about the situation, but now that we have it there must be regulation. We need legislation to ensure that the CRTC can get the information it needs to regulate the monopoly telephone-telecommunications aspects of Bell Canada's business.
Bell Canada is an enormous provider. It is the largest telephone company in the country with a monopoly. Monopolies make money hand over fist. This one has been enormously profitable in the past and we are naturally concerned that unfair advantage is not taken of the subscribers in this monopoly situation. People need a telephone. It is an absolute
essential in today's life and people will pay the rate demanded of them.
Therefore, the rates must be fairly set. If Bell can increase them, it will and make money hand over fist, which money, if there is not proper regulation, can be taken out of the company and put into other affiliates or the parent company in a way which will take very unfair advantage of the monopoly situation of the company in the telephone-telecommunications business. That is what we are trying to ensure will not happen.
The question with regard to Bell and broadcasting is a more complex one. The amendments to Clause 7 have already been overturned. It is debatable whether the prohibition against the mixing of functions and business should be done through this Act or by some other means. It can well be argued that if it is in this Act with regard to Bell Canada it will not take care of B.C. Tel or other telephone companies and that it will be a limited and discriminatory policy to put it in there. It has to be addressed elsewhere in legislation. It has to be absolutely clear so that the CRTC is not put into a position of being asked for approval of a sale, for example, being told there is no prohibition against it and being put under a great deal of pressure to okay it, because if Parliament has allowed it, why should the CRTC step in? If Parliament wanted to forbid the access of telephone and telecommunications companies into broadcasting, Parliament would have said so. Therefore, this is something we are going to have to pronounce, and we should do so before very long.
I am concerned about some other policy questions. We are dealing with this Bill somewhat in a vacuum. We still do not have long-term policy decisions in the telecommunications area. We still have not received answers to questions on competition, on the role of the telephone company as a utility, what should be the principles in regulating it, what should be the responsibilities to consumers and subscribers, and should a telephone company be a major investment firm? Should this kind of expansion be appropriate for a utility which is providing an absolutely essential service? Who is going to develop fibre optics? What about technological change? We have some long-term issues to address, and this Bill does not really take us anywhere in addressing these long-term questions and what kind of policy should be made for Canadians in this absolutely vital area of communication. These are basic essentials for Canadian families and for business enterprises, so they can have first-class services and the innovations which are being developed. Yet there is a great deal of uncertainty as to what the appropriate principles should be for guiding development in this area.
I simply want to flag some of these problems the Bill is intending to address such as cross-subsidization, the need for long-term policy and the utility role. I think we have to get on with addressing these kinds of very important questions. In the meantime, this legislation is vital. We have to get it through. We are not holding it up. We are flagging concerns which have
June 15, 1987

to be dealt with in due course. In the meantime, the reorganization has already taken place. It is essential for consumers in areas which now have services that it be possible for the CRTC to regulate and to have access to financial information from Bell and its affiliates, however defined, so that they can do a regulatory job which is in the interests of Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


COPYRIGHT ACT
Flora Isabel MacDonald: that Bill C-60, an Act to amend the Copyright Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
She said: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to rise in this House and speak at second reading of Bill C-60, an Act to amend the Copyright Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof. I realize we are beginning the debate on this very important Bill with just five minutes left before we enter into Private Members' Hour. However, I trust that given the importance and significance of this Bill, we will be able to continue the debate at second reading tomorrow or the next day and that we will be able to move it through debate at second reading very quickly so we can get into committee to give the opportunity to witnesses to present their views. We can then bring it back into the House for quick passage so that the changes which so many people want to see enacted through the amendment to the Copyright Act will be in place at the earliest possible day.
This Bill is good news for creators and artists. It is good news, indeed, for the economy. As I am sure Hon. Members know, our present Copyright Act has been outdated for a good many years in a good many areas. It no longer offers the protection it should to products of the mind and spirit. The Copyright Act was first passed in this country in 1924 and has not been significantly revised since that time. It clearly does not respond to the needs of our transformed cultural and technological environment in this communications age.
Creators have an essential right to control the production of their minds and to be rewarded for that production. However,
Copyright Act
this right is not clearly protected in many present circumstances because of major social, technical and cultural transformations which I suppose the drafters of the 1924 Act could never have envisaged.
The Bill before the House will respond in part to this situation which has been created over a number of years by addressing several specific areas in which there is broad agreement among Canadians as to measures which can be taken to safeguard the rights of our artists and creators. This will, I am sure, encourage cultural activity and thus bring about social, economic and cultural benefits to all Canadians.
I would like to mention that this particular set of amendments presented in this Bill deals with certain specific aspects of copyright. It is not the total package the Government will be producing because we have undertaken to revise the total Copyright Act. There will be a second package with regard to revisions to the Copyright Act which we hope to introduce later this year. They are presently in the drafting stage.
I would like to speak briefly about the various measures which are being addressed in Bill C-60. The first has to do with collectives. Modern reproduction technologies like photocopiers and video cassette recorders have made it increasingly difficult to ensure that authorization is obtained from individual copyright owners whenever a book, a play, or whatever it might be, is copied. Indeed, the tendency is for a great number of different users to want immediate access to a wide variety of protected works all at the same time. Monitoring potential infringements on an individual basis in such circumstances becomes almost impossible. That is why Bill C-60 explicitly encourages the creation of new collective societies of copyright owners.
This system has been in operation for about 50 years for musical performances and is working well. Under our present Bill, the practice which now pertains to those who provide musical performances would be expanded to other areas to be covered by copyright and would result in collectives of authors, visual artists and so forth.

A collective licensing body is basically a group of copyright owners who form an association responsible for exercising, on their behalf, some aspect of copyright such as photocopy reproduction rights.
This group, representing a substantial number of copyright owners, negotiates with users, on behalf of its members, a general licence fixing the royalties and the conditions under which the licence is valid.
Provided the licensee observes the conditions of the licence and pays the royalties, he is free to exercise the right in question.
The collective approach has many advantages-

