1987-06-04

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and honour to present a petition from citizens in Ottawa and district. They state that Turnair of Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, whose representative appeared as a witness for the CTC, had its operating authority cancelled by the CTC after appearing before it, forcing Fred Turner, its operator, into bankruptcy. The cancellation of his licence is what bankrupted him.
Whereas the Queen's Privy Council of Canada later returned his operating authority and offered $15,000 in compensation but did not consult or negotiate with him, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House that an independent arbitrator be assigned to this matter to investigate the details of the case and to review and to negotiate the offer from the federal Government with Fred Turner in order to reach an equitable settlement which better reflects the true nature of his loss. For this the petitioners and this Hon. Member humbly pray.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of Trois-Rivieres and Halifax who are calling upon Parliament to amend the existing highway safety regulations. The petitioners believe that the rear seat-belts in passenger cars are presently inadequate and that the suffering of car-crash victims could be reduced or avoided.
They also believe that the cost of medical care for car-crash victims can be reduced or eliminated.
For all these reasons, the petitioners urge Parliament to institute mandatory installation of three-point adjustable lapshoulder seat-belts for rear seat passengers. They are also asking for installation of front seat air bags.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I have a second petition. This petition is signed by residents of Midland, Ontario, Elmvale, Ontario, Petaigan and Orillia, Ontario.
[DOT] (mo)

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition signed by residents in different parts of Ontario who are calling upon Parliament to amend the existing Canadian Safety Standards for rear seat-belts in passenger cars. The petitioners believe that the rear seat-belts in passenger cars are presently inadequate and that the suffering of car-crash victims could be reduced or avoided. They also believe that the cost of medical care for car-crash victims can be reduced or eliminated. For all these reasons, the petitioners urge Parliament to institute mandatory installation of three point adjustable lap-shoulder seat-belts for rear seat passengers. They are also asking for installation of front seat air bags.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 3, consideration of Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motion No. 4 (Mr. Benjamin, p. 6706).
Mr. Speaker:: There has been a great deal of discussion with respect to amendments to Bill C-18. Hon. Members will, of course, agree that the process which is now a custom in this

June 4, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
place is discussions which take place between Hon. Members and the Table Officers. This eliminates a great deal of difficulty later when the Chair has to make a ruling. Therefore, I want to say, first of all, how much the Chair appreciates the respect for the process which all Hon. Members have shown and the co-operation they have given to the Table Officers.
Having said that, let me say that there has been in this particular case a great number of amendments. At least one Hon. Member may wish to say a few words before the Chair gives its ruling. This is to be looked upon as an exceptional circumstance, not a commonplace one. I will hear the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say how much my colleagues and I appreciated your assistance and guidance as well as that of the Table Officers in arriving at decisions regarding the eligibility or propriety of the amendments.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that if you think this is bad, you should be happy you were not in the chair during the Crow rate debate because at that time 108 amendments had to be dealt with. However, we will not prolong the matter now as we did at that time.
I am compelled to make a general comment first, and I promise I shall be brief. In the situation of report stage, the Chair is in the position of having to select or not select certain motions as well as decide whether or not they are in order. It seems to me that the rules provide the Chair with a wide latitude in this process of selection. I believe, Sir, that the Chair initially thought that some 30 motions would not be selected and that another 11 motions were out of order.
I would like to pose the question: Is the Chair placing itself, and any future successors-and I hope there will not be any successors for many, many years-in a position whereby, for example, in a minority Parliament, the Chair is not selecting but being selective? Further, I want to submit that the Chair must surely take into account that when there is a significant lapse of time between the proceedings in a committee and report stage of a Bill, events and circumstances can occur which will mean a measure which may have been defeated or passed in the committee needs to be reconsidered.
I also submit that we must recognize that the House may want to reverse a decision of the committee, especially a decision which was negatived, because we cannot assume that the House will always agree with a decision of a committee and it should have the opportunity to disagree.
I would just like to say briefly that Motions Nos. 2, 6, 11, 13, 44, 45, 46 and 96, are all substantive. They are all of a quality and importance such that the House may want to reverse a decision of the committee. For example, Motion No. 2 goes to the main thrust and principle of the Bill. According to the legislation and to the Government itself safety standards are paramount. We submit that that is extremely important.
Motion No. 11 defines the perspective of people who will be appointed to the agency, but the Bill is silent on the matter. Those engaged in a transportation undertaking or business and those in manufacturing or distributing of transportation plant and equipment are eliminated from being a member of the agency. However, those who are shippers are left untouched. Their conflict is just as direct as that of those engaged in a transportation undertaking.
Motion No. 13 attempts to correct that by placing those who are shippers or receivers in the same category and, according to a subsequent clause, they would have 90 days to divest themselves of any interest as a shipper or receiver.
Motions Nos. 44, 45, and 46 add to the major thrust of the Bill by making a willingness to meet the highest possible standard of safety a condition of obtaining a licence. The Minister, the Government, and the legislation have made clear that there will not be any compromise in the area of safety and security. We are suggesting that those three amendments strengthen the main thrust of the legislation.
Motion No. 46 deals with northern air transport. The Bill shows the Government's intention to continue a regulated regime in the northern designated area where public convenience and necessity are to be applied as they are applied under current legislation. The amendment continues that basic requirement in the new regime.
Motion No. 96 is substantive, because the House and the committee have agreed to a five-year review. At issue is the principle in the Bill to stimulate economic activity and employment. Since the review was agreed to for a five-year period, and subsequently a one-year review was agreed to, the amendment seeks to include in the annual review the progress or lack thereof of a continuous activity in terms of stimulation of economic activity and employment.
Finally, I should like to make a brief remark about two of my amendments which Your Honour has indicated are out of order. I thank you for the opportunity to try to persuade you otherwise. In Motion No. 21 we only add an equally important interest group to an already long list of important groups in the Bill which should be permitted to appear, if they wished, before the agency. Employment and employees are mentioned in other places in the Bill. I submit that the motion does not go beyond the scope of the Bill because it is permissive. These people may appear as well as the others already listed. It does not depend upon any other amendment passed or negatived; it stands on its own. As I say, it does not go beyond the scope of the Bill and certainly does not require additional government expenditure. These people may appear if they wish and obviously the Bill only provides for the expenditure of money if a witness is summoned. However, if they appear voluntarily, they are not eligible for any compensation.
Turning to Motion No. 48, the Chair cannot assume that I was trying to change the designated geographic area to one based upon population. Since my amendment does not seek to
June 4, 1987

change the boundary stated in the Bill, it does not affect the designated area, its size, its shape, conditions, or anything else. The amendment only says that the commission "may". It does not require the commission. Also, the amendment relates to that part of the Bill which covers domestic air services, not the part of the Bill which covers the designated area. Perhaps I should have left out the words "designated area". In that case, the amendment would still mean the same thing.
I want to assure you, Sir, that I am not trying to accomplish something indirectly which I could not try to accomplish directly. I am only referring to markets with populations of 50,000 or less. Motion No. 48 in part reads:
-Where a domestic service is the only service for a market of less than 50,000 persons, and is outside of the designated area-
If it is inside the designated area it seems that the old regulated regime applies. However, I am thinking of the Cranbrooks of the world and many dozens of such places. Since there is a commitment by the Government that where there is imposed public duty because of a small market in order to ensure continuation of service, we want that to be part of the considerations for domestic services. That would apply in the whole country, and it does not do any damage to that part of the Bill concerning designated area. It is already there, anyway.
The amendment does not make a Cranbrook, for example, part of a designated area. However, it gives it a different consideration by the agency because of the size of its market and the service required. That is all. No other regulations apply to the designated area. It is just one criterion for small cities and large towns in scores of places which I submit need some kind of minimal standard that they can achieve. I submit that the amendment is in order and I hope you will reconsider it and so say, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the House would let the Chair consult for just a moment.
I want to thank the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) for the comments which the House has just heard. I want to assure him that the Chair has been listening, but I am not persuaded that under the circumstances I ought properly, in conformity with good procedural law, to allow the arguments which the Hon. Member has put and put intelligently and forcefully. Therefore, I regret to advise the Hon. Member that while I understand very clearly the substance of his argument, I reluctantly must advise him that procedurally I do not think I can accept it. That being the case, I am prepared to make a ruling on the order of these amendments and the acceptability of them at this time.
I should advise Hon. Members that in view of the very great number, and in view of the fact that a great deal of work has gone into trying to be not only procedurally sound but as generous as possible, this ruling will take a few minutes. I would ask Hon. Members to bear with me.
National Transportation Act, 1986
I think copies have been made available to those Hon. Member who are most particularly concerned.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have received what purports to be a draft of your ruling dated June 4, 1987 which is some 12 pages long. It may be that Members of the House would be prepared to have your formal reading of that ruling dispensed with as long as we all have copies of it.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for his suggestion because it would save some time. However, I have some concern when rulings are made whether we should deem them to be made. Perhaps on another occasion
I	might be persuaded to accept the suggestion of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, assuming of course it was acceptable to the House.
I think perhaps under the circumstances I should read the ruling. There will be 111 motions standing on the Notice Paper at the report stage of Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation. When the House adjourned yesterday at 6 o'clock p.m., Motion No. 3 had been debated and a recorded division deferred, and debate had begun on Motion No. 4.
As there remain on the Notice Paper such a large number of motions not yet dealt with, many of which were debated at length during committee consideration, the Chair, after careful examination, has decided that a number of those which were debated and negatived in committee, along with some motions which are identical or consequential to them, together with a number of other motions, should not be selected. Therefore, the following motions will not be put to the House: Motions Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 18, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 36, 38, 39, 45,55,65,66,82, 92 and 96.

Motion No. 5 was moved and withdrawn in committee, when the chairman expressed procedural reservations concerning the motion's possible infringement on the financial initiative of the Crown. I can understand that point of view but, in this instance, I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud). Therefore motion No. 5 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8 will not be selected. Motion No. 9 will be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 10 and
II	will not be selected.

Motion No. 12 will be debated and voted on separately. Motion No. 13 will not be selected.
Motions Nos. 14 and 15 will be debated separately and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 16, 17 and 50 would remove from the Governor in Council certain powers and grant them either to Parliament or to the Agency. Therefore they will be grouped

June 4, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
for debate. One vote will be taken on Motions Nos. 16 and 17. Motion No. 50 will be voted on separately.
Motion No. 18 will not be selected.

Motions Nos. 19 and 20 will be debated separately and voted on separately.
[ Translation]
Motion No. 21 is attempting to introduce something new into the Clause it seeks to amend, which is beyond the scope of the Clause. Therefore I must rule this motion out of order and, in doing so, I would refer the Elon. Member to Citation 773(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition.

Motions Nos. 21A and 22 will be debated separately and voted on separately.
Motion No. 23 in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) would seek to expand the parties who may refer a dispute to the agency for mediation. This is beyond the scope of the clause, and 1 must rule the motion out of order. Again, 1 refer to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(1).
Motions Nos. 24 to 32 inclusive all deal with the arbitration process. As the provisions of Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30 are contained in Motion No. 27, they will not be selected for debate by the House. But the other motions, namely, Motions Nos. 27, 31 and 32 will be grouped for debate. Motions Nos. 27, 31 and 32 will be voted on separately-

Motions Nos. 33 and 34 also deal with aspects of the arbitration process. They will be combined for debate but voted on separately.

Motion No. 35 would expand steps taken by the agency in conducting investigations undertaken pursuant to subclause 59(2) of the Bill. Provision for such public hearings would involve an additional expenditure and thus would infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown. Therefore, I must rule the motion out of order. In doing so, I rely on Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(7).

Motion No. 36 will not be selected.

Motions Nos. 37, 60, 61, 62 and 63 deal with confidential contracts and will be grouped for debate. Motions Nos. 37 and 62 will be voted on separately. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 63 obviates the need to put the question on Motions Nos. 60 and 61. A negative vote on Motion No. 63 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 60 and 61.

Motions Nos. 38 and 39 will not be selected. Motion No. 40 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 41, 42 and 43 attempt to amend an interpretation clause of the Bill. The definitions they seek to introduce are substantial amendments to the clause and are out of order. I think Mr. Speaker Lamoureux best summarized the procedural problem provided by an amendment to the interpretation clause when on May 21, 1970, at page 7166 of Debates, he said:
In the opinion of the Chair, amendments of a substantive or declaratory nature should not be proposed to an interpretation clause. If such amendments were accepted, the clause would not then be an interpretation clause. I am sure Hon. Members realize the difficulty of accepting substantive amendments or proposals under the general classification of interpretation.
I suggest to Hon. Members with respect that that is not the place to make proposed amendments or motions which are of a substantive nature.
Motions Nos. 44 and 2 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 44 will dispose of Motion No. 2.
Motion No. 46 will be debated and voted on separately. Motion No. 47 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 48 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) seeks to redefine the term "designated area" by changing its basis from one of geography to one of population. 1 think this is clearly a new concept and 1 would suggest to the Hon. Member that he is trying to do indirectly what he cannot do directly although, he has argued strongly that that is not his intent. However, the effect is to change the definition of "designated area" as described in the interpretation clause. I must, as 1 have indicated to the Hon. Member with regret, rule the motion out of order.
Motion No. 49 will be debated and voted on separately. Motion No. 50 was dealt with in paragraph 8 of this statement.
Motion No. 51 would provide for financial assistance to carriers to encourage them to enter certain markets. The provision of such assistance would add a new expense and thus infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown. Again, in accordance with Citation 773(7) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, I must rule this motion out of order.

Motions Nos. 52, 52A and 52B will be debated separately and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 53 and 54 will be grouped for debate. A vote on motion No. 53 will also apply to motion No. 54.
Motion No. 54A will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 55 will not be selected.
June 4, 1987

Motion No. 56 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 56A, 57 and 57A will be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on motion 56A obviates the need to put the question on Motion 57. A negative vote on motion No. 56A would require the question to be put on motion No. 57. Motion No. 57A will be voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 58 and 59 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately. Motions Nos. 60 to 63 inclusive have been grouped for debate with Motion No. 37 and were dealt with in paragraph 18 of this statement. Motion No. 64 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 65 will not be selected. As motion No. 66 is consequential to motion No. 65, it also will not be selected.

Motions Nos. 67 to 78 inclusive deal with competitive line rates and will be grouped for debate. They will be voted on as follows:
(a)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 68 obviates the need to put the question on Motion No. 67. A negative vote on Motion No. 68 would require the question to be put on Motion No. 67.
(b)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 70 obviates the need to put the question on Motion No. 69. A negative vote on Motion No. 70 would require the question to be put on Motion No. 69.
(c)	Motions Nos. 71 to 78 inclusive will be voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 78A and 79 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 80 and 81 will be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 81 obviates the need to put the question on Motion No. 80. A negative vote on Motion No. 81 would require the question to be put on Motion No. 80.

Motion No. 82 will not be selected. Motions Nos. 83, 83A and 83B will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
Motion No. 84 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 84A and 84B will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.

Motion No. 85 seeks to amend the subclause stipulating in what areas the Governor in Council may make regulations.
National Transportation Act, 1986
This motion attempts to expand the definition of public interest by adding the counselling and retraining of employees as reasons the Governor in Council may exempt persons from the application of certain provisions of the legislation. This is a new concept and is clearly beyond the scope of the clause. Therefore, I must rule the motion out of order and 1 refer the Hon. Member to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(1), in support of this decision.
Motion No. 85(a) will be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 86, 87 and 88 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 89 and 89A which deal with objections to proposed acquisitions of Canadian transportation undertakings will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
Motion No. 90 will be debated and voted on separately. [English]
Motions Nos. 91 and 94 would add provisions for the agency to solicit public input from interested parties in undertaking reviews required by the Bill. Therefore, they will be grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 91 will also apply to Motion No. 94.
Motion No. 92 will not be selected.

Motions Nos. 93 and 95 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 96 will not be selected.
Motion No. 97 would provide for hearings and inquiries by the agency in order to establish a basis for the evaluation of the progress made in meeting the objectives of the annual reviews required of the agency. Such hearings would create an additional charge on the Treasury. In addition, the intent of the motion is clearly a new concept foreign to the clause. Therefore, I must rule the motion out of order and, once again, refer Hon. Members to the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne's, sections (1) and (7) of Citation 773.
Motion No. 98 will be debated and voted on separately.
I apologize to Hon. Members for taking so much of the time of the House with this statement. However, as Hon. Members are aware, the large number of motions to be dealt with have taken a great deal of time and study.
For the benefit of Hon. Members I shall summarize this statement as follows:

June 4, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Motions Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 18, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 36, 38, 39, 45, 55, 65, 66, 82, 92 and 96 will not be selected for debate and will not be put to the House.
Motions Nos. 21, 23, 35, 41, 42, 43, 48, 51, 85 and 97 have been ruled out of order.
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21A, 22, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 40, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 52A, 52B, 53, 54, 54A, 56, 56A, 57, 57A, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67 to 81 inclusive, 83 to 84B inclusive, 85A to 91 inclusive, 93, 94, 95 and 98 will be put to the House for debate as outlined in this statement.
In closing, I think Hon. Members and certainly the public observing this would want me to express the appreciation of all Hon. Members for the very hard work that has gone into working out the appropriate and proper procedure for handling this number of motions. I want to tell the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud), and others how much that is appreciated by the Chair.
The House will now resume debate on Motion No. 4. [Translation]


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of Hon. Members that you have spent enough time examining and deciding on the motions submitted to you. We wish to thank you for all the attention you have devoted to this decision.
1 do not hesitate to support Motion No. 4 moved by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) because I feel that if it were approved, it would eliminate predatory rates, because the introduction of such predatory rates within the industry could cause some transportation firms, mostly the smallest and the weakest, which cannot face a non-competitive market, to disappear. Such rates would push them out of business.

This motion seeks to avoid predatory pricing, a situation that could drive a number of small transport companies out of business and allow bigger operators to capture a larger share of the market. Of course, if this were to happen it would lead to higher prices for the same services. The motion is very important and I invite all Hon. Members to support it. It reinforces Section 112(2) of the present Act which says that every rate shall be compensatory.

Mr. Speaker, you might very well ask me: Why support such a motion if Clause 112 already takes this situation into account? Well, it is one more reason to support it, because it would reinforce the provisions of Clause 112 which provide that-
Every rate shall be compensatory.
But there is a clause a little further on which qualifies the term "compensatory", and it is the purpose of the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) to prevent under any circumstances such rates from being non-compensatory and becoming predatory.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, during the hearings, we heard a number of witnesses who were deeply concerned about the security aspect of our transport system. We fear-in view of deregulation and the haste with which the Government seems to push that industry toward deregulation-that public security could eventually be jeopardized. I view the Hon. Member's motion as something that would prevent some companies from being in a situation where they would have to reduce their costs and consequently give less consideration to security. And this could happen not only in road transport but also in other means of transport.
We also heard during the hearings several witnesses urging us to reflect on the present situation in the United States where deregulation was launched hastily and, in some cases, not enough consideration was given to security. We were also told that some accidents resulting in losses of lives had occurred recently and that we should examine what has happened during the last few years and take a second look at security problems.
Those are the reasons why, Mr. Speaker, 1 support the motion of the Hon. Member for Regina West and ask all the members of this House when they vote on this motion to keep in mind the security of all Canadians.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate on this question I recognized that this amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is a very wise one. In northern Ontario, communities have been served by carriers, in the airline industry for example, which have provided service for a considerable number of years and established a rate structure and a load. Along with deregulation and so-called free enterprise operations have come other carriers which have completely destroyed that structure. They drove the original carriers out of business. The rates increased and service became very infrequent. That is a destruction of the transportation system.
We have seen that happen in northern Ontario with rail and freight service. We have seen freight structures which discriminate against communities and regions which are resource-based. In fact, the rate structures are such that it is cheaper to ship out raw resources than to ship out the finished product.
Therefore I recommend to the House the adoption of the amendment of the Member for Regina West. I think it is eminently wise and would enhance the Bill considerably.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
June 4, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. We will move to Motion No. 5.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You may want to reconsider the order in which you are calling the motions. Debate on Motion No. 2 will also cover debate on Motion No. 44. I suggest that perhaps we could deal with those and get them out of the way. We will then be caught up and could proceed to Motion No. 5.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member for Regina West has no objection, the Chair would prefer to proceed with Motion No. 2 when we reach Motion No. 44.


Fernand Robichaud: Motion no. 5
That Bill C-18 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 29 to 34 at page 2
and substituting the following therefor:
"to regional economic development and commercial viability should be an objective both in the operation of transportation services and in the provision of facilities and services in direct support thereof, and where the Government of Canada decides or the Government of Canada and one or more provincial governments jointly decide that any such service or facilities and service is required for the achievement of national or regional, social and economic development objectives, that decision requires that those objectives take precedence over the objective of commercial viability whenever the two are in conflict. Where the Government of Canada decides or the Government of Canada and one or more provincial governments jointly decide that the achievement of national or regional social and economic development objectives requires that these objectives take precedence over the objectives of commercial viability, the benefits and costs involved should be identified and any relevant additional costs assumed by the government or governments concerned."
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is both a privilege and a duty to introduce this motion to amend Clause 3(l)(d) of Bill C-18. I appreciate that you recognized the motion and accepted it. To me, this is a sign that you recognize the importance of the
National Transportation Act, 1986
motion for regional development. In fact, the intent of the motion is indeed to strenghten the importance of regional development. And as you read it, the motion would ensure that regional development takes precedence when decisions affecting transportation are made by this Government.
Mr. Speaker, the motion would clarify the Minister's authority. We know already that the Minister is empowered to act, as described in Clause 3(2), which states:
The Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may specify, enter into agreements in support of the national transportation policy set out in subsection (1) or in respect of such transportation matters as the Minister considers appropriate.
The Minister indicated himself to the committee, on April 7, 1987, that he had that power. He said, and I quote:

There is provision in the legislation now for the Minister to enter into agreements in support of the national transportation policy or in respect of such transportation measures that the Minister considers appropriate.

