1987-06-23

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that my colleague, the Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard), has a report to present. I ask that the House revert to presenting reports from committees at three o'clock because there is another committee report being translated. It is not ready now but will be ready at three o'clock.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is 11 o'clock. I would like to know what report and what committee we are talking about so that we can understand exactly what we are trying to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could explain.


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes, it is the Committee on Government Operations.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. This is, of course, the same report as has been referred to this morning by the media before it has been tabled in the House. It is unfortunate that time and again reports of standing committees are being discussed by the media. Members are being asked to comment on them before they are tabled in the House and yet the media has full knowledge of their contents.
You know, of course, Mr. Speaker, that that is a breach of the Standing Orders of the House. I use this opportunity to bring that to your attention. That does not mean that we are not willing to give consent for the report to be tabled this afternoon. Now that it is leaked it is better that it be presented this afternoon than on a later day.
It is unfortunate that these reports get into the hands of the public before other members of this House have the opportunity to see them. I happen to know the contents of the report so my privileges were not breached, but the same does not apply to many of my colleagues in this Chamber.
As a final point, I find it particularly-


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: A Liberal leak.


Don Boudria: That comment by the Member for Ottawa- Carleton (Mr. Turner) was unnecessary. I hope he takes the opportunity to apologize for it at the appropriate time.


John Napier Turner: Excuse me, sonny.


Don Boudria: I raise my share of tough issues in this House. However, I do believe that it is unfair that all Members of Parliament are not permitted to see reports of standing committees simultaneously. This seems to happen again and again in the same committee, that being the Committee on Government Operations, of which I am a member.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) has raised a matter which has troubled the Chair and Hon. Members. It may well be that he will want to raise it more extensively at another time. If there is consent to present the report this afternoon, the Chair might observe that the report might not be exactly the same as that which has been commented upon elsewhere. Nonetheless, the point which the Hon. Member makes is an important one.
I take it that there is consent to introduce that report this afternoon? The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) indicates consent.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
[DOT] (mo)

This report is concerned with automotive manufacturing and trade in Canada. The Committee does not accept the suggestions of the North American manufacturers that the Government of Canada legislate Canadian content for Japanese and Korean manufacturers.

June 23, 1987
Introduction of Government Bills
At the same time we urge that import restraints continue to be imposed and that the offshore manufacturers be urged and pushed, if necessary, to add Canadian content.
We are distressed at the lack of R and D done here in Canada by U.S. manufacturers.


CRIMINAL CODE, IMMIGRATION ACT, 1976 AND CITIZENSHIP ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) asked for leave to introduce Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Citizenship Act.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION REVIEW ACT
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there are three motions which have been discussed among the Parties. I think you will find unanimous consent for them to be introduced and voted on immediately.
The first motion is with respect to Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act. I move:
That, when Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act etc., is
read a second time, it be referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer
and Corporate Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE OF CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (NEWFOUNDLAND ACT)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the second motion refers to an item on the Projected Order Paper today with respect to what is called the Pentecostal Assemblies Act of Newfoundland. There have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to the following motion being introduced and passed. I move:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, when debate on the motion in the name of the Minister of Justice respecting an amendment to the Constitution of Canada on the matter of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland, Government Business No. 9, is concluded, the said debate shall be deemed adjourned and the motion shall be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General;
That the motion shall remain on the Order Paper for resuming the adjourned debate;
That the Standing Committee shall take up and consider the motion at its next meeting and shall report or shall be deemed to have reported same back to the House at the next sitting of the House, provided that if necessary the House shall revert to Presenting Reports from Committees for the purpose of receiving the report;
That no Notice of Motion to concur in the Committee report shall be received by the House; and
That notwithstanding the usual practices of the House, when debate on the motion is resumed whether or not the Committee has made a report to the House, Members may refer to the deliberations of the Committee in debate.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I am certainly disposed to agree with this motion but I have a genuine question. It states at the middle of the motion that the committee shall be deemed to have reported the same back to the House at the next sitting of the House. Does that mean if the resolution proceeds today the next sitting of the House is Thursday?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary can assist the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think that is in the vernacular of this place. He will know that when Bills are introduced, the normal terminology is to ask, when shall the Bill be read a second time, at the next sitting of the House, and think that is what this means. It may or may not be Thursday.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: If the resolution proceeds today, and the Government could choose to call the Bill on Thursday, unless the committee had met between today and Thursday there would be no opportunity for the committee to meet. I do not object to that, I just want to be clear if that is what might
June 23, 1987

happen so that we would only have the rest of today to call a meeting?
I asked the question simply because we were wondering about possibly having witnesses from Newfoundland. However, if the resolution might be called at the next sitting of the House, Thursday, then it would not be possible for us to have witnesses.


Philip Derek Lewis: If that were to happen, I would object to it. Obviously, this is done after consultation with House Leader in order to facilitate a committee hearing and the calling of witnesses if that is the wish of the committee.
The Government would not be proceeding in any way which would derogate from the committee's ability, if deemed desirable, to have witnesses and hold as many meetings as it wants.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to have some clarification as to the Government's intent concerning the motion. Is the motion going to be passed? Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that it will go to the committee, that the committee will hold its hearings, then it will come back to the House before it recesses for the summer? Is that what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying? This has come up in the House twice since 1971. It has to be passed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) has some concerns about this.


Philip Derek Lewis: I wish to advise the Chair that we will not proceed with this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair did not hear the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could stand this and return to it later this morning? I am sure that whatever misunderstandings there may be are inadvertent and could easily be clarified.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). It was a suggestion I was hoping someone would make.


COMMEMORATIVE STATUES
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a third motion which has been discussed among the Parties. I say to my hon. friend from the New Democratic Party that I discussed it with the Whip. This refers to what might be called the statue question.
I move:
Petitions
That the resolution adopted by the House on February 10, 1987, respecting the installation of a statue in honour of former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, and the document entitled "Report on Commemorative Statues to Canadian Prime Ministers and Commemoratives to other eminent Canadians", tabled in the House on Tuesday, February 10, 1987 (Sessional Paper No. 332-7/13), be referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I can tell you that indeed there have been consultations. Our Party is very pleased with this initiative and we will certainly support it


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic caucus, we agree to this. We believe there really should be some comprehensive review by a standing committee on which significant Canadians will have statues placed in the parliamentary presence.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House a petition from my constituents of Ottawa-Vanier who humbly state that according to a report made public by the Advisory council on the Status of Women, one woman out of eight will be the victim of psychological, economic, sexual or verbal violence from her spouse; that at a time when the Government should act rather than punish, the National Capital Commission intends to increase by more than $3,000 a month the rent of the Maison d'Amitie, the only French-speaking and voluntary organization in the region to help women and children in distress; that the Prime Minister recently stated in the House in reply to a question which I asked him that the problem of women victims of violence is one of the gravest social and legal challenges of the Maison d'Amitie to take up; wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to direct the National Capital Commission to reconsider its decision to increase the rent and continue as in the past to charge a nominal fee of $1.

June 23, 1987
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106. The petition is signed by petitioners from Hinton, Calgary, Olds, and Medicine Hat, Alberta, as well as Lillooet, Crescent Valley, Kootney Bay, Nelson, Castlegar, South Slocan, Winlaw, Silverton, Mayerthorpe and Rochford Bridge in British Columbia.
The petitioners are concerned about the increased number of chemicals being used as herbicides and insecticides. They believe it has been proven to be harmful to human health. They are also concerned that these chemicals produce short and long term harmful effects on non-target organisms such as soil and water.
The petitioners therefore humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to initiate a full public inquiry into the safety, testing, registration and regulation of the use of pesticides and the examination of alternative ways of controlling pests such as biological control and plant derived pesticides.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House which deals with the question of the Auto Pact and the concern that my constituents and constituents in other parts of the country have with respect to the safeguards in the Auto Pact. I am certain that many of those constituents will be pleased to see the report from the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade which also supports those safeguards.
I would therefore table this petition because of the petitioners' concern with the many thousands of jobs which could be lost if the safeguards themselves are done away with.
v *	*


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 119 and 137.


Mr. Caccia: L In 1985 was a federal clean coal technology program announced with a
budget of $70 million and have the funds been allocated and, if so (a) in what
manner (b) to whom (c) on what dates?
2.	Are the projects cost-shared or wholly funded by the Government?
3.	Have there been recent changes to the total value of funds committed
under the program and, if so, is the commitment now greater than, or less
than, the original $70 million?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. On March 6, 1985 the Government announced the unveiling of the federal acid rain control program. A press release, of the same date, stated "We are continuing our support of technology development for the cleaner and more efficient use of coal for power generation. Over $70 million has been budgeted".
This $70 million was a compilation of funds already committed by Energy, Mines and Resources for both coal research and development and for the Coal Utilization Demonstration Program to be spent between 1985/86 and 1988/89. For breakdown of expenditures, see below.
(a)-(c) The funds identified by CANMET were planned expenditures for the 1985/89 period for either in-house or contracted work.
The funds planned to be spent under the Coal Utilization Program were for projects already approved by Treasury Board with the exception of a coal beneficiation study for which several contracts have been let for various phases.
Allocations under the Coal Utilization Program which constitute a major part of the $70 million are as follows:
(I)	CIRCULATING FLUID BED COMBUSTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT, CHATHAM, NEW BRUNSWICK
Agreement made on December 19, 1983 between the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission and Energy, Mines and Resources after approval from Treasury Board on September 13, 1983. Treasury Board gave authority to enter into Phase II of this agreement on August 1, 1984.
(II)	COAL-WATER FUELS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT, CHARLOTTETOWN, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Agreement made with the Maritime Electric Company approved by Treasury Board February 13, 1985 and signed effective March 1, 1985.
(Ill)	BUBBLING FLUID BED COMBUSTION MATERIALS TESTING PROGRAM, POINT TUPPER, NOVA SCOTIA
Agreement made on September 1, 1982 between Nova Scotia Power Corporation and Energy, Mines and Resources after Treasury Board approval on July 29, 1982.
(IV)	SELECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Agreement made with the Canadian Electrical Association initially on January 1, 1982 after Treasury Board approval November 5, 1981. Subsequent releases of additional funds were approved by Treasury Board November 22, 1982; June 13, 1984; and July 23, 1986.
June 23, 1987

(V)	COAL BENEFICIATION STUDY: CONTRACTS
Electric Power Research Institute, February 6, 1985. Atlantic Coal Institute, May 10, 1985. Coal Mining Research Company, September 1, 1985. SNC, September 23, 1985.
2.	The projects funded by CANMET focus on contracts awarded to the private sector, many of which are cost-shared, but CANMET provides technical support to and complements the scope of these projects. In addition, CANMET provides substantial technical support to projects funded directly by the Coal Utilization Program.
The Coal Utilization Program projects are wholly funded by Government, although utilities have provided for some of their own staff services.
3.	There are no changes to total funding under the Coal Utilization Program since the program officially terminated on March 31, 1986. There have been changes in cash flow since 1985 and a cost overrun on the Chatham circulating fluid bed project required additional expenditures which have been absorbed by EMR.
The amount of funds spent by CANMET on clean coal R and D has remained relatively constant.
Breakdown of Expenditures - Coal Combustion Technology ($ millions)
	1985/86	1986/87	1987/88	1988/89	Total
CANMET R & D					
Coal Preparation	2.4	2.4	2.3	2.3	9.4Conventional Combustion/coal characterization	1.4	1.3	1.3	1.3	5.3Fluid bed combustion	2.0	1.8	1.8	1.8	7.4Coal-liquid fuels	.5	.6	.6	.6	2.3Combustion for Pollution Abatement	.9	.8	.9	.9	3.5Materials evaluation	.9	1.0	1.0	1.0	3.9Coal Utilization Demonstration Program	Circulating Fluid bed	22.0	5.0	2.0	-	29.0Coal-water fuels	8.0	.8	-	-	8.8Point Tupper, Materials Evaluation	1.3	-	-	-	1.3Canadian Electrical Association	.3	.-	-	-	.3Coal Beneficiation Study	.6	-	-	-	.6Total	40.3	13.7	9.9	7.9	71.8


Mr. Grondin: Order Paper Questions
Did the Department of Employment and Immigration, under employment development programs for youth, for the fiscal year 1985-86, allocate $673,200,000, thus creating 253,400 jobs and, in 1986-87, allocate $720,300,000, thus creating 230,200 jobs and, if so, for what reasons were less jobs created in 1986-87 with a higher allocation of funds?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth)):: The
Department of Employment and Immigration does not allocate any specific funds for youth under the Canadian Jobs Strategy. In 1985-86, expenditures on youth are estimated at $673.2 million providing work opportunities and training to approximately 253,400 participants.
In 1986-87, based on budget allocation, youth expenditures are estimated at $736.3 million and will provide work experience and training to approximately 230,200 participants.
The 1985-86 figure is based on expenditures whereas 198687 figure is based on budget allocation. There are two reasons why less jobs were created with more money. Allowances and wages paid to participants have increased. In addition, the average days duration of Canadian Jobs Strategy activities is longer in 1986-87 than it was in 1985-86.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 129 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 129 be made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

GRANTS AND/OR LOANS TO METROPOLITAN TORONTO REGION


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand0


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 23, 1987
Criminal Code



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded with consideration of Bill C-15, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Hon. Barbara McDougall (for Mr. Hnatyshyn), moved that Bill C-15 be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Barbara McDougall (for Mr. Hnatyshyn), moved that Bill C-15 be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Francois Gerin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address the substance of Bill C-15, but first of all, I would like to acknowledge the important work done by members of the Legislative Committee.
I was also very impressed by the statements of the witnesses. Their testimony proved to be very useful in considering a Bill that is so important for Canada's children and young people. The Bill was well received by those who regularly care for children who have been victims of sexual assault, although proposals were made to amend some of the provisions of the Bill.
Indeed, we agreed to introduce some major amendments to improve certain aspects so that the Bill will more effectively protect children and young people against sexual assault. Furthermore, this Bill seeks to reinforce the rights of victims by facilitating access to the judicial system.
Another purpose of this Bill is to identify offenders and give them a chance to receive the support and treatment they need. On the whole, the Bill's structure is much the same as it was when the House decided to refer it to a legislative committee.
Basically, the Bill contains three important measures. First of all, in order to provide additional protection against sexual abuse, it creates three new offences relating to the sexual abuse of children and young people. Second, the Bill abolishes certain offences under the Criminal Code that have become obsolete and amends provisions relating to other offences to make the Criminal Code more effective and more attuned to today's society. Third, the Bill provides for ways to enable children to testify.
The Bill therefore contains three new offences. To protect children under fourteen years of age, it creates the offence of
sexual interference. Every person who, for sexual purposes, touches a child under fourteen years of age is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Children under fourteen years of age are also protected by a new offence which consists in inviting a child of that age to engage in sexual touching of others. This offence would also carry a maximum prison term of ten years.
The third new offence is aimed at protecting young people under eighteen years of age from sexual exploitation by any person who is in a situation of trust or authority towards these young people. In very serious cases, the offence would carry a maximum prison term of five years. Furthermore, each of these offences may be punishable on summary conviction.
Since for each offence, the legislation emphasizes the terms "for sexual purposes", the Crown will have to prove that those purposes are one of the essential components of the crime. In this way, parents, teachers and all persons involved in caring for children will be protected against frivolous charges.
Anyone who takes care of children knows that they have to be hugged and shown love and affection. The usual way we express love and affection, by touching the child in whatever way, is of course not what is meant by these new provisions.
Only the kind of contact or touching or invitation to touching that is aimed at awakening sexual desire or obtaining sexual satisfaction is covered by these offences. The Badgley Committee found that many sexual assaults against children and adolescents in Canada involve such touching. Liability may be attributed for each of these offences, even if there is an element of consent, or at least of non-opposition on the part of the victim. Of course, if there is no such consent to touching, the incident obviously constitutes a sexual assault. However, even if such consent exists, it cannot be used as a defence to a charge, except in a very few cases. It is necessary to provide for such an exception so as not to make criminal acts out of the normal sexual discovery activities of young people.
Under the Bill, if the accused is not in a position of trust or authority towards a child twelve years of age or more but under the age of sixteen and if he is not two years older than the complainant, consent can be used as a defence. I underline the fact that consent can be used as a defence in such cases. In fact, the Badgley Committee and the evidence given before the legislative committee both point out that young people who indulge in sexual touching with younger children can in fact be exploiting them.
The second major initiative contained in this Bill consists in amending existing sexual offences and eliminating some others. There is no need to explain why some outdated offences have been eliminated, such as those which deal with the seduction of young women or of female passengers by the crew of a ship. Such offences no longer lead to a charge. They have no place in a modern Criminal Code.
Other offences have been amended to reflect the evolution of our society and the changes required by the new provisions
June 23, 1987

contained in the Bill. These changes include the addition of two new offences which also, aim at protecting children and adolescents. The first concerns a person who, in any place, for a sexual purpose, exposes his or her genital organs to a person under the age of fourteen. Such indecent exposure was already covered by the Criminal Code if committed in public. However, if committed in private, there had to be in addition an intent to insult or offend. These provisions were found to be inadequate in cases where people showed their genital organs to children for a sexual purpose. The new provision therefore makes this an offense punishable on summary conviction.
Once more, I emphasize the fact that such exposure must be for a sexual purpose. This means that the simple fact of going around the house without any clothes on in the presence of children, for instance, will not constitute an offence.
The second offence concerns the customers of young prostitutes. From now on, requesting the sexual services of a person under the age of eighteen will constitute an offence.
According to many comments, the problem of juvenile prostitution is getting increasingly serious. These young people must be protected against the consequences of such activities. The Badgley Committee recommended that, as a last resort, prostitution by young persons constitute an indictable offence, but such a solution does not seem acceptable. It would be better to target the customers who use young people for sexual services. Consequently, those who request the sexual services of prostitutes under the age of eighteen will be liable to five years in prison in the most serious cases. In addition, to ensure that those who live on the avails of prostitution of young people are not simply soliciting for the prostitutes, the penalty for living on the avails of juvenile prostitution is being increased to fourteen years of imprisonment.
Existing provisions which deal with the evidence given by children reflect outdated attitudes as concerns the reliability of such evidence. While Common Law rules originally provided that anyone could be a witness for the Crown, women and children were gradually judged to be less than reliable witnesses, especially when giving evidence about sexual assaults of which they had been the victims. A major detail of the evidence given by women and children had to be corroborated by a piece of compromising evidence against the accused. Because of the very nature of these offences, however, it was impossible in many cases to find corroborating evidence. This injustice against women was corrected in 1976, and Bill C-127, which came into effect in 1983, clarified the applicable provisions. We are now attempting to repair the injustice done to children who have witnessed criminal acts.
There is increasing, convincing evidence that children who have to report on facts they have experienced are truthful witnesses. The injustice in denying child victims of criminal acts the right to explain the facts to the court has been recognized by the Badgley Committee and the Fraser Committee. Both committees recommended repealing the rule requiring corroboration.
Criminal Code
The corroboration rule prevented a child from obtaining justice. Moreover, the rules on child evidence often prevented children from explaining to the court what they had experienced. Even though a child was called to the witness box, seeing his alleged aggressor often disconcerted him to the point where he could not give coherent evidence.
The Bill would allow children to more easily report on acts they have been victims of, in keeping with the accused's rights. It would also allow a larger number of children to give evidence. Any child who could state the facts and promise to tell the truth could give evidence. Such evidence would be heard by a judge or jury, who would determine its credibility. So that he could give a full and truthful statement of the facts on which the charges are based, a provision could be used by the court to allow the child to testify without seeing the accused.
That goal could be reached by putting a screen in the courtroom or by having the child in another room. In the latter case, the other parties involved should be given an opportunity to attend the testimony on closed circuit television. The child no longer would be put under the obligation of repeating the recital of facts because the Bill includes a provision under which a videotape could be made within a reasonable period after the alleged offence has been commited.
The effect of that proposal could be to avoid the child having to repeat the same evidence, often a number of times. It would also enable the child to make in his own words a recent report of the facts while they are still fresh in his or her memory.
So that such a videotape could be allowed in evidence, the child would of course have to confirm the contents when testifying before the courts. The child could then be cross-examined, which cross-examination would clearly have to be led in light of the child's age and ability to understand if the court were to be able to take it into account.
Mr. Speaker, I only referred to the most significant aspects of the Bill, which is aimed at protecting children and youth against sexual aggressions by creating new offences, and to make it easier for children to access the criminal justice system.
On the other hand, the proposals are based on the principle that the rights of the accused also have to be respected. When such sweeping changes are being introduced into an area of the law that is of such tremendous importance, the impact of course has to be carefully reviewed. Steps have therefore been taken for such a review to be initiated immediately and for a report to be submitted to a committee four years from now. A complete review could then be made of the impact of the implementation of those legislative proprosals.
Clearly, amendments could be brought in sooner, if provisions in the legislation were to prove inefficient or lead to some unwanted consequences. However, I am certain that the main

June 23, 1987
Criminal Code
objectives of the legislation will be reached, and I have no hesitation in recommending it to all Members.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief, the reason being the decision of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to hold a press conference at this moment downstairs. Let me simply say that Bill C-15 is a Bill to which we devoted a considerable amount of attention. During committee hearings, Liberal Members, led by myself, proposed a number of amendments.
I want to confirm what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said.
[ Translation]
Indeed, a lot of cooperation existed on that committee, and the Government genuinely accepted some of our suggestions, while of course rejecting others. We have decided not to push forward at the report stage our amendment proposals, because of the wide consensus that has indeed been reached during committee work.

The committee heard from a large number of witnesses, and I want on behalf of the Liberal Party to thank all of those who took the time and the trouble to appear before the committee. Some came from as far away as Vancouver to assist the committee in its work.
While the recommendations do not go as far as the Badgley Commission recommended, they are a tremendous improvement over the present law. Bill C-15 will result in more prosecutions than has been the case to date. Many of the obstacles to bringing cases forward have been disposed of as a result of the work of the committee.
I was hoping to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that there would be an evaluation of the effect of the changes beginning from their implementation, such that within two or three years we might have some idea as to the impact of some of the measures introduced, through this legislation, into Canadian jurisprudence for the first time.
Some are extremely innovative; some undermine traditional safeguards-which we agreed to undermine for the sake of being able to bring cases forward in the interest of seeing justice done in more cases. However, for my part, I would want to be assured that the Government is watching the situation and that if it evolves to the point that simply being charged means one will be convicted, there would be another look at the law to ensure that there is a full opportunity for an accused to bring forward his defences and to have the opportunity of having those defences fairly considered by the court.
In conclusion, I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I hope that the kind of co-operation we enjoyed in dealing with Bill C-15 will apply when it comes to considering Bill C-
54, the pornography Bill. I and my Party have many more objections to Bill C-54 than we had in respect of the child abuse legislation. If we do get to the second reading stage of Bill C-54, you will hear the Liberal Party express the wish that the Bill be quickly referred to committee for detailed consideration.
Notwithstanding that there are parts of Bill C-54 with which we disagree fundamentally, we think that the pornography laws in this country, as with the child abuse laws, do need to be improved, and Bill C-54 represents a good vehicle for doing so.
We have a Minister who recognizes that the Government and those who serve the Government do not have all of the wisdom on the subject and that a parliamentary committee can do a good job, in the public interest, in making legislation better.
In that spirit, I offer our support for Bill C-15, notwithstanding that many of the amendments which we think should have been included have not been included.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to add the support also of our Party on Bill C-15. It is our intention to co-operate fully today to ensure the expeditious passage of the Bill.
This is legislation that all of us have been awaiting for many years. I know within our own caucus we spent probably 50 to 60 hours in discussions trying to find ways and means of fine-tuning this legislation, and toward that end we worked in co-operation with the committee, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary.
I know that most of us have received volumes of mail from people across the country drawing our attention to the very tragic situation that exists in society today in respect of child pornography and child abuse. If there is one form of pornography that is repulsive to all, if there is one form of pornography that raises the ire of sensitive and decent people everywhere, it is that which is attached to young people. For that reason, we are anxious to facilitate the passage of Bill C-15.
I want to compliment those who have worked on the Bill. In a sense, all of those who worked on it put aside partisan differences to come together in support of an issue that deserves support in all ways and with all means to ensure the bringing to an end of the tragic situation that exists, not only in our country, but around the world, in respect of child pornography and child abuse.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party, we are pleased to see Bill C-15 coming to this point in its passage through Parliament. We look forward to significant changes flowing out of this legislation. We look forward to the kind of society that we all envision, where young people and children are nurtured and supported and allowed to develop their talents and their expertise, their abilities, in every way possible. A step toward this aim is the initiative taken in Bill C-15, to bring to
June 23, 1987

an end the abuse of children. Anything that brings to an end child pornography is something that we can all rally around.
As Bill C-15 is a piece of legislation that our justice critic has been working on and concerned about for a great length of time, Mr. Speaker, he may want to say a word or two about it. However, as House Leader of my Party, I simply wanted to speak for the caucus and to say that we are pleased Bill C-15 has moved to this point. We want to see its rapid completion and passage through the House today.


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted the chance to add a couple of words in respect of Bill C-15 as a member of the legislative committee. We spent many months working on this piece of legislation. I have been in Parliament for almost three years, and I should like to say that it was probably the most constructive opportunity we have had to work together, as previous speakers have said, in a nonpartisan way for the public good. In dealing with the vital issue of child sexual abuse, I think we have come forward with a piece of legislation which will be a very important first step.
I was particularly pleased that the Minister agreed to recommendations of the committee, particularly those in respect of the ability of children to testify based upon their ability to communicate. This certainly means that children will be able to bring forward evidence. As well, the other amendment to have a review after four years puts into perspective the concerns we heard from all sides. We tried to create a balance between protecting the accused and ensuring that young people will be able to come forward, those who have been abused.
We recognize that this piece of legislation is only one part of dealing with the problem. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has come forward with a $20 million program over a period of five years to help with the educational process. For example, the West Vancouver Police Association has been involved in this process, as have many others in British Columbia.
We need more public awareness. We need to view the issue of child sexual abuse within the broader framework of how we deal with violence in society.
I see this issue as a very positive step forward, one in which all Members have played a very constructive role. I hope in the years to come we in the House will deal with some fundamental issues in respect of how we will attack the problems of family violence and societal violence in a constructive way.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this important debate and to echo the comments which have been made by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) who certainly played an important and constructive role in the work of the legislative committee on Bill C-15.
Criminal Code
I have participated as the justice critic for my Party in many legislative committees and in many sittings of the justice committee on legislation. I can say without any hesitation whatsoever that I felt the work done in this committee, chaired I might add by Your Honour, was really outstanding.
The committee looked at a piece of legislation dealing with a very important, sensitive, and complex question. We heard from many witnesses from across Canada, such as groups representing the Child Welfare Community and the Canadian Council on Children and Youth, which had conducted its own extensive hearings and consultations in respect of the legislation. Many witnesses voiced their concerns about the legislation.
In a truly non-partisan spirit the legislative committee, after having heard from these witnesses, proposed some very significant amendments to the legislation. I see the Parliamentary Secretary in the House who spoke earlier on the debate representing the Minister. I can say that there were times when perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary was not entirely in agreement, as Your Honour will recall, with the spirit of some amendments proposed by members of the committee. Nevertheless, the committee as a whole, in a non-partisan approach, in fact made some very major and important improvements to the piece of legislation. I should like to touch upon some of the areas in which I believe the Bill has been significantly improved.
Before doing so, however, I should like to indicate my concern that while we are establishing a legislative framework today, it is an important and essential first step, but it is certainly not enough. We heard from a number of witnesses in the committee about the critical shortage of resources, both at the federal and provincial level, to deal with the concerns of the community, to deal with the sexual abuse of children.
It is one thing to establish a framework for prosecution of these offences, but it is quite another thing for us as a society, having done so, not to recognize that we are terribly underfunding programs to prevent child abuse, programs to deal with and to assist children to recover from the trauma of abuse, and programs to deal with those who offend.
Another area in which we received representations as a committee was in respect of the adult survivors of child abuse. This is an area in which further legislative action is clearly necessary. We must take steps to ensure that those adults who still bear the scars of abuse as children after, in some cases, many years must be in a position to come forward to tell their stories. There must be resources to ensure that they receive the kind of support they so desperately need.
I hope the Government will recognize that we have unfinished business here. Yes, we have taken important steps in respect of children who have been abused, and I welcome those steps. However, we must go further and deal with the very serious concerns which have been raised by adult survivors of abuse.