June 15, 1987
Criminal Code


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is with deep regret that I must interrupt the Hon. Minister.
It being 5 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
John Henry Reimer: that Bill C-216, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, the central issue of my Bill, Bill C-216, is the following. Is a foetus a potential life or a life with potential? If it is a life with potential, then we must protect that life with the full weight of the law.
My assumption in saying this is that we can only then take that life if the fact of the pregnancy will, according to a therapeutic abortion committee, endanger the life of the mother by the continuation of that pregnancy to term. In this case the rationale for taking the unborn person's life is selfdefence, to protect the life of the mother.
Further, this Bill would not allow abortions for reasons of health. My rationale here is that one simply cannot take a life on grounds of physical, social or mental health unless there is a demonstrable and direct threat to the mother's life per se.
The World Health Organization has defined the word "health" as follows:
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
That is exactly where much of the problem in this abortion debate begins.
In 1969, the then Minister of Justice, who is now the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), introduced the present law on abortion. In defending the wording of our present law he stated as reported at page 8398 of Hansard:
The word "endanger" -imparts or connotes the elements of hazard, peril or risk ... It appears to us that the elements of seriousness, directness and impairment are all present when a person's health is said to be in danger. The word "danger" in itself implies the existence of direct peril or risk.
However, if we look at abortion rates since 1969 we have to ask some serious questions. In 1985, there were 60,956 abortions. Does that mean that all of these mothers were in real "hazard, peril or risk" to their lives or health?
Why is it that today, with all our modern advanced medical knowledge and technology, so many mothers are in such real danger to life or health while pregnant? I think that part of the answer can be found in what the present Right Hon. Leader of
the Opposition said in 1969. At that time he was the Minister of Justice. He said the following:
-there are those on the one hand who abhor abortion for any cause. There are
those on the other hand who would make abortion wholly permissive or at the
personal option of the woman. We have not reached a consensus between those
views. We have reached only what I call an accommodation.
There is the rub. The present law is an accommodation to allow those who want abortions, for whatever reasons, to obtain them. Of course those who are opposed to abortions will obviously not seek them.
There can be no accommodation between life and not-life. Either one believes that the unborn child in his mother's womb is a human being and one protects it, or one does not believe it is a human being and one aborts it at will.
When I was a board member at the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital we conducted an in-depth study of abortions at the hospital. We found that there were 66 combinations of various interpretations of the word "health" that were used to approve abortions. The 66 ranged from history of post-partum reactions, to interruption of education, to failure of contraception or failure of sterilization, I ask Hon. Members: What have those got to do with health?
Responsibility for this state of affairs cannot entirely be laid at the feet of the doctors, nurses or the hospital therapeutic abortion committees-although they do bear some complicity given their medical knowledge as to the nature of the procedure being performed. Rather, I would suggest that the primary culprit is the law itself. The real question in the abortion debate is whether or not we are dealing with a human life and the need for our abortion laws to conform accordingly.
If we are talking about a human life, then we must protect that life, since a life cannot be taken except in self-defence. However, if we are not dealing with a human life but rather with a piece of tissue, then we should take abortion out of the Criminal Code and treat the foetus in the same way we do infected tonsils or appendices.
Let us not hear ridiculous arguments in this debate today such as the unavailability of access, socio-economic disadvantage, freedom of choice and so on. One does not kill people for reasons such as these. The only way in which such arguments can have validity is if those arguments and those arguing in their favour are prepared to claim that the foetus is just a piece of worthless tissue and that therefore abortion should be taken out of the Criminal Code. At least then there would be some measure of honesty and some consistency to this debate instead of the hypocritical games that are usually played when this topic is raised in the House.
I am convinced that from conception to birth we are dealing with the life of a new human being. Surely, when we speak of abortion we are talking about two lives-the life of the mother and the life of the child. Why else would we call a pregnant woman a mother?
Further, when we look at the medical, scientific and legal facts surrounding abortion the evidence is overwhelmingly on
June 15, 1987

the side of the life of the unborn. From the very first day after conception the unborn child is a complex and rapidly growing organism with its own unique genetic endowment. By the end of the first month the child completes the period of relatively greatest size increase and the greatest physical change of a lifetime.
As early as the seventh week we can observe a well-proportioned baby that bears the familiar external features and all the internal organs of an adult. The brain already sends out impulses that co-ordinate the functions of the other organs. At eight weeks it is possible to record individual electroencephalogram readings of brain activity. Today, the absence of signs of brain activity is taken as evidence of death. Why then do we not also consider signs of brain activity in the developing child as evidence that human life is present?
Keeping pace with scientific knowledge of development within the womb, the law has increasingly recognized the rights of the unborn without attempting to draw lines at any particular stage of its development. For example, within tort law it is now clearly recognized that the unborn child in the path of an automobile is as much a person in the street as is the mother. It has even been held that constitutional rights of the parents in the free exercise of religion must give way to the unborn's need for a blood transfusion. The property rights of the unborn are well established.
Finally, when the West German Supreme Court was asked by its equivalent to our House of Commons when does the foetus gain the civil rights to life, I think its answer is highly instructive. It said:
Life, in the sense of historical existence of a human individual, exists according
to definite biological-physiological knowledge, in any case, from the 14th day
after conception (nidation, individuation).
In other words, from conception to the fourteenth day, the fertilized egg could divide, leading to a multiple birth; but after the fourteenth day, it is purely a question of growth. So, at the very least, we have life from the fourteenth day after conception. That is even before a woman knows she is pregnant!
Surely the medical, scientific and legal facts unanimously move in the direction of life and not mere tissue. I respectfully submit that our actions had better start catching up with the facts. We need to begin to do what our laws surely must do, that being to protect every life, particularly the defenceless within our society, and we can do so by having our Criminal Code reflect these facts.
It is my hope that as Members debate this issue, they will deal with the question of whether or not we are dealing with a life. If in fact we are dealing with a life, it should be protected; if we are not, abortion should be removed from the Criminal Code.
I urge Hon. Members to avoid bringing into the debate all of the other nonsense. If we focus on the issue of whether or
Criminal Code
not we are dealing with a life, we will have a good debate. If we focus on other aspects, we will have the debate we usually do on abortion in this House.
I commend to you, Mr. Speaker, the second reading of the Bill and its referral to committee.
[ Translation]


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, Bill C-216, presented by the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), concerns a very important and indeed very sensitive issue. As you know, I have some very definite views on the subject of abortion. Like so many Canadians, recent events such as the Mortgentaler case have made me think about abortion. However, I do not want to use the time of this House to discuss the principle behind a Bill that seeks to amend the provisions in the Criminal Code concerning abortion. We are all very much aware it is an important issue and one that has aroused considerable interest.
I am convinced that the Hon. Member's initiative a rises from the conviction that such amendments are necessary.
Madam Speaker, I would like to repeat in today's debate what I said on June 2 of this year, in the course of a debate on Motion M-37, and I quote:
Our time should be spent developing a true family policy, a policy concerned with the prevention and support that the State should be bringing to families or women pregnant with an unwanted child, in order to help those women, through adequate action keep their child until he or she is born instead of having an abortion.
Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kitchener is proposing to amend the Criminal Code which reads, and I quote:
Every one who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female person, whether or not she is pregant, uses any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
Madam Speaker, here again, the onus is on the woman, and the man who contributed to this unwanted pregnancy, unwanted since the woman wants an abortion, what kind of sentence should he get, since after all, he made his contribution one night, perhaps with his partner's consent, but it is clear neither partner wanted a child, after all! So if the Hon. Member's motion to deal with the consequences of that sexual act were accepted, it would be the woman who would face a criminal charge. And that is a serious matter.
I would like to take the next few minutes to discuss two aspects of the abortion issue. First, the attitude of Canadians to this question and second, the manner in which the provisions of the Criminal Code on therapeutic abortion are applied across Canada.
To get a thourough understanding of the situation with respect to abortion, we should first take a broader look at the reaction of Canadian men and women on this question. In the past few years, the Canadian way of life has undergone several major changes which have had an impact on the basic standards of the population. Those changes dealt with the