Therefore, it is clear that the Minister already has that power.
The purpose of my motion, Mr. Speaker, is to define that power of the Minister more clearly, to streamline and reinforce it. With this motion, I am trying to develop a procedure under which regional development interests would take precedence over business interests when the two objectives conflict.
There lies indeed the major difference between this motion and the motion which was accepted when the Bill was studied in committee. In fact, Section 3(1 )(d) of the Bill has been amended and Paragraph (d) now reads:
Transportation is recognized as a key to regional economic development, and the commercial viability of transportation lines should be balanced against the goals of regional economic development so that the potential economic assets of each region may be fully developed
Mr. Speaker, these words now contained in that paragraph are of course justified. However, I think that is not good enough when we are talking about regional development.
Those words have insufficient clout to force the Government, the Minister and their staff to take regional development into account, and most of all, to give regional development precedence.
And if we really are to have a regional development policy which has some clout and which really meets the needs of the region, that should be acnowledged by all Ministers.
And if the objectives of regional development are only balanced against the commercial viability of transportation lines, we have no guarantee. It is too vague, too general. In fact, the Minister can forget or dodge that commitment. That is why I would like this paragraph to state that the objectives of regional development have precedence over commercial interests.

June 4, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one calling for those changes. They have been suggested by numerous groups and people, and I take this opportunity to underline the suggestions of the Prime Minister of New Brunswick who said on April the 1st in Moncton, and I quote:
The federal government's reluctance to date to incorporate into Bill C-18 satisfactory protection against the possible downside effects of the proposed legislation has increased the province's concern regarding the potential negative impacts of the new act on transportation services in New Brunswick, and in the Maritime Provinces in general. This is why New Brunswick is adamant that paragraph 3(1 )(d) of Bill C-18, recognizing transportation as a key to regional economic development, be expanded to include the statement that regional economic development objectives will take precedence over commercial viability objectives when the two are in conflict.
And now for what was said at the same hearings by the Leader of the Opposition in New Brunswick, the next Prime Minister of the province, Mr. Frank MacKenna, whose position was much the same, and I quote:
We must have a provision in this Act by which regional development directives take precedence over commercial viability ... 1 am not endorsing the word "balance", I am endorsing the word "precedence".
In fact, the word referred to in the text is "balanced".
Mr, Speaker, other groups and the Governments of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island also supported this amendment.
I would urge all Members of this House to read the motion carefully, because my purpose in moving this motion is to provide for a mechanism enabling the Minister to act in terms of regional development. The Minister would either act alone or in consultation with the provinces or another agency.
Often, when we talk about regional development, it turns out no one actually has the responsibility. Mr. Speaker, Moncton, as you know, has suffered a massive loss of jobs. Every time we mentioned the subject in questions to the Minister of Transport, he told us the matter was being considered but that he did not intend to intervene in the business of Canadian National.
My motion would have given the Minister the means to act and to save the jobs we are losing today. By the end of this year, the number of employees will have dwindled to about 350, while in September, 1984, nearly 1,200 people were employed at the CN shops. So you see, losing all those jobs is quite a blow for New Brunswick. The legislation should have provided for a mechanism enabling the Minister to take action, either alone or together with the Province of New Brunswick; the Province of New Brunswick did get involved but it did not have the means, there was no mechanism for it to act together with the federal Government to save these jobs-
Mr. Speaker, I urge Hon. Members to examine this motion, to study it and to think about regional development, and of course I ask them to support the motion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the two main issues that came before the committee when it was holding hearings on the Government's White Paper Freedom to Move and hearings on the legislation, were the matters of regional economic development and safety security. These were of particular interest in Atlantic Canada.
I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) for this amendment because it deals with concerns that were felt by committee members from all Parties.
The amendment substantially deals with the concerns expressed about those issues by many individuals and organizations in Atlantic Canada as well as western Canada.
If the committee had not been placed under such a restrictive time limit, and had been able to travel to such places as Yellowknife, Whitehorse, northern Ontario, southwestern Ontario, northern Quebec and places in northern British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, I suggest we would have heard the same concerns as were expressed in Halifax, Moncton and St. John's.
Transportation is essentially a public utility, whether it is privately or publicly owned. All of the economic and social activities of a region such as Atlantic Canada depend on the transportation system that is designed to assist regional economic development. If the principle of the bottom line, which is cutting costs, takes priority, then of course lay-offs, rail line abandonment, and plant closures will result.
Surely the transportation system does not exist in those parts of Canada just to make a buck. When a transportation company, whether it is an airline, railway or trucking company, is told that it must operate as a public service, it is up to the Crown to cover the difference between revenues and costs in order to maintain a transportation service that will assist in further regional and economic development. Once that is accomplished the transportation mode becomes all the more viable. That is so because the region is developing, enlarging its economic activity and providing employment. Therefore, it provides more traffic for that mode of transportation.
The Government itself, as well as government Members on the committee, recognize that regional and economic development must play an essential role in any national transportation legislation. This is certainly set out in the report of the committee on the White Paper. It should take precedence over economic viability of the transportation system.
We cannot have it both ways. We submit that the development of the economy and the development of a region have to take priority over whether or not a railway, an airline or a trucking company can make a good buck. When they are left to operate with total so-called freedom to exit or enter a route
June 4, 1987

or area of the country at their own will then there is not the stability of transportation service which is so essential to regional and economic development. If they are allowed to vacate an area, such as Atlantic Canada, because there is not enough traffic to make their existence viable, then the region will never become economically viable. Development will never take place because there will not be the transportation necessary to move the products, whether they be agricultural, manufactured or raw materials. There would be an insufficient capacity to grow. That is why regional and economic development have to take priority over economic viability of transporters.
The Government's blind adherence to the so-called deregulation of transportation in the name of competition and market forces automatically places regions such as Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario and the far north at a disadvantage. It stacks the deck against their obtaining more regional and economic development. If transportation services are not in place, and transportation is the basic foundation of any economy, then allowing the transporters to pick and choose where they want to work, allowing them to go into the nice markets and cream the gravy off the top, going home to count their money and saying to hell with the rest of the country, cannot take place. That is why public convenience and necessity must remain.
However, we are only going to be allowed to keep those in the designated area. That is why this amendment which is before us is worthy of support. It places that type of priority in the new law so that this Government, or any succeeding Government, will always have to arrange that our efficient transportation system provides the type of service required for a region to grow and for job creation.
If we are totally to disregard, as the Government presently does, the principle of cross-subsidization, then those types of areas are left even further in the hole. Their capacity to grow is lessened even more. Cross-subsidization is a principle which I consider part of what we call co-operative federalism. That is to say that the nation as a whole shares in the cost of providing transportation services. In this way we minimize discrimination against people and the goods they produce because of where they happen to be located. If there are big profits to be made in the dense markets of Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton or Winnipeg, then fine. Some of those profits should go toward the provision of services in places such as Atlantic Canada and northern Ontario. That is fair. It means that all Canadians through the tax system, through the fares they pay and the rates they are charged, share together the cost of serving people all over the country, not just where a buck can be made. That has been an underlying principle in transportation since 1881.
The legislators of those days were more far-sighted than even they knew. We now have before us a short-sighted, self-defeating type of legislation that would eliminate what has been an absolute necessity in Canada for the past 100 some years. In fact, that necessity remains today. In some parts of
National Transportation Act, 1986
the country it is even more needed than it was in the late 1800s or even in the Dirty Thirties.
I wish to commend the motion of the Hon. Member to the House. I commend him for moving it. I hope that the Government will decide that this is one that is worthy of acceptance and allow it to be incorporated into the legislation.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate in order to commend my colleague for Westmorland- Kent (Mr. Robichaud) for bringing in this amendment that responds to representations made to the Standing Committee on Transport when on two occasions we travelled, especially in the Atlantic Provinces, both for the review of the Government document Freedom to Move and on the occasion of the second series of public hearings in the Maritimes, when the Transport Committee discussed Bill C-18. On each of those occasions, concerns of Maritime people for regional development were expressed in an absolutely clear, specific and undeniable way.
It is therefore amazing that did not get through to the Government. Certainly the Bill now before us does not meet the aspirations of the people in the Maritimes.
For those reasons, the Hon. Member for Westmorland- Kent is bringing forward an amendment that would clearly specify that, where regional development objectives conflict with the objectives of commercial viability, the former would take precedence.
Obviously, transportation in Canada is absolutely vital to the economic welfare of all regions of the country. We cannot imagine such a large country as ours without a transportation system that is adequate to meet the needs of the people, not only for the transportation of passengers from one region to the other, but especially for moving all the necessities of life that must be delivered to the people living in the remotest areas.
Transportation therefore is vital for the Maritimes economy. I cannot understand why the Minister did not respond to the clear and specific representations that were made by his Conservative colleagues with provincial responsibilities.
The Government of Nova Scotia, the Government of New Brunswick and the Government of Newfoundland, three Conservative Goverments, made specific representations to the current Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), who turned them down.
Therefore, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud), is quite right to move this amendment. In doing so, he is speaking not only on his own behalf but on behalf of all the people of the four maritime regions. The Province of Nova Scotia appeared before our committee. It presented a brief to us which stated in part:

June 4, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
For many years the governments of the Maritime Provinces have advocated that the National Transportation Act endorse the following two regional development principles:
(i)	transportation is recognized as a key to regional economic development; and
(ii)	where there is a conflict between regional economic development objectives and commercial viability, regional economic development must take precedence.
Without the commitment to the second principle, that development objectives take precedence, the first principle may have very little meaning.
I think my colleague is quite right. He has introduced this amendment to ensure that the two principles are there and they have some meaning. The Minister of Transport representing the Province of New Brunswick stated, and I quote:
This is why New Brunswick is adamant that sub-section 3(1 )(d) of Bill C-18 recognizing transportation as a key to regional economic development be expanded to include the statement that regional economic development objectives will take precedence over commercial viability objectives when the two conflict.
The Government of Prince Edward Island said the same thing, and I quote:
-that it be enshrined and specifically defined in Section 3 of the National Transportation Act in the following words:
1)	Transportation is recognized as a vital instrument of regional economic development;
2)	Where the objectives of commercial viability or cost recovery are in conflict with regional economic development objectives, the latter shall take precedence.
The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission said the same thing. It said it was important to add after the "development" the following:
-and regional economic development objectives take precedence over commercial viability objectives of the transportation system when the two conflict.
It is quite clear. The Leader of the Opposition in New Brunswick, Mr. Frank McKenna, appeared before our committee. He spoke very vocally on behalf of the people of New Brunswick. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in a very short while he may be the Premier of New Brunswick and, therefore, what he is saying should be taken into account. He said, and I quote:
It is essential that Bill C-18 be amended to ensure that economic development objectives will take precedence over commercial viability when the two objectives conflict.
It is interesting to remember that Mr. McKenna was questioned before the Standing Committee on Transport by the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane) who tried to get him to accept that the word "balance" be in the legislation and be accepted. The Hon. Member for Moncton said:
Now, I guess the wording we have in most cases is that when looking at the commercial viability, it should be balanced in light of regional development objectives.
Mr. McKenna replied, and I quote:
With respect, I do not think so. The wording from Newfoundland is that, but 1 believe all three Maritime Premiers are unanimous as well as the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Committee, I believe, in saying that it should take precedence. I do not want to make that mistake. I am not endorsing the word "balance"; 1 am endorsing the word "precedence".
I think Mr. McKenna was certainly quite clear in this regard and the Hon. Member for Moncton was wrong in believing that the word "balance" would satisfy the people of the Maritimes. It will not satisfy the people of the Maritimes. What is needed is a crystal-clear commitment from the Government that in these circumstances, as suggested by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent, the precedence should prevail, and that economic development is paramount to any commercial viability and, therefore, it gives a direct mandate to the federal Government, who has a responsibility to sustain the efforts of the regions, to ensure that in the field of transportation, indeed, regional development is paramount and should be sustained through appropriate national transportation policy.
I would like to say in closing that Transport 2000 from the Atlantic Provinces also appeared before the committee. We can say that politicians have their own points of view, but here is a totally independent association, Transport 2000, which is known to be sometimes on the side of the Government and sometimes against it, depending on whether the Government is doing things well or not. Therefore, no one could say that Transport 2000 is a biased organization. Transport 2000 recommended, and I quote:
Specifically, we seek assurances that regional development and public interest considerations will take precedence over strict cost recovery criteria in the maintenance of transportation services to economically depressed areas.
This is what my colleague, in introducing his amendment, wants to accomplish. This is what we in the Liberal Party want to see in this legislation. We have never changed our view in this regard. I have here a press release which is dated February 7, 1977. It is a joint press release by the then Transport Minister, the Hon. Otto Lang, and the then Minister of Transportation and Communications of Newfoundland, Mr. James Morgan. They met and after their meeting they issued the press release which read in part, and I quote:
Mr. Lang, and the Maritime Premiers and Mr. Morgan agreed that where economic development objectives required it, those objectives would take precedence over the commercial viability of the services concerned. Mr. Lang further indicated that following further consultation with the Atlantic Provinces, he would propose an amendment to Bill C-33 now before Parliament to reflect that agreement.
Parliament was subsequently dissolved and this legislation never came to life and Mr. Lang is now doing other things. However, many years later we have the occasion to review and readdress this question through the National Transportation Act. I think we have to accept the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I want to enter into the discussion of the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud). It is an amendment which my Party supports. I want to take you back in time, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is important that we understand the changes which have occurred in this whole area throughout the process of the move toward deregulation by the Government.
June 4, 1987

We first had a White Paper called Freedom to Move brought down by the then Minister of Transport, which was given to the Standing Committee on Transport of the House of Commons to review. We had hearings here in Ottawa and in Halifax, Winnipeg and Vancouver. During these hearings we heard, both in terms of unprompted statements from witnesses, as well as through questioning by opposition members of the committee, that there was real concern about the impact of unfettered competition on some parts of our country. We heard about it in Atlantic Canada and we heard about it in the Prairies. We heard about it on the West Coast. We heard about it later when we travelled as a committee throughout northern Canada and the western Arctic. We heard pleas for some kind of protection and, quite frankly, only because the Opposition insisted upon it, was there mention of freedom to move in the report of the standing committee.
Then we got the original Bill which contained the following sentence: "Transportation is recognized as a key to regional economic development"; not the only key, not the prime key, but a key. As we know from events this week in Ottawa, even the word "the" becomes an important point within the context of drafting a new version of the Constitution. "A key" was an area focused upon. After second reading in the House, it went to the Standing Committee on Transport which was charged with the responsibility of reviewing Bill C-18 and Bill C-19. Fairly extensive hearings were held in Ottawa and when we went on the road.
We heard the same message. People were frustrated because they had to repeat it. From their point of view, as well as ours, the Government had not listened the first time around. It had not listened to leaders in Atlantic Canada, in western Canada, or in the North in terms of the very real danger of it being left to the market-place to make a decision. The market-place would decide, based upon its bottom line, what was good and not good for shareholders. It would decide to eliminate or reduce a service without any regard to the impact it would have upon the regions and, most important, the impact it would have upon the people living in those regions. We heard from eminent people in all parts of Canada.
In terms of our committee hearings on the road, we started in the West and worked back to central Canada; then we started in the east and worked back again to the centre. On the western side there was difficulty. I am sure the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent will remember the frustration we felt. No matter how hard we tried as members of the committee to bring out the concerns, we had great difficulty during our hearings in western Canada. However, there was a difference when we were in Atlantic Canada. Unlike some parts of the west, people in Atlantic Canada have not had good times. They have seen the policies of national Governments being imposed upon them. They have seen themselves being ignored time and time again by Governments of both stripes at the federal level. They were scared that if the legislation went through once again they would be the ones on
National Transportation Act, 1986
the "outs", the victims. They saw that there were areas of the country where competition was appropriate and did not need protection, for example, the Golden Horseshoe-the Windsor-Toronto-Montreal-Quebec City corridor where there are many options between modes and within modes to provide for the natural compression of rates on one hand and natural improvement of services on the other hand.
However, in Atlantic Canada, province after province, representatives of Governments, such as the Premier of New Brunswick, the Hon. Richard Hatfield, appeared before us. Let me read what was his contribution. He said:
My overriding concern continues to be the lack of adequate recognition in Bill C-18 of the importance of transportation to regional economic development. The recognition of transportation as a key to regional economic development in Bill C-18 is an important step, but goes only half way.
Further in his statement he said:
The national transportation policy statement which should be part of the new legislation must recognize the need to have regional economic development objectives prevail over commercial viability objectives when these are in conflict.
Government Members were listening very carefully. It was clear that they were getting the message. When we returned to Ottawa, we began the process of first hearing from the Minister and then from his officials. Then we got into clause by clause consideration. It was clear that Conservative members of the committee, particularly those from Atlantic Canada, got the message. Whether it was the message of the actual impact or whether it was a political message, I do not think we will ever know. The important thing was that they moved and worked behind the scenes to improve it once again.
Then we got the current wording of the clause which goes further than "a key" and says that transportation is recognized as a key to regional economic development and that commercial viability of transportation links is balanced with regional economic development objectives in order that the potential economic strengths of each region may be realized.
Today we are trying to go one step further in the progression to allow us to have a statement in Bill C-18 which clearly gives primacy to regional economic realities over arbitrary decisions that are made by a transportation element in a region of the country, whether it be in Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario, the northern Prairies, the southern Prairies, northern British Columbia, or southern British Columbia. We would provide them with that primacy so that if a transportation mode were examining its situation, it would know that it could not move arbitrarily. There would be a protection, a control, or a regulation to prevent a change in a service which would have very negative effects on the economy of a region and the people who live there.
When we travelled and heard from the Premiers, the Ministers of Transport, rail unions, labour councils, and local development groups, we received a message we could not have heard had we sat here in Ottawa. Many of those people would not have been able to come here. It is not a question of whether or not the committee would find time for them. Perhaps it is

June 4, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
not even a question of whether the committee would pay for them to come here. It is a question of available time. Many voluntary groups and small development councils do not have the resources to have their people away from their normal jobs for two, three, or four days in order to travel to Ottawa for hearings.
I should like to wrap up my comments because I realize that my time is up. I implore the Government to give serious consideration to allowing the further movement proposed by the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent to be approved by the House, perhaps at a point sometime later today.
I appreciate having had the opportunity to contribute to this particular part of the debate.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I personally congratulate and thank the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) for bringing this very realistic and crucial motion before the House. It is an amendment which will put some common sense back into transportation in the country if carried out. We are not hearing a common-sense solution from the Government.
In answer to a question that I raised in the House just a few days ago, the Parliamentary Secretary told me that they had had a Transport Committee meeting that afternoon and had I been in attendance I could have presented my case. The Parliamentary Secretary knows full well that I am not a member of the Transport Committee and that that was a copout on his part. It was a cheap comment that he wanted to throw out and it had no relationship to the argument whatever.
The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent and those of us who are speaking on his amendment are serious about the transportation problems in Canada. We are not satisfied to sit back and let the large urban areas of Canada along the ribbon of rapid economic development in the southern part of the country take precedence over everybody and everything else.
When railways and modes of transportation were brought into Canada, they were brought in in order to service the regions because this country is all about regions and regional economic development. If it is not, then we are denying to many smaller communities the right to strive to be economically viable and to produce a half decent living standard for their people.
A lot of the conversation, comments and speeches in this House have been directed at branch lines. I can fully appreciate why many Members of this House are concerned about branch line abandonment because they service many small communities.
The matter that I want to raise again today is not a branch line, it is the main line of the CNR running from Glen Robertson near Montreal on the Quebec-Ontario border through to Ottawa, what is known as the Alexandria subdivision which is used now by both CN and CP trains because
there is no CP track left between Ottawa and Montreal. I am also talking about the other section of the CNR main line called the Beachburg subdivision which runs from Ottawa up through Pembroke to Brent in the northern part of Algonquin Park. Part of the Alderdale subdivision goes from Brent through to North Bay and on to Capreol. That is a lot of track, Mr. Speaker. What does not make sense with CN's intention to abandon that part of the main line of the CNR across Canada is that it is 192 miles less from Capreol near Sudbury through to Montreal then it is to take all those freight trains carrying hazardous goods, chemicals and products from Capreol through to Toronto and all the major urban communities of the southern part of Ontario, up the waterfront of southern Ontario through Port Hope, Cobourg, Belleville, Kingston, Brockville and through to Montreal.
These people still do not know what is going to hit them when all this traffic that is presently going over the main line of the CNR from Montreal through to Capreol will no longer do so. 1 have heard that VIA Rail may be interested in taking over the CN line from Montreal to Ottawa to keep up passenger service. We know what the problems of passenger service have been in Canada. Are we to believe that VIA Rail will be in a position to pay the overhead costs of maintaining that route? What about the CPR? The CPR main line across Canada ran from Montreal to Ottawa. That part is now abandoned. It uses the CN line, one line between Montreal and Ottawa. From Ottawa on it uses CP track to Pembroke, Chalk River, Mattawa, North Bay, Sudbury and on into northern Ontario.
If the CNR main line, the Alexandria subdivision between Montreal and Ottawa is abandoned by CN, and VIA Rail wants to take it over, that is fine, but is CP going to take it over? Will it run on that same line? Will the CP keep it up from then on or will the CP, too, look upon this as a good excuse to get out? If the CPR does that and if that CNR mainline between Ottawa and Montreal is abandoned, and torn up, then there will be no railroad left in eastern Ontario and western Quebec. How can any Government that will allow that sort of thing to happen come into the House of Commons and say that it is interested in regional development?
I am very supportive of the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent as he strives and fights for his region of Canada and for his home Province of New Brunswick. Indeed, he has been speaking for Atlantic Canada on this one. I noticed here that he has given me a resolution of the Government of Prince Edward Island. It reads:
Prince Edward Island reconfirms its position that the use of transportation as a tool of economic development is essential to our economy and well-being, and urges that this principle form part of the new national transportation policy and that it be enshrined and specifically defined in Section 3 of the National Transportation Act in the following words:
1)	Transportation is recognized as a vital instrument of regional economic development-
That is plain, straightforward, rational common sense. It continues:
2)	Where the objectives of commercial viability-
June 4, 1987

That is a famous term today:
-or cost recovery are in conflict with regional economic development objectives, the latter shall take precedence.
In promoting this resolution on behalf of Atlantic Canada, the Member from Westmorland-Kent is speaking in harmony with all of the regions of Canada. I compliment him for bringing this forward. Regional development is a must in our Canadian economic sense. If we are going to speak about everything in this country in terms of economic viability, why were those roads built across Canada in the first place? Why were branch lines built into the regions of Canada? They were built to bring out the natural resources of those regions to the big urban areas so that the urban areas could flourish and develop. Now that the lines are not viable any more, the railway companies are going to desert the regions of Canada. It is a situation of, "We don't need you any more. You have nothing else to offer us, so we are not going to give you anything back".
I join with the Hon. Member for Westmorland

Kent today in saying to the economically viable areas of Canada, "You owe us the opportunity for future development". We will develop. "But we don't want you to cut the legs and feet out from underneath us before we even get there". I say that we must consider this very seriously before any drastic action is taken and look upon regional development as the very basis of the future development of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Council on Development estimates that, at one time or another during 1986, more than 100,000 Canadians were homeless.
A recent survey has revealed that the average age of the homeless in Montreal in 1987 was 34 for men and 33 for women. During the 1930-60 period most of the homeless were men over 50.
What worries me today, Mr. Speaker, is the growing number of youths, women and entire families who are homeless.
In Montreal, one out of two homeless youths has lived in foster homes or institutions. Eighty per cent of homeless youths have severed all contacts with their relatives. Most of them have never worked for more than 24 months in their life. Twenty-three per cent of these young people have already been patients in psychiatric wards. In Winnipeg, the number of homeless youths under 18 keeps rising. Most youths are victims of physical, emotional and sexual abuse.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are deluding ourselves if we believe that housing is the only problem of the homeless. Any solution aimed at finding shelter for the homeless, without taking their social needs into consideration, would be bound to fail.
Mr. Speaker, this is why I strongly urge the Minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to work in close co-operation with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) with a view to developing a comprehensive policy to combine housing and social programs throughout Canada.