June 23, 1987
Criminal Code
It is clear that in too many parts of Canada, including my own Province of British Columbia, Governments pay lip service to the importance of resources for dealing with abused children. They quite properly call for effective enforcement mechanisms, but those same Governments fail miserably when it comes to providing support for children in our communities.
In this regard I should like to quote from a report of the National Council of Welfare entitled "Poor Kids". In part it reads:
Canadians like to believe that ours is a society in which all children are born with equal chances to rise as far as their abilities will carry them. Though they begin their lives in very disparate circumstances, we comfort ourselves with the belief that success is as attainable for the child of humblest origins as for the most affluent. The facts, however, are otherwise.
To be born poor in Canada does not make it a certainty that you will live poor and die poor-but it makes it very likely... The tax system and the income security system together determine the patterns of income redistribution in this country. The changes that are made in these systems as a result of the present federal provincial review-
And I might add the tax reform proposals:
-will affect the lives of every one of Canada's poor kids. New programs that
are adequate to raise Canada's poverty families out of poverty will transform
the futures of these poor kids. Inadequate programs will leave them facing the
grim prospects that mark the landscape of their lives today.
It is essential that we as a society pay far more attention in terms of resources for these children. They do not have a vote. They cannot speak in the House. Surely it is incumbent upon each and every Member of the House to recognize our obligations to the children of the country.
I should like to make another point before turning to some of the changes made in the legislative committee. The Government announced over a year ago that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) would shortly be announcing the appointment of a special adviser on child sexual abuse to co-ordinate activities at the federal level. The Badgley Commission recommended strongly that there must be a high level co-ordinator-indeed, Badgley recommended a co-ordinator attached to the Prime Minister's Office-to coordinate government activities at the federal level in the area of child abuse. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said that the special adviser would receive advice from a small committee of regional advisers who would bring forward ideas from different parts of the country and so on.
That commitment was made on January 10 of last year, over a year ago, and we are still waiting for the Government to live up to the promise it made to appoint that special adviser to take the kind of co-ordinating action so desperately needed across Canada.
The legislation before the House, Bill C-15, before the House was significantly improved by the work of the legislative committee that studied it. I would like to touch on two or three of the areas that I believe major changes were made to improve the Bill.
Perhaps the most important element of the legislation is the extent to which children are able to tell their stories in court and relate to the court in a manner in an and environment which is not threatening to them the experience they went through. The current provisions of the Criminal Code deny them that right. As the Canadian Council on Children and Youth stated, the fundamental and important element of the Bill is the degree to which victims of child sexual abuse have the opportunity to tell their stories in court. The original proposals did not clearly facilitate children telling their stories in court.
I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the committee made important changes in this area of the legislation. Now, instead of there being a test of sufficient intelligence, which were the words used in the Bill, the sole test will be the ability of that child to communicate his or her story to the court. If necessary, the courts may want to use devices to assist children, anatomically correct dolls, for example. The courts may wish to use art work. The committee heard from a psychotherapist who demonstrated how children can tell their stories through art. That may be another avenue of approach.
Another important change made to the legislation was the change with respect to the actual giving of evidence. In the Bill as presented to the House there was provision for the accused to be removed from the courtroom. There was strong criticism of that and the committee came up with a compromise. We recognized that a child or a young witness can be intimidated by the presence of the person who is alleged to have abused them. We said we would not remove the accused from the courtroom, but we would allow for arrangements to be made for children to give their evidence in a manner in which they do not have to directly confront the accused. That compromise was important, and one which I am pleased the committee adopted.
The provisions with respect to the substantive offences, namely, the provisions with respect to the offences created for the sexual abuse of children were also significantly changed. What the committee had to wrestle with was, on the one hand, a clear concern that young children should be in any way exploited because of their age and exploited in a sexual way. On the other hand, we had to recognize the reality that teenagers do engage in sexual activity and do indeed engage in sexual exploration. The Bill as it was drafted did not recognize that reality.
The committee said that where teenagers are engaged in consensual activity, and there is an age difference of less than two years, that behaviour will not be the subject of criminal sanction. Again, I believe that was an important change to the legislation.
There does remain a weakness with respect to one element of the legislation, namely, the failure of the legislative committee to respond to virtually every witness who appeared before the committee, whether it be the Canadian Council on Children and Youth, the Canadian Psychological Association,
June 23, 1987

the Teachers Federation or the Attorney General of the Conservative Province of Saskatchewan, who called upon the Government to establish a uniform age of consent for all sexual activity. That recommendation was made some time ago by the special committee on equality rights, recognizing that the current provisions of the Criminal Code and, indeed, this Bill as it has been reported, does discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
As well, and perhaps just as serious, is the fact that the Bill would subject teenagers to lengthy terms of imprisonment for engaging in consensual sexual activity, which is not the subject of criminal sanction elsewhere. It is regrettable that the legislative committee refused to recognize the concerns raised in this area by virtually every witness who appeared before the committee, and to move forward on amendments in this area of the legislation as well.
Finally, I am pleased to note that one of the amendments adopted was a provision building in a review mechanism. I believe it was the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) who proposed this amendment. It is one that we welcomed and supported. We are embarked in major changes in this area of the law. There is no question about that. To the extent that this review process is built into the Bill, it is essential that the Department of Justice carefully monitor the implementation of this legislation in order that we as parliamentarians may be in a position to conduct the review properly at the time it comes, some three or four years from now.
It is clear, beyond doubt, that we have significantly improved the law in Canada with respect to children who have been victims of sexual abuse. It is vitally important that we now turn our attention to the scandalous lack of resources to deal with children who are victims of child abuse, sexual abuse and with those who perpetrate these terrible acts, as well as the adult survivors of abuse. I would call upon this Parliament and this Government to work toward, as our next priority, an end to the scandalous underfunding in this area and to recognize that we have no greater obligation than to assure Canada's children that they will grow up in an environment free from all forms of abuse, including poverty, neglect, hunger, homelessness as well as that of physical and sexual abuse.
We in our Party welcome the proposals and we will be continuing to call, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) has called for for some time now, for effective action in the other areas that I have mentioned.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.
Judges Act, Federal Court Act, Tax Court Canada Act


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the deputy government House Leader if he would now be prepared to deal with government Order No. 9, the amendment to the Constitution Act dealing with the Pentecostal Assemblies.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to deal with the motion which was suggested that we put to the House earlier today, but I believe that if we could deal expeditiously with Bill C-41 which I think there is a disposition to do, we could then move immediately to government Order No. 9 to which my friend refers.


JUDGES ACT, FEDERAL COURT ACT, TAX COURT OF CANADA ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-41, an Act to amend the Judges Act, the Federal Court Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Hon. Barbara McDougall (for Mr. Hnatyshyn) moved: that Bill C-41, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Barbara Jean McDougall: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


François Gérin: Briefly, if 1 may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind Hon. Members of the main features of Bill C-41, an Act to amend the Judges Act, the Federal Court Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.
Bill C-41 makes four major amendments to these acts. First, it substitutes the industrial aggregate for the industrial composite with respect to the formula established under Section 19.1 of the Judges Act to calculate the annual indexation of the salary of judges. As Hon. Members would know, the industrial composite is no longer published and Statistics Canada officials have recommended that it be replaced by the industrial aggregate.
Second, it sets at 75 the retirement age of all federally appointed judges, in keeping with the requirements of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 15. At the present

June 23, 1987
Judges Act, Federal Court Act, Tax Court Canada Act
time, county and district court judges as well as Federal Court and Tax Court judges must retire at 70, whereas all other federally appointed judges may continue to hold office until age 75.
Third, it makes a correlative amendment to the provisions concerning a judge who elects to be supernumerary. A judge who so decides may accept a lighter caseload and still be entitled to the same salary and the same benefits. Henceforth all judges will have two options: act as supernumeraries after having attained seventy years of age if they have held judicial office for at least ten years, or after having attained age 65 if they have held judicial office for at least fifteen years. The latter option is now the only one open to judges who must retire at age 70.
And, fourth, it provides that district and county court judges will hold office in the same capacity as their colleagues who sit on provincial superior courts, the Federal Court, or the Supreme Court of Canada. In future all these judges may be removed only by the Governor General on address of the Senate and the House of Commons. Pursuant to Charter Section 15, the Bill is intended to promote equality among federally appointed judges. It does not seem normal that people we have chosen to implement the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on our behalf should continue to be subject to a different removal procedure and different rules concerning retirement. Mr. Speaker, these are the main amendments contained in this measure. Hopefully the Bill will now pass the third reading stage immediately.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the House that we were prepared to go through the three stages the first time this bill was introduced in the House. These are rather technical changes which are nevertheless important forjudges.
First of all, we have adopted an indexation system for judges' salaries in line with the other types of indexation within the Public service, but independently.
Also, we had to chose between ages 70 and 75 as retirement age, because there were two before, one for a category of judges appointed by the Federal Government and the other for the other categories. We have chosen age 75 and, personally, I am quite satisfied, considering the possibility for earlier retirement and the supernumerary judges status which is also provided for in the legislation.
So, we are going to change . . .

There is an important change in the tenure of judges of the County and District Courts and Tax Courts to make for more similarity in the different categories of appointed federal judges. With all of these changes, we are in agreement.
I would like to use the occasion of a reference to the tenure and status of judges to remark on the commitment expressed by the Government to appoint more female judges. I would
express my satisfaction at the recent appointment of the second female judge to the Supreme Court of Canada. We in the Official Opposition are very pleased with that and we look forward to having more women represented in the judiciary in Canada.
In general, we are in favour of all of the amendments and are looking forward to seeing the Bill passed today and sent to the Senate. We hope that it will be entered into before the summer break.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the occasion of the third reading of Bill C-41 to briefly indicate our support for the legislation and to take this opportunity to raise a couple of points that I believe are of concern, points with respect to the judiciary and the process of the appointment of judges in Canada.
Over a year ago, the then Minister of Justice, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), made a commitment. He recognized that the current system for the appointment of the judiciary in Canada was not satisfactory, was not good enough. The Canadian Bar Association had established a special committee which found that there were serious weaknesses in the judicial appointment process in Canada. It found that in a number of provinces partisan political considerations played a major role in the appointment of judges. Naturally, this tends to bring the judiciary and the process of the appointment of judges under a cloud, particularly in those provinces in which this is the case.
That commitment was made by the then Minister of Justice well over a year ago. The Government has still not moved on it. The Hon. Member for St. John's West, who is now the Minister of Transport, made that promise in February of 1986. His successor as Minister of Justice made a similar promise to the Canadian Bar Association in March of this year. He said that changes would be made to the judicial appointments process very soon.

Mr. Speaker, I see again in the House the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Gerin) and I know quite well that he will agree when I say that we need fundamental changes in the way Canadian judges are appointed. Mr. Speaker, I must recognize that the Hon. Member has used high pressure tactics with the Government and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to force the Government to keep its promises. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member for Megantic- Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) has not yet succeeded, together with his colleagues, in making sure that the Government will keep its promises.
Mr. Speaker, I know that there are a great many Quebec Conservative Members who want changes. There was an election quite recently, and the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) nearly won. He almost succeeded, but the forces of the Conservative establishment managed to overcome. But it sent a very serious message to the Government.
June 23, 1987

You should hear the voices of Quebec Conservative Members when they ask for basic changes for instance in political party contributions and especially the system for appointing judges.
I commend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Gerin), but I also ask him why the Government turned a deaf ear not only to him and his colleagues from Quebec, but to the Canadian Bar as well. They said it is about time we cleaned up the appointment system. I hope the Government will finally keep its promise and bring forward changes to that system.
I also want to take this opportunity to call upon the Government to move forward quickly with the establishment of a judicial education centre. Given the responsibilities of our judiciary with respect to the Charter of Rights, it is very important that they update their knowledge of how they impact on women, native people and minorities. Certainly a judicial education centre would go a long way towards fulfilling that important need.
It is also very important that the Government take further steps to ensure that our judiciary reflect the multicultural reality of Canada. There should be far more women, representatives of visible minorities and natives appointed as judges. Yes, the Government has taken some steps in this direction but it should be taking far more. It should do so by consultation with those individuals and groups who have knowledge and expertise in this area with respect to establishing a new system. That is the spirit in which I call upon the Government to make changes in the process.
Finally, a word about judges' salaries. The Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General recently adopted, by a split vote, a motion approving the recommendations made by the special committee struck to look into remuneration of judges. That special committee was chaired by Donald Guthrie. It recommended very substantial increases. We recognize that the judiciary must be well paid. But I said in committee, and I say again today, that the proposal was excessive. We are not prepared to co-operate in the passage of legislation that would dramatically increase judges' remuneration as proposed in that report. Judges' salaries were increased very significantly just recently and they are indexed to the cost of living. Each year they receive an increase, as do Members of Parliament. I do not believe a case has been made for the kind of lavish increases proposed.
We are told there are lawyers who actually turn down appointments to the Bench because they will not make enough money. The average salary of a federally-appointed judge is something like $105,000 a year. They have one of the most generous pension plans in the country. They have the prestige and status that comes with an appointment to the Bench. They do not have the pressures of operating a law practice. I think they are adequately compensated, certainly comparable to
The Constitution
judges in countries like Britain, the U.S. and elsewhere. I do not want a judge on the Bench who is motivated solely by the desire for more money. If a lawyer is going to say he or she is not prepared to accept $105,000, he or she wants $120,000 or $130,000, I do not want that man or women on the Bench. I want judges there who will serve, having recognized the honour the appointment brings.
One other point with respect to judicial pensions. The current provisions of the judicial pension scheme do not provide for a partial pension after judges have served on the Bench for at least 10 years. One recommendation made by the Guthrie committee that we should look very closely at is that judges who have served for 10 or more years but fewer than 15 receive a retroactive pension. I believe this provision should be made retroactive so that those judges, such as former Justice Thomas Berger, who have performed such a distinguished service for the country on the Bench, will not be denied the pension they have rightly earned.
In conclusion, I am pleased to have had the opportunity on third reading of this legislation to raise these concerns, particularly with respect to the failure of the Government to move forward on changes to the appointment process. I would hope that before June 30 the Government will respond to the very strong representations made by the Bar Association and les reformistes dans le caucus conservateur du Quebec, and that we will see the changes the Government promised.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 (NEWFOUNDLAND ACT) PENTECOSTAL ASSEMBLIES OF NEWFOUNDLAND
Hon. John C. Crosbie (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved:: April 27, 1987-The following proposed motion:
WHEREAS section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;
NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.


SCHEDULE
[Stage Direction]
1.(1) Section 3 of the Newfoundland Act is renumbered as subsection 3(1).
(2) Section 3 of the said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(2) A reference to this Act, or a reference to the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada set out in the Schedule to this Act, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
[Stage Direction]
June 23, 1987
The Constitution
2.	(1) Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada set out in the Schedule to the said Act is renumbered as Term 17(1).
(2) Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada set out in the Schedule to the said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following:
"(2) For the purposes of paragraph one of this Term, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland have in Newfoundland all the same rights and privileges with respect to denominational schools and denominational colleges as any other class or classes of persons had by law in Newfoundland at the date of Union, and the words "all such schools" in paragraph (a) of paragraph one of this Term and the words "all such colleges" in paragraph (b) of paragraph one of this Term include, respectively, the schools and the colleges of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland."
3.	This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, year of
proclamation {Newfoundland Act).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of significant importance to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular the adherents of the Pentecostal faith in that province. According to StatsCan reports, there are 37,450 such adherents in my province. That could easily have doubled by this time because their number is expanding rapidly.
The purpose of this resolution is to enshrine the educational rights of the people of the Pentecostal faith in my province in the Constitution. In other words, to entrench in the Constitution the right of the Pentecostal Assemblies in Newfoundland and Labrador to operate schools and receive a share of public funds for that purpose. They have had that right in provincial legislation since I think 1954. However, that right was not enshrined in the Constitution because, of course, it had not been recognized in 1949 when we became part of Canada. It has not been covered by Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada.
The educational system of Newfoundland is denominational. This is based on our historic experience in Newfoundland. Education was first provided by various religious bodies. We have had a denominational educational system throughout our history and it continues today. I venture the opinion that this system is favoured by the vast majority of the people of Newfoundland.
At this time we have three educational systems. The first is the integrated system which is comprised primarily of the people of the Anglican faith, the United Church of Canada, and the Salvation Army. That system is operated by the Integrated Educational Council, the President of which is the Reverend Ian Wishart of St. John's. We have the Catholic Education Council which is headed by His Grace Archbishop Penney which looks after the schools of the Roman Catholic denomination in Newfoundland. Finally, we have the Pentecostal Educational Council, the head of which is Pastor Roy King, which looks after the Pentecostal schools in Newfoundland.
In the opinion of those who are knowledgeable in these matters, all three of these bodies are doing fine work in
administering our schools. The funding, for the most part, is public funding from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In addition, as in all educational systems, a great deal of time and effort is expended free of charge by the ministers, priests and nuns of the churches which I have mentioned. I think they are all to be congratulated for this public service and they deserve our support.
If the House passes this resolution, as I am sure it will, this will be a very significant day for the people of the Pentecostal faith in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The resolution would authorize Her Excellency the Governor General to issue a proclamation which will amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada set out in the Schedule to the Newfoundland Act.
It is a historic occasion also because this resolution proposes the adoption of the first amendment to the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada. The resolution has been put forth at the request of the Government of Newfoundland, as you might well imagine, Mr. Speaker.
[Stage Direction]
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada are part and parcel of the Canadian Constitution, but they apply only to the province of Newfoundland. So, under Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada can only be amended by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons and the Newfoundland Legislative Assembly.
[Stage Direction]
This resolution affects the Canadian Constitution only as it applies to Newfoundland and it originates with the Government of Newfoundland. On April 10 the House of Assembly of Newfoundland adopted a resolution to amend Term 17 in terms identical to those now before the House.
The Government of Canada is happy to assist the Government of the Province of Newfoundland to achieve these objectives in a manner which basically falls within the jurisdiction of Newfoundland. Education is a matter under the jurisdiction of the Province. We are helping the Government of Newfoundland to rectify a situation which it considers inequitable.
Not only does the Government of Newfoundland consider it inequitable. I, Members of our Party and, I am sure, other Members in the House of Commons consider this situation to be inequitable and will be happy to join us in ensuring that Pentecostal people are treated in exactly the same manner as are those who belong to other denominations in the province. An inequality exists because the educational rights of the Pentecostal Assemblies are not yet constitutionally guaranteed. I mentioned the number of people who are affected by that. There are quite likely in excess of 37,400 at the present time.
June 23, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Through this measure we are enshrining in the Constitution the equality of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland with the other recognized religious groups which enjoy status now on educational matters under Term 17 of the Terms of Union.
As a historical footnote, Mr. Speaker, at the time of union in 1949, there were seven denominations specifically authorized by the law of Newfoundland to operate denominational schools and entitled to share in public funds for that purpose. These were the Anglican, Roman Catholic, United, Presbyterian and Congregational Churches, the Salvation Army and the Seventh Day Adventists. Term 17 entrenched these rights as they existed at the time of union and with respect to the denominations then enjoying those rights.
Term 17 of the Terms of Union was a substitute for Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as it ratified the adoption of the system of denominational schools in Newfoundland. I will not read that section. Anyone who wishes may look at Term 17 of the Terms of Union.
After union in 1954, the Pentecostal Assemblies were recognized under provincial law as being organized for educational purposes. They have been treated that way ever since but have not had the protection of Term 17 for the reasons I mentioned. There is a continuing desire by the Pentecostal Assemblies to be put in a position constitutionally similar to that of other recognized school-operating denominations, hence the resolution now before the Elouse.
You will see that the main provision of the resolution aims at amending Term 17 and provides:
(2) For the purposes of paragraph one of this Term, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland have in Newfoundland all the same rights and privileges with respect to denominational schools and denominational colleges as any other class or classes of persons had by law in Newfoundland at the date of Union, and the words "all such schools" in paragraph (a) of paragraph one of this Term and the words "all such colleges" in paragraph (b) of paragraph one of this Term include, respectively, the schools and the colleges of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland.
This will, of course, give them the same constitutional rights as now held by the other recognized denominations.
In order to take into account the proposed amendment, the resolution also proposes that Section 3 of the Newfoundland Act be amended to provide:
(2) A reference to this Act, or a reference to the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada set out in the Schedule to this Act, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto.
The proposed amendment does not purport to create new rights for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland, but to entrench those rights which they already have with respect to education under provincial law. Once again, the amendment does not alter the rights which students belonging to any unrecognized group have under the law of Newfoundland to attend Pentecostal schools.
I am sure that Members of the House, regardless of their political affiliation, will recognize the importance of this
The Constitution
amendment requested by the Province of Newfoundland. 1 am also convinced that they will join forces with us in helping Newfoundland achieve its objectives in a matter which falls under its jurisdiction. I spoke to Premier Peckford this morning and told him that we would be debating this matter today. I believe that with the consent of the opposition Parties we will pass this resolution through all stages today.
It has been a distinct honour and privilege to move this on behalf of the Pentecostal people of Newfoundland. I see the Members for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), Bonavista- Trinity-Conception (Mr. Johnson) and Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) here to support this motion.
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege for me to respond to the remarks of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). Let me say at the outset that it is this Party's position that, while normally amendments to the Constitution would go through the House and to the committee, because this is an important measure and indeed has been before the public since 1971, we intend to dispense with those steps and pass this motion at all stages in the House today.
This is indeed an historic day for the Pentecostal Assemblies in Newfoundland and it is significant that we have with us in the galleries on this historic day the head of the Pentecostal Church in Newfoundland, Pastor Roy King.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: I know that on behalf of his people he is watching with interest this historic occasion.
As the Minister of Transport has said, churches in Newfoundland have operated schools from the beginning and continue to do so. We have a unique system of education in Canada, possibly in the world, as adequately documented by a distinguished colleague in the other place, Senator Fred Rowe.
At the time of Confederation in 1949 the denominational system of education was enshrined in the Terms of Union because Newfoundlanders wanted to retain a spiritual base to the kind of education that went on in our schools. We still believe that is very important.
We have lived close to the sea. Perhaps it is the sea and our experiences with the sea that have shown us that there is a higher power in this world and there is a spiritual force that we do not necessarily understand but feel. Our people have always believed very strongly in that and have indeed been a strongly religious people.
The Pentecostal schools began in 1954 in Newfoundland. Since then, they have grown and prospered as denominational schools in our province. I think today particularly of some pastors whom I have known who served in my constituency. I think of Pastor William Gillette, who stopped on the northern peninsula of Newfoundland to establish churches on his way to

June 23, 1987
The Constitution
Labrador. He went to places like Postville, Charlottetown, and Port Hope Simpson not only to establish churches but to make sure there were schools for the children.
Today, the Pentecostal Assemblies operate some of the most modern, efficient and progressive schools in the province. Those men are to be congratulated because they took the Bible seriously when it said, "Go ye into all the world, even unto the remotest parts". They are to be congratulated for bringing to those remote places and all places in Newfoundland not only the three Rs but a spiritual context for education.
The largest Pentecostal Assembly in Newfoundland is in Windsor, in my riding. I know they will welcome this amendment today. 1 say in concert with all my Newfoundland colleagues in the House that today we owe the Pentecostal Assemblies not simply thanks but praise for the work they have done in the spiritual dimension of our province, and indeed in education in our province. It is an honour and privilege for me to say that I agree with the Minister of Transport that this is a historic day for them and that we should pass this motion very speedily.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, when I made my intervention a few moments ago when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) read the motion concerning this resolution, I was quite frankly thinking about the previous attempts that have been made in this chamber and the Newfoundland House of Assembly to pass this resolution.
I can recall twenty years ago the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) being in the Newfoundland Legislature when the original resolution was passed. It came up again in the provincial legislature after the Minister of Transport had departed, I believe, in the form of a resolution to Ottawa.
It then came to the House of Commons in Ottawa some 17 years ago. Each time it died on the Order Paper. That is why I was a bit harsh with the Parliamentary Secretary when he read the motion. I do not believe anyone understood the motion he was reading and it sounded so complicated that I thought perhaps this resolution would leave the chamber, go to a committee, and probably never see the light of day again.
I understand that there is an agreement to put this resolution through today so that we will accomplish what so many people had tried before.
I can only reiterate what has already been said. The Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland have been left out of that aspect of recognition that is needed under the Constitution. They are probably the most active force in education today in Newfoundland. Vocational Bible school is in full swing in various parts of Newfoundland. Children from all denominations are attending VBS. Even when the school year is over, the Pentecostal Assemblies are still active in every part
of Newfoundland and Labrador. As the Minister of Transport pointed out, they are becoming more active every day.
I do not want to delay this resolution any longer. I will be watching very carefully and will not leave the chamber until the Minister of Transport puts it through as he said he would. I do not know what the NDP will do, but they better not hold it up. I include the Official Opposition as well. In other words, there have been many attempts to put this through before. Let us settle it today. While that was not the original motion put forward, I imagine it was the intent of the motion put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. I shall resume my seat and watch as the motion is put through the House. If any other item comes up, I will filibuster until we return to this motion and put it through.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, that is always a tough act to follow, but I want to say how pleased I am that we have been able to persuade the Liberal Members of Parliament to back down and allow this very important resolution to go through the House today. I know there was some initial reluctance on the part of the Liberals and that they perhaps wanted to talk for a couple of hours, but we in the New Democratic Party consulted with them and reminded the Liberals that it took their Government some 17 years to produce absolutely nothing.
I have consulted carefully with my colleagues in Newfoundland, including such eminent people as Jack Harris, the very distinguished labour lawyer from St. John's East, who incidentally happens to be our candidate in the federal byelection there. Mr. Harris has indicated to us that he very much regrets that for decades there was silence and inaction on this very important resolution on the part of the previous Liberal Government. I am glad we were able to persuade the Liberals to agree today to allow this motion to go through.
As another Member said, normally when dealing with a constitutional amendment, we would want to have some study, have it go to committee and allow witnesses to make their views known. That would be the normal course of action on a constitutional amendment. However, we have agreed in the spirit of non-partisan co-operation, after many years, that the resolution should go forth today.
I must confess some personal bias in this matter. I was adopted by a very distinguished elderly Haida woman who herself happens to be a loyal and faithful Pentecostal. She has tried hard to persuade me of the virtues of that particular religion.