June 15, 1987
Criminal Code
number of children that people want to have, their sexual behaviour and the patterns of use of contraceptive devices.
As our country developed from a rural society into a highly industrialized state, different social expectations and improved standards of living have resulted in drastic changes in people's activities, in their expectations in life and in their attitude to planned abortion. Although attitudes in that respect are no longer what they used to be, there is no consensus on the present situation or the action to take in the future.
Since abortion may become an explosive subject, as this House has seen in the past two months, I humbly submit that the public has chosen to ignore that debate. It has not tried to find efficient and direct solutions to those deep differences of opinion. Some people have chosen to say: "Let us ignore the problem, it will disappear eventually". Other people with different views have retaliated and said: "These are our facts, this is what we must do".
Between those two positions, there is a whole range of deep feelings, which are not always easily expressed, but which recur steadily, whatever the region, the religion, the partisan considerations, the language spoken, and other social characteristics of the people concerned. Those opinions insist on the one hand on preserving the life and physical health of the mother, and are concerned on the other hand with the whole social environment of women and family situations. Each of these two attitudes, shared by a great many Canadian men and women, is based on a different notion of the family and the changing role of women within the Canadian society.
Madam Speaker, because the abortion issue is deeply rooted in moral principles, the professional ethic is highly charged with emotion. It will continue to be so, for there is no easy solution. As is the case for other major issues involving the concepts of life and death, the abortion issue is of concern to many people who would have preferred to avoid it.
It is one of the delicate choices which any woman of childbearing age may have to consider. A large number of women who have had an abortion have been ostracized and have experienced pressures which have left them in a permanent state of anxiety. Which brings me to the second aspect of the general abortion issue.
In 1975, the Government of Canada established the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law. Among the members of this committee were Denyse Fortin Caron, Marion G. Powell and Robin F. Badgley, its chairman, who was asked to carry out a study to determine whether the Criminal Code provisions concerning therapeutic abortion practices were applied equitably everywhere in Canada. Madam Speaker, I am sure that, as a woman, you have read the Badgley report just as I have.
The Committee found that the abortion law was not equitably applied throughout Canada as all sorts of provincial guidelines and regulations had been added concerning the establishment of therapeutic abortion committees in hospitals. Moreover, hospital administrators and members of the medical
profession have different ways of interpreting the prescriptions for allowing this procedure. These factors have resulted in profound inequalities in the distribution and accessibility of therapeutic abortion services, regular trips by Canadian women to the United States to secure an abortion and long waiting periods for women who have an induced abortion in Canada.
Madam Speaker, these social inequalities do not result only from our abortion legislation. They reflect the manner in which Canadian society reacts to a delicate social issue which can lead to ostracism and fear.
No law can offer easy and effective solutions to those inequalities, as long as the matter is not addressed with more frankness and a deeper sense of social responsibility in the face of something that has affected over these last few years many hundred thousand Canadian women, a figure that is multiplied many times over if we include the partners and the families involved.
While the abortion legislation specifies the procedure to be followed, its assessment criteria are flexible enough to meet a diversity of needs and experiences of people from across the country. It is not the law nor its implementation that led to existing unjustices and to significant inequalities in the access to therapeutic abortion from city to city, region to region and province to province-Canadians, their health care services and the medical profession are responsible for that situation.
The social cost paid by women who use abortion has been the tolerance of widespread, deep-rooted social unjustice, and for some physicians and hospitals an excessive work burden.
Madam Speaker, abortion is a subject that a majority of people would rather avoid, wether it be the women involved, health care specialists or the public. But the problem is here to stay, only the dimension can change.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I appreciate and I recognize the value of the legislation put forward by the Hon. Member, but I share a conviction with most Canadian women, especially Quebec women I know, that a true family policy that would encourage pregnancy as opposed to abortion would solve the moral problem many people have with abortion.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Private Member's Bill of my colleague. As I read it, it would have the effect of allowing for the issuance of a certificate to enable an abortion only when the life of the female is in question, not when her life or health were endangered. I appreciate my hon. colleague's concern for the issue. I compliment him for the way in which he has always brought forward that concern. I know he is vitally interested in it.
June 15, 1987

However, I must tell the House that I hold a different viewpoint, which I have reached through a great deal of personal thought and consideration and which I have discussed with my wife and others at length. I am sure my colleague will accept my comments in good faith.
There exists in Canada today a very profound divergence of views on the question of abortion. These views are strongly held and often emotionally charged. While the depth of feelings on the issue must be understood and respected, the very fact that opinions on abortion are so widely divergent poses a problem for Members of Parliament.
1 remember during the deliberations on the Constitution Bill and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1980 and 1981 that the rights of the unborn were raised on several occasions. Some argued that the Charter should clearly include the right to life of the foetus. Others contended that a woman's right to privacy and security of the person should not be put in jeopardy. Because of the fundamental differences of opinion on the issue, the decision was made not to entrench one view or the other in the Constitution.
It was felt that the question should be left as a question of criminal law, for Parliament to decide in the context of criminal law, which is where it is today and which is what my colleague seeks to change. I believe the decision not to entrench was the correct one.
Public opinion over the years has shown a growing acceptance of choice as the view of most Canadians on abortion. I believe that public opinion is possibly split in thirds-a third of Canadians feel that the present law does not go far enough, a third believe that the law is correct as it stands, and a third believe that it has gone too far. It is prudent for Parliament to allow for an adjustment to existing laws rather than to entrench, as was suggested a week or so ago, a single view to which a larger segment of the population is opposed. I would use the same argument in speaking to this particular Bill and say that a third of Canadians believe the law is correct as it stands and a third would have it widened.
Abortion is not an abstract concept. It represents one of the most difficult, painful choices which can confront a woman. As a man, 1 would suggest that the men involved find the decision no easier. I cannot believe that a decision to have an abortion is ever taken lightly or ever forgotten. We should not be forcing people to take sides if we believe that each of us is entitled to his or her viewpoint on the subject.
Surely it is possible to accommodate the views of the many thinking, feeling Canadians who believe, as I do, in the right of women to exercise control over their own lives. However, having said that, it concerns me that nearly one-quarter of the abortions performed in the country involve women under the age of 20 years. Obviously our methods of educating and preparing young people to handle their sexual maturity are not adequately meeting their needs. I lay no blame on any political Party or on any level of government. I just say that somewhere
Criminal Code
we who are charged with those responsibilities are not making our point.
The impact on all society of teenage pregnancies is serious. It interrupts, perhaps forever, young people's education, putting their future economic security on a very shaky footing. In many instances it also places upon them burdens which are too heavy for a young person to carry.
Certainly studies have shown that the babies of these early pregnancies face a very high risk of abuse, poor health, and poor development.
Discussion and debate is healthy when they provide a frank and expansive airing of views. Therefore, when my colleague brings forward this subject and we focus debate on it, I think it is helpful. The issue must be faced with an open mind and, more important, with an open heart. We must work at mitigating the circumstances which lead women to face this most difficult of choices. At the same time, having made their choice, Canadian women should be able to count on appropriate access to the necessary caring and safe services.
In the final analysis, I believe the current law should not be changed. Women must be allowed to make their own choice and decision. No one on either side of the issue suggests that the choice is easy. However, we as legislators must allow that choice to be made by the person most intimately involved and concerned with the results of the decision-the woman.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, in rising to speak to the Bill proposed by the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), I must say that I do so with some regret and disappointment.
This is not the first occasion upon which male Conservative Members of Parliament have risen in the House and made suggestions which I believe are deeply offensive to Canadian women in respect of the fundamental question of abortion.
I think, for example, of the remarks made recently by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). He rose in this House approximately a month ago-a Conservative Member of Parliament from Toronto-and suggested that he was concerned about the number of abortions in Canada because had these abortions not taken place, in fact, school classrooms would have been filled with children, and teachers would have been hired to teach those classrooms full of children. The arrogance of that approach, which reduces a woman effectively to a machine to produce children and which totally denies the individuality, the humanity and the uniqueness in that woman herself, is breathtaking.
Another Conservative Member of Parliament, the Hon. Member for Gray-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), went even further. He suggested that those women who choose to have an abortion-and my colleague who just spoke pointed out that this is a decision which is never an easy decision, it is often an agonizingly painful decision-and who do so when their own

