1987-06-16

Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the first report of the Standing Committee on Secretary of State.
This report is the culmination of seven months of work from coast to coast in reviewing the funding criteria of the Women's Program of the Department of Secretary of State. I would like to make some brief points.
The report crosses Party lines and represents all regions and linguistic groups in Canada. This can be considered an overwhelming endorsation by a majority of members of all Parties in the House in terms of strengthening our recommendations to the Government.
Fairness in Funding is anchored on the principles of equality and democracy. As in the Meech Lake Accord and the Venice Summit, nobody got everything they wanted but everybody got something.
We could not have arrived at such a consensus without the invaluable and oft-times moving testimony by many hundreds of witnesses from all 10 provinces and two Territories. The thrill the committee experienced travelling across this great country was intensified by the knowledge that many women travelled unbelievable distances to make their views known in whatever region we touched down. I know that I speak for all committee members when I say, "We thank you. We heard you, and we hope that you will feel that this report made your efforts worthwhile."
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to colleagues on all sides of the House who contributed mightily to our Fairness in Funding report. To my government colleagues, my namesake, the Hon. Member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott), my friend the mediator, the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Pietz)-

the Hon. Member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Joncas) as well as the Hon. Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Lopez)-

-and also for the vigorous participation by our alternate but always present Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson); to our colleagues from the Official Opposition, the distinguished Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) and the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin). The committee also expresses thanks for the very constructive co-operation of the two New Democratic Party members who bracket this national report at the western end of the country, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) and the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). To them I also say "Thank you".
I hope that the Government will seriously consider the recommendations in the report which create objectives and criteria which will work toward the full participation of women in the Canada of the 1990s and beyond into the 21st century.


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On behalf of the Deputy Chairman of the committee, the Hon. Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Lopez), and myself as a full participant of the hearings across the country, we would like to append a minority report to the report just submitted.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson) has in that report matters of importance. However, I have to advise the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members that an attempt to file a minority report is not recognized in our rules and is without precedent. Reluctantly I have to advise the Hon. Member that his request is out of order.


VETERANS APPEAL BOARD ACT
Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-66, an Act to establish the Veterans Appeal Board and to amend other Acts in relation thereto.

June 16, 1987
Petitions


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[DOT] (mo)

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 106, the petition being signed by residents of Hinton, Jasper, and Edmonton, Alberta; Ottawa-Hull, Quebec City, Montreal, South Slocan, Slocan Park, New Denver, Winlaw, Kaslow, Nelson, Argenta, Johnson's Landing, and Gray Creek.
The petitioners are concerned about the increasing number of chemicals used as herbicides and insecticides, chemicals that are proven to have harmful effects on human health. In addition, the petitioners believe that these chemicals also produce short and long-term harmful effects on non-target organisms, soil and water.
These chemicals have in past years been registered and approved as safe for their various uses, and the petitioners believe that new chemicals are constantly approved under the same guidelines as the now-proven harmful ones were.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners ask the House of Commons to initiate a full public inquiry into the safety, testing, registration, regulation and the use of pesticides and the examination of alternate ways of controlling pests, such as biological controls and plant-derived pesticides.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition signed by residents of the Province of Prince Edward Island. These petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the existing Canadian safety standard for rear seat-belts in passenger cars.
The petitioners believe that rear seat-belts in passenger cars are inadequate and that the suffering of crash victims could be reduced or avoided through improved seat-belts. They also believe that the cost of medical care for car-crash victims can be reduced or eliminated with improved rear seat-belts.
For these reasons, the petitioners urge Parliament to institute mandatory installation of three-point adjustable lap/shoulder seat-belts for rear-seat passengers. As well, the petitioners request the mandatory installation of front seat airbags.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 12 consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report on the "1987 Constitutional Accord, signed in Ottawa on June 3, 1987, by the First Ministers of Canada", copies of which were tabled in the Senate and the House of Commons on June 3, 1987;
That twelve Members of the House of Commons and five Members of the Senate be the Members of the Special Joint Committee, such Members on the part of the House of Commons to be designated no later than seven sitting days after the adoption of this motion;
That the Committee have the power to appoint from among its Members such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable, and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the Committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee be empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting, as it deems appropriate, of any or all of its proceedings or of proceedings of its sub-committees, pursuant to the principles and practices governing the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons;
That the Committee submit its report not later than September 14, 1987, provided that, if the House is not sitting, the report will be deemed submitted on the day such report is deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons and with the Clerk of the Senate;
That substitution be authorized, for Members from the House of Commons, from a list of alternates to be provided to the Joint Chairmen of the Special Joint Committee by a representative of each party at the first meeting of the Committee, such list of alternates to contain no more than twice the number of Members of the House of Commons who are Members of the Special Joint Committee representing each party in the House;
That the quorum of the Committee be eight Members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented, and that the Joint Chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when six Members are present so long as both Houses are represented; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable, five Members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee; and the amendment of Mr. Nystrom, (p. 7051).
June 16, 1987
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment of Mr. Nystrom:
That the motion be amended by adding immediately after paragraph 9 the following:
"That the Committee, or a sub-Committee, have power to travel to, and hold at least one public hearing in, each of the two Territories;
That the Committee be empowered to retain the services of advisors to assist in its work, and that it also be empowered to retain the professional, clerical and stenographic help as may be required; and"
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment lost. Is the House ready for the next question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on the main motion in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 4, consideration of Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moved:: Motion No. 21 A.
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 41 by striking out lines 16 to 21 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor:

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
"rehear any application before deciding it."
He said: Madam Speaker, Motion No. 21 A, as well as Motions Nos. 54A and 52A, are what we call the Fred Turner amendments. Motion No. 21A deletes language which allows the new National Transportation Agency to review decisions only if there has been a change in the facts. Our amendment removes that restriction.
In fact, Bill C-18 is worse than the existing review procedure which allows the CTC to review its own decisions without a change in facts. Many have been critical of the present procedure because any review that the CTC undertakes is a review of its own work.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is paying close attention because the proper method, especially on matters of enforcement, would be to have the matter forwarded to the independent aviation tribunal which presently reviews Transport Canada air regulations. I say to my hon. friend opposite that there is no way the Fred Turner case could have happened if this procedure had been followed.
In the absence of any interest on the part of the Government to change the presently unfair system, at least this amendment would prevent even more barriers being put in the way of an agency evaluating a decision. Mr. Turner, a fully licensed operator, lost his licence for being late in filing statistical reports. His licence was cancelled and the next day the bank seized his five aircraft, his hangar and equipment.
This morning I received from the Canadian Aviation Safety Board a case of an operator from Schefferville who was involved in the death of eight people. He was operating without a valid operating authority and is still licensed to fly. He was not late filing his reports, but eight people died.
There is a double standard when one loses one's licence for late filing of statistical reports, but only fined when operating without a valid operating authority or safety licence from the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.
Let me give another example. Spur Aviation was operating without a valid operating certificate and was fined $19,500. Mr. Turner appeared as a witness for the Government. However, Spur did not lose anything else and still has its aircraft. There must be a review of such situations.
Motions Nos. 52A and 54A, which we will be debated later, apply to this kind of situation as well. We must bring equity into the entire licensing process.
Mr. Turner lost his licence because he did not file statistical information on time. On the day that he appeared as a witness for the Government, his licence was cancelled. The airline that was being charged, and at which Mr. Turner appeared as a witness for the Government, is still operating without a valid operating authority. I invite the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) to consider the fact that it is flying without a safety certificate from Transport Canada.
We are told by the Government that there will be no compromise on safety, yet is it revoking the licence of that company? No. I suppose the Government will allow it to continue flying until it commits the great offence of not filing statistical information on time.
On September 30, a Beechcraft carrying seven passengers and a pilot crashed near Schefferville, killing all onboard. There was no operating authority, but did the Government pull the licence? Why should it when the operator was up to date in filing statistical information? That is the safety standard about which the Government says there will be no compromise. It is more concerned about the amount of fuel burned and the number of passengers than with how many were killed. The Government must get its priorities straight on aviation licensing.
These amendments are permissive because they state "may" rather than "shall", in allowing agencies to establish regulations regarding an appeal process. Hopefully, a Fred Turner case or one like it will have an element of natural justice because the person who made the original judgment cannot judge the appeal.
I believe that our amendment would guarantee that another case such as Mr. Turner's would be impossible. It allows offences such as failure to file paperwork to be dealt with under the Aeronautics Act, and would provide for fines or suspensions rather than cancellations.
According to Transport Canada regulations, licence cancellations are only issued for the most serious of offences. The reason Turnair's operating authority was cancelled was not because the punishment fitted the crime but because, as an agency, the CTC was not given the authority to fine.
Clause 107 gives that authority. Our amendment to Clause 107 guarantees that these specific clerical contraventions will be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000. That will better enforce the current regulations on filing documents because the penalty is believable as well as enforceable. Smaller airlines will want to avoid these Fines and large airlines will not feel exempt from them due to their size. Would any CTC bureaucrat cancel Air Canada's licence for not forwarding a form, without first picking up the phone? I doubt it.
It is also more meaningful because some airlines have chosen to operate without an operating authority. Mr. Turner had a valid operating authority, but could not operate because his planes were seized. This latest incident, the documents about which I received this morning, I believe proves the case for these amendments, beginning with Motion 21A. I hope the Government will agree that such a procedure should be available.
The appeal should not come before a tribunal which judged the case in the first place. It should be before another body so that the operator will have a chance, especially when the issue has to do with something so flimsy as the late filing of
June 16, 1987

statistical reports, when those who have accidents which kill people, and without an operating authority, are still operating.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of Motion No. 21A as well. Section 41 limits review of agency decisions or orders to situations where there have been changes in facts and would in practice, I submit, result in virtually no opportunity for review. Instead the NT A would merely be modifying its decisions or orders in light of these changed facts. When the review process circumvents any critical inspection of the agency's conduct, Madam Speaker, where does this leave the individual-and it could be you, me or any Canadian, subject to NTA regulations?
The section as is would mean no review of the agency's exercise of discretion, no review of the procedure followed in making a decision and no review of possible errors in fact or law. The end result is that an individual adversely affected by NTA regulation would have no administrative avenue for review or appeal save for the very expensive and slow route of the Federal Court system. How can we expect small businessmen or businesswomen, subject to these regulations, to challenge the agency in federal court? Is justice only to be available to those Canadians with sufficient funds to obtain it, those with very deep pockets?
The case of Fred Turner, to which the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) referred a moment ago, and his now defunct company Turnair, exemplifies the nightmarish predicament in which an individual may find himself or herself due to the lack of availability of review. In April, 1984, Mr. Turner's air carrier licence was cancelled by the soon to expire Canadian Transport Commission for failure to supply the agency with data of a purely statistical nature. A review of that cancellation order was warranted because many air carriers fail to file such data on time yet continue to hold licences. Is that equal justice for all? There are even licensed carriers with safety violations known by the CTC who have not been subjected to cancellation. Why did Turnair require such drastic treatment, especially since the records containing the required statistics were at the time in the hands of the RCMP due to the investigation by the CTC of another carrier? The details of that investigation were mentioned a moment ago by the Hon. Member for Regina West.
There may be no change in facts here, but the arbitrary and capricious manner in which the CTC exercised its discretion against a northern Canadian demands review. Who knows the procedures the agency followed which caused it to single out Mr. Turner and cancel his licence? I do not know, and I am sure very few people, if any know. Should a person who has lost his rights to earn a livelihood not know? Should we all not know? Yet Mr. Turner's requests for review were denied.
The result, sadly, is that Turner and his company are financially ruined. A year after the cancellation order, the Privy Council properly reinstated his licence. However, a year out of business caused the loss of all his business assets. He has
National Transportation Act, 1986
begun a suit in the Federal Court but I understand he does not have the funds to complete it. In fact, as of August 2 of this year, Turner will have his home seized by the Royal Bank in Yellowknife.
Ironically, even if Turner had the funds to proceed in the courts, the CTC is claiming that no claim against it can be brought. It insists that Mr. Turner's remedies are limited to review and appeal processes within the agency regulations, including an appeal to the Governor in Council and to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). Any honest, hardworking citizen like Fred Turner should have the right to appeal to an ultimate authority when an agency like the CTC is about to bankrupt him. Bill C-18 must include review processes which are effective and accessible when grounds for review exist. Limiting these grounds only increases the potential for "Fred Turner treatment" of other regulated individuals anywhere in the land. Availability of review, I submit, is necessary to uphold the principles of natural justice under which an administrative agency is obliged to act. In my view, Madam Speaker, all Hon. Members should vote for the amendment now before us.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Madam Speaker, I want to rise at this time to support the proposed amendment to Clause 41 because I also believe that the review powers of the new transportation agency created by Bill C-18 should be changed so that a decision of the new agency might be reviewed, rescinded of varied at the discretion of the agency without the need to limit the scope of this review to very specific circumstances. I too believe it is imperative that the agency be able to review as it sees fit because all Members of the Standing Committee on Transport have experienced that drama through which Mr. Fred Turner is now living.
I believe that the two speakers who rose before me-both the spokesman for the New Democratic Party and the representative of the Progressive Conservative Party-and I speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party we are aware that, faced with the whole administrative apparatus of the Government of Canada, this huge government machinery, it often happens that individual rights are crushed by the heavy government machinery. Mr. Turner's experience speaks for itself, I should think.
This is the case of a man who was the victim of such circumstances that the spirit of the law has been applied by officials with undue vigour and rigour. I am not here to judge the attitude of these officials. I believe they acted consciously with uncommon and perhaps excessive zeal. The aftermath of their decision is that an individual acting in good faith and operating under harsh conditions in Canada's northern regions had his licence revoked, which in turn led his business to bankruptcy. Mr. Turner may have made a few minor mistakes, but the consequences and the sanction are disproportionate. All of us Members of the Standing Committee on Transport felt that the consequences imposed to Mr. Turner are infinitely greater than the negligence or lapse which might have taken

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
place with respect to the Canadian Transport Commission regulations. We had hope that a settlement agreement might be reached to enable Mr. Turner to resume his operations. This is why I chose to intervene personally in the House last May 15 by presenting a petition on behalf of many people who felt that the Government of Canada had inflicted an extreme injustice on Mr. Fred Turner by wrongfully depriving him of his right to earn a living through the operation of his family business. And the petitioners hoped the Government would appoint an independent arbitrator to investigate the details of this case, thus ensuring a settlement that better reflects the true nature of Mr. Fred Turner's loss. However, this petition received no response from the Government.
I remember, it must have been around the same time, in mid-May, that I asked the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) about what could be done by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to try and find a way to agree on satisfactory compensation for Mr. Turner's loss of business.
We felt, and I say we, in referring to members of the Standing Committee on Transport, a group of Members representing different political factions but nevertheless anxious to find a solution to this problem, Members from all sides of the House, both Government and Opposition, we felt that one possibility would be to appoint an impartial arbitrator. And I think it is unfortunate, in the circumstances, that a way has yet to be found to deal with this flagrant injustice.
Some of our colleagues sent a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), asking him to intervene. The letter was signed by a dozen Members of the House of Commons and Senators who wanted the Prime Minister to intervene, not on the basis of law but of basic elementary justice, and find a way to make an ex gratia payment, with the authorization of Treasury Board, to compensate Mr. Turner. The letter, this petition that was sent to the Prime Minister, read as follows:
We believe the licence cancellation was wrong and unfair. The government apparently shares this opinion since on May 30, 1985, the Governor-in-Council, by order, reinstated Turnair's licence. Furthermore, on March 26, 1986, the Governor-in-Council authorized the payment, on an ex gratia basis, of $15,000 to Mr. Turner. In our view, this financial offer is a recognition by the government that Mr. Turner has suffered financial loss as a result of the Air Transport Committee's decision. This sum, however, does not reflect the magnitude of Mr. Turner's financial loss.
[ Translation]
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister, in his answer to the Members of the House of Commons and the Senators who were the joint senders of the letter, said that the case was now before the courts and would have to be settled by the courts.
Now, I feel that this is the kind of case that should not be settled by the courts. We have here one man whose financial resources have dwindled to practically nothing. How is he going to stand up to the Government apparatus? Obviously, if the Government goes into its legalistic stance and says: "Let
the law take its course, let Mr. Turner go before the courts, let him win his case before the courts", what it will cost the Government of Canada in legal expenses to defend the arbitrary and extreme position of its officials will, as far as I can tell, be a very substantial amount that could otherwise be used to compensate Mr. Turner and give him a chance to start up his airline again.
Why spend this money on legal costs? Why take this legalistic stance, since the Government could perfectly well admit its officials had been overzealous and that Mr. Turner should be given the benefit of the doubt and given a fair break?
1 believe that the proposed amendment, if it is accepted, will give the new agency that is to replace the Canadian Transport Commission greater flexibility to review decisions. I think that with a little more goodwill and a little more discretion on the part of the Canadian Transport Commission, the Turner case could have been reviewed, not by the Government but by the existing Canadian Transport Commission. However, instead of agreeing that officials probably had been too severe in Mr. Turner's case and letting the Canadian Transport Commission revise its decision, the Government says: We can't do that. If Mr. Turner doesn't like it, let him go before the courts.
I think this is not the right approach. And I hope that the new agency will be able to act with far greater discretion and discernment and especially with far more flexibility.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I feel compelled to say a word or two about Mr. Turner's case in order to respond to the Hon. Members who have referred to his case in terms of this particular amendment.
The Turner case is a very complex case, as Hon. Members will appreciate, since it deals with the Canadian Transport Commission which not only has certain powers but has incredible responsibilities which Parliament has pressed upon it by statute in order to protect our fellow citizens. The CTC operates under a set of rules that are imposed upon it. It has the obligation to protect you, Madam Speaker, myself, and our fellow citizens.
The problem with Turnair started under the previous administration, and carried on into the term of the previous Minister of Transport and is now in the hands of the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). The three Ministers tried to do what they felt was fair with respect to the over-all circumstances. However, never has any Minister admitted any question of liability in terms of the conduct of the Government of Canada or the Canadian Transport Commission. Any legal person who has looked into the matter on behalf of the Government, including the Ministers, have come to the conclusion that there was no legal liability.
Notwithstanding that, in order to save the time, the trouble
and the costs of a lawsuit, which costs could amount to tens of
thousands of dollars to the taxpayers of Canada, on a without
June 16, 1987

prejudice basis the Minister said to Mr. Turner, "I am prepared to recommend to my colleagues the sum of $15,000".
When I looked into the matter as the Parliamentary Secretary I explored, on an entirely without prejudice basis and without any admission of liability at all, the possibility that perhaps an increased sum could be considered. Figures of $25,000, $30,000 and $40,000 were used. Mr. Turner started at $2 million and tried to work down from there.
I think Hon. Members have to appreciate that every time there is an air crash in Canada the CTC is attacked for not performing its duties. In the year in which we are talking about with respect to not filing information there were over 200 suspensions sent out. All those companies which received suspensions, with the exception of six, filed the appropriate information. Thus there were six actual suspensions after the sending out of some 200 letters asking for more information. Six companies did not provide the information and were suspended. Mr. Turner and Turnair fell into that category. In the case of Turnair there was no suggestion that there was a safety problem.
I ask Hon. Members to think of this. If the CTC had sent out a letter demanding information which was not provided, there was a crash and people were killed, then where would the CTC be? And where would we be as Members? We would be standing in this House, and quite properly, roasting the CTC for not following the rules and regulations that we ourselves set down in the statute and in the regulations.
I plead with Hon. Members to understand where the CTC is coming from on this. In our society, when an agreement as to liability cannot be achieved, the remedy is to use the courts. Mr. Turner in fact did use the courts. He brought an action for some $2 million, an action in which the Government of Canada has now filed its Statement of Defence.
If in fact Mr. Turner is impecunious, those who have some sympathy for his situation should look to assisting him in engaging a lawyer, who can then look at the liability and negotiate on a "without prejudice" basis with the lawyers for the Government of Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Will you provide the money?


Blaine Allen Thacker: It was not my friend from Regina West but another member of his Party who, during the time we were trying to negotiate with Mr. Turner on a "without prejudice" basis, stood in this House and revealed the nature of the discussions. There is no way that we can even talk with Mr. Turner because of what some of the members of the NDP have done. The only solution is for Mr. Turner to put his case into the hands of a lawyer, who can then look at it from the point of view of liability law.
I believe in his part of the country, the laws of Alberta apply, and under the laws of Alberta there is provision for contingency agreements. A law firm could take on his lawsuit
National Transportation Act, 1986
under a contingency agreement whereby it would share in the proceeds. If Mr. Turner is correct in his position, a law firm could be riding that case for 30 per cent. Law firms are prepared to invest money for that type of possible return if in fact they feel there is a case to be made.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The case will be heard in Ottawa.


An Hon. Member:: Where is the justice?


Blaine Allen Thacker: There are remedies available to Mr. Turner. The long and short of it, Madam Speaker, is that the CTC is in a very difficult situation. If it does not follow the rules and problems develop, then we in Parliament end up roasting the CTC for not having followed the rules, as we should. No one has suggested that the CTC has not followed the rules. It has followed the rules set down by Parliament in the regulations. It is not an easy situation. That is where we find ourselves, and I ask Members to vote against the amendment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As the Hon. Member has not yet used up all of his 10 minutes of allocated time, perhaps he would accept a question.
Would he agree that this amendment does nothing more than to provide a proper review and appeal process before an agency other than the agency that made the original decision? That is all the amendment does. It does not deal specifically with the Fred Turner case. It only sees to it that there will not be another one like it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Would the Hon. Member care to answer?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, let me just read Clause 41. It states:
The Agency may review, rescind or vary any decision or order made by it or
may rehear any application before deciding it-
That would be all that would be left after the NDP amendment, if it were accepted. Clause 41 continues:
-if, in the opinion of the Agency, since the decision or order or the hearing of
the application, there has been a change in the facts-
Surely there would have to be some change in the facts or the circumstances such that the agency would be convinced that a rehearing was in order.
With great respect to my friend from Regina West, I would rather have the clause as worded. Any change in the facts or circumstances could be used as justification by the agency for a rehearing.
Even under the rules of natural justice, if a tribunal makes a
decision, it will not reconsider that decision unless it can be
shown that there has been some change in facts-which

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
sometimes is difficult to prove-or circumstances, which opens up the whole ball of wax.
With great respect, I think the clause is better the way it is.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 21A, 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 22
That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 43.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I do not want to spend much time on this motion. The proposed amendment would eliminate Clause 43 of the Bill, which is a cost-recovery clause in respect of the services provided. As a matter of principle, and as part of our ongoing fight against this type of cost recovery, we would like to see Clause 43 deleted from the Bill.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 22, 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to consideration of Motions Nos. 27, 31, and 32, which will be debated together but voted on separately.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 27
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 48 by striking out lines 15 to 17 at page 21 and substituting the following therefor:
"by the matter submitted, and
(ii)	the amount of revenue at issue is not, of itself, the factor which determines public interest, or
(iii)	one or more carriers in the same mode of transportation as the carrier that is party to the arbitration submission, offers or is able to offer, either individually or jointly, competing service for the traffice at issue, or
(iv)	the award of the arbitrator may impair the economic viability of the carrier or shipper, or
(v)	the matter relates to the movement by rail of trailers or containers on flat cars, or less than carload traffic, and
(vi)	the matter should be investigated by the Agency pursuant to section 59;
(c)	the parties have not first availed themselves of mediation proceedings pursuant to section 46;
(d)	one or more of the carriers participating in the movement are not subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator unless all participating carriers agree, in writing, to be bound by the award of the arbitrator.
(4) A determination by the Agency subject to subsection (1) that a matter be referred to final offer arbitration shall not bar the arbitrator from finding that there is alternative, effective, adequate and competitive transportation service for the traffic at issue."
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 48 by adding immediately after line 25 at page 21 the following:
"(5) Where the Agency finds that a shipper is not in a position to enter into an agreement as described in subsection 4 for any reason which is not likely to frustrate the arbitration, the Agency may allow the shipper to provide a written bona fide offer to ship the goods to which the arbitration relates in accordance with the decision of the arbitrator, as compliance with that section."
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 48 by adding immediately after line 32 at page 21 the following:
June 16, 1987

"(6) A notice of the submission to the Agency under subsection (1) shall be publicized, specifying the name of the shipper, the name of the carrier, the commodity and the origin and destination of the movements, and providing 30 days for interested parties to make submissions to the Agency before any decision is made on whether the matter should proceed under arbitration or should be investigated by the Agency pursuant to section 59."
He said: Madam Speaker, these three motions have to do with the final offer arbitration clauses. In all three motions we are attempting to provide additional reasons why the agency shall not allow for final arbitration. That is, Motion No. 27 relates to the number of reasons a shipper may feel captive and, therefore, eligible for final offer arbitration.
Many transportation companies have expressed the concern that this is a shippers' Bill. I think they are partly right, because it allows shippers to force transportation companies to cut their own throats when there is no one else around prepared to do it.
The problem is that the phrase "captive shippers" originated many years ago when there was little or no trucking industry and when there was no air cargo or air transport industry. Therefore, a shipper was a captive of one railroad. Nowadays a shipper might have only one railroad, but he has 50 trucking companies which are available to transport his goods and/or air cargo or air express services.
I think the term "captive shipper" is badly over-used. Quite frankly, there are shippers claiming captive status who should not have the nerve to claim it any more.
Motion No. 31 amends the clause which insists that the shipper guarantee movement and abide by the arbitrator's decision prior to the arbitration beginning. Surely that must be backwards. Government drafters blew it on that one.
That is all very well, except the customer really dictates whether or not the goods shall move. Because the customer is not and cannot be a party to the arbitration, the amendment would allow for a bona fide offer to move the goods. The assumption is that if the deal falls through, it will not be due to bad faith on the part of the parties to the operation.
Motion No. 31 is particularly important to small shippers, and the transportation critic of the Official Opposition Party also mentioned it. It concerns a company called Prairie Malt which handles malting barley and supplies a number of organizations in the country that bottle stuff for football and baseball games. It is of particular significance for small shippers.
A large shipper which moves thousands of carloads or truckloads per year is in a position to make a very good deal with a transporter, whether it is a railway or a trucking company. However, the small shipper which might only ship from 50 to 200 carloads will not get the same kind of deal.
Motion No. 32 opens up the amount of information available about an arbitration; more information would be available. The assumption is that if there is enough public
National Transportation Act, 1986
knowledge, other competitive solutions will be brought forward and other interested parties would at least know that an arbitration is ongoing.
We are proposing to open up the final arbitration process, upon which the Government insists in the Bill, in terms of information available. We are trying to make an even balance between the interest of the shipper and the interest of the transporter, which would give the arbitrator even more solid ground on which to make a decision.
We think these motions would improve the legislation. We have consulted with numerous organizations and individuals who have asked the Government for these amendments. I hope the Government will decide that they are acceptable.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I wish to take part in this debate to express the concern of the Liberal Party about the whole section on arbitration contained in Bill C-18.
We had expressed reservations about these provisions in Committee since it seemed obvious, as we tried to show the Government, that there was a weakness in the new procedure under which, if a shipper is dissatisfied with the rates applied or proposed by a carrier or the conditions associated with the movement of his goods and there is no possibility of an agreement between the shipper and the carrier, the matter can be referred to the Agency for arbitration.
It seems to us that this procedure will become extremely costly, especially as the inevitable consequence of Clause 48 will be that such matters will be negotiated before the arbitrator by legal representatives. It would be unthinkable that railroad companies and those who oppose their proposals go before the arbitrator themselves to make their own representations.
This will give lawyers and law firms throughout the country a lot of business, and shippers, who were expecting that the new procedure would reduce their transport costs, will see very quickly their legal fees increase by 500 per cent. What they gain thanks to lower shipping costs, they will probably lose in higher legal fees.
In my opinion, this arbitration proposal, which could have been interesting, will very quickly become a very costly procedure which will make no one happy. In fact, the arbitrator will have considerable power to determine in the last instance the transport rates for products and goods and the conditions under which carriers will deal with their customers.
Such intervention by a third party in the process seems extremely dangerous to me. We can hope that the chosen arbitrators will be experts who do a faultless job, but I am not at all certain that such will be the case. I believe that no one is better qualified to judge these matters than the employees of the transport companies or the administrators of shipping companies who work on the field and know exactly what is going on.

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
I would like to underline one last time to the Elouse that this whole arbitration process seems extremely dangerous to me, and I suspect that, within a few years, we shall have to repair the damage done by this procedure as it is not one of the better ideas of this Government.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, for the information of the House, we find ourselves unable to accept Motion No. 27 but Motion No. 31 is quite acceptable and I would ask Hon. Members to vote for that if they will. We cannot accept Motion No. 32.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 27 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 31 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.
Motion No. 31 (Mr. Benjamin) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 32 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to debate Motions Nos. 33 and 34 which will be debated together and voted on separately.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 33
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 50 by adding immediately after line
15 at page 22 the following:
"(3) Within fifteen days of the Agency referring the matter for arbitration, the parties shall exchange the information which they intend to submit to the arbitrator in support of their final offers.
(4)	Within seven days of receipt of the information referred to in subsection (3) each party may direct interrogatories to the other which shall be answered within fifteen days of receipt thereof.
(5)	If a party unreasonably withholds information that is subsequently deemed to be relevant by the arbitrator, such withholding shall be taken into account by the arbitrator in his decision."
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 51 by striking out lines 26 to 33 at
page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Unless the parties otherwise agree, in rendering a decision the arbitrator shall have regard to the factors set out in section 3(1)."


Iain Francis Angus: Madam
Speaker, very briefly, I would explain for the record the purpose of the two motions. Motion No. 33 opens up the arbitration process by allowing for a reasonable exchange of information prior to an arbitration. The purpose is to inhibit the arbitration from being a shell game.
Motion No. 34 insists that the arbitrator consider the policy objectives of the Bill when making a decision. Our primary interest is in the safety aspect. We want to ensure that arbitrators can consider the detrimental effects of any decision based on lower tariffs and on the shipper of higher tariffs. We want to make sure that that is in the Bill so that the arbitrator can consider those.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
June 16, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 33 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.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Carried.


Mr. Fennell:: No!


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


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is a little late now. You cannot call twice for those in favour. No one said no until he hollered over here and he is not in his seat.


Thomas Scott Fennell: No, he didn't holler, I hollered. He hollered before-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. Obviously the Chair did not hear at that time but had not yet gone through the yeas and the nays. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, surely it is a fundamental rule of the House that when the Speaker does not hear, the Speaker rules accordingly. You did not hear, you just admitted that. Therefore, that motion carries.


Mr. Robinson:: Madam Speaker, just briefly, Your Honour will be aware that there have been precedents of this nature before in which the Speaker has declared an amendment carried. Following the declaration that an amendment is carried, clearly it is quite improper to suggest that we then revert in effect to the yeas and the nays. The Speaker is in a position to call for the yeas and the nays prior to declaring a motion carried, but once having declared the motion carried, surely Your Honour recognizes that we should move on to the next order of business and the Government should graciously accept.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, I apologize in this case but what happened was when they yelled "agreed" we did not act quickly enough. You said "carried" and then we said "no". I apologize for that, but unfortunately it was done a little too quickly. The next time around, I would ask the Chair to please look at us for the nays.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair is in some difficulty. I must admit that, not having heard any "nays", the Chair has declared the motion carried. After listening to the comments of the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell), I am willing to admit that the Chair might have been a bit too hasty. However, I believe that all the Hon. Members should be more careful and try to reply clearly so that the Chair can hear them.
Consequently, I declare Motion No. 33 carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The next question is on Motion No. 34 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, last Friday, June 13, two years after the Canadian Jobs Strategy began, the Government finally saw the light and changed the program to permit greater participation by immigrant and native women.
For many months the Community Coalition on the Canadian Jobs Strategy, the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, the Ontario Government, and the Liberal Opposition in Parliament condemned the unfairness of the entry requirement that you must be unemployed for 24 weeks out of the last 30 in order to qualify for the program. Finally the Government changed that for immigrant and native women.
[Stage Direction]
June 16, 1987
Why is the Government going only halfway? Why keep this inflexible entry rule at all? What about all those people who are out of work and need training but have not yet been unemployed for 24 weeks? Must they wait around for five or six months before they get help? Or must they continue to accept unskilled, part-time, short term and low pay employment? Since the Government has now admitted that the original program was flawed, why not go the full distance and change the entrance requirements for all applicants?


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, since September, 1984, when Canadians opted for sound economic management, some 840,000 jobs have been created in Canada.
The best the critics can do to detract from this good news is to say that all the jobs are in Ontario. The fact is the jobs are spread around. There are 388,000 in Ontario, 220,000 in Quebec, 92,000 in British Columbia, and 50,000 in the Atlantic region. Even on the Prairies, despite record low grain, oil, potash and uranium prices there are 88,000 more people working.
Wherever the jobs are in Canada, 1 applaud the Government for creating an environment in which private sector initiative and entrepreneurship have been able to put over 840,000 more Canadians to work.
I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for the success of their economic policies which have given all Canadians greater access to more jobs regardless of where they live.



REFUGEES


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, CLC President Shirley Carr sent a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) two weeks ago calling Bill C-55, the Government's refugee legislation, a betrayal of trust and a mockery of fundamental rights. Flaws she noted were denial of universal access, denial of appeal, and denial of those coming from so-called safe countries such as Central Americans applying from the U.S. She also objected to the philosophy of the Bill which blames refugees for problems in the refugee determination system and seems designed to keep refugees out of Canada.
At the same time, a telex from spokespersons for the Anglican, Baptist, Christian Reformed, Mennonite, Presbyterian, United and Roman Catholic Churches, along with
the Religious Society of Friends, the Salvation Army, and the Canadian Council of Churches, made the same points. They said "The Bill is being promoted on the false premise that it will protect genuine refugees. It is clear that the effect of this Bill will be to turn away refugees."
"The 'alleged abuse', which is the pretext for this flawed piece of legislation, is primarily the result of prolonged government delays in reforming the present drawn-out and cumbersome procedure." They demand a Bill to help refugees.



CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, judging by the just released 1986 annual report of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation it has evidently been living through some very interesting times. Highlights are the $1.25 billion deficiency in the deposit insurance fund and the $1 billion loan from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
The corporation estimates that even with no new demands on the insurance fund it will take until 1994 to eliminate the deficit with the current one-tenth of 1 per cent premium rate. Therefore, whether we like it or not, there is no real alternative except to approve the provisions of Bill C-42 which would authorize increased premium rates and a higher ceiling on government lending to the corporation.