George Baker: It is never too late.


Svend Johannes Robinson: And as my colleague from the Liberal Party says, it is never too late. At the time of the Union in 1949, seven denominations were specifically authorized by law to operate schools and to share in public funds. The Pentecostal Church has played a very active role in Newfoundland. I am
June 23, 1987

told that Pentecostals in fact constitute some 10 per cent of the population of that province.
Obviously, we are not in a position to make any fundamental amendments with respect to the denominational school system itself. Certainly strong and powerful arguments can be made that in Canada today the school system should be a public school system from one ocean to the other, but we are not in a position today to make those arguments. We believe that the school boards in Newfoundland should be elected and accountable to the people and to the communities, and we hope that will come to pass as well.
I want to reiterate that, because this resolution is merely attempting to put in place a recognition of a historical reality, and the fact that there have been many years of Liberal neglect, a failure to move forward on this, we in the spirit of non-partisan co-operation agree to the adoption of this resolution today in all stages.


Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to support the amendments to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada. I am sure we all realize that it is difficult when drafting legislation to draft it in such a manner as to take care of all the problems which might arise down through the years.
I believe we also realize that for some number of years since 1954, an inequality has existed with regard to the Pentecostal school system in Newfoundland. Although it has been granted rights by the Province of Newfoundland and has received equal treatment in funding from that province, it has not experienced the same constitutional rights as other denominations. With passage of the amendment to Term 17, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland will in fact come into the Canadian Constitution with the same equality in education as other denominations and will have its rights enshrined in the Constitution.
I realize that all Parties have consented to quick passage of this amendment. 1 want to congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) for moving the resolution. Indeed, today will be a historic day for the people of the Pentecostal faith in the Province of Newfoundland. 1 am sure this is a time for them to be proud of being Canadians and it is time for all of us to realize how fortunate we are to live in a country which encourages freedom of religion and not religious discrimination.
I am pleased by the fact that all Parties represented in the House have agreed to give this resolution quick passage. It shows that we want to see the inequality corrected and to have enshrined in the Constitution of Canada the equal rights of the Pentecostal Assemblies with that of other denominations in the Province of Newfoundland.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the progress we have made this morning, I think you will find it agreeable to call it one o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 12.57 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, La sexualite blessee, a study published by the provincial shelter association, makes a number of horrifying revelations on sexual abuse in the home. The results of this study clearly demonstrate the link between pornography and violent sexual behaviour.
Eighty-three per cent of the women interviewed admitted they had been sexually abused by their spouse or partner; 66.3 per cent said that sexual relations were never an occasion for love and affection, while 61 per cent talked about sexuality as a painful and humiliating experience.
The study also found that three out of four of the men who were the spouses or partners imitate certain situations shown in videos, magazines, and other pornographic material.
The study will help the staff of the shelters improve their assistance to these women, by taking all their needs into consideration. When people talk about violence, they think in terms of battered women, fractured arms and cheekbones. They will not admit this violence goes further to intrude on a couple's most intimate moments.
The Quebec Minister of Health and Social Services has taken a step in the right direction by allocating $7.4 million to help the shelters.
We are waiting to hear what the Conservative Government will do about the problem. It is time it took the lead instead of following the example set by others as is the case among certain provincial governments.

June 23, 1987



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. Fernand Ladouceur (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, in 1976 the Canadian Government wrote a major chapter in its history by abolishing the death penalty, thereby showing the whole world that ours was a very civilized country that wanted to use its intellect to find ways of combatting violence, and that it respected human life.
In a few days we will be informed of the outcome of this debate on capital punishment, and I sincerely hope it will be another step forward for Canada in its fight against inequity and violence.
Mr. Speaker, I am definitely opposed to the reinstatement of capital punishment. To me it constitutes a violation of our right to life. It is cruel, inhuman and, deprading punishment and a form of revenge. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is against the principles by which I live.



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, shortly after the failure of the First Ministers' conference on aboriginal constitutional rights I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) what the Government of Canada intended to do about the "burden of failure", to quote the Prime Minister, which had been placed upon the first citizens of Canada.
The Prime Minister has since taken credit for a constitutional Accord which virtually ignores the aspirations of aboriginal people. He is reported as having said that this chapter in Canadian history is closed and that the Government will not be considering amendments.
The Prime Minister should indicate when the Government intends to start on the process of resolving the outstanding injustice of the exclusion of aboriginal self-government rights from the Constitution. After all, it was he who told the House that "this failure was a moral obligation that has been unfulfilled by Canada, by the federal Government".
The Prime Minister knows that his Government is allowing funding for aboriginal constitutional research to expire at the end of this month. Without such funding the experts will have to be laid off-indeed, many of them have now received their notices. It will be impossible for the national aboriginal organizations to provide not only the proper input to the hearings on the Meech Lake Accord but to continue the process of aboriginal constitutional development.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I support the death penalty for murderers convicted beyond the shadow of a doubt of deliberately planning and killing another human being.
Abolitionists who use Donald Marshall as an example of executing the wrong person are misleading the people as he was convicted on circumstantial evidence only. Under this motion he would in no way be executed. When they say a court is committing murder when a judge sentences a first degree murderer to die, is complete folly. It is tantamount to saying that a judge is a thief when he convicts a person of stealing. Such wild statements undermine our whole system of justice which is based on appropriate punishment for crimes committed.
Capital punishment is not a matter of revenge or statistics. Some can prove or disprove anything with figures. Executing a murderer like Olson, for example, is not half as repugnant as was the raping and clubbing to death of young boys and girls, or forcing a beautiful young girl like Kelly Cook to do "God knows what" and then chaining her to rocks and sinking her to the bottom of a lake.
If we claim to be civilized it is time to think more about the innocent people murdered, the victims and their loved ones, and less about the murderers. Christ showed compassion, but he did not stop the execution of a man whose crime was far less than that of a cold-blooded murderer.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, this Conservative Government is stupidly destroying six years of efforts at reconciliation between the postal administration and the postal unions. The former Liberal Government had realized the need to trust employee representatives and postal administrators and to let them settle themselves their own labour disputes; the new Conservative Government has absolutely refused to go along with this.
The Conservative Government has kicked out the union officials who used to sit on the board of directors and replaced such top executives as Michael Warren and Rene Marin who knew Canada Post very well and who had a demonstrated capacity to administer this Crown Corporation effectively without any risk of strike action. This Conservative Government has introduced again the shadow of the Treasury Board in all administrative decisions involving Canada Post and especially in collective bargaining.
June 23, 1987

The responsible Minister allows PMO's assistants and a group of Conservative backbenchers to have more influence on Canada Post than the members of the board.
All of this is stupid, and the Government is reaping today what it has sown: it is responsible for this mess. It is therefore urgent for a mediator to be appointed as soon as possible to diffuse the situation. The Government is responsible for the violence, thereby demonstrating either its incompetence or its irresponsibility.




[Stage Direction]
Mir. Guy St. Julien (Abitibl): For the past several days, Mr. Speaker, the postal service in Canada has been severely perturbed by rotating strikes organized by the Letter Carriers' Union.
Postal workers and letter carriers are very popular in Abitibi, for they are reliable representatives and play a very important social role in this far away region. The letter carrier is often the only person who visits lonely people and senior citizens. And he or she will often intervene immediately when someone is ill or helpless.
Ever since the conflict started, Canada Post has treated its employees very badly. It has used scabs. Mr. Speaker, I warn the President of Canada Post and his officials not to use this kind of repulsive tactic in Abitibi, for it could cause the conflict to deteriorate even more and poison the working climate for quite a long time.
The Canada Post Corporation should honor the Quebec legislation which forbids the hiring of scabs in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to send this message today to the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the unanimous recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and
Procedure, and the support of the Mayor and Council of Vancouver, the support of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) here, and in Victoria, the support of the Premiere of British Columbia and that of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), and the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), for five seats for the city of Vancouver, the Electoral Boundaries Commission rejected that recommendation, thus rejecting the views of the people of Vancouver.
The city of Vancouver is a growing city, not a city that is losing population.
Let me quote what the Electoral Boundaries Commission said:
-members may more easily serve compact constituencies, where government services are readily available, than they can serve scattered and mountainous rural ridings.
Rural ridings have problems, but they are different from those of the urban riding. In my riding we had 2,600 new Canadians last year, compared to 200 in other ridings. There are problems in the inner cities for MPs. MPs have to be ombudsmen. They have to fight for the people of their ridings in such areas as health, prostitution, crime, government bureaucracy problems, immigration problems, and so on.
This is a wrong decision. It is a sloppy decision and is ill-conceived. It really does not serve the interests of the people of Vancouver.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the Humanity Fund established recently by the Canadian section of the United Steel Workers of America is an innovative approach to providing humanitarian aid to people in poverty-stricken Third World countries.
Members can volunteer to have a one cent an hour check-off made from their pay cheques. If all 160,000 union members agree to this, about $3 million would be raised annually, and it is likely that these private funds would be matched on a three-to-one ratio by government agencies.
These steel workers deserve our appreciation for their initiative. It is noteworthy that other labour organizations, such as the Confederation of National Trade Unions in Quebec, are endorsing similar aid programs.

June 23, 1987



ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST DAY GENERAL INVITATION TO CELEBRATION

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to remind the House that millions of Quebecers will be celerating Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day tomorrow. As a Member from Quebec, I am sure that I can invite all my colleagues, whether they are themselves from Quebec or from other provinces, to join me in wishing all Quebecers well and in telling them that all of Canada will be celebrating their national holiday with them tomorrow.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, last week I received a letter from Shim Sang-Wan, a Korean student, whom I met four years ago in company with a number of clergy and professors of Korea who had been jailed for organizing unions.
When I heard he had been jailed in March, I wrote to him and received a letter back from him which reads in part:
I would like to extend my gratitude to you for your warm concern and prayer about my imprisonment.
I was imprisoned on March 3 on account of my participation in a rally protesting against a student's torture-death incident. But not so long, I was released on March 30 under suspension of prosecution, and resumed my work at the Christian Institute for the Study of Justice and Development. This is thanks to the solidarity actions and prayers of many friends in and abroad, I think.
Still, however, there are a growing number of prisoners of conscience for justice and democratization in Korea.
May I ask your prayer for these suffering people and for justice and democratization in Korea?
Yours sincerely,
Shim Sang-Wan



DISASTERS


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, most Canadians can all too readily remember the horrifying explosion which occurred on Air India flight 182 on June 23, 1985, two years ago today. Three hundred and twenty-nine innocent men, women, and children perished because some deranged person or persons placed a bomb on the plane before it left Canada.
I was in Ireland this time last year with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). We participated in a benediction of a special memorial on the seaside of Dunmanus Bay, 200 miles from the site where flight 182 plunged into the cold, grey Atlantic Ocean.
I can still remember the grief in the eyes and the hearts of the more than 200 relatives from India and Canada who were at that extremely emotional service.
Many walked to the shores of Dunmanus Bay and waded into the sea, in a sense to be closer to their relatives. Some placed flower petals in the sea and watched the flowers drift outward toward the site of the crash.
Moments like this should galvanize the Government's resolve to find and prosecute the individuals responsible. Also, special studies such as the one initiated by Senator Kelly on terrorism may help to prevent soul destroying incidents like this in the future.




Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the second anniversary of one of the saddest moments in Canadian history. On June 23, 1985, 329 men, women, and children, most of whom were Canadian citizens, perished when flight 182 was blown out of the sky off the coast of Ireland by a terrorist bomb. It was the largest and most hideous mass murder ever in Canadian history. All Canadians were shocked by the unspeakable brutality of this terrorist act. We mourn the loss of so many of our fellow countrymen, and we share the sorrow of the surviving family members.
We owe it to the victims and relatives of the Air India tragedy to bring those responsible for this vicious crime to justice. It has been two years now, and charges have not yet been laid. All Canadians have a right to know why this investigation was so badly bungled by the RCMP, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, and the Government itself.
The time for dithering has passed. We cannot tolerate any more excuses or delays. The Government of Canada has a moral responsibility to establish a royal commission of inquiry into the Air India disaster.
The Irish Government and the Indian Government have both had their public inquiries. We need a public inquiry here in Canada, not only to investigate this terrorist act but also to inquire into the conduct of the Government itself.
June 23, 1987



AIRPORTS


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, last week as a preamble to a question I attempted to tell the House how the great riding of Mississauga North had benefited under Conservative policies since 1984. Last year $1.1 billion in building permits were issued in Mississauga North. We have a 2 per cent unemployment rate, and we have 7,000 thriving businesses in the riding.
Now, to continue the saga, the announcement was made yesterday for the building of the third terminal at Lester B. Pearson International Airport. This project will cost $365 million and is financed by the private sector. Involving the private sector in the financing and operation of such a major airport capital project is a new approach for Transport Canada.
In 1963, when Terminal One was built, it was designed to accommodate 3.5 million passengers. In 1986 it handled 8.4 million passengers. This new facility is scheduled to be partially operational by 1989 and will include shopping plazas, office complexes, and a 500-room hotel.
It is just another Conservative success story. Mississauga North thanks the Government.



DISASTERS


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, today, the second anniversary of the tragic death of 329 Canadians in the Air India crash, we in the New Democratic caucus join in extending to the families of these victims our very sincere condolences. At the same time we want to register our concern at the lengthy delays in the investigation of this matter. Surely we owe it to the families of these victims to ensure that justice is done speedily.
In this regard I want to note our concern that the RCMP officer who was responsible for the investigation in British Columbia has been given another assignment. It is not acceptable in an investigation of this importance that there should be this kind of stalling and delay.
As well, the failure to move forward quickly on this casts quite an unfair cloud over the Sikh community itself. The community is a law-abiding community with an honourable tradition in Canada. It is totally unacceptable that there should be the kinds of blanket accusations that have been made in some quarters concerning that community. The Sikh community itself in Canada joins with all Members of this
Oral Questions
House, I am sure, in calling upon the Government to renew its commitment to pursuing justice in this very important area.
We owe no less to the families of the victims than to ensure that at last action is taken with respect to this very serious matter.



AGRICULTURE


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I recently received a letter from an organization called La femme et la gestion de la ferme. I would like to put this letter on record:
We, of La femme et la gestion de la ferme, are vigorously opposed to the proposal announced last week in the House by the Minister of Defence to spend $184 billion on submarines to kill people. If the Government has so much money to spend wastefully on means to destroy human beings, why not allocate more to agriculture? Do you realize everything that could be done in agriculture with only half this amount? We could feed all of Canada for nothing. I hope that you send a copy of this letter to Mr. Mulroney.
Sincerely yours in farming,
Marie-Rose Paquette, Vice-President of La femme et la gestion de la ferme of Prescott County.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and concerns the tax reform.
Canadians are beginning to realize that the tax reform unveiled by the Minister last Thursday comes complete with a Trojan horse, that the Trojan horse bears bad news and is full of surprises. Among other things hidden in this Trojan horse there is the sales tax which might hit all Canadians in a way which has never been experienced before in this country.
So I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether, for the time being, he is prepared to shelve this Machiavellian plan and tell us first when he intends to levy this new tax.
And since in his White Paper the Minister gave a number of examples calculated at 8 per cent, I would ask him just how much money does the federal Government expect to collect through this 8 per cent tax on all goods and services, as he stated last Thursday?

June 23, 1987
Oral Questions


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it surprises me to hear the negative comments of the Hon. Member. Twice during the course of the past week he has said specifically that the existing sales tax is not working and should be replaced.
We have put forward a specific proposal here for consultation. We want to consult with social policy groups, with the provinces, with the business sector and other interested Canadians. What we have decided must be a part of that sales tax proposal is a significantly enhanced-into the hundreds of dollars-refundable sales tax credit which will benefit low and middle-income earners. Part of it as well will be a removal of the surtaxes, and finally a change in income tax rates, a drop in those rates for some middle-income earners as well.


SALES TAX PROPOSALS-ESTIMATED REVENUE
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer the question. It was a very straightforward one. The Minister has certainly made calculations.
We were told by officials of the Department of Finance yesterday that the new business transfer tax, or a value-added tax, would have to raise enough revenue to cover the present federal sales tax, to replace the general 3 per cent surtax on personal and corporate taxes, to pay for the sales tax credit, to lower by 3 per cent the middle-bracket rate for personal income tax, and to cover the additional federal spending because of the sales tax. Why does the Minister not want to give us the total amount of money required? The Department has certainly made calculations. How much revenue will an 8 per cent sales tax on goods and services raise to cover all those items I have just mentioned?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I said in my answer to the first question, the different things that have to be covered by the new sales tax. I do not know the final design of the refundable sales tax credit. We have some ideas of how big that should be and how far up the income scale it should go, but until we have the final design of the sales tax credit which will be a major benefit to those in lower and lower-middle-income brackets it is not possible to give the precise amount of the tax.


INCOME TAX-EFFECT OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, we worry about tax reform because we do not have the information which would be needed to bear judgment on it. The only thing we know now is that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. Since the Minister did not want to answer my first two questions, I will try another subject.
One of the stated objectives of the tax reform was to simplify the tax form for individuals. However, yesterday a
Tory Member of Parliament said to officials of the Department of Finance after examining the proposed tax change: "Why do you have to make it so hideously complicated?" In the words of the Conservative Finance Committee Chairman, why is the Minister driving people to H & R Block to complete their tax forms? Why was the Government not able to deliver on the Minister's promise to simplify the personal income tax form?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me state absolutely and categorically that the Hon. Member's statement that the rich will be getting richer and the poor will be getting poorer is simply false.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is proven, it is in the
statement. If the Hon. Member would take the time to read the document he would see that the share of income taxes paid by those who earn over $55,000 is going up and the share of those who earn less than $27,500 will be going down. That is contrary to what the Hon. Member has just said and he knows that my way is the truth and his way is not the truth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Contained in the White Paper as well is that most Canadians will be better off after the income tax reforms plus the impact of the sales tax reforms. That is set out in the document as well, and I would hope that the Hon. Member would repeat that when he is talking to his constituents and would not continue to leave these mistruths that he is trying to perpetrate hanging around.


OPPOSITION TO ANY FOOD TAX
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.
Since September 4, 1984, elderly Canadians remember the old age security pension deindexation trick, and families remember the family allowances and child tax credit deindexation tricks. The sick remember the 12 per cent prescription drugs sales tax trick. And people generally remember that, since September 4, 1984, this Government has saddled individuals with 25 new taxes or direct tax increases.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. Now that senior citizens' associations are all ready for action, can the Prime Minister assure them that his Government will not slap a new tax on food such as bread and butter?
Will you not tax food, bread and butter, yes or no?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to be absolutely clear with the Hon. Member that senior
June 23, 1987

citizens benefit from stage one of tax reform. They will benefit again in stage two. Nine out of 10 senior citizens will pay less income tax after tax reform. Some 850,000 Canadians will be off the tax rolls, and 250,000 of those are senior citizens. That is the direction we are taking in the first stage of tax reform.
In stage two many senior citizens will get full benefit of the refundable sales tax credit which will be paid regularly in advance to offset the impact of sales taxes.


Jean-Claude Malépart: The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance would rather not respond to this question because they once misled elderly Canadians about the old age security pensions de-indexation, and they intend to tax food.


INQUIRY WHY POOR FAMILIES DO NOT OBTAIN COMPLETE REIMBURSEMENT OF TAXES
Jean-Claude Malépart: My
supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. After his last five Budgets full of new taxes on drugs, food, telephone calls, the result of all these new taxes-the 25 new measures- is that a family of four with an income of $15,000 is paying $424 more in direct and indirect taxes, yet all they get from the Minister of Finance is a $210 tax credit on the sales tax.
Can the Minister tell us why he did not find a way to make sure that poor families in Canada would get a complete reimbursement of the taxes they have to pay? Why did he choose to levy 50 per cent of the new tax from poor families and the most destitute elderly Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it does not take a whole lot of courage to follow the scare-mongering tactics of the Hon. Member opposite.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is nothing in the White Paper to tax food. There is nothing in the White Paper that says taxes of low-income Canadians are going to go up. Their taxes are going down. The Hon. Member seems to feel he has a monopoly on compassion for senior citizens. If he had any compassion for them he would not be trying to scare them now by talking about a tax on food.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AUTO PACT- ONTARIO PREMIER'S INTEREST
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in the House the Minister for International Trade did nothing to
Oral Questions
assure Canadians that the automotive tariff policy would remain as the instrument for enforcing investment safeguards in the Auto Pact. Neither did Simon Reisman outside the House.
I understand from a news report that the Prime Minister got a telephone call yesterday from the Premier of Ontario. Will he confirm that he got such a call, and did he offer assurances to the Premier that tariffs would remain as the effective mechanism for enforcing the investment provisions of the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, indeed I received a call from my friend, the Premier of Ontario, last evening. Among other things he inquired about the Auto Pact and I indicated, as I have in the past, that the Auto Pact was not placed on the table by the Government of Canada negotiators, nor by the U.S. Government negotiators.


REQUEST FOR RETENTION OF TARIFFS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I assume the Prime Minister is not interested in simply playing linguistic games so I will ask him to answer the question I put to him. Did he offer assurances to the Premier of Ontario, and will he do so to Members of the House, that the Government of Canada will keep in place tariffs on automotive trade between Canada and the U.S. as the effective instrument for enforcing the investment requirements in the agreement? Will he answer that question?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Government sees very little benefit for Canada in keeping in place a mechanism which would cost us 40,000 jobs if it were ever employed.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE GOVERNMENT WILL RETAIN TARIFFS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this Minister perpetually shocks the House with revelations of profound ignorance. Would she kindly explain the statement she just made? More basically, will she do today what she refused to do yesterday, in her perpetual attempt to mislead the people of Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, oh, oh. Oh, oh, Mr. Clark, it's true.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Withdraw.


Marcel Masse: Nonsense.


John Edward Broadbent: No, Joe, I won't withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa will no doubt have noticed that the suggestion that the Hon. Minister is

June 23, 1987
Oral Questions
"perpetually attempting to mislead" is equivalent to "intentionally misleading". I know the Elon. Member for Oshawa will want to withdraw that and rephrase the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John Edward Broadbent: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, totally and without hesitation I will take away the word "attempting". I accept that.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


John Edward Broadbent: Now, will the Minister be straightforward with the House and answer the question? Will she offer assurances to those thousands of Canadian families which are directly or indirectly dependent on jobs in this sector that the Government will maintain tariffs in the automotive sector in trade between Canada and the United States to enforce the investment requirements and the safeguards? Will she be clear and finally answer that question?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have continually told this House that the Auto Pact is not on the table. I have continually told this House that the very tariffs about which the Hon. Member talks would only be triggered if production fell by 600,000 units at the cost of
40,000	jobs. We do not think that is a very effective mechanism.
It is interesting to note that neither did the Hon. Member in debate in this House. In 1977 he called for changes in the safeguards in a renegotiated Auto Pact.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: To improve them. Do you understand that?


Mr. Mazankowski:: Isn't that interesting?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, we are not suggesting that. We have said that the Auto Pact will not be put on the table by Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Just the tariffs.


Pat Carney: The Americans could put it on the table if the NDP keeps inviting them to do so.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: In Hansard of 1977 the Hon. Member talked about the losses. He said:
We have to change one of the safeguards in the pact, which is probably the best approach-


John Edward Broadbent: To make them better. Read the rest.


Pat Carney: Tampering with the Auto Pact is his idea, not ours.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Do you think that will wash?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


MAINTENANCE OF SAFEGUARD LEVELS IN AUTO PACT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade. Is the Minister not aware that the tariffs which will be triggered if safeguards are not met apply to the failure of individual companies to meet the safeguard levels and not simply to the fall to safeguard levels of the entire industry? If that is the case, the safeguards are relevant each and every day.
If she does not know that, why is she keeping her job? Why does she not admit now that if the Auto Pact, per se, is not on the free trade negotiating table, then the tariffs are? Come out and say that. Tell the truth.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I defer to your judgment as to whether the Hon. Member's allegation about telling the truth is unparliamentary or not. You may want to deal with that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Axworthy:: Answer the question.


John Edward Broadbent: Try telling the truth.


Pat Carney: I have said that the Auto Pact is not on the table. I have explained to this House that the so-called protection that they want to keep would, if ever triggered, cause a loss in production of $5.5 billion and a loss of 40,000 jobs.


Lloyd Axworthy: She's crazy.


Pat Carney: I do not know why they keep asking for changes of this nature but it will be on their heads, not ours.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister recognizes this admission of ignorance and incompetence of his Minister for International Trade. The safeguards being triggered do not cause the fall in production and jobs. It is the safeguards and the tariffs which protect them that prevent the jobs and production from falling.


Lloyd Axworthy: That's right.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I hope the Minister realizes that. If she does not, I wonder why the Prime Minister is keeping her in her job.


Charles Joseph Clark: Try that again in English.


REDUCTION OF TARIFFS TO ZERO-INQUIRY CONCERNING CARS AND PARTS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister said:

-I can point out that the negotiators are talking about a hypothetical model of taking all tariffs on everything on a broad basis, except those areas that have been identified as sensitive, to zero.
Are the tariffs on cars and parts coming into Canada from the United States included in that hypothetical model? Will she at least tell us that, even on a so-called hypothetical basis? If that is the case, the fact is that the auto tariffs are on the table and are about to go in a way that will gut the Auto Pact and harm the jobs involved.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have told this House that the Auto Pact has not been discussed at the table. A working group on automotive issues met twice in November. This scare tactic of the Opposition is ignoring-


Lloyd Axworthy: Be serious.


Pat Carney: -the fact that we do not intend to alter the Auto Pact. We intend to take only those measures which will benefit Canadians and the automotive industry.
It is their continual harping and dragging the Auto Pact on the table, and dragging it back on the table, and suggesting it be reopened, and suggesting it be renegotiated, that will be of interest to those Americans with vested interest who would like to build their automobile industry at the expense of the industry in Ontario and Quebec.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who will be as interested as I am to know that the Liberal Party has now discovered that the tax system introduced by the Liberals has made the rich richer and the poor poorer, and that the Conservative Government is keeping up with the tradition.
Here is my question: If the Minister insists that most Canadians will be better off after the income tax reforms than before, will he also confirm that after the tax reform and after tax increases implemented by this Government since 1984, 88 per cent of Canadian families will be paying more taxes instead of less, and that the only ones who will be paying less are those wealthier Canadians with an income in excess of $ 100,000 per year?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the Hon. Member is finding his statistics. The per centage of taxes payable by those earning more than $55,000 will go up as a result of tax reform. The share of the personal income tax burden of those earning less than $27,500
Oral Questions
will go down. I remind the Hon. Member that 6.3 per cent of taxpayers earn more than $50,000. Their share of the tax burden will go up to 36.2 per cent as a result of tax reform. We tried to find a balance. The balance has resulted in the wealthier Canadians paying a greater share of the burden and I would think that the Hon. Member, coming from that Party, would support us in that effort.