June 15, 1987
Criminal Code
life is not being threatened should be charged with murder. That Conservative Member of Parliament went further. Not only did he suggest that they should be charged with, and presumably convicted of, murder, but that Tory Member of Parliament who has such reverence for life, such respect for life, suggested that those women should be executed as murderers. So much for the respect for the life that this Conservative Member of Parliament so piously proclaims. He is prepared to sacrifice the life of the woman, the mother of that child, to protect the foetus.
When I rose in the House today, as I have risen on other occasions, to speak on this question, it is with a certain sense of anger at the arrogance of those men in this House who would tell the women of this country that they have no right, after having agonized over this difficult decision, to make for themselves the fundamental decision on abortion.
What does the Bill, which the Conservative Member of Parliament is proposing here, say? It says that no longer can a woman whose health is being threatened seek an abortion. No longer, Madam Speaker, can a woman who might suffer serious physical harm, who might, in fact, be disabled, seek an abortion. What right does this Member or any other Member of this House have to tell a woman, who is crying out in desperation, who has been told by her doctor that if she carries that child to term she will be permanently disabled, that her health will be deeply affected? What right does that Member have to tell that woman, "No, you must bear that child even if it means that your health will be permanently damaged as a result".
That is what this Member is telling the women of Canada. He is repealing the requirement in the Criminal Code which states that if a woman's health is threatened, she is entitled to make that difficult choice and she is entitled to have an abortion. Just so that it is clear beyond any doubt, the Member goes on to say this in his Bill:
-the life of a female person is endangered where her life is in actual physical danger, irrespective of any consideration of her mental, social or economic condition.
Once again, let us look at the situation of a young woman who is pregnant in Kamloops, British Columbia or in Corner-brook, Newfoundland and is 14 or 15 years of age. She goes in to see her doctor and her doctor makes it very clear that for this young woman, this girl, to have a child means she would suffer terribly, whether it be mentally or physically-her health would be threatened. This Member who proposes this Bill would say to that young girl, "You must bear this child. We don't care about your health. We don't care about your mental well-being or your physical health. We place above that the value of the foetus." This is arrogance and insensitivity that surely we in this House must reject, Madam Speaker.
This Bill refuses to deal with the reality of the life of a woman. It basically reduces the life of a woman to her physical existence or the physical functioning of her body. To remove the question of a woman's general health, her mental health, her social relationships or her economic situation from the
consideration of her life is simplistic to say the least, and is degrading and dangerous in practice. There must be more to a consideration of danger to life than merely physical harm. I find incredible the suggestion by this Hon. Member that that is not the case. Over and over again we hear a similar argument made by those who would deny choice to Canadian women.
1 am pleased that the significant majority of Canadians reject this destructive, dangerous and arrogant approach. For example, the Reverend Dr. Robin Smith of the Family Ministries Division of the United Church of Canada, in speaking to the motion which was introduced previously by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe said this:
-this motion precludes consideration of the rights and situation of all other members of a family. It robs women entirely of responsibility for their own bodies and their moral action. For many this could mean serious hardship. It takes no account of the life and needs of siblings, which can be deeply affected.
Finally, this motion gives absolute value to one element in a complex moral situation: the right to existence of the foetus. It thereby reduces all other factors to insignificance. While life is sacred, it is not, as many of our national policies and practices illustrate, of absolute value.
Yes, Madam Speaker, our abortion laws clearly need attention. Recently in the Supreme Court of Canada, for example, the Supreme Court justices questioned these laws. In questioning counsel, Justice Willard Estey said this:
So you've got zones in this country where there is no access. You've got whole provinces that are carved out of the process. Is this some kind of local option which has slid into the Criminal Code? I can't think of any other section of the Code which lays itself open to this practice.
Rather than restricting access even further in the manner proposed by the Hon. Member for Kitchener, I suggest that we should recognize the weakness of the existing law, the fact that women in Prince Edward Island are denied access totally to safe therapeutic abortions. Even those women whose lives are threatened, which is the concern of the Hon. Member for Kitchener, cannot have abortions in Prince Edward Island. Women in Newfoundland, women in Kamloops, B.C., where the hospital board has adopted a very narrow approach, cannot.
I would suggest, in closing, that we as parliamentarians listen to the voice of the people in Canada who have spoken through their juries which have refused to convict those doctors who have courageously assisted women in seeking access to safe therapeutic abortions. I suggest that we place emphasis on sex education, on birth control awareness and availability and on economic support for women and particularly those poor women who in some cases actually decide that they cannot support their children.
I reject the Bill of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kitchener. I hope that Members of the House as well will reject this Bill which fundamentally denies the reality of Canadian women.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the private Member's Bill of the Hon.
June 15, 1987

Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer). This Bill is of great moral and ethical significance to society today. The Bill seeks to protect the life of the unborn except where the continuation of a pregnancy would or would be likely to endanger the life of a pregnant woman.
This Bill is very important because it recognizes that a human being does not just become a person the moment he or she is delivered from the security of his or her mother's womb but that he or she is a member of the human race from the moment of his or her conception. Self-defence is the only rationale given in this Bill to end the life of an unborn child. Proof must be given that the female person is in actual physical danger irrespective of her mental, social or economic condition. The addition of Section 8 gives a more succinct reason for ending the life of the unborn. No longer would women be able to use the excuse of mental strain or of not having the financial capabilities to raise children as a reason for ending the lives inside them.
I believe that life begins at conception, and I have stated previously and in letters to my constituents that I cannot support abortion unless the life of the mother is in danger. I would like to explain my reasons for this stand.
The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child states that the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth. Why do some people believe that an unborn child is not a human being until it is born? Do they not recognize that even at its earliest development, say at one or two weeks, the unborn child is simply at one special stage in a whole series of steps which will eventually lead him or her to old age?
The only difference in the existence of a child at one or two weeks or at two or three years old lies in the process of maturing and aging, in other words, in developing. By assuming that one only becomes a person when one is at full term or is capable of sustaining life independently of the womb, we might as well say that the nine months the unborn child spends inside its mother's womb is irrelevant to the rest of its life because it was not a person anyway. Of course, this is a ridiculous assertion.
What of the full-term infant who is not capable of sustaining life independently due to some physiological deformation or serious health problem? Do we then not consider him a person either? Have we the power to say that this is not a life as we perceive it and therefore we can disallow this non-person's existence? We can certainly see how deep this issue goes when it comes to moral and ethical decisions.
From a fertilized egg will come 100 trillion cells, the average number of cells in an adult. Before it is even 30 days old, an unborn child is one-quarter inch long and has all the genetic programming which will determine his height, eye colour, hair colour, the shape of his nose and all the characteristics he has inherited from his parents. At 60 days, the same unborn child is the size of a thumb and responds to painful stimuli. At 16
Criminal Code
weeks, he is 5.5 inches long and weighs less than a pound. At 40 weeks, he weighs over seven pounds, is 20 inches long and is ready to be delivered. At what point in this continuum can we say that this unborn child became a human being?
The British Columbia Government has permitted communities to run local hospitals with elected boards, and their guidelines have resulted in dramatic decreases in abortions in some hospitals. Despite this, however, there are still many abortions being done in other hospitals around the province. In 1984, there were 11,509 abortions in B.C. In 1985, B.C.'s abortion rate was 50 per cent higher than the national average. For every 100 live births, there are 26.1 abortions. What makes this figure even more horrendous is that 25 per cent of these were repeats.
A repeat abortion means that the woman having an abortion has had a least one other. The number of repeat abortions has risen dramatically over the last 10 years on the national level. In 1975, 8.6 per cent of all women who had abortions were repeats. In 1985, that figure was 20.3 per cent. In fact, more women were repeaters in 1985 than the total of all the officially recorded abortions in 1970.
Prior to 1969, doctors performed abortions on rare occasions when they believed the mother would die if the pregnancy continued. It is only since 1969 that induced abortions have come to mean a deliberate decision to terminate the life of an unborn child. We should make the changes to the Criminal Code which will protect the life of the unborn child except when the continuation would endanger the life of the pregnant woman.
The number of Canadian hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees is given as either 250 or 253. Of this figure, 39 hospitals have reported a total of 45,369 abortions or 74.4 per cent of the Canadian total. In other words, 15.6 per cent of hospitals with therapeutic abortion clinics are performing three-quarters of the abortions.
This makes one wonder about the use of the word "therapeutic". In The Concise Oxford Dictionary, it is defined as the branch of medicine concerned with the treatment of disease and the action of remedial agents in disease or health. I think we could all agree that pregnancy is not a disease and abortion is not therapeutic. It heals no disease but kills human beings.
When therapeutic abortion committees were originally developed, the intent of the law was to ensure that all alternative methods of preserving the mother's life or health would be used before the drastic step of aborting a child was permitted. I do not believe that the 11,509 abortions performed in B.C. alone in 1984 were to preserve the life and health of the mothers. It is hard to accept that the women of British Columbia are that unhealthy.
A few weeks ago, the B.C. Ministry of Social Services conducted the province's first-ever apprehension of a foetus. This seizure occurred after a woman, 36 weeks pregnant, told doctors at the Vancouver Grace Hospital that she did not intend to consent to medical treatment for her child after it

June 15, 1987
Criminal Code
was born. The doctors used the word "child" when referring to the foetus. The social worker conferred with a supervisor and superintendent and all three of them agreed that the child should be apprehended. The province's Family and Child Services Act empowers the Government to seize any child in need of protection.
The B.C. seizure is not the only case in which the rights of the foetus have been recognized. Two months ago, a judge in Ontario ordered a 36-week-old foetus made a ward of the Belleville Children's Aid Society after its mother, who planned to give birth in the underground parking lot in which she made her home, refused medical treatment. I think these are landmark cases.
The Bill we are debating today is very important. The unborn child, the foetus or whatever one wants to call the person who is developing in his mother's womb, deserves the protection of all Canadians. Only in situations where the mother is in actual physical danger should an abortion even be considered. I fully support this Bill to change the Criminal Code as it relates to abortion.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Madam Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity, as I did last week, to take part in a debate that I consider very important. Madam Speaker, the question at issue is still the same: Can we be for or against abortion? I don't think we have a choice. No one in this House can be for abortion. We are necessarily against abortion. However, since we live in a society that always judges in terms of punishment, what kind of punishment should there be for an act that from the outset is deemed to be reprehensible? The same attitude is reflected in all our social and political relationships. Sometimes you meet people for the first time, and they start in right away saying, rather condescendingly; By the way, what's your salary bracket? We are always trying to classify and categorize people. He earns more than somebody else. That job is better than this one. Policemen in Montreal have to earn more than their colleagues in Beloeil school. Teachers academic standards are high or not so high .. . Our society has always tended to categorize. And this, of course, works both positively and negatively.
Madam Speaker, I am a practising Catholic. I have no negative feelings about my religious upbringing. I remember that as a boy, at school, we spent whole catechism classes discussing whether a given sin was venial or mortal. It was practically a sin, the way we were thinking what kinds of sins would be venial and what kind would be mortal! I don't hold it against my religion that I was raised that way. It was the system. The system classified faults as major and minor.
What we have before us today, Madam Speaker, is much the same. I am against abortion. But not to the extent that I want to see someone who wants an abortion declared a criminal. Some women use abortion as a contraceptive. I find them silly, if I may say so. Women who had five, six, seven
abortions are not those are I was refering to, but does that make them criminals automatically? That is the basic question. That has always been the basic debate. So I should make them criminals but then, what kind of society I am going to have? I do not want a permissive society, a society where anyone can do anything. The sense of values has been lost. When children were raised in a closed circle, within the family, it was easy to transmit the right values. But today, the best mind-shaper in the world, because often the father and mother desert the home, is more often than not television.
But try to think at what happens on TV. What kind of values does it carry? We will realize we will have to adapt our values to a larger context. Try and imagine for a second what it means for a four year old child to look at TV and to see someone being killed, an actor that is being killed one way or another in a program. The following week he sees him alive in another program. Try and imagine how that child will be raised. What does that mean a murder to him, what does death means? It is not the same as for me. That child tells himself: He is being killed, blood spills, etc., he falls down. Nothing serious, he will come back. The kind of education and values we tend to give him today are completely destroyed by other, violent values.
I remember it was in Nicaragua I think, two or three years ago, an American TV newsman was killed before the cameras. It appeared on the 6 o'clock news. Really terrible! When the regime was toppled in Haiti and Duvalier fled, I saw people being killed with machetes. It was broadcast on the 6 o'clock news. That is our kind of society.
Is society more permissive when making murderers out of those who get abortion, or when allowing that kind of thing to be viewed?