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and pay tribute to the splendid working being done by B'nai B'rith Canada, part of B'nai B'rith International which was formed over a century ago. This weekend B'nai B'rith Canada will be holding its annual meeting and I wish it every success in its important deliberations.
The mandate of this most worthy organization is simply one of people helping people. B'nai B'rith's long, outstanding record of helping underprivileged children, assisting disabled persons and aiding senior citizens through initiatives such as providing housing, speaks for itself.
B'nai B'rith Canada also makes significant contributions in the fields of human rights and the protection of our freedoms. B'nai B'rith's youth organization and the on-campus Hillel group are to be commended for their human rights endeavours.
In closing, I want to recognize the strong performance of Mr. Harry Bick, the outgoing President, and wish every success to the incoming President, Ralph Snow, as he assumes the honour and burden of leadership.

June 4, 1987



MUNICIPALITIES


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect good roads, sound bridges, and safe and well functioning water and sewage systems. These facilities, known as municipal infrastructure, are an economic necessity. As well, they are very important to the health and quality of life of all Canadians.
Across Canada municipal infrastructures are in a state of decay and disrepair. The costs involved to remedy the situation are high and municipalities are ill-equipped to pay. In past decades the federal Government saw a responsibility in this area and funded municipal projects, but in the early 1980s the previous Liberal Government cut the funding.
Some post-war facilities are nearing the end of their lifespans, and roads, bridges, sidewalks, sewers and water systems have deteriorated.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities which comprises 273 Canadian communities of every size and description commissioned a study to determine the magnitude of the problem and has come up with a proposal to address it. At the very least, the Government and cabinet officials should have some responsibility to discuss this proposal with those municipal governments.



MONUMENTS


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, May 31, a sculpture in honour of Raoul Wallenberg was unveiled in the City of Nepean. Several hundred people, standing in a steady summer rain, came to pay respect to a great humanitarian, a person who was responsible for saving the lives of thousands of Jews in eastern Europe during the Second World War.
Raoul Wallenberg, a citizen of Sweden, went while in his late twenties to Hungary. There he developed, under difficult and courageous circumstances, a scheme of issuing Swedish passports to thousands of Jews allowing them to escape to western Europe. Wallenberg was arrested by the Soviet Union at the end of the Second World War and has not been heard from since.
Those who were responsible for creating a memorial to Wallenberg are to be congratulated for creating a memorial to a great human being. At the unveiling I was pleased to represent the Government of Canada which has officially recognized in the House of Commons Wallenberg's humanitarian efforts.
Canadians continue to demonstrate their concerns about human rights.



THE CENSUS


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Tories are at it again. With its insatiable appetite to decrease service and increase revenues, the Government never ceases to attack. The 1986 census for agriculture is another example of this vicious attack by the Government upon those least able to afford it. That report will now be sold for the sum of $192 for one set. I hear a Tory Member across the way saying that is a good idea. Do you know what the same results sold for when the Liberals were in power? It was free for the farmers of Canada. The publication of the results will also be sold for a sum of $50. When the Liberals were in power farmers could get that publication for $9.50.
Tory times are hard times for Canadian farmers. We have all known it for some time. The Government uses money to reward friends of the Tories like Roger Nantel instead of putting the money to a good use like helping the farmers. That is the priority of the Tories. Shame on the Tories!



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on Canadian National's response to the report of the parliamentary subcommittee on the CN pension system. That committee's comprehensive and realistic recommendations were presented to this House in May of 1986. However, it took CN 10 months to formulate a response.
While CN is prepared to make some adjustments regarding the pension board and trusteeship, the response contains no commitment to improving the financial plight of the CN pensioners. CN has rejected an increase in survivor benefits and the concept of a degree of inflation protection for current pensioners. It claims that ad hoc increases answer concerns regarding purchasing power of CN pensions. CN pensioners have not yet received their ad hoc increase for 1987. Thus I urge CN to announce the amount of that increase and commit itself contractually to an annual minimum ad hoc increase.
As well, the committee recommended the Government of Canada underwrite the cost of providing much needed improvements for the survivors and recipients of the provident fund. Yet we have not heard a response from the Government.
June 4, 1987

In summary, the responses to our report have not been adequate. I urge the Government and CN to reconsider their positions, particularly regarding survivor benefits and limited inflation protection.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday workers in British Columbia refused to work because they felt they had no other way to protest repressive labour laws introduced by the Social Credit Government.
Bill Vander Zalm was elected on a promise to end the spirit of confrontation created by former Social Credit Premier Bill Bennett. He has betrayed that promise. Now, in response to the day of protest, his Government seeks an injunction against British Columbia labour leaders. The injunction runs counter to all our constitutional rights and freedoms. If granted it would prohibit work stoppages, slowdowns, study sessions, picketing and strikes "as a means of accomplishing governmental change in the province". It defines all of these actions as the use of force.
If granted the injunction would make British Columbia more akin to Chile or South Africa than Canada. It is the most absurd attempt to use the courts to stifle working people in Canada since the 1919 Winnipeg general strike when J. S. Woodsworth was charged with seditious libel after quoting the Prophet Isaiah in the Bible.



WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, in recent months the western grain stabilization program has provided significant price support to the majority of Saskatchewan farmers. Our Government's changes to the Western Grain Stabilization Act meant record interim payments before spring seeding when farmers usually have the greatest cash requirement.
During the past two crop years stabilization payments have totalled nearly $1.6 billion, some $862 million of which has gone to Saskatchewan. As a result of these record payments the stabilization fund is now in a deficit. This has caused considerable concern among the approximately 18 per cent of producers who are not in the plan.
I believe consideration should be given to amending the Act in order to make it easier for producers outside the plan to join. This would put all western producers on an equal footing
and enable them to use stabilization to support their income during this period of world-wide depressed grain prices. It would also mean that if the fund is not self-supporting every Saskatchewan farmer would benefit from a further involvement of the federal Treasury.



THE CONSTITUTION

[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD-ROLE OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, as we embark upon this historic constitutional debate it is important and essential that Members of Parliament be unfettered in their ability to speak out openly in a constructive way. We owe a duty to our electors, our country and ourselves to speak out about our vision of Canada and the ways the Constitutional Accord can be improved.
In my view the opposing viewpoints are not diametrically opposed. I believe that there is middle ground. I believe that the two visions of Canada which have been articulated by various people who have spoken out can be reconciled. Our goal as Members of Parliament should be to find that middle ground, to satisfy all Canadians, and to ensure that Quebec and all provinces are full partners in our Constitution.




Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Last night as I worked in my office, Mr. Speaker, I received a long distance telephone call from a friend in Toronto, Kay Yu. Kay Yu is a young Canadian woman of Korean origin. She came to Canada a few short years ago. She worked hard and was joined here by her father, mother, four sisters, a brother, and their families. Driven by the entrepreneurial spirit, but deeply religious, the Yu, Naughton, Lee, Kim and Hong families have started six businesses and founded the Korean Buddhist Society of Ontario.
Last night Kay Yu's first words to me took me by surprise, but they should not have. She said, "Congratulations on the signing of the Constitutional Accord. I hope you are happy because we are. Today is a great day for Canada. Now we are all Canadians again".
That simple but eloquent message from a young Korean Canadian woman, a Canadian by choice, says it all. I hope all Canadians understand the true meaning of the Accord as well as Kay Yu and her family do.

June 4, 1987
-S'. O. 21



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday 30 members of the Canada Employment and Immigration Union who work at CEIC's pay section in the Montreal regional office did not report for work. These employees provide pay services to some 6,000 employees of the Department throughout the Province of Quebec.
The employees were forced to take this extraordinary job action to force the management of Canada Employment and Immigration to pay attention to their on-the-job grievances, problems such as 10 to 15 hours of compulsory overtime each week, heavy work overload, and staff shortages. These problems have existed since the fall of 1986 when the Government began to take steps to cut jobs at Canada Employment and Immigration.
On Tuesday officials of the union were able to bring about a full and complete settlement with management. In fact management has acknowledged that the union was right in predicting the problems cutbacks would cause in this Department.
This is not an isolated incident, Mr. Speaker. I have met with and heard from many people who work for Canada Employment. They, too, report serious reductions in services to the public because of the Government's determination to slash public employees' jobs.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the people of Saskatchewan on the centennial of Canada's oldest federal bird sanctuary at Last Mountain Lake. It was established on June 8, 1887, by the Government of Canada under Prime Minister John A. Macdonald.
The marshy bays, inlets, and wet fields bordering the north end of Last Mountain Lake were jointly set aside by the federal and Saskatchewan Governments for the conservation of migratory birds and wildlife habitat. This 15,600 hectare sanctuary now protects a major breeding ground and staging area for several threatened and endangered species.
Since it was created 100 years ago Last Mountain Lake has gained international recognition for its importance and contribution to the protection of wetlands. It was designated an international biology program site in 1971 and became a designated Ramsar site in 1982.
Congratulations on Last Mountain Lake's long history of success! May it continue to contribute to a balanced environment in the future. Let me also congratulate the Minister of
the Environment (Mr. McMillan) who will be visiting the site tomorrow.



THE CONSTITUTION


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I congratulated one of the great artisans responsible for the Constitutional Accord, the man who, more than anyone else, was responsible for bringing Quebec into the Canadian Constitution: Robert Bourassa, the Premier of Quebec. I read in the papers that yesterday the Premier of Ontario, borrowing a metaphor from the world of hockey, said that he gave the first star to the Hon. Robert Bourassa, Premier of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to extending my congratulations to the other premiers who understood the reality of this country and that Quebec should be seen as a distinct society compared with the other provinces, I would like to give a star to the Leader of the Liberal Party, who has officially announced his Party's position in no uncertain terms. We agree on the position on the Constitutional Accord but, one thing is certain and that is that, faithful to their traditions, the Liberals will fight to improve this Constitutional Accord for those people who were forgotten, and we condemn the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) for accepting handshakes from well-wishers after ignoring our native peoples and the francophone minorities outside Quebec.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party, in a desperate state, has sunk to a new low and is using McCarthy-style language and techniques in its political fund-raising letters.
Many Canadians who supported former Saskatchewan Premier Tommy Douglas will be insulted by this approach. Manitobans who have supported the former Governor General and now ambassador Ed Schreyer, and Ontarians who supported ambassador Stephen Lewis, will find this repugnant.
The Conservatives have also offended our international allies in their attack on NDP international ties to other Social Democratic Parties. Did Mr. Jarvis mean to attack Francis
June 4, 1987

Mitterrand, the socialist President of France? Was he attacking the Government of Greece? If not, which of our elected Social Democratic Governments is working for "a one world totalitarian state"?
The smear and fear campaign of the Conservative Party is plain silly and will not work. In poll after poll, Canadians express their faith in the New Democratic Party and the integrity of our Leader. This letter, which is part of a package of deliberate lies and distortions by a desperate group of third place and sinking politicians, displays their weak suit, their own lack of credibility and believability.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD-ADOPTION BY HOUSE OF COMMONS
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will put my questions to the Deputy Prime Minister as they also relate to his capacity as Government House Leader.
The Liberal Party wants Quebec's signature on the Constitution. We want a united Canada. We believe that the spirit of the constitutional Accord deserves support and we will work hard to make it even better.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I think we are a little sensitive on this side of the House to the fact that we are being measured by an applause meter, and by who stands up. In any event, the Prime Minister was tired yesterday, justifiably so, after the accomplishment, and he unfortunately said that he expects the House of Commons to "adopt the document in its entirety".
Upon reflection, will the Deputy Prime Minister approach the Prime Minister to suggest that he should keep the spirit of constructive compromise alive and agree to allow any constructive suggestions to reach the floor of the House of Commons and a committee of Parliament, which is a position that has been publicly adopted by several of the provincial Premiers?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I know that we on this side of the House certainly welcome the comments of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, we are encouraged by his commitment and his Party's commitment to move this agreement forward in the best possible manner.
I want to remind him, however, that we have an agreement by 11 First Ministers in the Accord. It represents a resolution to the very important issues that have been addressed over the
Oral Questions
last year. We, as the Government, are fully supportive of the Accord and will be recommending its adoption by Parliament.
It will be in that spirit that we will move it ahead, and will do so in such a way that we will have a mechanism to allow full participation by all Members of Parliament.


ATTITUDE OF CERTAIN PREMIERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I could quote some comments by several provincial Premiers. Take, for instance, Premier Peterson of Ontario, who clearly made a generous and major contribution to the Accord. He said he was not only in favour of improving the Accord but, indeed, open to the concept. Is the Deputy Prime Minister unable to emulate the energy, optimism and openmindedness of the Premier of Ontario and other Premiers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we as a Government are committed to seeing this Accord adopted by Parliament, as I am sure the Premier of Ontario is committed to seeing the provisions adopted by the provincial Legislature. As far as that goes, all the other Premiers will be doing the same thing.
This is an agreement that was quite unlike the constitutional process that we went through in 1981 and 1982. This process has been developed through consensus, consultation, a great deal of co-operation, and give and take. So we are really talking about quite a different proposal from that which was before the House the last time.


NATURE OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if I recall correctly the last time a parliamentary committee held hearings which actually improved the arrangement that was originally presented to Parliament. I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will accept that as a useful precedent.
What 1 am concerned about is this. I want anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec to be assured that their rights are 100 per cent guaranteed. I want to assure the northern territories that their eventual process toward provincial status is not forever closed by the Accord. I want Canadians to know that parliamentary debate really means parliamentary debate.
I am asking the Deputy Prime Minister this. Give us an assurance that what the provincial Premiers said publicly, on assurances, apparently, of the Prime Minister of Canada, will be lived up to by the Government when the Accord is debated and referred to a committee of the House. That is what we are asking.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 4, 1987
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the last constitutional proposals that were brought before the House by the Liberal Government needed a great deal of improvement because there was very little consensus for the proposals that were contained in that resolution. As a matter of fact, we as an opposition Party had to fight like the dickens to try to get the matter before a parliamentary committee. There was very little consensus for that particular proposal.
Again, I repeat, we are committed to this proposal. I am not sure what changes the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. If he is suggesting some changes, perhaps he would like to elaborate on those changes on the floor of the House. He will have an opportunity to come before the appropriate mechanism, a parliamentary committee. He and his colleagues will certainly have an opportunity to express their points of view.
I hope that at a very early date I will be in a position to lay out a number of options to the House Leaders opposite so that we can consider how we might best proceed. I am in the process of developing those options now. I hope that in the next few days I will be able to do that, and perhaps we can consider some of the points that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has brought forward.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AND YUKON-ATTAINMENT OF PROVINCEHOOD
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It was during the election campaign of 1958 that the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker said: "I see a new Canada-a Canada of the north."
I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why this Government has abandoned Canada's north in the 1987 Constitutional Accord. Why was it that in all the negotiations leading up to this Accord the Northwest Territories and Yukon were cast aside and ignored? Why has the Government made it next to impossible for provincehood ever to be attained in Canada's North?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, I think I should make it quite clear that the contentions that he has put forward are, unfortunately, untrue.
The reality of the matter is that we now have an opportunity as a new and united Canada to come forward in a spirit of cooperation which, unfortunately, has not existed in the country for many, many years, in order to develop the full potential of a very important part of our country.
This Party has taken a leadership role in terms of the concept of devolution so that the northern territories will in fact have control over their own destiny. I think our record is exemplary in this connection. I say to the Hon. Member that
the process has done nothing but enhance our ability to meet that objective.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROVISION REQUIRING UNANIMOUS APPROVAL BY PROVINCES
B. Keith Penner: 
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of the Accord which I think is progressive, is in the Canadian tradition, and one which would give the kind of assurance to all parts of our country that regional considerations are going to be considered, is the fact that we have, for the first time in the history of this country, constitutionalized the constitutional process between the various provinces and the federal Government. There will be ample opportunity on an annual basis to consider the various proposals brought forward for progressive change in our country and the Constitution.
The inclusion of Quebec in the Constitution has given a dimension to our country which has been lacking over the past years. I would suggest to the Hon. Member, Members of the House and to the country, generally, it has given hope for our northern territories that in the course of the evolution of the Constitution over the next years, they will in fact reach their proper status in our country.


ABORIGINAL SELF-GOVERNMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I think yesterday was a good day for Quebec and for Canada. In light of the lack of success of the recent First Ministers' Conference relating to aboriginal self-government, would the Deputy Prime Minister consider supporting the addition of another item to the two points which are there now in relation to the Senate and to fisheries matters at the First Ministers' Conference for next year, that being aboriginal title and rights and self-government? Now that Quebec is a full participant, I think we are much more likely to see success coming out of such a First Ministers' Conference.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to respond to that question, I agree with the conclusion of the Hon. Member that, with the inclusion of Quebec, the chances with respect to agreement on aboriginal matters is indeed
June 4, 1987

enhanced. I commend the Elon. Member for his perception in that regard.
I want to say that in terms of the whole process of constitutional change with regard to the aboriginal peoples of Canada,
I have already had an opportunity of meeting with representatives of the groups, with the exception of the AFN, and my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has in fact been in constant contact with that important representative group.
It is our intention to carry on and find the best way possible to deal with the question of constitutional changes of aboriginal self-government. We will continue our liaison and discussion. I am going to consult with my cabinet colleagues and develop a strategy to deal with that matter to ensure that the priority for that development is in fact maintained.


CREATION OF NEW PROVINCES
James Ross Fulton: 
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to recall any Member who gave any greater attention in leadership to that matter than the Member who represented Yukon for so many years in this Parliament, the Hon. Erik Nielsen. We have maintained that commitment in our Party to northern Canada.
I want to say that there is-and it has been pointed out by the Deputy Prime Minister-the reality that legal proceedings are in fact before the courts at the present time which limit my ability to speak on the particular matter.
The fact of the matter is that we as a Party and as a Government are committed to the enhancement of the northern part of the country. I think our policies in that regard are worthy of commendation and will be seen to be the right way to go in years ahead.


REQUIREMENT FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF PROVINCES
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice to address his mind for a moment to the point I made a moment ago. Nowhere on the public record in Canada are the positions of the provinces or of the Parties represented
Oral Questions
in the House of Commons endorsing the requirement for the support of all 10 provinces for the creation of new provinces.
Would the Minister of Justice tell the House why the federal Government took the initiative to include subclauses (e) and (f) of the old Clause 42 and roll them into the new Clause 41 when there were no provinces or no Parties in the House of Commons on the public record? On what grounds did it take that action?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, that is quite untrue. I do not recall any particular participant in the First Ministers' meeting not agreeing to the particular proposition. In fact, all Parties were represented at the table. All Parties in the country had representatives at the table in the sense that there are Governments from four different political Parties.
The Hon. Member is just speaking through his hat when he makes that allegation. I remember the leadership which the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs has given over the years in respect of the devolution of provincial status for northern Canada.
Our commitment is maintained there, and we will continue to work to that end.


PROMOTION OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH LINGUISTIC DUALITY- POSITION OF GOVERNMENT AND PROVINCES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The 1987 Constitutional Accord makes it an obligation for Canada and the provincial legislatures, including Quebec's, to protect the basic characteristic of this country, namely the French and English linguistic duality. If this duality is accepted, does it not deserve to be enhanced, and why were the provincial legislatures as well as the Parliament of Canada not asked to promote it?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to note that the Hon. Member has had a long interest in and support for the principles of bilingualism in Canada. Indeed the Accord has addressed in a very new and progressive way the undertaking of all provinces and the federal Government regarding the principles of a fair and equitable system of bilingualism in Canada.
This is an historic document, an historic agreement. I think the First Ministers showed the spirit of co-operation in our country in respect of this important topic. We should all commend those participants in this regard.


INCLUSION OF SPECIAL PROVISIONS IN CONSTITUTION-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 am surprised that, as far as duality is concerned, the

June 4, 1987
Oral Questions
provinces and this Parliament are under no obligation not only to protect, but also to promote both official languages. This is important for us as members of the linguistic minorities, that is, for anglophones inside Quebec as well as francophones outside Quebec. If the Prime Minister of this country could not convince the premiers to include not only the protection, but also the promotion of our linguistic duality, why did he not take it upon himself to include in our new Constitution the obligation for this Government and this Parliament of Canada to insure not only the preservation, but also the promotion of our linguistic duality?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I do not understand the basis of the Hon. Member's question, because I do not think there is any question of the commitment, as far as the federal Government and the Prime Minister are concerned, in respect of the preservation and promotion of the official languages of the country.
All I can simply say is that we will be judged by our record in this regard-and I think we will be judged favourably-by the Canadian people and by history.
Perhaps the Hon. Member is suggesting that we should revert back to the old system of the federal Government intruding itself, as under his former Leader, Mr. Trudeau, who had a great way of knocking the provinces about. We want to move forward in a very co-operative way. We want Canada to work together as a team. We want Canada to progress.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Premier Vander Zalm has been appearing on BCTV promoting a federally supported job-creation program and claiming that he needs to pass repressive labour legislation to make this federally supported program work.
Does the Government of Canada support the Vander Zalm proposition that repressive labour legislation is necessary to make federal-provincial job-creation programs work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, clearly that is a provincial matter. It was answered by the Minister of Labour yesterday in the House.
I invite the Hon. Member either to pay attention to answers in the House or to read Hansard.


FEDERAL POSITION
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The working people of British Columbia and Canada are watching the answers to this. Clearly the Deputy Prime Minister missed the import of the question.
I want to repeat it in a different form. Does the federal Government believe that repressive labour legislation is required to make federally supported job-creation programs work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the same question and the same answer, and I invite the Hon. Member to read the answer in yesterday's Hansard.