THF MINISTRY


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, last June 11 I directed a question to the Minister of State (Youth) (Mr. Charest) concerning the plight of homeless youth.
1 asked the Minister what steps he intended to take in an attempt to improve the lot of thousands of Canadian youths faced with this serious problem. Instead of answering the question, the Minister chose to censure me for not being in the House when my Party moved an opposition motion dealing mainly with education, training and employment.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that this kind of reproach on the part of a parliamentarian is unacceptable and uncalled for. All the more so because on several occasions last March we had to put off a question period on youth because the Minister of State was away from the House most of that month. I knew he must have had excellent reasons not to attend.
June 16, 1987

On May 7 I had a personal commitment which I simply could not defer. The Minister's display of arrogance last Thursday compels me to set the record straight.
This being International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, Mr. Speaker, it was utterly deplorable that the Minister should behave that way in the House instead of answering questions precisely, if only to show that he is genuinely concerned over the plight of young Canadians.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: In 1932, Mr. Speaker, a group of Canadians, significantly linked through geographical circumstances, decided to establish a political Party, the Canadian Commonwealth Federation, or CCF. From 1932 to 1961, Party activists could not manage to develop principles, let alone national programs. Opportunism being their forte, they attempted to fool the people by changing the name of their Party, not a particularly challenging initiative when the name does not reflect the truth.
From the smoking ashes of the CCF sprang the NDP in 1961. The activists of this Party have yet to set forth a major policy. Their opportunism has taught them to change on a daily basis to mirror the colour of the day. The only qualifier which would fit every last one of them, their leader included, is the word socialist. How else could anyone appear at the International Socialist convention under another hat?
Since the Rhinoceros Party is now defunct, another rare, and excentric animal whose colours match the surrounding foliage should be their inspiration in the quest for a new name, the Chameleon Party.
provincial matter. It must take initiatives to combat child hunger and poverty.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) must guarantee that there will be no sales tax on food. He must increase and fully reindex the child tax credit and the family allowance. Tax reform must restore full indexation to the income tax system as one means of counteracting child poverty.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and his Department for initiating action against those so-called immigration consultants whose specialty is to prey on human misery. These individuals have caused untold human suffering within the Portuguese community by promising unsuspecting individuals an easy road to becoming landed immigrants. Thus the Minister's action was thoroughly endorsed and appreciated by the Portuguese community.
However, the positive aspects of the action are beginning to fade. Two days after the arrests took place Joe Raphael, one of the consultants charged and an individual who is notorious for counselling people to circumvent Canadian immigration law, was again representing clients in front of the Immigration Appeal Board.
By continuing to represent clients Mr. Raphael is continuing to project the image that he is above the law and can deliver on any immigration matter. Until their cases are heard a cease and desist order should be issued against these individuals. The Government must make it clear that no immigration consultant is above the law.



CHILDREN


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, recent surveys show that increasing numbers of Canadian children are going to school hungry. Teachers report that these children are less attentive, fall asleep in class, are irritable and more aggressive. They are sick a lot, and are often late for school or do not show up at all.
Poverty affects one in five Canadian children. Most will continue the poverty cycle. Children do not get enough to eat because welfare rates are too low in every region of Canada. The federal Government cannot sit idly by and say this is a


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, today is the eleventh anniversary of the Soweto uprising and yet there continues to be a terrorist Government in South Africa which is supported by being recognized by other countries around the world. That self-same Government has over 5,000 children in detention without ever having charges laid against them.
This House passed an all-Party resolution on September 30, 1986, calling upon the Government to impose full economic sanctions against South Africa. I urge the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), whose efforts were spurned in Venice, to move ahead with full economic sanctions so that

June 16, 1987
Canada can be a leader rather than a follower in the fight against the heinous regime which currently calls itself the Government of South Africa.



OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY WEEK


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my best wishes to the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering on the occasion of their 1987 Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week.
All of us in this House must be increasingly concerned with Canada's record in respect to work-related injuries and illnesses. In addition to the immeasurable human suffering there is financial cost to the nation amounting to billions of dollars each year. Legislation on its own cannot prevent accidents and illnesses, but legislation combined with labour, management, and government sharing responsibility can indeed improve an unacceptable situation. Organizations such as CSSE have an important role to play in this process.
I invite all Hon. Members on both sides of the House to join with me in congratulating this organization on its safety week initiative and in wishing it success in all endeavours in the months ahead.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, this week the Canadian Construction Association called for $500 million annually of federal assistance to highway construction.
This call is timely in view of the poor state of our highways, especially the Trans-Canada Highway through northern Ontario.
The call also follows on some federal recognition of responsibility for highway improvement in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and the western provinces. Every province except Ontario now has an agreement with the federal Government on highways improvement.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has not, however, responded favourably to requests I have made, as has the Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry), to assist the Province of Ontario in the upgrading and twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway through northern Ontario.
Northern Ontario contains one-quarter of the total length of the Trans-Canada Highway. The Province of Ontario is only now beginning to recognize its responsibility to make this a first-class highway.
I call upon the Minister of Transport to respond favourably to Ontario's request for federal assistance for improvement of our Trans-Canada Highway.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, one of the ideas behind establishing National Parks in Canada was to maintain our country's and our people's heritage.
Rustico Island, in Prince Edward Island National Park, should rightfully be called Robinson Island, after the Robinson family who purchased, settled, and farmed it in 1815.
The Robinson family had been on Prince Edward Island since 1778, arriving there with other Loyalists from the United States. While many of those Loyalists returned to England, the Robinson family stayed, and worked long and hard to develop their island, their province and their country.
The island the Robinsons settled was known as Robinson Island until the Government took over the land now known as the National Park. Even after the National Park was established, the Island was known to most as Robinson Island. In fact the 1968 official road map of Prince Edward Island refers to that island as Robinson Island.
It is only fitting that Rustico Island should once again be called Robinson Island in honour of the family who pioneered it.



SEVENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF TOWN OF MOUNT ROYAL TRIBUTE TO MAYOR REGINALD DAWSON AND VOLUNTEERS

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, one of the municipalities in my riding, the Town of Mount Royal, is proud and delighted to be celebrating its seventy-fifth anniversary this year.
Last week, many activities were organized to mark this event, including exhibitions by artists, concerts by the Montreal Symphony Orchestra, the Metropolitan Orchestra and the Mount Royal Choir.
June 16, 1987



Many citizens of varied faiths and from 30 countries enrich the fabric of this very special town. Sunday's anniversary services brought moving greetings and song from its nine religious institutions. Tuesday's colourful multicultural day gave the visual, artistic and culinary reflection of this fascinating cultural diversity.

I was delighted to share in a number of these activities with the people of the Town of Mount Royal, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the many volunteers without whom these festivities would not have been such a resounding success.

I send warmest greetings to its outstanding mayor, Mr. Reginald Dawson, who has been a warm and caring chief magistrate for 35 years. His superb reputation has been acknowledged beyond the physical boundaries of his city.
Diamond Jubilee Festivity Week was a time for the expression of civic pride and was certainly enjoyed by all.

[ Translation]



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post's letter carriers are on strike as of midnight last night. Unfortunately, no settlement could be reached to prevent this work stoppage which is adversely affecting all Canadian citizens. Especially in regions like Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, taxpayers will feel the absence of postal services as a particular burden since they have so few alternatives and distances are far greater than in urban areas.
However, it is encouraging to hear that negotiations are continuing, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that no one will do anything to keep them from proceeding as they should. I have a special message for Mrs. Shirley Carr, President of the Canada Labour Congress, whom I would urge not to get involved in this dispute. In some statements she made recently, Mrs. Carr prejudged the direction this dispute might take, and I can only deplore this attitude.
I feel we should put our trust in the Parties concerned and the democratic negotiating process, and avoid making unfounded statements of this kind.
Oral Questions




Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, everyone deplores the strike at Canada Post, but even worse, Mr. Speaker, is what happened this morning in Montreal, when Canada Post Corporation launched an appeal to all workers willing to replace the letter carriers. As a result of this appeal-


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Claude Malépart: -a Conservative Member just said: hear, hear, but as a result, in Montreal there was some rough stuff and people got hurt.
Mr. Speaker, 1 urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who has some experience in negotiating and mediating, to call the President of Canada Post immediately and ask him to drop this strategy which only leads to provocation and will not resolve the dispute. Ask the President of Canada Post to negotiate and to settle the dispute instead of indulging in provocation.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The first promise made by the Minister of the Environment when he was sworn into office was the creation of a national park in South Moresby in the Queen Charlotte Islands. On May 14 of this year when the House was addressing the issue, the Minister of the Environment had this to say, and I quote:
We owe it to ourselves, to the world community as a whole and to generations yet unborn to save what is the most internationally significant wilderness treasure in all of Canada. South Moresby is a litmus test of our values as a society.
Those were the Minister's words and I endorse those words heartily. Does the Prime Minister stand by the first promise made by his Minister of the Environment? And will there indeed be a national park in South Moresby?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable sadness that I have to report to the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, and through him to the House, that negotiations between the federal Government and the Government of British Columbia on the establishment of a national park in South Moresby have broken down.

June 16, 1987
Oral Questions
For our part, the federal Government has offered to the Province of British Columbia a package which is unprecedented in its generosity. Over $100 million was put on the table by the federal Government toward that end. I regret that in its wisdom the B.C. Government thought the amount was not sufficiently large to merit its continuation of negotiations with us. However, I can assure the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition that our offer, generous as it is, stands.
If in the light of day the Province of British Columbia has second thoughts on the question, we will send a high-level team of officials, representing the federal Government and the people of Canada, anywhere that B.C. would like us to have them meet, for any purpose surrounding the park.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTERVENE
John Napier Turner: am sure the Minister considers this of such importance within the domain entrusted to him by the people of Canada through the Prime Minister that he would want to prevail upon the Leader of the Government, the Prime Minister, to intervene directly with the Premier of British Columbia to persuade the province and the federal teams to return to the table in order to save what is an absolutely priceless treasure, one which can never be restored if action is not taken immediately. I would hope the Prime Minister would see it that way and make an undertaking to this House that he would be in immediate communication with Premier Vander Zalm.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, if a national park in South Moresby is not established, it will not be for lack of trying on the part of the Government of Canada much less the Prime Minister. I can tell the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the House, and the entire country that, just as I have had the support of all Parties in this House in connection with the establishment of a national park, I have had the full backing of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government caucus, including the B.C. caucus on the government side.
Our offer of $106 million toward the establishment of this park is more generous than that offered by any previous Government for any park in any province or territory in the Dominion of Canada. In fact, with one exception, this $106 million is more than the federal Government has spent on all other national parks combined.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR EFFORTS TO REOPEN NEGOTIATIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is perfectly correct when he says that he has the support of the House. On May 14 he had the support of every single Member who was in the House for the creation of a national park, for the protection of the rights of the Haida people, for a moratorium on logging, and for reasonable
compensation to loggers who may lose their jobs. He had the total reinforcement of the House of Commons.
The Government of Canada has always refused to reveal what its negotiating strategy was with the Province of British Columbia. Initially, when the Minister was sworn into his portfolio, and then on May 14, he promised a fruitful result. We have failed. The Minister has failed.
Understanding the jurisdiction of the Province of British Columbia in this matter, by what date will the Minister, through the Prime Minister, the full force of the federal Government and the mobilization of public opinion in the country and of the Province of British Columbia, persuade the Premier to return to the table with his own Minister and get a positive result to save South Moresby?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, if the South Moresby file turns out to be a failure it will not be a failure only of this Minister of the Environment. It will be a failure not only of this Government but of all of Canada. As 1 pointed out on the floor of the House of Commons on a previous occasion, whether or not we can screw up the courage and the will to save this magnificent wilderness treasure will be a litmus test of our values as a civilized country.
Having said that, we have put on the table not only $106 million, but we have put to the Province of British Columbia our generous offer of compensation to the two main forestry companies concerned, Western Forest Products and MacMillan Bloedel. We have offered to compensate in an unprecedented way the logging contractor, Frank Beban. We have put together a package that would be generous to the loggers themselves. We have offered to involve the Haida in the establishment of a national park and in the administration of it, not just as lowly paid assistant wardens but as leaders and interpreters of the heritage values in South Moresby. There could not be a more magnanimous offer by the federal Crown to the provincial Crown than that which we have put on the table.
I urge the Leader of the Opposition, his Party, and every Member of the House to use all our resources to bring wisdom to bear on this very important international question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS-HAIDA PEOPLE'S ABORIGINAL TITLE CLAIM
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister knows, the Queen Charlottes are the home of the Haida people. They claim aboriginal title to these islands because they have lived there for many thousands of years. In fact, their claim was recognized by the federal Government in 1983.
June 16, 1987

Since the Government has now failed in its efforts to establish a national park in South Moresby how then will the Government fulfil its constitutional obligations to the Haida people before this precious heritage is decimated?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, one of the strengths of the approach that the federal Government has taken to this issue is that we had in mind the establishment not of a national park per se but of something even more precious in one sense-a national park reserve which had the advantage to the Haida people of not prejudicing their negotiations with the federal Crown in connection with their legitimate interests in the Queen Charlotte Islands, specifically in the context of land claims.
The Hon. Member, in his question, said that the negotiations have failed. While we have reached an impasse and negotiations have broken off, we have said, for our part that our offer stands.
We hope that the people of British Columbia and their Government will see the wisdom of the offer that was put on the table. It isn't over until it is over.
Next week the B.C. Government, I understand, will be considering the possibility of establishing a provincial park, of much smaller boundaries than those we had in mind for a national park. That decision has not, however, yet been taken, and until it is we remain in the game, and we hope that British Columbia will be in the game, too.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, who tried to negotiate this deal.
It seems that this Government is always having sand kicked in its face. Is it not true that the Government of Canada is simply giving up on trying to preserve South Moresby and the rights of the Haida?
Can this Government not stand up to Bill Vander Zalm? Or is this an example of the new federalism that is being talked about across the way?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, this is not the "new federalism", but the people of Canada certainly do not want the old federalism as practised by the Liberal Party.
I would hope that the spirit of non-partisanship that characterized the opening question of the Leader of the Official Opposition would prevail during this most delicate period, or at least pan-partisanship, without which we are not going to have any success in negotiating this very difficult agreement.
Oral Questions


COMPENSATION ISSUE-REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question also relates to the matter of the South Moresby Islands, a national treasure of Canada.
As the Minister of the Environment has indicated, on May 14 last the people of Canada, through their elected representatives, indicated a commitment to establishing the South Moresby area of the Queen Charlotte Islands as a national park. That commitment came in the form of a motion unanimously passed by the House.
We all appreciate the efforts put forth by the Government and the various Parties to facilitate that, and we were disappointed this morning on learning that the negotiations had in fact broken down.
We hear from British Columbia that the negotiations broke down because the two parties were unable to agree on what would be adequate compensation for the projected losses involved in South Moresby becoming a national park.
Would the Minister entertain bringing in a third party to conduct an independent audit of what the projected losses would be, and would he be prepared to abide by the results of that audit, on the premise that he cannot afford not to afford turning South Moresby into a national park?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the question of compensation to third party interests was a highly salient one in the negotiations. However, it would not be correct to say that that was the most important issue in contention.
At the outset of the negotiations the B.C. Government insisted that the federal Crown put on the table $100 million for the establishment of a trust fund, and that is a position it maintained right through to the point negotiations were broken off. That is $100 million even before the federal Government spends a solitary penny on the establishment of the park itself: in other words, the compensation to third party interests, the investment in tourism infrastructures and other facilities necessary to the establishment of a national park.
For various reasons we considered that position unacceptable. While the B.C. Government did come back with an offer that superficially looked like a compromise, the fine print indicated that it was just the old offer rehashed.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTERVENE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister.
As the Minister of the Environment has indicated, while negotiations have essentially broken down, it is not over until it is over.
Recognizing that the B.C. Cabinet will not meet until next
week on the question of establishing South Moresby as a
provincial park-something which would not be in the nation's

June 16, 1987
Oral Questions
best interests-would the Prime Minister consider dealing directly with the Premier of British Columbia on this matter?
It may be that the two of them, in the absence of the bureaucracy, in the absence of the negotiators, can resolve the present impasse.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think we have a very attractive and substantial offer on the table. The Deputy Prime Minister was personally involved, as was the Minister of the Environment, in considering all aspects of a very complex and sensitive matter and, in the process, I think reflected pretty well and pretty generously the views of all Parties in the House in trying to come to an equitable solution of the matter.
I think I am satisfied, as would be any reasonable Member of the House, that the position put forward by the federal Government is very much a generous one, very much persuasive of the objective being sought, and very much in the national interest.


PROPOSED PURCHASE OF DOME PETROLEUM BY AMOCO CANADA-BANK OF MONTREAL'S REFUSAL OF TERMS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday the Bank of Montreal reaffirmed its decision not to approve the bid by Amoco Canada to take over Dome Petroleum. As a major creditor of Dome Petroleum, the refusal of the Bank of Montreal to accept that bid pretty well kills the Amoco Canada deal to take over Dome Petroleum. What could possibly happen, very shortly after June 30, is that Dome Petroleum could be forced into bankruptcy.
When will the Government realize that new bids have to be made and the way has to be open for the new bids to be made so that a more acceptable deal can be put on the table for the sale of Dome Petroleum?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not sure whether the Hon. Member's question is wishful thinking, but the Senate is not the place for banking institutions to formerly put their views forward. They can make their views known publically. But if banking institutions, if the Bank of Montreal in particular wants to reject the proposal made to it, its decision should be announced to Dome. To my knowledge, it did not do so. Therefore, as long as formal decisions are not made in the right forum, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what the Hon. Member elaborated in this House is not true at this point.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy just does not understand the situation.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's right.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The Bank of Montreal does not have to notify anybody. It stated that it would not approve it. It is not a question of turning it down; it is a question of the Bank of Montreal not approving it, I have said that the Bank of Montreal is not going to approve it, so the deal is dead.
What will the Government of Canada do? Does the Government want Dome Petroleum to go into bankruptcy? Is that the idea? It is no longer a hypothetical question; it is a question which is before us right now. We have until June 30 to decide what will be done. Is the Government willing to let Dome Petroleum go into bankruptcy? If not, what will it do to stop it?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Montreal, however large it may be, is only one creditor among dozens of others. And that matter will not be solved in this House, it will be solved where it should be, that is between Dome and its creditors, rather than through oral questions in this House.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the postal strike. The whole country would like to see the mail being delivered. As the Prime Minister knows, to have that as a possibility there must be flexibility on both sides of the negotiating table.
Last night at 12.01 a.m., before any strike action was taken, the management of the Post Office informed the letter carriers of two things: first, they planned to hire strikebreakers at seven cents an hour more than the best paid letter carriers were getting-additional pay for crossing picket lines-and, second, they extraordinarily announced the abolition of Article V in the agreement which protects workers from discrimination based on sex, religion, and age.
Does the Prime Minister think that such action by postal
management is unnecessarily provocative?
June 16, 1987


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the situation as of midnight last night is that the union is in a position to strike legally and the Post Office is in a position for a legal lock-out, although it has not taken that route. I understand that legally the existing contract is no longer in place.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party is talking about specifics of the particular negotiations and the tactics being used on one side-and there are tactics being used on the other side-trying to bring about pressure so that a negotiated settlement can be reached.
I do not think it is of benefit to that agreement, to either of the parties, and certainly not to the public, that we try to carry on those kinds of discussions and negotiations on the floor of the House of Commons.
They are discussing things now at the Chateau Laurier Hotel. I think we should encourage them to continue discussing them and to reach a negotiated settlement as soon as possible.


REPORTED ABOLITION OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT DISCRIMINATION PROVISION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say with total sincerity that if we were discussing normal, bargainable items, I could not agree more with the Minister. However, in a House which has adopted the Charter of Rights and is currently discussing constitutional improvements, does the Minister find it acceptable, even if it is legally possible, that an agency of the Crown should say to its workers that it will now abolish, because it has the legal authority to do so, a clause designed to protect its workers from religious, sex, and age discrimination? It seems to me that these fundamental rights ought to belong to any worker in Canada in the public or private sector.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, those rights belong to any and every worker in Canada, every citizen in Canada. They are guaranteed under the Charter of Rights.
The Post Office, like everybody else in the country, must obey the law. It would be absolutely unacceptable to have any discrimination based upon any of those factors about which the Leader of the New Democratic Party talked.
If he has evidence of the Post Office acting in a discriminatory fashion, contrary to the Charter of Rights, contrary to the direction which the House would unanimously give it, I ask him to please raise it, and I will certainly raise hell with management of the Post Office if that is the case.


REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF PROVISION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Minister-and I heard his words with care; I accept his
Oral Questions
commitment to carry it out-has now committed himself to doing something.
There are now more than 400 cases based exactly on that clause which are up for consideration. That is precisely why the clause was put there, to protect the rights.
I have heard what the Minister just said. When it comes to fundamental rights-and, in fairness, whatever else they may do in the bargaining is up to them-will the Minister go back to management and say that this kind of action is unacceptably provocative and that they must put back into place Article V to protect the workers from this kind of discrimination?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the benefit of the old agreement in front of me to look at Article V, but I believe the Hon. Member is referring to the article dealing with the filing of grievances and so on.
As of midnight the entire agreement is no longer in place. The Post Office has indicated that it intends to follow the spirit of the agreement.
I think the Leader of the New Democratic Party is making mischief if he is suggesting that putting aside the grievance procedure now-and there are some 16,000 grievances filed each year-until a contract is negotiated is somehow an attempt by management to discriminate based upon religion, sex, or racial background; that is a malicious and false accusation.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF HEALTH OF ISRAEL
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the Gallery of Mrs. Shonana Arbeli-Almoslino, the Minister of Health of Israel.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FIRST DEPUTY MINISTER OF U.S.S.R.
Mr. Speaker:: I wish also to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the Gallery of Mr. V. Murakhovsky, First Deputy Minister of the U.S.S.R. and Chairman of the Agro-Industrial Complex.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 16, 1987
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. By forcing Canada Post to balance its books by the end of this fiscal year instead of the five-year period recommended by the Marchment Committee, and by refusing to intervene in the labour negotiations, the Government has imposed a postal strike on Canadians.
Now that the Government has its own strike, what next? Is the Government ready to do something in an attempt to prevent rotating strikes from turning into a full-fledged national strike that could affect every business and individual in Canada, or does the Government want to continue simply sitting on its hands watching the world unfold?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday with respect to intervention through the Canada Labour Code and the Department of Labour, a conciliator was appointed, a commissioner was appointed, and a report has been tabled. The parties were negotiating yesterday. They are still negotiating today and 1 think we should again encourage the parties to come to an agreement.


INQUIRY CONCERNING CONCRETE ACTION PROPOSED BY GOVERNMENT
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is confirming the Government has been attempting to have its job done by others, which has not worked. Conciliation did not work. We have reached the point where, unless the Government does something, we will end up with a national strike, a full-fledged national strike that may lead to violence, that may affect everyone in this country, including the economy. I would like to have an answer from the Government. What concrete steps will they take to end that strike, instead of constantly answering: We will let them negotiate. To this day it has not worked. What will you be inventing?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly the question put by the Hon. Member, he is blaming us for implementing the Labour Code. Is the Hon. Member speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, and is he suggesting we should abolish the right to strike?


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is very difficult for a Member representing a riding like Mississauga North to complain. Mississauga North has benefited greatly from Conservative policies since 1984.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mississauga North has 7,000 thriving businesses. Mississauga North has-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more.


Mr. Speaker:: And the Hon. Member for Mississauga North will put his question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister is aware that this morning at nine o'clock a large pharmaceutical manufacturing firm in Mississauga, Smith Kline & French, announced that it was closing its doors and moving to another country. Can the Minister tell me what he can do about this unfortunate situation?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, in this situation there is nothing that can be done. However, I think it would be informative to know why this company is closing. As the company said in a letter to me today, its action is the direct unfortunate but necessary result of compulsory licensing in Canada. As the House is aware, Bill C-22 will correct that situation to ensure that there are no further closings of this kind.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The eleventh anniversary of the Soweto massacre has been marked by the extension of emergency rule and by the failure of a commitment at the Venice Summit. It has also been marked today by a plea by Archbishop Scott for further Canadian action against apartheid.
June 16, 1987

What will be the Prime Minister's answer to Archbishop Scott, to the children of South Africa, and to the victims of the holocaust in Mozambique?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to the failure of the commitment at the Venice Summit. That of course is both wrong and misleading. The Venice Summit, at the request of Canada, actively considered on at least three occasions during our sittings the very troubling and tragic issue of apartheid in South Africa, and asked the chairman to issue what has been described as a very full and serious denunciation of the policies of the Government of South Africa in regard to apartheid and its denial of human rights. The Summit did consider it, not perhaps as fully as Canada would have liked, but it was another important step along the road followed by all civilized nations which are concerting to bring an end to the tragedy of apartheid in South Africa.


REQUEST FOR IMPOSITION OF COMPLETE MANDATORY SANCTIONS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should know the difference between denunciation and commitment. Two years ago he promised to impose complete sanctions against the South African regime. He has the support of a year-old report from a House of Commons committee, he has the support of the Canadian people, and he has the pleas for action of apartheid's victims. Will the Prime Minister not keep his promise and impose complete mandatory sanctions against South Africa before the House recesses for the summer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated on behalf of the Government that we did not exclude that course of action at all at an appropriate time. We have maintained and continued to maintain a dialogue in the hope that Canada and its partners can be of assistance in securing that fundamental degree of justice for the black citizens, the deprived citizens of South Africa.
Canada's next steps will be taken at the Sommet de la francophonie in Quebec City and at the Commonwealth meeting in Vancouver where it is hoped that, in concert with the equivalent of about 100 nations representing all walks of life and all areas of the world coming together under two common thrusts of action, these will be important levers, together with more action from Europe and the United States, to bring about the pressures which will ultimately cause the system of apartheid to collapse so that justice can come about for all the citizens of South Africa.
Oral Questions


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance who knows that on June 30 the Government of Ontario, with the blessing of the Government of Canada, will open up the securities market to foreign participants. Since the Government is opening up the doors to foreign ownership without having concluded the Canada-U.S. trade agreement and without any apparent effort to negotiate reciprocity for the Canadian securities industry in other countries, will the Minister tell the House what he is doing to safeguard the national interest?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is currently discussing all aspects of reciprocity with relevant countries. That is the first and most important part of my answer. The second part is that our policy toward the entrance of foreign securities dealers and the participation of Canadian financial institutions in the securities business was laid out in my announcement of December 18.


REGULATORY CONTROL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on June 30 our securities industry will find itself in competition with international giants. For example, one Japanese firm which just bought a seat on the Toronto Stock Exchange has assets more than double those of all Canada's financial institutions combined. How does the Minister propose to regulate in this new market considering that the industry has traditionally been regulated provincially and he is mired in a jurisdictional dispute with nine of the 10 provinces?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows the answer to that question. First, the provinces have responsibility for regulating securities subsidiaries. The federal Government has responsibility for regulating securities activities in-house in federal financial institutions. That is the division of labour. Above all, entrance to this country by these institutions will be in federal hands and its pace will obviously be affected by the reciprocal treatment we receive abroad.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM-AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY LAY-OFFS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, 180 workers at Ford's export office in Windsor have just been told they are losing their jobs. The letter from their union indicates they believe this is happening because the prospect of

June 16, 1987
Oral Questions
free trade is pushing companies in Canada to move their operations back to the U.S. Given this continuing damage to our workers, will the Minister for International Trade confirm that at the most recent round of negotiations the U.S. insisted on a voluntary system of dispute settlement which will leave Canada subject to U.S. trade law? In short, we have lost our key demand in these talks with the U.S.


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm the Hon. Member's allegation. The negotiators are returning from Washington tonight and I will get a report. I have received no information or report which would give any substance to the Hon. Member's charge.
As to the lay-offs, I think it is strange that he is talking about lay-offs months before a free trade deal is negotiated, processed, or has even come into effect. I suggest he go back and take another look at his arguments.


Steven W. Langdon: These lay-offs are to be phased in over the next two years so they coincide exactly with the supposed coming into force of the free trade pact.


ANNOUNCED LAY-OFFS AT FORD EXPORT OFFICE IN WINDSOR
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister for International Trade cannot deal with my question I will direct my supplementary to the Minister responsible for industry. Will the Government launch a public inquiry into this lay-off which is cutting key export jobs? Will it also in turn try to push Ford into keeping this operation active and viable for our community in Windsor?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, Ford did not simply decide to reduce its activities in Canada. Many of the operations of this division were directed toward Latin America markets. An increased number of companies are having the products used in these countries manufactured locally. This is why we are developing policy for the automobile industry which can ensure a prosperous future for Canadian workers.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I referred yesterday in this House to the serious problem encountered by the Maison d'amitie shelter for battered women and their children. Threatened with a $3,000 monthly rent increase, the Maison d'amitie is crying for help. The Prime Minister told me yesterday, and I quote:
The problem of battered women in Canada represents one of our most serious social and legal challenges.
He also said that:
The response collectively of this country, provincial, federal and so on-
-had been inadequate.
I therefore ask the Government: When can we expect positive concrete action from the Government to help the millions of battered women and their children in Canada? What is the Government going to do to show some leadership in this matter?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Minister responsible is not in the House today because of other business. I can assure the Hon. Member, as I am sure he already knows, that the Minister understands his concern and has already indicated he will proceed with appropriate action.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS TO NATIONAL CAPITAL COM MISSION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary to the Minister of Public Works. Is it the Minister's intention to practise what the Prime Minister told us yesterday, that is, to care for battered women? Will he instruct the NCC to change its decision and not increase the rent by $3,000 a month on the Maison d'amitie, a home for battered women? Will he do something and show us leadership? Does he care what happens to battered women?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the rent paid by this association for the past two or three years has been $1 a year. They were advised that on a very gradual basis we would be increasing the rent with a view to accommodating their situation. They are now paying $500 a month. They are being given ample notice and every opportunity to get new sources of funding. We will be very cooperative to try to accommodate their particular situation.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Can he confirm that the federal Government is providing assistance to the Expro Company of Valleyfield in the form of an $8 million subsidy and a guaranteed loan of $20 million to modernize its explosives plant and reduce pollution and that 600 workers could be laid off because of this modernization? Why is the Government subsidizing lay-offs instead of creating jobs in that region?
Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion): Mr. Speaker, I am not very familiar with this
June 16, 1987

issue. I shall inquire this very afternoon and keep the Hon. Member informed.


USE OF GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY
Michael Morris Cassidy: In his response, Mr. Speaker, would the Minister tell us whether the Government will intervene, either to make sure that the company will not lay off the employees involved or to withdraw the subsidy since gifts, federal dollars, must not be used to create unemployment in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada?


Michel Côté: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, I will look into this case but, as a rule, Department contributions are indeed for expansion and modernization, not to eliminate jobs but to create them, and this is what we have been doing in this country since 1984. More than 878,000 jobs have been created, Mr. Speaker.


THE CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD-RECOGNITION OF MULTICULTURAL AND ABORIGINAL CHARACTERISTICS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the constitutional Accord. Last week in answer to my question the Minister of Justice failed to address adequately the growing concern across the country over the lack of meaningful recognition in the Accord of this nation's multicultural reality. Canada is unquestionably a bilingual and multicultural country. Clause 1 of the Accord recognizes only the English-French linguistic duality as a fundamental characteristic of Canada. Therefore, will the Prime Minister agree to amend Clause 1 by including the multicultural and aboriginal characteristics as fundamental characteristics of this country? The clause would then express fully and accurately the true fabric of Canadian society and not leave on the outside those 10 million Canadians whose origins are neither English nor French.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, if 1 may be permitted to answer that question, 1 thought the responses given by the Minister of Justice last week to the questions of the Hon. Member were outstanding.


Mr. Nunziata:: Don't make a joke about it. It's a serious matter, you jerk.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 find that absolutely outrageous. I know the Hon. Member for York South- Weston takes a diametrically opposed position to that of his Leader on this very important issue. However, I don't think it is worthy of him to be shouting.


John V. Nunziata: Sit down.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Prime Minister could not find the dignity to address this glaring omission. I will ask him the question again. Since Clause 16 is an inadequate footnote and does not do justice to the aspirations and contributions of one-third of our population, what legitimate reasons does he offer for not including the multicultural and aboriginal characteristics in Clause 1? How can he continue to promote a definition of Canada which is offensively incomplete and totally inaccurate?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, not only is what the hon. gentleman said absolutely false and misleading, it is at profound variance with the position enunciated by the Leader of the Liberal Party and by the Leaders of all the other Parties in the House of Commons.


Sergio Marchi: That's not true.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is at variance with what took place.
This document with regard to Meech Lake reflects as well the comments of the Premier of Ontario who was one of the leaders in seeking this improvement in the text which our other colleagues were happy to accommodate. Clause 16-


John V. Nunziata: That's not good enough.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -says:
Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25 or 27 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution
Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the Right Hon. Prime Minister except to say that a question has been put. The Right Hon. Prime Minister is answering it, and I know Members would want him to be able to complete his answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this document which was agreed upon by the 10 First Ministers and the Prime Minister of Canada reflects, as all Canadians would want, the recognition of the rights of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians, but reflects as well the great honour and contribution made to Canada-indeed the indispensable contribution-by the multicultural communities of the country. This document strengthens and reflects that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is therefore to all those, except those who refuse to see, that this document strengthens Canadian unity, that it brings together English and French-speaking peoples-


John V. Nunziata: What about the rest of us?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -but does not exclude in any way the multicultural richness of this country. Indeed, it makes certain that forever and ever and a day the multicultural strength of Canada is honoured and recognized.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: That's not true.



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.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will remind Hon. Members that Motions Nos. 37, 60, 61, 62, and 63 have been grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 63 disposes of Motions Nos. 60 and 61. A negative vote on Motion No. 63 necessitates votes on Motions Nos. 60 and 61. Motions Nos. 37 and 62 will be voted on separately.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 37.
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 62 by striking out lines 36 to 41 at
page 27 and substituting the following therefor:


André Ouellet: Dispense.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No. Who said that? It's my motion. Read it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would like to point out to the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) that his colleague, the Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) said "dispense". I have not decided to dispense.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It's not his motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will with pleasure read the amendment presented by the Hon. Member.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you. It's five lines.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It reads:
"(2) In conducting the investigation, the Agency may take into consideration the contents of any confidential contract that has been filed with the Agency in in-camera proceedings as referred to in section 22(1 )(b)."


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your reading the motion because it makes so much sense and is only five lines long.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair wishes to apologize. As I have just said, the five motions are being grouped for debate, and they should be put on the record at this time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologize for missing your first remarks about amendments to this Bill. I take it that the ruling of the Speaker of May 25 has been amended and that item 20 has been changed. Is that correct?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is the ruling of June 4 which applies and it stands as it was given to the House. We will now move on to Motion No. 60.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Hold it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I beg your pardon. Mr. Benjamin: I beg your pardon.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


André Ouellet: Motion No. 60
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 120 by striking out line 4 at page 56 and substituting the following therefor:
"120. (1) A Canadian railway company may enter".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 61.
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 120 by adding immediately after line 45 at page 56 the following:
"(6) Subsection (5) shall not apply to any investigation under the Act, provided that disclosure of confidential information is restricted in such manner as may be prescribed by section 22(1) of this Act".


André Ouellet: Motion No. 62
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 120 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 57 the following:
''(7) This section does not apply to a movement of traffic following a continuous route wholly within Canada."
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 63:
That Bill C-18, be amended by deleting Clause 120.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, at the
present time, the Railway Act prohibits railway companies and
June 16, 1987

shippers from concluding confidential contracts for the transportation of goods by rail in Canada.
According to Section 275 of the Act, tariffs are to be published and filed with the Canadian Transport Commission, and Section 269 provides that railway companies shall charge only the tolls specified in the tariffs.
According to Section 381, any departure from such tolls would be an offence under the Act.
And finally, under Section 380, granting unpublished rebates would be an offence.
Madam Speaker, these conditions differ very sustantially from those existing in the United States since the Staggers Rail Act was adopted in 1980. This legislation authorizes U.S. railway companies to engage in confidential contracting with shippers.
As we know, this situation has harmed Canada's railway companies competing for transborder traffic with U.S. railway companies. The latter were in a position to offer better rates than those published in Canada and were thus able to short-circuit Canadian railway companies by detouring traffic through the United States. The previous Government became aware of the situation and asked the Canadian Transport Commission to look into the matter and make recommendations.
At hearings before the Transport Committee, most witnesses were in favour of the concept of confidential contracting for transborder traffic, in order to make up for the weakness in the existing regulatory system. When the question was being studied by the Canadian Transport Commission, experts reached the same conclusion. Something had to be done to keep U.S. railway companies from having an edge over Canadian railway companies in the area of transborder traffic.
The solution was entirely in line with the views of the previous Liberal Government, and that is what we need, no more. Unfortunately, the present Conservative Government wanted to go much further. Here again, it was led by its constant urge to follow the U.S. model in every respect, to copy everything that is being done south of the border.
The Government has extended confidential contracting to domestic traffic, thereby copying the U.S. Staggers Rail Act. We in the Liberal Party do not favour confidential contracting on domestic traffic, because we feel that such contracting will soon become a barrier to healthy competition. It will certainly not be in the interests of the small and average shipper. It will put the Atlantic provinces at a disadvantage and be a serious threat to the trucking industry in Canada, especially in the long-haul east-west sector. And we also believe that with the introduction of domestic confidential contracts, the railway freight companies will try to recover the business lost as a result of increased competition in this sector and do so at the expense of the small "captive" shippers.
We think that drumming up business at the expense of small and average "captive" shippers, which will benefit the big
National Transportation Act, 1986
conglomerates that are free to do as they please, is totally unacceptable. I have said so before and I say it again, Madam Speaker, that we are not alone in this respect. A number of interveners, who testified before the Standing Committee of the House of Commons that examined these clauses, objected to the preferential treatment the Conservative Government wants to give the big Canadian shippers. Several interveners told us that a system that would allow confidential contracting on domestic traffic would have disastrous repercussions.