POSSIBLE EFFECT OF SALES TAX PROPOSALS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, Canadians were looking for honesty from the Minister of Finance. That is why they do not understand the statements from the Minister of Finance when they also see that three out of four families earning over $100,000 will get a $4,000 tax cut and that the tax cut for those rich families will be 30 times the amount that is saved by families earning under $15,000 a year.
They ask what kind of justice is involved there and why the Minister is not prepared to be honest and tell them what they will pay in sales tax on items like food in 1989, after they get some kind of a tax cut in 1988?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks what will be the impacts of stage two. I do not know what those impacts will be because we want to consult with the provinces, with the social policy groups, with the business groups, and with those industries that are going to be affected, to get a better understanding of the impact of the proposed tax change on them.
We consulted fully in the lead up to stage one. We have consulted fully on the development of a proposal which 1 think Canadians have said benefited from that consultation process. We will consult fully in the lead up to stage two and make sure that Canadians have a full opportunity. The Chairman of the Finance Committee has said that there will be full hearings on sales tax reform before his committee.
I think Hon. Members should realize that we are approaching this in good faith to ensure that we listen to the views of all Canadians before we take a decision.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CZECHOSLOVAKIAN MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Speaker:: I want to bring to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Miroslav Toman, Minister of Agriculture, of Czechoslovakia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 23, 1987
Oral Questions TRADE


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AUTO PACT TARIFFS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question was to be directed to the Minister for International Trade but she has disappeared for the moment, perhaps along with the Government's position. I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
On March 16, as reported at page 4178 of Hansard, the Minister for International Trade, in addressing what is being negotiated as part of the Canada-U.S. trade negotiations, said that tariffs are on the table because experience has shown the Canadian economy prospers, this is so even with the Auto Pact. She went on to say that: "We are reducing the tariffs for the Auto Pact down to zero". Those are the words of the Minister for International Trade herself as quoted in Hansard which I think quite definitely demonstrate that this issue is presently being negotiated.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Therefore I want to ask the Hon. Minister has she changed her position from what she stated on March 16 when she said that the tariffs as they relate to the automobile trade are being negotiated down to zero? If she has not changed her mind, does that not therefore mean that the whole basis of the Auto Pact is being negotiated away?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I was called out of the House briefly. I did not have the opportunity to find the reference about which the Hon. Member is talking and I have no opportunity to find out if, in fact, the Hon. Member is even quoting it correctly-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: Given the history of the Hon. Member, I doubt it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Shame!


Pat Carney: Let me explain once more. For 22 years the Auto Pact has operated without any tariffs on automotive trade within the Auto Pact-22 years without tariffs. The Opposition wants to take us back to the level of production which existed 22 years ago.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That is nonsense.


Pat Carney: This Government does not plan to do that.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is really not my fault that the Minister does not know what she said.


Charles Joseph Clark: Try again, Lloyd.
government policy on tariffs


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can jog her memory by referring her to that wonderful day of March 16, to page 4178 of Hansard, where the Minister said explicitly that there is an existing tariff in the Auto Pact of 9.2 per cent and the intention of the Government is to reduce that down to zero. Those were her words on March 16. Are they still the basis of government policy today and, if so, does that not therefore mean that the Government is negotiating away the very basic safeguards and foundations of the Auto Pact system that provides jobs for hundreds of thousands of Canadians? Will the Minister at least admit her own words of some two months ago?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question many times. May I point out that I used the words "automotive trade", I am advised, and we will check that out. I have not talked about the Auto Pact.
May I remind him that when the Auto Pact was put in place tariffs were dropped from about 27 per cent to about 9.5 per cent, and that for 22 years it has operated without any tariffs on automotive trade within the Auto Pact. I see no purpose in trying to do something-I see no purpose in trying to operate this industry-


Lloyd Axworthy: Because they met the conditions.


John Edward Broadbent: That is what the pact was about.


Mr. Rossi:: Brian is looking at you. You are going to be in the next shuffle.


Mr. Speaker:: When Hon. Members are asking questions which, by their very nature are complex, I am sure they would of course let the Hon. Minister reply in perhaps more detail than otherwise. A question that asks for detail and is argumentative is entitled to a lengthier reply. The Hon. Minister.


Pat Carney: I can only repeat what I have said. For 22 years there have been no tariffs on automotive trade within the Auto Pact.


Lloyd Axworthy: You just said there are tariffs.


Pat Carney: There have been no tariffs in effect for 22 years. This Government does not intend to alter something which has worked very well for 22 years.
May I add that if the safeguards they are talking about were ever required, it would mean that the industry was operating with 40,000 fewer jobs than today, with $5.5 billion less production than today, and 600,000 less units than today. If that is what they want, that is what they would get if their policies were put into place.
June 23, 1987


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister who seems surprised to find that telling the truth is not unparliamentary.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: Cheap shot.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: On March 16 the Minister said that tariffs are on the table and: "We are seeking to reduce them to zero".
I think the people of Canada deserve a straight answer.


An Hon. Member:: What is your question?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Never mind all this obfuscation-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Both questions and answers on this issue are becoming debate. I would ask Hon. Members to put their questions specifically and the Hon. Minister, if they are directed to the Hon. Minister, to answer as succinctly as possible. The Hon. Member.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Will the Hon. Minister maintain the threat of tariffs as a means of ensuring the application of content requirements and production requirements in the Auto Pact? Yes or no.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, may I repeat that the Auto Pact is not being discussed at the table. May I repeat that there have been no tariffs on automotive trade-


John Edward Broadbent: That is not so.


Pat Carney: no tariffs in effect on automotive trade within the Auto Pact for 22 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Wrong.


Pat Carney: There is a possibility of tariffs being applied at a level so low that the economy of the Province of Ontario would be destroyed were it ever required to put them into effect.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Minister not demonstrated sufficient evidence of duplicity and incompetence as to require her resignation?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston.
Oral Questions


THE ADMINISTRATION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the blind trust of the Minister of Public Works. I would like to ask the Prime Minister, who is responsible for the conflict of interest code, whether he himself has investigated this particular matter and whether he has satisfied himself that the Minister is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the conflict of interest code?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works made a full statement to the House yesterday and outlined in a very succinct way the details surrounding this. I remind the Hon. Member that the Minister has engaged the services of two highly reputable firms to handle his blind trust, namely, McLeod Young Weir, and Nesbitt Thomson and Deacon. If the Hon. Member is suggesting that these two reputable firms have in some manner, shape or form, breached the spirit and technical guidelines of the conflict of interest guidelines I wish he would point it out to the House.
In his enthusiasm, perhaps the Hon. Member may want to slander people, and not engage in slandering the reputation of two highly respected national firms.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the two companies are not required to comply with the conflict of interest code. It is the Minister who must comply with the conflict of interest code.


MANAGEMENT OF STOCK PORTFOLIO
John V. Nunziata: The conflict of interest code is quite clear. It says a trustee shall clearly be at arms length from the public office holder. It goes on to say that a Minister has an obligation to act in a manner which will bear the closest public scrutiny-


Mr. McDermid:: Make your accusation.


John V. Nunziata: -an obligation which is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law. How can it be said that the Minister of Public Works was within the letter and spirit of the conflict of interest guidelines-


John Horton McDermid: Make your accusation.


John V. Nunziata: -when his public trustee, or his trustee, is his best friend and political fund raiser? How can it be said when that individual is managing the Minister's stock portfolio he is at arms length with the Minister and the Minister is acting according to the letter and spirit of the conflict of interest code? I would like the Prime Minister, who has said in the past in this House that he is the individual primarily responsible for compliance with the code, to answer.

June 23, 1987
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in the Hon. Member's attempt to mislead, he is suggesting that McLeod Young Weir, and Nesbitt Thomson and Deacon-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Order. Show some respect.


Mr. Speaker:: I have earlier today had to suggest to another Hon. Member that the words "attempt to mislead" are, at least in the mind of the Speaker, equivalent to "intentionally misleading". I know the Hon. Minister would not have wanted that impression to be left.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to leave the wrong impression. I certainly want to comply with parliamentary tradition. However, I must tell the Hon. Member that his suggestion that this is not an arms length transaction is certainly not in accordance with the facts.
The Minister has engaged two reputable national firms to handle his trust. If the Hon. Member finds something offensive in that regard, let him state his case and clearly show it.


John Carnell Crosbie: And put his seat on the line.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Letter carriers have now been on strike for one week. Picket line violence is on the rise as the Canada Post Corporation continues to use scabs to deliver the mail. The Canada Post Corporation has asked for a mediator. Will the Minister appoint a mediator today to end this strife?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have considered the request for mediation. I am indeed keeping the whole matter under close scrutiny. I wish to point out to the House that a conciliator and a commissionner have already reported that they had failed to reach an agreement in the present confrontation. As the parties involved have not shown sufficient flexibility, it would not be appropriate to appoint a mediator, since one would expect this to happen when a settlement is at hand.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Minister cuts an ironic figure, fiddling while violence and injuries are taking place on the picket line, because Canada Post is hiring scabs to break the union.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: I want the Minister to stand up and tell us if he does not consider it now appropriate, in view of the confrontation and the heightened violence on the picket line, that both sides might very well be ready for mediation? Will the Minister accept his responsibility as the Minister of Labour and appoint a mediator?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it is indeed because I am accepting my responsibility as the Minister of Labour that I have come to the conclusion that it was not appropriate at this stage to appoint a mediator.
As for violence, it has nothing to do with the process of collective bargaining, and I believe it is up to the parties involved to act in a responsible way, to get back to the table and to reach an agreement.


John R. Rodriguez: But not hiring scabs.


USE OF STRIKE-BREAKERS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister responsible for the postal strike.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Jacques Guilbault: The Government should have known that using strike-breakers for the first time in a postal strike would invite the kind of escalating violence that Canadians are getting sick and tired of seeing on their news every night. Now the Minister of Labour, the slow moving Minister of Labour, is telling us-


John Carnell Crosbie: Question.


Jacques Guilbault: -that he has rejected the one solution which everyone knows has to be taken. Why will the Government not appoint this mediator-even Canada Post has been asking for it-and do it now before it is too late?


An Hon. Member:: Hello? Anybody home?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Anybody home?


An Hon. Member:: That question is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No answer? What a bunch of goodies.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is not willing to accept his responsibilities, maybe the Prime Minister will think of someone else to do the job.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.
June 23, 1987


Mr. Guilbault (St-Jacques):: I want to turn to the Prime Minister and remind him that far from decreasing, violence is increasing daily. Canada Post just stated that the day is coming when it will have to lay off 40,000 people, which could stop the service completely.


LIBERAL PARTY'S THREE SUGGESTIONS TO END STRIKE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister might accept-and this is my question to him-three suggestions from the Liberal party to put an end to the strike. First, appoint a mediator; second, stop using strikebreakers in order to stem violence; and third, give Canada Post the flexibility needed to make reasonable offers.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House, I assume, deplores violence. As the Minister of Labour has indicated, we should all be encouraging parties to reach a negotiated settlement at the table.
I would remind the Hon. Member that the conciliation commissioner stated in his report that the Post Office has a social obligation to try to continue to deliver the mail. I have asked, and I have been instructed that it has sent out messages to all of its managers that they are to avoid confrontation if at all possible while fulfilling their social obligation of trying to deliver the mail. As the Hon. Member just pointed out, they may not be able to do that. They may have to lay off. I hope it does not come to that.


Jacques Guilbault: You hired the strikebreakers. They are doing it.


Harvie Andre: In the meantime, it does no good to the process, no good to finding a resolution and restoring good service, and improved service to Canadians, for the Hon. Member continually to try to raise false issues-


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


Harvie Andre: -false accusations, and bring the issues from the table to the floor of this House of Commons.


Jacques Guilbault: And you are doing nothing meanwhile.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Last December the Minister issued a draft Environmental Protection Act for
Oral Questions
discussion purposes. He indicated that this spring he would be introducing in the House tough new pollution control legislation. On Sunday last week spring turned into summer. Why has the Minister backed off? When are we going to throw the book at these guys?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of a broadly-based consultation process all winter and all spring, the Environmental Protection Act, which I tabled in the House of Commons in December for consultation purposes, will have been substantially revised. I intend to table the proposed revised Act in the House of Commons for first reading on Friday, June 26. At the same time I will be releasing a major enforcement and compliance policy of the Government of Canada towards which end the Government will also be approving significant new funding for Environment Canada. In this way, not only in the statute books but also in the real world, we will have a truly effective instrument to throw at the polluters and at pollution.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Keeping in mind Canada's long-standing policy of not contributing to the proliferation of nuclear fuel and technology for military purposes and the Prime Minister's own commitment restated in Quebec City on May 23 to strengthen, not weaken, the nonproliferation regime, will the Prime Minister assure the House that Canada will not use, import, or produce weapons-grade enriched uranium for military purposes, including the fueling of military submarines?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the Minister of National Defence has made clear in this House before, actions that we take and intend will continue to be consistent with the non-proliferation treaty.


CANADIAN POSITION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I deliberately used the words "non-proliferation regime", words which I know the Minister understands. Therefore is he saying that we will be the first non-nuclear weapons producing state to engage in highly enriched weapons-grade uranium to fuel our submarines?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, when members of the New Democratic Party find that the treaties in place do not serve their ideological purposes they don't any longer talk about treaties, they talk instead about regimes.

June 23, 1987
Oral Questions


Pauline Jewett: Well, it is a treaty, too. If you want a treaty, the treaty is right here.


Charles Joseph Clark: I know that the Hon. Member does not like the non-proliferation treaty as it is written. Our obligation is to adhere to the treaties to which Canada is party.


Pauline Jewett: But you're not!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are, and we intend to continue to adhere to the non-proliferation treaty which Canada has signed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: From you of all people that is shocking. You have just given up all your principles, that is what you have done.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, we have now heard the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the statement of the Minister of Public Works that his blind trust was actually held by McLeod Young Weir. Yet I have in my hand a document authorizing the transfer of all securities and cash positions from McLeod Young Weir to Nesbitt Thomson. That particular document is signed by R. Montgomery, trustee.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain who was the real trustee, McLeod Young Weir, or the friend and fund raiser of the Minister, Ross Montgomery?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's allegations are false.


John V. Nunziata: We have a document here.


INQUIRY CONCERNING TRUSTEE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have the document. Given that the Minister said in the House yesterday that he was prepared to be very open will he in fact table in the House any authorization for a trust account that he has specifically from the company McLeod Young Weir? Will he come forward with the documentation which he claims shows that the trust was held by McLeod Young Weir? Or is it in fact true that Mr. R. Montgomery, trustee, who signed this document authorizing the transfer, was in fact the non-arms length trustee of the Minister's so-called blind trust?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Minister made a clear statement yesterday. Today, I have tried to
elaborate further. If the Hon. Member opposite wants to throw dirt she will be digging her own grave. That is all I can say.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley- Hants will ask he last question.


THE CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I see that Question Period is almost over and the Prime Minister is starting to leave the House.
In view of the surprising interview that the Right Hon. Prime Minister gave yesterday about Meech Lake and the status of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate, and in the more surprising absence of a question being asked by an opposition Leader on the subject today, I would like to ask the Prime Minister this. What will the status of the committee be in view of the very definite statement of the Prime Minister that he really does not care what the committee does, that he will not entertain any amendments on the Meech Lake Accord? Further, what will that do to the provincial hearings presumably to be held in Ontario and/or Manitoba?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is of course quite wrong.


An Hon. Member:: He's one of yours!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, indeed, he is a member of the government Party. I am just saying that he is quite wrong.
My undertaking as a First Minister pursuant to Meech Lake is in the 1987 Constitutional Accord which states:
The Prime Minister of Canada will lay or cause to be laid before the Senate and House of Commons, and the first ministers of the provinces will lay or cause to be laid before their legislative assemblies, as soon as possible, a resolution, in the form appended hereto-
The resolution in the form appended thereto is the agreement agreed upon by all First Ministers.
In regard to the question yesterday which I was asked by a very distinguished member of the gallery, I said:

As far as I am concerned, I have no hesitation in suggesting that the Meech Lake Accord is an impressive document that tends to reaffirm Canadian unity. And I have no hesitation in recommending that document to the country and to Hon. Members in this House.
June 23, 1987

Now, our democratic, parliamentary usage provides for participation, something I approve entirely. And we will see what will come out of it, in terms of the Parliamentary Committee.
But as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker-

My obligation pursuant to the Meech Lake Accord, undertaken and signed by all First Ministers, was to bring forward without hesitation and without change the Meech Lake document in which I believe very strongly, as do the other First Ministers, and to present it before the House of Commons. That is exactly what I have undertaken to do. There is nothing in the interview at variance at all with that undertaking on behalf of the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 96(2), I have the honour to present, in- both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations. The report pertains to the operational plans of Canada Post and covers a range of issues such as postal disruptions, door-to-door mail delivery and third-class unaddressed mail.
I wish to note that we have examined the plans of Canada Post strictly from a consumer and user point of view. It is deemed that this was the most appropriate approach.
I would like to thank witnesses, Members of Parliament who participated in this report, and our hard working staff.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PRIVILEGE
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on an urgent and important question of privilege. The actions of a Member of this House have seriously impaired my ability to discharge my duties and responsibilities as a Member of Parliament. I am referring, of course, to the despicable and irresponsible actions by the Leader of the New Democratic Party in calling me a liar a few feet outside this Chamber yesterday afternoon.
Privilege-Miss Carney
The facts are these. Yesterday, the Leader of the New Democratic Party rose on a question of privilege to claim this Government had misled him and the House on the matter of the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact being included in the present free trade negotiations. You will remember that, in your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, you ruled that the Member had no question of privilege.
Not content with that ruling, Mr. Speaker, and showing contempt for this House, the Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) walked a few feet outside the Chamber and said to reporters, and I quote, "I think she's lying to us about the Auto Pact", as reported in today's Ottawa Citizen. The Toronto Sun reported that the NDP Leader said I was, and I quote, "lying".
Of course, he must be aware of the fact that in making these charges without the protection of Parliament he is exposing himself to the possibility of legal action. In fact, the only person who has ever called for changes in the Auto Pact in this House is the Hon. Member.
I have been asked repeatedly in this House, Mr. Speaker, whether the Auto Pact is on the table, and I replied to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray):
Canada does not intend to put the Auto Pact on the table. We believe, as I have told the House, that it is working well. If the Americans wish to make any proposals, which they have not yet done, we will look at them. If they increase employment, increase production, and increase investment in Canada, we will look at them.
As you will recall from the rest of Question Period yesterday, Mr. Speaker, members of the opposition Parties continued to question me about the Auto Pact and whether or not it was being negotiated. They based their questions on a third-hand report, a press report of a memorandum written by a congressional staffer in Washington purporting to interpret an oral briefing by the Deputy Chief Negotiator for the United States. That report, Mr. Speaker, has been called into question by no less an authority than the Chief Negotiator for the U.S., who has publicly characterized it as containing "a lot of inaccuracies". Others at the same Washington briefing hold far different interpretations of what was said.
Despite that, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has put this forward as the etched-in-stone American position. The Chief U.S. Negotiator has backed up my statement that the Auto Pact is not on the table. Despite all of this evidence, and my word that the Pact is not on the table, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has damaged my ability to discharge my duties by calling me a liar.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that there have been precedents when statements made outside the House have been determined not to constitute questions of privilege. However, I feel strongly in this case, and so suggest to you, that the behaviour of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, which would be unacceptable and certainly a question of privilege had it taken

June 23, 1987
Privilege-Miss Carney
place in the Chamber, is just as obnoxious, just as despicable, and just as damaging in the lobby of the House.
If you find, Mr. Speaker, that there is a prima facie case of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Minister's suggestion that there is a prima facie case of privilege, let me say right at the outset that she knows, of course, that there isn't the slightest case of privilege about something that occurs outside the House. She has-


Pat Carney: Except legal action.


John Edward Broadbent: Well, if the Minister wants to take legal action, I say to her right now, go ahead, lady, do it. If-


Charles Joseph Clark: " Go ahead, lady"! Sexism raises its head. The NDP and sexism.


John Horton McDermid: Well said, Ed.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member has called me "lady". While I certainly do not deny it, the rulings of this House indicate that when said of an Hon. Member it constitutes a sexist comment.


John Horton McDermid: The great Leader of the New Democratic Party, the socialist party! Gotcha, Ed. It gets the needle in a little bit. It hurts, doesn't it.


John Edward Broadbent: For a Progressive Conservative to talk about a sexist observation-


Charles Joseph Clark: Get your cigar.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I gave them the courtesy of listening to what they had to say-


John Horton McDermid: You should, too.


An Hon. Member:: Calm down.


John Horton McDermid: He is starting to believe the polls.


Mr. Speaker:: As Hon. Members know, and as the public would be interested in knowing, there is an application before the Chair by the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) to the effect that her privileges, her capacity to carry out her duties as a Member of Parliament, have been abridged by the fact that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), has allegedly said of her outside of this Chamber, but within the precincts of Parliament, that she was lying or was a liar. That is the issue. Tempers, of course, are understandably frayed, and in that situation there is a tendency to use a lot of other language-language which, I hope, I shall not have to rule on.
The specific issue before the Chair is, first of all, whether or not those words were used of the Minister and whether their
use just outside this Chamber constitutes a question of privilege.
I would ask the Hon. Member for Oshawa, who is a very experienced parliamentarian, to assist the Chair by addressing his comments to that specific point.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I take the matter raised by the Minister seriously. She has raised a couple of points that I think are only tangentially related, and I should like to pick up on those before I come to what I regard as the nub of the issue.
She has suggested, for example, that as Leader of my Party, as a man who represents an automotive community, I have talked about putting the safeguards of the Auto Pact up for negotiation. I want-


An Hon. Member:: You have.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister, having made her accusation, I note is leaving the House in a great huff.


An Hon. Member:: She huffs and she puffs.


John Edward Broadbent: I listened to her point. I would have thought she would listen to the reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members do realize that there is a tradition not to refer to the presence or absence of Hon. Members. Hon. Members have many responsibilities in carrying out their duties and serving their constituents. It may be that the Hon. Minister has to leave for some other engagement. It is not for me to comment one way or the other. If in fact the Hon. Minister is leaving the Chamber, that should not be the subject of a deprecatory comment in arguing the question of privilege.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the fact of my departure from the Chamber has been raised, I should like the record to show that I am leaving to chair a cabinet committee before which will be appearing people from all across the country to discuss the very serious issue of free trade.


André Ouellet: Then, why did you raise the question of privilege in the first place!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Oshawa. I assure the Hon. Member that I shall listen carefully to his intervention.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall simply continue. The Minister pointed out that I had in fact suggested that the conditions of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement be up for discussion. What she might have added, had she been interested in a comprehensive view of the truth, is that when these matters were raised by me I was talking about improving the safeguards from the Canadian point of view, not reducing them, which, to understate the matter considerably, is a little different from the impression the Hon. Minister tried to leave with the House.
June 23, 1987

Secondly, the Minister went on-and I say, in this context, not simply throughout yesterday's Question Period, but throughout many previous Question Periods, as indeed she has done outside of the House-to play what I call, without any hesitation, linguistic games. She has said that she was not interested in having the Auto Pact put on the negotiating table; that the Auto Pact was not on the negotiating table. Anyone who is familiar with the details of the Auto Pact-and I am not prepared to concede that in fact the Hon. Minister is, after listening to what she had to say on certain technical aspects-


Charles Joseph Clark: You cannot rise above the cheap, can you!


John Edward Broadbent: I would ask the Hon. Member opposite to be quiet. We listened to his colleague when she was speaking, and I would ask him to extend to me the courtesy of-


Charles Joseph Clark: Don't speak to me of courtesy.


John Edward Broadbent: -of listening to me-


Mr. Speaker:: I know that Hon. Members will want to quietly listen to the comments of the Hon. Member for Oshawa.


An Hon. Member:: Why?


Mr. Speaker:: The quieter Hon. Members are, the easier it will be for the Chair to appreciate the points being made.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am replying, and intend to reply, only to the precise points the Minister raised.
She talked about putting the Auto Pact on the discussion table. I talked about that, pointing out that the impression she left was completely contrary to the purpose that I had in mind when I raised the subject. I said that the safeguards should be improved, not reduced, not removed, as the present Government seems clearly to be moving in the direction of doing. Second, I pointed out that this matter was very important, not just to the thousands of people in the country who depend directly and indirectly on those jobs, but that happens to be the case of those who voted for me in my community. They have a central concern, and I think all Members of Parliament have an understandable concern about the well-being of their constituents.
I was not interested in the Minister, either inside the House or outside the House, saying that she did not have the Auto Pact on the negotiating table when in fact what she had on the table were the tariff policies which are the guts and essence of the Auto Pact, and the Minister knows that.
In my very serious view it was the Minister-and I am not going to say deliberately; I am not going to use an adverb at all-inside this House and outside this House who has been
Privilege-Miss Carney
misleading the people of Canada on this issue, not me. I believe that profoundly, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not what you said outside. Show a little courage.


John Edward Broadbent: I want to conclude with my point-


John Horton McDermid: Tell us what you said outside.


John Edward Broadbent: 1 want to conclude with the specific-


An Hon. Member:: Be honest.


John Horton McDermid: Have the courage to repeat what you said outside.


An Hon. Member:: You are gutless, Ed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is safe calling from your seats.


Mr. Speaker:: I know there are some Hon. Members who would wish this particular matter was over. It will be over sooner if they would keep their comments to themselves.


John Edward Broadbent: I want to go to the very specific concern of the Minister about my use of the word "liar". I was asked a question outside the House when I was pointing out what I regard as abominable contradictions between what the Minister said, that she was involved in negotiations on the one hand, and the reality of tariff policies which pertain to the Auto Pact on the other hand. I was asked at that time, "Do you think the Minister is lying", and I said: "Yes". I want to be very clear what I mean by that. To lie is to deliberately mislead. Outside the House when I was asked the question, I believed then and I believe now that that was the case, that the Government has a policy of misleading the people of Canada on what they are really up to.


Charles Joseph Clark: Oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I also respect the traditions of the House in terms of the use of language in this regard inside or just outside. I accept those traditions, and I will withdraw the use of the term unequivocally.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does the Leader of the New Democratic Party also withdraw the unparliamentary accusation he just made, that it is the policy of the Government to mislead the House?