MUNICIPALITIES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Finance, in answer to my request that the Government reconsider its refusal to fund municipal infrastructure which would create 280,000 jobs, said that he would not do this because it was outside federal jurisdiction.
The Government knows that under a previous Liberal Government, prior to 1979, there was a similar program which was finally terminated but was there when the need was there.
Since the President of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities said that if the senior levels of Government did not participate in the program it could result in a $1,000 increase in the water bills of ratepayers, does the Government think it is a fair burden to put on ratepayers for something which will benefit the whole economy?
Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to funding of municipal infrastructure, it is true the previous Government brought in such a program. It also terminated such a program because of the complaints of the provinces at the time about interference in municipal jurisdiction.
Also, in the 1970s we did not have the enormous deficit we have today which was left to this Government.


RECOVERY OF EXPENDITURE-STUDY FINDINGS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, is the Minister not aware of the macroeconomic impact study prepared by Informetrica for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities which indicates that the federal Government would recover most of its expenditure for such a program through extra tax revenue and reduced
June 4, 1987
[Stage Direction]
federal welfare payments? Is he not aware of that and that therefore the deficit is not a real reason to refuse the program?
Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the Informetrica study. It is being reviewed by Departments of Government, and we hope to be able to give our response to it shortly.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It is only two months into the fiscal year and I have been informed that DRIE is in a serious cash crunch situation. I have been informed by some very reliable sources that DRIE is unable to meet all its program commitments for this year out of its $909 million budget for projects which have already been negotiated in the past.
Could the Minister confirm that, according to my sources, his Department is now unable to meet some $75 million to $100 million in financial commitments under DRIE's various programs?
Could he also tell us whether or not he has had a chance to meet with the President of the Treasury Board to discuss this very serious problem?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enlighten my hon. friend. I have also been advised that, because of the accounting methods now used by the Government, there might be some overspending in the Budget for the fiscal year 198687. This overspending could also affect the current fiscal year, with the requirements of the regions growing constantly. But my hon. colleague is certainly well aware that under Section 25 of the Financial Administration Act, the Department cannot commit itself to spending more than the amounts allocated.
We have asked for a report on this matter. As soon as we receive it, we shall respond accordingly. But I want my hon. friend to know that the Government does not intend to overlook its commitments to regional development, and I invite him to acquaint himself with the announcements that will be made within the next few days, especially in the Atlantic region.


CRITERIA USED BY DEPARTMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I thank the Minister for responding and confirming the problems faced by the Department. In view of those difficulties, the Department will have to try and renegotiate those agreements, especially for major projects. In
Oral Questions
view of that indication, Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell us now what criteria will be used to identify projects whose funding will be postponed until next year?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the Hon. Member. That situation is quite temporary in the first place and that will be solved over the next few days or at the latest the next few weeks. I would like to tell him also that we are currently reviewing not only programs but also the level of funding for those programs, and we will be in a position as I said to address those temporary problems. Again, I would like to assure him of our total commitment to and special concern for matters of development and regional disparities. Once more, the Hon. Member will be able to see what effort and priority the Government is giving the matter.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When I was in the Soviet Union last month, Alexei Gloukhov, Director of the Department of Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs, basically confirmed that the U.S.S.R. is treating refuseniks as hostages when he said that "as disarmament and peace negotiations go, so go human rights".
We were shocked at such an admission and told him that Canada's position is just the opposite. How can we trust the Soviets regarding peace initiatives if we cannot trust them to live up to their human rights obligations?
Is glasnost a reality or a myth? How can the Canadian Government bring increased pressure on the Soviet Union to stop treating refuseniks as hostages and poker chips in its world-wide negotiations?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that is the question which no one can answer with certainty. There have certainly been developments in the Soviet Union that indicate some openness toward change. There has been a welcome attitude toward allowing more refuseniks to leave the country and allowing also a greater degree of family reunification. How extensive that will be remains to be seen.
Certainly the consistency of the Soviet Union in being prepared to allow people who want to leave that country to come to freedom will be a factor which all other nations will have to judge when we try to make some assessment of the sincerity of the Soviet Union in its other activities, including its willingness to adhere to arms control and other agreements.

June 4, 1987
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


NICARAGUA-CONTRA ATTACK ON CANADIAN AID VILLAGE
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. When the Farmers for Peace first went to Macotal in Nicaragua two years ago to carry out a Canadian aid project they helped to rebuild the village which had been destroyed by the Contras. The Contras have now for the second time attacked this village, massacring, burning, looting, and kidnapping innocent civilians. This being clearly an act of terrorism, will the Minister now condemn the Contras as terrorists and immediately bring this matter under the category of terrorism before the United Nations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member was absent the other day when that question was raised. I have given an answer to it in the House. I have been in touch with the United States Secretary of State to express my personal great concern about the attack to which he makes reference upon a project mounted by the Farmers for Peace Organization.
I have indicated to Secretary Shultz that I intend to raise the matter and discuss it with him more fully when I meet him either in Venice or Reykjavik. I have further indicated, in answer to a representation by a Member of the House, that upon my return from that trip I would be prepared to meet with the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam to discuss if there would be further appropriate action for the House or for the Government to take.


COST OF REBUILDING PROJECT
Roland de Corneille: I thank the Minister for his reply, Mr. Speaker, except 1 was talking about condemning it as terrorism before the United Nations. I knew about the other actions. I asked specifically whether the Minister would be willing to bring this matter up as an act of terrorism and define it as such. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs, for the purposes of being on the record before the House, guarantee that the money needed to rebuild the Farmers for Peace Project would be provided by CIDA? Will he ask the Americans to instruct their lackeys, the Contras, to release the four innocent villagers they kidnapped and put an end to their massacres of innocent civilians in their program of terror and intimidation?


Charles Joseph Clark: I will consider the last two of those three representations, Mr. Speaker.


DOME PETROLEUM-PROPOSED PURCHASE BY AMOCO CANADA
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. According to reports in a Calgary newspaper, an internal evaluation document by Amoco has concluded that there would be many lay-offs at Dome after a takeover, and Amoco itself has publicly admitted that, indeed, there would be lay-offs. Did the Government discuss these job losses with Amoco during recent meetings held and did the Government press Amoco to reject these lay-offs for the future?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think I would be correct in saying that that is not consistent with the information provided to us. I think quite the contrary is the case. I think the Hon. Member should consider the consequences of a collapse of Dome Petroleum, and such will be the case if a buyer is not found. Further, if the Amoco purchase is proceeded with, these would be things that would be taken into consideration during the over-all evaluation.
As I said, on the basis of the knowledge that I have and that I think the Minister has, that is somewhat inconsistent with what the Hon. Member is suggesting.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the public confirmation, which I understand has taken place, of lay-offs is unquestionable. It is a question of numbers where the newspaper in question has argued a large number and Amoco has said that the number would be smaller. There is no question that lay-offs will occur.


SHARES HELD BY DOME EMPLOYEES
Steven W. Langdon: I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Given that 5,000 to 6,000 Dome employees past and present have at this stage now devalued shares in Dome as their only pension funds, did the Government in its meetings also press Dome and Amoco to give these workers Amoco pension credits that would be equal to their years at Dome, as part of the takeover?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be pointed out that Amoco, if a purchase is proceeded with, has announced that it would be prepared to reinvest something in the order of $1 billion over the next five years. I do not know to whom the Hon. Member is talking.
The employees to whom I have spoken at Dome Petroleum clearly want this issue resolved and the sooner the better. They want security of the jobs. The best way to secure their jobs is to proceed with the transaction.


Steven W. Langdon: And their pensions?
June 4, 1987


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member should stop frustrating attempts for people in Alberta to maintain jobs and job security. That is precisely what he is doing on the floor of the House of Commons right now.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I believe many Canadians were distressed to learn of the attack on the Canadian food project in Nicaragua by the Contras. We appreciate the Minister's willingness to take that matter up with the U.S. Secretary of State.
I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister testimony that was given before the special committee investigating the Iran-Contra affair in the United States. This evidence indicated that the first shipment of arms to the Contras was purchased through a Canadian arms dealer. The committee has further released a memorandum from Colonel North to Robert McFarlane which discusses a Canadian originated arms sale to the Contras.
Taking into account those facts, I would ask the Secretary of State if he could report whether the RCMP has completed its investigations undertaken into Canadian participation in sales to the Contras and whether these recent revelations will also be incorporated into that investigation so that we will be able to determine if in fact Canadian arms are being used by the Contras to kill and maim innocent civilians in Nicaragua.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by my colleague, the Solicitor General, that the investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is not yet complete and that the Solicitor General has requested that the elements referred to by the Hon. Member, and perhaps other elements, should become part of the investigation.


REGULATIONS GOVERNING ARMS EXPORTS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for the answer and I would hope that either he or the Solicitor General would give us the date that report is expected.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State a further question. Considering the ease with which Canadian arms dealers use intermediary countries to trans-ship arms to countries containing groups like the Contras, which is very clearly in violation of government policy, the government policy which we respect, I would ask the Minister if it is not time the Government looked at ways of tightening those regulations and
Oral Questions
rules to ensure that Canadian arms exports are not used in areas where there are hostilities, civil wars or conflicts, and particularly not in cases where there are severe violations of human rights as in the Nicaraguan case. Would it be possible to have that kind of recommendation or reform made and perhaps considered by the External Affairs Committee?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may be making some assumptions with regard to the nature of the Canadian involvement that the RCMP investigation will not bear out. He raises a difficult and complex question.
If the Hon. Member can propose some terms of reference that might allow us to get at this problem in a tangible way, I would be very interested in looking at them. It is highly complex because it deals only incidentally with arms trade and has to do with general and often normal practices of international commerce. However, if there is some way that we could define a way to look at that particular problem, I would be interested in seeing whether it would be worth while taking further action.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the post office. I am sure the Minister is aware of the plan of Canada Post to have security guards search the personal belongings of employees as they arrive at work, for stolen drugs, alcohol and items like that. I wonder if he would remind the post office of the Marin Commission report which recommended that people only be searched when there are reasonable and probable grounds and that the post office should be taking preventive action in the area of security.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, of course this decision that was taken by the post office has nothing to do with me or the Government but-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: It is a Crown corporation but those Hon. Members would not understand that.
The Hon. Member may be aware that here in Ottawa, six individuals in the post office were charged with selling drugs. A death occurred as a result of a worker who was under the influence of alcohol while driving a forklift off a loading dock. The recommendation at that time was that the post office take responsibility and ensure that that does not happen again. Taking security measures means looking at things like lunch pails to make sure that alcohol is not being brought onto the work site to ensure that those kinds of accidents do not happen

June 4, 1987
Oral Questions
in the future. That, as I understand it, is what the post office is doing.


APPLICATION OF CORPORATION'S POLICY
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather contradictory for the Minister on the one hand to say that he wipes his hands of the post office and then on the other hand to make comments that seem to approve of the policy. I wonder if the Minister realizes that to label all employees and to initiate a blanket policy for searching all employees rather than to approach this in a selective manner is very provocative in the context of very sensitive negotiations that are going on at the post office. Does he not want service to continue? Will he tell the post office to take reasonable action rather than provocative action?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Reasonable action is the only appropriate action. I understand that this type of procedure is very common. Indeed-


John R. Rodriguez: Where?


Harvie Andre: Twenty-five years ago when I worked a summer job, in fact I had to do precisely that.


John R. Rodriguez: Twenty-five years ago? We had child slavery then too.


Harvie Andre: Obviously while members of the New Democratic Party are talking about not being provocative, they are doing everything they can to ensure that the relationship between the employees and the post office is as uncomfortable as possible so that they will have the strike they apparently want.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, a pornography Bill dealing with violent and degrading sex is one thing. Artistic expression dealing with the human body and human emotion is quite a different matter.
My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Apparently the female breast and the human anal region are defined in the definitions of your Bill as erotica. Does that include a person's bare backside, bottom or bum? Further, would Gauguin's nude swimmers or Rockwell's bare-bottomed children or, for that matter, the Coppertone ad, pass muster with you? Does the Minister realize that, under his definition, today's modern artists will have to prove that they are portraying erotica and not the Minister's or the Government's view of s-e-x?


John R. Rodriguez: Just the bare facts.


Mr. Crosbie:: Give her a demonstration, Ray.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the Hon. Member if she would not mind repeating the question. This kind of detail, based on my clear understanding that the Hon. Member does not understand the Bill, should be more appropriately addressed to me in committee. I hope the Hon. Member will speed this matter through the House of Commons so we can get into committee and I can demonstrate to her that this Bill is one which will commend itself not only to the Hon. Member but to the great thinking Canadian public.


ARTISTS' CONCERNS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, with no ifs, ands or buts, that is your definition of erotica in the Bill. My supplementary question to the same Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is listening with great care to all the words mentioned by the Hon. Member but there is one that she must not use again and that is her reference to the Minister as "you".


Sheila Finestone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for keeping me abreast of the situation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Marchi:: What a bum rap.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the proposed pornography Bill states that a visible display of erotica must be "hidden by a barrier" or "covered by an opaque wrapper". That definition definitely puts the Sistine Chapel out of order. Should we cover Gauguin's nude sunbathers or Rockwell's bare bottoms with what? A fig-leaf? A maple leaf? Or, should they be gift-wrapped?
How is the Minister planning to answer the artistic community which is very concerned about this issue? It is no joking matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, she may want to consult her colleague, George Baker, if she wants to know about joking matters. I think she needs some help. With reference to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that she does not have to refer to me as "you". A simple "sir" would do.
I want to make it quite clear that the Hon. Member's contention is unfounded. It is wrong. Clearly the Bill provides for artistic merit even in the case of erotica. If she would read the Bill and understand it, and if she goes to committee after second reading, I will be able to explain to her that her understanding of the Bill is incorrect.
June 4, 1987


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. Last week he met with his provincial counterparts to discuss a number of matters including the Young Offenders Act and the minimum age therein. Would the Minister advise the House whether or not the provincial Ministers agreed with the position of the Ontario Attorney General that the minimum age for criminal responsibility, which is now 12 in the Young Offenders Act, should be reduced to seven or whether they felt child welfare legislation was still the best way to deal with children under the age of 12?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the Hon. Member whose interest in this area is well known and appreciated. Indeed, the provincial Attorneys-General, Ministers of Justice, and myself discussed this matter at the petition of the Attorney General of Ontario. There was no consensus on the proposition put forward but I think there was an understanding and realization by all Ministers that we want, at least initially at the officials' level, to look at the operation of the Act and provincial child welfare legislation to make sure that between the two levels of jurisdiction and the two pieces of legislation we adequately covered the question of children at or under the age specified in the Young Offenders Act so that the public is properly protected. We are going to have our Deputy Ministers start that investigation and I think it will be to the benefit of the administration of justice.


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise Hon. Members that the last question and supplementary will be those of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


MUNICIPALITIES
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. As he knows, I tried yesterday to get the Prime Minister to indicate whether he would be prepared to meet with representatives of the mayors of 14 of Canada's largest cities. Will the Deputy Prime Minister personally undertake to arrange a meeting between the Prime Minister and the mayors so they can in the best way possible indicate to him the need for federal participation in a federal-provincial-municipal program to rebuild our cities?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of government Ministers have met with the mayors. Indeed the
Business of the House
Prime Minister wanted to meet with them. However, I think the Hon. Member is aware that he has been preoccupied with a number of other things. The Queen Mother is arriving in Ottawa today as well. I know his intentions are clearly there and, if there is some way it can be arranged, he would be happy to do so.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's response. Perhaps if we had that response yesterday the questions today would not be necessary.
If a meeting is arranged at some mutually convenient date, in preparation for that meeting will the Government of Canada re-examine its policy statement about no funding to see whether or not the Prime Minister's negotiating skills can be put to their very good use to come up with a package that will see federal money assisting the municipalities?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased that even the Hon. Member has acknowledged the negotiating skills of the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
I know all Members sympathize with the plight of the municipalities. I know as well that the Hon. Member sympathizes with the very heavy debt burden that the federal Government is facing. That was elaborated on by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance. That is certainly not to take away from the seriousness of the issue and in no way detracts from the fact that we are sincere about their plight. I will certainly convey the Hon. Member's representation to the Prime Minister at an appropriate time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to the provisions of the Representation Act, 1985, to lay upon the Table a certified copy of a supplementary report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission to the 1987 report for the Province of Alberta.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that I am not rising on a point of order to question the ruling you made during Question Period to the effect that during Question Period at least a certain three-letter word,

June 4, 1987
Question of Privilege-Mr. Fulton
namely the word "you" is not in order. Instead I am rising to ask the Government House Leader the customary question about House business.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with Bill C-18. Tomorrow I will call the capital punishment motion. Monday, June 8, has been designated an allotted day for the NDP. On Tuesday we will be proposing Ways and Means Motion No. 18. We will as well proceed with Bill C-50, the unemployment insurance Bill. I do not think there has to be an order but there is agreement among all Parties to complete this Bill in all stages and sit beyond six o'clock but no later than ten o'clock that day in order that the Bill might be completed in all stages.
On Wednesday I propose to call Bill C-59, the energy Bill, followed by Bill C-2, Canagrex, again with the assumption that those two Bills will be completed that day.
Thursday would be another allotted day and that would be the last allotted day and we will probably sit until ten o'clock, I guess.
On Friday, and this could change, my intention is to call Bill C-18.
I present this order of business notwithstanding the House order yesterday respecting Standing Orders taking effect next Monday. In light of this you will find unanimous consent to agree to the designation of the two allotted days next week, with one of them a votable day.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus we agree with what the Minister has said. I would also like to find out what the status is regarding the labelling of hazardous goods Bill. I understand there has been a request from the Minister that we pre-study this legislation. If that is the case, this is June 4 and I would like to know when the Government is going to allow for pre-study and what mechanism is going to be used.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Just before the Parliamentary Secretary answers, the House has heard the terms of the motion proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there were some discussions among the Parties and I believe there is unanimous consent that a pre-study take place on that particular Bill. I have talked to the Minister and to the Chairman of the committee. It is my understanding that she will be organizing and calling a meeting very soon, which will enable the appropriate witnesses to be informed. I think that committee study should commence next week.


PRIVILEGE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Earlier today I filed with the Speaker's office my concerns regarding the June 2, 1987, documents filed by the Attorney General of British Columbia under Registry Number C82660 for interim interlocutory and permanent injunctions. I believe that I and all Members of the House of Commons have had our rights affected by this and that a substantial question of privilege exists. It reads in part as follows:
The Attorney General's claim is for interim, interlocutory, and permanent
injunctions restraining the defendants, anyone acting on their behalf, and
anyone having notice of this injunction, from:
"1. Advocating, or circulating any writing advocating, the use of force, including:
"(a) Work stoppages, slowdowns, study sessions-
(b) -pointing out errors in the government of the province, procuring alterations of any matter of government-
"3. Using force (including all that scribed in paragraph 1(a) hereof) as a means of accomplishing a governmental change in the province (including all that described in paragraph 1(b) hereof).
I am going to British Columbia on Saturday and will be attending what I suppose could be described as a study session with a number of those named as defendants in this document filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I think it infringes on my rights and those of every Member of this House for the Government to bring before the Supreme Court an interim interlocutory and permanent injunction which states very specifically that anyone acting on behalf of the defendants or attending such things as study sessions is in fact in violation of such an injunction.
I have provided a copy of the documents which have been registered in Vancouver including the names of the plaintiffs and defendants in the action. I hope you will look with care at the effect this may have on any Member of Parliament, not only those from British Columbia who attends a study session where such things as government actions or ways of altering any matter that the Government might be considering are discussed. I think this strikes at the Charter and at the fundamental rights of the House of Commons.
The Speaker may well want to reflect on this for a day or two. If you decide that this does infringe upon my rights, which I believe it does, I hope I will have the opportunity to make the appropriate motion to refer this to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if you were about to dismiss the application I would naturally resume my seat. We have heard the Hon. Member and I appreciate that he wants to focus attention on the provincial matters which are presently occurring in B.C. I have no objection to his doing that. However, I cannot see how the Member's privileges as a Member of this House are in any
June 4, 1987

way abridged or infringed upon by an injunction in a provincial court regarding a provincial matter.
The Hon. Member is free to do as he wishes on his own time with regard to personal business. If he is stopped from so doing by an injunction, his redress is at law. If he has an objection to the injunction stopping him in his personal capacity as a citizen from attending a study session, he should hire counsel and apply to be exempted from that interlocutory injunction.
Obviously in no way whatsoever, prima facie or in fact, does this in any way infringe upon the Hon. Member's ability to function as a Member of this House with regard to his position as a federal Member of Parliament.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) has read the injunction with the care with which I have. The injunction is quite different from any other injunction ever brought before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It states very specifically that anyone acting on behalf of anyone named in this injunction application is prohibited from even attending a study session to consider government matters.
I do not think it is appropriate for me to have to fly to Vancouver, hire counsel, go to the Supreme Court of B.C., and apply for some kind of remedial action from an injunction which the Province of B.C. has placed against me specifically because I do in fact represent people in this injunction and I do act on their behalf in the House of Commons.
I think the House of Commons itself must reflect very carefully upon just exactly how far the Government of British Columbia is going in trying to prohibit Members of Parliament, members of the public, members of trade unions, and members of any other organization in British Columbia from being allowed simply to attend study sessions.
The Government of British Columbia is prohibiting me, as a Member of Parliament, from saying anything about matters affecting the administration of the Government of British Columbia or attempting to procure any change. I suppose that under Sections 1 and 2 of the documents which have been filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia I am in fact contravening such an injunction by even speaking out about it in the House of Commons.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I invite you to consider this topic very seriously. It is not something to be taken lightly. There may or may not be a question of privilege, but you will decide upon that. Upon reading the definition of privilege in Beauchesne's one will see very clearly that a question of privilege may exist and that the privileges of a Member could be affected. If the Member's privileges are affected, our privileges individually and collectively could be affected as well. Beauchesne's says:
Question of Privilege-Mr. Fulton
The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers". They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
I submit that if we, individually or collectively, cannot meet with our constituents, for whatever reason, that could indeed be an infringement upon our privileges. I invite you to reflect upon and give very serious consideration to the subject brought to your attention by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the question of privilege raised by my friend and colleague, the Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). I had experience in a related matter last year. Last June, I believe on this same date, I was on the Gainers picket line in Alberta despite the fact that there was an injunction in that case.
I took the position with the police and the representatives of the Government which were present at the time that as a Member of Parliament I had a right to talk to those people to find out what their concerns were. As the labour critic for the New Democratic Party caucus I had legitimate concerns. I maintained my right as a Member of Parliament to speak with those people and find out what was going on. In that case there was no police action taken.
I am afraid that if we do not take this matter seriously there is a danger that the Member for Skeena or some other Member, in carrying out his or her duties as a Member of this House, could be stymied by provincial legislation and the actions of an over-zealous police force or over-zealous Attorney General.
I believe it is a serious matter. I do not know if the Speaker is in a position to rule on it now, but it is a matter that deserves study. We must protect our rights as Members of Parliament, not to break the law, but to be able to talk to people who are in a situation where they may or may not be breaking the law but are trying to protect their rights in the belief that the actions they are taking is the only way to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis), the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and the Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) for their representations in this serious matter. I will look into it and get back to the House as soon as possible.