In fact, in one of the most compelling representations before the Committee, a small Saskatchewan malt producer, Prairie Malt Limited, of Biggar, told us that the Staggers Act has resulted in disastrous consequences for those shippers not large or powerful enough to compete effectively with the larger and more powerful conglomerates.
I want to quote part of the submission that was presented:
To give the Staggers Act its credits due, it must also be mentioned that larger corporations, holding a dominant position within their given industrial sector on account of size and general financial and economic clout, are more than satisfied with the law as it stands.
In consequence, efficient, but economically weaker or geographically disadvantaged competitors within the industry can be driven out with comparative ease, since they are not able to wield the same amount of influence with the railways as larger corporations with their widely dispersed interests and plant sites.
Confidential contracting could allow the larger, more powerful shippers not only an advantage over smaller competitors, but also to utilize transportation contracts and through them the railways themselves to literally push out the competition.

And according to the Minister of Transport himself, this legislation on deregulation is aimed at boosting competition. Well, here is a small shipper who is telling us that, far from increasing, competition will decrease.
One of the other most flagrant shortcomings of this legislation and of this part of the law is the fact that it throws the doors of the Canadian market wide open to the American railway companies, yet the Staggers Rail Act does not include similar provisions. It is quite clear that these clauses are detrimental to Canadian railway companies.

This kind of one-way free trade that the Government favours is totally unacceptable to us. We in the Opposition have tried to bring amendments to protect the Canadian interests and Canadian railways from the unfair competition by the American railways that will be possible.
Under the confidential contracting provisions currently in this legislation, we will see a situation where American railways could run freight in Canada based on confidential contracting on trans-border traffic. Burlington Northern, for instance-

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
[ Translation]
-is a company which serves New Westminster in the direction of the United States and carries Canadian lumber towards the State of Washington, thence through the United States to Port Huron in Ontario. This kind of situation is not in the interest of our railroads, and it harms small shippers as well for they will not be in a position to negotiate confidential contracts as lucrative as those of major shippers.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, it is finally for all these reasons that I want to tell you that we are against these clauses of Bill C-18, and this is why we support the amendments to Bill C-18 provisions concerning confidential contracts. So 1 can tell you that I will support Motion No. 38 of my colleague, as well as Motions Nos. 60 and 62 which I moved on behalf of the Liberal Party, and of course I will vote for Motions Nos.
61	and 63.
In our opinion, Motion No. 60 offers Canadian carriers protection against unfair American competition, and we hope the House will endorse Motion No. 60. Secondly, Motion No.
62	would limit confidential contracts to transborder movements only to enable our carriers to compete efficiently against American companies, and more particularly to protect small shippers. This is why I urge the House to support these amendments to the Bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I want to speak to four motions, two moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), and two moved by myself.
Motion No. 37 is designed so that in conducting investigations under Clause 59 on a matter of public interest, investigators will not be frustrated by secret information but would be allowed access to that information. Under the provisions of the Bill presently before the House, someone who investigates a confidential contract would not have access to all the confidential information.
In Motions Nos. 60 and 62, the Hon. Member for Papineau has expressed views we can support. I believe the Chair has ruled that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 63 obviates the need to put the questions on Motions Nos. 60 and 61, which means the vote on Motion No. 63 must be called first. A negative vote on Motion No. 63 then means that Motions Nos. 60 and 61 must be voted on.
My Motion No. 63 deletes the entire clause of the Bill referring to confidential contracts. I never thought I would live to see the day where a Progressive Conservative Government, which advocates private enterprise, market forces, competition, and so on, would bring in measures which are anti-competitive. It means that those with corporate power, whether railroads, trucking companies or airlines, or those large shippers who ship thousands and thousands of carloads or truck loads a year, can get a confidential contract. But a company such as Prairie
Malt Limited in Biggar, Saskatchewan-and there are thousands like it all over the country-which may ship a few dozen or a few hundred carloads or truck loads, do not get the same deal as the large shippers. Anyone in this House who thinks they do is dreaming in technicolour. It is an anticompetitive provision. I do not understand why the Government would hold still for a confidential contract.
Even on an appeal on a confidential contract, the poor shipper who thinks the other guy has a confidential contract with a railroad or trucking company, has no choice under this Bill but to automatically appeal. But he cannot find out because it is confidential. Not even the investigators can find out. What kind of an appeal is that? What kind of natural justice is that?
The primary amendment in that grouping of four motions is to delete the entire section on confidential contracts. We should be enlarging, enforcing and playing a watch-dog role- and by that I mean a Government agency or the Department of Transport-on the system of agreed charges. Any shipper, large or small, who agrees, for example, to ship 75 per cent of his traffic by a certain carrier should be eligible for that reduced rate. The same opportunity should apply to every shipper. In order to get that rate all he has to do is to agree to ship a certain percentage of his traffic and it can start at 100 per cent or 50 per cent because there is a graduated rate. Those agreed charges should be public information. Every shipper, large or small, would then have exactly the same opportunity.
The bureaucrats in the nether regions of the Department of Transport have dreamed this clause up at the request of the largest shippers in the country, and it flies in the face of one of the underlying principles of the Bill, that is, regional economic expansion. The small manufacturers, processors and shippers in Atlantic Canada, out west or in northern Ontario are automatically ruled out when it comes to confidential contracts. There is no way any so-called self-respecting private enterprise government which believes in free market forces would put confidential contracts into its legislation.
When one is dealing with a public utility, a public service or with a transporter, confidential contracts should be equally available to every shipper and passenger in this country. They should not be discriminated against because of their size, where they happen to be located, where they happen to be producing their goods or where they happen to be travelling from or to. To use the language of the Reaganites over here, that should be a "level playing field". Small shippers, people who travel from small and middle sized locations in Canada, should have the same opportunity for discount fares, seat sales or anything else offered by an airline. This Bill should require every transporter to make available the same opportunities to every shipper, every receiver, every passenger, no matter where they live.
The Government flies in the face of its own free enterprise,
free market forces principles. Why would it not want a small
shipper, manufacturer or processor in Atlantic Canada to have
June 16, 1987

an equal opportunity of access to competitive or compensatory rates as the large shipper in downtown Toronto or Montreal? Why would one want legislation which would prohibit that? 1 do not understand the Government.
Surely to goodness Motion No. 63 which would delete the entire clause dealing with confidential contracts would-and as a democratic socialist I hate to be helpful to the proponents of free enterprise market forces across the way-help the Government out. It would reinforce and restate the principles for which Members opposite claim to stand. It is a heck of a note when a democratic socialist has to give lessons to free enterprisers about sound business practices and about treating people across the country in exactly the same way no matter where they live.
Surely that is what this legislation should do. No one should be discriminated against. This is something which Canada has tried to do since 1881 to ensure that transportation is distributed in a reasonably equitable manner no matter where one lives. We have not reached that goal but we have proceeded along the way to reaching it. Confidential contracts fly in the face of our history. They fly in the face of the so-called principles and policies of the Progressive Conservative Party.
This is a crucial area of this legislation. I do not know of any self-respecting Progressive Conservative in my City of Regina-as few as they are-who is in favour of these confidential contracts. I do not know one. In fact, they want a fair shake. When they are bidding against someone in Winnipeg, Toronto or Vancouver for freight rates they want to have an equal chance.
The small implement manufacturers in the prairie provinces come to mind in this regard. There are about two dozen of them who ship a few hundred truckloads or carloads a year. If anyone on the government side thinks that they can compete with J. I. Case, Massey-Ferguson or International Harvester, which companies ship thousands of carloads a year, then they are discriminating against the small farm implement manufacturers in western Canada.
The same applies to every commodity that can be named when it comes to the difference between the economic, power, clout and influence as between a small processor and manufacturer and a large one. Confidential contracts are an anathema to this Party. They should be an anathema to anyone who believes in a free society, a free chance, an equal chance, an equal opportunity.
I wish that Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier were here today to see the actions of this Government and its Reaganomic nonsense which fly in the face of everything the country has been trying to do since 1867. Members opposite are hypnotized. They have not thought the process through. They do not know what the hell they are doing.
National Transportation Act, 1986
Motion No. 63 must be accepted. It will obviate debate on the other three amendments. Failing that, let us adopt the other three.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon to the amendment which has been proposed to the Bill on transportation before us.
You will recall, Madam Speaker, that the Government has brought before us this legislation which would create for a number of people tremendous upheaval and tremendous difficulties. The whole area of deregulation, including the confidential contracts that are referred to here, would create a climate of uncertainty in the transportation area, a climate of uncertainty for many rural constituencies across this great country.
During the election campaign the Government made several promises. A number of them were made in the area of transportation. I have in my hand the great book of 338 Tory promises. If you would like a copy of it, Madam Speaker, or if any Canadian would like a copy of it, all that needs to be done is to write me a letter, postage-free-no stamp necessary-and I will gladly send out a copy of the 338 Tory promises. You can rush right over to my office, Madam Speaker, and I will gladly give you one.
In the book of 338 Tory promises the following are some of the words said about transportation. The Tories promised that they would make VIA Rail more accountable to the public and re-establish passenger services. They would upgrade rail transportation through the acquisition of new modern equipment. Further, they would declare war on all level railway crossing facilities. Part of that promise has already been forgotten. I think the Government has decided to declare war on the railways. It forgot the rest of the promise-


Mr. McDermid:: Oh, come on!


Don Boudria: That is perhaps the problem with the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) who is heckling me.
In the great riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell CN Rail has launched a vicious attack against my constituents. That is what it has decided to do, and I invite the member of the Tory Party opposite to pay attention because we will ask questions later. We are marking this today so I invite the Hon. Member to be attentive.
What CN Rail has decided to do is to embark upon a strategy of demarketing, a strategy of chasing away some of its customers so that it can later on close down the CN rail line between Montreal and Sudbury. This is a very serious situation. I say this to the Hon. Member across the way who seems to be confused. I will speak slower so that even he can understand.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It won't help.

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) says that it will not help. However, I will do my best. I will speak as slowly as possible for the benefit of Conservative Members in the House.
In reference to this amendment in particular here is what CN is planning to do. Hon. Members will see how it links directly, not only to the amendment which is before us but to the Bill in total. In my hand I have a memo dated September 25, 1986. It is a memo sent by Mr. R. P. Langlois, Regional Manager of Marketing, one of the folks who is trying to market this new idea of rates organized secretly with certain people while shutting down service on the so-called unpaying lines altogether. Mr. Langlois wrote to his people:
In the context of the rationalization of our rail infrastructure, some lines have been identified as being potential candidates for abandonment in the coming years. A preliminary plan has been prepared and attached you will find the sections affected.
I will get to that section a little later, Madam Speaker. The memo states that any effort to attract new traffic on these lines is to be abandoned immediately. We can now see the deliberate policy with respect to some lines to abandon any effort to attract new customers.
If that isn't bad enough, listen to the following sentence;
For the traffic already on these lines, we must consider either, and preferably, converting this traffic onto the intermodal system,-
In ordinary language, that means trucks. To continue:
-or else, adjusting rates to minimize our present losses.
You will shortly be convoked to a meeting in which the particulars of the application of these measures will be discussed in more detail. In the meantime, I would ask you to treat this with discretion.
In other words, this was supposed to be a secret memo. I say to Hon. Members opposite, and particularly the Minister, the minute they put the "secret" stamp on documents, they might as well send a copy to my office, as 1 usually end up receiving such documents in any event.
So, here we have a secret memo from Mr. Langlois suggesting that certain lines be shut down. The proposed line shutdowns would occur in the St. Lawrence region, which comprises the eastern part of the Province of Ontario and the Province of Quebec. The proposed line shut-downs include the Alexandria Subdivision, a distance of 57.7 miles.
The Alexandria Subdivision of CN Rail is the track that links Ottawa to Montreal. There would be no train between Ottawa and Montreal-and not only no freight train on which the secret contracts we have been talking about could be negotiated, but no track at all, not even to accommodate passenger trains.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Not so.


Don Boudria: The Member opposite says "not so". In doing so, he is disagreeing with quite a few of his Tory colleagues from the national capital area.


Blaine Allen Thacker: VIA can take it.


Don Boudria: That is absolutely preposterous. It is unfortunate that the Hon. Member does not know what he is talking about. If you will give me sufficient time, Madam Speaker, I shall try to better inform him-and I know it may take a lot of time.
This particular line would be completely shut down. As well, the rail line between Ottawa and Sudbury, the Alderdale and Beachburg subdivisions, would also be closed.
With respect to that shut-down, it might be said that it is acceptable because there is a CP line serving the same areas. Well, it isn't that simple. From the western Quebec community of Portage-du-Fort, 2,000 rail cars per year of wood products are shipped on the CN Rail line, all of which would end up on the highways of eastern Ontario and western Quebec. Meanwhile, on the profitable line, the Montreal to Toronto corridor, the secret rates would be negotiated, keeping that line profitable. It is the regions of the country that will be losing out in terms of rail service.
Toxic chemicals are shipped from a factory in northern Ontario to Montreal, and that traffic too would be rerouted via Toronto in the event that this line were shut down. We would have yet one more train load of toxic chemicals going through the Toronto area en route to Montreal. As well, there would be a great deal of traffic diverted to the highway system.
Through this Bill the federal Government is trying to transfer its responsibility to the provincial level of Government. What this Government is saying is, "It doesn't matter if we shut down the rail lines, the provinces will take care of the increased traffic on the highways."
Well, that is not the solution. The federal Government is simply passing the buck on to the provinces. That is what this Tory Government does, as you well know, Madam Speaker. Being the non-partisan person that you are, you will know how the Tories are totally ruining the economies of the regions of our country.
If you think me partisan, Madam Speaker, as unlikely as it is that you would think that, let me give you one example.
A company in my riding, Alexandria Moulding, with 220 employees, had embarked on a $25 million expansion involving a facility to be built right alongside the railway line in Alexandria. It progressed to the point of putting the foundations in and then stopped work on that project, all because it became aware of this CN Rail internal document saying that the line linking Ottawa and Montreal should be shut down.
That is the disgrace with which we are faced right now, Madam Speaker, and it is only going to get worse with the passage of Bill C-18. While this amendment would make the Bill slightly better, the only acceptable solution is to change the Bill drastically. That is what is required.
June 16, 1987


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Madam Speaker, perhaps 1 may also make a short contribution to the debate on these motions, to try and explain the position of our Party. We are in favour of confidential contracting for transborder traffic, so that Canadian railway companies, including Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, can compete with U.S. railway companies who, at the present contracts. But that is where our generosity ends, because we object to confidential contracting on domestic traffic. I think the testimomy heard by the Transport Committee was practically unanimous on the point that big shippers would benefit from confidential contracting. In fact, we would see a rather bizarre situation where small shippers would actually be subsidizing the conglomerates that would most certainly benefit from the price war resulting from confidential contracting.
I must say this is a distressing possiblity for the regions, both in eastern and western Canada. I would like to point out that once again, witnesses from the Atlantic provinces testified before the Standing Committee on Transport that the economy of their part of the country is based to a large extent on the small business sector. The people of the Atlantic provinces believe that through a form of cross-subsidization, their part of the country might very well be forced to subsidize the low-cost confidential contracts resulting from the cheap rates that would be charged in central Canada.
The Government of Alberta had similar concerns about the impact of confidential contracting on western Canada.

I would have a question, Madam Speaker, for the proponents of these confidential contracts. As I understand it, when it comes to matters of public transportation, tariffs have always been posted. Why is there a need for confidential contracts? What is the motivation?
I can certainly understand the reasons for giving a large shipper a preferential rate, or for coming to a special arrangement with a large shipper of merchandise. There certainly are economies of scale that a larger shipper can benefit from in negotiating lower shipping rates, particularly if that shipper is able to get the goods to the departure point, thus permitting the railways to avoid some of the costs that they have to assume when it comes to picking up small pieces of merchandise from different parts of the country.
Why should the contracts be confidential? Why should they not be public? Why should other shippers not be able to become aware of the nature and contents of the contracts so as, perhaps, to be able to organize their affairs in a similar fashion, and hope to benefit from the same advantageous treatment if they are able to do so? It seems to me that this is the way in which a free and open market should operate.
The burden of proof should be on the proponents of these confidential contracts. From what I have heard in the debate
National Transportation Act, 1986
today, they have been unable to defend their case or to make a strong case for such contracts.
Under the legislation, Canada will be opening its markets to U.S. companies. As far as I understand it, there is no corresponding obligations for the Americans to open their market to Canadian railways.
We have the rather bizarre situation where the Government is almost down on its hands and knees offering all kinds of advantages to the Americans in the hope that at some point we will be rewarded for our generosity. It is a rather peculiar way of negotiating and trying to come to a conclusion which will benefit Canadians rather than Americans.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Madam Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me on amendments to Clause 120 in particular which has to do with confidential contracts.
In fact, through this provision the Government is attempting to fashion our transport industry after the American model. We would operate according to this model without really knowing what kind of impact it will have on the Canadian transport industry.
We in the Liberal Party believe that confidential contracts will not be to the benefit of Canadian consumers. And we believe as well, Madam Speaker, that confidential contracts will not serve the interests of remote regions either, quite the contrary.
Why? Very simply because most confidential contracts will be awarded to the big shippers, shippers who have huge volumes of goods to ship practically the year round. And, of course, such big shippers are few and far between in remote regions. If I may, Madam Speaker, I would refer to the Atlantic region where most of our shippers and manufacturers operate small and medium-sized businesses. So it stands to reason that these people will not be able to benefit from confidential contracts. Besides running small operations, they will find themselves unable to compete because major shippers will always be one step ahead with their confidential contracts and, of course, in a position to reduce the costs of their products.
Also, having granted large concessions to the major shippers, the carriers will have to recoup their losses from smaller shippers. Then we have the case of the remote regions.
As recently as last week, Madam Speaker, I learnt through the Le Matin daily that in a small New Brunswick town within my Kent riding, a distillery was going to close, resulting in the loss of some 28 full-time jobs and perhaps also a dozen parttime ones. Well, at the time, some people told me: What are 40 jobs? Madam Speaker, 40 jobs in a town such as Richibouctou would represent something like 1,000 jobs in Moncton and 35,000 jobs in Montreal.
I mention the case of this small distillery simply because it is
handicapped due to its location in that area. In addition to

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
facing excise taxes which are much too high, have been greatly increased these past few years. .. These tax increases, therefore, have had a much bigger impact on this New Brunswick plant than on all those situated near urban areas. Why? Because plants situated in distant areas are faced with transportation costs which are far higher than those applicable to plants situated near major centres. If this plant, therefore, must compensate carriers for the advantages which will be given major shippers through confidential contracts, several small and medium size firms in remote areas will be compelled to close.
Madam Speader, we suggest that these confidential contracts will benefit mainly American carriers. They will be in a position to cross the border, enter Canada and offer contracts to Canadian firms to move goods through the United States, something which will cause Canadian carriers to suffer because they will not be able to move these goods. Reciprocal advantages are not guaranteed to Canadian carriers, because they are not in a position to benefit from the same advantages made available to the Americans under this clause.
For all these reasons, Madam Speaker, I will support the amendments moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The first question is on Motion No. 37, 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 63 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 62 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 40-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Motions Nos. 60
and 61 are deferred automatically. The next question-
June 16, 1987


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, if I am not mistaken, you mentioned Motions Nos. 62 and 63 earlier, but not Motion No. 60. 1 just want to be sure that there will be a deferred vote on Motion No. 60 as well as on Motions Nos. 62 and 63.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All the different questions have been put on the record and as far as Motions Nos. 60 and 61 are concerned, the votes have been deferred until tonight when we will go through all the different motions again taking the deferred votes.
Now we can move on to Motion No. 40.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-18, be amended by deleting Clause 64.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam
Speaker, to explain very briefly the purpose of the motion, the current Clause 64 allows the Governor in Council to vary or rescind orders made by the agency. We think that if we are to have an independent body to review transportation matters, its decisions must either be final or any further appeal mechanism must be in the public framework.
The way the current clause reads is that if the agency makes a decision, then anyone could go to Cabinet in secrecy and convince the Cabinet to modify or toss out the decision of the agency. There would be no further public hearings. As we all know, the proceedings of Cabinet are secret, so we would not even know why a decision had been made to change it. We feel that this clause gives too much power to the Governor in Council and goes against the whole process of public consultation.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 40 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
National Transportation Act, 1986


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next motions to be debated are Motions Nos. 44 and 2.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 71 by striking out lines 17 and 18 at
page 33 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) holds a Canadian aviation document, and has demonstrated the capability and the willingness to meet the highest possible standards of safety; and".
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 13 at page 2 and
substituting the following therefor:
"meets the highest possible safety".
He said: Madam Speaker, if there was ever a crux of this legislation, it is these two amendments about which Members from all sides of the House have shown and expressed concern. It deals with the safety of airline operations and the capability and capacity of airline operators and aircraft operators to meet those standards on which the Government itself has said there will be no compromise. Our amendments attempt to and we believe will ensure those standards of safety.
Motion No. 44 requires that a new licensing agency must look at the ability of a new carrier to meet high safety standards before a licence is issued. That has been one of the problems until now.
As I informed the House earlier today, Motion No. 21A is what I call the Fred Turner amendment. There are licensed carriers now operating without a valid operating certificate. Those certificates are testimony from Transport Canada that it is satisfied with the carriers' level of safety and maintenance. It is my understanding that when this House brought in the new amendments to the Aeronautics Act in 1985, a direct link between economic licence and the operating authority was inadvertently broken. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to pay close attention. That broken link means, as we have seen, that an air carrier can retain its licence and operate while having no operating certificate. This morning I referred to the crash at Schefferville in which eight people were killed. The airline's operating authority had been suspended in October of 1983, but it was operating on September 30, 1985, when these tragic fatalities occurred. Even today that airline still does not have a valid operating certificate. It has a licence to fly but no certificate. There are other carriers operating today without that certificate. If the Government is serious about safety, this House will adopt Motion No. 44 and Motion No. 2 because they go to the very heart of what the Government itself said was a fundamental principle of this Bill.

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
You cannot have people operating airlines and carrying passengers without authority to do so. Yet they are doing it now. I do not care whether it is Wapiti or Spur airlines or this airline in Schefferville which I understand now has a new name.
If the Government wants deregulation, if it wants complete ease of exit and entry, all right, that is government policy. I do not like it, but so what? However, no Government worthy of the name can allow any airline to operate without proper safety, maintenance and pilot checks. The problem is that the air traffic committee of the CTC has one licensing authority and the Department of Transport, under the Aeronautics Act, has another. The two do not get together. We cannot allow that to continue.
This airline in Schefferville killed eight people and we did not cancel its licence. Yet poor old Fred Turner in Yellowknife is late filing his reports about gasoline used and the number of passengers carried and his licence is cancelled. He went bankrupt and lost five aircraft and is now losing his house. That cannot be justified under any circumstances. We cannot allow people a licence to fly and give them authority to carry passengers until they have met all the standards which this Government says must be met regarding safety and maintenance. That has to be in place before we pass this Bill.
This motion acknowledges the fact that we are all concerned about safety and maintenance. There are also other areas we should be concerned about. Bill C-19 should not be passed until the new national safety code is in place. Bill C-18 should not be passed until the new national rail safety rules are in place. Both those Bills should not be passed until all the boards, agencies, regulations and inspectors dealing with licensing, safety, security and maintenance are set up. Then if you want to deregulate and let anyone and everyone go in and out of air, trucking or railway operations, they will at least have to meet certain standards. Until they do, you do not give them a licence.
My hon. friend from Prince George, who flies in the north quite a lot, knows whereof I speak. I have been on some of these jerkwater outfits that fly with a minimum of maintenance, pilots who are flying extra hours because if they do not the boss fires them. I am not a white-knuckle flier but I do not want any amateurs or anyone played out, or a plane which is unfit, carrying me anywhere in this country.
The Government can do no less than accept these amendments. They do not do violence to the basic principles of the Bill dealing with deregulation, competition and market forces. Therefore, I hope my friends opposite will persuade the Parliamentary Secretary to get up and say he accepts them both.


John Horton McDermid: Yet you do not support drug testing for airline employees.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the amendment now under consideration allows us to focus on the hypocrisy of this Government. Every time we have spoken about safety, the current Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and his predecessor have told us that the Government had no intention of jeopardizing transport safety in Canada. All that we have had are nice speeches. The Minister of Transport and his officials have never taken any specific action to ensure that safety will not be jeopardized.
This amendment would simply add to the the interpretation provisions of the National Transportation Act the principle of striving for the highest possible standards of safety.
Yet, the Government is refusing to approve this amendment, thus proving its insincerity as it does not want to spell out in the objectives of the new National Transportation Act that there will be an effort to provide the highest possible standards of safety for transport services in Canada. If the Government is not willing to accept this amendment, it should not try to make the population believe that it wants to protect the safety of travellers as it is refusing to take the necessary action to ensure this safety.
I have here a report prepared by the Clerk's Office of the City of Toronto, which report was submitted to the members of the Standing Committee on Transport and is quite symptomatic of what people think of the desire of this Government to hasten passage of a law which will radically transform transportation in Canada and certainly jeopardize the safety of our transportation system.
If I may, Madam Speaker, I would like to quote a few passages from the brief submitted to the Government and to the Standing Committee on Transport during its consideration of Bill C-18, and I quote:
While a lot of the concerns raised by these Bills deal with the loss of services in small communities and remote areas, this transportation policy will also adversely affect major transportation centres such as Metro Toronto. First, safety risks will increase because of more flexible entry standards and the absence of detailed and adequate inspection mechanisms.
As the Metro Toronto Residents Action Committee stated in its submission to the Standing Committee on Transport of the Canadian Parliament in November, the lack of specific provisions dealing with public safety is one of the major weeknesses in the Freedom to Move position paper. In the United States, where transportation has been deregulated for nine years, there has been a significant drop in public safety. The number of accidents has increased on American highways, because the equipment is used more often with less maintenance, and truck drivers work longer shifts and haul heavier loads than they used to.
The Committee mentions a whole series of statistics showing a significant increase in the number of accidents and crashes which have been taking place on U.S. highways since the transportation system was deregulated.
The submission goes on with these words:

In the city of Toronto, safety concerns are of a double nature: the transport of dangerous goods. It is a cause for deep concern in densely populated areas such as Toronto where huge quantities of chemicals and other dangerous goods are transported every day by rail, by truck and by plane. People realized the threat of disasters with the Mississauga derailment which forced evacuation for six days of some 225,000 people. That accident is probably at the origin of the submission by the City of Toronto to the federal Government urging that any reform of the transport sector should clearly state that safety must be a top priority item and that an inquiry board directly responsible to Parliament should be created. However, the Government has not followed up on those recommendations. It has ignored the briefs submitted first to the Government following the publication of the Freedom to Move document, and later on in connection with the study of Bill C-18, which is not specifically concerned with the basic problem of safety.
That is why the Opposition wants to have that amendment. That is why the Liberal Party tried in committee to move an amendment to this bill which was rejected by the Conservative majority in the committee. And that is also why I support wholeheartedly this amendment standing in the name of my colleague from the New Democratic Party, and which is to ensure-that is no big deal- that there is clear recognition in the new National Transportation Act of the fact that in those national transportation targets, the highest possible safety standards will be specified. That the Government is unwilling to accept that goal is to me illogical, incomprehensible and certainly unjustified.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I cannot let the comments which the Hon. Member just made go by unchallenged. He said that nothing was being done with regard to rail safety after the accident which took place in Mississauga. Nothing is further from the truth.


André Ouellet: That's not what I said.


John Horton McDermid: The present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) started a hearing-


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.


John Horton McDermid: -on safety and we now have a Bill which-


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In deference to the Hon. Member, I do not think he understood what I was saying. That is not at all what I said. I think he should look at the record tomorrow. I do not know if the interpretation was incorrect, but he is going in exactly the wrong direction in assuming that that is what I am saying. I am talking about the current legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. I think both Hon. Members are engaging in debate rather than a point of order.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I just want to review what has been done with regard to safety. The Hon. Member's Government was very involved in this. The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, over which we sweated for many long months, was finally passed by the House of Commons.
At this very moment there are some very, very serious studies taking place with regard to the safe transportation of
National Transportation Act, 1986
dangerous goods through the Metropolitan Toronto area. I attended some public hearings last week in my constituency. Such public hearings are taking place throughout Toronto.
I think it is very unfair for the Hon. Member to say that no action is being taken on the transportation of dangerous goods in the Metropolitan Toronto area. In fact, action is being taken quite actively and vigorously.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam
Speaker, I want to continue the debate on a very important aspect of the process which we are going through as well as on the final wording of Bill C-18. The purpose of the two motions standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is to ensure that there is recognition within the Bill of safety in a context which is not found elsewhere in the legislation.
During our hearings on Bill C-18, and when we were dealing with the Government's White Paper Freedom to Move, one of the areas on which my colleague and I focused in considerable detail was safety, particularly air safety. We tended to ask the witnesses who appeared before us their opinion on what faces the last passenger on the final flight of an airline company that is going bankrupt. For instance, how many corners have been cut in the maintenance of the aircraft and how many times during the week had the pilot been forced to fly longer than humanly reasonable? Did the company overlook mechanical problems? Was it carrying out maintenance to the minimum standard as opposed to keeping maintenance safely within government and industry specifications?
As a result of our deliberations we concluded that in a system in which there is no guarantee of economic survival and the market-place forces the owners of the company to stretch resources continually, that safety could be compromised by an operator who, perhaps not intentionally, was forced to take unnecessary risks due to the aggressive competition within the industry. Such risks might include such requests as asking the pilot to fly one or two hours longer, to asking the mechanic to turn a blind eye on certain repairs that may not be mandatory but could be crucial in the event of a problem.
Motions Nos. 44 and 2 attempt to meet those concerns. Motion No. 44 basically adds to the requirement for domestic service. Clause 71(1) states:
A person shall not operate a domestic service unless, in respect of that
service,
(a)	holds a domestic licence;
(b)	holds a Canadian aviation document; and
(c)	has prescribed liability insurance coverage.
Motion No. 44 would change Clause 71(1)(b) to read:
(b) holds a Canadian aviation document, and has demonstrated the
capability and the willingness to meet the highest possible standards of
safety;
We believe that amendment will accomplish a number of
things. First, when a group applies for a certain certificate in

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
order to operate a domestic service, not only must it prove that it has liability insurance and a domestic licence, it must also have a proven track record for safety and the capability and willingness to meet the highest possible standards of safety.
One might ask how a new entrant can have a proven track record. One of the most ludicrous suggestions we heard in the committee was that the banks should decide whether or not a new airline company is healthy and has the proper equipment and safety and maintenance procedures in place. I suggest that it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure the protection of the people who use those services which are approved or authorized by the Government.
This amendment will require the agency to consider all new applicants and determine whether or not they have the resources not only today but in the future to maintain their standard of service and employment for an extended period of time. It must not be a company that provides such working conditions and wages as to have a continual turnover of personnel.
We have seen examples of such "fly-by-nighters", as my colleagues refers to them. These companies seem to have a continual turnover of pilots because of poor working conditions and low wages, which means that people with little experience are piloting these aircraft.
There must be a system in place so that the Government, through its agency, can determine not only whether those carriers are safe on the day the licences are issued but will remain safe because they have the economic wherewithal to maintain their services to the flying public.
That stability existed under the old regulated regime in which there was built in cross-subsidization. A carrier could be assured of a reasonable return on its investment in less lucrative runs and therefore not be forced into making economic decisions that could ultimately lead to disaster. Earlier, my colleague referred to a report from the Canadian Aviation Safety Board in a letter of June 15 in response to an inquiry from the Member's staff person regarding an aircraft accident in Schefferville, Quebec, in September, 1985.
I have a copy of the investigation report and engineering report LP250/85. The covering letter indicated that the aircraft in question did not have a valid operating authority. In fact, it had been suspended in October, 1983.
Clearly, there are carriers who are not qualified to be operating. We believe that this amendment will help to ensure that there are no blind spots left between the aviation safety legislation and the National Transportation Act. I urge the Government seriously to consider accepting this amendment. If our wording is not totally acceptable to the Government, perhaps there is a way in which the clause can stand until later so that it can be studied. If that is not possible, I look forward to hearing the Government's response to this amendment.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, this motion deals
with Clause 71 of the Bill and is essentially tied to Motion No. 2 that relates to Clause 3 of the Bill. That is the declaration, which I think it is important for Members to read. The declaration in Clause 3 states:
It is hereby declared that a safe, economic, efficient and adequate network of
viable and effective transportation services making the best use of all available
modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to serve the
transportation needs of shippers and travellers-
It goes on to state that the national transportation system meets the highest practicable safety standards. That was added at the committee stage, so, with great respect, it is not necessary, and would be totally redundant, to add it to Clause 71.
In order for a person to fly and have a licence, there is an absolute prohibition. A person shall not operate a domestic service unless, in respect of that service, the person, first, holds a domestic licence, second, holds a Canadian aviation document and, third, has the prescribed liability insurance. One does not receive an aviation document unless one complies with all the requirements of the Aeronautics Act which has a very real element of safety. So it is quite redundant and I would ask government Members and other Hon. Members to kindly vote against it.


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the amendment we are considering, and in fact I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who says he is satisfied with the clause as it is written, why he refuses to clarify what Clause 3.1(a) contains. It says that the national transportation system "meets the highest practicable safety standards" -the qualifier is "practicable".
Madam Speaker, I think the word practicable could be interpreted in many different ways and that this term could be harmful to the safety standards we want to establish in our national transportation system through this legislation.
Therefore, I fail to see why any Member here in the House should rise to object to the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
Madam Speaker, throughout these hearings, we have had many people testify before the Committee, and most of the testimony showed that people were concerned about the safety factor. Of course, they are just as concerned as you and I who often have to use public transportation systems, and if these systems do not meet the highest safety standards, we are putting our lives and those of all Canadians at risk.
As I see it, the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Regina West would merely put more emphasis on safety. Earlier, a reference was made to a report submitted to Toronto City Council. It referred to a heightened awareness of the possibility of disaster, as a result of the derailment and chlorine spill at Mississauga which led to 225,000 people being
June 16, 1987

evacuated for a period of six days. The report goes on to say that the M-TRAC statement on the measures taken by the railways after the Mississauga derailment is a very clear indication that we cannot depend on voluntary compliance in this area.
This is in response to the Hon. Member on the Government side who said that all the necessary measures had been taken.
And in this late May report, May 22, 1987, they said: "It is really saddening to point out in connection with respect for safety regulations by railway companies that one year after the Mississauga derailment-" and in fact more than a year later, "-the companies involved failed to install monitoring devices throughout that very sensitive and densely populated region until ordered to do so by the Canadian Transport Commission in the course of an inquiry and a public hearing."
That, Madam Speaker, is one more argument in favour of the amendments we are proposing. Quite simply we want people who deal with the transport industry to appreciate the fact that safety is indeed one of our top priorities.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 44 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). I should tell Hon. Members that the vote on Motion No. 44 will dispose of Motion No. 2.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to consideration of Motion No. 46.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
National Transportation Act, 1986
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 72 by adding immediately after line
28 at page 34 the following:
"(c) it is satisfied that the proposed commercial air service is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity."