Mr. Nystrom:: That is common knowledge, Joe. That is Brian, and you know Brian, Joe.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a question which at the moment needs not to be met in debate or answer or otherwise. It may well be pursued further at another time. The Hon. Member has absolutely withdrawn the statement-


Mr. Malone:: No, he has not.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Respect the Speaker.

June 23, 1987
Privilege-Mr. J. Clark


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has absolutely withdrawn the statement of which the Hon. Minister complained. So far as the Chair is concerned, that ends the matter.



Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


An Hon. Member:: Up yours, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: In case the Hansard reporter missed the comments of the Hon. Member for Oshawa, as he walked out of the House he said, "Up yours, Joe", thus keeping himself consistent with the kind of leadership that he and his Party have been giving on matters relating to decorum in the House.
My question of privilege is very brief. The Hon. Member for Oshawa, before he left the House, made an accusation that it is the policy of this Government to mislead the people of Canada. As a member-


Some Hon. Members:: That's right.


Mr. Fulton:: That is your policy, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: As a member of this Government-


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is the truth, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the NDP is now trying-


James Ross Fulton: People are allowed to tell the truth in here, Joe. You might try to muzzle us-


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has raised a question of privilege in respect of a comment made by another Hon. Member. Of course he is entitled to be heard, as were other Hon. Members during the last few minutes. The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to complete my very brief question-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Watch it, John. He will storm the chair next.


Charles Joseph Clark: -if the shouting will stop from the New Democratic Party.


John R. Rodriguez: No wonder he is not the Leader any more.


Charles Joseph Clark: I will wait for the socialists to stop shouting-


James Ross Fulton: Right, you are always very quiet, Joe! You yelled the whole time Ed was talking.


Charles Joseph Clark: My very brief-


James Ross Fulton: You are pathetic.


Charles Joseph Clark: My brief question of privilege is that that accusation is a breach of the language of the House and a breach of my privileges as a member of the Government.
I would like the Leader of the New Democratic Party to have the courage to come back into the House and to withdraw that statement in a forthright and direct way.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Conservative Party misleads the Canadian people all the time.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, for the third time, the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has referred to the absence of a Member, just a few moments after you reminded Members of the rule against that in the House.
I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that you did not apply the same rule to the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs that you did to the Leader of our Party.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be that I did not have time.
The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) very correctly points out that it is absolutely improper to refer to the absence of Members. The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs has made his point. Are there other Members on this question of privilege?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to be guilty of any impropriety in the House, and I want to withdraw those references.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will consider carefully the representations that have been made and will deal with them, I hope, appropriately.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings, be read the third time and passed.
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I will continue from where I left off the other night.
June 23, 1987

Another issue worthy of elaboration concerns the equal treatment of truckers on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border. In 1982, the United States imposed a moratorium on the issuing of licences to Canadian truckers. The power to reimpose the moratorium remains in the United States law and, in addition, a Bill now before Congress would reinforce and extend this power.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and this Government believe that if Canadian truckers are treated unfairly in the U.S.A., Canada should be able to reciprocate against American truckers in this country. Thanks to an amendment approved by the Standing Committee on Transport, Bill C-19 will provide the Governor in Council with this countervailing power.
Given the close economic relationship between the two countries, we do not anticipate that this power will ever need to be invoked, but we are enacting a regulatory regime that is meant to stand the test of time.
Thus, Bill C-19 represents good, responsive legislation. It has been improved through changes suggested by carrier and shipper consultations, by witnesses who appeared before the standing committee earlier this year, and by the provincial Governments.
When Bill C-19 is enacted, both shippers and carriers will benefit. There will be less economic regulation through the elimination of the public convenience and necessity entry test. The move to reverse onus by January 1, 1988 will mean that only those applications of major importance will go to a public hearing. This will result in less need for costly legal services and a considerable saving for truckers.
The remaining restrictions on rates and routes to be served will be gradually eliminated. This will give both shippers and carriers more flexibility to tailor price and service packages to meet their respective needs and circumstances. As a result of lower costs and innovation, Canadians will have a trucking system that achieves the best service at the best price. This is vital to our economic well being. Jobs-real, permanent jobs- will be created in every region of the country as our producers become more competitive.
The Government of Canada has demonstrated much flexibility in developing and modifying the economic reforms in Bill C-19, but its commitment to safety has never wavered. Safety is the first priority, and this Government has initiated major improvements in the regulation of safety in every mode of transportation. For the trucking industry, the federal and provincial Governments and industry representatives have cooperated to produce a uniform national safety code.
While this Bill was in the committee stage, the federal and provincial Governments reached an agreement on implementation and cost sharing. The code now has a concrete existence. All Governments are committed to implementing it and key
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
components will be in place in federal regulations when this Bill comes into force on January 1, 1988.
The Government of Canada will assist in funding implementation of the National Safety Code to a maximum of $23.5 million over the next five years. We will contribute 100 per cent of the development costs for new initiatives under the Code and 100 per cent of the costs of the information exchange system. We will also contribute up to $250,000 per year per province toward additional operating costs for the first five years.
For their part, the provinces have promised to spend an additional $6 million per year over the same time period to improve enforcement. Of course, these are merely the incremental costs. For example, the provinces will hire new enforcement officers and re-train existing ones as necessary. I understand that the number of commercial vehicle enforcement officers, approximately 1,400, will be increased by 10 per cent. This is in addition to the thousands of provincial and municipal traffic officers who routinely enforce safety on our highways.
The National Safety Code will form the basis of safety regulation in future. Several key elements of the code will be included in the federal safety regulations. The detailed standards for these regulations will be finalized by August, 1987. Hence, once this Bill is passed, federal regulations setting out safety requirements for both trucks and buses will be in place by January 1, 1988.
This should not be misconstrued to mean that we have no highway safety at this time. Canada has an excellent safety record, but we are determined to improve it. We already have a fine regime of safety regulation in each of the provinces and territories. Indeed, most of the elements of the new safety code are already in place in one or more provinces.
Provincial safety regulations are in place now to control driver qualifications and medical standards. All provinces have joined the North American Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance which sets standards for roadside inspections of trucks and buses. Increased roadside enforcement has already started in some provinces and other provinces will follow suit this summer.
There will be improvements made to safety standards in provincial regulations, some of which will be ready by January, 1988 and the remainder of which will be ready by mid-1989. The provinces have made a commitment to have enforcement resources with regard to these improvements in place by the end of 1989.
Over all, Mr. Speaker, the improvements which we will have under the new safety code and Bill C-19 include first, a safety requirement for obtaining an operation licence. For the first time in legislation, all applicants for an extra-provincial trucking licence will have to meet tough safety standards. Fegally, the National Safety Code will be adopted in regulation under the new Motor Vehicle Transport Act and under

June 23, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
the laws of each province. Second, there will be uniformity among the provinces. The code will provide the basis for ensuring that safety requirements for all extra-provincial traffic are the same in every province. Third, there will be information exchange among the provinces. Records on safety deficiencies by companies and individual drivers will be kept and available to all provinces. This means we will have a national enforcement scheme. Work has already commenced to create the required national computer network.
In addition, existing national safety programs for driver testing and control, vehicle safety enforcement and insurance and dangerous goods legislation will be augmented by the following new initiatives to be implemented on or before January 1, 1988: First, upgrading the single driver licensing system, which has been in place for 20 years, to enhance enforcement and control; second, standardization of existing licensing classification; third, modification of existing medical standards for drivers; fourth, modification of existing regulations for security of loads; fifth, a new training course for dangerous goods trainers; and sixth, integration of the Canada Vehicle Safety Alliance with its American counterpart to ensure uniformity throughout North America to the greatest possible degree.
This last initiative is very significant because it will provide a uniform roadside vehicle inspection program. All provinces have signed memberships and paid their dues to the North American organization. As Members from Quebec probably know, a pilot project for safety inspections is being undertaken in that province. This program is already having a positive impact on truck safety in that province. Other provinces are expected to follow suit with similar projects of their own.
Finally, uniform vehicle maintenance standards are being developed as part of the code and will be enforced across Canada by October 1988. Hours of service regulations will be fully enforced by January 1989 and the interprovincial exchange of records will be fully implemented by December, 1988.
Governments, both federal and provincial, the carriers and their employees are all participating in these initiatives to ensure that Canada achieves the highest practicable standards in accordance with the policy statement of the new National Transportation Act, Bill C-18, which we have been considering.
Regarding administration of the code, it makes good sense from all viewpoints to leave it with the provinces which have clear jurisdiction over highway safety. It has been noted, however, that nowhere in law is there a delegation of off-the-road safety practices of extra-provincial trucking and bus companies. We have, therefore, added a section to Bill C-19 which would enable provincial enforcement of safety in the federal jurisdiction.
The time has come for change. The costs of trucking service can be held down, in some cases lowered, by reducing the regulatory restrictions on entry, rates and routes. Both the
federal and provincial Governments are confident that the Canadian trucking industry has matured. It is fully capable of meeting the challenge of greater competition that will result from Bill C-19 and competition with all other modes. Without a doubt, a solid foundation is being laid for long-term healthy growth, both in the trucking industry and in the economies of all the regions of Canada.
There will be a significant improvement in highway safety through promulgation of uniform safety regulations, both federally and provincially and through enforcement by the provinces. We are enacting a regime that seeks to advance the interests of all Canadians by removing obstacles to the growth of our economy and our trade. This legislation will permit enterprise to flourish in the trucking industry, safeguarded but not oppressed by government regulation.
The experience of other countries indicates that the greatest benefit of reducing economic regulation is innovation. It is not possible to predict exactly how it will occur, but free from restrictions transportation companies will develop innovative new services and rate structures. Shippers can then take advantage of these innovations to become more competitive in their markets and jobs are thereby protected or created throughout the economy.
Of course, these benefits will not arise overnight. We are planning and laying the foundation for long-term economic growth. Similarly, there will be no drastic upheaval in trucking services, no destructive, super-heated competition. Why? Because the approach to reform has been thoughtful and balanced with a view to ensuring gradual adaptation.
We stand before a clear window opportunity. The need for the reforms in Bill C-19 is clear, as are the significant longterm benefits for all Canadians in every region of the country. Now is the time to act. Canada is maturing as a nation in transportation.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had some discussions with my colleagues in the other Parties and there has been a good deal of co-operation from them on this very minor matter that I wish to bring before the House. There is a feeling that the Bill would be more accurately described if the year were changed from 1986 to 1987.
I appreciate that this is an unusual procedure but it would be our desire to have the short title mentioned in Clause 1 of the Bill now before the House changed. I move that it reads as follows:
Motor Vehicle Transportation Act, 1987.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the House that we agree. In fact, there were efforts made in committee to suggest that the more appropriate year would be 1987, seeing as how that is the year in which we are passing the legislation. However, I would like it if the Government would consider changing it to 1988 so that we would get the
June 23, 1987

year's delay in implementation that we have been seeking as well.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary's motion, especially since at the report stage, our own suggestion for such a change was turned down by Government Members on the Standing Committee on Transport. We realize the Parliamentary Secretary has finally seen the light, and we support the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion proposed by the Hon. Deputy House Leader. Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Lewis) agreed to.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings.
This Bill, which has raised some perfectly legitimate and normal fears in the Canadian trucking industry and elsewhere, will replace the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. When the initial legislation dealing with this sector was adopted in 1964, the federal Government at the time had decided to delegate to the provinces its authority to regulate extra-provincial truck leasing services.
The main consequence of this legislation was that over the years, the provinces adopted a different regulatory framework with widely varying rules and administrative procedures for regulating market entry, abandonment of services, and the setting of rates in the extra-provincial trucking sector. Obviously, we as Liberal Members of the Opposition found cause to rejoice when in 1985, the Government announced it had reached an agreement with the provinces on the general structure of what was to be a new system for regulating extraprovincial trucking, a system that would be more uniform and less cumbersome.
Unfortunately, the proposed legislation arising from this agreement leaves much to be desired. That is why many operators, owners, representatives and experts in the trucking industry are asking some serious questions about the changes introduced by the Government through this Bill. They wonder with good reason why, when dealing with such a major piece of legislation which could change the very nature of the trucking industry in Quebec, the Conservative Government refused to pay any heed to the quite legitimate requests of those who are more familiar than anyone else with this industry. As in the case of Bill C-18, the Government listened only to the organizations controlled by the large and wealthy shippers.
We believe that the Government should have used a much more careful and responsible approach. In preparing a Bill
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
with such a major impact, the Government should have taken care to evaluate the consequences of this measure on such things as road safety, unfair pricing and competition from American supercarriers.
During the next few minutes, Mr. Speaker, I shall attempt to draw a picture of the consequences passage of Bill C-19 by this House will have. We no longer have any choice. The Government has pushed us and speeded up the process to make us agree at any costs, whatever the consequences, to Bill C-19, in spite of the deep opposition of all those involved in the trucking industry in Canada.
For those who did not have the privilege of attending the proceedings of the Committee on Transport, I would like to examine some of the most striking submissions we heard in the committee to underline how unreasonable and even dangerous this Government's initiative could prove to be. First, let us deal for a few minutes with the issue which, perhaps more than any other, gives Canadians cause for concern when we speak about deregulating the trucking industry, and that is road safety. This is the fundamental issue which worries everyone. Once again, we find ourselves faced with a Bill which is the result of the bad habit the Conservative Government has of wanting to imitate the United States in everything. I would even say in this case that the American model is viewed as the ideal of perfection by the Conservatives.

Indeed, in everything it does, the Tory Government seems to be reaching for the American dream. It wants to emulate the Americans in everything, at any cost, even if in some cases it means repeating tragic mistakes. One such mistake would be to go the way of the American Motor Carrier Act of 1980 which, like this Government's Bill C-19, had the effect of eliminating the public convenience and necessity entry criteria, leaving only the question of whether or not an applicant was fit, willing and able.
[ Translation]
Looking at what is going on in the United States under deregulation, we realize it led to an increase in road accidents, increased bankruptcies and concentration into the hands of a few large carriers that conquered new markets through price discrimination. The hard-nosed approach that seems to be favoured by economic advisors to the Minister of Transport takes on a quite different look when confronted to the stark reality experienced by truckers.

That unfortunate tendency in the Department and in the office of the Minister of Transport, of wanting to reduce what is essentially the human condition to mathematical equations, telling us of gain for shippers, must in fact be looked at in light of human suffering. It must be looked at in light of lives lost on the highways because of trucks which cannot economically be maintained any longer. It must be looked at in light of the health of drivers which is jeopardized by taking pills in order to be able to work longer hours. That is the harsh reality of

June 23, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
deregulation. That is the human reality and no number of economy models will make it go away.

But why such a legislation? Why do you find it so terrible, so bad, you might ask?
What the Bill does is open the door to increased competition in an already saturated market. Because what Bill C-19 does is drop the criteria for entry into the market, the so-called public convenience and necessity rule. That criteria, which has been in place since 1954, puts the onus of proof on the applicant. In order to have a chance to get a licence, the applicant must show that the proposed service is needed and the general public will benefit. Only carriers who supply a service that is required and needed get a licence. But under the guise of increasing competition, this Conservative Government decided to change everything, to replace the public convenience criteria by what is now called the "fit, willing and able" criteria. That new criteria is aimed at allowing any business, whether large or small, that proposes to operate an extraprovincial trucking service and that meets minimal standards-I am not referring to maximum standards, because now they are lowering that down to the most minimal of standards, the least common denominator in terms of safety and insurance-to get a licence almost automatically, as a matter of course.
The Government says that in order to meet provincial and industry concerns, the Bill provides for a five-year transitional period for moving from the current system to a so-called capacity system.
However, Mr. Speaker, a closer look at Bill C-19 proves this to be a scam.
During this interim five-year period when what is called a reverse onus test will be applied amounts to de facto deregulation. It is interesting to listen to what the Canadian Trucking Association had to say on this issue:
Based on all the legal advice available the CTA Board is convinced that the reverse onus language in Section 7 of Bill C-19 is useless to achieve the purpose supposedly intended of providing a transitional mechanism.
The reverse onus concept in C-19 amounts to subterfuge in terms of any transitional protection. That is because: The approach removes virtually all discretion from provincial boards.
Following the U.S. example, the change to a totally new test must lead to a deluge of early applications that will swamp the process before it can be properly tested.
The prospect must be that the new language will sooner or later result in court challenges thereby tying up the interpretation of the concept indefinitely in the courts.
It can be easily circumvented by carriers acquiring existing operating licences of which there will soon be a glut with minimal, if any, review mechanism applicable.

Because that new criterion reverses the burden of proof to licence holders, who will now have to prove that the entry of a new carrier on a route that is already served will endanger the service's profitability. The difference between that test and the previous one is quite clear: under the new system, anyone owning a truck will get a licence if he is fit, willing and able.
The repercussions of that increased competition on road safety is a matter of upmost concern to us and to the trucking industry. Because it is clear that safety considerations cannot be examined or perceived independently from a specific, economic context.
Let me quote on this the excellent brief submitted by the Ontario Trucking Association to the Committee on Transport, in March 1987.

Safety considerations cannot be separated from economic regulatory reform. We know this is not the intent of the Government of Canada. However, this point needs to be emphasized. There is a direct relationship between economic deregulation and highway safety. Faced with increased competitive pressures and declining profitability, some carriers will-in a deregulated environment-be forced to give less than adequate consideration to those factors which ensure public safety. Costs will be cut in those areas most related to safety-proper vehicle maintenance, inspection and replacement procedures, driver training and operational control. An October 1986 study of road accidents involving heavy trucks in eastern Quebec, points to implications arising from the impact of deregulation on independent truckers or owner-operators.
A 1986 U.S. study conducted by Transportation Research and Marketing in conjunction with the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance also reported some shocking results. The study's 100,000 interviews showed that average speeds of trucks increased sharply following deregulation from 60 m.p.h. in the 1977-79 period to about 65 m.p.h. in the 1983-86 period. The study also showed that the average age of equipment rose from 3.7 years in the initial period to 5.2 years in 1986.
In the struggle for traffic, some owner-operators will be forced to run excessive hours and over-exploit their equipment. All of these factors endanger the lives of motorists and truckers alike. Experience in Australia and California has demonstrated that the economic ills resulting from deregulation put some carriers' commitment to safety under extreme pressure.

Often, Mr. Speaker, both during the second stage debate on Bill C-19 and during the hearings of the Standing Committee on Transport, we, of the Liberal Party, have indicated just how concerned we are about the consequences deregulation will have on highway safety.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and the Conservative Members kept repeating that we were raising a nonproblem. They felt that there was no connection between highway transport deregulation and the deterioration of safety experienced in the United States.

That attitude shows either a sign of intellectual dishonesty or a disquieting lack of homework on this crucial issue, on the part of the Minister, his officials, and Conservative members of the committee.
June 23, 1987

Indeed, let us look at the California experiment with deregulation. The California Public Utilities Commission has been recently looking to reinstate some basic rate regulation, finding that to be in the public interest. The factors causing the C.P.U.C. to reintroduce rate regulation was a deterioration in safety. Of course, the one explanatory variable was deregulation. To quote from this brief:
Since 1980, when California deregulated the intra-state trucking industry, the following has occurred:
1.	Public Safety-By 1983, years of steady improvement in truck safety statistics has reversed. The truck accident rate per million miles has skyrocketed by 22 per cent between 1983 and 1985.
2.	Employee Safety-The workers' compensation rate for trucking company employees increased by 44 per cent between 1978 and 1985. It is currently 51 per cent more than comparable industries.
3.	Safety Expenses-Since deregulation, the California trucking industry is spending 10 per cent less on vehicle maintenance and repair even though truck fleets have aged.
4.	Safety Practices-Since deregulation, support of the trucking industry for the Certified Practising Safety Administrator program and the annual Safety Congress has dropped by 83 per cent and 49 per cent, respectively.
Of course, it is evident that the California situation differs somewhat from Canada. No two jurisdictions are totally alike, obviously. However, we have to look at the empirical evidence from California, and that is undisputable. Ignoring these facts is a sign of irresponsibility of the worst kind.
We in the Liberal Party who have opposed this legislation cannot understand why the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), who now has the experience of the U.S., is proceeding so rapidly and so urgently without taking the appropriate precautions.

The Government's failure to recognize facts which are not consistent with its wishes will have characterized its approach from the very beginning. It demonstrates that the deregulation which the Conservative Government is proposing is a purely ideological exercise.
It is quite unfortunate that for ideological considerations and to please the powerful lobby of major shippers, this Conservative Government is prepared to jeopardize the safety on our highways. I do not hesitate to say that it is prepared to risk the lives not only of our truckers, but also of each and every person who travels on Canadian roads.
As far as safety is concerned, the American experience is quite convincing, as I mentioned quite briefly in the document which I have just submitted and which is quite clear. But in case it is not, I should like, if I may, to quote another source.

Allow me to quote from a booklet prepared by The Coalition for Sound General Freight Trucking which is made up of motor carriers, shippers and other persons concerned about the future of the general freight trucking industry in the U.S:
In the case of the independent owner-operator, it means hauling a load for whatever price can be had. Sometimes, this is bare, out-of-pocket money for
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
operating expenses and perhaps some contribution towards the monthly equipment loan and something to send home to the family; sometimes it is nothing more than fuel money to get back to a more promising source of loads.
It also may mean speeding or making the cross-country trip with little or no rest because only by maximizing the number of hauls per month can the financial obligations be met. It also may mean choosing what to do with the limited cash inpocket: fuel for the trip, meals, money sent home, or brake relining or adjusting. Not surprisingly, maintenance is the first to go.
This type of experience is frightening. We cannot understand why the Minister wants to ignore it.
Let me now cite another study which was prepared by Professor Glaskowsky. In a chapter on safety and equipment aging it says the following:
Opponents of deregulation predict trouble in regard to safety deterioration due to the aging of equipment and financial pressures to defer maintenance. Trends since 1980 clearly confirm this prediction.
The American Trucking Association, Inc., in its March 19, 1986 statement before the House Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, summarized an increasingly serious trucking safety situation as follows:
1.	Truck accidents reports to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety increased 18 per cent in 1984. That is the largest increase since 1972.
2.	Trucks placed out of service by federal and state inspectors for serious defects increased from 23 per cent in 1984 to 41 per cent in a national truck inspection in September, 1985.
3.	The per centage of motor carriers with unsatisfactory safety ratings is highest among those that have recently received operating authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the number of these new carriers is steadily increasing.
4.	Unsatisfactory safety ratings are more prevalent among motor carriers with smaller profit margins.

I think that the impact which deregulation will have on highway safety is quite clear. And I do not think that we could honestly disregard everything that is done, said and written about the negative effects of deregulation in the United States.
Unfortunately, that is the path this Conservative Government has chosen. Because of this and because of the great many facts which the Conservative Government has overlooked, we are quite concerned about the welfare and safety of those men and women who drive the juggernauts of the highway; we want our highways to be as safe as possible, and we say that the Government's will to go ahead with deregulation before the implementation of a national highway safety code is altogether unthinkable, inconceivable and unacceptable. The Official Opposition has been essentially asking the Government, in view of the American experience, to realize that it cannot go ahead with deregulation in Canada as long as there is no national highway safety code in place, and as long as the Provincial and Federal Governments have not hired properly trained inspectors in sufficient number to ensure that our highways are safe; until then, it should not implement Bill C-19.

June 23, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
I should like to quote also from the excellent brief submitted by the Quebec Trucking Association which provided another testimony which the Government should have listened to.
Recognizing the value of a single rule for all, you assured us that you understood the problem and that the introduction of the regulatory reform would coincide with the coming into force of a national safety code imposing the same standards to all. We were also given the assurance that the means to enforce that code would be provided. We were assured that a control mechanism regarding enforcement of and compliance with all social and fiscal obligations imposed on the trucking industry would be implemented. We were finally assured that we would be able to compete with foreign trucking companies on an equal basis.
Where do we stand now? The Government wants to deregulate as of January 1st, 1988, but nothing indicates that we could have a uniform safety code throughout Canada before 1990-91. Each province looks at its role in this area in its own way and the only national leadership is the wish to agree on some uniform code at some indefinite time. You can imagine what the situation will be if anyone can start a trucking business without proficiency or fitness test, without rules or control mechanisms for things like vehicle safety to protect the general interest of the public
What we cannot understand in particular is the desire of the Government to move in a direction that the Americans are starting to abandon. When you look at what happened in the United States after deregulation you see an increase in traffic accidents, a rising rate of bankruptcies, and a greater concentration of the industry, where a few firms have been able to gain new markets through discriminatous, pricing and other means. The cost-benefit analysis takes an entirely new aspect when we compare the benefits of the shippers to the direct and indirect costs incurred in other areas such as accidents caused by vehicles in bad repair, the health of drivers who take drugs to work longer hours, etc. California was the first state to get into deregulation, it is also the first where steps have been taken to restore regulation.
Evidently, the Quebec Trucking Association is concerned by what the Tory Government is trying to do and in this paper it is trying to slow down this deregulation process. The Liberal Party believes that it is essential to proceed with caution before embarking in that dangerous course of deregulation of motor vehicle transport. This is the reason why we introduced an amendment in committee, both during consideration of the bill clause by clause and in the House at the report stage, amendment which tied the implementation of Bill C-19 to the setting up of a national security code. Unfortunately, in his eagerness to serve the interests of a few large Canadian shippers, the Government has overlooked the most elementary carefulness and common sense.

The Government is in fact telling Canadians that it does not care what is happening in the United States, it does not even seriously address their arguments and concerns but will deregulate immediately and worry about safety later. That kind of attitude is unacceptable. Also unacceptable is the staggered implementation schedule for the 17 components of the safety code to which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has agreed.
On some components compliance is not estimated before August, 1989. On the absolutely crucial question of hours of service enforcement, four provinces and two territories will not bring their regimes in until, at the earliest, May, 1989.
Of course, we are talking here of estimated compliance dates. The Minister has no guarantee as to the implementation of the safety code. Yet he proceeds with full deregulation. We
think the Minister should have waited for an effective and enforceable national safety code to be in place before proceeding. To please his powerful shipper friends, he has put the cart before the horse and, in so doing, is jeopardizing safety on our roads.
[ Translation]
Notwithstanding all the minister's fine words in committee and in this House to the effect that security is and will always be the main concern of his government, a mere cursory examination of the facts shows that there is reason for concern. On that basis alone, Mr. Speaker, we would have voted against this legislation. But there is more to it than that.
We will dwell a while upon another issue that concerns the trucking industry in Canada, that is the unfair price practices that result from a deregulated system. It is perfectly clear that in a free market where competition prevails, the shippers will tend to look for the lowest rate available. According to the most basic rules of deregulation, that would be one of the big assets.
Yet we must be careful. Testimony before the California Public Utilities Commission in February, 1987, provides significant insight into the dangers of unfettered price competition. Volume discounts and rate reduction had become the order of the day in California. Several carriers have not had any increase at all in their rate levels since 1980.
Moreover, a price floor has never been achieved in California. Some carriers have always been willing to cut their rates to get a shipment. Indeed, transportation is like a perishable product, a missed load could never be recaptured. That seems to be the prevalent philosophy in California. I suggest that that could be the prevalent philosophy in Canada if we proceed with Bill C-19.