June 4, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport, and Motion No. 5 (Mr. Robichaud, p. 6715).
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate today. It is unfortunate that Members can only speak for 10 minutes on such an important issue and well designed motion as the one presented by my friend and colleague, the distinguished Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud). The Hon. Member's motion indicates that it is indeed our duty to make sure that Bill C-18 contains specific provisions that ensure regional development and give it priority over other concerns.
If it is necessary to convince the House of the importance of those requirements, let me describe a situation that exists in eastern Ontario, particularly in my riding of Glengarry- Prescott-Russell. CN has taken the position that it will shut down a portion of its tracks. It has decided to shut down some 2,500 miles of rail line by embarking, as it already has, on a deliberate action of discouraging customers and rerouting some of their traffic on what it calls the intermodal system, which is a truck to most of us. Once it has rerouted that traffic and lost some of its customers, it will go to the CTC and ask to abandon certain rail lines with the argument that it no longer has enough customers.
On September 25, 1986, CN sent a memo, signed by Mr. R.P. Langlois, Regional Manager of Marketing for the St. Lawrence region in Montreal. The memo was sent to a number of people and states that in the context of rationalization of the rail infrastructure, some lines have been identified as being candidates for abandonment in the coming years. A preliminary plan has been prepared and attached are the sections affected. It states that every effort to attract new traffic on these sections is to be abandoned immediately and, for the traffic already on these lines, they must consider either, and preferably, converting this traffic onto the intermodal system or adjusting rates to minimize present losses.
I have copies of the internal correspondence of CN which are documents designed to chase away, divest customers that CN has at the present time because it is allegedly losing money on those lines.
The lines affected are the Beachburg subdivision, 163.9 miles, and the Alexandria subdivision, which is the line of rail just east of Ottawa and just west of Montreal, 57.7 miles.
CN wants to close down those two rail lines, according to the internal correspondence I have received. Since there is no longer any Canadian Pacific line between Montreal and Ottawa, and there will no longer be a CN rail line, there will
be no train service between the two cities, either freight or passenger.
I objected most strenuously to this course of action. Officials from CN come to the community I represent and make long-winded speeches, telling us not to worry. However, when we ask if it means the line will not be shut down, the official states that it means we are not supposed to worry. When we ask if it means the line will be shut down, we are told it means that we should not worry.
CN has not been exactly forthcoming with answers on this issue. I received a letter from Mr. Ron Lawless on December 4, 1986, in which he described the situation concerning the Alexandria subdivision. He states in his letter: "As we proceed with our studies, one of the lines which will undoubtedly be reviewed is the Alexandria subdivision". The House will note that he says "will be reviewed". He went on to state: "The line accommodates at present freight service as well as VIA passenger service. At this time, I can advise you and indeed assure you that should a study reveal the need for a change in status I will see to it that you are made aware of the situation".
I just read other internal correspondence in which the decision had already been taken and CN was in the process of divesting itself of customers in an attempt to shut down the rail line in the future.
Needless to say, Mr. Lawless's letter is inconsistent with the truth, shall we say, and I phoned Mr. Lawless to express my displeasure with someone who is paid by the taxpayers of Canada and who gives Members of Parliament information which is inconsistent with the facts.
I have another letter from the President and Chief Operating Officer of CN. It is dated September 9, 1986, before Mr. Lawless sent a letter to me. The letter states: "This will confirm discussions on Thursday, September 4, 1986, concerning the Alderdale and Beachburg subdivisions". It goes on to describe how CN will shut down these rail lines.
It states on the second page of the letter: "Abandonment of the two subdivisions would result in annual track maintenance saving of $10 million and forgo during the next five years $50 million in capital expenditure. It also would create the likelihood of CN discontinuing the use of the Alexandria subdivision which currently has a five-year estimated capital requirement of $27 million".
The letter states that this would create the likelihood of discontinuing the Alexandria subdivision. The letter was signed by Mr. M.A. Blackwell, Assistant Vice-President. Mr. Blackwell is in fact the assistant to Mr. Lawless, the guy who wrote to me telling me I had nothing to worry about and that no plan to shut down these rail lines had been undertaken and that he would advise me if they ever did undertake to shut down rail lines.
June 4, 1987

You can now see, Mr. Speaker, why I do not like getting these types of answers from Mr. Lawless and the others surrounding him who seem to take pleasure in giving my constituents and I information which is less than accurate.
In closing, I want to tell Hon. Members that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins), and I have organized a meeting here on June 15 in the Railway Committee Room to protest these cut-backs. We think that the regional development of the area I represent and the regional development of the riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke-in fact, all of eastern Ontario-needs to be protected. The Government should understand that eastern Ontario needs this type of amendment as proposed by the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud). I wish to congratulate him for having brought this matter to our attention.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent had the good idea of proposing this amendment today and, on behalf of the electorate of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Eastern Ontario, I want to congratulate him.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to enter into the debate because so much of what the Hon. Member who has just spoken in describing the desire, the intention and the ability of the top managers of the railway, in this case the CNR, to mislead people, including Members of Parliament, is so familiar to me. It is like the second chapter of an old novel. We saw this type of action for so many years with the other railway, the CPR.
Of course, without the CPR, without a railway which stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific, there would have been no Canada. But the founders of the country, Sir John A. Macdonald and his colleagues, realized that without a rail link linking all parts of Canada we would not have a country. So the then owners and managers of the CPR were given tremendous grants of land, tremendous subsidies of money in order to build the railway.
Over the years it has made billions, tens of billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars of profits. One would think that it would be appreciative and would, in return for its right to make the very substantial profits which it has made, try to cooperate and try to meet some of the needs of the country. But of course that is not the attitude of the CPR. It is out to get every penny of profit for its management and shareholders- and the public be damned.
I remember some years ago when I was first here as a Member of Parliament that the CPR was at that time operating two transcontinental passenger trains a day. It came to the then regulatory agency, I think it was called the Board of Transport Commissioners, and asked for permission to discontinue one of those trains. The regulatory agency turned
National Transportation Act, 1986
the request down. It said, "No. You have to continue to run the two trains a day".
The CPR accepted that decision, or seemed to accept it. However, what it did very quickly after it received that decision which it did not like was to proceed to take the dining cars and the sleeping cars off one of the trains. Of course anyone who travelled by train from, let us say, Ottawa to Winnipeg, or Montreal to Vancouver, could not travel on that train if one could not get anything to eat and could not get a berth in which to sleep. So the passenger load just vanished.
Then, of course, the CPR went back to the regulatory agency and said, "Look, we have this second train running and it has no customers. There are no passengers. So we want to discontinue the train service". Of course, the regulatory agency gave it the authority to do that.
The CNR is a publicly-owned company, since the original owners, the speculators who built pieces of rail lines all over the country, one with no connection to the other, went bankrupt despite substantial subsidies and financial support from the then Government. Finally the Government of the day, which may have been a Conservative Government, I do not remember and have not looked at the history recently, took over these private lines and established the CNR.
People in Canada assumed-and obviously they were wrong if one looks at the way the CNR is operating at the present time-that because it was a publicly-owned rail system it would have some concern about the needs of the people, that it would have some social conscience. It may have had in earlier days. But what I see now, unfortunately, is that the CNR has learned all the wrong things, all the miserable things, all the underhanded ways in which to operate. After all, here we have a Government in place which tells it that it has to operate like a privately-owned company. It has to be efficient. It has to show a profit.
What does it mean to the railway company when it has to show a profit? It means traffic; that freight between the busiest parts of Canada, the economically prosperous parts of Canada such as Quebec City and Montreal, Montreal and Toronto, Montreal and Windsor, perhaps even between Winnipeg and Edmonton or Calgary or Vancouver, as opposed to passenger traffic, must be profitable. However, those several million people who live away from these busy parts of Canada, these prosperous parts of the country, for example, in the Interlake part of Manitoba or in northern Ontario, or eastern Quebec, must not count on the CNR any more. It is like saying, "Don't count on the railways because providing service will cost the company money". Thus one is written off and told to find another way. One is told, "Get a truck or a horse and buggy but do not count on the railways". That is the message which the management of the CNR has gotten from the Government. That is the lesson of how to do these things which it has learned from its friend, the CPR.
Let us look at what has happened. In the City of Moncton the CNR is the major employer, the foundation for whatever

June 4, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
economic well-being Moncton and the surrounding areas have enjoyed. Surely, this giant corporation with revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars a year could spend just a little more to do the maintenance work in Moncton rather than in Montreal or Winnipeg. Surely, a company which was giving some thought and consideration to the well-being of the country would not have made the completely heartless decision to close up the Moncton shops.
I wonder if the President and the members of management of the CNR have ever thought that while they are doing quite well we are living in a period in which the economies of this country, and virtually every other country of the world are changing almost every day in almost revolutionary ways. Let them consider that their sons or daughters had entered the employment market and five or ten years after they establish themselves in whatever area they had chosen, the company just said, "We are closing up shop and there is nothing for you"? Have they ever put themselves in that position? Have they ever considered what is going to happen to the people in Moncton, many of whom have worked for years in the rail shops?
I see the concern of railway workers growing in my City of Winnipeg. We have maintenance shops established by both the CPR and CNR, each of which employs several thousand workers. 1 could go there tomorrow, take the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) with me, and meet workers who are second and third generation employees of either the CPR or the CNR.
Until recently, people whose parents or grandparents worked for the railway companies, knew that if they became employed by those companies and did their jobs, they would have a good, well paying and interesting job for the rest of their lives, but these days many people with years of seniority have been laid off, are being laid off and will be laid off. Those who are working there now are not advising their children to look to the railways for employment in the future because they have learned from experience that what we have is a transportation system, which has to be efficient, egged on by the so-called free enterprise system Government whose only interest is the profit and loss balance sheet. To be efficient means to forget about the have-not areas, forget about the people in slow growth areas, be tough, be heartless, be ruthless. I am never going to agree to that and that is why I support this amendment.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate on the amendment to Bill C-18 proposed by my colleague from New Brunswick.
Everyone is aware that Bill C-18 has been introduced to simplify or caricature, no more, no less. This measure paves the way for what is referred to in the transportation sector, especially railway or road transportation, as the law of the jungle, the law of the strongest, which means that the rich and big swallow the small.
We know that the consequences of this policy on the part of the Conservative government are such that major urban
centres will not be unduly affected in terms of job losses or lower quality services. Hardest hit will be the remote regions, regions where people are poorer, where corporate structures are not as sound or do not have the same potential as those of major companies.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Members of the Conservative Party to think before voting against this motion of my colleague from New Brunswick who, for as long as he has been a Member of Parliament, has never stopped fighting to save the jobs of the railway and maintenance shop workers in his region.
Unfortunately, we have had no results, thanks to the Minister of Transport's incompetence and failure to act, but 1 hardly think everybody in this Government is as incompetent as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). There must be at least a few people with some sensitivity, and the immediate impact of my colleague's amendment would be to give the Minister of Transport-after all, some day we will have a better one who will take his responsibilities seriously-the legal authority to prevent a railway carrier from making profitability, dollars and cents as they say, the only consideration and from saying: It doesn't really pay to provide services to this region, we will abandon those lines. What this does to people and their jobs is not a priority. Because the Government has decided to adopt this attitude and let what I would call the law of the jungle and the worship of the dollar prevail, the people suffer and remote areas are deprived of essential services.
I think the Hon. Member from New Brunswick is to be commended for taking this initiative. He is the sole Member for the Liberal Party in his province, and the only one who has the guts to rise in the House, time and time again, to defend the interests of the entire Province of New Brunswick. Meanwhile, the voices of the Conservative Members of this province are muffled to the point of silence. Midas Muffler must have done a job on them! And with all those companies closing down. The Government can do whatever it wants to harm the interests of this province, but the Conservative Members see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil.
Mr. Speaker, I hope this time they will finally wake up. They don't have to say anything. All they have to do is rise in their seats and vote in favour of this motion. No one will know.
I am sure that my hon. colleague would be proud to be able to say that in his province, his Conservative colleagues have risen above partisan considerations, that his colleagues from the Conservative Party in New Brunswick have considered the interests of the province, the interests of the people, the interests of workers, and regardless of partisan considerations, have followed the example of our Liberal colleague. But no, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see one of them doing that, we have not heard one of them. What are they all doing?
What my honourable colleague is suggesting would of course help protect jobs in areas like New Brunswick. Even in
June 4, 1987

Montreal, Mr. Speaker, I know that they are trying-they are all getting uneasy on the Conservative side-I know that they are trying to find a Conservative Member from New Brunswick to come and reply. Anyway, we're going to shake them awake because it takes a Liberal to wake them up, Mr. Speaker. They are all chicken, they are cowards. The time has come to speak out. We have an amendment to save jobs in their province, let them come here and stand up.
They have been elected to represent their constituents. They are going to go out and canvass their ridings to try to be elected again, and they will say: Sir, madam, I would like to go on representing you in Ottawa. But the gentleman or the lady in question will tell them: My good man, my good woman, where were you when the Liberal Member put forward a suggestion to save my job in the transportation sector, where were you? Well, you know, I didn't know, 1 did not realize. Then they will simply tell him: Beat it, we're no longer voting for you. You had one turn, it is over, go back home, you can stick to your own transportation. Mr. Speaker, it is time for those people to wake up. Look at opinion polls. There is no Rhinoceros Party in New Brunswick, otherwise they would be fifth in the polls. That is what is happening to them in Quebec.
I think it is important, even in the Montreal area where last week I attended a demonstration by 500 workers of such corporations as Bombardier, Canadian Steel Wheel and Laforge. Marine Industries, in Sorel, which used to build railway cars, is now closed, finished. Bombardier will have to lay off 400 employees, and the Bill has not even been adopted. With this Bill, we are selling ourselves, or rather giving ourselves away to the Americans. But what my hon. friend is proposing is to create a mechanism, a tool which would make it possible for the Minister to tell a foreign corporation: Just a moment, this company, in spite of temporary difficulties, must continue to operate. It should be given a break, because it has jobs to save, workers to protect and services to provide. That is what the amendment is saying. It is not seeking to abolish free trade. It is simply looking for a tool.
Perhaps PC Members are well aware that even if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) was provided with such a tool, he would not know how to use it. Wake up and think! He will not be Minister of Transport forever. One of these days, a good one will be appointed to this position. It will be one of you. If not, it will be one of us. Such a tool is needed to ensure the protection of regional development.
When we talk about development, we mean more than just a principle: we are thinking about Canadians as well as the business firms which need a high quality transportation service, and all the unemployed who need jobs. That is what the amendement is all about.
As my time is about to expire, Mr. Speaker, I trust that some PC Members will stand up and congratulate my New Brunswick friend. They will congratulate and support him because his amendment is quite reasonable. It is meant to benefit the people of New Brunswick. I am from Quebec, and I
National Transportation Act, 1986
know that my fellow Quebecers will benefit from this amendment, even those from the Montreal area. The Government refuses to develop any real railway transportation policy. The Government would rather have CN and CP buy car wheels from Brazil. Have you ever wondered where this Government's philosophy will lead us if it decides to buy from the cheapest source in the world? There will not be any work left for a single solitary Canadian. Of course, there will always be places where you can buy a cheaper equivalent of any product manufactured here. But then, what is the Government of Canada all about? It is there to ensure that its population has a decent standard of living, has services and has jobs. The proposed amendment to this harmful transportation bill will improve and correct some of its shortcomings and will contribute to its intended objectives.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would like to congratulate my colleague from New Brunswick and I would hope that at least one, not five or ten, not even three but one Conservative member from that province will stand up and support the motion. And if that member is afraid that his leader and his whip will punish him and cancel a trip he was counting on, then I suggest that he rise in his place and remain silent so that we know where he stands and so that my colleague can go back to the people of New Brunswick ant tell them that although the Conservative members are obviously not that good, one of them did agree with his proposal, however discreetly.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member who put this motion forward. Motion No. 5 is certainly well thought out and expresses a concern which for the people of northern Ontario is of great importance.
One thing about which we in northern Ontario are most concerned is regional development. The communities in northern Ontario are primarily based upon the exploitation of resources. All we do is cut or mine a resource, and then it is shipped out.
We have experienced in the past that as a result of the freight rates which are set, resources are shipped out cheaply, but in fact they penalize the north in respect of shipping a finished product to market. It is much cheaper to ship out a raw resource than to ship out a finished product. Lurthermore, we have always dreamed, hoped, and prayed, I might say, for regional development. In other words we have hoped that the economies of our communities in northern Ontario would be diversified. There has been much rhetoric around the whole question of diversification of the economies of northern Ontario.
There is no doubt that the key to economic development in northern Ontario must be transportation. We all recognize that the supply of energy is important, but transportation is

June 4, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
the key to the economic development of communities of northern Ontario.
What is the situation at the moment? It is that in fact CNR and CPR have both been abandoning rail lines in northern Ontario. In fact, at least at the present moment, there is the CTC and there must be adequate notification and hearings held in respect of the abandonment of any line in northern Ontario. However, if Bill C-18 is passed, the railways will find themselves free of that hindrance, of that hurdle, of at least the process whereby communities have the right at the moment to make representation to the CTC.
We all have concerns about certain CN subs; for example, the sub between Montreal and Sudbury. I understand that both CN and CP have a list of lines ready to be abandoned the moment proclamation is given to Bill C-18. The boys from CN will put the boots to northern Ontario in respect of these lines. In other words, they will run the line from Montreal, to Ottawa, to Toronto, back up to Sudbury, and west. This means that in the area between Ottawa and Sudbury there will be no line operating other than the line on which VIA will run.
This motion in fact indicates that we must place the economic development of regions first, before any other consideration in respect of rail line service. In part it reads:
-the Government of Canada and one or more provincial governments jointly
decide that any such service or facilities and service is required for the
achievement of national or regional, social and economic development
objectives-
It gives a role and function to the federal and provincial Governments, but it does not give any voice or any role to the regional Governments or local communities.
We in northern Ontario have our problems with Toronto. If we talk about centralization and rigidity, we have our problems with Toronto. They think that what is good for Toronto must be good for all Ontario. Hopefully the Government of Ontario, with this new-found desire for federal co-operation and co-operative federalism which Mr. Peterson discovered the other day, will start recognizing that the regions in Ontario should be given the same sense of co-operative federalism in the Province of Ontario.
The only quarrel I have with the motion is that in fact it leaves out the input of the regional Governments or local communities.
What we have at the moment is the CN, and I want to speak specifically to that. The motion speaks to that. For example, in the town of Capreol, CNR has 600 employees at the present time. CNR has been making decisions in respect of that workforce. It has been making decisions in respect of train dispatching and crew dispatching. It has been cutting away at the workforce in Capreol. It is moving out the workforce. There are no consultations with the community. There are no consultations with the people in the community. There are no consultations with the workers affected. Simply a decision is made somewhere in the regional office or somewhere in the
main office in Montreal. Lo and behold we now find crew dispatchers in Toronto.
What do the crew dispatchers do in Capreol? They call the workers and tell them when the trains are going out. They call a guy who lives on Hannah Street in Capreol and say train number so and so is going out tonight. They took those crew dispatchers and moved them to Toronto. I want to ask you to think about that for a moment, Mr. Speaker. What do the crew dispatchers do in Toronto? They phone to Capreol and tell the guy on Hannah Street that the train is going out. We understand that it costs $30,000 in long distance phone calls a month to phone guys in Toronto from Capreol that trains are going out or that trains are going out west, east, north or south.
They say that that provides economy to the company. The company is saving money. How is that saving money? We asked the company to lay the figures and the facts before the people. We asked them to justify this decision. The CN literally told the people that it was none of their business but the people are the ones who own the CNR, and the taxpayers were told that the decisions that they make that affect them adversely are none of their business. We have a company which, with the acquiescence and permission of this Government is acting in a way that we condemned Inco Falconbridge in the past for doing. They are acting without any accountability to the people who through the support of their taxes built this railway company.
I have no problem supporting this motion, even though I would like to see some controls by the region. I will vote for this motion when it comes to a vote because it really addresses the concerns of the communities that I represent in northern Ontario.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The vote is on motion No. 5, under the name of the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It my opinion the nays have it.
June 4, 1987

And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) Agriculture- Production of Ethanol from grain, (b) Possible alternative market for grain; the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)-Social Security-Tax reform-The Elderly-Government position, (b) Income tax-The Elderly, Government position; The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Administration of Justice-Public Faith and confidence-Request for changes to parole system.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next motion will be Motion No. 9 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 36 at page 2 and
substituting the following therefor:
"so far as practicable, and with consideration to duties performed in the public interest, bears a fair propor-"


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the motion moved by my colleague and seconded by myself is to provide some fairness. The clause reads, as it exists in the Bill:
(c) each carrier or mode of transportation so far as practicable bears a fair proportion-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. The motion has been moved by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). The Member should realize that if he does not speak now he cannot speak.
National Transportation Act, 1986


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is right, Mr. Speaker.