Iain Francis Angus: Madam
Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague on his excellent amendment-he would not let me get away without saying that. I will be very brief because I see by the clock that we have about 70 minutes left before the bells begin to ring, ending the closure on report stage, and we do have some other Members who want to speak on the motion.
What this motion does is to add to the clause which deals with the issue of a licence, a requirement that the agency be satisfied that the proposed commercial air service is and will be required by present and future public convenience and necessity. That phrase "public convenience and necessity" is really the opposite of deregulation. It is a process which ensures that a carrier is there not just for the purpose of making money for the owner or operator, but to ensure that the service it provides is for the public, that it is needed and is convenient. We think that should be one of the tests which is considered, along with the fact they must be Canadian, hold a Canadian aviation document and have liability insurance. The agency must require that public convenience and necessity are part of the components which are necessary for that service to be established. I do not think I have to add much more. This is an appropriate place for me to stop.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 46 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-18, be amended by deleting Clause 73.
He said: Madam Speaker, I wish to say only that Clause 73 would give the Minister the authority to make qualified exemptions. We wish to have that clause deleted because it would exempt someone who otherwise does not qualify because he or she is not Canadian. There have been too many loose issues with respect to licences. I do not think that the Minister needs any more looseness to exempt someone from the requirements of the law. I hope the Government will accept this amendment so that the Minister will not have to worry about that sort of thing. He already has enough trouble as it is.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 47 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 47 (Mr. Benjamin) negatived.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 80 by adding immediately after line
48 at page 37 the following:
"(3) Where, on application by a carrier for a reduction in the basic fare by 50 per cent or more, the Agency will review and approve said application."


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, Motion No. 49 is a trigger mechanism which would prevent an air carrier from doing itself in. In the United States we saw a great deal of cutthroat competition in which fares were slashed and safety was jeopardized. Fares were slashed to such an extent that service for those who travelled on the
airlines slashing them was very poor. This put the carriers into a risky financial situation and ultimately lead to their bankruptcies and mergers with other air carriers.
Motion No. 49 might be perceived by consumers as being unpopular or unfair to them since everyone wants this great break, a 50 per cent reduction in air fares. We just saw a situation last week in which Canadian Airlines International announced a very unusual seat sale for the summer months to a number of Canadian centres at a time when volumes are normally high. It left out a number of communities, including Thunder Bay. Through its policy of automatically matching where possible challenges in terms of seat sales by Canadian Airlines International Air Canada, CAIL's only competitor decided to match CAIL. It did not propose to provide service to Thunder Bay.
If this amendment were accepted by the Government in an instance where there is more than a 50 per cent reduction in basic fares, air carriers would have to apply to the agency for permission. The agency would then be able to say: "First, yes, because of the size of the airline you can afford to do this, but not very often. Second, you have to be fair to all of Canada. You cannot just offer this seat sale in areas where you are planning to offer it. You have to make sure that communities such as Thunder Bay also have the advantage of these cheap seats".
That is what this Bill was supposed to give to the people of Canada-cheap transportation, even though we have been told time and time again by the experts in the field and by the carriers themselves that by and large we have bottomed out and all we have to look forward to are higher fares in the future with the odd aberration such as a seat sale. At the very least it would ensure that if a company is prepared to provide that type of break, then the agency would be in a position to review it to ensure economic stability as well as fairness.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 49 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
June 16, 1987


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 52
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 92 by
(a)	striking out line 4 at page 42 and substituting the following therefor:
"92. (1) The Agency may, on its own motion or in response to a complaint from any person, suspend or"
(b)	striking out line 14 at page 42 and substituting the following therefor:
"under this Part; or
(c)	has failed to provide adequate service between the specified points.
(2)	In assessing the adequacy of the service pursuant to subsection 92.(1 )(c), the Agency shall give primary weight to the views of the affected communities.
(3)	Where the Agency cancels the scheduled international licence of any person pursuant to subsection 92.(1), the Agency shall immediately invite persons to make application to serve the route pursuant to section 88."
He said: Madam Speaker, the intent of this motion is to strengthen the reasons by which an international schedule licence may be suspended. The motion would add consultation with communities as a primary weighing factor. This amendment, Madam Speaker, I submit, would make Clause 92 more meaningful as it would make available the power to deal with international airlines or international schedule licences, be they charter or otherwise. The record of some of these carriers is not always what it should be. I need mention only Arrow Airlines as proof of that.
It is my hope that the Government will give this amendment favourable consideration.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 52, 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.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
National Transportation Act, 1986


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 52A
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 102 by adding immediately after line
30 at page 45 the following:
"(f) respecting appeal procedures regarding decisions made by the Agency;"
He said: Madam Speaker, Motion No. 52A is another "Fred Turner" amendment. While it has nothing to do with the Fred Turner case itself, it does have to do with the ramifications of it.
It is designed, as a previous amendment was and a subsequent will be, to ensure that what happened to Fred Turner does not happen again.
It is a permissive amendment which would allow the agency to establish regulations regarding an appeal process.
The assumption is that with such an option in the legislation, the Government would be too embarrassed to do anything but the right thing.
We think the opportunity for redress and appeal by anyone who feels aggrieved should be in the legislation, and to that end we hope that the Government will accept this amendment.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 52A, 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Mr.   de Corneille@: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) on a point of order.


Mr.   de Corneille@: Madam Speaker, I have received, as have other Members of the House, a communication from the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped relating to a proposed subsection 35(5) which would call attention to the problems facing the handicapped. The proposed amendments, in addition to ensuring accessibility for disabled persons, would strengthen the concerns of the handicapped in respect of bus transportation and-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. I must advise the Hon. Member that the proposed amendment is totally out of order at this point. As notice was not given, it is now impossible for the Chair to receive the proposed amendment.


Mr.   de Corneille@: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence.


Mr.   de Corneille@: Madam Speaker, I was requesting the consent of the Chair to seek the unanimous consent of the House to deal with these amendments.


Blaine Allen Thacker: On a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Thacker) on a point of order.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the sentiments reflected in the proposed amendments, given the lateness of their receipt, their having been received only yesterday afternoon, we simply have not been able to run them through the system, including review by Department of Justice lawyers.
I want to assure my colleagues opposite that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) is more than willing to discuss such amendments with his advisory committee, a committee which includes members of the disabled community.
It may be that the aim of the amendments can be achieved through regulation or policy direction, or perhaps an amendment to the statute.
While we are very sympathetic, we are simply unable to give unanimous consent at this late hour to the consideration of this measure.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, given that the proposals of the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped were received only yesterday and are only now undergoing review within the Department of Transport and the Department of Justice, certainly we on this side of the House would be more than willing to give the Government sufficient time to consider these amendments, though certainly they are not new, having been the subject of discussion during committee consideration of Bill C-18.
At the third reading stage, the Parliamentary Secretary could advise the House as to the Government's position with respect to these amendments, and certainly if it is the wish of the Government to have the Bill so amended, we would certainly be disposed to agree.
If it is the wish of the Government to assist the handicapped in this way, it should do so in the legislation itself, and not in the regulations. What the handicapped want is a guarantee of accessibility, and the best guarantee is one provided in the legislation itself.
I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to consider these amendments. If it is the wish of the Government to accommodate, I can assure him that we on this side would be more than willing to give our consent.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I provided the Parliamentary Secretary and other Members of the House with a copy of the requested amendments of the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped. There are three amendments. As I said in committee this morning, if the Government were to agree to move these amendments, or have some member of the Opposition move them, we are prepared to give unanimous consent to their incorporation in the legislation.
I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to run this request for amendment through the bureaucratic mill and the Minister's office. I can assure him that, from our reading of the proposed amendments, they do not do violence to the principles of Bill C-18. We believe the amendments to be in order, though we leave it to the Chair to make the ultimate decision.
It may be that we could commence Private Members' Hour now in order to allow the Government more time to consider the proposed amendments. We are willing to co-operate fully in order to have these amendments incorporated into the legislation.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, it is just not that simple. I appreciate the position of the Opposition. I am sure that if we were over there, we would be doing exactly the same thing.
Opposition Members would like to be able to go out and
have the handicapped rise up and say that the Government is
June 16, 1987

cold, insensitive, and all that. It is a clever political ploy on its part, and I am sure that we would do the same thing.
However, with the greatest of respect, we are unable to give unanimous consent. There are three amendments and they always have ramifications here and there. They must be checked carefully, and we are simply unable to do it at this late hour. We have less than an hour left.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: As there is no unanimous consent, we will proceed to Motion No. 52B.
Hon. Frank Oberle (for the Minister of Transport) moves: Motion No. 52B.
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 102 by striking out line 33 at page 45 and substituting the following therefor:
"rates, charges and terms and conditions of carriage for international service".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Crosbie) agreed to.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 106 by striking out lines 26 to 28 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"may refuse to issue to the individual".
Motion No. 54
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 106 by striking out lines 37 to 39 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"public interest to do so,".


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I should like to explain briefly the intent of Motions Nos. 53 and 54.
Currently in the enforcement section the agency may terminate a licence, and the agency may not issue another licence for up to 12 months. Our amendment would allow the agency to disallow the issuance of a new or additional licence to a carrier or an individual with a poor track record.
The purpose of Motion No. 54 is basically deletes the restrictive 12-month maximum on the issuance of a licence to a company or person who has been seriously in violation of the Act. We would be giving the agency the power to point out the bad actors and to ensure that they are not out there being bad actors.
Perhaps it is similar to the section of the Criminal Code which allows the designation of an individual as a dangerous offender who can never be put back into society. In some ways the amendment would give the agency the power to ensure that the operator of an aircraft or an airline company would not be allowed to operate because of a series of infractions, not just wait for the one event which would probably be too costly in terms of human life.
National Transportation Act, 1986


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 53 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The question on Motion No. 53 applies as well to Motion No. 54.
The next question is on Motion No. 54A.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 54A
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 107 by adding immediately after line 25 at page 48, the following therefor:
"(2) Notwithstanding subsection 107(1), the Agency shall, with the approval of the Governor in Council, by regulation,
(a)	designate any regulation or order made under this Part or any term or condition of a licence issued under this Part (in this section referred to as a "designated provision") concerning the collection of statistical information or the filing of required documents on the ongoing operation of a carrier, as a regulation, order, term or condition the contravention of which shall be dealt with under and in accordance with the procedure set out in sections 6.7 to 7.2 of the Aeronautics Act, and
(b)	prescribe, in respect of the designated provision, the amount not exceeding one thousand dollars that is the maximum amount payable in respect of a contravention of that provision."
He said: Madam Speaker, very briefly, this amendment guarantees that another case such as the one of Mr. Fred Turner would be impossible.
Motion No. 54A allows the offences of not filing paperwork to be dealt with under the Aeronautics Act. It would allow for fines or brief suspensions instead of cancellations of licences.
Under Transport Canada regulations, licence cancellations are only issued for the most serious of offences. The reason the operating authority of Turnair was cancelled was not because the punishment fit the crime. It was because the CTC, as an

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
agency, was not given the authority to fine. Clause 107 of the Bill would give that authority.
Our amendment to Clause 107 would guarantee that these specific clerical contraventions would be punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000. This would better enforce current regulations on filing documents. The penalty would be believable and fair.
Small airlines will want to avoid these fines; a thousand bucks is no small item in their day-to-day operations. Large airlines will not feel exempt from them due to their size.
Would any CTC bureaucrat cancel the licence of Air Canada if it were late filing reports? Who is kidding whom? There is no way; nor would it cancel the licence of Canadian Airlines International if it were late filing reports about how many gallons of gas it used and how many passengers it carried.
This is more meaningful because some airlines have chosen to operate without an operating authority. We received documents this morning concerning an aircraft disaster in Schefferville which killed eight people. That airline was operating without an operating authority, and nobody has cancelled its licence to fly. However, Fred Turner's licence was cancelled because he was late filing reports.
It is also more meaningful because some airlines are doing it now. Although the Government tells me that there will be no compromise on safety, some airlines have chosen to operate without an operating authority. In Mr. Turner's case, he could not continue to operate without an operating authority because the day after his licence was cancelled his aircraft, his hangar, and his equipment were seized. The next thing to happen is that his house will be seized next month. However, other companies continue to operate without an operating authority, and some of them have killed people.
I invite Hon. Members to look at some of the examples before the air traffic committee of the CTC and the Aviation Safety Board, if they do not believe me.
We presented the Government with documentation this morning involving an outfit and eight people who died, and its licence was not cancelled even though it was operating without an operating authority.
This amendment will not let another Fred Turner case happen just because he did not file how many gallons of gas he used. He will not get his licence cancelled in the future, nor will any other operator. They will be fined or subjected to a temporary suspension, but that is all.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I should like to speak in favour of the amendment. I think the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has stated very succinctly and very fairly the reasons I think the amendment deserves the support of Hon. Members on all sides of the House. I appreciate that as soon as some Hon. Members hear the names Fred Turner and Turnair, their auditory systems turn off. However, this is a nation of people, of
individuals. It was built by individuals from all parts of Canada including the North. I submit that people should not turn off as soon as they hear the name of an individual mentioned with respect to an amendment.
This motion has been called the Fred Turner Amendment No. 3, and I support it fully. I think it is one that all small business people, all small airlines and all small entrepreneurs can identify with closely. All people who have concern for the rights of individuals to earn a living and to feed their families could support this amendment.
As I understand it, the motion would deny the CTC or its successor agency, the NTA, the right to take away someone's livelihood for not filing a document saying, as I think was the case with Mr. Turner, how many passengers he had flown in the previous six months, how much fuel he had used and information like that, information which is important only to bureaucrats, and I used to be one. It is not information that is important to men, women and children.
My friend the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out this morning that sums of money had been offered. I believe that $25,000, $30,000 or $40,000 were discussed for damages. If we passed an amendment like this, we would not have to see a man like Fred Turner being away from his family for 12 weeks. He is here in Ottawa while his wife and two children are living in a house that is about to be repossessed by the Royal Bank on August 1. There would not be a tragedy like that before us today. The Parliamentary Secretary would not say that he had discussed sums of $40,000 on a without prejudice basis as the Government is not admitting liability.
When the men and women outside this building hear that the Government has properly offered a sum of money, they do not believe anyone who says that the Government is not admitting liability but will offer $15,000 on an ex gratia basis.
I used to work in the Justice Department and we used to do this constantly. Everyone assumed that when we offered money, it was because we knew that a court would eventually find the Government liable.
As I am sure all Hon. Members are aware, it would probably take a minimum of two to three years for this matter to get through the Federal Court and the Federal Appeal Court. This process has been attempted before. A Quebec aviation company got through to the Federal Court and eventually, as I understood the judgment, the court decided that the company could sue the CTC but it could not collect damages from it. What is the point of allowing someone to sue the CTC if at the end of it all the company cannot get damages?
I believe the amendment of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is a good one. As you may have guessed, Madam Speaker, I support it.
I hope my friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reply. He
indicated this morning that if we had allowed Turnair to
June 16, 1987

operate, there might have been an accident or he made some such connection to the question of safety. To my knowledge, in all of the documents involving this particular airline, there was never a suggestion that safety was in issue. No one has ever suggested that this airline was operating other than safely. I put to one former lawyer as another former lawyer that only when one has no case does one fall back on something like safety, which in this case is not relevant to the facts as I think most people who have looked at the facts would suggest.
To conclude, I would urge Hon. Members to support this amendment on the basis that we all are or should be independent thinkers.


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, there is in Motion 54A a germ of a good idea. It is quite true that the suspension or removal of a licence in reaction to minor infractions is something like using a sledge-hammer to break an egg. If a licence is rescinded or suspended, it very often creates much difficulty for the customers of an airline. They find themselves with no way of flying.
For certain infractions, it might be better if there were provisions for fines which would only affect the operators and not the customers. Therefore, there is in this motion a germ of a good idea, but then the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) went and blew his case. He lost it.
The Hon. Member not only referred to minor statistical information that might be collected by the agency or some successor thereto but he went on to talk about the filing of required documents on the ongoing operation of the carrier. That would include documents relating to insurance. I am sure that even the Hon. Member for Regina West would say that it is absolutely essential that an air carrier be covered by insurance and be able to send documents to the agency demonstrating that it has that insurance coverage. The Hon. Member had a good idea, but unfortunately he went and blew it.
My final comment with respect to this matter is to point out some of the inconsistencies brought forward by members of the NDP. Motion No. 54A is a good idea in general terms. There should be a bit more flexibility and better ways of dealing with things. However, we have just dealt with Motions Nos. 53 and 54 which have entirely the opposite effect. If the agency were to be given the powers the Hon. Member for Regina West wanted to give it in Motion No. 53, then we would have Fred Turner cases around the clock.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, you read it wrong.


Dave Nickerson: We certainly would, Madam Speaker. There we have the inconsistency of members of the NDP. If the Government wants to make it easier, they want to make it more difficult. If the Government wants to make it more difficult, they want to make it easier. There is no middle road for members of the NDP. They are always on one side of the issue or the other side of the issue. They are unable to think
National Transportation Act, 1986
straight. All they do is to oppose everything the Government proposes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This is a compromise, you nut.


Dave Nickerson: At any rate, that was all I wanted to say about this. I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for having some good ideas, but I wish that he had not just destroyed them.


André Ouellet: Very briefly, Madam Speaker, I want to say that I support the proposed amendment and I echo the remarks of the Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). I think he very eloquently explained the reasons which militate in favour of this amendment we should accept.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 54A 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 56.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 112 by striking out lines 8 and 9 at page 53 and substituting the following therefor.
"the rail division of Canadian National Rail; and".


Iain Francis Angus: Madam
Speaker, this motion changes the wording of Clause 112 which
deals with rates by deleting the words "the Canadian rail

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
division of Canadian Pacific Limited" and puts in place instead "the Canadian National Rail", or the rail division thereof.
The entire clause indicates that the company shall compute the costs of capital in all cases by using the costs of capital approved by the agency as appropriate for the railway in question. Our amendment ensures that the publicly owned railway is the model for any cost comparison as opposed to a private sector company over which we have no direct control. It would go a long way toward changing the manner in which the railroads are operated and their costs computed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 56, 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to Motions Nos. 56A, 57 and 57A which have been grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 56A disposes of Motion No. 57. A negative vote on Motion No. 56A necessitates a vote on Motion No. 57. Motion No. 57A will be voted on separately.


André Ouellet: Motion No. 56A.
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 113 by striking out lines 39 to 49 at page 53 and lines 1 to 6 at page 54 and substituting the following therefor:
(5) The Agency shall, on completion of an investigation conducted pursuant to subsection (1), determine whether the rate in respect of which the complaint was made is compensatory and, where the Agency determines that the rate is not compensatory, it shall make an order
disallowing that rate and requiring the company to substitute for that rate a rate that is compensatory."


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 57.
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 113 by striking out lines 47 to 49 at
page 53 and lines 1 to 6 at page 54 and substituting the following therefor:
"rate is not compensatory, shall make an order disallowing that rate."


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport) moved:: Motion No. 57A.
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 113 by striking out line 2 at page 54
and substituting the following therefor:
"ing competition or significantly harming a competi-".


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, under the existing regulatory system, Section 276 of the Railway Act requires that all railway freight rates be compensatory. The purpose of this provision is to protect shippers and competitors of railway companies, whose commercial interests might be harmed by non-competitive activities.
This provision aims at ensuring fair and loyal intermodal competition.
Essentially, Section 276 of the Railway Act aims at giving some protection to companies such as the ACE Inc. Maritime Transport Company which have suffered from unfair competition on the part of the railways. This company provides container maritime transport services between Central Canada and Newfoundland and is thus in direct competition with the Terra Transport Division of the CNR.
In 1979, the Canadian Government gave the CN $77 million to transform its railway car transport system into a container service. As soon as the containers became operational in 1982, the CN launched a rate war by setting substantially lower rates than its variable costs.
Because of this practice, ACE Inc. had to lower its own prices to the level of the non-compensatory rates set by the CN. Despite its efforts, the company lost many contracts and had to serve many of its remaining customers at a loss.
The company filed a complaint against the tariff practices of the CN as soon as its administrators found that they could not avoid losses on their markets. The complaint filed with the Minister of Transport was referred to the Canadian Transport Commission, which was asked to investigate. The Commission finally established that a large number of the CN's tariffs for Newfoundland were lower than its variable costs, contrary to the provisions of Section 276 of the Railway Act.
ACE Inc. will have lost several million dollars because of its inability to charge rates high enough to cover its costs, due to the CN's harmful tariff practices. It now owes its survival to a subsidy from the Canadian Governement, which recognized the unfairness of the CN's practices and tried to preserve a competitive maritime transport service while the Commission was pursuing its investigation.
June 16, 1987

What Clause 113 of Bill C-18 would do is exempt railroads from applying compensatory rates where they establish that the rate is not significantly reducing competition or eliminating a competitor, and was not designed to have that effect.
In all fairness, we can wonder what purpose the Government had in mind when choosing to abolish the protection afforded by Section 276.
Indeed, in the view of many agencies that appeared before the Committee on Transport, both at the time of the examination of the White Paper Freedom to Move, and during the discussion of Bill C-18, the elimination of provisions ruling out unfair practices makes no economic sense.
The Montreal Chamber of Commerce had this to say on the matter:

"There is no economic motivation for non-compensatory rates but to lessen competition. The law should encourage intermodal competition in a fair and even-handed manner. It should not pit the financial resources of one transportation mode against another."

Moreoever, the present wording puts in doubt the implementation of the clause. Clearly, the new agency would have all the difficulty in the world basing a decision on the working criteria of that clause. I am quoting on that the Luscar Company, which also appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport, and I quote:

"Subsection (5) creates an unnecessary and undesirable exception to the requirement that railway freight rates be compensatory. What constitutes a substantial lessening of competition is not only subjective, but is also an onus that may be easily met. For example, elimination of one competitor or one competitive mode with other competitors or modes remaining may not be deemed to be a substantial lessening of competition. Moreover, competition from other sources may be argued to be a sufficient retention of competition to meet the onus of the Section.
Whether or not a freight rate was designed to limit competition is also subjective. Numerous arguments could ensue relating to whether the rate was a legitimate competitive action or an action that was intended to reduce competition. It is instructive that the only successful predatory pricing complaint under the Combines Investigation Act involved the actual giving away of product by one competitor."

On this side of the House, in the Liberal Party, we are urging retention of Section 276 for three major reasons: It contributes to the railways' financial stability, by preventing them from getting into a price war below compensatory rates; It serves as a verification mechanism in case of prohibitive rates. Finally, it prevents railways from entering into unfair
National Transportation Act, 1986
price competition to the detriment of healthy intermodal competition. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that on that matter, even the Committee on Transport, when reviewing the Freedom to Move document, favoured retaining Section 276. Indeed, in its report Freedom to Move-Change, Choice, Challenge, the Committee had this to say:
Both the trucking industry and CP Rail are particularly concerned that CN Rail might be inclined to price its services below cost to a greater extent than its competitors in the absence of Section 276. They believe that CN enjoys special financial advantages as a Crown corporation as a result of which it would be able to undertake predatory pricing practices.
Several witnesses indicated that in the absence of Section 276, the Combines Investigation Act would not provide sufficient protection.
We agree that this Act is not adequate protection against predatory pricing. Indeed the Committee has concluded that the only effective mechanism currently in place to deter predatory pricing on the part of our railways is Section 276. Therefore, Section 276 should be maintained, and not repealed in five years as proposed by Freedom to Move. We see this as the first of a package of safeguards for shippers and competitors of the railways whose commercial interests might be harmed by anti-competitive behavior when confidential contracts are introduced.
The Committee also feels that clause 276 should be strengthened by providing a new legislation with penalties for the levying of non compensatory rates.
In concluding, I find it rather sad to note that on such a fundamental issue, the Tory members of the Standing Committee on Transport altered their opinion to satisfy the whims of the Minister of Transport. When the paper entitled "Freedom to Move" was considered, they agreed to maintain Clause 276. A few months later, when Bill C-18 was examined, those same Tory members who has suggested that Clause 276 should be maintained, ask us to remove it.
This is the reason why we are asking our colleagues to support this motion which responds to the concerns not only of the Montreal Board of Trade, but also those of the Luscar Company, the ACE Company as well as the Saskatchewan Government, the Canadian Pacific, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto and many other witnesses who appeared before the Committee on Transport and asked us to have Clause 276 in the current National Transportation Act maintained in Bill C-18.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to say, on behalf of my Party, that we agree with Motions
Nos. 56A, 57 and 57A. We hope they will all carry.
National Transportation Act, 1986


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this grouping of motions we are unable to accept Motions Nos. 56A and 57. However, Motion No. 57A, which is part of this grouping, is quite acceptable. I think Members will see the logic of the argument and be persuaded by it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McDermid):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McDermid):: I will remind the House that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 56A disposes of Motion No. 57 and that a negative vote on Motion No. 56A necessitates a vote on Motion No. 57. Motion No. 57A will be voted on separately.
Therefore, the question is on Motion No. 56A. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McDermid):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McDermid):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McDermid):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
As Motion No. 57 has been disposed of we will now move to Motion No. 57A.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Until the deferred vote is held you cannot decide whether Motion No. 56A has been agreed to or negatived. Five Members having stood, we have agreed to defer the vote. I believe you must call Motion No. 57 as well as Motion No. 57A.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McDermid):: Motion No. 57 is deferred.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Automatically?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McDermid):: Automatically.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Okay, you talked me into it.
June 16, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McDermid):: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. The question is on Motion No. 57A. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McDermid):: Motions Nos. 58 and 59 have been grouped for debate but will be voted on separately.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 58.
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 115 by striking out lines 14 to 18 at
page 54 and substituting the following therefor:
"115.(1) A railway company shall issue a tariff in respect of the transportation of traffic on any railway operated by the company and, for all tariffs other than confidential contract rates, shall publish the tariff." Motion No. 59.
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 119 by striking out line 45 at page 55
and substituting the following therefor:
"shipper, for goods other than grain covered by the Western Grain
Transportation Act, in lieu of the rates set out in a tariff'.
He said: Madam Speaker, very briefly, Motion No. 58 ensures, with no doubt at all, that railway tariffs shall be published and made public and accessible to the public at all times. It continues a longstanding practice which has always stood customers of railroads and freight traffic managers for many corporations in good stead. It refers, of course, to tariffs other than confidential contracts. This is a compromise of what we tried to do in committee.
Motion No. 59 specifically excludes grain from the possibility of confidential contracts or agreed charges under this Bill. We and our legal advisors are not sure whether this Bill takes priority over the Western Grain Transportation Act. We know that the Government does not intend that grain will be affected by Bill C-18 and it may be tempted to say that this amendment is unnecessary. However, what the Government may intend now will not necessarily apply the day after this Bill is proclaimed.
It was the opinion of a number of witnesses that this amendment is necessary to tighten up the legislation and provide an assurance that the Western Grain Transportation Act cannot be affected by any agreed charges or confidential contracts. On behalf of western grain producers I submit that this reinforces the benefits they have under the Western Grain Transportation Act. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to encourage his colleagues to accept Motions Nos. 58 and 59.


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

June 16, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 58 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 59 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 64:
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 127 by striking out line 47 at page 59
and substituting the following therefor:
"may complain to the Agency that the".
National Transportation Act, 1986


Iain Francis Angus: Madam
Speaker, I hear words of agreement from the other side. For the record, the change is from having the parties complain to the Minister, to having them complain to the Agency.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House will now proceed to the consideration of Motions Nos. 67 to 78 that have been grouped for debate.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 68 disposes of Motion No. 67; a negative vote on Motion No. 68 necessitates a vote on No. 67. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 70 disposes of Motion No. 69; a negative vote on Motion No. 70 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 67. Motions Nos. 71 to 78 inclusive will be voted on separately.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 67:
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 134, by striking out line 11 at page 64 and substituting the following therefor;
"the shipper, by transporting not less than 75 per cent of its total tonnage over a 12-month period ending on the date of the shipper's submission to the Agency for assistance, at the point of origin or destina-".
Motion No. 68:
That Bill C-18, be amended by deleting Clause 134.
Motion No. 69:
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 135 by adding immediately after line 41 at page 65 the following:
"(4) Notwithstanding subsection 135(3), upon application by a shipper, the Agency may allow a competitive line rate for movement of containers on flat cars if the Agency is satisfied that:
(a)	the container is owned by the shipper or reserved for the exclusive use of the shipper by lease and,
(b)	the container is only utilized by the shipper for the movement of the shipper's goods, and
(c)	the shipper has no reasonable alternative to rail transport for the movement which the competitive line rate would apply".
Motion No. 70:
That Bill C-18, be amended by deleting Clause 135.
Motion No. 71:
That Bill C-18, be amended by deleting Clause 136.
Motion No. 72:
That Bill C-18, be amended by deleting Clause 137.
Motion No. 73:
That Bill C-18, be amended by deleting Clause 138.
Motion No. 74:
That Bill C-18, be amended by deleting Clause 139.

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Motion No. 75:
That Bill C-18, be amended by deleting Clause 140.
Motion No. 76:
That Bill C-18, be amended by deleting Clause 141.
Motion No. 77:
That Bill C-18, be amended by deleting Clause 142.
Motion No. 78:
That Bill C-18, be amended by adding immediately after line 12 at page 70
the following:
"143. Competitive line rates shall not be established by the Agency with respect to movements that form part of a continuous movement of traffic by rail, where any part of such movement is outside Canada, unless;
(a)	such a movement is on the lines of a Canadian Railroad Company which
are located outside of Canada, or,
(b)	competitive line rate is ordered for such a movement by the Governor in
Council following receipt of a recommendation to introduce such a rate in
the review report under section 266".
He said: Madam Speaker, this is one of the crucial parts of the Bill. Some transportation economists have said that it is a licence to raid railway revenues, namely competitive line rates. We urge the Government to accept these amendments.
The first in this group would make certain that a competitive line rate will not be established for a shipper who does not ship a substantial amount of goods by the route in question. In other words, 75 per cent of their 12-month tonnage must go by the route in question.
Motion No. 68 is the crux of the matter. We want the whole competitive line rate section of the Bill deleted.
Failing that, we urge adoption of Motion No. 69. Let me say that trailers and containers on flat cars are not eligible for competitive line rates primarily because the mere presence of the goods in such a container would prove that the goods were not captive and could be transported by truck. This amendment addresses the reality that some goods are captive due to extreme financial costs of other modes when leaving the shipper, but may be delivered by a different mode.
Self-owned containers are the only answer. This amendment would protect truckers from anyone using this section to get the edge on them in the trucking industry. For example, Prairie Malt says that it must ship by rail from their door, but many customers must receive by truck. The conflict in that clause of the Bill passes all understanding. I hope the Government will agree to accept these amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It being 5.54 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, June 15, 1987, the four hours allotted for further consideration of the report stage of the Bill now before the House have expired.
Accordingly, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the Bill.
The first question is on Motion No. 68 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 70 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 67 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed
please say nay.
June 16, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In order to assist the House, I think you might find unanimous consent to call for the yeas and nays on Motions Nos. 70 to 78 inclusive rather than calling each one separately, if that suits the Chair and my colleagues.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motions Nos. 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 and 78.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, to facilitate the business, I wonder if we could make the same assumption for all the motions standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin)?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Except if there are one or two the Government wants to accept.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The Government is inclined to accept the Hon. Member's Motion No. 87.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We can do Motion No. 87 separately.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think it will be easier for everyone if we proceed with Motion No. 71 through to Motion No. 78 and then look after the other motions.
The question is on Motion No. 71 to Motion No. 78.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
National Transportation Act, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded divisions on the proposed motions stand deferred.
Hon. Tom Hockin (for the Minister of Transport) moves:
Motion No. 78A
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 145 in the French version by striking out lines 27 to 46 at page 72 and substituting the following therefor:

"(5) Si une compagnie de chemin de fer fournit des installations de transport par rail de vehicules automobiles ou de remorques exploites pour le transport de marchandises a titre onereux par une compagnie dont elle a le controle, la compagnie de chemin de fer doit offrir a toutes les compagnies qui exploitent des vehicules automobiles ou des remorques pour le transport de marchandises a titre onereux des installations semblables a cel les qu'elle fournit pour les vehicules automobiles ou remorques exploites par la compagnie dont elle a le controle aux memes prix et aux memes conditions; iOffice peut rejeter tout prix ou tar if qui n'est pas conforme au present paragraphe et ordonner a la compagnie de chemin de fer d'y substituer un prix ou tarif conforme au present paragraphe."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 79
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 150 by striking out lines 6 and 7 at page 77 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canadian railway company are intersected or crossed by those of another Canadian railway company, or on application for leave".
Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, you may find an inclination in the House to apply this vote to Motion No. 79 to Motion No. 83 inclusive.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is that agreeable to all Members?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 80
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 152 by striking out lines 24 and 25 at page 79 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canadian railway company connects with a line of railway of another Canadian railway company, the".
Motion No. 81
That Bill C-18, be amended by deleting Clause 152.
Motion No. 83
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 158 by adding immediately after line 11 at page 84 the following:
"(2) Any rail line conveyed to another company subject to subsection (1) shall remain within the jurisdiction of the federal government."