An Hon. Member:: Come back to conservative values.


Jean-Guy Hudon: No, not conservative values.
But there is something else, Madam Speaker. We are a bit cautious in this worthy House of Commons, with a majority of male Members. We are prudent. We do not refer to those
100,000	incest cases in Canada. No, we must not refer to that! We do not refer to those 100,000 incest cases. Women who are raped twice, we do not refer to that. They are raped once on the street, and the second time in court because we are never sure if they did not entice the male in the first place. We do not refer to that. But contrary to my pal across the aisle, from Burnaby maybe, who spoke earlier, the one from the New Democratic Party. Not one of them is here to listen to us, of course. I am not accusing them of being conservative. He patronized earlier "those conservatives". I am happy, Madam Speaker, to be part of a political party that lets people of whatever faction to be heard, to put their views forward and to debate something in a democratic way. We can talk about a House of Commons with right or left leanings, but I reject the accusation of conservatism. There are in this House people from the 10 provinces. Who do they think they are in this so called democratic party to believe that everybody should think
June 15, 1987

the way they do. I do not know what the sexual orientation of my friend is, but if it departs from the conventional norm, he could not expect everybody to be the same.
Here is the New Democratic Party, trying to force its values on everyone! Madam Speaker, I am glad to belong to a Party which allows it members to speak, to understand, to state their views, to discuss and then says: "Good, we are now going to vote to see whose value is most acceptable." If, in the New Democratic Party, they have found the truth and are able to mass produce it, I am very happy for them. However, I have my doubts, and we suspect, considering what is happening in Quebec presently, that their beautiful unanimity is coming to an end.
So, Madam Speaker, here we are, as members of a society, of the highest Chamber in the land. I believe we should look after things which challenge our values rather than try to grade the various categories of punishment for those who commit some crime. 1 repeat my first sentence, Madam Speaker: Can we be for or against abortion? I think we must be against. But executing somebody for that is another kettle of fish.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, this debate goes straight to the fundamental issue of what we believe life to be. I know many Canadians on both sides of the issue. I like and admire them. They are honest, decent, ethical and moral citizens. Indeed, many countries differ on this issue as well. The harshest restrictions on abortion exist in countries such as Ireland, Portugal and the Philippines. In those countries there is no exemption from the absolute prohibition against abortion, not even for the narrow purpose of saving the mother's life. Less restrictive nations permit abortions for medical reasons affecting the mother. However, the restrictions are usually minimal, and countries with those minimal restrictions are Japan, the U.K., the Scandinavian countries, and the countries of eastern Europe. Abortions are legally performed there for such reasons as difficult domestic situations, often too many other children, financial hardship, unmarried status, or ill health. The least restrictive type of abortion law permits abortion upon demand, although that is usually within a limited time. Countries with such laws are the People's Republic of China, Denmark, the German Democratic Republic, Tunisia, the Soviet Union, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and the United States. People on both sides of this issue cover all political persuasions in other countries, as they do in ours.
It is obvious that each of us must speak entirely on a personal basis. Having read and thought about this a lot, there is no doubt in my mind, not a shadow of a doubt, that life starts at birth. We are then faced with the question of where we draw the line between the historic right of the mother to make certain choices about herself and her body, and the right
Adjournment Debate
of the child to have the protection of law. Our ancestors decided on the date of natural childbirth as the cut-off. Clearly that is unsustainable in our modern society. At six or seven months we can take a child out of the womb, operate on it, and put it back in the womb again. When the child is out of the womb it has all the legal rights of any person. When it goes back in the womb again it suddenly loses those rights. We have to move the cut-off time forward, the question is how far. I look forward to debating this further so I can present my views to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for consideration of Private Member's Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



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

Robert Nesbitt Horner: Madam Speaker, on May 20, 1987, I rose in this House to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) with regard to when the National Drug Strategy would be brought forward and what it would contain. Usually to take part in the Adjournment Debate, according to the Standing Orders, one must be dissatisfied with the response of the Minister. I want to go on record as saying that I am certainly not dissatisfied. As a matter of fact, I am very, very satisfied. I only wish to expand and make some recommendations.
In the Throne Speech of October 1, 1986, one reads:
A national drug strategy and a comprehensive program dealing with impaired
drivers will be brought forward to support the prevention of drug and alcohol
abuse.
This was one of the commitments of the Government and was applauded by almost everyone as a positive step. An exception was the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) who said on October 3, 1986:
It seems that when Ronald Reagan has a drug problem Canada gets an
epidemic.
I think this is a very cynical view which was not shared by most Canadians.
On May 25, 1987, and during the following week a group of Ministers of the Crown made statements. Statements were made by the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay), the Secretary