In our opinion, accepting Bill C-19 as is would have catastrophic results for the Canadian motor vehicle transport industry. Most certainly, the American industry giants will be among the first to ask for licences that will have become easier to get. According to industry members in Canada, foreign takeovers of Canadian road carriers will multiply within five years. Since 1981, operating costs in Canada have increased by 28 per cent. That comes mainly from taxes on gas and outrageous costs of liability insurance.
In the same period, the loading rates have increased by only 5 per cent. The net result is that the profit margin has dropped 3 per cent to become one of the lowest since the Second World War. So the large American firms, whose sales often surpass those of the entire Canadian industry, will be in a position to easily penetrate Canadian markets, to lower their rates, to offer predatory prices, to absorb some losses for a year or two and then to take over any Canadian truck undertaking in
June 23, 1987

difficulty. This is why it is dangerous to introduce such an entrance requirement when profit margins are at 3 per cent; the Canadian trucking industry could be destroyed.
Here again, on the question of unfair practices, the American experience teaches us that caution should be the rule, given that, since the coming into force of the U.S. Motor Carrier Act of 1980, which marked the beginning of the deregulation process in the American trucking industry, the largest firms have been growing constantly. In fact, the four major firms, Roadway Express, Consolidated Freightways, Yellowfreight and United Parcel Services, have increased their share of the American market by 24 per cent. This figure demonstrates clearly that these companies intend to increase their market share and can do it rapidly.

These predatory practices by American carriers have been highlighted by the recent anti-trust suit filed by Lifschultz Fast Freight, a motor carrier based in New York, against the three largest American motor carriers in the United States, Consolidated Freightways Motor Freight, Yellow Freight System and Roadway Express.
Let me quote from the American Transport Association magazine Transportation Topics, from May 18:
Three of the nation's largest trucking companies asked a Federal Court to dismiss an anti-trust law suit filed against them by another carrier.
Lifschultz Fast Freight of New York filed the suit March 3, seeking over $1 billion in treble damages from Consolidated Freightways Motor Freight, Yellow Freight System, and Roadway Express. Lifschultz alleged that the fleets attempted to use predatory pricing to drive competitors out of markets and obtain control of those markets. The three carriers were accused of doubling their combined market share in the general freight LTL market over the last ten years at the expense of 104 other carriers Lifschultz said were driven out of business through a concerted campaign of predatory pricing.

Mr. Speaker, in a deregulated market where only the strong survive, the heavyweights can take advantage of their superior strength. By opening Canada's doors wide to these companies, the Government may see the same situation develop in this county, and I think the risk is even greater, because as we know, the American Anti-Trust Act has a lot more clout than the Canadian Competition Act. Despite recent amendments to our Competition Act, I have I am very much afraid that the big American companies will be able to come and do here what they are now doing in the United States and do it even more easily in Canada, because the Competition Act will not have the necessary clout to take on these companies and prevent them from abusing market forces and engaging in unfair competition with small Canadian truckers.
When the Conservative Government justifies its policy by saying that the legislation make the sector more competitive, I think we should remember that the bulk of that competition will come from the giant companies south of our borders, and that Canadian companies will be hard pressed to survive.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
Our main concern is that the legislation on combines investigations will not have enough clout to prevent this kind of unfair competition.

In the whole history of the provision which dates back to the 1950s, only six cases have come to the courts, only one conviction has been obtained and that was for goods given away in large quantities for a period of one year.
The reasons for such ineffectiveness are clear. Predatory pricing is a criminal versus civil offence under the Competition Act. All elements of the offence must be satisfied by the criminal standard of proof which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and all criminal law defences are available, including the Charter. The predatory pricing inquiry into Canadian newspapers was launched in 1978 and is a good example of what I am talking about.
Marshalling sufficient evidence to meet the criminal standard of proof is very difficult and is the reason most often cited by the Director of Combines for discontinuing inquiries. The courts have said that the evidence must be strong to convince them to intervene and convict.
Indeed, as Mr. Moore, in his book How Much Price Competition said: "The battle is likely to be over before the case is completed". Such a situation is dangerous for our trucking industries.
We recognized this and at the report stage the Liberal Party moved an amendment which, in some small measure, dealt with these very real concerns. Of course, government Members voted it down, and that is regrettable. It is regrettable because I feel that the Bill deals inadequately with this very serious situation that could arise.
In conclusion, I want to deal with the third area of practical concern which is tied to the use of predatory practices from American mega-firms.

The U.S. companies tend to be bigger and more monolithic, for the very simple reason that a dynamic infrastructure connecting urban centres to terminal networks, set up many years ago by the trucking companies, makes for a very efficient system and, more important, a system that works strongly in favour of the U.S. industry with respect to its ability to compete with the Canadian trucking industry.
In the United States, a network of as many as 860 highways connects metropolitan markets of over one million people. In meagre contrast, Canada has only three. Furthermore, the widening gap between our two taxation systems as a result of the major reforms introduced in the United States in 1986 is working to the advantage of the U.S. companies. They pay less income tax, proportionally, because of the way tax reform has affected vehicle depreciation in the United States. American companies pay a lot less tax on gas, and there is far less government intervention in the U.S. in labour-management

June 23, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
relations. All these factors tend to make Canadian companies less competitive.
During the debate at the report stage, we expressed the hope that the Minister of Finance, when tabling his White Paper on tax reform, would take this opportunity to consider the serious problems facing the Canadian trucking industry.

Unfortunately, that was not to be the case. Indeed, there was, for example, no recognition that the Canadian trucking industry was particularly susceptible to U.S. competition and, therefore, ought to have been looked at outside of the larger corporate picture.
[ Translation]
On the same subject, I would like to quote from a document sent by Mr. Ken MacLaren of the Canadian Trucking Association to all members of the Standing Committee on Transport:

If anything, the capital costs allowance comparison information on trucking understates that true advantage of U.S. truckers. Under recent U.S. corporate tax reform a U.S. trucker can now write off heavy duty tractors (Which are by far the most expensive item used in international highway transport) in only three years, not five years as shown in the example.
The attached information was released by Mr. Tom Younan of Price Waterhouse at the CTA conference on tax reform at which Mr. Younan shared the platform with Parliamentary Finance Committee Chairman Don Blenkarn. During the same conference, Lana Batts, Vice President, Policy of American Trucking Associations, in addressing the same audience, referred to the fact that by far the most important gain made by U.S. truckers since deregulation has been under tax reform.
The U.S. trucking industry's relative tax position has been dramatically improved. At one point the U.S. trucking industry was the most heavily taxed industry in America.
From the standpoint of the Canadian trucker, a ten to twenty per cent differential in after-tax return coupled with significantly higher capital cost allowance provisions in the U.S. could be enough to persuade at least some Canadian truckers that the time has come to relocate their international operations. Some are doing so already. Certainly that would be the case if Mr. Wilson follows through on previous indications that he intends to reduce CCA rates.
The Canadian Trucking Association had also asked that compensation for loss of value of operating authority be based on the fuel tax formula base developed for those truckers who could not claim under the existing tax write-offs for good will. There, too, the White Paper was silent.

Mr. Speaker, if the Government had any sense at all, it would rethink its strategy. It is letting an industry that employs 50,000 Canadians... Its 50,000 workers earn an honest living, and their lives are about to be disrupted by the deregulation of the transport industry in Canada. Their jobs are being threatened by the Canadian Government's desire to act quickly. The carelessness of the Canadian Government
could mean a slow but certain death for the Canadian trucking industry.
I therefore believe that this Government is acting quite irresponsibly in trying to further the interests of the big Canadian shippers who have asked for these changes and in jeopardizing the existence, the safety and the very life of many truckers.
The Government might destroy by one stroke of the pen what several generations have given us by building a strong and competitive trucking industry.
Of course, the coalition of shippers wants deregulation. However, just as obviously, Canadian truckers are opposed to it.
In closing, I would like to point out that the Government and the Minister have no guarantee from the provinces that a road safety code will be implemented next year or the following year, or even early in the next decade.
We are therefore going to have to approve in 1987 a piece of legislation which has been imposed to Parliament by the Conservative majority and which will completely deregulate the trucking industry in Canada in the hope that, within the next three or four years, there will not be too many accidents or too many abuses in the system and that, in the early nineties, an adequate road safety code will have been implemented.
In my opinion, the Minister of Transport is acting irresponsibly. He has abandoned all sense of his public responsibilities in forcing us to give passage to this Bill in spite of all the warnings he has had and in spite of the disastrous experience of the United States trucking with deregulation.
The Minister of Transport is acting irresponsibly, and as I pointed out in the case of Bill C-18, within a few years, we in the Opposition will have to repair the damage done and amend this piece of legislation in the interests of truckers, workers in the industry and the Canadian public.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, it has been for a number of years that I have had the opportunity to involve myself in the whole question of deregulation of the trucking industry. As a Member of the Ontario Legislature from 1975 to 1977, I participated in select committee study within the Province of Ontario on possible deregulation, and since being elected to the House of Commons in 1984, as a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, first dealing with Freedom to Move and then with Bill C-18 and Bill C-19, the twin deregulation Bills of this Government, I find that much of my political life has been caught up in the study of trucking and the rules which apply to it.
I want to say at the outset that I regret seeing once again a Conservative Government-I regret seeing a Conservative Government at any time, actually-moving federally in the same way as it did in Ontario to change the rules of the road.
June 23, 1987

Before I get into the specifics of the Bill, I would like to quote part of a speech given by the President of the Public Utilities Commission in Idaho earlier this year. An article reporting on the speech is entitled "Idaho PUC President Swisher Dubs Deregulation 'Free-market Feeding Frenzy"'. I think the manner in which this gentleman approaches the whole concept of deregulation is interesting. Those who are watching and those who will be reading Hansard for this day's debate will find the speech most interesting. Mr. Swisher said in his speech:
"Utter deregulation is a leap of faith if it can actually be carried off," Idaho Public Utilities Commission President Perry Swisher told a national conference of utility executives and regulators recently.
Swisher was on a panel addressing the topic of total deregulation of the telecommunications industry. The panel was part of the Third Annual Current Issues Conference organized by the Center for Public Utilities at New Mexico State University's College of Business Administration and Economics.
"For about eight years I've been hearing testimony from gurus who proclaim, and interviewing biz ad and econ graduates who believe, they have found God in the market," Swisher said. "The marketplace, if unfettered, will cure warts."
Swisher characterized the drive toward deregulation of the nation's utilities as a proto-religious movement.
"An incredible foundation of this new creed-when you consider the prosaic halls where it is taught-is its Book of Genesis," he said. "In the beginning, there was a free market in which all transactions occurred, in innocence. Enter government, the snake, with regulation, the apple. I stand before you as an heir and beneficiary of a profound seduction. Do away with my function-I myself need only be reduced to a consultant, not a beheaded corpse-and paradise will be regained.
"No other society has this mythology. It is uniquely American-
And I might say North American-
-like jazz. Unlike jazz, but very like the hula hoop and aluminum siding and dental floss, it will last as long as it entertains, preoccupies, and fills a service as yet unprovided by a higher technology. That is, it is oboriginal.
"What we learn is that the entirety of regulation can't be dismantled, if only because some freedoms-as distinct from liberty-rely on regulation," Swisher said. "Freedom of the road would be even more dangerous than it is if your choice of a driving lane on a two-way street was entirely up to you and whether you prefer to stop at green or at red lights, the same. Ideological fervor for flat-out deregulation is of a part with anarchy. It is romantic in the extreme.
"Where deregulation has occurred, it has taken two primary forms," Swisher said. "One is the preemption of local or state authority by federal fiat. The other consists of displacing public, impliedly consensual regulation with private, strategic regulation. Nearly all deregulation has commingled these two strains."
Swisher cited transportation "deregulation" for examples. Idaho's two pages of in-state rail tariffs have been replaced by 150 pages of Interstate Commerce Commission rules. Even so, railroad management now has more freedom. One result has been the abandonment of hundreds of miles of Idaho branch lines.
"-ore concentrates, for example, now go by truck 110 miles to the railhead, paralleling for most of that way a rusting bed of deserted track," he said.
"Nationwide, that energy-efficient system for moving freight is on the decline. Non-metropolitan access is declining. In yet another generation, American rail deregulation could eventuate in the nationalization of the railbeds-a gift from the free-market ideologues to the 21st century, and all in the name of free enterprise.
"Trunk airlines served four, sometimes five airports in our state of scarcely a million people, before deregulation. Now they serve one-Boise. Dozens of
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
Idaho communities lost scheduled common-carrier truck service with truck deregulation. Greyhound crosses Idaho only for the reason a chicken crosses the road-to get to the other side-
"How long the free-market feeding frenzy will last, of course I don't know. Not long, I hope, because it is oblivious to real-world consequences."
In a nutshell, this gentleman has given us the concept and how it is perceived by some people. I would now like to turn to the Bill.
As we worked through Bill C-19 in committee we tried to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of government Members on the committee. More than that, we tried to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of officials from the Ministry, from the Minister's office and from the regulatory agency. They are the ones who shape the legislation for the government of the day. We tried to sow doubt in their minds in order to bring about some changes to try to make what we consider a bad Bill a slightly better Bill.
As you yourself know, Mr. Speaker, given your role in the committee, there have been some changes. For the most part we welcome those changes. We wish that the amendments that we had put forward had been accepted in their entirety both in committee and in the House. But, unfortunately, the might of the Government was against us. One could suggest that the might of the bureaucrats was also against us.
It is interesting to note that during the run-up to third reading of Bill C-19 the argument was that this was a shippers' Bill, that it was out to redress some imbalance that existed in the system so that the shipper, the individual who produces a commodity and wants to get it from point x to point y, would get a break because of this Bill. The shippers were strong in their lobby. Their lobbied members of the Opposition, members of the Government, the Minister and officials. They used public platforms wherever they could find them to put forward their case.
On the other side was the trucking industry. Obviously, for vested reasons, and I do not say that in a negative way, it was concerned about the impact of this Bill on its ability to survive and to operate.
So we had two opposing camps. I know that the Shipping Council of Canada was quite upset with what it perceived to be backroom manoeuvering. While we were out on the road as a committee, the Transport Committee having been given the task of reviewing the Bill clause by clause, deals were being made in the Minister's office between truckers and the provinces, the truckers and the federal Government, or between the provinces and the federal Government.
When the shippers appeared before us again in Montreal, I said: "Welcome to the real world of politics". I said that because, unfortunately, that is how things go, deals are made. The shippers now find themselves very unhappy with the Bill. As opposed to their original suggestion to pass the Bill quickly they now feel that damage has been done to the Bill by changing the three years reverse onus provision to five years. It no longer meets their needs. They are now suggesting that it

June 23, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
should not go forward. They are appealing to us for a last minute change that would reverse the decision that was made in the backroom between the trucking associations and the Government.
Ironically, while we welcome this new-found opposition, we have said all along that reverse onus is just a form of deregulation and that for all intents and purposes, whether it is three years or five years, deregulation will happen overnight. It will happen as soon as this Bill is proclaimed, as soon as we go to the fit, willing and able test instead of the public convenience and necessity test.
I cite for Hon. Members the experience on the air side where we have had a modified form of deregulation since the spring of 1984. It was brought in by the Minister of Transport of the day through a policy statement. It put in place the reverse onus stipulation so that there is no real strong reason for carriers to object to a new entrant.
We had a situation back a year or so ago in which Air Ontario was coming in to run parallel to Air Canada on a run from Thunder Bay to Sault Ste. Marie or Sudbury, I am not sure which. I went to the local manager and asked: "Are you guys opposing this?" He said: "No, because opposition these days to that kind of thing just does not work, the regulatory agency is not listening to us any more".
If Bill C-19 passes in its current form-and we will do what we can to prevent it from passing-the moment it is proclaimed, which will probably be January of 1988, there will be deregulation in the trucking sector.
Let me go over some of the concerns that we on this side of the House have. We are concerned about safety, about employment, about service to the small communities and the small shippers. We are worried about the decisions that a lot of these new carriers are going to have to make.
If a small one-man operation or family-owned business is faced with the choice of making the bank payment on the rig or buying a needed set of tires, the bank manager will get his money. The small operator, faced with payments that are due and a family to feed, will take the chance on his tires lasting one more week, or his brakes lasting one more week. And because he has on his mind the next payment on his rig and the need to do something about his tires or his brakes, he will push himself as well. He will take an extra hour or two on the road; he will hustle for that extra load he can get by driving 300 miles out of his way.
Faced with a broker who tells him that he has a load if he can deliver it that night, he will take that load. He will stretch himself and his equipment in order to keep food on the table, in order to keep the rig on the road, and in order to keep the bank manager from his door.
That is the kind of scenario we are worried about. We know that the "Sears" of the world, the "Canadian Tires" of the
world are not going to be cutting corners in that way. Such corporations have the ability to cross-subsidize within their operations. On the air side, we do not worry about Air Canada or Canadian Airlines International. It is the little guy that we are worried about. We are worried about the small operation, the one-man or family-owned company which does not have a stable economic operation such that it does not have to cut corners. Once corners are cut, safety is jeopardized.
In the United States, we have seen a massive disruption in jobs. We have seen a loss of jobs and job displacement. We have seen a real attack on unionization and a real attack on union wages.
We are concerned about the small communities. In a regulated environment, if a trucker applies to serve two large centres, the provincial regulatory boards are in a position to grant such a licence on the condition that a certain level of service be provided the smaller communities in between. For example, the communities along the north shore of Lake Superior cannot, in and of themselves, justify large volume transporters in or out; they are, however, accessible if a trucking firm, wishing a licence to serve the major centres on either end of the north shore, is instructed to provide service.
We are concerned that once Bill C-19 is passed, it will not be possible to exert the kind of regulatory pressure necessary to force transport companies to provide service to such communities. Everything will be reduced to economies of scale. It is the bottom line that will dictate the level of service.
During committee consideration of the Bill, the trucking companies and shippers indicated that it is the small communities which will be the losers; that it will be the small communities which will face reductions in service, or possibly elimination of service; that it will be the small communities that will face increased tariffs.
In the regulated environment, the carrier was assured a reasonable return in respect of services provided to the smaller communities. Under a free market system, with no control over prices or service, the fly-by-nighter could come in and undercut the existing carrier, driving that carrier out of the market, out of the community, leaving the community in the unregulated hands of that new carrier, a carrier which is quite prepared to squeeze that community for every penny it can because it knows there is no competition.
That is the ultimate irony of this Bill, as it is the ultimate irony of this Government. It professes a belief in competition. Yet, this legislation will eventually-and I emphasize "eventually"-mean less competition.
We have seen that take place in the United States, as we have seen it in other modes in Canada. On the air side, we are back to two major carriers. The little guys have either been gobbled up or have themselves gobbled up the big guys. Where is the competition?
June 23, 1987

We in Thunder Bay do not even get advantage of seat sales. Because there is no competition other than the two major carriers, we lose out.
I should like to go back to the safety aspect for a moment, Mr. Speaker, because it is that aspect that is really of concern to us. Recognizing the inevitability of the passage of this Bill, what we endeavoured to do in committee was to ensure that the necessary safety tools were in place and operational for at least one year before we moved from the "public convenience and necessity" test to the "fit, willing and able" test.
Fit, willing and able means that if one has the money to buy the truck and pay for the insurance, one gets the licence. One's banker becomes one's regulator. If the banker feels that he is a safe risk financially, he will get money. There is no guarantee of long-term stability. It is just that he has enough money to buy the rig, to pay for the licence, to put in some gas, and perhaps to hire an employee or two. That is all the banker looks at. As long as the owner keeps paying the loan payments on his truck and whatever else he has, the banker does not really care what happens.
We tried to convince the Government that there should be a delay, that at least a year should pass. We know the situation today under a regulated environment. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) sat through the committee hearings with us. With his personal political history in Alberta, he knows that things are not that great out there today. We have a lot of unsafe trucks on the road. We already have a lot of corner cutting. It is our feeling that we must bring that up to an acceptable level before we change the rules, so to speak.
We heard evidence from the Province of British Columbia which had conducted a number of safety checks, both local and province-wide. They basically shut down sections of the highway and either pulled everyone over or every fourth or fifth operator. I would like to give an indication of the kinds of things that were found. I refer to an April 5, 1987 article which appeared in the Vancouver Province entitled "Safety check is shocking". In part it reads:
Only one truck passed a random roadside safety inspection specially staged for The Sunday Province.
And three of the eight trucks given a 33-point check were pulled from the road by the Ministry of Highways area inspector Sam Nair.
"It's always the same things-brakes, steering and tires," says Nair.
"We require that 50 per cent of the brakes be working effectively-some of these trucks are not even meeting that."
Nair confirmed that as many as 80 per cent of trucks stopped have either failing brakes or ones that are not adjusted properly.
We have had a situation in northwestern Ontario where because of the nature of our region we do a lot of logging. We have a lot of off-highway and on-highway haulage of both tree length and cord length wood. I discovered through communications with one of my constituents that under federal law there is no requirement to have brakes on an extra axle.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
These trucks have an axle which under full load drops down so that they have an extra set of tires to carry the load. The trailers are built with brakes on that axle unit, but the regulation does not require the brakes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has completed the 20 minutes allotted to him. However, it has been the custom at this state of third reading of the Bill to allow a Member more time. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to continue for a few minutes?


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that would find favour on this side of the House, keeping in mind the caveats of earlier interventions that it not be unlimited use of time.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I honestly did not realize that I had used up that much time. I will be very brief. I would like to conclude this one point and make a general comment about the Bill.
When people have a choice, when it is a question of economics, they will make the decision based upon economics, not upon what is safe. When the brakes on these units to which I was referring wear out, the companies do not replace them. They cut the lines to the brakes. It is totally legal, but it points out once again that when economics are involved, unfortunately people will choose the economic rationale as opposed to the extra margin of safety which would be there if the brakes were still working.
I thank my colleagues for giving me the extra time to complete my comments. I could probably continue for 40 minutes or 60 minutes dealing with the information and knowledge I have about trucking deregulation.
I want to say very clearly that the New Democratic Party will be voting against Bill C-19. We think it is the wrong thing to do at this time, particularly as we are ever more under the threat of economic domination by our neighbour to the south.
Quite frankly, the Bill is just one more nail in the Canadian coffin. We like to think we are Canadians. We like to think we are free. However, if we deregulate, we will be less free because of it.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, again I thank you for giving me the floor on this Bill dealing with deregulation, specifically in this case the deregulation of motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings.
Without referring to all the points already raised by my colleagues who have spoken to this Bill, I will lay emphasis on the question of safety because it happens to be my greatest concern, Mr. Speaker: the Minister is going ahead with motor vehicle transport deregulation without first implementing a national safety code. The provinces and the federal Government may very well have signed an agreement a few months

June 23, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
ago, but I firmly believe that the national safety code will not be ready by January 1, 1988 when deregulation takes effect.
As you would know, the Committee on Transport held public hearings throughout Canada, and a number of interest groups took this opportunity to urge us not to proceed with highway transport deregulation until such time as a national safety code has been put in place. These people also sought the assurance that the national safety code would be standard from coast to coast, not a checkerboard code but a code which would be similarly applied throughout the country. If I may, as an example I will quote the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association which represents the interests of the 300-member trucking industry in the four Atlantic provinces. Here is what they had to say, and I quote:

While the original concerns and/or opportunities presented in the initial brief remain valid today for the most part, the APTA would like to point out that members are still uncertain as to the impact of the various proposed changes. Varying interpretations are being given by federal and provincial officials in such key areas as the timing and enforcement of the new National Safety Code as well as the uniformity of the regulations themselves.
Truckers in the Atlantic provinces are faced with a minimum of five different interpretations of other areas such as the meaning and intent of the "reverse onus ' test in enabling a gradual reform phase and commitments to review the impact of the same on the structure of the trucking industry.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Members of the House would be interested to know that the APTA's mandate is to promote the well-being of the trucking industry in the Atlantic region. Their views are extremely important, and I should think the Minister would indeed be well advised to take them into account. APTA spokesmen also cautioned the committee Members that the impact of deregulation might be quite different in the Atlantic region as compared with the rest of the country. Again I quote:
"The APTA would also like to point out that regulatory reform in the trucking industry may have a different impact on carriers in the Atlantic provinces compared to other parts of Canada. It is our understanding that many provinces across Canada may continue to regulate intra-provincial freight movements as they have in the past, while adopting freer regulations for interprovincial freight movements. Given the smaller size of the intra-provincial freight markets in the Atlantic region, concern has been expressed as to whether or not present provincial and regional carriers will be able to survive in such an environment".
The above comments apply particularly to the three Maritime provinces which are the three smallest provinces in Canada. Should the scenario be that the National Safety Code regulations and their enforcement not be uniform, and the "reverse onus" tests be interpreted differently in the three Maritime provinces, then considerable havoc could result in trucking operations.

It was also noted that APTA officials did insist on the fact that rail rates had to compensate. They felt strongly that Bill C-18 did not provide adequate guarantees, but that Bill has now passed the third reading stage.
Mr. Speaker, I must point out that the concerns of APTA have not been allayed.
With respect to the national safety code, I should like to read a letter written by Trucking Association President Raymond R. Cope and recently published in newspapers. This rather enlightening article is entitled "Deregulation Safety Threat to Truckers, and I quote:

Deregulation safety threat to truckers.
Transport Minister John C. Crosbie's letter (June 10) suggesting that the implementation timetable for the new National Safety Code is consistent with safe trucking in Canada is totally misleading. The facts are these:
With the passage of Bill C-19, the extra-provincial trucking industry within Canada will be effectively deregulated as of January 1, 1988. Economic regulation of the trucking industry in Canada has in the past provided barriers that have prevented many unsafe trucking operators from acquiring operating authority. Thus, economic regulation has had a safety regulation by-product.
With the elimination of economic regulation, the only barriers to irresponsible trucking operations will be those laws and regulations which are brought into being across Canada to implement the new National Safety Code.
The minister of transport has indicated that the National Safety Code is to be phased in between 1988 and 1990 and that the main elements of the code will likely be in place by January, 1989. This will mean that for the period January 1, 1988 to January 1, 1989, there will be inadequate safeguards to irresponsible and unsafe trucking operations.
As a result, the accident rate in Canada will be higher than it otherwise would be with correspondingly higher numbers of injuries and fatalities.
The deregulation experience in Australia and in the United States has clearly established the need to have a proper safety net in place before the onset of deregulation.
It is essential that the Government of Canada take immediate steps to synchronize the timing of the effective implementation of the National Safety Code and the phase-out of economic deregulation.