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

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded divisions on the proposed motions stand deferred.
The Chair feels that the House should be told that Motions Nos. 80 and 81 have been grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 81 disposes of Motion No. 80. A negative vote necessitates a vote on Motion No. 80. That is for further reference.
Hon. Tom Hockin (for the Minister of Transport) moves: Motion No. 83A
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 158 in the French version by striking out lines 18 and 19 at page 84 and substituting the following therefor:

"voie de cour de triage, une voie d'evitement ou un epi qui n'est pas un embranchement ou une autre voie auxiliaire d'une",


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 83B
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 158 by adding immediately after line 44 at page 85 the following:
"(7) The railway company which has conveyed the line shall, for the purpose of sections 134 to to 142 inclusive, be deemed to be local carrier for any shipper located along the line."
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Hon. Tom Hockin (for the Minister of Transport) moves: Motion No. 84
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 174 in the French version by striking out line 1 at page 100 and substituting the following therefor:

"(4) L'arrete prevu par le paragraphe (3)."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[ Translation]
André Ouellet: Motion No. 84A
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 175 by striking out lines 29 to 39 at page 102 and lines 27 to 36 at page 103.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
June 16, 1987


André Ouellet: Motion No. 84B
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 175 by striking out line 46 at page 102 and substituting the following therefor:
"entered into under subsection (1) and work on the upgrading of the alternative facilities has been substantially completed, order that".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

Hon. Tom Hockin (for the Minister of Transport) moves: Motion No. 85A
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 212 by striking out lines 21 and 22 at page 120 and substituting the following therefor:
"level of resupply service provided to communities situated along the waters to which this Part applies."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, May I suggest Motions Nos. 86, 87, 88 and 89 be dealt with as a group?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, we have looked at it very carefully. We are unable to accept Motions Nos. 86 and 88. However, we can accept Motion No. 87.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 86
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 253 by striking out lines 6 to 10 at page 134 and substituting the following therefor:
"revenue from sales in or from Canada."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
National Transportation Act, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 87
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 253 by adding immediately after line 10 at page 134 the following:
"(2) Notwithstanding subsection 251(2) or 252(1), where a proposed acquisition of an interest, or of an increased interest in a transportation undertaking is by or through the acquisition of assets of a transportation undertaking, subsection 252(1) applies only if after the proposed acquisition, all or substantially all of the assets would be held or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the person proposing to make the acquisition or by any other persons associated with that person."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 88
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 253 by striking out lines 3 to 6 at page 135.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 89
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 255 by striking out line 31 at page 135 and substituting the following therefor:
against the public interest, including the interest of employee groups directly affected, may, in writing".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


André Ouellet: Motion No. 89A
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 256 by striking out lines 34 to 40 at page 135 and substituting the following therefor:
"256. (1) Whether or not an objection to a proposed acquisition is received by the Agency, the Agency shall:
(a) inform the Minister and the person who sent the notice referred to in subsection 252(1) in respect on the proposed acquisition of the receipt thereof; and".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 90
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 257 by adding immediately after line 18 at page 136 the following:
"(2) The Agency shall, in conducting a review under section 256, have regard to all considerations that appear to it to be relevant to the matter, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, such as the following factors which pertain to the proposed acquisition:
(a)	employee displacement;
(b)	collective agreements and the possible transfer of those arrangements; and
(c)	employee benefit plans and pensions."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 91
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 266 by striking out line 18 at page 142 and substituting the following therefor:
''to solicit input from all interested parties and to carry out a comprehensive review of the".
June 16, 1987

Motion No. 94
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 267 by striking out line 23 at page 144 and substituting the following therefor:
"Agency shall solicit input from all interested parties and make a review in respect of'.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The vote on Motion No. 91 will apply to Motion No. 94. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moves:
Motion No. 93
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 266 by adding immediately after line 26 at page 143 the following:
"(e) whether the establishment by the Agency of competitive line rates in respect to movements of traffic that form part of a continuous movement by rail, any part of which is outside Canada and not on the lines of a Canadian railroad company, should be introduced;''.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
National Transportation Act, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


André Ouellet: Motion No. 95
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 267 by adding immediately after line 44 at page 144 the following:
"(d) changes in employment levels in the transportation industry and the need for a special labour adjustment plan;".


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


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, it has been a very busy day.
I know that we do not like to negotiate on the floor of the House. However, I was under the impression that with a slight amendment to this clause it would be acceptable to the Government as well as to the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) in whose name this motion stands. The House would be inclined to give agreement to the Hon. Member's motion on the understanding that we would complete Bill C-19 at both stages tonight. I wish to confirm whether or not that is the understanding of the Hon. Member.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I have indicated to the Parliamentary Secretary that, indeed, we on this side of the House would be inclined to dispose of report stage of Bill C-19. In fact, this is something that I confirmed with the Hon. Member's Whip in discussions earlier. I regret if the Hon. Member is under the impression that the agreement dealt with both the report stage and the third reading stage. There has been no time allocation motion moved with respect to Bill C-19. The Parliamentary Secretary must understand that he is getting quite a lot already by having us agree to dispose tonight of report stage of Bill C-19. The Government will get third reading tomorrow or the day after. It will be a short debate at third reading. I know that the Government is anxious to expedite this legislation and the Opposition is co-operating. I do not think the Government should ask too much.
Certainly, these amendments which have been presented in good faith should not be the subject of that type of wheeling and dealing. If the Parliamentary Secretary is willing to accept the amendment then he should accept it and we will do our best in relation to debate.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, subject to the condition that it will be a short debate as indicated by the Hon. Member, I must add the proviso that I spent some years in opposition when his Party would not accept even one amendment which we proposed. I really think we are going a long way and have been very generous indeed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I simply want to confirm that
there have been considerable negotiations throughout the day.
With respect to the point made by my friend, the Hon.

June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), the understanding is, indeed, that we will complete Bill C-19 at report stage today and tomorrow, assuming that all progresses according to plan, we will complete third reading stage.
Again, to make my point in response to my friend the Parliamentary Secretary, considering the extent of this Bill and the incredible comprehensive changes that will result from its passage, the fact that it has been dealt with in a matter of hours is quite extraordinary.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, with respect to Motion No. 95, if the Hon. Member were to seek the unanimous consent of the House to delete the words "-and the need for a special labour adjustment plan" the Government would be amenable to agree to the motion.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, it is with a breaking heart that I will seek the unanimous consent of the House to delete the words "-and the need for a special labour adjustment plan". I appreciate that the Government is ready to accept the first part of the amendment. I cannot win all the wars in one battle. I will accept winning a small battle today and prepare for the next battle on another occasion. I therefore move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "and the need for a special
labour adjustment plan".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, since this is a motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), I would like to point out that I think he has just allowed his motion to be gutted. However, if he is willing to accept the change suggested by the Government then we are prepared to agree.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 95 (Mr. Ouellet), as amended, agreed to.


Thomas Hockin: Motion No. 98
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 269 by striking out line 37 at page
147 and substituting the following therefor:
"purposes of the administration of this Act or the Statistics Act;"


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.


André Ouellet: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, during committee consideration of Bill C-18, the Government introduced an amendment to what was then Clause 273 of the Bill but which is now Clause 272. That amendment was portrayed as a technical amendment and one required to facilitate the transfer of the Canadian Transport Commission to the new agency, the National Transportation Agency. We have since become aware that the amendment in question is more than technical in nature.
I have raised this matter with the Parliamentary Secretary, who in turn has discussed with the Government the implications of the amendment. With unanimous consent, I understand the Parliamentary Secretary is willing to move an amendment that will go a long way toward clarifying the situation.
In the interest of a smooth transfer of the functions of the Canadian Transport Commission to the National Transportation Agency, we are prepared to provide the necessary unanimous consent.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, at the outset, let me thank the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) for having raised this question. We are prepared to accept an amendment that would add a Subclause (11) to Clause 272 of the Bill. I believe you have a copy of the proposed amendment, Madam Speaker. If you would put the amendment to the House, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the Parliamentary Secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Blaine Allen Thacker: That Clause 272 of Bill C-18 be amended by striking out lines 7 to 9 on page
151 and substituting the following:
"this Act.
(11) Notwithstanding subsection 10, the Governor in Council may, by order, authorize or provide relief of a form described in that subsection".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation.
Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:
June 16, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The first question is on Motion No. 3. Mr. Benjamin moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 15 to 18 at page 2.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there have been extensive discussions and a great deal of cooperation between the Parties. I think you will find the House in favour of applying the result of the vote on Motion No. 3 to all the other motions with the exception of Motions No. 21 A, 5, 52A and 54A which need separate votes.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm that discussions have taken place and that we on our side are prepared to accept the proposal.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my vote to the following votes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, does that mean I am going to lose the whole damn works?


Mr. Mazankowski:: You are a born loser, Les.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The only reason the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is going to lose all these votes is because his 19th anniversary is coming up shortly.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is not a retirement announcement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. With the exception of Motions Nos. 21A, 5, 52A and 54A, may I declare all the motions lost?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 15 to 18 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) competition and market forces are, whenever feasible, prime agents in providing viable and effective transportation services, provided that each carrier or mode of transportation establishes and maintains fares, rates and conditions that do not constitute unfair or destructive competitive practices,".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 5.


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.
	Members	
Andre	Cook	GrayBelsher	Corbett	(Bonaventure-lles-de-Bernier	Cossitt	la-Madeleine)Bertrand	Cote	GreenawayBinns	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	GriseBissonnette	Cote	GustafsonBlackburn	(Langelier)	Hamelin(Jonquiere)	Crofton	HamiltonBlais	Crosby	HawkesBlenkarn	(Halifax West)	HicksBlouin	Dantzer	HnatyshynBosley	Darling	HockinBouchard	Daubney	HoltmannBourgault	de Cotret	HornerBoyer	Della Noce	HudonBrightwell	Desjardins	JamesBrisco	Domm	JepsonBrowes	Dorin	JoncasCadieux	Duguay	KemplingCaldwell	Edwards	KilgourCardiff	Fennell	KindyCarney	Ferland	KingChampagne	Fontaine	Ladouceur(Champlain)	Forrestall	LanthierCharest	Fraleigh	LawrenceClark	Fretz	Layton(Brandon-Souris)	Friesen	LesickCochrane	Gass	LewisCollins	Gerin	LopezComeau	Gottselig	
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,".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 9.


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-".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion		
lost. The next question is on Motion No. 12.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 12		
That Bill C-18, be amended by deleting Clause 8.		
The House divided on the motion (Mr		. Benjamin), which
was negatived on	the following division: (Division No. 157)
 YEAS Members	
Allmand	Guilbault	NicholsonAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Angus	Heap	NunziataBaker	Henderson	NystromBenjamin	Hopkins	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Jewett	Parry(Brant)	Kaplan	PennerBoudria	Keeper	PepinCassidy	Killens	Prud'hommede Corneille	Langdon	Riisde Jong	MacLellan	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -51Foster	(Broadview-	Fulton	Greenwood)	Garneau Gauthier	Murphy
NAYS Members	Andre	Blenkarn	CadieuxBelsher	Blouin	CaldwellBernier	Bosley	CardiffBertrand	Bouchard	CarneyBinns	Bourgault	ChampagneBissonnette	Boyer	(Champlain)Blackburn	Brightwell	Charest(Jonquiere)	Brisco	ClarkBlais	Browes	(Brandon-Souris)Cochrane	James	RavisCollins	Jepson	RedwayComeau	Joncas	ReidCook	Kempling	ReimerCorbett	Kilgour	RicardCossitt	Kindy	St. GermainCote	King	St-Julien(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Ladouceur	SchellenbergCote	Lanthier	(Nanaimo-Alberni)(Langelier)	Lawrence	SchellenbergerCrofton	Layton	(Wetaskiwin)Crosby	Lesick	Scott(Halifax West)	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Dantzer	Lopez	ScowenDarling	MacDougall	ShieldsDaubney	(Timiskaming)	Sparrowde Cotret	MacKay	StackhouseDella Noce	Mailly	StewartDesjardins	Malone	SulukDomm	Mantha	TardifDorin	Marin	(Charles bourg)Duguay	Martin	TaylorEdwards	Masse	ThackerFennell	Mazankowski	TowersFerland	McCain	TremblayFontaine	McCrossan	(Quebec-Est)Forrestall	McCuish	TremblayFraleigh	McDermid	(Lotbiniere)Fretz	McDougall	TupperFriesen	(St. Paul's)	ValcourtGass	Mclnnes	Van De WalleGerin	McKenzie	VankoughnetGottselig	McKinnon	VezinaGray	McKnight	Vincent(Bonaventure-iles-de-	Merrithew	Warnerla-Madeleine)	Minaker	WeinerGreenaway	Murta	WenmanGrise	Nickerson	WilsonGustafson	Nowlan	(Swift Current-Hamelin	Oberle	Maple Creek)Hamilton	O'Neil	WilsonHawkes	Oostrom	(Etobicoke Centre)Hicks	Pennock	WinegardHnatyshyn	Peterson	Wise-148Hockin	Pietz	Holtmann	Plamondon	Horner	Plourde	Hudon	Porter


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 14.


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".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 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."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motions Nos. 16 and 17.


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".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motions lost. The next question is on Motion No. 19.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 19
That Bill C-18, be amended in Clause 35 by adding immediately after 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
June 16, 1987

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."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: ]		[ declare the motion
lost. The next question is on Motion No. 21A standing in the		
name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I was talking and I made a mistake when the vote was being taken. I would like to be on record as voting in favour of Motion 21 A, please.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 declare the motion lost.

1 declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 22 standing in the name of the Elon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 27 standing in the name of the Elon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I		declare the motion
lost. The next question is on Motion No. 32 standing in the		
name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).		
The House divided on the motion (Mr		. Benjamin), which
was negatived on	the following division: (Division No. 165)
 YEAS Members	
Allmand	Guilbault	NicholsonAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Angus	Heap	NunziataBaker	Henderson	NystromBenjamin	Hopkins	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Jewett	Parry(Brant)	Kaplan	PennerBoudria	Keeper	PepinCassidy	Killens	Prud'hommede Corneille	Langdon	Riisde Jong	MacLellan	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -51Foster	(Broadview-	Fulton	Greenwood)	Garneau Gauthier	Murphy
NAYS Members	Andre	Brightwell	CookBelsher	Brisco	CorbettBernier	Browes	CossittBertrand	Cadieux	CoteBinns	Caldwell	(Lac-Saint-Jean)Bissonnette	Cardiff	CoteBlackburn	Carney	(Langelier)(Jonquiere)	Champagne	CroftonBlais	(Champlain)	CrosbyBlenkarn	Charest	(Halifax West)Blouin	Clark	DantzerBosley	(Brandon-Souris)	DarlingBouchard	Cochrane	DaubneyBourgault	Collins	de CotretBoyer	Comeau	Della Noce
June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Desjardins	Lewis	St-JulienDomm	Lopez	SchellenbergDorin	MacDougall	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Duguay	(Timiskaming)	SchellenbergerEdwards	MacKay	(Wetaskiwin)Fennell	Mailly	ScottFerland	Malone	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Fontaine	Mantha	ScowenForestall	Marin	ShieldsFraleigh	Martin	SparrowFretz	Masse	StackhouseFriesen	Mazankowski	StewartGass	McCain	SulukGerin	McCrossan	TardifGottselig	McCuish	(Charlesbourg)Gray	McDermid	Taylor(Bonaventure-iles-de-	McDougall	Thackerla-Madeleine)	(St. Paul's)	TowersGreenaway	Mclnnes	TremblayGrise	McKenzie	(Quebec-Est)Gustafson	McKinnon	TremblayHamelin	McKnight	(Lotbiniere)Hamilton	Merrithew	TupperHawkes	Minaker	ValcourtHicks	Murta	Van De WalleHnatyshyn	Nickerson	VankoughnetHockin	Nowlan	VezinaHoltmann	Oberle	VincentHorner	O'Neil	WarnerHudon	Oostrom	WeinerJames	Pennock	WenmanJepson	Peterson	WilsonJoncas	Pietz	(Swift Current-Kempling	Plamondon	Maple Creek)Kilgour	Plourde	WilsonKindy	Porter	(Etobicoke Centre)King	Ravis	WinegardLadouceur	Redway	Wise-148Lanthier	Reid	Lawrence	Reimer	Layton	Ricard	Lesick	St. Germain


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 34 standing in the name of the Elon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 37 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Benjamin), which
was negatived on the following division:
June 16, 1987
Allmand
Althouse
Angus
Baker
Benjamin
Berger
Blackburn
(Brant)
Boudria Cassidy de Corneille de Jong Dingwall Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Finestone
Foster
Fulton
Garneau
Gauthier
Andre
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand
Binns
Bissonnette
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blenkarn
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
Bourgault
Boyer
Brightwell
Brisco
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Carney
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cote
(Langelier)
Crofton
Crosby
(Halifax West) Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Della Noce Desjardins

National Transportation Act, 1986
(Division No. 167)
++YEAS
Members
Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques) Heap Henderson Hopkins Hovdebo Jewett Kaplan Keeper Killens Langdon MacLellan Malepart Manly Marchi McCurdy McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood) Murphy
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nunziata
Nystrom
Orlikow
Ouellet
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rossi
Skelly
Waddell
Young -51
Sparrow
Stackhouse
Stewart

Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tremblay (Lotbiniere) Tupper Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Warner Weiner Wenman
Wilson
(Swift Current- Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-148


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 40 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion Nos. 44 and 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motions lost. The next question is on Motion No. 46 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 49 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion
lost. The next question is on Motion No. 50.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: 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 .		
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Benjamin), which		
was negatived on the following division:		
Allmand	(Division No. 172)
 YEAS Members Guilbault	Nicholson
Althouse	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Angus	Heap	NunziataBaker	Henderson	NystromBenjamin	Hopkins	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Jewett	Parry(Brant)	Kaplan	PennerBoudria	Keeper	PepinCassidy	Killens	Prud'hommede Corneille	Langdon	Riisde Jong	MacLellan	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -51Foster	(Broadview-	Fulton	Greenwood)	Garneau	Murphy	Gauthier	Andre	NAYS Members Blackburn	BourgaultBelsher	(Jonquiere)	BoyerBernier	Blais	BrightwellBertrand	Blenkarn	BriscoBinns	Blouin	BrowesBissonnette	Bosley	CadieuxBouchard	CaldwellCardiff	Hicks	PetersonCarney	Hnatyshyn	PietzChampagne	Hockin	Plamondon(Champlain)	Holtmann	PlourdeCharest	Horner	PorterClark	Hudon	Ravis(Brandon-Souris)	James	RedwayCochrane	Jepson	ReidCollins	Joncas	ReimerComeau	Kempling	RicardCook	Kilgour	St. GermainCorbett	Kindy	St-JulienCossitt	King	SchellenbergCote	Ladouceur	(Nanaimo-Alberni)(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Lanthier	SchellenbergerCote	Lawrence	(Wetaskiwin)(Langelier)	Layton	ScottCrofton	Lesick	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Crosby	Lewis	Scowen(Halifax West)	Lopez	ShieldsDantzer	MacDougall	SparrowDarling	(Timiskaming)	StackhouseDaubney	MacKay	Stewartde Cotret	Mailly	SulukDella Noce	Malone	TardifDesjardins	Mantha	(Charlesbourg)Domm	Marin	TaylorDorin	Martin	ThackerDuguay	Masse	TowersEdwards	Mazankowski	TremblayFennell	McCain	(Quebec-Est)Ferland	McCrossan	TremblayFontaine	McCuish	(Lotbiniere)Forrestall	McDermid	TupperFraleigh	McDougall	ValcourtFretz	(St. Paul's)	Van De WalleFriesen	Mclnnes	VankoughnetGass	McKenzie	VezinaGerin	McKinnon	VincentGottselig	McKnight	WarnerGray	Merrithew	Weiner(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	Minaker	Wenmanla-Madeleine)	Murta	WilsonGreenaway	Nickerson	(Swift Current-Grise	Nowlan	Maple Creek)Gustafson	Oberle	WilsonHamelin	O'Neil	(Etobicoke Centre)Hamilton	Oostrom	WinegardHawkes	Pennock	Wise-148


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion		
lost. The next question is on Motion No. 52 standing in the		
name of the Hon.	Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).	
The House divided on the motion (Mr.		. Benjamin), which
was negatived on the following division: (Division No. 173)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Epp	HovdeboAlthouse	(Thunder Bay-	JewettAngus	Nipigon)	KaplanBaker	Finestone	KeeperBenjamin	Foster	KillensBerger	Fulton	LangdonBlackburn	Garneau	MacLellan(Brant)	Gauthier	MalepartBoudria	Guilbault	ManlyCassidy	(Saint-Jacques)	Marchide Corneille	Heap	McCurdyde Jong	Henderson	Dingwall	Hopkins	
June 16, 1987

McDonald	Nystrom	Riis(Broadview-	Orlikow	RobichaudGreenwood)	Ouellet	RobinsonMurphy	Parry	RossiNicholson	Penner	Skelly(Trinity)	Pepin	WaddellNunziata	Prud'homme	Young -51NAYS	Members	Andre	Gass	OberleBelsher	Gerin	O'NeilBernier	Gottselig	OostromBertrand	Gray	PennockBinns	(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	PetersonBissonnette	la-Madeleine)	PietzBlackburn	Greenaway	Plamondon(Jonquiere)	Grise	PlourdeBlais	Gustafson	PorterBlenkarn	Hamelin	RavisBlouin	Hamilton	RedwayBosley	Hawkes	ReidBouchard	Hicks	ReimerBourgault	Hnatyshyn	RicardBoyer	Hockin	St. GermainBrightwell	Holtmann	St-JulienBrisco	Horner	SchellenbergBrowes	Hudon	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Cadieux	James	SchellenbergerCaldwell	Jepson	(Wetaskiwin)Cardiff	Joncas	ScottCarney	Kempling	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Champagne	Kilgour	Scowen(Champlain)	Kindy	ShieldsCharest	King	SparrowClark	Ladouceur	Stackhouse(Brandon-Souris)	Lanthier	StewartCochrane	Lawrence	SulukCollins	Layton	TardifComeau	Lesick	(Charles bourg)Cook	Lewis	TaylorCorbett	Lopez	ThackerCossitt	MacDougall	TowersCote	(Timiskaming)	Tremblay(Lac-Saint-Jean)	MacKay	(Quebec-Est)Cote	Mailly	Tremblay(Langelier)	Malone	(Lotbiniere)Crofton	Mantha	TupperCrosby	Marin	Valcourt(Halifax West)	Martin	Van De WalleDantzer	Masse	VankoughnetDarling	Mazankowski	VezinaDaubney	McCain	Vincentde Cotret	McCrossan	WarnerDella Noce	McCuish	WeinerDesjardins	McDermid	WenmanDomm	McDougall	WilsonDorin	(St. Paul's)	(Swift Current-Duguay	Mclnnes	Maple Creek)Edwards	McKenzie	WilsonFennell	McKinnon	(Etobicoke Centre)Ferland	McKnight	WinegardFontaine	Merrithew	Wise-148Forrestall	Minaker	Fraleigh	Murta	Fretz	Nickerson	Friesen	Nowlan


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 52A standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Benjamin), which
was negatived on the following division:
National Transportation Act, 1986
(Division No. 174)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Gauthier	NicholsonAlthouse	Guilbault	(Trinity)Angus	(Saint-Jacques)	NunziataBaker	Heap	NystromBenjamin	Henderson	OrlikowBerger	Hopkins	OuelletBlackburn	Hovdebo	Parry(Brant)	Jewett	PennerBoudria	Kaplan	PepinCassidy	Keeper	Prud'hommede Corneille	Killens	Riisde Jong	Langdon	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -50Foster	(Broadview-	Fulton	Greenwood)	Garneau	Murphy	NAYS	Members	Andre	Dorin	MaillyBelsher	Duguay	MaloneBernier	Edwards	ManthaBertrand	Fennell	MarinBinns	Ferland	MartinBissonnette	Fontaine	MasseBlackburn	Forrestall	Mazankowski(Jonquiere)	Fraleigh	McCainBlais	Fretz	McCrossanBlenkarn	Friesen	McCuishBlouin	Gass	McDermidBosley	Gerin	McDougallBouchard	Gottselig	(St. Paul's)Bourgault	Gray	MclnnesBoyer	(Bonaventure-lles-de-	McKenzieBrightwell	la-Madeleine)	McKinnonBrisco	Greenaway	McKnightBrowes	Grise	MerrithewCadieux	Gustafson	MinakerCaldwell	Hamelin	MurtaCardiff	Hamilton	NickersonCarney	Hawkes	NowlanChampagne	Hicks	Oberle(Champlain)	Hnatyshyn	O'NeilCharest	Hockin	OostromClark	Holtmann	Pennock(Brandon-Souris)	Horner	PetersonCochrane	Hudon	PietzCollins	James	PlamondonComeau	Jepson	PlourdeCook	Joncas	PorterCorbett	Kelleher	RavisCossitt	Kempling	RedwayCote	Kilgour	Reid(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Kindy	ReimerCote	King	Ricard(Langelier)	Ladouceur	St. GermainCrofton	Lanthier	St-JulienCrosby	Lawrence	Schellenberg(Halifax West)	Layton	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Dantzer	Lesick	SchellenbergerDarling	Lewis	(Wetaskiwin)Daubney	Lopez	Scottde Cotret	MacDougall	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Della Noce	(Timiskaming)	ScowenDesjardins Domm	MacKay	Shields
June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Sparrow	Tremblay	WilsonStackhouse	(Lotbiniere)	(Swift Current-Stewart	Tupper	Maple Creek)Tardif	Valcourt	Wilson(Charlesbourg)	Van De Walle	(Etobicoke Centre)Taylor	Vankoughnet	WinegardThacker	Vezina	Wise-148Towers	Vincent	Tremblay	Warner	(Quebec-Est)	Weiner	Wenman


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion			
lost. The next question is on Motions Nos. 53 and 54 standing			
in the name	of the Hon. Member	for	Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).	The Elouse	divided on Motions	Nos.	53 and 54 (Mr. Benjamin), which were negatived on the following division:	{Division No. 175)	YEAS	Members	Allmand	Guilbault	NicholsonAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Angus	Heap	NunziataBaker	Henderson	NystromBenjamin	Hopkins	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Jewett	Parry(Brant)	Kaplan	PennerBoudria	Keeper	PepinCassidy	Killens	Prud'hommede Corneille	Langdon	Riisde Jong	MacLellan	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -51Foster	(Broadview-	Fulton	Greenwood)	Garneau	Murphy	Gauthier	NAYS	Members	Andre	Champagne	DesjardinsBelsher	(Champlain)	DommBernier	Charest	DorinBertrand	Clark	DuguayBinns	(Brandon-Souris)	EdwardsBissonnette	Cochrane	FennellBlackburn	Collins	Ferland(Jonquiere)	Comeau	FontaineBlais	Cook	ForrestallBlenkarn	Corbett	FraleighBlouin	Cossitt	FretzBosley	Cote	FriesenBouchard	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	GassBourgault	Cote	GerinBoyer	(Langelier)	GottseligBrightwell	Crofton	GrayBrisco	Crosby	(Bonaventure-iles-de-Browes	(Halifax West)	la-Madeleine)Cadieux	Dantzer	GreenawayCaldwell	Darling	GriseCardiff	Daubney	GustafsonCarney	de Cotret	HamelinDella Noce	HamiltonHawkes	McCuish	ScottHicks	McDermid	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Hnatyshyn	McDougall	ScowenHockin	(St. Paul's)	ShieldsHoltmann	Mclnnes	SparrowHorner	McKenzie	StackhouseHudon	McKinnon	StewartJames	McKnight	SulukJepson	Merrithew	TardifJoncas	Minaker	(Charlesbourg)Kempling	Murta	TaylorKilgour	Nickerson	ThackerKindy	Nowlan	TowersKing	Oberle	TremblayLadouceur	O'Neil	(Quebec-Est)Lanthier	Oostrom	TremblayLawrence	Pennock	(Lotbiniere)Layton	Peterson	TupperLesick	Pietz	ValcourtLewis	Plamondon	Van De WalleLopez	Plourde	VankoughnetMacDougall	Porter	Vezina(Timiskaming)	Ravis	VincentMacKay	Redway	WarnerMailly	Reid	WeinerMalone	Reimer	WenmanMantha	Ricard	WilsonMarin	St. Germain	(Swift Current-Martin	St-Julien	Maple Creek)Masse	Schellenberg	WilsonMazankowski	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	(Etobicoke Centre)McCain	Schellenberger	WinegardMcCrossan	(Wetaskiwin)	Wise-148


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motions		
lost. The next question is on Motion No. 54A standing in the		
name of the Hon.	Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).	
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Benjamin), which		
was negatived on	the following division: {Division No. 176)
 YEAS Members	
Allmand	Guilbault	NicholsonAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Angus	Heap	NunziataBaker	Henderson	NystromBenjamin	Hopkins	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Jewett	Parry(Brant)	Kaplan	PennerBoudria	Keeper	PepinCassidy	Kilgour	Prud'hommede Corneille	Killens	Riisde Jong	Langdon	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -51Foster	(Broadview-	Fulton	Greenwood)	Garneau Gauthier	Murphy
NAYS Members	Andre	Bernier	BinnsBelsher	Bertrand	Bissonnette
June 16, 1987

National Transportation Act,
Blackburn	Gray	O'Neil	Epp	Kaplan(Jonquiere)	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	Oostrom	(Thunder Bay-	KeeperBlais	la-Madeleine)	Pennock	Nipigon)	KillensBlenkarn	Greenaway	Peterson	Finestone	LangdonBlouin	Grise	Pietz	Foster	MacLellanBosley	Gustafson	Plamondon	Fulton	MalepartBouchard	Hamelin	Plourde	Garneau	ManlyBourgault	Hamilton	Porter	Gauthier	MarchiBoyer	Hawkes	Ravis	Guilbault	McCurdyBrightwell	Hicks	Redway	(Saint-Jacques)	McDonaldBrisco	Hnatyshyn	Reid	Heap	(Broadvie1Browes	Hockin	Reimer	Henderson	Green wooCadieux	Holtmann	Ricard	Hopkins	MurphyCaldwell	Horner	St. Germain	Hovdebo	NicholsonCardiff	Hudon	St-Julien	Jewett	(Trinity)Carney	James	Schellenberg	Champagne	Jepson	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	
(Champlain)
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cochrane Collins Cornea u Cook Corbett Cossitt Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cote
(Langelier)
Crofton
Crosby
(Halifax West) Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Della Noce Desjardins Domm Dorin Duguay Edwards Fennell Ferland Fontaine Forrestall Fraleigh Fretz Friesen Gass Gerin Gottselig
Joncas
Kelleher
Kempling
Kindy
King
Ladouceur
Lanthier
Lawrence
Layton
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
MacKay
Mailly
Malone
Mantha
Marin
Martin
Masse
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McCuish McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) Mclnnes McKenzie McKinnon McKnight Merrithew Minaker Murta Nickerson Nowlan Oberle
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Sparrow Stackhouse Stewart Tardif
(Charles bourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tremblay
(Lotbiniere)
Tupper
Valcourt
Van De Walle
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
Wenman
Wilson
(Swift Current-
Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-147


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 56 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 56A standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 declare the motion
lost. The next question is on Motion No. 57 standing in the		
name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).		
The House divided on the motion (M		r. Benjamin), which
was negatived on the	following division: (Division No. 179)
 YEAS Members	
Allmand	Guilbault	NicholsonAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Angus	Heap	NunziataBaker	Henderson	NystromBenjamin	Hopkins	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Jewett	Parry(Brant)	Kaplan	PennerBoudria	Keeper	PepinCassidy	Killens	Prud'hommede Corneille	Langdon	Riisde Jong	MacLellan	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -51Foster	(Broadview-	Fulton	Greenwood)	Garneau Gauthier	Murphy
NAYS Members	Andre	Brightwell	CookBelsher	Brisco	CorbettBernier	Browes	CossittBertrand	Cadieux	CoteBinns	Caldwell	(Lac-Saint-Jean)Bissonnette	Cardiff	CoteBlackburn	Carney	(Langelier)(Jonquiere)	Champagne	CroftonBlais	(Champlain)	CrosbyBlenkarn	Charest	(Halifax West)Blouin	Clark	DantzerBosley	(Brandon-Souris)	DarlingBouchard	Cochrane	DaubneyBourgault	Collins	de CotretBoyer	Comeau	Della Noce
June 16, 1987

Desjardins	Lewis	St-JulienDomm	Lopez	SchellenbergDorin	MacDougall	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Duguay	(Timiskaming)	SchellenbergerEdwards	MacKay	(Wetaskiwin)Fennell	Mailly	ScottFerland	Malone	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Fontaine	Mantha	ScowenForrestall	Marin	ShieldsFraleigh	Martin	SparrowFretz	Masse	StackhouseFriesen	Mazankowski	StewartGass	McCain	SulukGerin	McCrossan	TardifGottselig	McCuish	(Charlesbourg)Gray	McDermid	Taylor(Bonaventure-iles-de-	McDougall	Thackerla-Madeleine)	(St. Paul's)	TowersGreenaway	Mclnnes	TremblayGrise	McKenzie	(Quebec-Est)Gustafson	McKinnon	TremblayHamelin	McKnight	(Lotbiniere)Hamilton	Merrithew	TupperHawkes	Minaker	ValcourtHicks	Murta	Van De WalleHnatyshyn	Nickerson	VankoughnetHockin	Nowlan	VezinaHoltmann	Oberle	VincentHorner	O'Neil	WarnerHudon	Oostrom	WeinerJames	Pennock	WenmanJepson	Peterson	WilsonJoncas	Pietz	(Swift Current-Kempling	Plamondon	Maple Creek)Kilgour	Plourde	WilsonKindy	Porter	(Etobicoke Centre)King	Ravis	WinegardLadouceur	Redway	Wise-148Lanthier	Reid	Lawrence	Reimer	Layton	Ricard	Lesick	St. Germain


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 58 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 59 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Benjamin), which
was negatived on the following division:

June 16, 1987
	National Transportation Act, (Division No. 181)
 YEAS Members	1986
Allmand	Guilbault	NicholsonAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Angus	Heap	NunziataBaker	Henderson	NystromBenjamin	Hopkins	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Jewett	Parry(Brant)	Kaplan	PennerBoudria	Keeper	PepinCassidy	Killens	Prud'hommede Corneille	Langdon	Riisde Jong	MacLellan	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -51Foster	(Broadview-	
Fulton
Garneau
Gauthier
Greenwood)
Murphy
++NAYS
Members
Andre	Domm	MaillyBelsher	Dorin	MaloneBernier	Duguay	ManthaBertrand	Edwards	MarinBinns	Fennell	MartinBissonnette	Ferland	MasseBlackburn	Fontaine	Mazankowski(Jonquiere)	Forrestall	McCainBlais	Fraleigh	McCrossanBlenkarn	Fretz	McCuishBlouin	Friesen	McDermidBosley	Gass	McDougallBouchard	Gerin	(St. Paul's)Bourgault	Gottselig	MclnnesBoyer	Gray	McKenzieBrightwell	(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	McKinnonBrisco	la-Madeleine)	McKnightBrowes	Greenaway	MerrithewCadieux	Grise	MinakerCaldwell	Gustafson	MurtaCardiff	Hamelin	NickersonCarney	Hamilton	NowlanChampagne	Hawkes	Oberle(Champlain)	Hicks	O'NeilCharest	Hnatyshyn	OostromClark	Hockin	Pennock(Brandon-Souris)	Holtmann	PetersonCochrane	Horner	PietzCollins	Hudon	PlamondonComeau	James	PlourdeCook	Jepson	PorterCorbett	Joncas	RavisCossitt	Kempling	RedwayCote	Kilgour	Reid(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Kindy	ReimerCote	King	Ricard(Langelier)	Ladouceur	St. GermainCrofton	Lanthier	St-JulienCrosby	Lawrence	Schellenberg(Halifax West)	Layton	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Dantzer	Lesick	SchellenbergerDarling	Lewis	(Wetaskiwin)Daubney	Lopez	Scottde Cotret	MacDougall	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Della Noce	(Timiskaming)	ScowenDesjardins	MacKay	Shields
Sparrow
Stackhouse
Stewart

Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tremblay (Lotbiniere) Tupper Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Warner Weiner Wenman
Wilson
(Swift Current- Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-148