June 15, 1987
Adjournment Debate
of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The program that was brought in was a new strategy which includes a public education campaign in concert with the provinces, support for both prevention and treatment initiatives at the community level, increased federal funding for drug and alcohol treatment and rehabilitation, development of training programs and resources for professionals and volunteers, greater availability of information through such means as telephone information lines, new legislation to replace the Narcotics Control Act and the Food and Drug Act, and a task force to consider the creation of a national focus to ensure that expertise in the drug abuse field is shared for the benefit of all.
Once again the Liberal Party was not satisfied and attacked. I would like to quote from an editorial in support of this initiative in a Toronto paper. It says:
We have to save a generation.
We could argue that this detailed plan of attack is late, but never that it's a
waste. Nonetheless, and to no one's surprise, Liberal health critic Sheila Copps
did some shrill carping.
She thinks Epp has put this together "because he wants to make a name for
himself at the United Nations."
Spare us from such nonsense.
All parties should unite behind this complex and thorough anti-drug program.
There's no room for party politics in the war on dope.
Another Toronto newspaper, the name of which I will not mention, which makes no bones about its support for the Liberal Party, carried an editorial headlined: "Fuzzy message on drug abuse". This was no "fuzzy message". This is a strict stand which the Government is about to take which will do something about our greatest natural resource, our youth. The Government has a superb record in the initiatives it has taken and those it is currently working on.
We can talk about the Meech Lake Accord and freer trade with the United States. We can talk about our anti-pornography legislation, our White Paper on defence or tax reform. But what good is any of this if we do not protect our most important and valuable natural resource, our youth? We must support this initiative, and I thank the Minister for bringing it forward.
In conclusion, I feel that improved enforcement is necessary for the initiative. However, it is somewhat like locking the stable door after the horse has gone. I believe that most of these funds should be allocated for public education. I want to say I am very supportive and proud of the Peel Board of Education, which is the largest school board in Ontario. It did a survey last year of views of students, educators and parents on alcohol, drugs and tobacco. It was a very comprehensive review at its own expense. I think some of these funds should
be allocated to the people who have hands-on experience working with youth who abuse drugs and alcohol. The Peel Board of Education will implement a program "Not so Tough to Say No"-I think that is a great name for a program-in all senior elementary classes no later than September 1988. The Peel Board of Education recommends the expansion of a Values, Influence and Peers program to all grade six classes not later than September 1988.
I support what this Government has done. I believe it is a very worth-while initiative and I look forward to seeing it implemented in the years to come.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his representations and support for the Government program on drug abuse. I must say that while I am not directly involved with justice and Solicitor General issues, I did spend two and a half years as chairman of the committee on which my hon. colleague served very well indeed. That committee put through some 14 justice Bills and, I believe, two or three Solicitor General Bills. By hard work we were able to get through a lot of legislation which has been helpful to the nation at large.
On May 25 the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) outlined the main features of this Government's action on drug abuse. Specific components of the plan were announced by other Ministers over the course of that week. The focus of our national drug strategy, for which the Government will be committing over $210 million, is an emphasis on education and prevention as the key line of defence against the harm caused to individuals, their families and our communities by the abuse of drugs.
I think all Canadians agree we have to move on that. When Members opposite were trying to belittle the program, they just brought themselves into disrepute and looked silly because all people want to have actions taken which will save the next generation. At the young age which most get started, they really do not appreciate the damage they are doing to themselves and ultimately to our whole society.
My colleague referred to the Peel Board of Education. I must say to him that I do not know offhand the mechanism which will be used to gain access to the $210 million. However, I would strongly encourage him to send a copy of today's Hansard to the Minister and solicit the Minister's response because it may well be that that would be the very best application of the $210 million, so that the school boards and educational boards could handle the problem. Indeed, the Minister today, in terms of our international effort, is in Vienna signing an international treaty or agreement to act cooperatively around the globe in fighting abuse of drugs.
June 15, 1987


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-SITUATION OF FRANCOPHONES-INQUIRY WHETHER SOLICITOR GENERAL HAS ACTION PLAN-REDUCTION IN FRANCOPHONE MANPOWER
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, again I rise to say how disappointed and somewhat disillusioned I feel with respect to the linguistic situation in Royal Canadian Mounted Police services. Again I am very sorry that I have to raise the issue, for it would seem some people are reluctant to discuss this matter.
Incidentally, Madam Speaker, tomorrow the Committee on Official Languages will be hearing the Solicitor General, the man responsible for these cases, be it the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or Correctional Service Canada. As I said, tomorrow we will have an opportunity to ask the Minister a few questions and perhaps, at least I hope, secure a commitment about his taking the necessary corrective measures and making whatever arrangements may be required with the deputy heads of the various agencies so they will not only report to him on progress made but also ensure that they will rectify and change their attitude concerning the linguistic question.
Madam Speaker, the problems experienced by the RCMP with respect to the official languages are not new, everybody knows that. I raised them in the House 13 times in the past seven or eight months, and I am not the only one doing that because the Commissioner of Official Languages had this to say in his 1981 annual report, and I quote:
-the RCMP's foot-dragging in the areas of language of work and Francophone participation among police personnel is disquieting.
This was in 1981, and things have not changed since then. The problem is not new, we are in 1987 and the problem is just as disquieting and worrying.
In August one could read in the Pony Express-an official internal RCMP publication-that they were planning a reduction in the number of regular officers hired by the RCMP from the 20 per cent established, on the basis of figures set a number of years ago already, and this was to be done as a result of an agreement between the Government and the RCMP, a reduction to 14 per cent.
There was a flurry of activities at the time, several questions were raised in the House, there were debates, and when we know how the government machinery works ... I thought that the day when I received from the President of the Treasury Board a firm commitment that the Solicitor General was going to get personally involved in this question, this problem, and set everything straight by means of a comprehensive plan which was to be submitted to him in the very near future ... In fact, in his answer to me in early May he had told me: Within a week! Here we are, June 15, and I have been waiting for this RCMP comprehensive plan for more than a month.
When I raised this question last week, Thursday when speaking on the supply motion, to make this Government
Adjournment Debate
understand that what we want is to obtain firm guidelines, specific policies, clear objectives, I was told: A report will be released. Sure enough, they released the report of the internal group on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and I read it. Tomorrow we will have time to put questions to the Minister, I hope, concerning this famous report, and I am grateful to the Government for making this report public.
What I am concerned about and what I should like to get is the official comprehensive plan of the RCMP, approved by the Solicitor General and delivered, at his request, to the President of the Treasury Board. I want this plan because it was promised to the House and because it might help us to better understand and appreciate the objectives of this Government concerning official languages.
Madam Speaker, this is a serious problem which means that today we are in difficulty, and not only for the language of work, because the RCMP is almost entirely anglophone.
There have been problems obtaining services in French; we have received complaints; the Committee has examined several. Instead of ensuring an equitable participation of both linguistic groups to reflect Canada's respect for both these groupes and for our duality, the RCMP wanted to reduce the proportion of francophone staff from 20 to 14 per cent. I protested vigorously. Apparently, there is now a trend to a more generous policy. Madam Speaker, I just do not understand why, again today, on June 15, the Government is still so reluctant to make these linguistic guidelines, policies and plans public.
To conclude, Madam Speaker, I want the House to know that I wrote the Prime Minister a four-page letter. I must confess that I was feeling quite discouraged. I was getting nowhere with the Minister: one day he was telling me one thing, and the next something else. I therefore wrote the Prime Minister a well thought out four-page letter in which I described step by step how this issue had developed. I received first an acknowledgement. Then, a little later, specifically on May 25 (I had written the Prime Minister on May the 5th), I received a letter signed by Mr. Donald J.M. Cummer, which stated:
Further to your letter dated May 5, the Prime Minister has asked me to thank
you for your comments on this issue-
-concerning the RCMP, the Security Intelligence Service of Canada, and the Correctional Service Canada. I quote further:
-and to send a copy of your letter to the Hon. James Kelleher, that it may
receive the undivided attention it deserves. Rest assured that Mr. Kelleher will
contact you shortly.
Madam Speaker, when I write the Prime Minister and ask him to do something about a minister whose resignation I have been seeking because he is unable to manage his own affairs, I find it quite insulting to be told: "Your letter has been forwarded to the accused and he will reply himself." Madam Speaker, I find that totally unacceptable because this letter asked the Prime Minister to give particular attention to the

June 15, 1987
Adjournment Debate
serious problems which exist in the RCMP, and I would have thought that the Prime Minister could have written himself to say: Jean-Robert, do not worry, I am taking care of this; we are going to do something. Madam Speaker, nothing has happened, absolutely nothing. Tonight, I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary first what has happened to the RCMP report which was supposed to be submitted to the President of the Treasury Board and, finally, when we will have answers to our questions.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has again raised the question of the future direction of the Official Languages Program of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The question is an important one, and the Hon. Member is to be commended for the perseverance and tenacity with which he has pursued this important issue.
As recently as last Thursday, June 11, 1987, the Hon. Member was assured in the House that the Minister had submitted certain proposals to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) with respect to the Official Languages Program of the RCMP. It was further indicated at that time that these proposals would include the initiatives which would allow the RCMP to achieve the long-term objective of becoming a more bilingual institution, representative of the two official language groups in this country.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is also aware that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) will be appearing before the Joint Committee on Official Languages tomorrow afternoon. As a member of that committee, the Hon. Member will have the opportunity at that time to pose his questions directly to the Solicitor General.
The Solicitor General has placed the Official Languages Programs within the RCMP and CSIS high on the list of his immediate personal priorities. Indeed, when he became aware of the complaints by CSIS personnel in respect of the use of the official languages in that organization, he pursued an initiative undertaken by his predecessor, who asked the Security Intelligence Review Committee to examine closely the entire question. The Security Intelligence Review Committee submitted its report to him, and the Minister endorses its recommendations.
The RCMP submission on official languages was considered by Treasury Board last week. I do not wish to pre-empt the Solicitor General in any statements or announcements he may wish to make concerning this submission when he appears before the Joint Committee on Official Languages tomorrow; however, I can assure the Hon. Member that he will be pleased with the official languages initiatives to be undertaken by the RCMP. I am sure he will find himself agreeing that the areas of concern previously identified by him and his colleagues on the Joint Committee will have been addressed.


PAROLE-BRITISH COLUMBIA EXPERIMENT USING ELECTRONIC MONITORING ANKLE BRACELETS
Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, what sort of summer jobs did you have when you were a student? I suspect that at least some of them were involved with the theatre. However, personally, I had quite a variety of summer jobs.
I remember, for instance, working for two summers in what was then called the IBM department of Imperial Life. It was a department which used at that time things called punch cards and huge machines called sorters, collators, and calculators. You remember that sort of thing, Madam Speaker.
Of course times have changed and they have changed very rapidly since that time. Now we have smaller and faster machines, machines with greater capabilities and greater capacity. Those machines are not now called calculators but are called computers.
Computers have a great many functions and uses. In fact, no office can be without one. You may have one in your own office, Madam Speaker. You certainly have a word processor and an electronic mail machine. Industry cannot be without them.
Recently I have found even relatively small industries in my constituency using computers. For example, Erno Manufacturing, which makes office equipment, has computerized machinery. Dorothea Knitting Mills-and you probably have a Parker sweater, Madam Speaker, which was made in my riding by Dorothea Knitting Mills-has computerized knitting machines.
The Government has computers for sending out tax bills. Computers are used to send out water bills and hydro bills. The Government has econometric models for calculating the effects on the economy of different problems. Of course we have computers in our homes. For instance, it was interesting the other day to find out from the architect of the Dome Stadium in Toronto that it would have been impossible to build the retractable roof on the stadium without computers to make all the mathematical calculations.
With all these computers being used, it is no wonder that someone has thought of applying the computer to our parole system. This concept provides that offenders who are nearing the end of their prison terms can actually volunteer to be fitted with a tamper-proof bracelet around the arm or ankle and, when they finish their sentence, they finish it at home rather than at a half-way house. There is a tiny computer in the bracelet which is linked to a central computer. It records every time the offender strays outside a 50-metre range of his or her home telephone. That is how the electronic arm or ankle bracelet works. Officials are immediately notified by way of the transmitter and computer of a possible escape or a possible curfew violation by the offender on parole.
June 15, 1987

It has the effect of cutting the costs of looking after prisoners. For instance, it has been estimated that it could cut costs down from $70 per day to a mere $10 per day. It also reduces the overcrowding which we have in many prisons.
People scoff at the idea of electronic arm or ankle bracelets. When I asked the question of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) in the House not long ago, opposition Members actually laughed at the idea. They said it was a ridiculous idea and that people could be excused from parole violations perhaps by a battery failure.
Some members of the Opposition oppose the concept. The John Howard Society in Toronto actually opposes it as well. It feels that it would be a violation of personal freedom. Many other civil rights groups and prisoners' groups feel that it would be a violation of civil rights, perhaps a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and a violation of the freedom of movement concept. Ole Instrup, the Chairman of the National Parole Board, says that he is fundamentally opposed to the concept. However, we know that the concept is in fact in use in 20 different jurisdictions in the United States.
Presently there are some 900 prisoners who are released with this sort of electronic surveillance which the Americans call an electronic leash. As well, British Columbia is starting to experiment with this system. Just this very month, the Province of Ontario says it is considering putting an experimental model into use by the end of this year. Fortunately, our own Solicitor General has indicated that the Canadian Correctional Service's mind is not closed to the concept and that it is going to be watching these other experiments very closely.
I do not know whether this idea will work or not. I cannot help but think of the case that I brought to your attention before, Madam Speaker, of Leander Savoury. You will remember that he was the prisoner who was released on parole back in October, 1984. Before he was killed in a police shootout in January, 1985-he was three short months on parole- he had committed nine armed robberies and killed one man. While he was on parole he apparently was in contact with his parole officer once in person and he spoke to him twice on the telephone. Of course, he was warned to stay in regular contact with his parole officer, but in spite of all of that, he committed nine armed robberies and killed one man.
Would electronic monitoring by way of an electronic leash or bracelet on the ankle or the wrist have prevented those armed robberies? Would it have prevented the killing or the
Adjournment Debate
death of Leander Savoury himself in the police shoot-out? I do not know, Madam Speaker. You probably do not know right at this stage but I think it is worth trying to find out. I think it is worth trying this experiment.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us tonight that he agrees and that the Canadian Correctional Service will be getting involved and utilizing this experiment to see if it will improve our parole system and help to solve this sort of problem.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak further to the question put to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) concerning the possible use of electronic bracelets to help supervise federal inmates on parole.
The Correctional Service of Canada has at this time no plans to introduce such a program. However, it will be monitoring those in the United States and in British Columbia to see whether they yield any positive results.
While there may be potential applications of this concept to federal inmates, the Correctional Service would first want to satisfy itself as to all of the various ethical and legal ramifications of using monitoring technology. Moreover, it would not consider using this type of system for high risk offenders or those not willing to wear the device. It also would not view electronic supervision as eliminating the need for the continuing face to face contacts that parole officers have with offenders.
On balance, the Correctional Service of Canada is not currently in favour of implementing an electronic monitoring program and the Parole Board shares this position. However, the Solicitor General and his agencies will be keeping an open mind on the issue and for that reason will be watching to see what emerges from the various initiatives now under way, including that in British Columbia, so that we can ultimately decide if and how the federal jurisdiction should proceed in this area.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.﻿7123
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 16, 1987