Iain Francis Angus: We worked that out ahead of time, Mr. Speaker.
One of the things we are trying to do is to make sure that we are fair and reasonable in handling this Bill. The points that we want on record we will put on the record, but we will not do so at great length. I will be the only speaker from my Party on this motion.
Let me read the existing clause and then point out the changes:
(e) each carrier or mode of transportation, so far as practicable, bears a fair proportion of the real costs of the resources, facilities and services provided to that carrier or mode of transportation at public expense-
Although the Order Paper that I have in front of me has a different version of the amendment, what we are adding is that no single carrier or mode of transportation will bear, so far as practicable, a greater proportion of the real cost of the resources, facilities and services provided to that carrier or mode at public expense than any other single carrier or mode of transportation is required to bear.
As some Members of this House know, we had a very long fight over another piece of legislation, namely, Bill C-75. Clause 4 of that Bill gave the Government of Canada the authority to impose user fees for Coast Guard services. We fought that clause and we won. The Government eventually dropped that clause, and the Government is now consulting with the industry.
One of the things we learned during the course of the debate and the research that was done by Members of this House and by interested groups is that clearly there was not a balance out there. We had, for example, in one particular year on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway 75 per cent cost recovery. In other words, the users of those government services, whether port facilities, the Seaway, pilotage or whatever, paid for 75 per cent of those costs. On the other hand, we are told that in air transportation only 40 per cent of the cost of the government services provided to air users is recovered in the form of user fees.
Very simply, what we want to do is to ensure that there is balance, that no one sector is forced to pay more than any other, even if it means a full examination of the whole question of cost recovery and the methods used. But we on this side of the House feel it is important, if we are to prevent unfair competition between modes, that we as a Parliament of Canada and as the Government ensure that there is fairness.
I am sure there are those on the other side of the House who would argue, "Yes, we will do it, 100 per cent for everybody". But that kind of thinking has no bearing on reality. Members know that those sectors cannot afford a 100 per cent cost recovery.
Add to that the comparison between the trucking industry, using national highways, provincial highways paid for by public expenditures-yes, with some cost recovery through

June 4, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
gasoline taxes-and the railroads who own their own roadbeds and are forced to pay for that cost. On the other hand railways do get substantial sums of money from the federal coffers to provide services that Parliament has deemed to be appropriate.
I would encourage my colleagues on the other side of the House to give serious consideration to this amendment which would provide fairness and to support it. Those are my comments on this motion.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to support the motion put forward by my colleague for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
In keeping with the spirit of good will and co-operation that pervades the discussion of the Bill, I will simply express my support for the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 9 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next motion to be dealt with is Motion No. 12 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-18, be amended by deleting Clause 8.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 12 moves that Clause 8 be deleted from the Bill. If my colleagues will read Clause 8, they will note that it allows for the appointment of temporary members to the new transportation agency on terms and conditions laid out by the Governor in Council, and any temporary member so appointed shall carry out such duties as
may be assigned, and the next paragraph says that there will be not more than six of them.
The only reason temporary members of the agency should be appointed is to fill a vacancy. If a commissioner of the agency becomes ill or must take an extended leave of absence, it would be justifiable to appoint a temporary member to fill that vacant position, even if it is only for a few months or a few weeks. However, to simply be able to appoint six temporary members in addition to those already appointed for a three, five or seven-year term smacks to me of a way of giving handouts to friends. More seriously, it raises the spectre of having six temporary members appointed in order to stack the deck for special purposes. In a particular issue in a particular part of the country, six temporary members may be appointed, all of whom are known to be on one side or the other of the issue, to hear about it and make a judgment on it. I am not suggesting that the Government would do that, but the fact that the possibility exists should cause everyone to have second thoughts about that clause.
The clause is entirely unnecessary. The Governor in Council may appoint people to fill vacancies in any event without this clause being in the Bill. I submit that the provision is very risky and is fraught with danger. It leaves the Government open to a criticism and suspicion that could turn out to be well justified. I submit that at this time, the Government does not need any more of that. Whether the criticism is justified or not, why would the Government deliberately leave itself open to that kind of suspicion? I would urge that government Members agree that the clause be withdrawn because it is unnecessary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 12 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
June 4, 1987

The next motion to be dealt with is Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 20 at page 7 and
substituting the following therefor:
"Agency, including an adequate number of inspectors for each mode of transportation, which would be tied to the volume of traffic in each mode, shall be appointed in accordance".
He said: Mr. Speaker, one of the items that came up most frequently when the committee travelled to hear submissions on the White Paper entitled Freedom to Move, and when it held hearings on the legislation, was the question of the adequacy of the inspection services in all modes of transportation. That question came from people in the trucking industry, from forwarders and receivers of other modes of transportation, from a number of trade unions and even from many corporations. In fact, either the Canadian Manufacturers' Association or the Canadian Chamber of Commerce called for a substantial improvement and increase in the capacity of government agencies to carry out inspections to ensure the adequacy, safety and security of the various modes of transportation.
As the Bill reads now, there can be the appointment of a secretary and such other officers and employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the agency, and these employees shall be appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act. This amendment adds after the word "Agency" the following:
-including an adequate number of inspectors for each mode of transportation, which would be tied to the volume of traffic in each mode, shall be
appointed in accordance-
It is in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act. That motion would answer the request of literally dozens and dozens of witnesses who appeared before the committee, and would meet the desires of the transporters themselves.
I remember an officer of a major trucking company telling me there had not been a provincial or federal government inspector around his trucks or in his shops for over five years. He wants them to come in and examine his facilities, equipment and employees to see how well qualified they are. He wants them to examine his maintenance practices and procedures in case they are insufficient because he wants to know about it. He says safety not only comes first, safety pays. Even when safety costs money it pays off. When a senior officer of a major trucking company says he wants a government inspector to come and examine his premises and practices on a frequent basis, he also wants that to apply to everyone. That particular trucking company has an excellent record and reputation. It has first-class mechanics and maintenance schedules. It does not cut corners. However, what gives that reputable company a bad name is the fly-by-nighter
National Transportation Act, 1986
who does not have mechanics or facilities. Those companies do not carry out proper and frequent maintenance of their equipment and vehicles. They are the ones that cause trouble for the entire industry. Most of this is because the Government has not had the capacity to carry out the kind and frequency of inspections that need to be carried out and for which the industry itself is asking.
It is false economy to try and hold down government expenditures in this way. The Government has said there will be no compromise on safety, so I am sure this amendment will help the Government live up to that commitment. There has been a modest increase of a few inspectors in two or three years but not anywhere near sufficient, whether it be for the air mode, trucking or rail. In fact, if I recall correctly, 17 rail inspectors had to worry about an area covering 10,000 miles of track and tens of thousands of items of rolling stock and locomotives. There is no way that many people can handle that large a territory in an adequate manner. It is not the inspector's fault and it is not the railroad's fault. It is the fact that we have not provided a sufficient quantity of qualified people to carry out those inspections and enforce the regulations and the law regarding maintenance and safety practices. Surely that is one of the prime requisites in national transportation legislation and a stated objective of the Government. Because that is true, I expect that the Government will find this motion to be most welcome.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, if the House decided to accept the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), Clause 15 as amended would in fact read as follows:
15. The secretary of the Agency and such other officers and employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the Agency, including an adequate number of inspectors for each mode of transportation, which would be tied to the volume of traffic in each mode, shall be appointed in accordance with the Act.
Of course, the motion addresses the need for safety in all modes of transport. During the hearings we held across Canada on the Bill, many people came and expressed their concern for safety.
Mr. Speaker, we must appreciate that this Bill opens up new frontiers-as it were-with respect to transportation. This is something new for Canada and, more to the point, it is coming at us fast. We have no experience with deregulation, we can only go by what is happening in the United States, or what has happened in the United States. And if we are to believe the evidence given by people who appeared at the hearings, we can conclude that the United States are experiencing certain safety problems.
So the rationale behind this amendment moved by my colleague is that we would be sure there are inspectors or enough personnel to carry out the necessary inspections. Mr. Speaker, this does not mean that the minute Bill C-18 is proclaimed there will be a mad rush to hire all kinds of people here and there.

June 4, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Quite simply the motion would ensure that there is enough personnel to maintain safety in all modes of transportation. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next motion is number 15.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 19 by adding immediately after line 19 at page 8 the following:
"(2) The Agency may also ensure that ongoing independent research is conducted with respect to Canada's transportation policy and the effectiveness of that policy relative to the public interest."
He said: Mr. Speaker, Clause 19 of the Bill says:
"The Agency may appoint and, subject to any Treasury Board directive in relation thereto, fix the remuneration of experts or persons having technical or special knowledge to assist the Agency in an advisory capacity in respect of any matter before the Agency.
One of the things that is perfectly apparent is that it is the Government's intention to almost totally gut the research capacity of the Canadian Transport Commission. I suppose that might make it a juicy deal for people who obtain contracts as consultants, with fees more expensive than the cost of having your own research capacity.
The amendment asks, still subject to a Treasury Board directive which means that there will be no call for an additional expenditure, that:
"The Agency may also ensure that ongoing independent research is conducted with respect to Canada's transportation policy and the effectiveness of that policy relative to the public interest".
That must be done continually. It will be part of the annual and five-year reviews of the effectiveness of this legislation or portions of it. We think it would be a false economy not to maintain in the agency or attached to the agency an independent research capacity on a continuing basis to take instructions from the agency with regard to the kind of information it needs to have researched and reported on.
I hope the Government will reconsider and accept this motion in the way in which it is presented. It is an attempt to be helpful, to make a bad Bill less bad, and to ensure that the Government and the transportation agency have the proper resources to do a good job.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, again I should like to support this amendment proposed by my colleague from Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) which provides that:
The Agency may also ensure that ongoing independent research is conducted
with respect to Canada's transportation policy and the effectiveness of that
policy relative to the public interest.
I think this is self-explanatory. As I pointed our earlier, it is clear enough that we are rushing towards deregulation. The change is proceeding at a rapid pace and, if we are to see and appreciate just what this new initiative entails, we ought to have independent research facilities to be in a position to assess the impact of this new legislation and find out how it can be effective with respect to the public interest.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 15 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next motions to be debated are Motions Nos. 16, 17 and 50.
June 4, 1987


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 16
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 22 by striking out line 14 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"al of Parliament, make rules".
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 23 by striking out line 13 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"23.(1) Parliament may, at".
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 85 by striking out lines 8 and 9 at page 39 and substituting the following therefor:
"such terms and conditions as the Agency may approve, provide the assistance".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the intent of these amendments is to require the agency, when it has set its rules and regulations, to return to Parliament with them, and that they be subject to the approval of Parliament which, I expect, would refer them to the Standing Committee on Transport. This would give Parliament some say in the manner in which the agency sets its procedures. It would make Parliament, with the Government, a source of policy direction for the agency.
With regard to Motion No. 50, some of the procedures and regulations of the agency will require a transporter, be it a trucking company, airline or railroad, to continue to provide a service for the public good, convenience and necessity. From time to time this may mean that subsidies will be required or at least will have to be available. This amendment would replace the Governor in Council with the agency as the one able to set the terms and conditions of such financial assistance.
In earlier amendments we proposed that once the agency has drafted its regulations, procedures, and the directions of its work, it should bring those to Parliament for approval. In that way members of this House and the standing committee can examine them and rule upon their adequacy or otherwise.
For many decades the old Board of Transport Commissioners and the Canadian Transport Commission operated too much under a veil of secrecy. Much of what they were doing was known only to them and the Governor in Council and one had a heck of a time finding out what was being done, how it was being done, and why. One had to go through a lot of red tape. In fact, you sometimes had to cut the red tape lengthwise in order to find out what was going on.
These amendments make a new national transportation agency more responsible to the public through Parliament and place it more in the public eye which means that it will be more accountable. Members of this place and members of the standing committee will have some important input with regard to how it functions and what kinds of regulations it has. I think that is overdue as a result of the experience we have had in transportation since the late 1800s.
I hope the Government will seriously consider this as a new and innovative way in which to give the public maximum and
National Transportation Act, 1986
direct access to the agency through their elected representatives. They should be made aware of the way in which it functions and how well it functions. It should be responsive and respond quicker than it has in the past. This is a marked difference from previous practice. We consider it innovative, new, and useful in the new regime the Government wishes to establish under this legislation. We hope it will agree to those three amendments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question will be on Motion No. 16 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), the result of which will apply to Motion No. 17. Is it the please of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe it is very evident in the present situation where you are hearing yeas and nays, that many of the nays are coming from behind the curtain.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iain Francis Angus: I was inside the curtain.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I believe that if we have to vote in the House, it would be appropriate if Members were actually in the House. I suggest that if people are actually voting on motions that are before the House-and we are making every effort to move these amendments with due haste-that the people who wish to vote against these motions should at least have the courtesy to be in the House.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to make it very clear that when you were asking for the yeas and nays I was not behind the curtains. I did not participate in that. I came in to rise to call for a division. I want to assure those Members that we on this side are not doing something of which we are accusing them.

June 4, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure that the House takes note of the very appropriate comment made by the Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).
The question is on Motion No. 50 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 19:
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 35 by adding immediately line 40 at
page 14 the following:
"(8) The Agency may amend, suspend, or terminate any licence or operating authority issued under this Act, when satisfied that the holder of such a licence or operating authority has not complied or has refused to comply with the spirit and intent of section 3(1 )(a) of this Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment would refer to the clauses on safety and the spirit of safety standards, to give teeth to the clause and allow the agency to make an assessment of the carrier's likelihood or indeed ability to operate safely.
We realize that some of the safety standards are the responsibility of Transport Canada, but we believe the agency, which has the powers to issue, amend, suspend, or cancel licences to carriers, should have some responsibility in the area of safe operations.
In order for the agency to make a more rapid decision as to whether or not a carrier is operating safely, or is even able to operate safely, it must have the staff to make those assessments in various parts of the country, as well as have the capacity to reach a conclusion and take action with respect to the safe operations of that particular carrier.
We believe this is a proper role for and duty of the new transportation agency. Such a responsibility should not rest only with a handful of people somewhere in the nether regions of the Department of Transport. I am not convinced that the experience until now has been very good or thorough in terms of safe operating practices, or even if new carriers are able to operate safely, with adequate financing, equipment and
adequately trained employees. These are standards that should be a condition of licencing.
The agency should have sufficient employees to report in this area so that it can better judge whether or not a licence should be issued, amended, suspended or cancelled. I hope the Government will agree to Motion No. 19.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, to repeat what was said by the Hon. Member who just spoke, Clause 35 defines or gives certain powers to the Agency. To those powers, the Hon. Member would like to add the following paragraph (8) which says that the Agency may amend, suspend, or terminate any licence or operating authority issued under this Act, when satisfied that the holder of such a licence or operating authority has not complied or has refused to comply with the spirit and intent of Section 3(1 )(a) of this Act. In fact, Clause 3(1 )(a) of the Bill as it now stands says that the National Transportation System should meet the highest possible safety standards.
So if we look at both paragraph (8) of Clause 35 and Clause 3(l)(a), we see how sensible this amendment is, because here again, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of protecting the safety of Canadians, and if in this whole deregulation exercise that will soon be upon us, we do not give safety the attention it deserves, we may be in for some nasty surprises. None of us wants to get up one fine morning and read about a serious accident with loss of life that happened because somebody, somewhere failed to monitor the safety of our transportation system. Mr. Speaker, here we have an opportunity to show how serious we take the whole subject of safety. Throughout the process of considering this Bill, the Minister and his officials told us, time and time again, that the safety of the public was first and foremost in their minds. Now they have a chance to prove they were sincere about their dedication to the safety of Canadians.
I think Hon. Members here in the House and behind the curtains would do well to read this motion carefully and give it their full support, to keep safety a priority throughout our transportation system.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 19 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
June 4, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 20
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 36 by striking out line 1 at page 15 and
substituting the following therefor:
"(2) At any proceeding of the Agency for the".


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to indicate that the purpose of this amendment is to provide the agency with some flexibility. The current word in the Act is "hearing". We are proposing to replace it with the word "proceeding". This may seem like a moot point to some, but a number of witnesses who appeared before the committee during our hearings into Bill C-18 felt that the word "hearing" was too prominent and that it restricted the agency from having other less formal methods of doing business. In this case the change would guarantee the right of special interest groups to make representations at a proceeding.
Clearly, when we look at the role of the agency, as well as other quasi-judicial bodies which we all have encountered over the years, we see that some are very formal. Some have very strict rules with respect to who can participate and to what degree. This amendment would change the intent and the focus. It would give some flexibility to the situation.
For example, with respect to a rail line abandonment, instead of the formal hearings that we have experienced with the CTC over the years being held where there is legal counsel and the right to cross-examine perhaps there could be town hall meetings. The agency could go out into western Canada, or out into the area between Ottawa and Sudbury, or to the Eastern Townships, Moncton or Atlantic Canada and hold informal information gathering sessions in order to get a feel for the issue. The agency could get a feel for what the abandonment of a particular line would mean to the people who live beside it and depend upon it without those people having to go through the very trying process of sitting down and putting together a brief, a document, that will be tested. By doing this we would open up the process.
If this amendment were to be accepted we would open up the process to the people of Canada. In this way we would no longer have to rely on lawyers or lobbyists who perform this work on a full-time basis. In this way the ordinary man and woman could participate in the process and feel as if someone is listening to them.
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
One of my beliefs is that too often decisions are made by Parliament, by Cabinet, by legislatures, for valid reasons. There are also decisions made by private corporations for valid reasons. But the people who are affected by them have no ownership with respect to the results. They may bear the brunt of the results but they certainly do not feel as if they were part and parcel of arriving at them.
If I can use an example-


Blaine Allen Thacker: We will agree to this one.


Iain Francis Angus: Given a comment I have just heard I think I should sit down and see what happens, Mr. Speaker.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, we are almost at the close of today's proceedings. Because of the progress we have made and the cogency of arguments with respect to Motion No. 20 the Government will agree to this motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 20 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall 1 call it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   PARITY PRICES FOR FARM PRODUCTS ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Nystrom that Bill C-221, an Act respecting parity prices for farm products, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us today as presented by the Hon. Member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) offers perhaps the clearest display of New Democratic economic policy and socialist philosophy that we have currently before the House, or in anything that that Party has presented.
The essence of the Bill is to provide a return or a price to farmers essentially to cover their costs, plus a reasonable profit. On first blush that seems like a pretty sound idea and something that all of us would like to see. However, if we wish

June 4, 1987
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
to take the matter a little further we must ask this question. What does a reasonable profit really mean? I suppose it means that farmers would recover the costs of doing business, a reasonable return on their labour and a reasonable return on their capital. Again, that sounds all right on first blush. One could say, "Well, why should we not go ahead and do something like that?"
I think we must examine the issue a little more closely. One of the first things one will have to decide in establishing what is a reasonable profit, or in fact what are the costs, is who will determine them. The NDP has a fairly ready solution for this. Presumably some bureaucrats employed by the Government of Canada, some civil servants, perhaps here in Ottawa-there is lots of empty office space and I am sure we can fill it up with some people-can try to determine what costs, plus a reasonable profit, a farmer should receive.
I am an accountant and I know that in normal day-to-day business dealings the profit is the difference between costs and revenue. Therefore, if we are going to make some adjustment to profit, whether or not we can define what a reasonable profit is, we are going to affect either the costs or the revenue. This is presumably what the civil servants would have to decide. How would they go about that?
I suppose, first of all, they would have to take a look at input costs. They would say, for instance, this farmer over here with this size of farm should have that size of tractor because any other tractor is too big. They might decide that the farmer should use only diesel fuel or gasoline. The net result would have us moving in the direction of having bureaucrats, or some board or agency of the Government, making the decisions farmers currently make for themselves. In essence, farmers would be an extension of the arm of the Government as well because, presumably, they will not have to make decisions any more. They will have their costs covered, receive a reasonable profit and simply go about their day-to-day business.
On the other hand, the bureaucrats might wonder what they are going to do about prices because, of course, that affects the farmer's revenue. I suppose we could set up some kind of mechanism for deciding what the price should be and then controlling it. Let us consider what we would have to do to control costs and prices.
I should point out that members of the New Democratic Party have a solution for that problem. They suggest, in order to control costs, taking into public ownership of some existing farm supply retail operations, farm machinery assembly plants, meat-packing plants and canneries. This presumably would allow the Government, by owning the suppliers of farmers, perhaps the gasoline dealers and service repair shops, and so on, the ability to control the costs of the farmers. I am not so sure what the people in those businesses might think about having the Government take them over. However, that presumably would achieve what this Bill seeks to do.
What about prices? How are we going to deliver an effective price or set a price? Presumably some bureaucrats would determine what that would be and that price would be set. But because the buyers of agricultural products today are various processing plants, those people who take those products and make them into foodstuffs, namely the agri-food industry, there would have to be some control in that area as well.
Again members of the New Democratic Party have a solution. Their official Party policy espouses the establishment of industrial plants to be co-operatively or publicly owned for the processing of food and the manufacture of farm supply items in the region of production.
That seems to have it pretty well covered. We have the input costs controlled because the Government has taken over the retail outlets and the facilities which supply farmers. We have the prices controlled because the Government has now taken over the processing plants which buy the product.
But what is the next step? What if the farmer all of a sudden starts making too much profit? I suppose the New Democratic Party has an answer for that. What if there is over-production? I have a letter from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association which makes the following comment, and I quote:
Let us assume for one mad moment that parity pricing were the option of choice. Canadian agriculture earns 50% of its gross farm income in export markets. Who will buy our products at the parity price? Obviously, the answer is no one so long as other nations are prepared to meet the market. Then who will pay to make up the difference? Surely not the farmer. After struggling to achieve parity pricing, he is not about to give half of it back to move half of his product into world markets. And, if the Government pays the bill, how long will we avoid a successful countervail challenge?
The entire idea of parity pricing distills down to nonsense. It is not remotely a viable policy option for Canadian agriculture. It is, in fact, a cruel hoax upon the desperate hopes and aspirations of many financially distressed farmers.
The letter goes on to state:
With or without public support, commodities will not sell above a price determined in the market place. Obviously, therefore, some surplus product would have to be taken off the market and stored-until the market improved. If the market did not improve, these stored products would accumulate to overhang the market much as they do now within the EEC.
In an effort to resolve that problem, the provincial Member of Parliament from the riding of Timiskaming has a solution. He suggests that we formulate a strategy to take some of the land out of production and to control the size of farms.
I would like to respond by quoting again the official Party policy of the New Democratic Party. Their resolutions book is dated November 1986, which makes it six months old and both the resolutions I read earlier were from that book. The New Democratic Party stands behind these resolutions. These are constitutional resolutions and the NDP must put those resolutions into government policy if it every forms the Government. The Leader of the New Democratic Party has said many times that he stands behind these resolutions.
The resolution reads, "The Party espouses the establishment of a public commission to determine a formula for farm unit size on a regional basis". The New Democratic Party has now
June 4, 1987