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 63 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion		
lost. The next question is on Motion No. 60 standing in the		
name of the Hon.	Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).	
The House divided on the motion (Mr.		Ouellet), which was
negatived on the following division:		
	(Division No. 183)	
	YEAS	
	Members	
Allmand	Guilbault	NicholsonAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Angus	Heap	NunziataBaker	Henderson	NystromBenjamin	Hopkins	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Jewett	Parry(Brant)	Kaplan	PennerBoudria	Keeper	PepinCassidy	Killens	Prud'hommede Corneille	Langdon	Riisde Jong	MacLellan	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -51Foster	(Broadview-	Fulton	Greenwood)	Garneau	Murphy	Gauthier	NAYS	Members	Andre	Bernier	BinnsBelsher	Bertrand	Bissonnette
National Transportation Act, 1986
Blackburn	Gray	O'Neil(Jonquiere)	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	OostromBlais	la-Madeleine)	PennockBlenkarn	Greenaway	PetersonBlouin	Grise	PietzBosley	Gustafson	PlamondonBouchard	Hamelin	PlourdeBourgault	Hamilton	PorterBoyer	Hawkes	RavisBrightwell	Hicks	RedwayBrisco	Hnatyshyn	ReidBrowes	Hockin	ReimerCadieux	Holtmann	RicardCaldwell	Horner	St. GermainCardiff	Hudon	St-JulienCarney	James	SchellenbergChampagne	Jepson	(Nanaimo-Alberni)(Champlain)	Joncas	SchellenbergerCharest	Kempling	(Wetaskiwin)Clark	Kilgour	Scott(Brandon-Souris)	Kindy	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Cochrane	King	ScowenCollins	Ladouceur	ShieldsComeau	Lanthier	SparrowCook	Lawrence	StackhouseCorbett	Layton	StewartCossitt	Lesick	SulukCote	Lewis	Tardif(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Lopez	(Charlesbourg)Cote	MacDougall	Taylor(Langelier)	(Timiskaming)	ThackerCrofton	MacKay	TowersCrosby	Mailly	Tremblay(Halifax West)	Malone	(Quebec-Est)Dantzer	Mantha	TremblayDarling	Marin	(Lotbiniere)Daubney	Martin	T upperde Cotret	Masse	ValcourtDella Noce	Mazankowski	Van De WalleDesjardins	McCain	VankoughnetDomm	McCrossan	VezinaDorin	McCuish	VincentDuguay	McDermid	WarnerEdwards	McDougall	WeinerFennell	(St. Paul's)	WenmanFerland	Mclnnes	WilsonFontaine	McKenzie	(Swift Current-Forrestall	McKinnon	Maple Creek)Fraleigh	McKnight	WilsonFretz	Merrithew	(Etobicoke Centre)Friesen	Minaker	WinegardGass	Murta	Wise-148Gerin	Nickerson	Gottselig	Nowlan Oberle


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I		declare the motion
lost. The next question is on Motion No. 61 standing in the		
name of the Hon.	Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).	
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Benjamin), which		
was negatived on the following division: (Division No. 184)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Blackburn	EppAlthouse	(Brant)	(Thunder Bay-Angus	Boudria	Nipigon)Baker	Cassidy	FinestoneBenjamin	de Corneille	FosterBerger	de Jong	FultonDingwall	Garneau
June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Gauthier	Manly	PennerGuilbault	Marchi	Pepin(Saint-Jacques)	McCurdy	Prud'hommeHeap	McDonald	RiisHenderson	(Broadview-	RobichaudHopkins	Greenwood)	RobinsonHovdebo	Murphy	RossiJewett	Nicholson	SkellyKaplan	(Trinity)	WaddellKeeper	Nunziata	Young -51Killens	Nystrom	Langdon	Orlikow	MacLellan	Ouellet	Malepart	Parry	NAYS	Members	Andre	Gass	OberleBelsher	Gerin	O'NeilBernier	Gottselig	OostromBertrand	Gray	PennockBinns	(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	PetersonBissonnette	la-Madeleine)	PietzBlackburn	Greenaway	Plamondon(Jonquiere)	Grise	PlourdeBlais	Gustafson	PorterBlenkarn	Hamelin	RavisBlouin	Hamilton	RedwayBosley	Hawkes	ReidBouchard	Hicks	ReimerBourgault	Hnatyshyn	RicardBoyer	Hockin	St. GermainBrightwell	Holtmann	St-JulienBrisco	Horner	SchellenbergBrowes	Hudon	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Cadieux	James	SchellenbergerCaldwell	Jepson	(Wetaskiwin)Cardiff	Joncas	ScottCarney	Kempling	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Champagne	Kilgour	Scowen(Champlain)	Kindy	ShieldsCharest	King	SparrowClark	Ladouceur	Stackhouse(Brandon-Souris)	Lanthier	StewartCochrane	Lawrence	SulukCollins	Layton	TardifComeau	Lesick	(Charlesbourg)Cook	Lewis	TaylorCorbett	Lopez	ThackerCossitt	MacDougall	TowersCote	(Timiskaming)	Tremblay(Lac-Saint-Jean)	MacKay	(Quebec-Est)Cote	Mailly	Tremblay(Langelier)	Malone	(Lotbiniere)Crofton	Mantha	TupperCrosby	Marin	Valcourt(Halifax West)	Martin	Van De WalleDantzer	Masse	VankoughnetDarling	Mazankowski	VezinaDaubney	McCain	Vincentde Cotret	McCrossan	WarnerDella Noce	McCuish	WeinerDesjardins	McDermid	WenmanDomm	McDougall	WilsonDorin	(St. Paul's)	(Swift Current-Duguay	Mclnnes	Maple Creek)Edwards	McKenzie	WilsonFennell	McKinnon	(Etobicoke Centre)Ferland	McKnight	WinegardFontaine	Merrithew	Wise-148Forrestall	Minaker	Fraleigh	Murta	Fretz	Nickerson	Friesen	Nowlan


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 62 standing in the name of the Eton. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 67 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion
lost. The next question is on Motion No. 68 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 69 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Benjamin), which
was negatived on the following division:
Allmand	Guilbault	NicholsonAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Angus	Heap	NunziataBaker	Henderson	NystromBenjamin	Hopkins	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Jewett	Parry(Brant)	Kaplan	PennerBoudria	Keeper	PepinCassidy	Killens	Prud'hommede Corneille	Langdon	Riisde Jong	MacLellan	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -51Foster	(Broadview-	Fulton	Greenwood)	Garneau Gauthier	Murphy
NAYS Members	Andre	Domm	MaillyBelsher	Dorin	MaloneBernier	Duguay	ManthaBertrand	Edwards	MarinBinns	Fennell	MartinBissonnette	Ferland	MasseBlackburn	Fontaine	Mazankowski(Jonquiere)	Forrestall	McCainBlais	Fraleigh	McCrossanBlenkarn	Fretz	McCuishBlouin	Friesen	McDermidBosley	Gass	McDougallBouchard	Gerin	(St. Paul's)Bourgault	Gottselig	MclnnesBoyer	Gray	McKenzieBrightwell	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	McKinnonBrisco	la-Madeleine)	McKnightBrowes	Greenaway	MerrithewCadieux	Grise	MinakerCaldwell	Gustafson	MurtaCardiff	Hamelin	NickersonCarney	Hamilton	NowlanChampagne	Hawkes	Oberle(Champlain)	Hicks	O'NeilCharest	Hnatyshyn	OostromClark	Hockin	Pennock(Brandon-Souris)	Holtmann	PetersonCochrane	Horner	PietzCollins	Hudon	PlamondonComeau	James	PlourdeCook	Jepson	PorterCorbett	Joncas	RavisCossitt	Kempling	RedwayCote	Kilgour	Reid(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Kindy	ReimerCote	King	Ricard(Langelier)	Ladouceur	St. GermainCrofton	Lanthier	St-JulienCrosby	Lawrence	Schellenberg(Halifax West)	Layton	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Dantzer	Lesick	SchellenbergerDarling	Lewis	(Wetaskiwin)Daubney	Lopez	Scottde Cotret	MacDougall	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Della Noce	(Timiskaming)	ScowenDesjardins	MacKay	Shields
June 16, 1987

Sparrow	Tremblay	WilsonStackhouse	(Lotbiniere)	(Swift Current-Stewart	Tupper	Maple Creek)Suluk	Valcourt	WilsonTardif	Van De Walle	(Etobicoke Centre)(Charlesbourg)	Vankoughnet	WinegardTaylor	Vezina	Wise-148Thacker	Vincent	Towers	Warner	Tremblay	Weiner	(Quebec-Est)	Wenman


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion		
lost. The next question is on Motion No. 70 standing in the		
name of the Elon.	Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).	
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Benjamin), which		
was negatived on	the following division:	
	{Division No. 189)	
	YEAS	
	Members	
Allmand	Guilbault	NicholsonAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Angus	Heap	NunziataBaker	Henderson	NystromBenjamin	Hopkins	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Jewett	Parry(Brant)	Kaplan	PennerBoudria	Keeper	PepinCassidy	Killens	Prud'hommede Corneille	Langdon	Riisde Jong	MacLellan	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -51Foster	(Broadview-	Fulton	Greenwood)	Garneau	Murphy	Gauthier	NAYS	Members	Andre	Charest	DuguayBelsher	Clark	EdwardsBernier	(Brandon-Souris)	FennellBertrand	Cochrane	FerlandBinns	Collins	FontaineBissonnette	Comeau	ForestallBlackburn	Cook	Fraleigh(Jonquiere)	Corbett	FretzBlais	Cossitt	FriesenBlenkarn	Cote	GassBlouin	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	GerinBosley	Cote	GottseligBouchard	(Langelier)	GrayBourgault	Crofton	(Bonaventure-Iles-de-Boyer	Crosby	la-Madeleine)Brightwell	(Halifax West)	GreenawayBrisco	Dantzer	GriseBrowes	Darling	GustafsonCadieux	Daubney	HamelinCaldwell	de Cotret	HamiltonCardiff	Della Noce	HawkesCarney	Desjardins	HicksChampagne	Domm	Hnatyshyn(Champlain)	Dorin	Hockin
National Transportation Act, 1986
Holtmann	Mclnnes	SparrowHorner	McKenzie	StackhouseHudon	McKinnon	StewartJames	McKnight	SulukJepson	Merrithew	TardifJoncas	Minaker	(Charlesbourg)Kempling	Murta	TaylorKilgour	Nickerson	ThackerKindy	Nowlan	TowersKing	Oberle	TremblayLadouceur	O'Neil	(Quebec-Est)Lanthier	Oostrom	TremblayLawrence	Pennock	(Lotbiniere)Layton	Peterson	TupperLesick	Pietz	ValcourtLewis	Plamondon	Van De WalleLopez	Plourde	VankoughnetMacDougall	Porter	Vezina(Timiskaming)	Ravis	VincentMacKay	Redway	WarnerMailly	Reid	WeinerMalone	Reimer	WenmanMantha	Ricard	WilsonMarin	St. Germain	(Swift Current-Martin	St-Julien	Maple Creek)Masse	Schellenberg	WilsonMazankowski	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	(Etobicoke Centre)McCain	Schellenberger	WinegardMcCrossan	(Wetaskiwin)	Wise-148McCuish	Scott	McDermid	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	McDougall	Scowen	(St. Paul's)	Shields


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion		
lost. The next question is on Motion No. 71 standing in the		
name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).		
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Benjamin), which		
was negatived	on the following division:	
	{Division No. 190)	
	YEAS	
	Members	
Allmand	Guilbault	NicholsonAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Angus	Heap	NunziataBaker	Henderson	NystromBenjamin	Hopkins	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Jewett	Parry(Brant)	Kaplan	PennerBoudria	Keeper	PepinCassidy	Killens	Prud'hommede Corneille	Langdon	Riisde Jong	MacLellan	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -51Foster	(Broadview-	Fulton	Greenwood)	Garneau	Murphy	Gauthier	NAYS	Members	Andre	Bernier	BinnsBelsher	Bertrand	Bissonnette
June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blenkarn
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
Bourgault
Boyer
Brightwell
Brisco
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Carney
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cote
(Langelier)
Crofton
Crosby
(Halifax West) Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Della Noce Desjardins Domm Dorin Duguay Edwards Fennell Ferland Fontaine Forrestall Fraleigh Fretz Friesen Gass Gerin Gottselig
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greenaway Grise Gustafson Hamelin Hamilton Hawkes Hicks Hnatyshyn Hockin Holtmann Horner Hudon James Jepson Joncas Kempling Kilgour Kindy King
Ladouceur
Lanthier
Lawrence
Layton
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
MacKay
Mailly
Malone
Mantha
Marin
Martin
Masse
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McCuish McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's)
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
Merrithew
Minaker
Murta
Nickerson
Nowlan
Oberle
O'Neil
Oostrom
Pennock
Peterson
Pietz
Plamondon Plourde Porter Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Ricard St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Sparrow Stackhouse Stewart Suluk Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tremblay
(Lotbiniere)
Tupper
Valcourt
Van De Walle
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
Wenman
Wilson
(Swift Current-
Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-148


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 72 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 73 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I		declare the motion
lost. The next question is on Motion No. 74 standing in the		
name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 75 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 76 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Benjamin), which
was negatived on the following division:
June 16, 1987

(Division No. 195)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Guilbault	NicholsonAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Angus	Heap	NunziataBaker	Henderson	NystromBenjamin	Hopkins	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Jewett	Parry(Brant)	Kaplan	PennerBoudria	Keeper	PepinCassidy	Killens	Prud'hommede Corneille	Langdon	Riisde Jong	MacLellan	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -51Foster	(Broadview-	Fulton	Greenwood)	Garneau Gauthier	Murphy
NAYS Members	Andre	Domm	MaillyBelsher	Dorin	MaloneBernier	Duguay	ManthaBertrand	Edwards	MarinBinns	Fennell	MartinBissonnette	Ferland	MasseBlackburn	Fontaine	Mazankowski(Jonquiere)	Forrestall	McCainBlais	Fraleigh	McCrossanBlenkarn	Fretz	McCuishBlouin	Friesen	McDermidBosley	Gass	McDougallBouchard	Gerin	(St. Paul's)Bourgault	Gottselig	MclnnesBoyer	Gray	McKenzieBrightwell	(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	McKinnonBrisco	la-Madeleine)	McKnightBrowes	Greenaway	MerrithewCadieux	Grise	MinakerCaldwell	Gustafson	MurtaCardiff	Hamelin	NickersonCarney	Hamilton	NowlanChampagne	Hawkes	Oberle(Champlain)	Hicks	O'NeilCharest	Hnatyshyn	OostromClark	Hockin	Pennock(Brandon-Souris)	Holtmann	PetersonCochrane	Horner	PietzCollins	Hudon	PlamondonComeau	James	PlourdeCook	Jepson	PorterCorbett	Joncas	RavisCossitt	Kempling	RedwayCote	Kilgour	Reid(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Kindy	ReimerCote	King	Ricard(Langelier)	Ladouceur	St. GermainCrofton	Lanthier	St-JulienCrosby	Lawrence	Schellenberg(Halifax West)	Layton	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Dantzer	Lesick	SchellenbergerDarling	Lewis	(Wetaskiwin)Daubney	Lopez	Scottde Cotret	MacDougall	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Della Noce	(Timiskaming)	ScowenDesjardins	MacKay	Shields
National Transportation Act, 1986
Sparrow	Tremblay	WilsonStackhouse	(Lotbiniere)	(Swift Current-Stewart	Tupper	Maple Creek)Suluk	Valcourt	WilsonTardif	Van De Walle	(Etobicoke Centre)(Charles bourg)	Vankoughnet	WinegardTaylor	Vezina	Wise-148Thacker	Vincent	Towers	Warner	Tremblay	Weiner	(Quebec-Est)	Wenman


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 77 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 78 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 79 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion	Gottselig Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-	McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's)	Thacker Towerslost. The next question is on Motion No.	81 standing in the	Tremblayname of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).	la-Madeleine) Greenaway	Mclnnes McKenzie	(Quebec-Est) Tremblay


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 83B standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Benjamin), which
was negatived on the following division:
National Transportation Act, 1986
(Division No. 202)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Guilbault	NicholsonAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Angus	Heap	NunziataBaker	Henderson	NystromBenjamin	Hopkins	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Jewett	Parry(Brant)	Kaplan	PennerBoudria	Keeper	PepinCassidy	Killens	Prud'hommede Corneille	Langdon	Riisde Jong	MacLellan	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -51Foster	(Broadview-	Fulton	Greenwood)	Garneau Gauthier	Murphy
NAYS Members	Andre	Domm	MaillyBelsher	Dorin	MaloneBernier	Duguay	ManthaBertrand	Edwards	MarinBinns	Fennell	MartinBissonnette	Ferland	MasseBlackburn	Fontaine	Mazankowski(Jonquiere)	Forrestall	McCainBlais	Fraleigh	McCrossanBlenkarn	Fretz	McCuishBlouin	Friesen	McDermidBosley	Gass	McDougallBouchard	Gerin	(St. Paul's)Bourgault	Gottselig	MclnnesBoyer	Gray	McKenzieBrightwell	(Bonaventure-lles-de-	McKinnonBrisco	la-Madeleine)	McKnightBrowes	Greenaway	MerrithewCadieux	Grise	MinakerCaldwell	Gustafson	MurtaCardiff	Hamelin	NickersonCarney	Hamilton	NowlanChampagne	Hawkes	Oberle(Champlain)	Hicks	O'NeilCharest	Hnatyshyn	OostromClark	Hockin	Pennock(Brandon-Souris)	Holtmann	PetersonCochrane	Horner	PietzCollins	Hudon	PlamondonComeau	James	PlourdeCook	Jepson	PorterCorbett	Joncas	RavisCossitt	Kempling	RedwayCote	Kilgour	Reid(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Kindy	ReimerCote	King	Ricard(Langelier)	Ladouceur	St. GermainCrofton	Lanthier	St-JulienCrosby	Lawrence	Schellenberg(Halifax West)	Layton	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Dantzer	Lesick	SchellenbergerDarling	Lewis	(Wetaskiwin)Daubney	Lopez	Scottde Cotret	MacDougall	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Della Noce	(Timiskaming)	ScowenDesjardins	MacKay	Shields
June 16, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986
Sparrow	Tremblay	WilsonStackhouse	(Lotbiniere)	(Swift Current-Stewart	Tupper	Maple Creek)Suluk	Valcourt	WilsonTardif	Van De Walle	(Etobicoke Centre)(Charlesbourg)	Vankoughnet	WinegardTaylor	Vezina	Wise-148Thacker	Vincent	Towers	Warner	Tremblay	Weiner	(Quebec-Est)	Wenman


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion
lost. The next question is on Motion No. 84A standing in the		
name of the Hon.	Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).	
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Ouellet), which was		
negatived on the following division: (Division No. 203)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Guilbault	NicholsonAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Angus	Heap	NunziataBaker	Henderson	NystromBenjamin	Hopkins	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Jewett	Parry(Brant)	Kaplan	PennerBoudria	Keeper	PepinCassidy	Killens	Prud'hommede Corneille	Langdon	Riisde Jong	MacLellan	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -51Foster	(Broadview-	Fulton	Greenwood)	Garneau Gauthier	Murphy
NAYS Members	Andre	Charest	DuguayBelsher	Clark	EdwardsBernier	(Brandon-Souris)	FennellBertrand	Cochrane	FerlandBinns	Collins	FontaineBissonnette	Comeau	ForrestallBlackburn	Cook	Fraleigh(Jonquiere)	Corbett	FretzBlais	Cossitt	FriesenBlenkarn	Cote	GassBlouin	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	GerinBosley	Cote	GottseligBouchard	(Langelier)	GrayBourgault	Crofton	(Bona venture-Iles-de-Boyer	Crosby	la-Madeleine)Brightwell	(Halifax West)	GreenawayBrisco	Dantzer	GriseBrowes	Darling	GustafsonCadieux	Daubney	HamelinCaldwell	de Cotret	HamiltonCardiff	Della Noce	HawkesCarney	Desjardins	HicksChampagne	Domm	Hnatyshyn(Champlain)	Dorin	HockinHoltmann	Mclnnes	SparrowHorner	McKenzie	StackhouseHudon	McKinnon	StewartJames	McKnight	SulukJepson	Merrithew	TardifJoncas	Minaker	(Charlesbourg)Kempling	Murta	TaylorKilgour	Nickerson	ThackerKindy	Nowlan	TowersKing	Oberle	TremblayLadouceur	O'Neil	(Quebec-Est)Lanthier	Oostrom	TremblayLawrence	Pennock	(Lotbiniere)Layton	Peterson	TupperLesick	Pietz	ValcourtLewis	Plamondon	Van De WalleLopez	Plourde	VankoughnetMacDougall	Porter	Vezina(Timiskaming)	Ravis	VincentMacKay	Redway	WarnerMailly	Reid	WeinerMalone	Reimer	WenmanMantha	Ricard	WilsonMarin	St. Germain	(Swift Current-Martin	St-Julien	Maple Creek)Masse	Schellenberg	WilsonMazankowski	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	(Etobicoke Centre)McCain	Schellenberger	WinegardMcCrossan	(Wetaskiwin)	Wise-148McCuish	Scott	McDermid	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	McDougall	Scowen	(St. Paul's)	Shields


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion
lost. The next question is on Motion No. 84B standing in the		
name of the Hon.	Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).	
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Ouellet), which was		
negatived on the following division:		
	(Division No. 204)	
	YEAS	
	Members	
Allmand	Guilbault	NicholsonAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Angus	Heap	NunziataBaker	Henderson	NystromBenjamin	Hopkins	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Jewett	Parry(Brant)	Kaplan	PennerBoudria	Keeper	PepinCassidy	Killens	Prud'hommede Corneille	Langdon	Riisde Jong	MacLellan	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -51Foster	(Broadview-	Fulton	Greenwood)	Garneau	Murphy	Gauthier	NAYS	Members	Andre	Bernier	BinnsBelsher	Bertrand	Bissonnette
June 16, 1987

National Transportation Act,
Blackburn	Gray	O'Neil	Epp	Kaplan(Jonquiere)	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	Oostrom	(Thunder Bay-	KeeperBlais	la-Madeleine)	Pennock	Nipigon)	KillensBlenkarn	Greenaway	Peterson	Finestone	LangdonBlouin	Grise	Pietz	Foster	MacLellanBosley	Gustafson	Plamondon	Fulton	MalepartBouchard	Hamelin	Plourde	Garneau	ManlyBourgault	Hamilton	Porter	Gauthier	MarchiBoyer	Hawkes	Ravis	Guilbault	McCurdyBrightwell	Hicks	Redway	(Saint-Jacques)	McDonaldBrisco	Hnatyshyn	Reid	Heap	(Broadvie'Browes	Hockin	Reimer	Henderson	Green wooCadieux	Holtmann	Ricard	Hopkins	MurphyCaldwell	Horner	St. Germain	Hovdebo	NicholsonCardiff	Hudon	St-Julien	Jewett	(Trinity)Carney	James	Schellenberg	Champagne	Jepson	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	
(Champlain)
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cote
(Langelier)
Crofton
Crosby
(Halifax West) Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Della Noce Desjardins Domm Dorin Duguay Edwards Fennell Ferland Fontaine Forrestall Fraleigh Fretz Friesen Gass Gerin Gottselig
Joncas
Kempling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Ladouceur
Lanthier
Lawrence
Layton
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
MacKay
Mailly
Malone
Mantha
Marin
Martin
Masse
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McCuish McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) Mclnnes McKenzie McKinnon McKnight Merrithew Minaker Murta Nickerson Nowlan Oberle
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Sparrow Stackhouse Stewart Suluk Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor Thacker Towers Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tremblay
(Lotbiniere)
Tupper
Valcourt
Van De Walle
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
Wenman
Wilson
(Swift Current-
Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-148


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 86 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 88 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion
lost. The next question is on Motion No. 89 standing in the		
name of the Hon.	Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).	
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Benjamin), which		
was negatived on the following division: {Division No. 207)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Guilbault	NicholsonAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Angus	Heap	NunziataBaker	Henderson	NystromBenjamin	Hopkins	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Jewett	Parry(Brant)	Kaplan	PennerBoudria	Keeper	PepinCassidy	Killens	Prud'hommede Corneille	Langdon	Riisde Jong	MacLellan	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -51Foster	(Broadview-	Fulton	Greenwood)	Garneau Gauthier	Murphy
NAYS Members	Andre	Brightwell	CookBelsher	Brisco	CorbettBernier	Browes	CossittBertrand	Cadieux	CoteBinns	Caldwell	(Lac-Saint-Jean)Bissonnette	Cardiff	CoteBlackburn	Carney	(Langelier)(Jonquiere)	Champagne	CroftonBlais	(Champlain)	CrosbyBlenkarn	Charest	(Halifax West)Blouin	Clark	DantzerBosley	(Brandon-Souris)	DarlingBouchard	Cochrane	DaubneyBourgault	Collins	de CotretBoyer	Comeau	Della Noce
June 16, 1987

Desjardins	Lewis	St-JulienDomm	Lopez	SchellenbergDorin	MacDougall	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Duguay	(Timiskaming)	SchellenbergerEdwards	MacKay	(Wetaskiwin)Fennell	Mailly	ScottFerland	Malone	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Fontaine	Mantha	ScowenForrestall	Marin	ShieldsFraleigh	Martin	SparrowFretz	Masse	StackhouseFriesen	Mazankowski	StewartGass	McCain	SulukGerin	McCrossan	TardifGottselig	McCuish	(Charlesbourg)Gray	McDermid	Taylor(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	McDougall	Thackerla-Madeleine)	(St. Paul's)	TowersGreenaway	Mclnnes	TremblayGrise	McKenzie	(Quebec-Est)Gustafson	McKinnon	TremblayHamelin	McKnight	(Lotbiniere)Hamilton	Merrithew	TupperHawkes	Minaker	ValcourtHicks	Murta	Van De WalleHnatyshyn	Nickerson	VankoughnetHockin	Nowlan	VezinaHoltmann	Oberle	VincentHorner	O'Neil	WarnerHudon	Oostrom	WeinerJames	Pennock	WenmanJepson	Peterson	WilsonJoncas	Pietz	(Swift Current-Kempling	Plamondon	Maple Creek)Kilgour	Plourde	WilsonKindy	Porter	(Etobicoke Centre)King	Ravis	WinegardLadouceur	Redway	Wise-148Lanthier	Reid	Lawrence	Reimer	Layton	Ricard	Lesick	St. Germain


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 89A standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 90 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Benjamin), which
was negatived on the following division:

June 16, 1987
Allmand
Althouse
Angus
Baker
Benjamin
Berger
Blackburn
(Brant)
Boudria Cassidy de Corneille de Jong Dingwall Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Finestone
Foster
Fulton
Garneau
Gauthier
Andre
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand
Binns
Bissonnette
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blenkarn
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
Bourgault
Boyer
Brightwell
Brisco
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Carney
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cote
(Langelier)
Crofton
Crosby
(Halifax West) Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Della Noce Desjardins
National Transportation Act, 1986
(Division No. 209)
++YEAS
Members
Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) Heap Henderson Hopkins Hovdebo Jewett Kaplan Keeper Killens Langdon MacLellan Malepart Manly Marchi McCurdy McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood) Murphy
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nunziata
Nystrom
Orlikow
Ouellet
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rossi
Skelly
Waddell
Young -51
Sparrow
Stackhouse
Stewart

Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tremblay (Lotbiniere) Tupper Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Warner Weiner Wenman
Wilson
(Swift Current- Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-148


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motions Nos. 91 and 94 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion		
lost. The next question is on Motion No. 93 standing in the		
name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).		
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Benjamin), which		
was negatived	on the following division: {Division No. 211)
 YEAS Members	
Allmand	Guilbault	NicholsonAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	(Trinity)Angus	Heap	NunziataBaker	Henderson	NystromBenjamin	Hopkins	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlackburn	Jewett	Parry(Brant)	Kaplan	PennerBoudria	Keeper	PepinCassidy	Killens	Prud'hommede Corneille	Langdon	Riisde Jong	MacLellan	RobichaudDingwall	Malepart	RobinsonEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	SkellyNipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young -51Foster	(Broadview-	Fulton	Greenwood)	Garneau Gauthier	Murphy
NAYS Members	Andre	Bernier	BinnsBelsher	Bertrand	Bissonnette
Message from the Senate
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blenkarn
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
Bourgault
Boyer
Brightwell
Brisco
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Carney
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cote
(Langelier)
Crofton
Crosby
(Halifax West) Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Della Noce Desjardins Domm Dorin Duguay Edwards Fennell Ferland Fontaine Forrestall Fraleigh Fretz Friesen Gass Gerin Gottselig
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-dela-Madeleine)
Greenaway
Grise
Gustafson
Hamelin
Hamilton
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Hudon
James
Jepson
Joncas
Kempling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Ladouceur
Lanthier
Lawrence
Layton
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
MacKay
Mailly
Malone
Mantha
Marin
Martin
Masse
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McCuish McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's)
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
Merrithew
Minaker
Murta
Nickerson
Nowlan
Oberle
O'Neil
Oostrom
Pennock
Peterson
Pietz
Plamondon Plourde Porter Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Ricard St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Sparrow Stackhouse Stewart Suluk Tardif
(Charles bourg)
Taylor Thacker Towers Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tremblay
(Lotbiniere)
Tupper
Valcourt
Van De Walle
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
Wenman
Wilson
(Swift Current-
Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-148


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.


Thomas Hockin: that the Bill as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
*
* *

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has been received from the
Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the

June 16, 1987
Business of the House
following Bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired:
Bill S-5, an Act to amend and consolidate the laws prohibiting marriage between related persons; and
Bill S-10, an Act to revive Yellowknife Electric Ltd. and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the Parties. In order that the Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) does not lose his Private Members' Hour, I think if you seek the consent of the House you will find that there is unanimous consent to proceed to Private Members' Hour for 60 minutes and then revert to Orders of the Day, at which time the Government will call report stage of Bill C-19.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. Will all Hon. Members who are not participating in Private Members' Hour please go behind the curtain.
It being 7.18 p.m., pursuant to order made Friday, June 12, 1987, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PRIVATE BILLS   CANADA LABOUR CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
Geoff Wilson: We can no longer allow management and labour to play out these games at the expense of the farm community and, indeed, all Canadians, particularly in times like these. Let no one in the villages, towns and cities of Canada think they are immune to the farm-income crisis. The viability of countless small businesses in the farm service sector depend on the prosperity of the farm community. Indeed, through lost tax revenue and increased farm support programs, a greater burden will fall on other Canadians to pay for the essential and necessary services expected from governments at all levels.
The question then is how much misery, how much cost and how much damage must the rest of us in Canada endure before a settlement must be imposed? Should it be two weeks, five weeks, six weeks? Obviously, there must be a point at which almost all Canadians will agree there has to be a better way. In seeking that better way, I put forward this Bill, not with any illusion that it is perfect or that there may not be better alternatives, but rather to stimulate some much needed debate.
Incredibly, Mr. Speaker, I found this topic has not been debated in this House other than during the usual back-to-work legislation imposed after the damage has been incurred. I believe the matter should be debated in the absence of the emergent conditions and not under the gun in reference to any particular crisis.
The purpose of Bill C-244, in essence, is to declare the handling, storage, transportation and shipping of grain an essential service. It would outlaw strikes and lock-outs in the grain handling and transportation industries and substitute instead a process of binding conciliation. The present mechanism for resolving grain handling disputes works this way: Section 180 of the Canada Labour Code lays out the regulation governing labour disputes in Canada's grain handling and transportation industry. Linder the legislation, no union can strike and no employer can declare a lock-out when the normal collective bargaining process has broken down, unless a number of steps are taken, or at least considered by the federal Department of Labour.
If the process does break down, it is mandatory that the parties inform the Minister of that fact. The Minister may then appoint a conciliation board or a conciliation officer. If the resolution of the dispute is still elusive, the Minister may appoint a conciliation commissioner. The Minister may decide not to appoint a conciliation board or officer, or he may appoint a conciliation board or officer and not appoint a subsequent conciliation commissioner, if the over-all process is not aided by such an appointment.
The Minister may also decide to appoint a mediator without the invitation of the parties involved. In any event, the union attains the right to strike and the employer the right to lockout seven days after either the Minister has notified the parties of his intention to appoint no conciliators in any form, or the Minister has released a copy of the report of the conciliation commissioner to the parties involved in the dispute.
Canada Labour Code
Bill C-244, in brief, would amend the Canada Labour Code by adding a new subsection (3) in Section 180 forbidding strikes or lock-outs in the handling, storage, transportation and shipping of grain. A new Section 171 would make a conciliation report binding on the parties upon the release of the report to them by the Minister. A new Section 164.1.1 would enable either side to request the Minister of Labour to appoint a conciliator. There will obviously be those who oppose this Bill because they will see it as tampering with the right to strike, a right which some see as basic and inalienable, a right which others see as the tyranny of the few. I believe the time has come when this so-called right to strike-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: How about the right to lock-out?


Geoff Wilson: -or right to lock-out, as the Hon. Member suggests, has to be viewed against the background of a society which has come a long way from the days of the sweat shops and child labour. I think we have reached a point where the actions of a few can cause considerable harm and damage to the rest of society. It is clearly time that we reviewed the process.
I am not anti-labour. I am not anti-union. However, I think I have to be against work stoppages which cost all Canadians time and money.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: So are the communists and fascists.


Geoff Wilson: It is interesting that the critic of the New Democratic Party, who no doubt will have his say and expect his time to be uninterrupted, is so keen to interfere with mine. I guess it indicates that the position of the NDP is such that those Members not only need their own time but everyone else's as well. I suggest the Hon. Member nip out and answer a phone call from Bob White who will probably tell him what to say in the next few minutes.
Other critics will say this Bill is dangerous because conciliation may produce something worse than what the parties themselves will eventually conclude. These critics usually quote, erroneously, I believe, the Seaway settlement of 1966 as an example. It is a fact that the Seaway settlement in June 1966 gave a 30 per cent increase to Seaway workers. Because the Seaway was then a Crown corporation and had to have Government appropriations to remain in business, the settlement required Cabinet approval. Cabinet of the day approved the 30 per cent increase, an increase which was unheard of at the time, and the Seaway settlement made any attempt to settle other outstanding disputes between the railways and their non-ops impossible. The result was a disastrous string of fat wage settlements which set off the inflationary spiral in this country throughout the 1970s.
It is important to note that this all stemmed from a Cabinet decision to approve that particular wage settlement. It had nothing whatever to do with the conciliation process we are talking about here today.
Are you indicating, Mr. Speaker, a time problem?

June 16, 1987
Canada Labour Code


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member is only a couple of minutes over his time now. It is 10 minutes per speech.