And it is signed by Raymond R. Cope, President, Ontario Trucking Association.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian trucking industry is far from being satisfied with Bill C-19. And what about the Canadian people who are quite concerned about the increase in trucking traffic on our highways. Already, we are well aware that the deregulation experience in the United States trucking industry has resulted in a considerable increase in the number of highway accidents.
We, on the Standing Committee on Transport, have been warned by several experts that a similar situation could develop in Canada if a national safety code is not put in place at the same time as deregulation. It is unfortunate for all Canadians, but the Government just will not listen, preferring to risk the lives of Canadians, which is altogether unacceptable.
We, of the Liberal Party, would prefer not to see this bill implemented before the national safety code is in place. We should listen to the officials of the trucking industry. We feel it would be wise to take into account the American experience and to set in place first a national safety code.
To conclude my remarks on highway security, Mr. Speaker,
I should like to read a letter with a June date which was sent
June 23, 1987

to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) by Mr. A.K. MacLaren, Vice-President of Governmental Affairs, Canadian Trucking Association. I will quote just a few paragraphs:

An objective overview of the attached material can lead to only one conclusion; namely, that there has been a marked deterioration in highway safety for particular segments of the U.S. trucking industry in recent years and the position continues to deteriorate despite serious attempts to introduce more effective highway safety enforcement.
We have a huge job to be done in Canada on safety and time is of the essence, as we tried to tell the committee. Due to the erosion of the regulatory process in recent years, the Canadian trucking industry has come under much the same pressure as its U.S. counterpart and the position is anything but satisfactory as things stand.
It can only get worse. In that regard, you may be aware that the Quebec Department of Transport recently introduced a comprehensive on-highway enforcement crackdown on highways leading into Montreal and Quebec City. The initial results from that exercise show that well over 50 per cent of vehicles inspected were in violation of either safety or licensing requirements. More and more Canadian carriers operating in the U.S. are now being picked up for serious safety violations there.
CTA and its provincial affiliates are coming under pressure from individual carriers who are not at all happy with the position we have taken on safety. The fact is that there are established fleets operating on a regular basis that push their drivers beyond 20 hours in a shift. If one carrier does it, everyone has to do it to remain competitive. It is just as simple as that.
[ Translation]
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. And the other paragraphs deal with the need for a national safety code.
You will certainly realize that the deregulation of the transport industry will increase the number of trucks on our highways, which should result in time in a deterioration of our highways. In Atlantic Canada, and especially in my own province of New Brunswick, our highways are already in a very poor condition. As you know, in New Brunswick, our highways are used not only to transport goods to New Brunswick markets, but also to carry goods from the three other provinces towards Central Canada and the United States. We can therefore conclude that this significant increase in trucking traffic will result in a serious deterioration of our highway network.
So there will be a problem, Mr. Speaker. Who is going to pay to repair our highways? Who is going to pay to improve them? In other words, who will foot the bill? Will it be the Federal or Provincial Government? This bill provides no answer.
It will be necessary to increase significantly the amounts spent on highway repairs and development. Of course, it is a provincial responsibility. But we know, and you know, and all Hon. Members here know that a province such as New
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
Brunswick will not be able to implement major programs, for lack of financial resources, because our highways were designed to carry the traffic of 20 years ago. Things have changed and these highways are already used to full capacity. It will be necessary to review the highway network. Where will we get the money?
Will the federal Government be involved? If not, our road system could deteriorate rapidly.
Indeed, I would like to quote the New Brunswick Opposition Leader, Mr. McKenna, our next Premier, it is now a matter of months, and I quote:
In its present state, the New Brunswick section of the Trans-Canada Highway simply cannot handle the demands placed on it. It could never meet future demands, as evidenced by the fact that the number of accidents involving trucks on it is far above the provincial or national average.
Clearly, Mr. Chairman, any new transportation policy must recognize the importance of this highway as the major surface connection between central and Atlantic Canada. This highway needs prompt attention and it must be upgraded to a four-lane divided highway.
I would urge this committee to recommend to the federal Government that it immediately negotiate with this province for the necessary upgrading-for the safety of passengers as well as for the more safe and efficient movement of goods. Deregulation will be much more palatable if we have the tools to compete.

So much for the Opposition Leader's comments, and I could go on to quote New Brunswick's Premier, who holds similar views. It is therefore imperative that we have a second look at the road system and ensure it is improved for the greater safety not only of truckers but of all Canadians.
Such, Mr. Speaker, is the extent of my comments, and I firmly believe that on Bill C-19 the Government is proceeding too hastily, because the timeframe set down by the Government for putting in place the National Safety Code will not allow for that Code to be implemented before deregulation is here. This is why it would be wise in my view to oppose Bill C-19, as I will be doing.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has referred to the condition of the roads as that relates to the deregulation of the trucking industry. I was thinking of something while he was speaking, and I am sure others were as well. New Brunswick is a vital link to Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and of course on to Quebec and Ontario going the other way. I wonder if the hon. gentleman could pass comment on the fact that New Brunswick is the only province in Canada that does not have a road that is a main link going straight through the province in a straight line.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In a straight line?


George Baker: The roads going through New Brunswick are-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Curved. You said straight line.

June 23, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986


George Baker: The hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about. He has never been on the roads in New Brunswick so he does not know what we are talking about, but the truckers do. The truckers of Canada know what we are talking about.
The roads throughout New Brunswick are simply two-lane highways, and I recall several truckers complaining about this. The roads weave and wind down the west side of New Brunswick and they weave and wind up around the northern part of New Brunswick. There are straight roads in Nova Scotia from Halifax right up to the border of New Brunswick and from Cape Breton Island up to the border as far as Truro. Then in New Brunswick there are these two-lane highways, winding and weaving. Ordinary drivers can find shortcuts on maps but the truckers cannot do this because they are not allowed to. You can take out your map and see where you can cut off 20 or 30 kilometres in driving through New Brunswick. There are signs that say that no truckers are allowed on those roads. I suppose it promotes tourism, but could the hon. gentleman explain why you do not just go straight all the way through the wilderness? In Quebec, for example, you see nothing but highway. New Brunswick only has these two-lane highways. Was there a conscious decision on the part of the New Brunswick Government to do that? Certainly the truckers do not like it.
[ Translation]


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) knows New Brunswick's roads well because he used them often enough. When the TransCanada highway-that straddles New Brunswick, from Nova Scotia's border to Quebec's border-was planned, I believe the traffic was not as heavy as it is now. It was then decided to link all the major communities in the province, which was done, the highway going through Moncton, Sussex, Fredericton, along the Saint-John River to Edmundston, and finally to Quebec. The province is now developing a second branch that would link Moncton, Cambellton and Quebec, but I agree with him that road conditions certainly do not favour truckers. If the Hon. Member listened to my comments, at the end of my speech I quoted the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenna) who said that some sort of agreement must absolutely be negotiated in order to improve New Brunswick's road system, failing which many lives could be in danger.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, deregulation was not invented by the present Government. It was inherited from the previous Liberal Government. Would the Hon. Member tell us to what extent the Liberal Party, were it ever to form the Government again, would reverse the deregulation this Bill envisages?


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, it is true that deregulation is not the invention of this Government, because one of my
colleagues who was at the Department of Transport under the previous government had undertaken some kind of deregulation. Indeed, we agree on some kind of deregulation. The problem that we have with Bills C-18 and C-19 as they are, is that we believe the Government is proceeding with undue haste which could lead to a lack of security in road and air transport as well as in other means of transportation. However, I do not believe that when Liberals are back in power, we will simply back-pedal to destroy everything that has been done. We will see to it that security measures are in place to have a system that will benefit all Canadians in all regions of Canada.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman said there is talk about putting a road between Moncton and Campbellton. If you do that surely you will be going through the New Brunswick wilderness. Is that the intent, or would it be to go to the north shore or the Bay of Fundy? Is it a two-lane or a four-lane highway or what?


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, that second section would serve somewhat the same purpose as does the TransCanada Highway in the other part of New Brunswick. It is an improvement on the present system. When my colleague suggests that such part of the road will go through the wilderness of New Brunswick, let me point out that it will go through my constituency and my village and there will be a lot of people and small communities located along this new road.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak on behalf of my Party on this legislation which envisages the almost total deregulation of the trucking industry. Under the government proposals there would be a radical change in the way in which the Canadian trucking industry is structured, organized and operated. The impending cut-throat competition this Bill envisages will permit, and in fact in the view of some of its supporters promote, the elimination of most small and medium-sized firms in Canada. There is also the likelihood of intense market battles with large American-owned companies such as Roadway Services of Ohio, Yellow Freight Systems of Kansas, and Consolidated Freightways of California. They could cut a swath through our industry and this would lead to another essential service being dominated by organizations outside of this country.
I believe there are a number of significant, serious and incontrovertible effects of deregulation. Initially, of course, it can bring more competition. I do not think that point is seriously in doubt because barriers to entry into the industry will come down. It will no longer be essential to go through the sort of application process to get routes, necessary permits and licences, as it once was. This will encourage anyone who has or can borrow sufficient capital to buy a truck or, let it also be said, simply to make a down payment and lease a truck, to get
June 23, 1987

into the industry on the basis of a mom and pop type of operation. A couple of brothers or someone hiring a couple of friends could get in the business. It would of course be nonunionized and vulnerable to all sorts of exploitation and difficulties which can arise in a very small firm that depends for its livelihood on the crumbs off the table of the larger companies.
I believe it to be incontrovertible that within a matter of few years there would be a greater concentration of industrial ownership. The big would get bigger and more American, the medium-sized would go bankrupt or be bought up, and the small would scrap fiercely for the crumbs of local markets. The economic pressures under such a deregulated regime are not going to contribute significantly either to economic prosperity or to social harmony in Canada.
We are fortunate never to have seen what one might almost call civil war which has prevailed from time to time in the American trucking industry largely as a result of moves to deregulation. Rate slashing on the major routes has already begun. Discounts are being offered. I, of course, have no objection to discounts being offered but this relates to the whole theory and practice and, indeed, the differences between the theory and practice, of a competition economy which I will go into in some detail later. Discounts as high as 50 per cent on general freight rates and as high as 20 per cent on commodity rates have been reported. We are seeing an over-capacity that will become even more acute as the large American-owned firms and their subsidiaries enter the market.
Trucking deregulation is, of course, closely tied to the Government's free trade initiative. There is little doubt that an unspoken priority on the Government's agenda is to harmonize, as far as possible, Canadian economic policy and Canadian economic regulation with the regulations of the United States. There may be some transitory benefits from this. There may be some small gain. There may be some savings realized in, of course, the larger markets, the larger centres, and the more powerful industries.
However, what a cost there is in terms of American domination of our industry, in this case our commercial trade trucks rating. What a cost in terms of the often painful adjustment which Canadians may have to go through. What a cost in terms of lost jobs and lost wages for people who find their companies taken over by companies which are not prepared to pay the wage rates that they have won through their unions.
Canadian shippers who, after all, are the industrial sector lobbying the hardest for deregulation, are motivated by that self-perceived need to lower their transport cost to match the deregulated American transport costs in preparation for a continent-wide scramble for markets. Thus we see the tie-in between the Government's free trade initiative and this Bill,
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
which is essentially free trade in trucking initiative which is being foisted on the Canadian people.
Let us not forget that so many of those Canadian shippers are themselves branch plants of American firms. The interests they are serving are not necessarily interests of employment, Canadian production, and reinvestment in Canada but may very well be impelled by a desire to increase the economic return that they can send back to the United States in the form of management fees, royalties, licences, franchise fees, intercorporate dividends, and cross-investment.
The potential for the larger American trucking firms to overwhelm the Canadian industry is so palpably obvious that even the Government economic analysts could not ignore or misidentify it. Each of the six largest American companies holds more freight in a single year than the entire Canadian industry. Indeed, the general manager of the Manitoba Trucking Association has argued that the largest U.S. carrier with dozens of terminals can take over the Canadian market by the simple expedient of serving at cut-rate prices from the addition of perhaps four distribution points.
This gets into the fundamental fallacy of the "free market philosophy" as promoted by the Government and as incorporated and inherent in the ideological agenda which underlies the free trade initiative and whose thoughts, of course, underpin this entire Bill.
The fact is that if there is such a thing as a free and perfectly competitive market, it is yet to be identified, at least on this continent. The fact is that natural forces, not necessarily market forces, but the forces of psychology which are inherent in human behaviour, consistently and continuously militate against that so-called free market, that nirvana which sets Tory ideologists salivating and which yet ever remains beyond their grasp or beyond their practical realization. The fact is, of course, that American trucking, which is what is being implicitly held up as a model to us in this Bill, was for years dominated by forces which could be termed less commercial than collusive, less competitive than collaborative and, very frankly, not contributing to the healthier development of society in the United States of America.
I recall the idea that is set out by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations about the perfect competitive market. Yet, in recalling it I am unable to come up with any example from real life that truly offers a parallel which could be identifiable as enshrining and incorporating these free market characteristics. Everywhere the free market is trumpeted to exist there are oligopolies and monopolies and there is predatory competition.
It is very difficult for me to imagine an industry which would be more vulnerable to predatory competition and the use of pricing structures to run the smaller competitors out of business than the trucking industry. Surely this has to be one of the industries in which it would be hardest to regulate such a practice and in which it would be hardest for the small operators to survive the operation of such unfair competitive

June 23, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
practices. The ability of the larger companies to control the generation of any internal evidence that might point to collusion and to eliminate any visible semblance of collaboration must surely be the major vulnerability in this legislation.
Let us see how it works. Take the case of a small trucker newly entered into the business, lured in by the Government's glittering vision of cross-continent market possibilities, of north-south routes. He has gone to his bank manager with perhaps 25 per cent equity or has gone to the leasing company and entered the trucking industry with one or two major clients, one of which is taken away by the operations of a larger competitor.
This person must then start playing the rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul game. He must decide whether to put this month's customer cheque into the lease payment or into new tires or necessary work on the rig he is driving. It is not a pretty picture. It implies that safety will deteriorate. Even the Ontario division chairman of the Canadian Industrial Traffic League, who has supported deregulation, admits that highway safety is likely to get worse under deregulation when profits start to be squeezed.
I have a considerable amount of documentation from studies that have been done in this industry which can be used to back up such a conclusion. Rather than get into the simple reiteration of statistics which I know my colleagues, in their diligence and knowledge, have put on the record already, I would like to point out some of the likely consequences in terms which can perhaps be more vividly imagined and in terms which relate specifically to my riding.
In the United States the highway accident rate is rising, equipment is being kept on the road longer, is being less maintained, and is carrying heavier loads. I can envisage what is likely to happen in my riding with Highway 17, the Trans-Canada Highway as it is officially and somewhat hyperbolically named given the state of maintenance to which it has been allowed to deteriorate. I believe the highway is already in a condition that reflects no credit upon the federal Government or the Government of the Province of Ontario. Given the likely impacts of deregulation on loads and running times over the road, I cannot foresee that the highway will stand up any better.
One loser in deregulation will be the Canadian truck driver. The impact of deregulation upon the American trucker was devastating, since upwards of 300,000 union jobs were lost, major concessions were demanded and benefits were rolled back. If there is one lesson that the economics of this North American continent should have taught all of us by now, it is that the more remote, less prosperous and less economically influential areas of this country are where the severest impact of deregulation will take effect.
My riding contains many areas which might be classified as remote, small centres. In many of these parts, freight comes
from 300 to 400 miles away, generally in truck load form and occasionally in less than a truck load form.
Quite often there is not a back haul for the trucker to return due to the nature of the local economy and the size of the community. Deregulation in these areas could lead to a reduction of service, an increase in prices and, after taking over the medium carrier, abandonment by the larger carriers who may not find the smaller market worth-while any longer.
There are a number of examples in my riding of opposition to this Bill and the Government's over-all deregulation plans. On April 13, 1987, the Town of Fort Frances passed a resolution that the request by the Fort Frances and District Labour Council for the Town of Fort Frances to register opposition to Bills C-18 and C-19 be approved and the request of the District Labour Council be fully supported.
The District Labour Council in Fort Frances compiled an excellent brief and analysis on the possible effect of transportation deregulation in an area such as Fort Frances which is over 200 miles from the nearest major centre.
They were concerned about less competition, about control of the market by fewer firms and, above all, the situation under deregulation where because of dips in profitability over an extended period of time it may not pay the airlines, buses, railways, or trucks in this instance, to routinely provide service to outlying areas. Nothing in the legislation will either compel them to do so or indeed give them any incentive to do so.
As the Labour Council said:
How many of our local businesses will be able to afford the higher price of shipping or receiving their goods, and if the increased costs are passed on to the consumer, how many customers will they lose, if unemployment rises due to business failures, there will be even fewer markets than before. Shrinking markets and higher transportation costs are not factors likely to attract investors to our community.
When we consider deregulation of the trucking industry in my part of northwestern Ontario, we have a powerful example that we believe provides a close comparison and very persuasive paradigm of what may happen. I refer to the airline industry. We have had a spate of amalgamations in the airline industry in this country that have led to a loss of jobs. While there has been some improvement in other areas, it is my experience that there has been a deterioration of some services and our over-all impression is that deregulation is not good for the outlying areas of this country.
If we consider the situation in the United States now, a very persuasive report published in one of our national newspapers a couple of weeks ago indicated the degree of inconvenience and disservice suffered by airline passengers all the way from the downtown taxi terminal to the point of arrival because of the effects of deregulation. A copy of Harper's Index indicated that the average airline fare in the United States since deregulation had risen 42 per cent.
We should not be looking to chaos in Canada's trucking industry any more than the United States should have been
June 23, 1987

looking to chaos in its airline industry, which is the situation that appears very much to be developing. I and my Party stand in opposition to this Bill. It is not the prescription for the development of a healthy decentralized Canadian economy. It is a prescription for more centralization under the control of our neighbours to the south.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. gentleman comment on the effects this Bill will have on trucking companies in the more rural areas of Canada-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: As opposed to less rural ones?


George Baker: As opposed to the more urban populated areas of Canada. Will there be a drastic effect on the local trucker in northern Ontario?


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the Eton. Member represents a remote, mainly rural area of this country, as I do. In fact, when I read a recent newspaper account of the difficulties he faced in getting around his riding personally, they seem to reflect very much my own experience. We must have a bragging match on that point.
The obvious conclusion on the fate of the trucker in remote or rural areas is, first, that the prime routes into remote areas that involve steady hauls and reasonable bulk of commodities will be taken up by the larger companies. They will be taken up by companies that will eventually be swallowed by large multinational companies controlled by the United States.
There may be phases when local trucking in rural areas flourishes to a limited degree. That is a possibility we cannot overlook because in a developing market where there is a local trucker who has the intelligence and initiative to take advantage of that local market, presumably he or she will become the first to serve it. There may be a period of time in which that trucker will reap a reasonable return for that route.
However, we must remember that the logical corollary of that type of opportunity is that the larger firms, with their commercial intelligence operations, contacts, and ability to gather information through the analysis of statistical reports provided by the Government, will identify those opportunities when they grow beyond the level of a one or two-truck operation. At that point in a deregulated environment they will be able to enter the market and offer whatever price they want to get the business that has been developed and essentially take the market from the small local competitor. They will have the opportunity to either drive that competitor into bankruptcy or purchase the assets of that competitor, often at a very reduced price, and incorporate them into their own wider operation.
These are the risks and perils for the remote areas of this country. The consequences will be higher prices for such things as groceries, furniture, appliances, building materials and everything else that is trucked into the remote areas of Canada.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986


Iain Francis Angus: I wonder if I could put a question to my colleague? I listened with interest to his very excellent presentation to the House on Bill C-19, but there was one area the Hon. Member did not touch upon. Because of my knowledge of his riding, and I think the awareness of the whole country, I wanted to ask what happens when a transport truck gets into difficulty on the Trans-Canada Highway, as happened a couple of years ago, not in terms of a road accident per se, but in terms of the leakage of PCBs along that highway.
In a deregulated environment where safety has gone the way of decisions to pay the banker instead of putting a new set of tires on the truck, what would an accident of a fairly serious nature of a transport truck on the section of the Trans-Canada Highway between, say, the Manitoba border and the community of Kenora, do to the security of our system in terms of our ability to move goods from east to west?


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the situation of blockages of the Trans-Canada Highway is one which is relatively familiar to the residents of my riding of Kenora-Rainy River. The Trans-Canada Highway has been blocked over the years for many reasons. Sometimes a truck hits a moose, goes out of control and straddles the entire highway. At other times a forest fire or a blizzard can close the highway for days, even up to a week at a time. Of course, the example, given by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), was potentially one of the most serious incidents by which the Trans-Canada Highway was blocked.
When we have small undercapitalized operators in the trucking business-and that is a situation which deregulation must surely encourage, and I believe the Government has intended to encourage-then we will have situations like the trucking company which trucked the still PCB-laden transformers from Quebec to the Nisku Industrial Park in Alberta which was the eventual intended destination. That company folded its tent. It did not pay its fine and did not appear in court to defend itself against the suits brought against it. We were left in a situation where the Province of Ontario had to pay the cost of the clean-up and had no opportunity to collect from the polluter, in effect, the cost of that clean-up.
If a properly regulated environment had determined that the carrier of those dangerous goods had not only complied with all the safety procedures for the shipment of those goods, but had also complied with all the bonding and insurance provisions, and had posted adequate security for the safe movement of those goods-and this would be the situation with responsible re-regulation of the trucking industry-society as a whole and the Exchequer of the Province of Ontario would have been properly protected.
It is my belief, and I think the experience of the United States would bear it out, that in the unregulated, deregulated environment the Government is proposing in this Bill, the

June 23, 1987
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
potential for this sort of environmental hazard and disaster will be indeed greatly magnified.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman could suggest a solution to the problem, that is, of the transportation by a truck or other means of polychlorinated byphenyls? What is the solution to the problem? Does he believe that he might be able to offer some suggestions?


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to respond to that question, although it is a little outside the main thrust of this Bill. It would appear to me that a manifest, concise system with a verified pick-up and delivery of any items such as a transformer which contains PCBs, would, first, ensure that the container or object was in safe condition when put on the truck and, second, would double-check that the object or container was in safe condition when it was taken off the truck. There would certainly be those environmentalists who would advocate that there should be some form of gateway or weigh-scale check at different points of the itinerary of any such possibly harmful and toxic waste. That would certainly be an alternative which I think a responsible government would have to look at if this sort of disaster with the polychlorinated biphenyls were repeated.
I believe it is also obvious under the provisions of Ontario legislation that it would be the height of folly for any carrier to take on a hazardous cargo or load for which it was not properly insured, bonded and licensed, to ensure the safe carriage of that cargo to the final destination.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is over. Debate.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was going to pose a further question concerning the transportation of dangerous goods, specifically, polychlorinated byphenyls, or any number of dangerous goods, with which we have a problem disposing of as a country. We have no means that I know of today, unless I am behind the times, of actually disposing of that particular chemical. In fact, the transportation of that particular waste takes place via truck whenever a provincial authority allows it. In other words, to carry PCBs over the highways of Ontario, to get them to Alberta from the Province of Quebec, requires the permission of the Provincial Department of Transportation in the Province of Ontario. The Province of Quebec does not usually give that type of permission to a carrier to move from eastern Canada to western Canada, so one has difficulty in moving the product. Certainly, the problem has to be addressed, not only in the movement of PCBs, but how do we get rid of the stuff once we move it?
The Bill before us today is simply a continuation of the policy of the Government of Canada to allow the transportation industry to run downhill. The Government intentionally over the past two years has forced Canadian National to increase its rates and to discontinue some of its services in various areas of the country, although the Government got elected on the promise it was going to revitalize the railway in
Canada. It was going to provide the railway with enough money and competitive spirit to really carry the goods and services right across this country. In other words it was going to provide a cheap transportation network across the country for passengers and goods for the people of this country. All we have seen is a steady downhill passage as far as the transportation of goods is concerned. We have seen Canadian National have imposed upon it various budget restrictions. We have seen the carrier then via the water, that is, Canadian National Marine, CN Marine, or Marine Atlantic, or whatever one wants to call it, having restrictions imposed upon it so that it has to increase all of its rates, thereby driving up the costs of goods to people who live in Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland.
Do you wish the floor for a moment, Mr, Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes. It being six o'clock pursuant to Order made Friday, June 12, 1987, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) on his Private Members' Business, I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for Montreal-Saint Marie (Mr. Malepart) and the Hon. Member for Etobicoke- Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) that they are unable to move their motions for Private Members' Business M-21 and C-209 respectively on the dates required by the Order of Precedence. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange in positions in the Order of Precedence pursuant to Standing Order 39(3)(a). Accordingly, I am directing the Table to drop these items of business to the bottom of the Order of Precedence.
There will be no Private Members' Business on the days which would have been scheduled for these items, namely, Thursday, June 25, and Friday, June 26. The House will continue to consider Government Orders pursuant to Standing Order 39(3)(b).


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971 ADVISABILITY OF REPEALING USE OF SEVERANCE PAY AND PENSION INCOME IN CALCULATING UI BENEFITS
John R. Rodriguez: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the regulations made under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, in order to repeal the dispositions which have the effect of taking into account severance pay and pension income when assessing unemployment insurance entitlements.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think the chronology of events which has lead to the necessity of my presenting this motion
June 23, 1987

for debate is very essential for us to look at. This motion-and I know that Bill C-50 was passed some weeks ago-is one more attempt to persuade the Government to look into its heart and to see how the passage of the regulations following the announcement in November, 1984, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) have impacted so unfairly on many, many Canadians. Furthermore, it is another attempt to try to persuade the Government that, in effect, what it passed in Bill C-50 some weeks ago goes only part way in retreating from the untenable position announced by the Minister of Finance in November, 1984.
We all recall November, 1984. The Conservative Government came to power with a massive majority. What did the Minister of Finance state in his first budgetary statement on November 8, 1984? Suddenly, it was not "jobs, jobs, jobs" anymore but it was "cut the deficit, cut the deficit, cut the deficit". There was not any consultation whatsoever with those who were affected. Their representatives were not consulted. Members of Parliament on the government side were not consulted, nor were Members on the opposition side. Members of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration were not consulted. The Unemployment Insurance Commission, which has the responsibility for administering the UI program, was not consulted. The Advisory Council of the Employment and Immigration Commission was not consulted either.
The Minister put on his new shoes, came with his blue rose in his lapel-if one can imagine a blue rose-and stood up in the House and announced changes to the Unemployment Insurance program by which pension income and severance pay would henceforth be considered earned income for unemployment insurance purposes.
From the moment the Minister sat down we on this side of the House condemned his announcement. At that time we said that this treatment of pension-severance pay as earned income was unfair, that it was discriminatory and illogical. We know that over 100,000 Canadians were affected by that announcement. They were negatively affected. The Government saw pension income as earned income.
I want Hon. Members to think about that for a moment. Pension funds are really savings. A worker agrees to take part of his wage and the employer agrees to match it. The money is put aside in a pension fund and can only be withdrawn when the employee reaches a magic age or fulfils the agreement of the pension program.
In small companies which do not have pension plans what does a worker do? Looking to his retirement years, a worker takes part of his income and places it into an RRSP. He may very well make some investments to look after his retirement years so that when he stops working or when he is of an age to leave his job he can withdraw the funds. Yet the RRSPs and the investment income are not affected by this ruling. It is only the pension plan wherein a worker saves for his retirement years that is affected by this regulatory change.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
One of the things that struck us at that time was that the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, which states that pension income or severance pay was not earned income for unemployment insurance purposes, was an Act of Parliament passed by Members of the House. What the Minister of Finance announced was an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and it was done by regulation. It seems to me that that sort of fiat struck at the very heart of what we call parliamentary democracy. In fact, the Government did by stealth what it did not have the courage or the fortitude to put before the House in the proper form as a Bill.
Having taken that position, the proverbial you-know-what hit the fan. In fact, some would say that the Government held up the fan. Having done that, we saw more slipping and sliding than one has ever seen in a stable. The Government backed up and then slipped and slid and postponed until, in fact, it stirred the pot so much that it was impossible to see the bottom.
Nobody knew where they stood in respect of the regulations regarding UI and pension income and UI and severance pay. The former Minister, who is now the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), kept issuing edicts which postponed the pension change, so what was announced in November 1984 did not become effective until January 5, 1986. When the whole thing was blowing up, to save face and their political necks, they used a good tried and true method-they asked a commission to study the matter.
The matter was turned over to Claude Forget, and the Forget Commission studied the change in respect of pension income and UI. The commission was to make a recommendation to the Government on both the pension question and the severance pay question.
Not only were the changes unfair and discriminatory, but they set up classes. There were those workers who were able to work deals with their employers such as in the case of Inco and Falconbridge in my community where workers could have their pensions deferred for a year while they collected UI. Not all workers, certainly not Armed Forces personnel, are able to make that kind of deal. Therefore, we have one set of workers treated one way and another set of workers treated in an entirely different way.
The Government and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) held up Bill C-50 as their solution to the problem. It even says that a worker can collect full UI benefits provided that he gets a second job. If a worker takes an early retirement, he must show good faith by going out and getting a second job. If he gets a second job and is laid off from it, he can collect his full UI plus his pension from his first job. How discriminatory, how class conscious.
It might be easy in some parts of the country for workers to get second jobs. In places like southern Ontario it is quite possible. However, it is not so easy for older workers to get second jobs in northern Ontario, the Atlantic provinces, British

June 23, 1987
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
Columbia, or parts of the northern Prairies. In fact the Government has reinforced the discriminatory aspects of the original change in 1984.
We know how difficult it is to get a second job. As a matter of fact, the 1985 report of the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council pointed out that the change in unemployment insurance regulations was seen as a most unfortunate development which came at a time when every means of assisting unemployed older workers should be explored. Even that advisory council pointed out how difficult it was for older workers to get second jobs.
Since the recession of the early 1980s, the whole question of early retirement was used by employers to ease older workers out of the active workforce to protect the jobs of younger workers. That is a fair goal. Many workers accepted it. It is not that they were finished with the work world, but they could go out to seek a second job, knowing full well that they had the backing of unemployment insurance to tide them over. Once they made that decision, they were hit between the eyes by an unconscionable change in the rules. The Government is changing the rules in the middle of the game.
No active player of hockey or any other sport would expect a referee to blow the whistle in the middle of a game and say, "I have just been handed a change of rules by the governors of the league, and you shall not shoot unless you are 60 yards from the goal". No referee would start introducing all sorts of changes in the middle of a game, but that is exactly what the Government did. It did it without any representation from the players in the game or their representatives. It was certainly done without any consultation with Parliament or its standing committees.
What did Claude Forget say when he finally reported? He said to the Government that the idea that pension income was earned income and the changes were fine, but that he disagreed with the way in which they were implemented. He said that the Government had not given enough notice to the players in the game and therefore advised it to go back and pay all the UI and then make an announcement that as of January 5, 1989 the new rules would come into effect.
Of course that is a little fairer than what the Government did, but it is totally unacceptable. Let me make crystal clear that we would not accept that, because using pension income and severance pay as earned income was unfair in the first place. They are savings.
The Minister had that proposal from the Forget Commission. Then the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration looked at the question. I see the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) in the Chamber; he is the new chairman of the standing committee. It looked at the Forget report and at the pension income and severance pay questions.
What did the standing committee say to the Minister and the Government? It was an all-Party committee and there was
a majority decision, with only one member voting against it. It said that pension income was not to be considered earned income for UI purposes.
Mir. Boudria: Who voted against it?


John R. Rodriguez: The one who voted against it was the Hon. Member for Jonquiere (Mr. Blackburn). He said, "The Minister is a friend of mine; I cannot go against the Minister". The Hon. Member for La Prairie, God bless his soul, was unbiased. One would think that he would spout the government line, but he brought fair judgment to the committee.


Don Boudria: Let's hear it for the Hon. Member for La Prairie.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: He deserves that applause.
The committee submitted the report to the Government, but what did the Government do? It said "No, no, no", and it came out with Bill C-50, a Caspar Milquetoast Bill, which clearly put the Minister on the fence where he could sit and get a lot of splinters.
I say to the Government,"Shame, shame, shame". It is not too late. It is never too late to repent. Just as we passed Bill C-50 by regulation, the Government can change the rule and give pensioners their full UI benefits. It can say to those people who were laid off and got severance pay, "By golly, you take that severance pay and use it, and with the UI benefit get retrained or move to a place where there is a job; use it to tide yourself over until you get another job".
Instead, what did the Government do? It punished them. I see you signalling, Mr. Speaker, that I must wind up. I am just getting going. Can you imagine anything more cruel than a person who has worked 15 years for a company and one Friday he gets a blue slip-it is not pink any more, it is blue-saying "You are through". He gets severance pay of $7,000. This fellow has 15 years with that company. He is not going to walk out of the door of that company and pick up another job because he may be 35 or 40 years old. What do we do? First, we penalize him by making him pay tax on that $7,000 even though he has lost his job. The Government turns around and says to him "You don't get UI benefits because you have $7,000". Is there anything more heartless, cruel, unfeeling and insensitive? I say it is a shame. Shame, shame on the Tories. Shame on them.
I see you have indicated that my time is up, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would love to give the Hon. Member more time but he is over his time by one minute now.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has indicated,
June 23, 1987

he had other points he wanted to make. Would there be a disposition in the House to provide unanimous consent to allow him to finish his remarks?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to give the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) time to finish his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak this motion. In fact, in seventeen months this must be the twenty-fifth motion tabled on the subject in the House of Commons. I think Canadians and parliamentarians, especially Conservative Members whose memories tend to be rather short, should recall it all started on January 5, 1986. Before January 5, 1986, if a worker, old or young, lost his job by reason of termination of employment or because he agreed to take early retirement and let a younger person take over his job, as an alternative to laying off people, and if he was then in a position to look for another job, he had the right to draw full unemployment insurance benefits, notwithstanding any income from an employer-employee pension plan or severance pay following the closing of a plant.
Unfortunately, on January 5, 1986, not by a decision adopted in the House of Commons but by regulatory order, supported by Cabinet, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), this Government decided-


Don Boudria: It was Brian's doing!


Jean-Claude Malépart: -without any notice whatsoever, without informing parliamentarians, without informing the workers, the Government decided that as of January 5, 1986, income from pension plans to which these people had contributed would be considered as earnings and their unemployment insurance benefits cut accordingly.
This immediately affected 35,000 workers in Canada. The decision, made without prior notice, was arbitrary and it was unfair. From then on, after protest movements were organized in Quebec, the Liberal Party, at the request of its Leader (Mr. Turner), got together with these coalitions to force the Government to change its course. And we know what happened. The pressure was on. We even had a change of Ministers, when the former Minister became Minister of Communications, and the Hon. Member for Roberval became Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). At that point, all this Government could say was: Well, we are going to ask the Forget Commission to tell us whether we are right or wrong. And that was because not a single Conservative Member in this House had the guts to tell the Minister: You are wrong. The money belongs to those workers. It's their money. It's the employers' money. It came out of their pockets.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
The money doesn't belong to the former Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), and it doesn't belong to the Prime Minister. It belongs to the workers. The Conservatives said: Forget Forget. If you got your benefits, you will have to pay them back.
Mr. Speaker, not a single Conservative Member rose in the House at that time. Elderly workers had to come here to Parliament Hill to challenge the Government. They were unemployed and they had to spend money to come here. They were losing money every two weeks because the Government didn't give them their full benefits. These people had to pay S20 or $25 to charter a bus and come and challenge the Government because they could not have meetings with their Members in their ridings. There were pressures from the representatives of ARSAC, from Mr. Cloutier, Mrs. Lalande, Mr. Fortin of Montreal, and from representatives of our military. After three manifestations on Parliament Hill and after publication of the Forget Commission Report, the Government was told: "You were wrong; Mr. Prime Minister, you are wrong; you have to reimburse these people; you cannot change the rules in the middle of the game." Did you ever hear of someone who has automobile insurance being told after an accident: "I am sorry, but the rules have changed and you can get compensation only after your second accident. Go and have another accident, and when you lose your other leg, come back and see us; we shall pay you for both." This is silly, but it is what the Conservative Government wanted to do.
We have won half the battle, thanks to the Leader of the Liberal Party, who asked the members of his party to fight as long as something could be done to obtain fair treatment for older workers. Unfortunately, in spite of the pressures exerted by the Official Opposition, by the labour organizations, by the Forget Commission, which cost $6 million of taxpayers' money and whose recommendations were rejected out of hand by the Government, and by the Committee on Employment and Immigration, including its Conservative members, with the exception of the Hon. Member for Jonquiere (Mr. Blackburn)- In passing, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Laprairie (Mr. Jourdenais), even though I cannot congratulate his other colleagues who have been content to do nothing publicly while leading us to believe in private that they were doing something, because he at least was not afraid to defend these workers and to tell the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and the Prime Minister that they were wrong.
Unfortunately, what the Government has given us is even more shocking than the amounts spent on shoes by the Prime Minister. It is shocking to think that all the workers over 55 who are laid off following the closing of a plant, whether on the South Shore, in the Quebec riding, in the Richelieu riding or anywhere else in Canada, are being told: "My dear sir or madam, you are not entitled to your full unemployment insurance benefits as are other workers because the Conservatives have decided that the pension contributions you paid while you were working is not an investment, but earned

June 23, 1987
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
income. However, if you know someone who has invested in an RRSP, whatever his income, even if it is $500 a month, you can tell him that he is entitled to the full unemployment insurance benefits."
And that is the kind of injustice which this Government and Conservative Members, including the Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon), the Member for Quebec East (Mr. Tremblay) and the Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Lopez), are willing to condone to make sure that all workers who lose their job as a result of a plant closure as well as all military personnel, men and women in our armed forces, who are now needlessly paying unemployment insurance premiums, will have to find alternate employment, and if they should lose that second job then the benefits are no longer deemed to be an income as they were the first time.
This gives you an idea of the way this Government operates and manipulates people. Had it not been for the determination of the Liberal Party, for the doggedness of various groups such as ARSAC, the Quebec coalition and representatives of the military, had it not been for them the 35,000 early retirees in Canada, including 13,000 in Quebec, would not be getting their cheques. Indeed the Government and the Tories were satisfied with the situation, and the only reason why they decided to reimburse these claimants was that we turned the screws on them, we had them with their backs up against the wall and they were ashamed. They are sending refund cheques to these 35,000 people because they have been forced to do so, not because they think these people had a good case.
But we have to be on our toes .. . Mr. Speaker, I have only two minutes left. People have to be on their toes. At the request of my leader, I can assure these people-because the cheques have not been delivered yet-that we will keep an eye on the situation until the last minute, until these 35,000 people get their money.
It does not matter where they live-Quebec, Alberta, the Atlantic Provinces, Western Canada-we Liberal Members have been asked by our leader to be vigilant and make sure that these people are not penalized as a result of this decision.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude on this note and I hope the Conservative Members will rise to speak. I think the New Democratic Party Members have clearly and unequivocally expressed their opposition, no one has to wonder where they stand. To us Liberals the issue is crystal-clear: we want things to be as they were before, we do not want two classes of workers, we do not want any injustice.
Now it will be the Conservative Members' turn to speak, and I hope we are not going to see a lot of twisting and turning and posturing and beating around the bush as we did when the early retirees went to their offices. It seems they said: Well, personally, I think you are right, but you know how things are .. . And once they are back in the House, they switch sides.
Mr. Speaker, I am about to conclude my remarks, and I hope there are some Conservative Members who will fight,
because there is still a chance, there is still a glimmer of hope, a very slight glimmer, if Conservative Members are prepared to take a stand in their caucus and demand that the Government introduce amendments to give all workers a fair deal, instead of just half the early retirees.


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House during the hour set aside for Private Members' Business, and especially to speak to Motion 26 which deals with Bill C-50, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, which contains, as you probably know, and I think it does no harm to repeat it, three important amendments for Canadian workers. These deal with the provisions to include income from pensions and severance pay in calculating unemployment insurance benefits.
As Hon. Members well know, on April 5 of this year new regulatory provisions dealing with pension income and severance pay came into effect.
One of the amendments contained in Bill C-50 makes amendments dealing with pensions retroactive to January 5, 1986.
Since January 5, 1986, income from pensions arising out of employment is considered as earnings for the purposes of unemployment insurance.
Bill C-50 provides that a worker whose benefit period is based on subsequent employment, whether it started before or after January 5, 1986, will no longer have his income from a pension arising from his previous employment considered as earnings for the purposes of unemployment insurance.
This Government has always held the firm conviction that individuals who retire should not consider unemployment insurance as an additional source of income.
Furthermore, we must make a distinction between people who retire permanently and those who retire in order to start a new career. The amendments allow for this distinction. They make sure that that group of people who retire and start on new careers are treated fairly and equitably, since they are still part of the labour force.
It is our belief that those people should be entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits, whatever their pension income.
Those amendments will benefit workers who have started on a new career in which they pay unemployment insurance contributions. If they later become unemployed, they will be entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits, based on their employment income following retirement, whatever their previous pension income.
In order to illustrate the situation, I will give a real life example taken from the experience of some retirees and the impact on them of the new proposals in the Bill.
June 23, 1987

Let us take a member of the Canadian Forces who retired in February, 1986 and applied for unemployment insurance. Linder the January 5, 1986 regulations, the amount of his pension income will be deducted from his unemployment insurance benefits. No change so far. Let us now assume the same person found a new job in June, 1986 for instance, and was laid off a few months later. Under the previous regulations, they would have kept on deducting his pension income from his U.I. benefits.
Under the provisions of Bill C-50, the worker whose unemployment insurance benefits were reduced because of pension income will be reimbursed all the deductions to that time if his benefit period is based on previous employment.
On the other hand, another major amendment will allow people who filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits before January 5, 1986, to have their eligibility determined under the old rules. As the saying goes, old claims, old rules.
As already mentioned in this House, some people have allegated that they were given vague information about the pension income provisions which came into effect on January 5, 1986. The fact is that, when the regulations on pension income came into effect, retirees with pension income either lost their entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits or had their benefits reduced.
Bill C-50 therefore provides that any claim filed before January 5, 1986, is not covered by the regulations on pension income.
The eligibility of these claimants will be determined under the old rules. To make this even clearer, let me say that a retiree whose unemployment insurance benefits have been interrupted or reduced because of his pension income and who filed a claim before January 5, 1986, will be reimbursed an amount equal to the deductions from his benefits.
Mr. Speaker, the provisions of Bill C-50 will affect many Canadians. These changes show the determination of this Government to ensure that all workers are treated fairly. As I pointed out in this House on June 11, Mr. Speaker, I shall continue to monitor the progress of this Bill to ensure that it is approved by the Senate as quickly as possible so that the workers concerned can have their cheques shortly.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we are Firmly convinced that our unemployment insurance legislation now meets the expectations and needs of all Canadians.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in support of the motion before the House put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). He has fought an incredible battle for fairness and equitable access to unemployment insurance for many Canadians. Wherever I go across Canada, I find that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt is certainly held
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
in very high esteem because of the job he has done on this particular piece of legislation.
I wish to discuss a matter that affects retiring members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Many individuals have retired in the area of Comox and generally when individuals retire from the Canadian Armed Forces, they are not in a position to choose the time they retire. They are asked at a certain age to leave the Armed Forces in order to make room for younger people or for new people. It is as a result of that that throughout the years, when individuals have left the Armed Forces, they have been able to take with them unemployment insurance benefits in order to make adjustments into the community.
Adjusting into a community is very important because many of these retirees are in their forties and fifties and have to make profound adjustments. Many leave the area in which they had been living. Many must sell homes in which they had lived for some time and must purchase other homes in other areas. This adjustment is hard to make on the rather meagre superannuation they receive immediately upon leaving the Armed Forces. Therefore, it is important that they have unemployment insurance benefits as a cushion to carry them through that adjustment period. Most Canadians would agree that after 20 to 25 years of service to their country, retiring members of the Canadian Armed Forces are entitled to that cushion.
Many of those members have children graduating from high school and going on to post-secondary education. This is a time of enormous financial burden for the families concerned. Not only are they retiring from their lifetime career, they are faced with the additional financial burden involved in their children attending university. If you live in the Comox Valley, your children must travel hundreds of miles to attend university. They have to pay for room and board, tuition, books, and otherwise support themselves. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces who retire to the Comox Valley and wish to support their children who are attending university need the additional cushion in the form of unemployment insurance to make the adjustment. As I said, most fair-minded Canadians would agree that it is not unreasonable that those people receive the benefit of that income.
What has the Government done? In January of 1986 it decided it would no longer permit this to happen. Right in the middle of the game the Government changed the rules. Retiring members of the Armed Forces did their homework. They made preparations. They were in a position to take responsibility for the transition to civilian life. Then, all of a sudden, the Government changes the rules of the game. This has caused great suffering. Many of these people were unable, on such short notice, to make the adjustment to meet their responsibilities. Many of them were unable to obtain employment or, in any case, reasonable employment to fill the gap.

June 23, 1987
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
That will not be quickly forgotten. Many people who supported the Conservatives in the last election thought that they would make right the years of neglect by the Liberals. What happened? They found they were even more badly handled by the Conservative Government.
In addition to being unable to collect unemployment insurance, the Government, adding insult to injury, insists that when they go to work they pay unemployment insurance premiums. Here you have a retired member of the Armed Forces collecting a modest pension, forced to immediately obtain employment because he or she is unable to collect unemployment insurance-and it is often only part-time employment at low wages-and then forced to pay unemployment insurance premiums on top of it all. Given the seasonal nature of work in many areas of British Columbia, particularly in the Comox Valley, lay-offs occur frequently and the individual finds he or she cannot collect unemployment insurance. The Government has turned around and imposed an additional burden on those retired members of the Armed Forces.
I would like to make my comments this afternoon very brief.


Arnold John Malone: Good.


Raymond John Skelly: I hear one of my friends saying "good". If the point is made, then it is good. Hopefully we will see members of the Conservative Party who have some respect and consideration for retired members of the Armed Forces support this very worth-while motion put forward by my colleague from Nickel Belt.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I also welcome this opportunity to take part in this hour of debate, a debate that is definitely a Johnny-come-lately, since the Bill has already reached the Senate, and the cheques will soon be delivered to our early retirees who are very anxious to get them. As usual, however, the NDP keeps arguing. That happens to be its specialty, and today it is again using up time that could otherwise be used for constructive debate and the well-being of Canadians. Of course the Liberal Party is in it as well-we hardly know which one is the Official Opposition- and it too is claiming that the Government is wrong and that it should do this and that. They would like to revert to the old system when money was spent without any concern for deficits. I suppose they would like to go back to a $38-billion dollar deficit, with acumulative deficit of $225 billion. Who cares! For them it was a matter of voting for what they wanted when they wanted to and hang the consequences. That is the kind of government we had then. That is the kind of government the voters threw out three years ago. And that is the kind of government they don't want back.
The early retirees realized that because of an erroneous interpretation by certain officials at the Employment Centres, they were misinformed. Some people took early retirement on the basis of the erroneous information, and that is why, we
corrected the situation. We did not do what the previous Government did. We're not stubborn. We listened to our fellow citizens. We understood their concerns in our ridings. We defended them in caucus. And we managed to find a solution that gave them full satisfaction, as they said last month in the media across this country.
Today, of course, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), for instance, rose in the House a little while ago to give vent to his indignation and to say that the Government had to go on spending whether it was $1 billion, $2 billion or $250 million, it had to go on spending money on early retirees, claiming this would make room for younger workers. However, we know that 90 per cent of early retirees are not replaced by the youngest workers because in 90 per cent of the cases the jobs are automated. The Hon. Member may not remember that in 1976 or 1977, the Government, that was during his time, cut family allowances by $5 and by putting a five per cent ceiling on indexation, prevented senior citizens from getting a 6 per cent increase in benefits, which at the time was about $25 per month. Back then our senior citizens needed that money, but the Government did not say a word. That was normal, the correct thing to do, take $25 off the benefits of people over 65. That was normal. But now, all of a sudden, they tell people who are already on pension: Be warned, if you opt for early retirement you will have to declare your income like any other citizens. That is not normal. When family allowances were reduced by $5 it was normal because it was done by a Liberal Government. But here we are today trying to help low income families by supplementing family allowances with tax credits, and all they say is: Still not enough. Rather strange, the Government used to be so silent. That reminds me of the oil crisis, it was very active when Shell was fighting, but very silent when the three closed down before.
Well, Mr. Speaker-


Jean-Claude Malépart: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Since the Hon. Member has referred to me, just to show him he does not know what he is talking about, the fight had nothing to do with Shell. He is mistaken, it was not Shell, it was the case of Gulf and Ultramar. He is all mixed up, and in the case of family allowances-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order and neither is that of the other Hon. Member. Debate. The Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) has the floor.
[ Translation]


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I was telling a few truths to my Honourable colleague who seemed to be shocked and
June 23, 1987

wanted to take advantage of a point of order to give his own views; yet, he gets many occasions to express his views. In fact, being so few in the Opposition, they get a chance to speak much more often. Sometimes, the truth may be shocking.
I am also surprised that my colleague from the NDP moves such a thing after the whole matter has been dealt with. We know that it has always been fairly customary with the NDP. Some time ago, early retirees as a whole said they were quite pleased with the Government's proposal. In fact, every newspaper in Canada reported so. They said they were quite pleased with that proposal to provide a full payment for those who had been treated unfairly before January 5 on the basis of misinformation on the part of senior officials.
Today, the NPD wants to keep up a certain fight. There is indeed a lot of contradictions in that Party. I remember a few years ago when they talked about the right to independence for Quebec, at some convention held in the Montreal area, and then a year later, they voted in favour of patriating the Constitution with the Trudeau team. A year later, it was no serious matter. They were still discussing the Constitution at the Montreal convention, and then we had the Meech Lake Agreement. On the one hand, they have told the members of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec: It is not good enough. But when they turn to English Canadians, they say: It is quite reasonable, after all, we might put up with it.
By dint of trying to flatter everybody, we will end up deceiving everybody. In this sense, not taking into account the billions of dollars which would be spent, the financial difficulties Canadians would be faced with, after investing billions of dollars in various projects, as suggested by the NDP and the Liberal Party, we would end up again with a deficit and the impossibility to improve the welfare of Canadians by concrete and precise legislation.
This bill is the end result of a battle carried out by the Conservative Members within their caucus, among Canadians, following consultations with their constituents, and clearly demonstrates the Government's will to listen to Canadians and respond to their needs within the normal limits of Government resources.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and rectify the errors which the Hon. Member for Richelieu has just made. When referring to the early retirees and pension issue, Mr. Speaker, the first thing which any Member of this House should do would be to praise the Hon. Member for Montreal

Sainte-Marie for his tremendous contribution. All Hon. Members know that it is thanks to the efforts made by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) that 35,000 early retirees who had been so unfairly treated by this Conservative Government, were finally able to collect their benefits.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
It is unfortunate that the Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamandon) did not take the time to listen to the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), who could have briefed him very well on the subject. If he had listened, his intervention would have been far more valuable than that which we heard. I say that with respect for my hon. friend from Richelieu, for whom I have a lot of respect. However, in this particular case he appears to be very poorly informed, as I am sure you have noticed, Mr. Speaker.
We all know that these retirees were unilaterally cut off after paying into the unemployment insurance fund for years and years. That is equivalent to telling someone who had a car accident that their policy was changed last night and they will not be paid for the car accident. If you were told that, you would obviously ask what you had been paying premiums for if you are not covered, and if you are not covered, why you were not told that you would not be covered before you were asked to pay premiums. Would that not be reasonable? Surely it would.
I know that all Members of this House, and particularly you, Sir, who is nonpartisan in this debate, understand that perfectly well. I am sure that if the Tory Members across stopped and thought a little bit they would understand too.

Mr. Speaker, on December 5, 1986, the Conservative Government finally admitted it was wrong. The Government said through its Minister: I am guilty. That is what the Government said. It was guilty of having caused early retirees so much grief.
However, having admitted its guilt, the Government said: Sure, I am guilty, but I going to help you just a little bit. So, they reimbursed 35,000 early retirees who had contributed all their lives like so many others, and who had already retired when the Minister changed the legislation and took away their benefits.
Mr. Speaker, some had even resigned just two or three weeks before. Some of my constituents came to see me and who said: I resigned. I was entitled to receive benefits during the couple of weeks of my waiting period, but I lost that entitlement. What is going on? It's unfair! I told them: Yes, it's unfair, I agree. Mr. Speaker, it is unfair. That is Conservative justice, Mr. Speaker. Justice for the rich but no justice for the poor.
Through Bill C-50, the Government has reimbursed 35,000 early retirees. That is wonderful. But it doesn't solve the problem. We have dealt with just a fraction of the problem. As far as the other group is concerned, people now have to be fired twice before they are able to draw benefits. The Hon. Member from Montreal-Sainte-Marie, with his thorough knowledge of the issues, pointed this out here in the House. I am sure that all Members of this House, all early retirees and

June 23, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987
especially the people from the Montreal area appreciate the tremendous work done by the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie on this question.

As a matter of fact, my honourable and very distinguished colleague, the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, was explaining this to me a little earlier. Let us take the hypothetical cases of three persons. If the first person, Mr. White, had retired after having contributed the maximum allowable to the unemployment insurance fund, $235 per week, and had a pension of $300 coming in, he would be getting no unemployment insurance. However, if his neighbour, Mr. Brown, was contributing the same amount but had a registered retirement savings plan and was receiving $300, he would get $231. You see the injustice. You see why we all have to vote now in favour of the motion presented to the House by the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: Sit down.


Don Boudria: I want to agree with the Member for Nickel Belt and encourage all Members to vote in favour of this motion now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is still a minute to go in this debate. The Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Van De Walle) has the floor.


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@Pembina: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about what this Government is doing to address the situation of the pensioners and unemployment insurance. Bill C-50 contains-


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Once again, the Conservatives are talking out a very logical proposal. They do not want the pensioners to get their unemployment insurance. They are talking the motion out.


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