decided that in order to control the production-and we acknowledge that no controls on production and complete covering of costs would create a problem of surpluses which we cannot sell on the international market-we should set the size of the farms. If there was too much profit, obviously the Government could take a look and say, "Well, there is really too much profit here so we will set the size of the farm".
I think we only have to consider the implications for extending this proposal to other small businesses, such as suppliers, purchasers of farm products and, indeed, any small business in the country, to know how ludicrous this policy would be. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, every restaurant in my riding saying they should get a reasonable profit to cover their costs? Can you imagine every corner store, every retail service station saying the same thing? I think once we start down this road, once we accept this kind of philosophy, it will lead us to the socialism which all of us on this side of the House are trying to keep from happening.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the previous Conservative Member speaking against this Bill. I would like to say, as one of the members of the New Democratic Party, that I support the Bill. I do not have a large number of farmers in my riding, but we do have farmers who understand the problems all farmers are facing at the present time. They are in a situation where their costs are not being covered by the price of their commodities.
This Bill is trying to establish a mechanism so that farmers are indeed reimbursed for at least the cost of production and obviously have a reasonable profit. When Conservative Members rise, as did the previous Conservative Member, and rant and rave and claim that the Bill is impractical, they ignore the situation which exists for many other farm products. For example, the dairy, chicken, and turkey industries already have this type of system. It is not unreasonable to believe that farmers across the country should have some guarantee that their costs will be covered and that they will have a reasonable rate of return for the work in which they are involved.
I have heard Hon. Members speak against this Bill. They somehow think it is radical, yet it happens in other agricultural industries. They ignore what is really happening. In addition, they ignore the fact that almost every other industry is in a position to ensure that it has an adequate rate of return.
Certainly there are bankruptcies in some industries; certainly some industries go under. However, farmers who are unprotected at the present time need something to ensure that they have an adequate income. The only way that will happen is if the House of Commons passes some legislation which provides it.
Farmers have no control over what the American Congress does. They have no control over what happens in Europe. However, they expect the people they elect to the House of
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
Commons from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and other provinces to rise and to represent their interests.
The Conservative Member who spoke prior to me said that the Bill would just provoke a reaction from the United States, a countervail reaction or something of that nature. The truth is that the Americans have subsidized their farmers for many years. The truth is that the Europeans have heavily subsidized their farmers for many, many years.
We regret the fact that Canadian farmers need subsidies at this time, but we know that it is true. The Government itself recognized that during the Saskatchewan election when it finally came up with $1 billion after a very long period of time and gave it to farmers. Rather than reacting to every emergency which comes along, usually during a provincial election, the Bill is looking for an orderly manner by which the farmers will know what will happen to them. Then we would not have the situation where the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) receives a panic telephone call from the Premier of Saskatchewan-and I believe it was at five o'clock in the morning-saying, "Please help me. The polls are bad. Let's do something for farmers. Let's find a billion dollars. I don't care how you give it to them. I don't care if you spread the money out. I really don't care if they ever see the money, but make sure you make that announcement". That is not the way to do things. Farmers do not appreciate it.
They got part of the money so far and hopefully they will get the rest of the money soon, although we do not know when. However, we are now approaching the next crop year and again farmers do not know what will happen.
We have asked repeated questions of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), and the Minister of State for Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), trying to find out for farmers of western Canada and farmers of other parts of the land what the position of the Government will be for the upcoming crop year. We have been unable to obtain a straight answer on it. There is an indication that something will probably come. We do not know what, how much, what for, or when. In the meantime, farmers are out there right now planting their crops and making plans, and they do not know what the Government will do.
The legislation before us presented by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) tries to get rid of the very crude and politically involved system which we have at the present time. It tries to institute a policy whereby farmers of the land know that the Government and Parliament of Canada support them and how much money they can reasonably expect to make this year so that they can make plans with regard to their crops and other things. The Bill does not only deal with wheat, it deals with other commodities as well.
I have talked about the problems of farmers. I have talked about the impractical way in which we deal with our problems at this time. I have talked about the fact that they have been given $1 billion but they do not know what is happening next. Let me now explain why the Bill is necessary.

June 4, 1987
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
In 1981-82 the Canadian Wheat Board paid $199.62 per tonne for top grade wheat. In 1982-83, it went down to $192.43 per tonne. In 1983-84, it was $193.98 per tonne. By 1984-85, it was $186.37; by 1985-86, $160.00; and by 1986-87, $130 per tonne; 1987-88, it is $110 per tonne, but it may go up because that is the initial price.
However, the situation is that in that six-year period the price of top grade wheat has been cut in half. We have some expectation that the price may drop even further in the future.
It is very important that we have some legislation in place. It is also very important that we in the House move to support legislation in order that we can do something for Canadian farmers. To those Conservatives who have expressed concern that if we pass this Bill we will be passing a piece of NDP policy which will somehow get them in trouble with their right wing friends, let me remind them that in 1984 Parliament allowed the Bill to go to committee. In 1985, with the Conservative majority in the House, Parliament again let the Bill go to committee. Obviously there is a very drastic, continuing, and increasing need for some type of support system for farmers.
I urge Hon. Members of the House in all Parties to rise when there is a vote to ensure that the Bill goes to committee, so that farmers can appear before the committee and Conservative Members can make any amendments they feel necessary. Then we would have improved legislation for the House of Commons to pass.
As I mentioned earlier, protection has already been provided to some farmers involved in the dairy, chicken, and turkey industries. We are saying that that system is working very satisfactorily in those areas. It should be expanded so that farmers, like so many of us, can know what will be their incomes in a year and have some sense of economic security and economic stability and some sense that the family farm can survive.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-221. However, I am somewhat disenchanted at the lack of participation of the Liberal Opposition on agricultural issues. This surely demonstrates the level of interest they have always had for agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, a progressive agricultural industry and a reasonable return on invested labour . . .


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) on a point of order.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) is absent-which is quite often the case-no one comments on his absence. There is, I believe, a rule in this House which states that when mention is made of an Hon. Member on either side of the House, mention is made neither of his absence nor of his presence.
I would therefore ask the Hon. Member for Portneuf to show the same respect for other Hon. Members as that shown towards him when he is not present, which is quite often the case.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) on debate.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, I realize now that the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) did not understand what I meant. When I referred to the absence of Liberal Members, I did not mean to say that they were absent from the House. I meant something quite different. I meant that Liberal Members have failed to take part in this debate. Please listen carefully to what I have to say.
We should consider the negative effects a parity prices system could have on our farmers and the Canadian economy generally.
The notion of parity prices could do more harm than good for many reasons.
When prices are based on production costs, it is necessary to take into account the technological and agricultural innovations, which, through a more effective balancing of the various input costs, can result in lower costs and a regular decrease in the price of goods.
The production costs, however, are difficult to determine. It is necessary to distinguish between the costs for which disbursements must be made and such other factors as the fair reward for the farmer's work and investments, the value of which is difficult to assess precisely. They can be estimated, as they are already in some industries, but it is a delicate point on which people may hold different views.
If production costs were higher than market prices, a contingency or supply management system would be necessary for every type of farm product. One should not think about introducing a pricing system without having the means to limit the supply or dispose of the surpluses outside regular markets.
Canada is an exporting country and we depend on our export markets. These account for nearly half of our net farm income. Our production must be competitive on foreign markets.
If, on the one hand, the price of a product were set too high, we would have, on the other hand, to control the increase in imports which would certainly occur. But mainly, we could no longer export because our products probably would be too expensive on international markets. Our competitive position would then be jeopardized.
In order to remain on those markets, we would have to provide for export subsidies, and certainly our trade partners would react strongly. Canada would be accused of selling below cost or dumping. This of course would help isolate us from the global trade context and would have a disastrous impact not only on agriculture but the whole Canadian economy.
June 4, 1987

Unfortunately, the United States and the European Economic Community are engaged in a subsidy war, and Canadian producers are the unfortunate victims. Because of pressures abroad, prices for grain and oil seeds crops are down at least 20 to 25 per cent from last year. And probably they will not increase until market conditions have improved.
For those reasons Canada is attempting to stop that useless war which will have no victors. In that context, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) went to Brussels and Washington to express the Canadian viewpoint to the opposing parties.
The Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Charles Mayer, met representatives of the five major grain exporting nations. The first meeting was held in Whistler, British Columbia, in June 1986, at Mr. Mayer's request. There was also a second conference in San Diego, California. At the end of that meeting, Mr. Mayer stated he was very confident discussions between the five major grain exporting nations would impact favourably on other multilateral negotiations concerning agricultural trade.
One thing is sure, however: the Treasuries of the United States and the EEC are not inexhaustible. 1 hope those countries will soon realize the uselessness of a policy of high support prices and huge export subsidies.
1 hope that these countries will soon realize the uselessness of a high support price policy and massive export subsidies. Although the price of grain has come down, Canada has kept its place on world markets. That is the important point, because the efficiency of Canadian grain growers compares favourably with that of any other producer, anywhere in the world.
We also have conditions which make us more competitive. I could mention our soils, our weather conditions and also the quality of our grain and the competence of our farmers. The best way to obtain and keep clients is to offer them a product of superior quality, to build a reputation of reliability and to charge a competitive price.
Mr. Speaker, we are trying to increase our export potential by using an aggressive marketing approach. We can improve our competitive position through research, progress and technological transfer, soil conservation and other initiatives which will, over a period of time, reduce our production costs. We will soon realize that this is more efficient than giving subsidy upon subsidy, but, Mr. Speaker, it also requires more imagination.
While waiting for this trade war to end, it is essential that we keep our markets. Then we will be able to continue offering what made our reputation: superior quality products and competitive prices.
Mr. Speaker, I would be especially pleased to hear our experts in the Liberal Party talk about agriculture, defend the interests of Canadian farmers and try and suggest to farmers means to alleviate the problems they are presently experiencing. Our Party, Mr. Speaker, has over the months suggested a
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
number of opportunities to our farmers. This is only a beginning, we will continue along that line.


Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I find it fortunate to have the opportunity to speak on this Private Members' Bill this evening. I appreciate the intent of the Bill and I must say its objectives are in line with the kinds of things which our Government has been undertaking over the last number of months in order to improve the situation in Canada, in western Canada in particular, in the agricultural sector.
There is consensus across the country that farmers deserve and should receive a fair and equitable return for their investment and for their toil in producing commodities. However, I do not think there is any one Bill that would assure adequate returns to all farmers at any one time. There is no single program that will achieve this goal. I do not believe that Bill C-221 respecting parity prices for farm products will meet the objectives that we are all trying to achieve on behalf of Canadian farmers.
The parity prices concept is not a new one. It was tried in the United States over 45 years ago and eventually discontinued due to major shortcomings; the program was just not working for agricultural interests in the United States. Perhaps we should review some of the reasons that the parity prices program undertaken in the United States did not work.
The Americans set up an Agricultural Adjustment Act, the purpose of which was to establish farm prices at a level that would maintain farmers' purchasing power, with respect to articles they buy, equivalent to that of the base period. In order for purchasing power to be maintained over time, relative prices and incomes in the base period must be appropriate. In the United States, it became apparent that there were substantial income differences among farmers, no matter what base period was used for the program.
The intent of the Parity Pricing Act in the U.S. was similar to that of Bill C-221 with respect to adjusting prices of farm commodities to reflect changes in the prices of articles that farmers buy. Moreover, in order to stabilize supplies and prices, parity prices were incorporated into the loan rate formula. Farmers sold what they could and the rest was purchased and stored by the Government. As technology advanced, production increased faster than demand. This increased the need for price support and over-production problems became unmanageable. Eventually, the Investment Parity Price Support Program became so expensive that it was disbanded.
It is interesting to note that although costs associated with the parity formula grew significantly, farmers were often not

June 4, 1987
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
at the receiving end. Much of the money went to transportation, storage agencies and the construction industry. The U.S. experience illustrated that parity prices were not effective in providing price support to farmers. It cost billions of dollars but only a small portion of that went to agricultural producers.
Bill C-221 is aimed at helping Canadian grain and oil seed producers who are experiencing a very difficult time. As I indicated earlier, I think that is a proper objective. The producers in the grain sector are in a cost-price squeeze where market prices are falling and input costs are rising.
As an example, it is no secret that wheat prices have fallen about 30 per cent in the last year alone. This is due largely to an international trade war, particularly between the United States and the European Economic Community. However, input prices have continued to climb at a fairly substantial rate. Grain farmers on the Prairies are expected to experience a net decline in farm income this year, although this decline is being offset to a large degree by payments under government programs which our Party has initiated over the last number of months.
The solution to the farm income problem would not be found in Bill C-221. The U.S. experience already indicates that eventually it would be detrimental to the agricultural industry. The idea of parity pricing does not take into account new technology, efficiency of production, market signals and the need for international product marketability. It ignores the dynamic and often unpredictable nature of the agricultural industry due to diverse forces and conflicting interests regionally, nationally and internationally.
Over the past years, the farm sector in Canada has been effectively served by programs that increase the efficiency and competitiveness of farmers in the market-place. A legislated solution such as this Bill will not be responsive to constantly changing circumstances and would therefore result in high costs with declining effectiveness.
One could argue that the national supply management agencies which are in place for dairy and poultry products serve that industry well and that the same arrangement could apply to grains and oil seeds. However, these agencies have been established at the direct request of the producers themselves who continue to recognize the fluctuating nature of the markets. They have built-in flexibility to protect both producers and consumers. Bill C-221, however would not allow the same conditions for the grain and oil seed producers.
To be efficient and competitive, the market forces of supply and demand must continue to prevail. That has always been the fundamental philosophy behind agricultural policy in Canada, a philosophy shared by all provinces as signatories to the recently developed national agriculture strategy.
The Government has been working with provincial Governments and the farm industry to build a network of programs to strengthen the productivity, efficiency and competitiveness of the agricultural industry while providing farm income protection. Special initiatives have been introduced to help
producers who are experiencing difficulties. In the long run, we believe that this approach will provide the best protection against the cost-price squeeze experienced by the Canadian agricultural sector.
The support programs provided for Canadian grain and oil seed farmers include the Special Canadian Grains Program which will provide $1 billion this year to assist grain and oil seed farmers. Payments are being made under the Agricultural Stabilization Act to farmers affected by lower prices. Payments of close to $55.8 million will be made for corn, soybean and barley producers for their 1985-86 crops. The Western Grain Stabilization Act has been amended to allow interim payments and an interim payment of $705 million was made in 1986-87 for the last crop year. As well, a tripartite stabilization program for the red meat sector has been established with six provinces participating. The farm fuel tax rebate program exempts farmers from federal sales and excise taxes on farm fuels. A five-year, $80-million interest rate relief program has been designed and implemented to lower interest costs for more than 5,000 Farm Credit Corporation borrowers.
I could go on to indicate other ways in which the Government of Canada is tackling this problem. In short, and in conclusion, it is my view that Bill C-221 would not help but would perhaps aggravate the situation. I am afraid that, while it is well intended, it would be difficult to support at this time.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from the NDP for putting this legislation before the House. We, in the Liberal Party, agree that it is useless to go on talking about that matter to pass the time. I would be prepared, if Conservative Members want to agree to this Bill, to stop talking right now and pass it. Otherwise, I refuse to take part in that parliamentary hypocrisy that Conservative Members are trying to get us into because people who are listening to us know the procedure. This is the Private Members' hour, during which Members of Parliament introduce a Bill that seems a good one but instead of voting for it. .. I am looking at the Member from the Quebec region who spoke earlier for a very short time. They are talking out this Bill with their empty statements. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to sit right now and ask that we vote to pass this legislation. I think it is good for our farmers. It is useless to go on talking about it. If we all agree that this is a good measure, let us vote for it right away.


Mr. Gerin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Megantic- Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) makes me laugh. I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker, and you will agree with me that he does not need to tell everybody that he talks for the sake of talking. For the past two years and a half, I think that all Canadians have realized that whenever he rises in the House, the Hon.
June 4, 1987

Member for Montreal-Ste-Marie really speaks for the sake of speaking. I have listened to him speak for hours in the House of Commons without taking one single note on his speech. I did not need take any because as usual, he said nothing worthwhile.


Carlo Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) on a point of order.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) is not dealing with the Bill concerned. Now, I would like to tell this honourable Assembly that there had been an agreement with the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) on the order of speeches, and there was a consensus with the New Democratic Party, with the Hon. Member for Champlain and with the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker. I therefore believe that when we have an agreement, a consensus in this honourable House, since-


François Gérin: It is not a point of order.


Carlo Rossi: Yes it is, for there was a consensus, Mr. Speaker, the three Parties had reached an agreement, and we have been told at the last minute that this consensus no longer exists. The Hon. Member for the NDP who moved that motion was not in the House. I am therefore of the opinion that it would have been logical to wait for the Hon. NDP Member who moved the motion. I wish to say that I am not very happy with the procedure that was followed: A consensus of the three Parties was reached, and at the last minute, the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) broke that consensus. You had actually been made aware of it, Mr. Speaker, and he had said he agreed with it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Megantic- Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) on the same point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is being most clever in his "clumsiness". I had started to speak, and he interrupted me on a point of order which was not a point of order. He interrupted me as I was in fact going to explain the position of the Government. I simply wanted to say, before giving the floor to my hon. colleague from the NDP who wants to make a presumably important speech, that he has the right to be heard before we take the division. I hope that will be possible before six o'clock, but before that, I wish to say again, Mr. Speaker, that we could indeed do without all those points of order by Liberal Members, whether it is the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) or the other Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), who is well known for talking for the sake of talking while the other one says nothing worthwhile.
Mr. Speaker-
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act


Carlo Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, but the Parliamentary Secretary who is in the House and with whom we often have to deal will tell you that indeed, when the three Parties have reached a consensus, they respect the agreement. I have been a Member for over eight years, the consensus has always been respected, and I regret to say that when the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) talks that way, the Hon. Member for Champlain-


François Gérin: Megantic-Compton-Stanstead-


Carlo Rossi: Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, it does not matter where you come from, you are talking through your hat, and the attitude of the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) in whom we had full confidence is the exact opposite of that of the Parliamentary Secretary who never fails to act like a gentleman when we have agreements in this House. And when there is a consensus in this Hon. House a Member does not do what has just been done and play games . . . There is a way to behave in this House and when there is a consensus we respect it.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) on a point of order.


Mr. Champagne (Champlain):: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 think the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) is indulging in a bit of demagogy. First, under the agreement made with the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom)-that is who it is-my colleague from Megantic-Compton-Stanstead was to seek the floor. That is precisely what he did, under the agreement-


Carlo Rossi: This is false, these are lies-


Michel Champagne: Second, the Hon. Member for Bourassa keeps on mumbling, but I would remind him that he is the one who came to sit with the NDP Member who is sponsoring the motion and said: Could my colleague from Megantic-Compton-Stanstead speak first? We said: Sure, no problem, and the Member for Bourassa went to see you to tell you that my colleague should have the floor. So we know all about Liberal agreements, Mr. Speaker-


Carlo Rossi: You said that; you are a liar-


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed. The Chair is always ready to recognize Members.
I think it would be in everyone's interest if we got back to the debate. Whoever wants to speak can get up and we will identify them.

June 4, 1987
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act [Translation]
I believe the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton- Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) had the floor . . . The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), on a point of order-


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I just want to say that I was present when an agreement was made, and if the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) doesn't mind misleading the House, I was there when he spoke, his reputation .. .


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I suggest we forget the agreements or near agreements. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin).


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in my speech the comment that the Chair should have the authority to cut off Members who talk for the sake of talking, as the two Liberal Members were doing-


Carlo Rossi: Sit down-


François Gérin: -because the agreement in the House was to let my hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party say what he had to say about this speech, and he will have a chance well before our time is up, and we will be able to get on with this Bill.


Carlo Rossi: You wanted to go home.


François Gérin: However, I want to condemn the lack of fair play shown by the Hon. Members for Bourassa and Montreal-Sainte-Marie, who were trying to waste the time of this House and talk the Bill out, because they know we have to leave at 6 p.m.
And so to give the Hon. Member of the NDP a chance to make his speech, I ask you-


Jean-Claude Malépart: You are capable of lying.


François Gérin: -and 1 ask my hon. colleagues to keep quiet and refrain from any points of order until 6 p.m. so we can put this question to a vote.


Carlo Rossi: Tell the House you want to leave- You are scared.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville has already spoken in this debate. He has a point of order?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I just have a very simple concern. Rather than points of order I wonder if we could not agree that-

our friend from Megantic-Compton-Stanstead can speak to the substance of the Bill. This is very important. And we have an agreement here in the House that four Conservative
Members will be taking part in the debate and two NDP Members, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) and my friend from Regina West. With the consent of the House, my hon. friend can speak to the substance of the Bill.


An Hon. Member:: Five minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to use up the balance of the time. Since you had a left ear that was not so good this afternoon I hope your left eye cannot see the clock over on this side.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for Ontario or Quebec or Atlantic Canada, but if there was ever an issue dear to the hearts of farmers, some of whom supported the Conservatives, some of whom supported the Liberals, some of whom supported the CCF and the NDP, and some of whom supported the Social Credit Party, it is a system of parity prices. After listening to the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) I can say he is lucky that the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker was not sitting in this Chamber because he would have walked across to the hon. gentleman from Edmonton West and punched him right in the nose. I remember vividly in Saskatchewan all during the late 1940s, the 1950s and early 1960s Mr. Diefenbaker saying, "The farmers, they want parity, not charity."


Mr. Reid:: Well done!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I was appalled when listening to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West. He displayed an ignorance of what this Bill is all about and what the issue is that passes all understanding. The legislation has nothing to do with international trade. It has only to do with a parity price for agricultural products for human consumption in Canada. Nothing else. That would involve, for example, up to 20 per cent of our grain production used for human consumption. It has no effect on feed grain prices for hog producers or cattle producers or poultry producers. It is grain and grain products for human consumption.
A parity price now would mean an increase of five cents in the price of a loaf of bread. When you walk into a store and pay anywhere from a dollar to two dollars a loaf, five cents for farmers who are now getting less than the cost of production and cannot stay in business is surely not unreasonable. For those who grow some of the best malting barley in the world it might mean two and a half cents on a bottle of beer. A parity price for the grain farmer might amount to one-tenth of one cent on the price of a box of prepared breakfast cereal.
I do not understand the Hon. Member for Edmonton West, or for that matter the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. They
June 4, 1987

want free market forces. Leave us alone, they say. Yet every time the Americans shut the border down on them or when the cattle industry is in real trouble and feedlots all over western Canada are going broke, who are the first ones down in Ottawa with their hands out? Those same guys who want free market forces. They want the free and open market when the prices are good but when prices are bad they come to Ottawa. That is why I do not take much of what the Canadian Cattlemen's Association says with anything more than grain of salt, and never have. These are the fellows who operate their big ranches with what I call the Texas cowboy syndrome, the free, independent spirit, waltzing around in their saddles. However, more livestock is produced by small farmers who are not members of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association than by the entire Canadian Cattlemen's Association. One questions who the devil they speak for besides the packing industry and their own selfish little kingdom.
It is okay for businessmen selling a product to set their price based on their cost of production, their cost of capital, and a return on investment on which they can live, and sometimes they even include their own wage. Why can a farmer not do that? The farm sector is still the only sector in our economy which has to be a price taker rather than a price maker. A working person in a union can bargain and negotiate his pay and ends up being a pay taker and a pay maker. The business community, doctors, lawyers, dentists, architects and chartered accountants can all set a price which covers their costs, a return on their capital investment, and a living. Why is that not possible for farmers?
That double standard in our economy has decimated the agriculture industry. Name me another sector which is more efficient and has diversified more than our agricultural producers. I defy anyone to do so. Their efficiency has been their downfall. They have diversified themselves into bankruptcy. They are entitled to a parity price on agricultural products produced in Canada for human consumption. If that means increased food costs for poor people they can be compensated directly through a tax credit, food stamps, or a variety of other programs. Why should the Canadian agricultural producer bear the cost of a cheap food policy and go broke?
The Progressive Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party have supported the principle of parity prices in this limited manner for quite a few years. The House passed this legislation in 1984 and 1985. I urge my good friends across the way to talk to their colleague, the Member for Edmonton West, about parity prices. I urge the House to continue the debate on this matter which would bring about fair play for our agricultural producers in this very limited manner. At least 20 per cent of their production in a general average across Canada would get a fair price.
Surely if my good friends opposite want to adhere to the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) about
Parity Prices for Farm Products Act
fairness, nothing could be more fair than this, albeit in a limited manner. We can do no less in this Parliament. I urge this House to do so.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker? I have had a hard day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? [Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has already taken part in the debate.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is always right. He has the floor on debate.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I am happy to hear you say I am always right, Mr. Speaker. I hope my Conservative colleagues will remember that famous statement of yours.


François Gérin: Just wasting time.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize, and that proves the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton- Stanstead (Mr. Gerin)-as the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) would say: the balance-is not a good lawyer. He does not even know the provisions of the Standing Orders, what Bill we are debating now. This Bill is not to be debated during just one hour of Private Members' Business but may receive five hours of consideration. The debate must go on, Mr. Speaker.
Besides, the attitude of the Hon. Member for Megantic- Compton-Stanstead and that of the Hon. Member for Champlain leave no doubt as to why the Conservative government is badly represented and the people-
The Hon. Member for Champlain tried to outsmart and manipulate the House of Commons through Standing Orders he does not even know.
Let us go back to the matter under consideration, agriculture, which is far more important than the procedural debate the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead and the Hon. Member for Champlain wanted to start.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) on a point of order.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, talking about manipulation, we have an expert at this on the other side, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker; when we made the arrangement, the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), my colleague from the New Democratic Party, and my colleague for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead were there. The four of

June 4, 1987
Adjournment Debate
us made an agreement and the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie was not even there, and he does not even know what he is talking about. It is always the same thing in this kind of debate. You should call him to order, Mr. Speaker, and instruct him to talk about the matter before us, namely agriculture, instead of letting him talk about things in which he was not involved.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue the debate but it is no use; the population-


Michel Champagne: You have understood-


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, to answer this point of order-
Before long the population will decide the Hon. Member's fate; just look at what happens in the polls-
Mr. Speaker, the gist of the matter is to know who is concerned and what sector of our population is affected, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is the problem of farmers in Canada, and we know how important it is, even for people from an urban area-


An Hon. Member:: From downtown Montreal-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Megantic- Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, about the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part), I wish to point out that he has already taken part in this debate and has absolutely no right to speak again. The only thing he wants is for the debate to last till six o'clock, which will happen in less than a minute, to prevent the motion from coming to a vote, and he is therefore wasting the time of the House.
I ask the Hon. Member to remain seated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on debate.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, as we conclude, could you explain to the Hon. Member, who is naive and stupid, that the Bill will not be talked out today and will remain on the Order Paper. I shall close on this note, Mr. Speaker, as it is now six o'clock and time for the House to adjourn.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to Members of the House that I am rising today to express my dissatisfaction with the reply given to me on May 12 by the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), in reply to a serious question that 1 thought was well put, regarding alternative markets for farm production. It is a subject very much linked to the Private Members' debate we just heard. The Minister could only reply that enzymes were being improved. He also made a rather ludicrous suggestion that the Province of Manitoba, the leader in fuel alcohol use and development in Canada, should be doing more. The Hon. Minister should know that his own province is doing more than any other.
The answer given by the Minister was out of touch with the present political and market realities. He ignored the desperate need for additional markets and the fact that emergency aid is something that can only use part of Canada's grain surplus and should not be seen as a marketing tool. He was so out of touch with reality as almost to recall the words of the former Prime Minister: "Why should I sell your wheat?" In the meantime, politicians south of the border are considering a five-fold expansion of an existing two-billion-litre-a-year fuel ethanol industry, with the support of the Vice-President, who is a candidate for the presidency.
The Government does not seem to understand what the debate is about. Lead removal has taken lead from gasoline in the United States, Europe, and Canada, and has created a market for octane enhancement that is one-tenth of the size of the total gasoline market. There is a significant difference for exporting nations like Canada. The difference is so important that international acceptance of fuel ethanol should be a major element of our grain marketing policy. Yet, there seems to be nothing more than a general understanding of the scope and impact of this industry.
In February, the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board held a press conference before going to San Diego for a meeting of the world's five largest grain exporters. He told journalists at that time: "We spend a tremendous amount of money in all our agricultural programs, almost exclusively in economic terms on the supply side and we need to be looking more on the demand side". Indeed, the Minister is absolutely right. However, he is failing to follow up those words with any form of concrete commitment.
Three weeks after the Minister made that statement, VicePresident Bush said:
I propose we consider a policy that will immediately increase demand. The answer is ethanol, the fuel distilled from corn and other crops ... I share the goal of the National Corn Growers, that by 1990 we can produce 2.5 billion gallons of ethanol from 1 billion bushels of corn. It will help our farmers and manufacturers, while contributing to cleaner air and energy independence.
That 2.5 billion American gallons represents some 7.5 billion litres of ethanol from 1 billion bushels of corn. Those
June 4, 1987

possibilities are perhaps even greater in Canada than in the United States.
I have copies of a letter and petition by 40 U.S. senators calling for the Environmental Protection Agency to mandate fuel alcohol for air quality reasons, and two Bills introduced in the Elouse of Representatives calling for the same treatment. Has our federal Government considered any such similar policy? We have not heard of one yet.
Canada has an opportunity to scratch its own back, and to take a lead not only in research and development, but eventually in marketing, before others do so.
The nations of the European Economic Community are now facing the same decision between biochemical and petrochemical octane enhancers, but they do not seem to have grasped the concept of eliminating the necessary subsidies for ethanol by blending with methanol.
The Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board should know better than any other Minister in the world, because right in his own riding a Canadian company, Mohawk Oil, has been distilling the necessary ethanol from grain and has been marketing an EM blend for several years, using fuel ethanol that comes from his own riding.
U.S. politicians are taking the lead and Canada is letting an important technological and, above all, important market opportunity for farmers slip away. Both our Agriculture Ministers seem to have been whipped into line by the writers of the western energy accord since there is no mention of fuel alcohol in that document. It would appear that while the Minister may be doing his best, the philosophy, practice and policies of the multinational oil industry have infiltrated the Progressive Conservative Government to the point where it determines this country's policy.
Before my time expires I should mention that the petrochemical octane enhancer, MTBE, can be a dangerous pollutant, whereas the ethanol-methanol co-solvent blends are no more dangerous as pollutants than the gasoline in which they are blended. Fuel ethanol's adoption in North America will pull Europe in with it as a market.
Canadian farmers have been asking the Government for a political commitment. The economic summit coming up in Venice and the imminent release of the western economic diversification strategy are two excellent opportunities. Indeed, there has even been a resolution from the town council of Minnedosa, a municipality some 60 kilometres from the Minister's own residence in Carberry, asking for expansion of ethanol-methanol blends. That is the home, after all, of Canada's first and, sadly, its only, fuel ethanol distillery, and its councillors have passed this motion without any response from the Minister as yet.
What has the Minister done? What will he do? If one listens to his comments of May 12 in the House, he is probably
Adjournment Debate
waiting for the price of grain to go up so that he can claim that fuel ethanol is going to be too expensive.
In the short run, of course, Canada's wheat farmers need subsidies. But in the long run what they need is an alternative market for their product. That is what ethanol-methanol blending for octane enhancement in gasoline would provide.
I should also add that not only are the wheat farmers in trouble for lack of markets but that Ontario corn growers-

No doubt that Quebec corn growers are experiencing similar conditions.

They are looking for alternative markets for their products because they will be in the same situation as western farmers in a couple of years' time if this Government cannot do something to provide them with another way to sell their produce at an economic return.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, first of all, my colleague mentioned earlier the so-called infiltration of multinationals within our Party. 1 should like to remind him that his beloved leader does not mind at all having multinationals in his constituency of Oshawa and indeed, he is proud to have them there. He even wants to protect them during the free trade negotiations. Moreover, my colleague has been referring to what the Americans are doing, but he never misses an opportunity to discredit the Americans and to say that we should have nothing to do with them, that they are not quite decent. He should listen, Mr. Speaker, because when he talks about Quebec corn producers, he shows that he does not know much about agriculture and that he would be well advised to find out what is going on. For his information and that of his colleagues, Quebec corn producers produce much more for their own needs than for export. The situation is quite different from that described by my hon. friend, because they need that production.
Nevertheless, I am pleased, and so is the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, at the interest the Hon. Member is showing for the whole issue of replacement fuel. Mr. Speaker, the House will remember that, in the seventies, even in the United States there were line-ups at the filling stations.
The Hon. Member asks a double question, one about the possibility of producing ethanol from grain, and the other about the possibility of this production giving Canadian grain producers a major alternative market for their grains.
First of all, the Government fully supports the efforts aimed at saving oil and developing other types of energy. That must be clear from the start. Through the Department of Energy,

June 4, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Mines and Resources, and the Department of Agriculture, the Government continues to finance research in this area.
Moreover, taking into account the progressive reduction of lead concentration in gas by 1992, there exists a possibility of using ethanol for increasing the octane rating.
It has been estimated that such use would create a market for some 2.5 million tonnes of grain per year, which is the amount required to produce enough 3 per cent methanol to 5 per cent ethanol additive for all the gasoline sold in Canada today.
This is only a small fraction of total Canadian production, which now reaches close to 60 million tonnes, but such a market would help bring down surplus stocks of lower quality grain.
It is estimated that the effect of this market on prices would be marginal. I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that according to a working paper on fuel alcohol published earlier this year by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, ethanol-methanol blending could turn out to be an economical and competitive method of octane enhancement. It goes without saying that this would depend on the price relationships between grain and oil, which fluctuate widely.
The Government of Canada is well aware of these developments and since the release last year of the report on alcohol-based additives by the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, an interdepartmental committee has been closely monitoring new developments in the field of fuel alcohol.
To come back to the grain market issue, the Government is open to all possible solutions when it comes to maintaining and expanding markets for Canadian grain at home as well as abroad.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question and for his sincere interest in this issue and I would ask him to provide any additional information he might have concerning the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive. His assistance in developing this type of new market for Canadian grains will undoubtedly be well received.
And in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, for his personal information, I would advise him to be more present at the Standing Committee on Agriculture in order to see in which parts of the country there might be surpluses, and in which parts there might not be, which would put him in a much better position to inform the Canadian people on what is produced in this and that region, thereby giving Canadian agriculture its true importance.


SOCIAL SECURITY-TAX REFORM-THE ELDERLY- GOVERNMENT POSITION-INCOME TAX-THE ELDERLY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I come back tonight to a question I put to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) concerning tax reform, in view especially of the statements that were made concerning tax exemptions for the elderly. We know that for the elderly
there is the so-called Old Age Security pension, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the spouse's allowance, the Quebec Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan, but in addition there is the so-called age exemption for people 65 and over. This year, those people are entitled to a $2,610 exemption and a $1,000 pension income deduction.
In the matter of tax reform, the Minister spoke of changing the tax exemption into a tax credit. This is perfect, it is exactly what we Liberals were proposing during the famous January 1985 consultation on the blue paper concerning family allowance and social security pensions. Unfortunately, at that point the Government was promising a lot of things, but we remember how much they misled the people, even committee members, even Conservative Members who believed the Prime Minister concerning the indexing of Old Age Security pensions and family allowance.
Mr. Speaker, I wish that this time, the Parliamentary Secretary-and the reason I am being so specific is that there is agreement, and in fact the committee called for a change from tax exemptions to tax credits. Regarding my question, which the Minister failed to answer, I want to say that I would like to get an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary. If we consider that, in 1983, the cost to the Government or the total amount redistributed to senior citizens through tax exemptions was $650 million . . . This $650 million is a form of assistance, a form of income support for people on middle and high incomes, since tax exemptions do not benefit people on low incomes. What I wanted to hear from the Minister and the assurance I was seeking, was that the transformation of tax exemptions into tax credits would reduce the amount allocated to very wealthy older people and transfer the savings to low and medium income senior citizens. The blue paper shows that a single individual with an income of $4,000, received tax exemptions amounting to $410. However, another individual with a pension and interest income of $50,000, which means quite a bit of money in the bank, received $1,569 in tax exemptions. That is to say the rich got almost four times as much as the poor.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us that, when the Government corrects this unfairness in tax exemptions by replacing them with tax credits, the rich . . . Couples with an annual income of $70,000 received $3,000, while couples with a annual income of $6,000 received only $726. That means we will take money away from the rich. My question is this: Are we going to transfer the money to middle income people, are we going to give more to the poor, increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement? Or is the Government going to do what it did for Family Allowances and family tax exemptions? It is on that point that it misled the public and the Committee. It took away money by partially deindexing Family Allowances.
It did away with the tax exemption for dependent children. It gave back half the money as a tax credit but the rest went to the rich depositors of the banks which went under, it reduced the deficit, it spent $55 million to change the colour of
June 4, 1987

military uniforms, things like that, it wasted the money that did not help anybody.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will respond. I would also ask him whether he can guarantee today that an amount equivalent to the $650 million will still be available to help provide some income for elderly people. Second, whether the Government policy in future will be to replace all existing tax exemptions such as those on investment income and registered retirement savings by tax credits which, in my opinion, would be much fairer all around.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by laying to rest the false premise which underlies the Lion. Member's question. The Government does not mislead senior citizens. Rather, it listens attentively to their concerns and acts accordingly. For this reason, we have allowed the splitting of CPP pensions so that they can be paid to both spouses.
In addition, we have raised the registered pension plan and registered retirement pension plan limits to make saving for retirement more equitable and more attractive. As well, we extended eligibility for spouses' allowance to widows and widowers.
This same concern for the well-being of older Canadians has motivated our work on tax reform. While it would clearly be inappropriate for me to lay out in detail the elements of tax reform which will affect elderly Canadians, tax reform has been guided by certain principles. These principles have been articulated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on several occasions.
Most notably, in his budget speech last February he noted that tax reform would be aimed at lower personal income taxes and significantly fewer tax brackets. He also noted that he was considering the conversion of personal exemptions to credits. Such a conversion would provide more assistance to lower income taxpayers, many of whom are elderly.
This would be fully consistent with the Government's intention to reform the system of social transfers and related tax provisions. The review of these provisions is aimed at three goals: to maintain universal access to social programs, to improve opportunities for self-reliance, and to provide more assistance to those in need and less to higher income Canadians.
I can assure the Hon. Member that the Government remains fully committed to these goals. They have been kept fully in mind as the tax reform package has been developed. None of them is consistent with the accusation the Hon. Member makes that a reduction in the age exemption is being considered.
Rather than rushing to judgment on the basis of what can only be rumour and hearsay, I respectfully suggest that the
Adjournment Debate
Hon. Member wait patiently, difficult though it might be, for the Minister's announcement on June 18. I can assure the Flon. Member that, given his pessimistic views, he will be pleasantly surprised.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-PUBLIC FAITH AND CONFIDENCE-REQUEST FOR CHANGES TO PAROLE SYSTEM
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know whether I have ever asked you if you are a reader of The Toronto Sun. I can see that you are. Is there anything like The Toronto Sun in Montreal, Mr. Speaker? No, I thought not. As you are indicating, Mr. Speaker, there is really nothing like The Toronto Sun anywhere. I understand that.
As a reader of The Toronto Sun, Mr. Speaker, you will know-and I venture to say that every reader of The Toronto Sun will know it-that very few days go by when there is not a report in that newspaper about someone who is out on parole committing some sort of violent crime.
That is a frightening fact. Many people say that The Toronto Sun frightens people needlessly and unnecessarily. They say there is no reason for the paper to report that sort of thing because these things are not happening in actual fact as frequently or as often as the paper reports them. You know just as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that if these things were not happening there would not be anything for newspapers like The Toronto Sun to report. Things like violent crimes being committed while people are on parole are happening at quite a regular rate. That is frightening for the public, it is frightening for you, Mr. Speaker-I know that-and it is frightening for me.
One story I saw recently frightened me even more than many of these stories about violent crime being committed by people on parole. It was a story allegedly attributable to Mr. Ole Ingstrug. You know who Mr. Ole Ingstrug is, Mr. Speaker. He is a former senior official in the Danish correction service who is now the chairman of our National Parole Board. Mr. Ingstrug was quoted in the press as saying that he was very enthusiastic about the list of criteria which the National Parole Board was preparing to be used in granting parole. He went on to say that "We have not in the past had any kind of relatively clear criteria for granting parole in this country". That is a shocking statement.
I can see by your face, Mr. Speaker, that you are just as shocked as I am when the chairman of the National Parole Board of Canada tells us that the Board does not have any clear idea why it is letting people out on parole. It is no wonder you and I and the public have our confidence shaken in the parole system. It is no wonder at the same time that we have our confidence shaken in the criminal justice system itself. It goes a long way in explaining why recently our own Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) said that Canadians in general have lost confidence in the criminal justice system and why the Attorney General of Ontario shortly after the Minister of

June 4, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Justice made that statement also said that Canadians have lost confidence in the criminal justice system.
What is going to give Canadians back that confidence? One of those things will be a dramatic change in our parole system. For heavens sake, surely we must have some criteria built into the system as to what the basis of parole is.
We know there are a lot of studies going on. For instance, Mr. Ingstrug said that the National Parole Board itself is studying the whole idea of what criteria should be used in granting parole. We know there is a study by the correctional law review of the parole system. We know that the sentencing commission has delivered a report which had a lot to say about parole aspects. We know that a few months ago the Law Reform Commission of Canada had something to say about parole. We know there is a task force in the Solicitor General's Department right now that is looking at recommendations of a coroner's jury dealing with parole in one particular instance and the shocking circumstances surrounding that.
We know that as all of these studies are progressing, a lot of questions are being asked. I have looked at some of those questions and they are good ones. For instance, what is the purpose of parole? Should we have parole at all? Should not a sentence of six years in prison mean a sentence of six years in prison? Is parole interfering with the court's sentencing? Does a judge take parole into account when he is sentencing? What minimum time should be served before parole is granted? What types of offences should be subject to parole? What types of offenders should be granted parole? Are the offenders receiving the maximum benefits from their prison sentence? Will parole help to rehabilitate people? Flave prisoners been properly prepared for parole? Is there a risk to society in granting parole and how do you determine that risk? Is the only reason for parole to grant people time off for good behaviour? Is it because of overcrowding in the prisons? Is it because we would rather have problems created on the outside of prisons than on the inside?
There are all sorts of questions that are being asked, and they are good questions. I too have some questions for the Parliamentary Secretary.
Will the studies come up with similar conclusions and similar answers? Will those answers be the kind of answers that make the public feel confident and comfortable with the parole system? How long will it take to institute some of these changes to the parole system? Will the Government in fact have the intestinal fortitude to put these changes into effect?
There are many questions that I have to ask and many questions the public has to ask about the parole system. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is here tonight. He had better have the answers for us.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, we have all heard it said that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
That holds true for the entire criminal justice system, including corrections and parole.
It is true that the system can always be improved. It is also true that appropriate major adjustments are a continuing program in a system such as ours that is in full evolution. We are taking steps to improve the system, beginning with providing the public more accurate information.
Canadians should be able to see clearly how things are done in Canadian criminal justice. If they saw this, they would be proud of the direction of our justice system. More important, the quality of their lives would be improved because their fear of crime would be diminished considerably.
This brings me to a remark made by the Chairman of the National Parole Board who said that there are no clear-cut criteria at present for the granting of parole. There are criteria, but how clear-cut they are is another question. In fact, the Chairman of the National Parole Board has said, and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) agrees with him, that those criteria are too broad and too general. They are too general to allow the public to see how they are applied in each case and too broad to be applied consistently, uniformly and effectively.
To remedy the situation and in the interests of making the parole process more transparent so that the public can clearly and readily see how the board arrives at its decisions, the chairman is having more refined and elaborate criteria developed against which all releases will be measured. These will be in place before the end of the year. The Solicitor General certainly welcomes this initiative. It speaks well of the orientation being given to the National Parole Board and its very acute sense of accountability to the public.
These criteria or decision-making policies will also give guidance to the board members considering release for the various categories of offenders, offenders who are so very different from one another and whose crimes are necessarily, for purposes of conditional release, measured in terms of mitigation and aggravating circumstances.
Many decisions in the correctional field cause reactions in the mass media and often among practitioners in other parts of the criminal justice system. This means that decisions must not only be easy to explain but also that the process by which decisions are taken must be easy to explain and fair to the individual and to society. It also means that the correctional system must operate in an efficient way. To that end, it is often necessary to be able to demonstrate that decisions have been taken in an accordance with legal provisions, administrative regulations or general guidelines.
Obviously public agencies, and particularly the criminal justice system, must pay much more attention to the question of communication with the public to engender public understanding of its policies and its way of operating, including the degree to which power has been delegated and the extent to
June 4, 1987	_______________COMMONS DEBATES________________________6761
which discretionary power is exercised at various levels. That is what is being done, and I will have much more to tell the House in the coming months as the parole system becomes more efficient, more transparent and indeed one in which the people of Canada may take pride.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.30 p.m., the House adjourned.

Friday, June 5, 1987


[Stage Direction]
Prayers