Geoff Wilson: With respect, I believe that under the new rules I am entitled to 20 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, you are the
first speaker. The first speaker does have 20 minutes. Every other speaker has 10 minutes.
I think we should bring to the attention of the House that this is under the new rules. Even the Chair sometimes has problems with these new rules which keep coming up. The first speaker on Private Members' Hour has 20 minutes. The balance of speakers have 10 minutes.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-244 does not change the conciliation process which is already in the Canada Labour Code. It is a process which surely can be no more dangerous tomorrow than it is today. We are not talking about changing the process. We are simply suggesting that it be brought forward. The question therefore is: Should resort be had to the conciliation process later or earlier? I suggest that the time to bring it on is sooner in the process.
It has been suggested that this is not the time to bring on a Bill to amend the Canada Labour Code, that this could be misconstrued in light of current labour difficulties elsewhere. With respect, I can only suggest that at the rate we have stoppages in this country it will be impossible to find the right time.
This Bill was first read in January. It was drawn in the Private Members' lottery in April and it is now being heard. If anything, I believe the current letter carriers' dispute points out the problem that strikes, work stoppages and lock-outs occur far more often in the country than we can tolerate and emphasizes the need for us to find a better way.
I am not saying that this Bill is the best answer, or the only answer. I know only that the present system is fundamentally flawed. Obviously, the issue here is of fundamental importance and requires more than one hour of debate. Frankly, I would welcome a motion during this hour to refer the subject matter to a parliamentary standing committee for further study and recommendation. It may be that the Agriculture Committee would be the appropriate one in the circumstances. What is at stake here is Canada's international reputation as a supplier to the world of high quality wheat.
Many important farm organizations have pointed out the seriousness of the problem and have asked the Government to find a solution. The Keystone Agricultural Producers of Manitoba at its annual meeting of delegates adopted a resolution calling for the handling and transportation of grain to be declared an essential service. The United Grain Growers at its convention last fall called for the Government of Canada
to make Canada's grain handling system an essential service. It also asked the Government to implement a system of binding arbitration with no strikes or lock-outs.
The President of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers recently issued a release in which he states:
We must ensure the system which moves our product does not break down.
Strikes or lock-outs will mean losses, either in reputation or, when stoppages
are long, in sales. In this highly competitive market we can't afford either.
Today, we have a system that is subject to hostage-taking. Unions know that they will be able to play catch-up with large quantities of overtime. There may be times when it suits management to play these games as well. Past history indicates that governments will allow interruptions to last three, four or five weeks until everyone is ready to welcome a government-imposed settlement.
The fact is that strikes and lock-outs have occurred on such a regular basis in Canada that all of the players act in expectation of government intervention. The system is preprogrammed. I suggest it causes the parties to abdicate their responsibility. That being the case, let us have the Government intervene before the damage is done, before the movement of grain is disrupted, before Canada's reputation suffers, and before vital sales are lost. Surely, our society today ought no longer to tolerate a system held ransom to the demands of a few.
We have here a fundamental clash. It is whether the so-called freedom of a small group can be made to override the freedoms of everyone else in the country. Were the damage restricted to the parties alone, one could sit back and let them scrap. The fact is that the misery falls on the backs of all Canadians, primarily on the grain farmer who loses sales and pays demurrage, but also on all Canadians who will wind up having to pay more to help the grain sector survive.
We live in a highly sophisticated society. Our medical people are able to undertake organ transplants. Our scientists are able to put satellites into space. Our high-tech industry has displayed astonishing systems achievements. Yet in the area of the resolution of labour and management problems we are back in the Dark Ages. In the midst of our modern technology and sophistication we see the sad and lamentable spectre of management and labour beating each other on the forehead with rocks until one, or both, fall down.
The issue here is important. I believe it is deserving of more than one hour of debate. There may be better options put forward than Bill C-244. This Bill represents but one approach. There are a great many others. There are in existence specialty courts such as family courts, tax courts, criminal courts, and so on. It may be that we require labour courts. Perhaps we should resort to a two-envelope sort of system wherein the most reasonable of the two competing final positions is chosen. What is important is the recognition of the problem and the potential damage to the Canadian grain farmer and to the nation that flow from work stoppages in the system.
June 16, 1987

Should Members agree with me on this I urge them to pass the Bill or, in the alternative, to refer the subject matter of it to the appropriate parliamentary committee. I do not intend to use my full time because I know other Members want to speak and I am most anxious to hear what they have to say.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I think all Hon. Members can understand the frustration of the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) when a strike takes place in an area such as one which deals with the movement of grain. It is a frustrating experience. In some cases it becomes very serious because it affects peoples' lives, their income and their entire future. I can understand why the Hon. Member would propose such an idea even if it is flawed somewhat, both in its premise and in its actual wording.
What I object to in the Bill is that the Hon. Member proposes two things. He says that the Minister shall appoint a conciliation officer, or a board, or a commission, and that the report shall be binding. He then says that no trade union of employees engaged in the handling, storage, transportation or shipping of grain shall declare or authorize a strike anywhere in the country. In other words, no shipper of grain, which includes not only rail but ships, trucks and everything else, involved with the transportation of grain can authorize a strike, and that the report of the conciliation officer shall be binding.
According to the Bill, the Minister would appoint the conciliation officer. So what do we have? For example, we could have a case of a railway about which the Hon. Member is talking and which the Minister can order to cut its expenditures. He could order that CN should decrease its deficit. The Minister could order that after receiving approval from Treasury Board. He is the one who has to make sure that CN meets the projections of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who presents in his Budget the decrease of the deficit of the transporter of grain. Then the Minister would turn around and decide who will be the conciliation officer who will present the binding report. The employees have absolutely nothing to say about this. In other words, the right to strike is removed.
No matter how we look at the situation the right to strike has always been a powerful tool that unions have to force action from governments and employers. So in the case of, say, the Post Office today, or Canadian National today, there are similar situations. There is Treasury Board and the Minister concerned organizing cuts in CN and in Canada Post. Then there are those corporations having to carry through with those cuts in their negotiations with their unions. But it is not the corporation that has decided on the cuts, it is the Minister who has decided upon them. It is Treasury Board that has decided on the cuts. Then along comes this Bill and the Hon. Member says that the Minister will then appoint the person who will decide what happens in the dispute. The Minister cannot appoint someone who is going to suggest the complete opposite to what the Labour Department has announced.
Canada Labour Code
MO)
That is a basic flaw in this Bill. It is particularly flawed in the hands of a government in power such as we have today, the Progressive Conservative Government. The Progressive Conservative Government has a policy of "deficititis". That is what this Government suffers from: a policy of deficititis.
This Government orders transporters of grain to make cuts. It orders the transporters of grain to insist upon double shifts for their employees, to insist upon no wage increases. It issued the same order to Canada Post. Canada Post was told to tell its employees that there would be no wage increase this year; that next year they may get 2 per cent. Also, Canada Post employees have been told that any new employees are subject to a lower wage scale and will never achieve parity with present employees.
This Bill would replace the right to strike with binding conciliation. And who would appoint the conciliator? The Minister concerned. That would be completely unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, under any Government, even a Liberal Government, and particularly so under a Tory Government.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise this evening to join in the debate on Bill C-244, the Private Member's Bill of the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson), to amend the Canada Labour Code (grain handling).
During this debate I will speak on behalf of my Party and as one who, along with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), represents the grain handling port of Thunder Bay, or the Lakehead, as it is known. The Port of Thunder Bay is where the last labour stoppage occurred, that having taken place last fall, when the members of BRAC, the grain handlers union, struck the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and, in turn, were locked out by the remainder of the companies with operations at Thunder Bay.
I will be speaking against C-244. 1 think it is a simplistic solution to a very complex problem. It would be a fine world if we could just legislate labour-management relations. However, we cannot just wave the magic wand and have labour and management immediately agree on salaries and working conditions.
While agreements are sometimes achieved in the absence of strike or lock-out actions, the strike weapon must be available to protect workers from the whims of the company. Workers must be able to resort to the age-old right of withdrawal of services, which is what a strike is. It is a collective withdrawal of services arising from dissatisfaction with a given situation.
One of the trade marks of this Government has been its penchant to deal with important and necessary matters in entirely inappropriate ways. When skilful surgery is required, this Government tends to rely on a sledge hammer; when decisive action is required, this Government tends to become mired in confusion and indecision.

June 16, 1987
Canada Labour Code
Consistent with this tendency is Bill C-244, a Bill which proposes to outlaw strikes and lock-outs in the grain handling industry in Canada. While the stated objective of the Bill-the stated objective being to protect Canada's farmers from even more financial hardship-is laudable and can be supported by everyone, the method chosen to meet it is unfair, poorly thought out, and unnecessarily confrontational.
The solution to the massive problems in our farming sector will not be found by creating hardship for other workers. Labour disruption, while unpleasant and extremely difficult for everyone concerned, is a crucial element in the free collective bargaining process.
I have yet to meet a striker who wants to be on strike. Strikers would prefer to be on the job providing their services in exchange for a regular salary. At times, however, the strike proves to be a necessary element in our system of free collective bargaining, a system which has drastically improved the working conditions and standard of living for most Canadians. By interfering in the collective bargaining process, Bill C-244 would do nothing but create a situation in which the parties do not have to bargain seriously, and that is in the best interests of no one.
In the last month, the Seafarers' International Union reached an agreement with the shipping companies operating on the Great Lakes. That agreement was achieved with the assistance of a mediator appointed by the federal Government. Yes, they rattled their swords and talked tough-but they achieved an agreement. The workers did not have to use the strike weapon; the employers did not have to use the lock-out weapon. But those options were available to both sides, thus forcing both to bargain seriously toward an agreement acceptable to both.
It is quite clear that the effect of Bill C-244 has less to do with protecting the interests of the farmer and more to do with union bashing. Since 1917, a span of 70 years, there have been only three work stoppages by grain handlers. Clearly, this is not where the threat to the incomes of farmers comes from. Instead of avoiding the issue by making grain handlers the scapegoat for the problems of our farming sector, government Members should be directing their energies to ensuring that this Government gets serious about treating the farm crisis as the real crisis that it is.
You will well remember the marathon debate that we had in this House this past spring, a debate which brought the country to focus on the plight of the farmers of this country. It was pointed out that while the Government was doing some good things, more was required. Instead of introducing legislation which would make the interests and the welfare of grain handlers secondary to those of other workers, government back-benchers should be encouraging this Government to begin treating all workers fairly and equitably, thus creating a climate in which workers and management can work cooperatively for their mutual benefit.
Not too long ago, we had a situation on the West Coast where the companies locked out their employees. While that lock-out was not restricted to the grain industry, the prairie elevators with terminals in Vancouver participated in that decision. They were part of the Employers' Council which decided to shut down the Port of Vancouver. That was a decision that hurt not only the worker but the farmers who wanted to move their products.
Perhaps the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek might want to spend some time talking with the policy-makers for the pools, the management of the pools about their approach to labour relations. Perhaps he can find out why we no longer have any producers or any grain handlers managing those grain companies. Instead, we have accountants and bookkeepers, and personnel managers. We do not have people who got dirt under their fingernails raising and handling the crop over many years. Therefore, there is not the same kind of understanding about what makes an elevator tick or about what makes good working relationships between management and labour.
In conclusion, I hope the Bill will be rejected in principle by the House. I recognize that it will not come to a vote, but let us try to do something positive. Let us try to ensure that Canadian grain farmers can receive an adequate income, a fair price for their products, and can move those products at a reasonable price and in a way which will keep us competitive in the world. Let us not take it out on grain handlers who are only asking for a decent day's pay for a decent day's work.


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in the debate and to support Bill C-244, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Swift Current- Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson). I think it indicates the importance which western Canadians know must be given to the grain handling system. We in western Canada depend upon a reliable and efficient transportation system to move our grain and oilseeds to market.
As world wheat supplies continue to increase, and as other Governments continue to subsidize wheat exports, Canadian farmers are under increasing pressure to maintain, let alone to expand, their share of the world wheat market. In this very competitive environment, our grain transportation system has proven to be one of Canada's greatest assets.
The system is in a constant state of change. No matter at what part of the system one looks-the railways, the grain terminals, the transfer elevators, or lake transportation-new facilities are added, old facilities are closed; new handling and transportation concepts are introduced and old handling and transportation concepts are ended.
These changes improve Canada's ability to move grain quickly and efficiently from prairie farms to world markets, making the system an important link between producers and world grain markets. Of greatest importance to the changing
June 16, 1987

grain transportation system are the men and women who keep the rolling stock rolling. Many of these people come from farm backgrounds, especially those in the Prairies. They have family and friends who are farmers. They live in communities which are dependent upon the movement of grains and oilseeds to export position as quickly as possible. Their job prospects and their incomes are closely tied to the ability of grain producers to compete in world markets and to move grain to foreign customers. Yet, Canada's grain handling system is beginning to appear unreliable to our foreign customers.
Work stoppages, such as those instituted for Great Lakes shipping, and the increasingly strong threat of strikes or lockouts threaten to undermine the reliability of Canadians to deliver grain.
I should like to quote from a Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association press release dated April 22, 1987. In part it reads:
The Association is supporting the legislation because it does not believe farmers can afford any disruptions in volume movement for their product.
Bill Duke, Chairman of that association, said the following:
Prices for our products are at all-time lows. Our only consolation is volume movement. This situation is likely to continue for some time. We must ensure the system which moves our products does not break down. Strikes or lock-outs will means losses, either in reputation or, when stoppages are long, sales. In this highly competitive market, we can't afford neither.
Under the present mechanism for resolving grain handling disputes, Section 180 of the Canada Labour Code sets out the regulations governing labour disputes in Canada's grain handling and transportation industry. Under the legislation, no union can strike and no employer can declare a lock-out when the normal collective bargaining process has broken down, unless a number of steps are taken or at least considered by the federal Department of Labour.
Section 180 of the Canada Labour Code goes some way toward decreasing the likelihood of a strike or a lock-out, but it does not give security to producers, customers, and western Canadians generally who are dependent upon grain exports.
As other speakers before me have mentioned, and as the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has said, this topic is too important to cover in one hour of debate in the Chamber. My colleague who introduced this Private Member's Bill mentioned that it may not be the perfect solution. It is certainly not the be-all or end-all, but his purpose in introducing the Bill was to raise the problem and begin discussions because the present system was not working.
The failure of the present system is evidenced by the present rotating mail strikes we are experiencing at the present time, as well as the tie-up in the movement of grain last fall.
In order to ensure that this very important and timely topic gets the full consideration it deserves, I should like to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Fraleigh):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
Canada Labour Code
Bill C-244, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (grain handling), be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the amendment. I will accept the amendment and recognize the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) on debate.


Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my support to the motion which has been presented. Bill C-244, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson), strikes at something which should be addressed by the House in a longer length of time than the one hour available to it today.
I believe the Hon. Member's opening remarks more than adequately presented the case. I do not want to take the time of the House to repeat what he said, but I should simply like to endorse it.
We are in a highly competitive world. International prices for commodities mean that we have little control over them. We need to maintain every advantage that we have.
Our farmers are the most efficient and productive in the world. Our disadvantage is in transportation-the difficulty and distance in getting a product to tide water.
The concept presented in the Bill is not anti-labour or antiunion. In fact, as was mentioned earlier, last year's labour dispute was a lock-out imposed by management. There is a difference when a strike closes down a whole system within a country and spreads the hardship far beyond either the company or the union involved. A work stoppage may be an effective way to settle a labour dispute between two parties when the battlefield is limited to the pocketbooks of the two sides and the public has access to alternatives. However, when there are no alternatives, surely there is a better way that is less costly for Canada and for society as a whole.
I support the notion that this matter should be studied by a parliamentary committee where all alternatives could be examined more closely than we are able to examine them in the one hour available today.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in debate on this proposal which attempts to end industrial stoppages in the grain trade. I particularly appreciate the opportunity because I am a Member of Parliament from the Lakehead where we do a great deal of the grain trade.
In the Lakehead, the activities of Lodge 650 of the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, known familiarly as BRASC, has been very important in the advancement of wages and working conditions of grain handlers. The proposal put forward by the Hon. Member to bring strikes and

June 16, 1987
Canada Labour Code
lock-outs in this industry to an end seems to me to be a misguided effort to achieve certain objectives and specifically to ensure that the costs involved to producers in moving grain are restrained.
The suggestion that strikes or for that matter lock-outs have been used excessively in the grain trade to drive wages to levels which are out of this world and represent an unfair draw on the system seems to me to be quite an unfair suggestion for anyone to make. In Thunder Bay, the reality of which I can speak with some authority is that Lodge 650 of BRASC has been a responsible union representing the interests of its members, workers in the grain trade. In all the years back to the end of the Great War in 1917, there have been only three strikes brought about by the union. That on the very face of it is evidence of a responsible union.
To recognize the fact that the union has been forced to strike occasionally in those years, and on one occasion which was not very long ago, is to recognize that relations that exist in this industry have not always been of the sort that they should be. I think particularly of the fact that several grain companies in Thunder Bay sought two years ago to involve the Government of Canada and Parliament in the industrial relations context, and that was one of the most objectionable features of the situation.
There is nothing gained when there is a breakdown in industrial relations. We want responsible action on the part of the union and on the part of the employer. We want a fair meeting of the two sides at which the union considers what the membership needs and gives due regard to the situation in the industry and the possibility that the industry is able to afford increases in wages or improvements in the benefits package. The union pays due attention to those matters because, after all, if it miscalculates, it can have a disruptive effect on the industry. The union will itself have resources including economists and others to help it put forward a sound case.
On the other side, we expect the employers to give due attention to the situation faced by their workers at the same time as they consider their own potential ability to pay for an improvement in wages or benefits packages. To propose that this proper development in industrial relations should be disrupted in the way put forward by the Hon. Member by outlawing strikes and lock-outs is to impose on workers a peculiar kind of slavery in the workplace that I believe has no place in a free society. After all, the right to withdraw one's services in order to make a point in the mind of one's employer surely must be one of the fundamental rights that workers have always had. To deny the workers the right to stop work and ask their employers to consider their situation, to recognize the fact that wages need to be improved, is surely to depart from the kind of liberal-democratic society we are trying to build and foster in Canada, the kind of society that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 was surely designed to strengthen.
One might note in passing the lamentable fact that the courts have refused to recognize the right of association and its
consequences as being quite fundamental to society. They have refused to recognize that if the right of association is to mean anything at all, it must include the right to strike, the right to step away from the workplace and tell the employer to consider the situation and improve salaries, benefits and working conditions. To deny that right is surely to subject workers to some kind of slavery.
As someone who grew up on a farm, I would suggest that the imposition of that kind of subjugation in the workplace comes particularly poorly from those who speak for farmers. Obviously farmers work incredibly hard for part of the year and, particularly if they are involved in grain farming, have an opportunity to step away from it, to enjoy curling in the winter or whatever it may be. To demand that the workers at the grain elevators in Thunder Bay, Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Churchill should be subject to the call of their employers without any right to ever break off work in order to consider what they are being subjected to is surely not a principle that anyone would really want to put forward seriously.
I really do believe that the private members of the Conservative caucus who are speaking in support of this proposal are forgetting the principles to which they spoke so strongly in opposition. Very often, they presented themselves as the stoutest defenders of Parliament's rights and of democratic principles. To refuse to recognize the implications of those principles, to try to deny them to workers in Thunder Bay and other cities, seems to be manifestly unfair, particularly when this sort of interference in industrial relations prevails. It is to deny the kind of respect that the former President of Lodge 650 who is now the President of the national union, Frank Mazur, gained over the years from the company and for that matter the kind of respect that he felt for many of the people in the industry with whom he had to deal. They had worked out a good relationship, the kind of relationship that can be evidenced by only two work stoppages in the past two decades. The fact that that only occurred twice was an indication of good industrial relations which, it seems to me, is a real accomplishment.
One of the reasons that I found the lock-out and strike so objectionable that fall was that the employers were very clearly looking to the Government to pull their chestnuts out of the fire, to try to save the situation, to impose something on the worker. That is something we should never do. We should ensure that relations remain between employers and unions at the workplace without any interference of the type which the Member has put forward this afternoon.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the original purpose of a strike was to force the employer to be more reasonable. The original purpose of a lock-out was to force employees to be more reasonable. The difficulty is that while strikes and lock-outs today may hurt the employer or employee a little, they hurt third parties a lot.
June 16, 1987

That is the difficulty with the strikes which have taken place in the grain handling industry. They hurt the farmer who has no way of forcing the people to work or settling their arguments, yet is the one who takes the loss, sometimes permanently. As a matter of fact, as a result of one of the strikes, the prairie farmers lost their pearl barley market and never got that market back. It was lost permanently because of that strike at the West Coast. The producer is the one who is really hurt.
Consequently, in my view in cases like this grain-handling should be considered an essential service. Four or five thousand farmers should not suffer because a handful of people cannot settle their differences. I think compulsory arbitration is the real answer. This is an essential service and there should be neither lock-outs nor strikes. They should be required by law to settle their differences through compulsory arbitration. The farmers are the ones who are hurt and they should not be hurt. People who have nothing to do with the causes of the strike or the lock-out should not be hurt.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, my remarks will be very brief. As the Official Opposition has pointed out, we do not support the Bill which is presently before the House. However, what is wrong with referring it to a committee for further discussion? Surely to goodness no Member in the House would object to that, unless perhaps members of the NDP.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill. As my colleague, the Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), pointed out, it is interesting to hear how much those on the government side have changed ground since they were in opposition. I think all Members of the House know that if we made strikes by grain-handlers illegal, illegal strikes would take the place of legal strikes because workers in that industry have very real safety concerns to deal with.
I represent a number of grain-handlers. Grain moves from the Peace River country, northeastern British Columbia and northwestern Alberta, as well as from other areas of the Prairies, through Prince Rupert. Safety questions have long been a pressing issue for grain-handlers in Prince Rupert, Vancouver, Thunder Bay and other parts of the country where grain is handled. The points being made by the government side are well understood. The Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has pointed out that in many situations farmers end up as the innocent victims severely hurt by protracted strikes.
Speakers on the government side seem to have forgotten what this place is for. When there are protracted strikes in the grain-handling sector or others this place has the responsibility to deal with that. Government Members want to pass legislation saying that grain-handlers and the rail trade are essential services and cannot strike. How far would private Members of the Government go toward banning strikes and defining essential services? That is something upon which we must reflect.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986


Geoff Wilson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The debate is on an amendment to refer this matter to committee. I would appreciate if the Member would sit down and allow Members to vote on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: That is not a point of order and I am surprised to see the Hon. Member rising from that part of the House. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) has the floor.


James Ross Fulton: Thank you, Madam Speaker. That certainly was not a point of order, as those of us who have been around here for a while are well aware.
I want to take a few moments to deal with the real issue which is most often the most contentious one in negotiations between employers and employees in the grain trade. As I said, safety is a very real issue when dealing with large and heavy locomotives and boxcars which are being unloaded, even at the state-of-the-art grain terminals such as the new one in Prince Rupert.
At the old terminal in Prince Rupert, older cars used to be unloaded from the belly. The dust problems which existed for more than half a century at that elevator were only dealt with when very strong action was taken by the workers in that facility who knew of the problems with the build-up of grain dust. Many workers have lost their lives because of explosions at elevators in Vancouver. There have also been difficulties over the years in Prince Rupert.
The point which must be decided upon is whether a piece of legislation should be passed making grain-handlers an essential service and making it illegal for them to strike. When serious issues such as safety matters and others such issues are not being properly addressed, the only option left to the workers would be to have an illegal strike. In that situation the whole issue would end up back before the House anyway.


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




[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair would now like to rule on the report stage motions in amendment to

June 16, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
Bill C-19. There are 10 motions on the Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings.

First, since Motion No. 1 was voted on and rejected in Committee, it will not be selected for debate.

Motions Nos. 2, 2A and 3 seek to amend Clause 8, which deals with the issuing of trucking licences for extra-provincial undertakings. Therefore, these motions will be combined for debate but voted on separately.

Motion No. 4 will be debated and voted on separately. [English]
Motions Nos. 5 and 6 seek to add new areas which can be regulated by Governor in Council, namely, terms of credit for payment of freight charges and penalties relating to predatory activities in transportation.
Motion No. 7 adds a new clause to the Bill which would allow provincial transport boards to carry out investigations into tariffs. This clause also contains new definitions. The provisions in these three motions clearly go beyond the principle of the Bill as read the second time and introduce new concepts into the Bill. 1 must, therefore, rule the motions out of order. In doing so the Chair is supported by citation 773(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition to which I refer Hon. Members.

Motion No. 7A will be debated and voted on separately.
Finally, Motion No. 8 was moved and negatived in committee and will therefore not be selected for debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 2:
That Bill C-19, be amended in Clause 8 by striking out lines 36 and 37 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"satisfies the board that there are reasonable grounds to believe, the operations of the".


Hon. Robert de Cotret (for the Minister of Transport) moved:: Motion No. 2A:
That Bill C-19, be amended in Clause 8 in the French version by striking out line 38 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"camionnage extra-provinciate faisant I'objel de la demande de licence est susceptible".


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


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Prior to debate on the amendments, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think we have agreement for the following proposition: That debate will now commence on report stage of Bill C-19, that all recorded divisions requested this evening will be deferred until 3.15 p.m. tomorrow; that consent will be given to proceeding to third reading on Bill C-19 tomorrow, and upon the completion of report stage this evening the House will adjourn until 2 p.m. tomorrow.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I just want to confirm that we participated in these discussions and are in agreement with the proposal put forward by the Hon. Member.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the arrangements that are proposed are acceptable, but I would have to check with my critic for just 30 seconds before I give my full consent.


Philip Derek Lewis: 1 think that is agreeable. I can understand that perhaps this evening that may not have been finalized. I suggest that we commence debate on the amendment. I will confirm it with my colleague and make an intervention when the Member has finished.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there consent for us to commence debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, the clause under debate is Clause 8.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that the first motion we are dealing with is in my name.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Iain Francis Angus: Perhaps, as a matter of process, the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) should be allowed to introduce his motion by speaking to it, and then other Hon. Members can speak to it.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, I did not see the Hon. Member stand. If he wishes to stand, I will certainly yield.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair certainly did not mean to keep the Hon. Member for Regina West from introducing his motion. As was noted by the Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), the Hon. Member had not risen. I will gladly recognize him now.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, it is the one and only occasion when my hon. friend was quicker on the draw than I.
In any event, this Bill should not be before the House. Those who appeared before the Transport Committee which studied
June 16, 1987

this Bill, including the Canadian Trucking Association, which is the major player in this legislation, pleaded with the Government not to proceed with this Bill until a new highway safety code was in place, until a national highways board was in place, and until all ten provinces, the territories and the federal Government arrived at a common and reciprocal agreement.
All members in the committee agreed that it was nonsense for a trucker to be required to get licences and operating authorities from 10 provinces and two Territories and from the federal Government if he was going across the line. 1 understand the federal Government vacated that requirement and turned it over to the provinces. That is what will theoretically happen according to Bill C-19.
The Canadian Trucking Association asked to have the national standards and safety provisions agreed upon and implemented by the provinces, the territories and the federal Government. Subsequently, if the Government wants to deregulate the trucking industry, it can do so.
Furthermore, the trucking industry which is comprised of responsible, long-established carriers, made several complaints to the committee in several locations in Canada.
I will never forget one senior officer of a major national trucking company in Canada who told me in Vancouver that he is yet to have a provincial or federal government inspector come to check his mechanics, his garages, his bookkeeping, the hours of work of his drivers or anything else.
He wanted them to ensure they were doing everything properly. More important, he wanted an inspection of the flyby-night operators who can start business under deregulation, simply by conning a banker into giving a loan, then renting some tractors, buying insurance and hiring laid-off drivers at one-third their previous pay. Then they are in business. They have no mechanics or garages. That is what the Government calls "fit, willing and able". But, Madam Speaker, they are unfit. Because they are unfit, the willingness has nothing to do with it. Because they are unfit, they are not able to be on the highways of this country. Look at the record in British Columbia. Last fall the RCMP and the British Columbia Department of Transport, and its Highway Traffic Board, shut down Highway No. 1, the Trans-Canada, near Golden, British Columbia, and checked every truck and one third of those drivers had to be taken off the road.
The Government has no business proceeding with this Bill until all these other matters are in place. There can be no justification for proceeding with this legislation. The amendments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), and myself do nothing more than try to preserve and protect that kind of safeguard in highway transportation. Surely that is not too much to ask. By the way, it is not just the Canadian Trucking Association asking for this. Many others have said: "Look. Do not do it". The last head of the Interstate
Business of the House
Commerce Commission in the United States appeared before our committee as a witness. He said: "For goodness sake, do not make the mistakes we did. Put all these other things in place before you deregulate". The difference between Canada and the United States is that every individual state under its constitution can regulate every trucking company.
Because of this legislation, plus the previous Bill C-18, what an American trucker can do in Canada, a Canadian trucker cannot do in the United States. We can go to the State of New York and Washington, D.C. and talk to Canadian truckers and have them tell us what happens to them when they enter those states. It has nothing to do with the U.S. administration. It has nothing to do with Congress, the Senate, or the House of Representatives. The State of New York places strictures on the Canadian trucker that the Government of Canada cannot do on the U.S. trucker. That is what is going on. Why would the Government be so stupid as to bring in this kind of a Bill now?
Witness after witness, as well as members of the opposition Parties, and some great friends of the Progressive Conservative Party said not to do it yet. They said to put all the other things in place, get all the regulations nailed down, the 10 provinces, the two Territories and the federal Government, and not to bring in Bill C-19 until all those other things are established. Would you believe, Madam Speaker, they will need 200 or 300 more inspectors. The federal Government has agreed to put up a lot of the money, but none of it is in place. There are no inspectors. By the way, one does not pick them up at your average Canada Employment Centre. We do not get those people off the shelf. We have to have someone who knows the difference between an axle, a differential and a diesel engine. Those people cannot be put in place overnight. In fact, that could not happen in less than six months, if we are lucky.
This Bill has no business being called now. It is not the first time the Government had a Bill on the Order Paper for a year, let it die there and put it on again the next year and still did not deal with it until the end of the second year.
Here is an instance where I would agree with the Government. If it takes this Bill off the Order Paper, we will wait another year. That is what was asked for by the Canadian Trucking Association. That is what was asked for in committee by numerous witnesses. This is not the time.
If the Government will not tell us now that it will not proclaim this Bill until all those things I have mentioned are in place, then we have no alternative but to oppose the Bill. If it holds off proclamation until all those other things are in place, the Government might have less trouble tonight and tomorrow.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Philip Derek Lewis: Madam

June 16, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
Speaker, there have been further discussions among the Parties and I think we have a proposal which will meet the agreement of the House. I will start from the beginning, if I may. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, the taking of any recorded division deferred at the report stage of Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings, later this day, shall be further deferred until the completion of "Routine Proceedings" on Wednesday, June 17, 1987;
That upon completion of the report stage of the said Bill, the House shall proceed to Government Orders;
That should a recorded division be demanded on the motion for third reading of Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, on that day, it shall be deferred until the completion of "Routine Proceedings" on Thursday, June 18, 1987;
That the Order for third reading of Bill C-19, An Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings, be called on that day, and that, should a recorded division be demanded on the motion for third reading, it shall be deferred until the completion of "Routine Proceedings" on Thursday, June 18, 1987;
That upon the completion of the debate on the motions at the report stage of Bill C-19, later this day, or at 10.00 o'clock p.m., whichever comes first, the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day;


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, this may sound complicated but it is indeed the agreement which was reached through the great co-operation of ail three Parties. I would just like to ask one question. The vote on third reading on Bill C-19, when it is deferred tomorrow evening, will the House stand adjourned at that time?


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes, Madam Speaker, my friend has picked up an element of the transaction which was agreed to and which I omitted, that is, the items of business tomorrow would be Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 at third reading stage, and the Government would have no intention of calling any other business. The House would then stand adjourned when the debate on Bill C-19 was completed.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I just want to indicate that we are in agreement with that proposal. Perhaps that would allow certain long-term Members of this House to spend their time appropriately.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have consent of the House to introduce this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, now that we have gone through all this procedural stuff-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We have not finished. You had better sit down.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, I just wanted to ask, once all these procedural agreements are over with, can I get to give my speech again?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there agreement of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed. Motion agreed to.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra provincial undertakings, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport.
George Baker: Madam Speaker, the amendments under debate at this particular moment in time have to do with Clause 8. There are three separate motions, as I read it, under debate. This is a Government which purports to be working with the provincial Governments, a Government which purports to be working with the transportation industry. This is from a Government that says it will consult and that it has consulted. It states in Clause 8 that the provincial transport board in each province "may" issue a licence. That is the first part of Clause 8.
It must be kept in mind that the provincial Departments of Transport have said no to this Bill as it stands without a national safety code included. The clause does not state that it can issue a licence, or that the Government will not object if it does issue a licence but that it "may" issue a licence. In fact, this is the federal Government speaking to the provincial Governments which have not agreed to this legislation unless a safety code is put in place.
Clause 8(2) states that the provincial transport board in a province "shall" issue a licence. In effect, this is from the federal Government which is passing a law affecting the provincial Governments when the provincial Governments have said no to the Bill unless a safety code is brought in.
If that were not bad enough we must contend with subclause (3) of Clause 8. It is stated in that clause that the provincial transport board is "authorized" to hold a public hearing. I ask Hon. Members to imagine the Government saying to a provincial transport board: "Yes, you can hold a public hearing". It then states that the board shall not hold a public hearing with respect to an application for a licence referred to in subclause (2). This is legislation put forward by the federal Government which does not have the agreement of the provincial Governments to bring in such regulations. It goes so far as to say that the board, that is, the provincial transport board, shall not hold a public hearing. This is from a Government which says: "We consult. We agree with what the provinces say".
June 16, 1987

If that were not bad enough, there is Subclause (4) of Clause 8 to contend with. That subclause states that the provincial transport board is not required to issue a licence referred to in subclause (2). This is again from the federal Government which is telling a provincial board what it has to do when it does not have the agreement of the provincial governments.
Then in Subclause (5) it is stated that a provincial transport board "shall" and in Subclause (6) it states that the provincial transport board "may not".
What is wrong with this Bill? It is obvious what is wrong with it. It is a gigantic intrusion into provincial jurisdiction without the approval of provincial boards.
I could not care less if it were without the approval of the provincial Governments but with the approval of the people affected in the provinces. Here we have the Government pointing out that there shall not be public hearings, that a province may, a province shall, a province ought to. The Government has done this without the approval of the provincial Governments, without the input of local truckers or the input of the local people who have to pay for their services.
In effect, this is a Bill which will say to poor Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and British Columbia-the extremities of the country: "You will no longer have the control that you had over who delivers goods and services in your area of the country. You are going to accept what we say. We even lay down for you what your provincial boards can and cannot do. We will not stop there. We will say whether you can have public hearings or not".
That is an outrageous intrusion not only into provincial jurisdiction but into the jurisdiction of the public. The jurisdiction of the public deals with having a say over what its transportation network will be like, whether or not it will have to pay more for the transportation of its goods, whether or not there will be one trucker left in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island or British Columbia.
When there are large trucking outfits that can travel the country it is obvious that under this legislation they will be controlled by federal jurisdiction which is imposed at the provincial level. Basically, I would have to say that with the three amendments that are put forward by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) the Government of Canada is surpassing the bounds of good judgment when it comes to relations with the provinces and relations with the people who live in those provinces.
The board referred to in Clause 8 is normally referred to in most provinces as a public utilities board. There are different names for it in different provinces. A trucker will go in and apply to that board for a licence. Sometimes within provinces the board has already issued licences to companies that are established in that area, or to companies which normally provide service in that area.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
The boards also work with the Departments of Finance to regulate the movement of trucks. That is what this board referred to in this particular clause in each province does. These boards even make regulations pertaining to a trucker buying gasoline.
A trucker cannot fill up his truck with gasoline in the State of Maine and go through four or five provinces without paying sales tax on the gasoline in that truck. That is what the weigh scale stations are for. We often wonder what they are for. They are not just to weigh the commodities in the trucks. They are there to measure the amount of gasoline that is in a truck's tank. The people at the weigh station ask the truckers where they are going in their particular province. If the trucker says: "We are going on this particular road for x-number of miles and we are not going to buy any gas or oil for the truck", then the department in the particular province will compute the amount of tax one would have to pay if one had purchased one's fuel in that particular province. Every trucking company knows about that.
The reason this is done is that it might be possible to find some trucks with a couple 100-gallon tanks on either side and the trucker has gassed up in the State of Maine. In Maine we do not have to pay the taxes that we pay at the provincial and federal levels in Canada. The price of gasoline is much cheaper since the oil has been exported by Canada to the United States to be refined.
In this clause the federal Government makes a massive intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. What we strongly object to is that it is without the approval of the provincial government and without the adoption of a national safety code. The federal Government says: "No public hearings. You will not have a say, general public, in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island or British Columbia. It is the Government of Canada. Here is what we are dishing out. Take it whether you like it or not".


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the points raised by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and the Hon. Member for Gander- Twillingate (Mr. Baker).
The whole question of motor vehicle transport in Canada has always been a complex one, given the federal-provincial jurisdictional split. Over the years, as our society has become more sophisticated, motor vehicle transport has become increasingly complicated.
All of the studies done over the years indicated the need for a federal-provincial agreement in this area. I am referring here to studies done by the Economic Council of Canada going back to 1978, interdepartmental studies conducted under the auspices of the previous Government, as well as the many studies conducted by the provinces.

June 16, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
In February of 1985 we had a memorandum of understanding signed by the federal Government and the provinces as to how this matter should be resolved. It was an 11-government agreement. All parties agreed that we had to get our act together.
In the light of that, I cannot understand the remarks of my hon. friend, the Member for Gander-Twillingate. Bill C-19 flows from that 11-government agreement.
While we have always had safety guidelines in place, they have been diverse and diffuse. Again in this area all of the 11 Governments came together, with a memorandum of understanding on a national safety code being signed in March of this year. There was unanimous agreement that when Bill C-19 comes into force on January 1, 1988, over 50 per cent of that national safety code will be in place-and that, in itself, is an enormous improvement over the existing situation. There is agreement that the balance will come into effect by January 1, 1990.
It is in that context that Hon. Members should be considering Bill C-19. To be quite frank, I am at a loss to understand some of the points raised.
It is true that the Canadian Truckers' Association, the driving force behind the unanimous agreement, has expressed some doubts with respect to the national safety code. It is the view of that association that it may be that it would be best to have the entire code go into effect at the same time.
However, the Government, with the concurrence of the committee, believes that the wiser course would be to put it into place as it is ready. It can always be added to or amended over the course of time.
This Government has lived up to its commitment to make safety the number one priority. Hon. Members will be aware that we now have a new Aeronautics Act and a new Canada Shipping Act. As well, we now have in place regulations governing the transport of dangerous goods. In 1984, there were 1,030 safety inspectors in place. Today, we have 1,156, and there will be more added as time goes on.
We are in the process of drafting a new rail safety Act. We have the response to the Foisy report. We are drafting a new transportation accident investigation board Act. As well, the new National Trucking Safety Code will be 50 per cent in force on the proclamation of Bill C-19, with the rest coming into force within a few months following its proclamation.
The concerns with respect to safety are misplaced. They got into problems in the U.S. because they chose to deregulate everything, everywhere, and all at once, all in the absence of having any agreements in respect of safety in place. That is not the case in Canada. We are not doing that at all.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You sure are; you are just doing it slower.


Blaine Allen Thacker: We are not doing that at all. Bill C-19 is, in effect, the safety code. It will place the standards of the
national safety code under federal jurisdiction. Surely that is a sensible move.
The provinces will have identical powers to those of the states of the U.S. with respect to interprovincial transport.
During committee consideration of the Bill, the Hon. Member for Regina West put forth an amendment in respect of the treatment of Canadian truckers in the U.S., and that amendment was accepted by the committee. While our truckers have been very well treated in the U.S., Clause 17 was added to the Bill, giving to the federal Cabinet the right to retaliate in respect of any actions taken against Canadian truckers in the U.S. That is an enormous lever.
The committee did very good work on this Bill. A number of amendments were accepted. Regretfully, other than the one additional amendment from the government side, we are unable to accept the amendments proposed this evening. I repeat, the committee did good work, and I am proud of it.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, as the Member of Parliament for Winnipeg North, Winnipeg being a city to which transportation, whether it be by air, by rail, or truck, is of utmost importance, I could not let this debate come to a close without saying a few words.
In bringing forth this Bill, we see a Government so blinded by its ideology that it ignores the warnings and the questions raised by every sector of the community. The trucking industry has raised serious objection to this Bill. It has urged that deregulation not be proceeded with until a number of very important questions have been answered.
The Province of Manitoba itself has raised some major concerns in respect of Bill C-19.
Deregulation in the trucking sector, as deregulation for the railways or the airlines, may bring benefits to the major centres of this country, but not to the regions. While it may result in cheaper rates and better service in the Quebec City-Windsor axis, while it may result in benefits in terms of the traffic between Calgary and Edmonton, it will do nothing for the northern communities of this country, the farming communities, the cities off the mainstream, such as Lethbridge, all of which will suffer very seriously as a result of this mania for deregulation, regardless of its consequences.
The Parliamentary Secretary has implied that all the provinces have agreed to the provisions of Bill C-19. I have here a letter from the Manitoba Minister for Highways and Transportation analysing the defects in the Bill and raising some very serious questions about it, questions which were ignored by the Government in bringing forth Bill C-19.
The letter is addressed to the federal Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and is dated August 8, 1986.
I shall take a moment to go over some of the questions raised in the letter. Before doing so, let me again point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that not one of the questions raised by the Minister of Highways and Transportation for the
June 16, 1987

Province of Manitoba has been answered by the Government or dealt with in the Bill. As well, he knows very well that the provincial and national trucking associations have raised serious objection to this Bill, for a variety of reasons, none of which have been satisfied.
I remind the Hon. Member that the trucking companies in Manitoba headquartered around Steinbach are among those who have raised very serious objection to this Bill. These are people from whom, in my wildest expectations, I would never expect a vote for the New Democratic Party.
Let me just put on record some of the observations of the Manitoba Minister of Highways and Transportation. In his letter he wrote:
-the new National Safety Code and Fitness Entry Test are not adequate on their own to ensure an appropriate level of highway safety-
The Parliamentary Secretary said that safety would be ensured, but this was from a Government which cut back on the number of public servants in every area. We do not have the same number of people to inspect trucks to ensure that they are structurally sound or to ensure that truck drivers, in their need to meet competition, do not drive 18 hours or 20 hours at a stretch. It is this situation in the United States which has led to many accidents.
Also the Minister wrote:
-small and remote communities and small shippers will not receive adequate service and will be subject to excessive price discrimination, without intervention-
If we let anybody and everybody who has a truck compete for some of the rural communities in the Interlake part of Manitoba or in The Pas-Flin Flon-Thompson area represented by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), it will not be very long before prices are so competitive that some of them will go out of business and we will have no regular, assured service.
Also the Minister wrote:
-American trucking giants are likely to dominate Canadian and transborder trucking markets to the detriment of our national interest-
Canadian trucking companies, which did relatively well in getting business in the United States when it deregulated, now realize that the American companies have a market 10 times the size of the Canadian market and are being forced, because of deregulation in the U.S., to operate under cut-throat competition. They would be very happy to move into the Canadian market. They are so much bigger than Canadian trucking companies that our companies are frightened, with justification, that they will be driven out of business.
Then the Minister indicated:
-cutthroat competition will result in instability in the trucking industry and undue exploitation of trucking employees.
The reasons for the Minister saying that are obvious. That is precisely what will happen if we have free, unfettered competition.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
With the desire to stay in business, prices will be cut, safety will be ignored, and the hours which truckers drive without stopping will be lengthened, and we will have the inevitable results-more and more accidents.
I should like to refer to some of the other concerns expressed by the Manitoba Minister, none of which were answered in the Bill.
He wrote that the following be considered:
-all shippers, particularly small shippers and those located in small and remote communities of Canada, receive adequate service at rates that are not excessively discriminatory-
Obviously the Minister is worried about small communities. If, in order to keep some of the business, trucking companies must cut their prices between main centres in Canada or between main centres in Canada and the United States, obviously they will make up their losses in that very competitive market by increasing prices or cutting services to smaller remote communities. He also wrote:
-the Canadian trucking industry is sufficiently stable and viable.
That needs to be assured before we proceed with deregulation. He went on to say:
-the Canadian trucking industry is in a position to compete on even terms with foreign carriers-
That should have been assured before we proceeded with deregulation. He continued by indicating that a minimum level of Canadian control of the trucking capacity in Canada should be assured.
We have had thousands of takeovers, and there will be increasing take-overs by American companies of Canadian trucking companies. Canadian sovereignty will be lessened. Then the Minister suggested that we needed the following:
-an appropriate balance of trade in trucking services with foreign nations-
We are sitting a few miles from a country which has a population 10 times the size of Canada's. He also indicated that appropriate working conditions and levels of remuneration for those employed in trucking and an appropriate level of highway safety in Canada must be assured.
I know that our time is limited, but I should like to say that the Bill does not meet any of the necessary conditions mentioned by the Manitoba Minister of Highways and Transportation before we proceeded with it. This is why we are opposing the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Thacker).


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, I just want to try to reassure the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) that it is not as grim as he pointed out. First, he mentioned that there were fewer inspectors. In fact, there are 126 more inspectors. It is one area in which there have not been cuts-


André Ouellet: Order, Madam Speaker; he can't speak twice.

June 16, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let him go.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has already spoken.


Blaine Allen Thacker: That is a good point.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: With unanimous consent of the House, I could let him make some explanations.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let him have unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do not have unanimous consent.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I would like to say a word or two. I probably will not say it as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Thacker) would have.
I know a little about the trucking industry, particularly in the Province of Alberta. I want to assure the Hon. Member who just spoke and the rest of the House that our truckers are not violently opposed to the Bill. As a matter of fact, Alberta truckers support the Bill.
Alberta truckers are probably the most knowledgeable of freedom to move of any truckers in the country, because for a number of years Alberta truckers have been virtually operating under freedom to move. They have one of the finest trucking associations in the country, bar none.
When people stand up and say that all these terrible things will happen, I do not know what they are talking about. We are not under a freedom to move system yet. All the things about which they are talking have happened under a regulated system, not under a deregulated system. Besides, this Party and this Government are not out for holus-bolus deregulation. We do not believe in regulating everybody's lives; of course we do not. That is part of the NDP philosophy. We believe in the Government reflecting the thinking of the people in its legislation and in its administration.
I want to talk for a few moments about the United States taking over all our trucking. For a number of years, U.S. trucks have been able to move into Alberta and Alberta trucks have been able to move into the United States. There has been free movement back and forth. It has not resulted in the Americans taking over our trucking, not at all. It has resulted in benefits for the U.S.A. and benefits for Canada, benefits for Alberta. It has been a mutually beneficial thing, because when Alberta truckers go into the United States, they respect its laws, and American truckers respect our laws when they come into Alberta or elsewhere in Canada.
They are truckers, and I want to say a word or two about truckers; I have had a lot to do with them. They are not illiterate and they are not immature. They are a mature group of people. There might be an odd few who will try to work 20 or 24 hours, as the Hon. Member just mentioned, and there
might be the odd few who will take pills to try to stay awake, but they are the exception. That type of exception may take place under any system. However, the vast majority of truckers in Canada are sound, mature, able, and efficient operators. I say that with double strength because I know what I am talking about. They are not out to beat the consumers, they are out to give a service and to make an honest living. I think we should recognize that our truckers are excellent people.
People are saying that we will suddenly see an era without safety. What have our Departments of Highways and our motor transport boards been doing for the last 25 or 30 years? They have been building up a safety system in every province. Now trucks are operating from British Columbia to Montreal, from Edmonton to Halifax, going through every province and observing the rules of every province. It is very difficult for truckers to operate across Canada because every one must get the consent of each motor vehicle transport board to move through the province. It is like 10 Balkan states. This legislation will enable us to become a united nation. I hope the day will come very soon as we advance with this type of legislation that someone with a licence in Alberta who is qualified and has the proper insurance will be able to travel any place in Canada as a nation without having to stop in every province to get a permit.
A few years ago, the situation was even worse. Some Alberta truckers wanted to bring frozen beef to Montreal. The only way they could do that was to go through the United States because the licence fees for an Alberta truck to go through Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and then into Quebec were so high. These truckers had to get a permit from every province. When there are interveners, these permits can cost as much as $20,000 or $25,000 and sometimes even more than that, depending on how many accountants and lawyers are required, how much travelling must be done and how many people oppose it. It is done on the basis of convenience and necessity.
Under the old system, one trucker would get a monopoly and then add truck after truck so that no one else could get into the market. There could be no competition. That is still evident in some places in Canada. We want competition but we do not want monopolies. By working with the laws in this Bill and in Bill C-18, we will be able to get our Canadian truckers to operate across the nation. They will become a viable competitor of the railways and of the airlines and that is the way it should be.
I recall a few years ago when the railways went on strike, they said that truckers could not haul cars. Well, the truckers soon showed them. They got their lowboys out and hauled cars across the nation. They did it cheaper than the railways ever did. Truckers are a viable competitor and we want every mode of transport to have a chance to contribute to the country.
June 16, 1987

There are some things that the trains can do best. There are some things that truckers can do best. There are some things that the airlines can do best. There are some things that the pipelines can do best. Some things can even go by ship around the country and have cheaper and better service. However, every mode should have the opportunity to compete fairly and that is what we are aiming at.
Before we began to deal with freedom to move, there were at least 18 or 20 trucks in the United States to every truck in Alberta. Now it has gone the other way. Under freedom to move, it is almost one for one. Our truckers have healthy businesses in the United States and they employ Canadians.
The trucking industry will thrive under this legislation. It will give truckers the first chance they have had for years to compete ably. I am not afraid at all of American trucks taking over our trucking industry. As a matter of fact, I asked an American who appeared before our committee if he was afraid of the Canadian trucks taking over the American trucks and he said that maybe I had something there. Our truckers are just as wise, knowledgeable and efficient and perhaps even more so than any American trucker. Our truckers are one fine group and I am not afraid at all that they cannot compete ably and provide a service to Canada.
I support this Bill. What about all these wild dreams about the roads becoming unsafe? The roads being built today are built well with good gradients, good sight distances, good curves and they will improve. They will get better and better. We have excellent engineers in Canada and our truckers will be able to operate ably because they will be well trained.
We will not stop training truckers and we will not stop checking motor vehicles because we are changing the system. We will do it more so. It will be in the truckers' best interests to keep their vehicles roadworthy and to give their drivers proper wages and hours of work. In that way, they will make a contribution to Canada that they have never been able to make before, a contribution they have been denied the right to make. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary for sponsoring this Bill and I think it will mean great things for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the rhetoric of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). No one would oppose much of what he had to say. Everyone supports a system that would bring some kind of redress to the Balkanization of the permit system in Canada, but what the Hon. Member and the Government have not addressed is the point raised by my colleague from Regina and my friend from Thunder Bay.
I believe we must look pretty carefully at what this Bill really means. The Hon. Member has said that this kind of competition will be good, but anyone who has taken a close look at the implications of what happened in Australia and various places in the United States like California as a result of deregulation would scratch his head and wonder why the
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
Government did not bring in the safety criteria and the regulations first so that truckers knew what they would get.
As I said earlier this evening, the Members on the government side were always the ones who went after the Liberals whenever they brought in a Bill that had a clause like Clause 8 which provided that the Governor in Council could make all the regulations after the Bill is passed. It provides for Trojan Horse regulatory powers. The Hon. Member for Bow River has always fought against that in the House but he seems to be overlooking it this evening.
This Bill will lead to competition that will lead to monopolies. I would like to put a few facts on the record indicating what this really means for small truckers from Skeena, Newfoundland, northern Ontario and some of the regions where small routes have been developed over time. In those areas, truckers move a little bit of this to there and another commodity over there and back-haul something else. They just manage to find themselves a niche and can keep one, two or ten trucks on the road.
The Hon. Member speaks of fit, willing and able. We know what the definition of that is in the Bill. Anyone who can get a bank or credit union to give him the financing to get a couple of tractors, some insurance and a couple of drivers will be considered under this legislation to be fit, willing and able.
Let us look at the Canadian trucking sector. Trucking accounts for 50 per cent of all the transportation revenue in Canada. That amounted to about $5 billion last year, not including revenue raised by fleets owned by companies that do their own hauling. Some very substantial hauling is done by those fleets. For example, earlier this evening we were talking about a large hauler like Canadian Tire and what happens when Canadian Tire takes a large amount of product from Toronto.
Let us say they take it to Terrace or Gander, Newfoundland, and drop it off where historically a small regional trucking operator would be hauling various commodities in the province and perhaps beyond the province into another region. They cannot possibly compete when Canadian Tire is getting from the consumer the cost of trucking. They simply pay the driver and pay for the rubber, the diesel, the gas and so on, for an empty back-haul. That opens a whole new era of trucking in Canada for such corporations.
Let us take a look at the safety questions. Important evidence was put before the Transport Committee which was not listened to by the government side. In the event of an accident involving a car and a truck, the driver of the car is 40 times more likely to be killed. Twelve Canadians a day are dying right now on our highways. Competition at the expense of safety was blamed for a 40 per cent increase in accidents in California after deregulation there in 1980. It is exactly that kind of competition which the Canadian industry is now alarmed about.

June 16, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
In British Columbia just a few months ago there was a landmark coroner's inquest into brakes and safety matters with regard to large tractor trailer operations. The loosening of front axle brakes on tractor trailers has been proliferating, particularly in British Columbia. Evidence was given by the manager of fleet safety for the Insurance Corporation of B.C. Mr. Fergus Savage told the inquest that 60 per cent of the heavy trucks on B.C. highways are operating without those brakes "the highest per centage in Canada", and that most drivers wrongly believe that they are better off without them. The evidence he gave included a report by NBC in the United States which attributed thousands of road fatalities on U.S. highways to the lack of such brakes on heavy trucks.
The Government says that this is only to break down the Balkanization of the permit system. That seems to be its selling line for this legislation. The fact is that the key issue, which is safety on the highways and safety of the truckers, has not been addressed.
Some of the other evidence in relation to Bill C-19 is very worthy of consideration. Predation should have been more directly addressed in Clause 8. It includes the entire sequence of issuance of licences, public hearings, how to file objections, implementation, limitations and regulation. Predation is clearly an issue which the Government has not fully thought through. If it has, it has simply opted in favour of the very large Canadian trucking operators which will pick up a lot of the smaller rural forward and back-haul routes.
After 30 years of deregulation in Australia three trucker/forwarders control 70 per cent of the interstate transportation market-place. In the United States the degree of concentration in the LTL industry since 1980 has surprised everybody. The fact is that not one new general freight carrier has been able to enter the market-place since U.S. deregulation.
Government Members get up and say that this will create a whole new era, that all kinds of new corporations will be formed, there will be all kinds of new profit, that prices will come down, consumers will be better served, and truckers will be free to haul beef from Alberta to Toronto without having to go through the U.S. and so on. The fact is that that which happened in California which has roughly the same population as Canada and roughly the same amount of traffic tonnage movement was quite different.
There are no new entrants into the market-place. There is no long-term competitive downward pricing for the movement of commodity which is supposed to be to the benefit of consumers. Instead new monopolies which were not there in the past have been created. The monopoly structures get rid of the independent truckers which have always been in the marketplace, the small guy, the Ma and Pa operations with one, two, five or ten trucks. Those are the ones which will disappear and there will be massive expansion of the big ones such as Canadian Freightways.
Another thing which should have been looked at more carefully in Clause 8 which the Government likes to skate around is that which has happened in relation to U.S. carriers coming into the Canadian market. The largest U.S. carrier that has been in the Canadian market the longest, Canadian Freightways, while dominant in the western Canadian general freight market, has certainly not been a cut-rate operator. Indeed, Canadian Freightways have been exemplary in creating a separate Canadian identity.
The trouble is that few, if any, of the more recent U.S. entrants have shown similar tendencies. Rather, they seem to regard a few sectors of the Canadian market as nothing more than convenient extensions of their U.S. operations where marketing policies are determined from outside Canada and possibly beyond the purview of BCP in any practical sense.
Let us take a look at what has happened with those carriers. A submission to the standing committee in 1985 relied in large part on the Boucher study which claimed that the big U.S. carriers are complementary to Canadian carriers and no threat at all to domestic carriers in short-haul international LTL or domestically. Approximately two months before BCP's presentation to the standing committee one of the largest U.S. general freight carriers, Yellow Freight, sought and obtained multipoint operating authority throughout Quebec. Two months later another of the U.S. mega carriers, Roadway, obtained broad-based authority throughout Ontario. Now all three U.S. continental giants have broad-based authority in the key Canadian markets.
What has the Government done? It has been in office since 1984. There has been no movement on safety and no movement to deal with the penetration of U.S. carriers. The Member for Bow River says that to haul Alberta beef from Alberta to Ontario we have to go through the U.S. and meet all of their interstate criteria. This is not the way to deal with the Balkanization of permits. No Member of this House should knowingly vote for this Bill telling truckers that that is what it is for. We should be dealing with a different kind of permiting system and with safety first.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I want to deal with the amendments which have been introduced by my colleagues which go directly to the root of this legislation, Bill C-19, which has been vigorously opposed by the truckers' associations. It is surprising that the Government has gone ahead to deal with such legislation while those concerned are so vehemently opposed to it.
I will quote representations made before the standing committee by the Ontario Trucking Association which to me, more than any other, echo the concerns of truckers across Canada and identify the three principal areas of concern, those being, first, that all of the essential ingredients for implementing and enforcing a uniform national safety code will not be in place by the proposed date of regulatory change, second, that there are no measures at hand in the Bill to combat unsafe or predatory pricing and, third, that Canadian carriers will be at
June 16, 1987

a significant competitive disadvantage with U.S. carriers because of more onerous taxation and social policies.
Let me first deal briefly with the issue of the uneven playing field with which Canadian truckers have to contend and which places them at a significant competitive disadvantage to their American counterparts. I would like to quote from a letter sent by the Canadian Trucking Association to members of the standing committee. I heard my colleagues who spoke earlier, particularly the very important member of the standing committee, the very venerable Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). Indeed, he knows a lot about the trucking industry and has a very distinguished career in the Province of Alberta dealing with transportation matters. Therefore, he should be aware of the feeling of the Canadian Trucking Association.
I am sure that he must have received this letter. I was a little surprised by his presentation and I just want to refresh his memory by quoting the letter from the Canadian Trucking Association that was sent to all members of the standing committee. It states: "It is not simply a question of whether U.S. truckers will have a long-term cash flow advantage over Canadian truckers. If the disparity is as great as it appears, the Canadian truckers who are serious about long-term participation in serving an integrated continental transportation market-place will increasingly be persuaded to relocate their international operations in the United States, operating back into this country using U.S. equipment and U.S. employees".
It goes on to state: "The implication of that scenario goes far beyond the immediate interests of truckers".
Yet the Government has failed to move. Numerous representations to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) only met with disinterest. One hopes that when the Minister tables his long awaited White Paper on taxation Thursday night he will address the concerns of the trucking industry, particularly with regard to the issue of compensation for loss of value of operating authority.
I am a little skeptical of the desire of the Government to move so quickly with Bill C-19. It was even asking that we deal not only with report stage, but third reading tonight. Is that because on Thursday night the Minister of Finance will forget the Canadian truckers? Is it because government Members, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Deputy Government House Leader know something we on this side of the House do not know and want to be sure that this legislation is disposed of before the truckers realize Friday morning that the Minister of Finance has forgotten them, thereby putting them in deep trouble in the face of competition from the American truckers?
The Parliamentary Secretary is shaking his head and I suspect that he is saying that he does not know. I hope I am wrong and that indeed the Minister of Finance will not forget the Canadian truckers Thursday night.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
At any rate, I support the amendments that have been moved by my colleagues from the New Democratic Party and hope that these amendments are accepted because at least they will improve very bad legislation.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I will not spend much time but since one of the motions is in my name, I feel I should contribute to the discussion.
The motions in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and myself refer to fundamental matters in Bill C-19 and, as indicated by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), attempt to make a bad Bill better.
We have great concerns about the direction in which the country is heading in terms of truck transportation. We believe that while there needs to be a re-examination of regulation and the manner in which we require motor carriers to operate, the Government has gone too far too fast with this legislation. The whole question of safety has not been addressed to the extent we believe appropriate.
I want to read into the record a letter from the Canadian Trucking Association that was sent to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). It is dated June 2, 1987, and is a follow-up to their appearance before the Standing Committee on Transport which was charged with the responsibility of reviewing Bill C-19.
The letter states:
Re: Safety of Commercial Highway Vehicles
During the hearings before the Standing Committee on Transport on Bill C-19 where CTA stressed its concern over highway safety implications of deregulation, we were accused by shippers of having raised a "phoney" issue on grounds that there was no evidence of a connection between motor carrier deregulation and safety deterioration from the U.S. experience. Shippers are still saying that. Indeed, your own departmental advisers appear to have adopted much the same approach.
On the basis that the debate over whether we are going to deregulate is now over, I would like to take this opportunity to hopefully set the record straight based on comprehensive documentation that has come out of the United States relating to the commercial vehicle safety problem.
The attached booklet on highway safety and the relationship with deregulation was prepared on behalf of the Coalition for Sound General Freight Trucking which I take it is a coalition of U.S. trucking associations including American Trucking Associations. The point here is that these U.S. trucking interests are not raising the connection between safety and deregulation for the purpose of turning the clock back. There would be no point in that and the same holds true here.
An objective overview of the attached material can lead to only one conclusion; namely, that there has been a marked deterioration in highway safety for particular segments of the U.S. trucking industry in recent years and the position continues to deteriorate despite serious attempts to introduce more effective highway safety enforcement.
We have a huge job to be done in Canada on safety and time is of the essence, as we tried to tell the Committee.
Due to the erosion of the regulatory process in recent years, the Canadian trucking industry has come under much the same pressure as its U.S. counterpart and the position is anything but satisfactory as things stand. It can only get worse. In that regard, you may be aware that the Quebec Department of Transport recently introduced a comprehensive on-highway enforcement crackdown on highways leading into Montreal and Quebec City. The initial

June 16, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
results from that exercise show that well over 50 per cent of vehicles inspected were in violation of either safety or licensing requirements.
May I add that this is under a regulated system. The letter continues:
More and more Canadian carriers operating in the U.S. are now being picked up for serious safety violations there.
CTA and its provincial affiliates are coming under pressure from individual carriers who are not at all happy with the position we have taken on safety. The fact is that there are established fleets operating on a regular basis that push their drivers beyond 20 hours in a shift. If one carrier does it, everyone has to do it to remain competitive. It is just as simple as that.
In that regard, industry executives who attended the recent CCMTA Safety Code meetings remain concerned over the seeming lack of urgency in getting on with implementation and enforcement of key elements of the National Safety Code.
Extra provincial hours of service regulation is a fiasco as things stand and will seemingly remain so until about 1990. In addition there may be a jurisdictional problem which CTA raised the best part of two years ago concerning private fleets and the issue has still not been addressed as far as we know. Last week at a CTA Conference and Annual Meeting, grave concerns were raised about the delay in getting on with comprehensive enforcement of essential elements of the Safety Code. Clearly the most critical aspect is hours of service followed closely by vehicle inspection, all requiring an effective enforcement regime.
Concerns are heightened due to the exemptions that CCMTA proposes to incorporate into any new hours of service regime.
It is difficult enough to obtain reliable records on hours of service without riddling the regime with loopholes and exemptions. These should be kept to a minimum otherwise it makes effective enforcement virtually impossible.
There is only one way to address the fundamental problems and that is through meaningful and ongoing safety enforcement that treats everyone equally. Having 50 per cent of a paper regime in place by the beginning of deregulation in 1988 will do very little to improve things.
What is required now is hands-on federal involvement in the process of getting the Safety Code in place by assisting the handful of dedicated provincial officials who have taken on this responsibility. Federal funding alone will not do the job.
It is signed by A. K. Maclaren, Vice President, Government Relations, of the Canadian Trucking Association.
I think its letter to the Minister expresses very clearly the concerns of the industry. I know my time is running out, but I just want to say to Members of the House that we are very concerned about safety and about the impact of this Bill regardless of our philosophical problems. We are going ahead much too fast and the industry and the provinces need the time to put the mechanisms in place to ensure our highways will be safe.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The first question is on Motion No. 2 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.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to the order made tonight, the recorded division stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2A standing in the name of Mr. de Cotret for the Minister of Transport. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to the order made tonight, the recorded division stands deferred.


André Ouellet: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-19, be amended in Clause 9 by adding immediately after line 16
at page 6 the following:
"(/) to prevent unfair pricing practices by an extra-provincial truck undertaking;".
He said: Madam Speaker, very briefly, I would like to say that unfair pricing practices are a matter of serious concern to
June 16, 1987

the trucking industry in Canada. Obviously, in an open market where competition is the name of the game, there will be a tendency for shippers to seek out the lowest possible rates. That is of course one of the great benefits of deregulation-

We must be very careful, indeed, because testimony before the California Public Utilities Commission in February, 1987, provides significant insight into the dangers of unfettered price competition. Volume discounts and rate reductions have become the order of the day in California. Several carriers have not had any increase at all in their rate levels since 1980. Moreover, a price floor has never been achieved in California. Some carriers have always been willing to cut their rates further to get a shipment. Indeed, transportation is a perishable product and a missed load could never be recaptured. That seems to be the prevailing philosophy in California and I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that it could be the prevailing philosophy in Canada after deregulation of the transport industry takes place.

We feel that the acceptance of Bill C-19 as it now exists would seriously damage the highway transportation industry in Canada. Major American carriers will be among those who will apply for the more readily available licences. According to Canadian industry representatives, foreign take-overs of Canadian highway carriers will multiply over the next five years. Since 1981, the operating costs in Canada have increased by 28 per cent, due mainly to the high tax on fuel and the tremendous costs of liability insurance. Over the same period, the traffic has increased by only 5 per cent. As a net result, the profit margin is now down to 3 per cent, one of the lowest since World War II.
Well, major American firms, sometimes with individual gross sales higher than those of the whole Canadian industry, could enter the Canadian market, lower their rates, offering predatory rates, absorbing losses for a couple of years and finally purchasing completely exhausted Canadian highway carriers.
That is the risk of introducing such fitness criteria at a time when the Canadian industry is operating with a 3 per cent profit margin and when the very survival of the Canadian trucking industry is at stake.
Our major concern is that the Combines Investigation Act would be inadequate to prevent this kind of competition.

In all the history of the provisions, which date back to the early 1950s, only six cases have come to the courts. Only one conviction has been obtained. That was for goods given away in large quantities for a period of one year. The reasons for such an ineffectiveness are clear. Predatory pricing is a criminal versus a civil offence under the Competition Act. All elements of the offence must be satisfied by the criminal standard of proof which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt,
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
and all criminal law defences are available, including now the Charter of Rights.
The pricing inquiry into Canadian newspapers is a good example of how illusory our Competition Act could be. Marshalling sufficient evidence to meet the criminal standards of proof is very difficult and is the reason most often cited by the Director of Combines for discontinuing inquiries. The courts have said that the evidence must be strong in order to convince them to intervene and convict. As Mr. Moore in his book, How Much Price Competition!, said: "The battle is likely to be over before the case is completed".

It is to remedy these major shortcomings that we have moved motion No. 4, which would allow the Governor in Council, following consultation with the government of each province, to make regulations in order, and I quote:
"to prevent unfair pricing practices by an extra-provincial truck undertaking;"
I hope, therefore, that my colleagues in the House will accept this motion which I feel is essential to reinforce Bill C-19 as well as the Canada Competition Act.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, I know we have a ten o'clock deadline we have agreed to, but I would just like to say that one thing many of us as Members have always agreed on with the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) are his comments vis-a-vis the sugar refinery case under the Combines Investigation Act which had a criminal standard. However, the one thing the Government has done since 1984 is to change the Competition Act where the test is now a civil test, a balance of probabilities. Therefore, there will be far more convictions and charges laid for that type of offence. As well, the National Transportation Act has inquiry mechanisms, as does the Competition Bill itself. So I think there are a lot of ways of meeting the needs.
In terms of the Hon. Member's comments vis-a-vis pricing, a recent study completed for Transport Canada by a consultant, which is a subsidiary of an Alberta trucking company and which operates in Canada and the United States, shows that Canadian carriers have approximately a 10 per cent cost advantage over the U.S. carriers. That is certainly good news for us at this time.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 16, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to order made earlier tonight, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


André Ouellet: Motion No. 7 A
That Bill C-19, be amended in Clause 33 by striking out lines 37 to 40 at
page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"33.(1) This Act except this section and sections 3 and 9 shall come into force on a date prescribed by the Governor in Council after the implementation of regulations respecting the safe operation of extraprovincial bus undertakings or extra-provincial truck undertakings including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, regulation respecting audit, inspection, entry on premises and the provision of information, in at least 7 provinces.
(2) This section and sections 3 and 9, shall come into force on January 1, 1988 or on an earlier date as may be fixed by proclamation."
He said: Madam Speaker, very briefly, in order to meet our timetable, I want to say that this motion is before us because the Canadian Trucking Association indicated to all the members of the committee who studied Bill C-19 that the reverse onus test is equivalent to full deregulation as it is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless as an entry test. Therefore acceptance of Bill C-19 as it is with extended reverse onus for a five-year period means-and I hope the Government and all Members of the House will realize this-a move to full deregulation immediately.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) indicated that he and the Government will do their utmost to ensure that safety on the road will be paramount and that they have been dealing with the provinces to reach an agreement to have a national safety code in place, we have now been made aware of a letter sent to the Editor of The Toronto Star by the Minister of Transport which states that most of the components of the national safety code will be in place by 1990. I think my colleagues will remember that the Minister of Transport appeared before the committee and said that it would be ready and in place for 1988.
In other words, the Minister of Transport came before the committee and made us believe that it would be ready in 1988. Some of the Conservative mepibers of the committee were ready to vote with us, the members of the Opposition, in order
to ensure that a national safety code would be implemented before we move into total deregulation. On the words of the Minister these Conservative members turned down our amendment. We have now been made aware of a letter from the Minister of Transport to The Toronto Star which states that not only will it not be ready for 1988 but some of the components of it will not even be in place by 1990.
At this very moment we know that some provinces have not yet signed the so-called unanimous agreement about which the Minister was talking. The bottom line is this. Should we accept enactment of this Bill as it is, we will be accepting full deregulation without a national safety code in place. This is why I have moved my amendment. It is to ensure that the Government will not play with the safety and security of people on the road. Thus I hope this amendment will be accepted.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, there are members from all three Parties on the committee who feel some chagrin and somewhat misled, or at least led astray, as a result of the statements made by the Government with respect to the implementation of a national safety code by January 1, 1988. An amendment which we moved in committee to put the date ahead to January 1, 1989 was pooh-poohed. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), has just said, and as the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), the Parliamentary Secretary and the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane) know, we questioned the Minister carefully on this matter. It has all turned out to be a pile of you-know-what, Madam Speaker.
In accordance with the requests of the Canadian Trucking Association and in light of the fact that several provinces have not yet even got around to arriving at a consensus for a national trucking code having to do with licensing, permits and safety, the amendment of the Hon. Member is perfectly reasonable. It does nothing more than require-and I guess this is the old stage of the Constitution-at least seven provinces out of ten to agree, and then there are the two Territories which have been snubbed totally throughout all of this. The committee could not even travel up there. The committee would not let us go to Yellowknife or Whitehorse. The people of the Territories have been snubbed again with respect to the Constitution. All we are asking is that until seven provinces have their regulations and their boards, by agreement with the federal Government, in place this Bill will not take effect. We tried that in committee. We were assured that everything would be ready by January 1, 1988. We will be lucky if it is ready by January 1, 1990.
The Government should try to quit kidding itself, as well as the rest of us, because it is not fooling anyone with respect to this issue. If it was smart it would take this Bill and just not deal with it anymore. It would not call third reading tomorrow. It would leave it sit until next year when we could finish dealing with it. You will be surprised to hear this, Madam Speaker, but we will not be ready to finalize it because the provinces are still horsing around on it. You can bet on that,
June 16, 1987

Madam Speaker, and I am not a betting man, especially when I think I might lose.
This amendment would impose a partial safeguard for what the Government told us repeatedly would be in place by next January 1. Everyone in this Elouse knows that it will not be ready by January 1. The implementation of this legislation has to be delayed at least one year, if we are lucky. I hope that the Government will support this motion.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 7A standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to the order made earlier tonight, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Blaine Allen Thacker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, on a point of order.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, there have been some serious allegations made against the Minister based on an article in The Toronto Star. I want to assure Hon. Members that the article in question totally misquotes the Minister. In fact, the Minister said that "most would be in place by January 1, 1988". That was not included in the article. It was simply a misquote.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is not even a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extraprovincial undertakings, now before the House. However, pursuant to the order made earlier this day, the recorded divisions will stand deferred until tomorrow after the completion of Routine Proceedings.

It being 10.00 p.m., pursuant to the Order adopted on Friday, June 12, 1987, this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2.00 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.00 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, June 17, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers