1987-02-09

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Lewis) which agreed to on the following division.
Division No. 62)
 YEAS Members		
Andre	Forrestall	LanthierBlenkarn	Fretz	LewisBouchard	Graham	MacDonaldBourgault	Gray	(Kingston andClinch	(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	the Islands)Cdte	la-Madeleine)	Mantha(Langelier)	Greenaway	MarinCrofton	Grise	MazankowskiCrosbie	Hamelin	McCain(St. John's West)	Hamilton	McCrossanDarling	Hardey	McKinnonDaubney	Hawkes	MinakerDesjardins	Hees	NicholsonEdwards	Hicks	(Niagara Falls)Ellis	Johnson	NickersonEpp	(Bonavista-T rinity-	Nowlan(Provencher)	Conception)	OostromFennell	Kilgour	PennockPrice	Scowen	WilsonReid	Siddon	(Swift Current-Ricard	Sparrow	Maple Creek)St. Germain	Thacker	WilsonSchellenberg	Towers	(Etobicoke Centre)(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Vfczina	Winegard-59
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
++NAYS
Members
Allmand	Foster	NicholsonAlthouse	Frith	(Trinity)Axworthy	Fulton	NystromBaker	Gauthier	OuelletBlackburn	Gray	Riis(Brant)	(Windsor West)	RobichaudBoudria	Keeper	RobinsonBroadbent	Lapierre	TobinCassidy	Mitchell	Waddell-27Copps	Murphy	Dingwall


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


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. So much for parliamentary reform and the treatment of committee reports.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Orders of the Day.


Mr. Riis:: Point of order.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie (St. John's West) that Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Orders of the day have been called. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) a point of order before I recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.

February 9, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I simply rise on a point of order regarding the business of the House. I would like to seek some indication-particularly when the Government House Leader is in his seat-as to whether or not we will have an opportunity to discuss the concurrence motion regarding lobbying. The feeling was, as a result of the events of recent days in the House and over the weekend, that it was appropriate to spend only two hours this morning discussing the process of lobbying and perhaps offering some suggestions and some potential solutions as to how the whole matter might be handled in the future. I am simply seeking some guidance as to whether we will have an opportunity to discuss this critical committee report some time later this week.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, of course, we will be glad to discuss it. However, we would like to get on with some Government business. There are committees waiting for important Bills which the New Democratic Party refuses to debate. It has been engaged in stalling and procrastination in a very deliberate fashion, undermining, circumventing and subverting the rules of the House. On the one hand, members of the New Democratic Party say they want to debate and then they continually engage in flippant motions and in motions which do nothing but obstruct orderly debate. That is what we are interested in; we are interested in orderly debate and to get the business of the House moving. This Government has a responsibility to govern, and it is governing.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order with respect to House business. I seek some clarification from the Government House Leader on the Government's position in this regard. Anyone reading the headlines or watching television with respect to reports of what happened at the Tory caucus in Quebec over the weekend would have thought that the issue of lobbying and government integrity, generally, was supposed to be first on the list of government business. Why is the Government House Leader afraid to have this issue discussed today even for two hours? What could be more important than the integrity of this Conservative Government, or lack of same?


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a different point of order, although I share the views just expressed by my House Leader; I think it is terrible to come in and shut off debate.
I want to refer back to the projected order of business for Friday and today. I am sure the Table will listen to me attentively because I think I have a point, that there is something here which is not only confusing but I think a mistake. It was certainly done by someone and I think it was done inadvertently.
On Friday the Projected Order of Business, states that if we get to Bill C-19 there is a 20-minute maximum for all other speakers during the next seven hours and seventeen minutes of debate and speeches are subject to a 10-minute question and comment period. We have had 43 minutes of speech on Bill C-
19. Therefore, we knew we had seven hours and seventeen minutes left. In the Projected Order of Business for Monday, February 9, we find that although-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I believe the Chair explained that there was a mistake last week and it was brought to the attention of the House. I refer to page 3193 of Hansard of February 6 wherein the Acting Speaker said:
At this time I wish to bring to the attention of Hon. Members that the time recorded under Bill C-19 in today's Projected Order of Business is wrong. The time remaining for debate is six hours and 42 minutes.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I was aware of that, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for bringing it to the attention of the House. Today we say there are six hours and forty-two minutes left because we had at best possibly 10 minutes on Friday for debate on Bill C-19.1 take it also that in that time consideration, the 10-minute period reserved for comments and questions has been included in the total figure given to us today. I want that confirmed because that is an argument which I want to make to the Chair some day, that it should not be included.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is included and I take the Hon. Member's remark as notice.


Philip Derek Lewis: Before I proceed with my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would comment to the House that there have been discussions among the Parties as to the most expeditious manner of handling Bill C-19. I think it is fair to say that those discussions were tied into the way the House dealt with Bill C-18. Therefore, I think you would find unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, for the following motion:
That Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings, not be referred to a legislative committee but be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport upon second reading of this Bill.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is true that there have been discussions among the Parties on this matter and there is interest in this particular proposal. However, motions of this type are generally made during Routine Proceedings and the Government itself chose to blank them out. Therefore, I think this motion had better stand while we consider our position.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions. We were anticipating that the Government would take the opportunity after the weekend, as a result of deliberations which went on late Friday, to use Routine Proceedings to introduce such a motion, that is why I think so many of us, likely including yourself, Mr. Speaker, were surprised when we found we would not be getting to that item today, but moving directly into debate. Therefore, I will have to follow the position taken by the previous speaker that we simply let the matter stand for the moment.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions myself with the House Leader of the Liberal Party and with the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). It was my Firm understanding from both of those individuals that this motion
February 9, 1987

could be adopted with the consent of all the Parties in the House. With respect, to rise this morning and object because it is not being done under Routine Proceedings, but is being done now, I do not believe is an accurate representation of the understanding we had last week.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I need unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent for the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to participate in this debate. The House will know that this is the fourth day this Bill has been called for debate. Unfortunately, it has been unnecessarily delayed by members of the New Democratic Party.
On Wednesday of last week it was called and a concurrence motion was moved by a member of the New Democratic Party.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we have no difficulty in debating concurrence motions on committee reports if there has been prior notice and an opportunity for all Parties to inform their spokespersons and for the House to have an informed, lively, intelligent debate. Unfortunately, that did not happen. There was no notice. Therefore, Wednesday was lost.
On Thursday, once again during Routine Proceedings, the New Democratic Party moved concurrence of a report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. As a former chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts, 1 can say it is a very non-partisan committee. It works very hard on behalf of the House. Those reports are almost always unanimous, well thought out and a lot of time is taken in their preparation. If we are going to debate those reports, it seems to me only logical that we treat them properly and give everyone notice so we have an informed debate. Once again, there was no notice. At eleven o'clock on Thursday concurrence was moved and we had probably an hour and three-quarters debate on that very important report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
The next thing that happened was debate on Thursday afternoon on this Bill. On Friday, a concurrence motion was moved by a member of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). I think this motion bears an even more intense examination because this was the third time in a row. The report in question was a report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources as to appointments. When one examines the transcript of the committee hearings at which the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway was in attendance one will find that at no time during the proceedings of the committee did the Hon. Member take any part in the discussions with respect to these appointments. However, when the matter came before the House, when Hon. Members were asked to concur in the report of the committee, suddenly the Hon. Member took a great deal of interest in the matter.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is trying to make a procedural point and I am not sure I understand why.
It has no relevance to Bill C-19. I wonder if perhaps he could give us his position on the Bill before the House instead of indulging in sarcasm and ridicule the way he is doing right now, which is certainly not relevant to Bill C-19. I would like to know whether the Hon. Member could be asked to speak to Bill C-19.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary knows what is relevance in the House of Commons and, therefore, is coming to his point.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of the Government I would say a strict enforcement of the rule of relevancy would be welcomed by us all.


Ms. Mitchell:: How about setting an example?


Philip Derek Lewis: At any rate, for all intents and purposes Friday was lost to debate and we now have an opportunity to enter into debate. We think that we should have a good day's debate on this important Bill. For that reason, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell):
That this question be now put.


Some Hon. Members:: Debate!


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) was in the process of condemning the New Democratic Party for a motion introduced on Friday and then proceeded to introduce what is in effect a closure motion on the debate. That has become the principle trade mark of the Government. Members of the Government say that they want to give the House more authority. They say they want to give committees more authority. Yet every second motion introduced by the Government in the Chamber is a closure motion. In effect, the Hon. Member has now ended debate with his motion.
He asks that the question be now put. Following speeches that will be given on his motion of closure the Conservatives will use their massive majority once again to shove another Bill through the House of Commons. This brings up the question of the accountability of the Government to the people of Canada. Members of the Government are not accountable for anything they do. I cannot think of one single thing for which the Government is accountable to the people of Canada. For the life of me, I cannot see what the value of the House of

February 9, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
Commons is under the present Government. It is muzzling Parliament.
The Government has an agenda upon which it is acting. Sometimes it does not know who makes the decisions. It does not know who it was who ordered the Canadian Embassy and the PMO to sign an agreement with the French. No one knows who ordered the decision to be made. I ask then what is the purpose of the House of Commons under the present Government? No one here can tell me or Canadians what the function of the House of Commons is under the present Government.
In very legitimate terms the House of Commons should be a law-making institution, but certainly not one which just rubber-stamps laws put forward by the Government. The Government has a massive majority and it can move a closure motion whenever it wants. Not one piece of legislation has been originated in the House since the present Government took office. By its own philosophy of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer what the Government has done is gone through a list of legislation that will benefit the powerful in the country. The Bill before us is another example of benefit to the United States truckers and United States carriers of freight. That is all this Bill is about.
What then is the bottom line of the Hon. Member's motion now before the House? We know that the House no longer originates legislation. It does not even talk about legislation. It has no meaning in the legislative process any longer. If it does not do those things then what does it do? It might be said that in Question Period there is some semblance left of making the Government accountable to the people of Canada. But motions of the sort moved by the Hon. Member throw accountability right out the window.
Even during Question Period a Minister is no longer held accountable for his actions. A tradition has developed since this Government took power wherein a Minister does not have to know what went on in his Department or who made a decision in his Department. It is disgusting to anyone who watches and follows the process.
When the Government was elected it promised to bring democracy back into the House of Commons. That was one of the Tory promises set out in the handbook of promises. It was promise number 299. Yet what have members of the Government done? Every second day they introduce closure in order to get their Bills through, Bills which match their philosophy. They refuse to answer questions in the House of Commons. The Parliamentary Secretary has just hammered another nail into the coffin of accountability of the Government to the people of Canada. People are wondering what the function of the House of Commons is. Does it play a recruitment function for future Governments? No, it does not. The turnover in this place is one-third every election. It is no longer a law-making body. So what does it do? It is certainly not accountable to the people of Canada with motions such as the one introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary.
I would now like to deal with why the Government wants this Bill shoved through Parliament. It wants it shoved through Parliament because it opens up, so the Government says, competition in the trucking industry. It says to all truckers in Canada today, "We don't care how much money you spent on your truck and your trucking service, we don't care how much insurance you had to pay, we don't care anything about that, but what we are doing with this Bill is opening up the industry to more competition from the United States".
It is what they call the Freedom to Move philosphy. They are saying let us have freedom to move not only in the private sector, but in the public sector with Crown corporations, with Marine Atlantic, with the ferry boats that go to the different provinces, and with the freight that is moved from one province to another in eastern Canada. Let us allow the carrier to bring up the cost of freight to match his charges. They say to Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland that, "We will jack up the freight charges to pay for the ferry transportation, we will jack up the charges to the people carrying the freight, the truckers, CN, and the people who are driving their cars across to bring it up to a profit-making venture".
If that is done, and when that is accomplished, what is the need of the Crown corporation? What is the need of it, because nobody will be travelling. Obviously, something will have to be done. People will have to start moving, because they certainly cannot afford to live on those islands with the projected increase in freight costs. What will be done with the loss of service along the coastline, with the coastal boat service now having to make money in the Province of Newfoundland, or the bus service that replaced the rail now having to break even across the province? The fact of the matter regarding the bus service is that it has actually been making money to pay for the salaries in Montreal for the past two or three years.
Under this Bill the fittest survive with an influx of competition from the United States. If it was fair competition, it would not be so bad. Where is the competition when gasoline can be purchased for three-quarters or close to half the cost it is on the Canadian side; that is using our oil that the Government has sold cheaper to a United States refinery than to a Canadian refinery? That is the policy of the Government. A United States carrier will start off with cheaper everything. He moves up here and by himself knocks out predatory pricing, and all of the carriers from one end of Canada to the other. That can happen under this Bill.
One wonders who started this Bill. Was it for the free trade negotiators with the United States? Was this another card to remove all the obstacles to all of the trucking companies in the United States so they could move up here and take over the Canadian market? It could be that that is exactly the purpose of this legislation. It is on the free trade table. It is the deregulation of the trucking industry, the rail industry, the airline industry, and of every other industry so that the Americans can take advantage of the market.
February 9, 1987

That is what the Government has decided to push through Parliament, again using closure and taking away the rights of the Chamber. It must be admitted that at times certain subjects before the House are addressed too thoroughly; sometimes there are too many speakers and the thing goes on and on. But that is the mechanism for the examination of legislation that we have under the Canadian parliamentary system which was borrowed from the British parliamentary system. Bills that drastically affect Canada, that are bad for Canada but for in respect of the Government does not want to face the music in the standing committees, on radio, on television, and in the House day after day, are the Bills that the Government puts through by closure-those are the ones that it shoves through. The Government has been shoving through a lot of Bills, and that means that there have been a lot of Bills that adversely affect Canadians.
With those few words, I am going to conclude my remarks on the motion put forward by the Government. It is typical. I cannot find anything more typical than this motion presently before the House. There is no sense now in talking about Bill C-19. There is no sense going over it. There is no sense going over the clauses, because it all goes out the window. We cannot even talk about what the Canadian Trucking Association has said. It does not matter any more what they told the standing committee, because closure has been introduced. Our time has been limited by this great Government that told us they were going to restore parliamentary democracy. A moment ago, I was looking for that particular promise number 299 in the list of promises that were made. The Government is certainly restoring democracy; it is democracy as they see fit.
The overriding concern and interest of the Canadian Trucking Association, CP Rail, or of the travelling public on an aircraft is that the Government, by an organized and planned initiative, is putting through this Chamber a series of Bills and laws that will mean that the more rural areas of Canada will receive a lesser service than the richer areas of Canada. The philosophy in this country was always that a carrier, whether it was on the road, in the air, or on the ocean, operating under federal and provincial licences had a responsibility to the people who were being served, either with freight or as passengers. The carriers were told that if they were going to go into the big financial markets of central Canada, or of western Canada, or anywhere, then there was a responsibility to serve the less profitable areas. The philosophy was that if you lived in Newfoundland, Ontario, Alberta, or British Columbia, the regulations would be such as to maximize the possibility of equality of service across the country.
We are now seeing a series of Bills that throw this completely and totally out of the window. The Bill presently before the House, on which the Government has imposed closure, will, over a period of time, destroy the trucking industry in this country. Was it great to see deregulation of the aircraft industry with all of those companies competing under deregulation for routes in various parts of this country? Where are some of those companies today, the ones that have not been
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
taken over by the major carriers into complete monopolies? Those areas today are wondering what happened to the jet service that was there a year ago. Now there are two-propeller aircraft trying to serve the area. Where have they gone as a result of competition?
That is what will happen to the trucking industry. The United States trucking firms will come into the country under this Bill. They will be given treatment preferential to that given Canadian truckers, and they will assume the routes and take over. People will say that this is marvellous, we have all these United States truckers here, but Canadians will be laid off, and Canadian truckers will go bankrupt. That is the price they will have to pay for this competition. The United States truckers will not buy our gas or pay the taxes on the gas that they will have to purchase on the Canadian side of the border.
That is my short contribution to this particular Bill and motion before the House. I would encourage all members to vote against the motion introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my friend from Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) for his very good speech. Since the Hon. Member mentioned this, I wish to ask him a question dealing with those 338 Tory promises which have not been kept. One in particular, regarding transportation, reads:
Recognize and respond to the special needs of the Atlantic region for better transportation facilities to strengthen the economic base of the entire area and provide jobs both with the transportation sector and in those other sectors which rely on an efficient transportation system to make their products competitive.
That is a Tory promise. Coming from Newfoundland as the Hon. Member does, knowing about the issues of job creation and the high unemployment rate we have had over the years, and knowing the Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane) whose concerns we seldom hear about in this House, but knowing what happened in Moncton to the CN shops, could the Hon. Member comment regarding that promise made by the Conservative Government which was not kept and is far from being up to par.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, we had 449 lay-offs in Moncton just last week in rail. We have seen lay-offs and cut-backs with CN Marine. The Government almost got away the other day with laying off 350 people by changes in routes and by changes in the frequency of the ferry boat travelling from north Sydney to Port aux Basques in Newfoundland. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) had to step in personally to put things back the way they were; he had no choice. As to transportation and the fulfilling of that great promise made in the election campaign, what did the now Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) say in St. John's, Newfoundland? He stood up and said, "I am not afraid to inflict prosperity on Newfoundland". What are the Tories doing now? They are inflicting prosperity on France.

February 9, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: There is no example that I can think of where the Government of Canada has actually increased employment in transportation or increased the modes of transportation in Newfoundland or in the Atlantic region. The only thing 1 can see is that the Government created a Crown corporation. That is the first thing the Government did, yet it was opposed to Crown corporations. The Government was going to sell off all the Crown corporations, but it created one in Atlantic Canada called Marine Atlantic. Why did the Government do that? To save $20 million. We can see where the Government is saving it; in people's jobs, salaries, the discontinuation of routes, and in cutting back on what coastal communities the coastal boat will drop in at. All we have seen is a downgrading in service and a complete reversal of what the Government promised before the election. At this rate there is no hope in the world that the Government will receive anywhere close to the votes it got in the last election. In fact, I would say that Atlantic Canada will probably at this rate elect all Conservatives in the next election!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. He made a very vigourous attack on the Government's legislation. We appreciate that because this legislation deserves to be attacked. It brings to mind a few words of Jonathan Swift when he described the differences between political Parties as the "big enders and the little enders". He was talking about an egg at that time and it was just a matter of which end you came in on, the big end or the little end. While the Member attacks the impact of deregulation on the trucking industry his colleagues in the Ontario legislature are introducing legislation to do the same thing that the federal Government is doing in this Parliament. Would it make any difference what the Liberals would do if they were in office? Would they follow the lead of their Ontario colleagues? Would it be just a matter of the big enders and the little enders, or do members of the Liberal Opposition have any real commitment when they attack the Government regarding the negative impacts of the deregulation package on the trucking industry?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, not only will there be no Conservatives elected from Atlantic Canada in the next election, there will be no New Democrats will be elected from Atlantic Canada either in the next election. It was a joke when I said the Conservatives would be elected.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: The Hon. Member has to remember there is a fellow by the name of Pawley, Manitoba's Premier Howard Pawley. He joined with the Premiers of the other provinces in condemning this Conservative Government for introducing Bill C-19. The Government threatened the provincial Governments
and said unless they bring in legislation, then it would bring in legislation to do what the provinces should be doing.
I have just gone over the press clippings. Not only Mr. Pawley but the Premier of Ontario and various premiers are very angry at the federal Conservative Government. All premiers agreed that if they are to do something like this it should be done over a much longer period of time. Actually the Government is out on its own. It is being criticized by Conservative Premiers, Liberal Premiers and New Democratic Party Premiers on this issue of deregulation of the trucking industry. I do not think you can find that any former Liberal Government-and I have been around here awhile-has ever said it would deregulate the trucking industry to the point of what this Bill is outlining to us today.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) aware that there are 1,000 Canadian trucking companies doing business in the United States? Is the Hon. Member aware of the U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics which indicates that between 1980 and 1985 U.S. trucking employment increased 22 per cent and the wage levels of U.S. trucking employers were 40 per cent higher than the average private sector employee, despite the U.S. recession at the time? Does the Hon. Member realize that transporter truckers from Canada have increased their share of total transporter traffic by between 8 per cent and 12 per cent between 1980 and 1984, 1984 being the last year for which we have figures? Does he not think that our trucking industry can compete south of the border? Coming from a region that is resource based, does the Hon. Member not have a thought for the shippers, for the men and women who work in our resource industries who need to have an efficient, competitive trucking industry if they are to get their goods to market to keep their own jobs? Not the Member from Gander-Twillingate but the previous speaker for the Liberals told us that these reforms would have a devastating effect on the trucking industry. Can the Hon. Member tell us why the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) when he was Minister of Transport proposed to the provinces the same type of reform that is in Bill C-19? I understand the Member from Fort Garry threatened the provinces that if they did not agree to reform the federal Government would step in and take over regulation of interprovincial trucking.


Cyril Keeper: Repeat that so he can hear it.


Miss MacDonald:: They never listen.


David Kilgour: Will the Hon. Member comment on all of the matters that I have raised?


George Baker: I will be short, as you requested, Mr. Speaker, but I would remind the Hon. Member that this is not the United States. Newfoundland is not the State of Maine and Ontario is not the State of Montana. Number one, we are not the United States and we cannot compare the two.
February 9, 1987

As far as how wonderful competition will be, I wonder if the Government would tell us what provinces are in agreement with it. That is the question.


Mr. Tobin:: Ten different sets of regulations.


George Baker: There is a great deal of diversity across Canada while this Bill is being shoved through the House of Commons. The Hon. Member should ask a trucker who has put up his own money for a truck and who pays for his own gas if he is in agreement with this Bill. Of course the Americans are in agreement with this Bill. Perhaps that is the concern of the Government; if the United States agrees, fine, put it through.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order! The period for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member from Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray).


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, now back to the real world. I would like to begin by putting a few remarks on the record concerning safety.
Concern has been expressed that reform of economic regulations will affect trucking safety and that somehow the federal and provincial Governments will slacken in their resolve to protect the safety of highway travellers. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has stated that safety is and will continue to be his first priority. That commitment has been stated in the national transportation policy set out in Clause 3 of Bill C-18 and it has been restated day after day in the operations of the federal and provincial Governments.
As we should all know very well, the provincial Governments already have effective highway safety standards in place. Those standards are vigorously enforced and our highway safety record is very good compared to that of other countries. In ensuring that safe operations continue, our best allies are the truckers. They know that the biggest losers in unsafe operations are the truckers themselves.
Despite the high level of provincial safety regulations currently in place and despite our good record, the federal and provincial Governments are not resting on their laurels. A uniform national safety code for trucks and buses was approved by the federal and provincial Governments in October 1986. This code is a consolidation and an upgrading of the best safety standards in North America. Most of it is already in place in parts or in all of Canada.
Why then are we creating a national safety code? It is because it is something that is long overdue under any regulatory scheme. Under the code, we will be introducing increased uniformity and compatibility into the existing safety regulations for the benefit of the trucking industry and all users of the highways. I think it is important that we in the
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
House should note, without grandstanding and play-acting, that it be clear for all truckers from the East Coast to the West Coast that the Government is very sincere when it talks about safety. We are not reinventing the wheel, nor are we starting from scratch. To even intimate such a thing would be to ignore 30 years of work on the part of the provinces.
There has been some concern expressed by the trucking industry in certain parts of Canada and repeated by Hon. Members opposite that the national safety code will not be completely in place when the new Motor Vehicle Transport Act is implemented on January 1, 1988. Let me inform the House of exactly what is there now and what will be there in the way of highway safety programs and standards for trucks and buses. The following five programs are in place in each and every province: First, driver testing. A driver-licence system which consists of different classes of licences that require periodic testing of truck drivers and filing of medical reports is in existence as well as stringent medical standards for truck drivers and extensive knowledge and skill testing for those who wish to qualify for a driver's licence. Second, driver control. No province allows any driver to hold more than one driver's licence. Truck drivers' licences are downgraded following identification of medical problems. There are demerit point and licence-suspension programs as well as the enforcement of impaired driving laws and rules of the road. Three, vehicle safety enforcement. Vehicle inspection programs are carried out on company premises and on the roadside. Load security compliance is enforced by all but one province and the Territories and weight and dimension limits are enforced at all weigh scales. Four, insurance. All jurisdictions have mandatory insurance requirements. Five, dangerous goods legislation. This is very important for the transportation industry in Canada. Uniform laws and standards are in effect across the country covering vehicles, driver training and placarding.
On or before January 1, 1988, under the uniform code, the following eight new initiatives will be implemented in each and every province. First, the CCMTA single-driver licence concept is an upgrading of existing systems which will enhance enforcement and control. Second, the CCMTA classified driver-licence system will standardize the classification systems presently in place. Third, CCMTA medical standards for drivers will involve minor modifications to the present system. Fourth, CCMTA model regulations for security of loads will see minor modification to existing standards and participation by all jurisdictions. Fifth, training courses for dangerous-goods trainers is a new initiative designed to provide qualified instructors to teach drivers how to handle dangerous goods. Sixth, we will join the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance involving inspection and out-of-service criteria. Canada has a Canadian Vehicle Safety Alliance now in place which is similar, but all jurisdictions have agreed to join the U.S. Alliance for North American recognition and uniformity. This involves a roadside inspection system which is reciprocally recognized in each member jurisdiction. Seventh, individual companies had first-aid programs previously but now all but

February 9, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
drivers will be required to know first-aid to a national standard. Eighth, the carrier fitness, entry and control criteria complements the entry standards contained in Bill C-19.
I have just described a comprehensive set of minimum and uniform standards which will be in place before Bill C-19 is scheduled to be proclaimed on January 1, 1988, exactly as requested by the trucking industry and by Hon. Members opposite.
This is not all. There is more. The following 10 items will be implemented after January 1, 1988. By October 1988, vehicle maintenance standards will be uniform in all provinces. By January 1989, knowledge and performance tests for drivers will be uniform and standards will be raised. By January 1989, driver-examiner training programs will have uniform standards and will be expanded to provide ongoing training. By January 1989, hours-of-service regulations will be in place in all provinces and legislation for this is required in some provinces. By March 1989, self-certification standards and procedures for training drivers will be uniform in all jurisdictions. There will be two initiatives regarding records systems. By March 1989, operator profiles will be introduced. These will be safety records for each and every company holding a licence. By January 1989, driver profiles will be improved and the system will be made uniform in all provinces. By August
1989,	there will be procedures for the audit of employers' records. This new initiative includes a new enforcement procedure. By August 1989, there will be criteria for shortterm suspension of drivers' licences. This new initiative is designed especially for impaired drivers. By December 1989, the new enforcement of an interprovincial record exchange will be a tool which will give each province access to the profiles of all trucking companies and drivers. By December 1989, there will be a new enforcement measure for audit and inspection criteria which is aimed at compliance with safety requirements in terminals.
All of these improvements will be in effect before January 1,
1990,	a full year prior to implementation of the fitness-only entry test in Bill C-19. I also want to emphasize that the dates I have cited for full implementation mean that all provinces and Territories will be onstream by that date. Many provinces will have many of these items in place prior to those dates and some will even be ready with all elements before January 1, 1988.
This is a dynamic process. There will continue to be improvement to the system beyond 1990. It is completely unreasonable to ask that the safety code be completely in place before economic reform takes place. Some of the items I have mentioned require changes to provincial legislation and, therefore, cannot be proceeded with any faster. It is a red herring to suggest that we should delay economic regulatory reform until all the safety initiatives are in place. In many ways our safety system is far more advanced than that in place
in the U.S. As I said earlier, even there deregulation does not seem to have a measurably negative effect on safety.
In summary, it should now be apparent that, as the Minister of Transport has said on many occasions, safety of the transportation system is the number one priority. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brought in his economic statement in the fall of 1984, both opposition Parties predicted that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost.
My riding was under the thumb of the Liberal Government for almost 25 years. The rules and regulations of the transportation system under that administration did not work for us. There are three types of people in our society who depend entirely on the vast transportation system of our country. They are the consumers, the shippers and the carriers. The opposition Parties continually grandstand and make false predictions. They want to sow fear that things will not work. I can understand the mentality of the Liberal Party in saying that. For 25 years it made things not work.
Transportation is not a political issue. It is crucial to our society. We proved the Opposition wrong on the economy. We have reduced the national deficit while creating over 700,000 jobs. All regions of Canada have benefited. The Government does not believe in grandstanding and sowing fear in the hearts of Canadians. The Government believes in the consultative process and the economic development of the country.
In conclusion, I am honoured to be the vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport to which Bill C-19 is to be referred. The fact that the Government is willing to refer this Bill to that committee and have public hearings shows the Government's openness and willingness to listen to concerned people. The Government wants a National Transportation Act which will allow our consumers, shippers and carriers to compete internationally.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member that the House has not adopted the motion proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary that this Bill be referred to a standing committee. The Bill is still to be sent to a legislative committee. When the Government comes to its senses, stops pushing minorities around, and starts having meaningful debate on Bills, we may be a little more co-operative in terms of adopting such recommendations. Therefore, despite the fact that we would probably favour the referral of this Bill to a standing committee, as is indicated in today's Order Paper, the Bill is to be referred to a legislative committee.
During the last election campaign the Tories made 339 promises. They made a very strong commitment to Atlantic Canada. I would like to read one promise which is pertinent to the area from which the Hon. Member comes and is very important to the communities he represents. The promise was to:
-initiate discussions with the New England states on a joint cost-shared corridor or road system to reduce transportation costs from Atlantic Canada to Ontario and Quebec as well as open up additional business and trade opportunities between Atlantic Canada and the New England states
February 9, 1987

Is the Member aware of any discussions which have been opened with the New England states about this joint cost-shared corridor or road system? We are now two and a half years into the mandate of the Government. Does the Hon. Member know whether the Government has received representations recently from members of the Tory Party with regard to opening up this corridor to lower costs and make it more feasible for Maritime products to come to the central Canadian market?


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in earlier remarks in the House on Bill C-18, one of the problems confronting the Maritime provinces is that they have unequal transportation rights with the New England states. Under the regulations now in place the Atlantic provinces are restrained with regard to container traffic. They are not on the same competitive basis as the New England states. It is important that our transportation regulations be changed in order that they can be on an equal footing with the New England states. Since it has taken 20 years to modify the National Transportation Act, it is absolutely crucial that we are able to compete on transportation costs in order to be on a level footing with our neighbours to the south.
It is a misnomer to speak, as the Opposition does, about deregulation. Fear is being sown that everything will be wide open. The new National Transportation Act will not mean deregulation, it will mean economic regulatory reform. Once we have fair and equitable transportation costs we will be able to compete and succeed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, is the member aware whether the Atlantic provinces have been consulted? Are they agreeable to having this corridor put in place? In addition to local licences, extra provincial truck licences will be required. Can the member tell me whether all Atlantic provinces have agreed to such an extra provincial truck licence scheme? If so, has this scheme been extended to include the New England states which are involved?


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has raised the precise problem with which the country is confronted. In the past we have had different regulations in each of the 10 provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. That is the fundamental problem which we are confronting with Bill C-19. As mentioned earlier, the provincial Ministers of Transportation have been meeting since October, 1986 in an effort to put together a uniform code. The goal of the Government is to provide for interprovincial trucking rather than requiring goods to be shipped via the United States.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
Commttiee. Is he aware that the motion we are debating now is not to send this Bill to committee but "that the question be now put"? It is a form of closure of the debate.
In light of this re-regulation, as he prefers to call it, does the Hon. Member honestly believe that one hour and 28 minutes of debate, shared equally by the three Parties of this House, is enough time to debate such a dramatic change in the transportation system of this country?


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was a motion to refer Bill C-19 to the standing committee. 1 repeat that, given the grandstanding by the Opposition in the House, the importance of this Bill makes it absolutely essential that Bill C-19-indeed Bill C-18-be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport so that further views and opinions can be heard in public hearings. This will allow Canadians to be duly informed and will ensure that Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 can form a National Transportation Act that will fit the needs of all Canadians.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the process this House follows, as described by the Hon. Member, is the one to which we always revert. Indeed, the committee stage is where people outside of the House may apply to be heard. However, I wonder whether the Hon. Member perhaps skittered around my question.
It seems to me that if people are to feel comfortable in applying to appear before committees they would want some indication from the Government that they will be heard. The motion we are now debating was placed before the House after one hour and 28 minutes of debate. Does this not leave the impression that the Government is pushing the Bill through to the point where individuals and organizations who are interested in this process will also be limited in their ability to appear before the Standing Committee or any other committee that will be dealing with this legislation?


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, the opposite is true. The Bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport. Its members have been on that committee for two and a half years and have always been open to public hearings to hear many representations and meet the concerns of the people. As a new Member of Parliament, the openness of the Government to consult and listen to the people since 1984 is completely new. That was not the case in the past.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but ask a Final supplementary question. If it is indeed the function of the Government to increase consultation with the people, why is it refusing to listen to the Opposition who are the representatives of the people, no less than Members on the Government side? Why is it limiting us to one hour 28 minutes in this debate?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I noted that toward the end of Mr. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):	Mr. his speech the Hon. Member said he was quite in favour of Speaker, far be it for me to insult the Opposition, but during supporting the motion to send this Bill to the Legislative the debate on Bill C-18 last week I heard the speeches of

February 9, 1987
certain opposition Members. By times, to use a maritime expression, I heard members of the Opposition speak to Bill C-75 when they should have been talking about Bill C-18, and I heard Members talk about referring Bill C-18 to a legislative committee when it was being referred to the Standing Committee.
I believe that the new reform of the House is important because it will allow the Standing Committee on Transport to hear the direct concerns of all those people involved in the transportation industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments have terminated. Is the House ready for the question?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the issue we are dealing with here is as old as the country itself: is there any economic reason for Canada to exist? Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 have demonstrated the Government's tendency toward adopting the old laissez-faire economic philosophy that was popular at the time of American independence. The neo-conservatism of those in the current Reagan administration, which the Government of Canada is copying, has led to the philosophy of less government involvement in order to allow free market forces to prevail.
Unfortunately, if Canada indeed lets the free forces of the market proliferate, the market forces in this country will naturally switch from the east-west configuration that we have attempted to maintain since 1867 to a north-south configuration. When we compare our economies, our population, and the political and economic power that goes with their size, eventually the dominating force will come from the south.
We are not only talking about control of the trucking industry or its deregulation, as the Government attempts to say, but the economic future of Canadians. Indeed, will they have an economic future in Canada, where western Canadians and eastern Canadians continue to trade and provide the base on which social interaction can continue? Without social and economic interaction there will eventually be no political interaction. It is absolutely vital to the maintenance of this country that we keep those east-west links at work. The trucking system is only one of the many policies that this country has adopted over the years in an attempt to maintain Canada as a separate and independent nation.
Since I am about to move on to the next portion of my speech, perhaps I might call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When Orders of the Day are called, the Hon. Member will have 15 minutes remaining in his debate, plus 10 minutes for questions and comments.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation\

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Over the weekend, Mr. Speaker, Canada lost an outstanding Canadian in the person of Mr. Arnold Davidson Dunton who died at the age of 75.
Holder of doctorates in sciences and law, he was directly involved in several aspects of Canadian life and culture.
He was a journalist in pre-war years and worked as a war correspondent from 1942 to 1945 when he was appointed to the management of the CBC.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, shortly before the House recessed last June, the then Minister of Justice introduced new legislation against pornography. This was in response to an exhaustive study, the Fraser report on Pornography and Prostitution, plus a great deal of input from Canadians in all walks of life.
Unfortunately, the Bill died on the Order Paper as a result of the proroguing of the session. However, we can all be assured that the spirit and purpose of the Bill have not died. My constituents in Fraser Valley East support the Government's initiative in proposing new measures prohibiting pornography and wish to emphasize the importance of this Bill.
I urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to reintroduce the Bill which makes amendments to Canada's Criminal Code, as soon as possible. Laws are society's guide for behaviour and in times like these we need a strong and moral framework by which to live.
February 9, 1987


AGRICULTURE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, beef producers who attended the Canadian Meat Council meeting last Friday believe that the grading system for beef is discriminatory and should be changed. Sometimes beef producers suffer up to 20 cents per pound difference on a dressed weight difference in the prices they receive for A-l heifers as compared with the price received for an A-l steer. The price should be indexed for each grade so that the price would reflect the true quality and market value instead of unnecessary items such as gender.
When the grading system for hogs was introduced this gender discrimination was eliminated and the distinction was no longer necessary. Beef producers, from different prospec-tives, are asking for indexed grading and, in the name of fairness, I believe they should have it.


IMMIGRANT DOCTORS-DIFFICULTY OBTAINING INTERNSHIPS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, many new immigrants feel they are underemployed, more particularly several medical doctors of Polish origin who are currently fighting for the right to practise their profession in this country. Their qualifications were approved by the Medical Council of Canada. They have successfully completed the evaluation examinations but none are able to practise their skills here because they cannot obtain an internship position which is required by the province in which a physician proposes to practise.
Some of these doctors are now Canadian citizens. They came here as physicians. The national federal authorities have found their qualifications satisfactory. The taxpayers of Canada will not be required to subsidize any additional training. There are numerous rural and remote areas which need a doctor. Surely the provinces can find a place in their internship programs for those who have the skills to provide a service in areas of need.


THE LATE NORMAN MCLAREN
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, this House will undoubtedly echo the homage paid throughout Canada and the world to Norman McLaren whose death late last month in the Montreal region ended a career which gave this film producer, one of the greatest, access to the elite group of
men and women who have made a name for themselves in arts, science, politics, or literature.
In 1941, McLaren left his native Scotland at the age of 27 and came to Canada. Since then the National Film Board has been his centre of activities.
Norman McLaren has no fewer than 80 works to his credit at the NFB. Who, in movie houses, in school and on television has not thoroughly enjoyed his short films on Canadian popular songs, and his philosophical productions such as Neighbours, II etait une chaise?
Here is what Montreal Le Devoir journalist Nathalie Petrowski wrote about Norman McLaren last January 31: "He was an artist, a real artist, an artist of a now extinct breed, an artist who was also a researcher ever prepared to question what he had discovered the day before, a patient and passionate man anxious to go to the end, and even further yet, on the other side of things."
With me, this House will certainly want to express its admiration and affection for Norman McLaren, this great artist, this Canadian citizen by his own choice, this citizen of the world, this modest and good man as he was.


DISASTERS
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice Foisy recently reported on the Hinton, Alberta, train disaster. In his report Judge Foisy submitted a number of important recommendations that will strengthen railway safety.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) acted quickly in announcing major reforms to improve and toughen the safety standards of Canada's railways. Not only has the Minister identified longstanding rail safety problems, he has also taken decisive action in requesting a 60-day response from the railways and the rail unions.
As well, new railway safety legislation will be forthcoming. A new transportation accident investigation body will be created. There will be measures taken to deal with those who tamper with railway safety devices. Funds are being made available for implementation of the advanced train control system.
The Minister of Transport should be commended for his prompt and detailed response to the Foisy Report. In so responding he has reaffirmed the primary importance of transportation safety for all Canadians.

February 9, 1987


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that disabled Canadians require greater support from both the federal and provincial Governments. I think we would all agree with that. A positive step was a $151 per month maximum increase to the federal disability pension which began on January 1, 1987. It was a very positive step. It meant a great deal to the disabled of Canada, giving them hope that more opportunities would be made available to them.
These hopes were dashed recently when the Government of British Columbia cut its financial support for the disabled by the same amount as the federal Government increase. The British Columbia Government is actually taking money from the disabled, money from the federal Government which was rightfully theirs.
How low can the provincial Government go? The federal Government actually wrote to the provincial Governments requesting that they pass along this $151 per month maximum increase to the disabled, the people who rightfully deserve it. Yet the Province of British Columbia has agreed to take the money and not allow it to go to the people to whom it was directed.
I encourage the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to contact his provincial counterparts and encourage them to pass along this much needed increase to the disabled, which was the original intention.


ALBERTA OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY-RESTORATION OF EARNED DEPLETION ALLOWANCE ADVOCATED
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, Alberta needs federal assistance, and it needs it now. There are over 30,000 people in my province out of work due to the drastic fall in oil prices.
Out of 470 drilling rigs, 118 are making hole today. Some 50 per cent of the geophysical contractors are out of work. One-half of the people in the petroleum services industry, such as water-haulers, well-testers, and mud companies are out of work. There will be little or no activity until oil prices stabilize. That will take 10 to 12 months.
Alberta needs a temporary stimulus. I call upon the Government to restore the earned depletion allowance. It should apply to exploration and development expenditures. The write-offs should be deductible against total income of the taxpayer and be allowed to flow through to the investor.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, we have already begun to see the detrimental effects of the present Conservative Government's efforts to deregulate the airline and transportation industries. It is obvious that the increased competition in consumer selection promised by the Tories will not be available to the people of the north.
Even before Bill C-18 is passed we begin to see the effects of this new policy. The buy-out of CP Air by PWA has eliminated a major carrier from the market-place and has seriously decreased the selection available to many Canadian consumers.
Conservative Members assured us that this would not happen. However, in Whitehorse, CP has 10 weekly flights while PWA used to have five. With the purchase of CP by PWA this has all changed. PWA has now announced that it will suspend its service to Whitehorse for the next seven weeks. And we do not know what it will do at the end of this period. So much for added service for Canadian travellers. To allow this de facto monopoly through the PWA takeover of CP makes a farce of deregulation.
The people of northern Canada deserve better than that. For far too long the people of northern Canada have been treated like second-class citizens by the federal Government. Postal service, economic policy, and now transportation policy all show that Conservative policies ignore the real needs of people in rural and northern areas.


FISHERIES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, this month unemployment in Newfoundland is 19.2 per cent. That is up from 18.9 per cent across the province last month. In my own riding unemployment is 26.5 per cent. That is up 4.4 per cent from 22.1 per cent last month.
Is it any wonder that Newfoundland fishermen want and deserve every pound of fish they can get in order to put bread and butter on the table? These tragic numbers speak to the urgent need for the Government of Canada to cancel the Canada-France fishing treaty. They also speak for the urgent need of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to reconsider his view of a few days ago that he would not listen to the views of Canada's Premiers who will assemble this evening to talk about this emergency problem.
It is time to put an end to the family feud in the Conservative Party that is turning the fishermen of Newfoundland into economic orphans. As the Member for St. John's West (Mr. February 9, 1987

Crosbie) and the Premier of Newfoundland go through a messy divorce, the victims are the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the rest of Atlantic Canada. I again call upon the Government, in particular the Prime Minister, to cancel what is clearly a bad deal for my province and for my country.


ABORTION
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Liberal Government of Premier David Peterson has commissioned a report which recommends that Ontario establish 12 legalized abortion clinics. At a time when the Supreme Court is deciding on the legality of the Morgentaler Clinic, the Ontario Government has already decided on its course of action. This means that Ontario has legally recognized freestanding abortion clinics.
Over 70,000 abortions a year occur in Canada, and they are used primarily as a means of birth control. The Ontario Government is proceeding arbitrarily without consulting the people. So much for the major campaign promise of the Liberal Government to shut down free-standing abortion clinics.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise today to urge the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) to assume his responsibilities as the Minister responsible for the Cape Breton Development Corporation. I urge that the Minister exercise his authority and use the provisions of Section 99 of the Financial Administration Act to order the Cape Breton Development Corporation to stop terminating jobs in the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The Minister will know that on April 1, 1987, 240 jobs will be terminated. The Minister also knows that on April 1, 1988, an additional 240 jobs will be terminated. The Minister also knows that 350 people have taken early retirement, and those positions are not being filled by other employees.
I would ask that the Minister responsible immediately order the senior management of that Corporation to stop the job terminations, and to begin negotiations on a new collective agreement which will provide dignity and economic viability to the miners who have worked at the Cape Breton Development Corporation for the last number of years. I urge him to do it forthwith.


COPYRIGHT
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend First Choice Superchannel unscrambled their signal as part of a promotional exercise to increase subscriptions. As part of this sales gimmick, they continually suggested to viewers that movies appearing late at night could be taped on VCRs so that they could be enjoyed at a more convenient time. This is a flagrant disregard of the existing copyright law. It directly contradicts the spirit and intent of copyright reform, as put forth in a report from the Subcommittee on Copyright.
I am not naive enough to suggest that the taping of movies does not occur. But it is altogether a different matter when a federally regulated distributor openly suggests on public airwaves that people disregard the law. I am sure that Canadians would not appreciate a public call encouraging shoplifting. In principle it is the same thing. I call upon the CRTC to investigate this matter and take disciplinary action.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on February 3 the United States carried out its first nuclear test of 1987. This test occurred despite the knowledge that the Soviet Union would end its self-imposed, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing should such an event take place. The Soviet moratorium which began on August 6, 1985, on the fortieth anniversary of Hiroshima, was three times renewed by the Soviets. It appeared that these moves could have been small but significant steps toward a comprehensive test ban treaty to outlaw all nuclear tests, had the American administration responded in kind.
It is indeed unfortunate that mankind is being propelled further into the nuclear arms race due to the regressive notion that nuclear testing can help.

Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, last June, by unanimous consent, the House established an investigation by the Finance Committee into credit card interest rates in Canada which lasted two months. At the end of its hearings the Finance Committee requested additional statistical information on credit card balances and income

February 9, 1987
The Late Mr. Justice Julien Chouinard
from all witnesses. The five large chartered banks have failed to respond to the committee with the information requested. Meanwhile, interest rates have fallen substantially and not one of these five chartered banks has reduced credit card interest rates.
The time for polite requests has ended. At the next full meeting of the Finance Committee I intend to move a motion to summons the material from these five chartered banks and, as part of that motion, to indicate that, if the material is not forthcoming in two weeks, the chief executive officers of the five chartered banks should be brought before the bar of the House of Commons to explain their continuing contempt before Parliament. If there is to be a challenge of wills between the banks and Parliament, let there be no doubt as to who is going to win.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I received a good message from my constituents this weekend. Many of them congratulated the Government on the lowering of interest rates and on lowering of the deficit. They wanted me to give the following message to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson): "Keep it up. We like the policies of the Government, and you are going to lead us out of the morass into which the Liberals took us for 20 years".


THE LATE MR. JUSTICE JULIEN CHOUINARD
Mr. Speaker:: I want to draw all Hon. Members' attention to the passing of a distinguished jurist of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Chouinard. I would ask that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) be recognized.
[ Translation]


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to the Hon. Julien Chouinard, Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who died last Friday. Mr. Justice Chouinard was well-known for his innate sense of justice and equity.

Born in Quebec City, he attended Laval University and Oxford University. He was a Rhodes Scholar and was called to the bar in the Province of Quebec in 1953. Mr. Justice Chouinard was Deputy Minister of Justice in Quebec from 1965 to 1968 and Secretary General of the Quebec Cabinet for seven years, and served Quebec as Judge of the Quebec Court
of Appeal for four years, truly a well loved son of Quebec. Mr. Chouinard was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in September, 1979.

He helped draft most of the judgments handed down by the Supreme Court and was a master of the written word.

Mr. Justice Chouinard's contribution to his province and country was great, and his loss will be felt by the legal community at large.

We mourn the loss of a judge who was truly exceptional. On behalf of the federal Government and of all Canadians, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to Mrs. Chouinard and her children.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my Opposition colleagues in paying tribute to the Hon. Julien Chouinard. I have a number of reasons for wishing to make my own contribution this afternoon. Personally, I had the privilege of working with Mr. Chouinard for several years, and Members on this side of the House have other reasons for mourning his loss. In fact, the Leader of our Party was a Rhodes scholar at the time Mr. Chouinard, also a Rhodes scholar, was going to Oxford. When Julien was President of the Junior Law Society of Quebec City, our Party leader was President of the Junior Law Society of Montreal. It is these memories that give us further reason to mourn the passing of a man who served this country so well.
As I said earlier, I worked with him when he was Secretary General of the Cabinet in Quebec City, and I and many Canadians with me are aware of the role he played during that very difficult time in October 1970.
Mr. Chouinard was, as they say in Quebec, "un homme solide", solid as a rock. He was level-headed, intelligent and a hard worker, but also very close to his family and a faithful friend. He had a sense of humour which he sometimes had trouble hiding behind a perpetually serious exterior.
When death comes as quickly as it did last Friday, it comes as a reminder to all of us in the midst of our busy lives that our existence is indeed fragile.
I wish to pay tribute to Mr. Justice Julien Chouinard, to his life and his career, and on my own behalf and on behalf of all my colleagues in the House of Commons, and of the Leader of our Party, I wish to extend to Mrs. Chouinard and all the members of her family our sincerest condolences.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I also wish to pay tribute to Mr. Justice Julien Chouinard.
At the end of last week, Canada lost one of its most eminent and respected citizens. Mr. Justice Chouinard was for seven years a member of the highest court in the land, the Supreme
February 9, 1987

Court of Canada, after a career in education and the senior Public Service.
Hon. Members have already spoken of the honour and distinction Judge Chouinard brought to his service not only to the Bench but to the public service of his province and Canada generally.

Mr. Speaker, we deeply regret the loss of this extraordinary man. My colleagues and myself wish to join in extending our condolences to Mrs. Jeannine Chouinard, her son Julien and her two daughters, Lucie and Nicole.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to join me in the appropriate tribute of one-minute's silence.
[Whereupon the House stood in silence for one minute.]



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister attempted to lay the present situation off the coast of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia affecting our proposed agreement or treaty with France on the 1972 Canada-France treaty. I pointed out to him quite clearly that Article 3 of that treaty would have excluded any fishing of cod in the Gulf after May 15, 1986. How does the Prime Minister square last week's statements with what I take to be the official statement made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in an official release dated November 26 last? I would like to quote this statement to the House:
We have told the French that under the 1972 treaty, we have no obligation to provide them with any Fish to replace what they have been catching in the Gulf and, specifically, no obligation to provide them with any northern cod ... The catch in the Gulf of St. Lawrence-is now terminated under the 1972 treaty.
Will the Prime Minister now use this opportunity to readjust the misrepresentations he made to the House as to the effect of that treaty?
Will he say to the House that because of what he has done to the people of the Atlantic provinces, particularly the people and fishermen of Newfoundland, he is ready to annul the agreement with France and renegotiate it, if necessary?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing inconsistent at all with what I have said. I realize that the Liberals find everything funny. This
Oral Questions
involves the rights of the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not a laughing matter at all; it is very serious. We have indicated very much that the position we hold is, of course, and has been contested by the French. They contend that indeed they have other rights which they want to see exercised. The Government of Canada has historically taken a different position, obviously, and there is nothing at all at variance with what I have said or what the Minister has said in this regard. We have been perfectly consistent throughout the piece, which is a far cry from some of the statements being made by the Opposition on a very sensitive and important matter.


ALLOCATION OF FISH TO FRANCE-MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister has said to the House flies directly in the face of the words of the 1972 Treaty and, indeed, the interpretation made of that Treaty by the Minister of Fisheries on November 26.
We can all recall the Prime Minister saying last week in the House, and I want to quote him accurately: "We have not given away a single codfish, not a single one". That is what the Prime Minister said.


Mr. Crosbie:: That is exactly right.


John Napier Turner: The Minister of Transport is getting into this. I can understand his extreme anguish and his extreme embarrassment throughout this entire episode. However, the Minister of Fisheries said-and I commend the statement to the Minister of Transport-on November 26:
We have offered the French substantial allocations of fish in Canadian waters.
That is a very generous offer to the French. Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to correct the record, and will he tell us what happened between November last and January to persuade him to sell out the people of Newfoundland?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, there is nothing inconsistent in anything that has been said by members of the Government. In fact, with regard to the statement that not one additional codfish has been granted to France in this matter, that is indeed the case. The question of additional allocations being made to France in 1987 has been fully explained in past exchanges in the House as referring to allocations to which France is entitled under the EEC longterm agreement and other allocations provided for in the ground-fish plan for 1987, that amount to one-half the allocations to which France was entitled last year.


PROVINCIAL PREMIERS' MEETING
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the feeble explanation of the Minister of Fisheries, he has provoked, almost single-handedly, a deep crisis in federal-provincial relations. We have some Premiers meeting in Toronto today. Without in any way

February 9, 1987
Oral Questions
yielding federal jurisdiction over the matter-and we do not contest that-would the Prime Minister, instead of trying to save face by holding tough and hanging tough on this agreement with the French, admit that a very grievous error has been made and that the people of Atlantic Canada have been seriously let down? Won't he tell the Premiers that he is willing to listen to them and willing to renegotiate the deal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to listen to what the Premiers have to say after their meeting. They are entitled under their rules, I suppose, to get together whenever they want, even to consider matters that I suppose are not within their jurisdiction.
My right hon. friend mentions a deep crisis. There is no deep crisis. There is a difference of view involving a Government and the Government of Canada, but the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada speak for all Canadians in international matters. We shall not surrender our rights or our jurisdiction. This Parliament shall speak for Canada.

[ Translation]


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. Since he has had the whole weekend to take stock of people around him, can he tell us what role his office played in the affair of the influence trafficking network within the Conservative Party?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what a statement, and what a disgraceful question! I take the liberty of saying so because the Hon. Member is also supposed to belong to the Bar of Quebec and act as counsel to a Montreal law firm where, I should think, presumption of innocence still exists. This is shameful gossiping about scandals which the Hon. Member will have to withdraw immediately.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF MONEY DESTINED FOR PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE FUND
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may feel insulted about everything, but he knows very well that his former associate, Pierre Blouin, was convicted of influence peddling.
How can he justify the fact that, after this conviction, the $50,000 obtained through more than dubious means remained in the fund of the Progressive Conservative Party? Mr. Speaker, Gerald Martineau would not have done worse during the days of Duplessis. I want to know how the Prime Minister, as leader of the Government, can allow his Party to operate with dirty money.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what a disgraceful, scurrilous position to be adopted by a Member of this House, a member of the Bar of Quebec who is counsel to a major law firm in Montreal, who repudiates what the Leader of the Opposition quite properly pointed out on November 30, 1984, when the Leader of the Opposition, who is a distinguished counsel in his own right, said:
-and perhaps his own approach to investigations, by re-instating the practice that used to apply in this House, and I believe still should, reflecting the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
The Leader of the Opposition has restated a historic precept which must be respected by all Members of this House. The Member for Shefford is conducting himself in such a scurrilous manner as to make Joe McCarthy look like a choirboy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said on the weekend that there is now some need to re-establish moral authority in public affairs in Canada. In that context he also said that he had some specifics in mind and would announce them at the appropriate time. The people of Canada think the appropriate time is now. Would the Prime Minister tell the House what specifics he had in mind, and when he will be announcing them?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I said on the weekend that we had to re-establish a moral climate in Canada.


Mr. Blaikie:: You do, even if you didn't say it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think I indicated that I and all Members of the House would, of course, be troubled by any accusations or any suggestions of impropriety or illegality, whether they involve the NDP, the Liberals, or the Conservatives. I indicated my position with regard to another matter in the House which is that if there has been any violation of the law, whoever is guilty should be put in jail pursuant to due process.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is really quite absolutely shocking misconduct by the Liberals. If they think I am going to roll over and play dead for a bunch of hacks, they have it wrong.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
February 9, 1987


Mr. Frith:: Bye-bye, Brian.


Mr. Rossi:: Is there going to be a jail in Port Cartier for all your friends?


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should draw attention to something which is self-evident. Unless accusatory questions establish a fact pattern upon which they are to be asked, they invite retorts in defence which can turn into attacks. There are questions which may be asked on issues of concern to all Members in this Chamber. They can be asked in an appropriate way and answered accordingly.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just made certain observations about the opposition Parties. Six Ministers of the Crown have had to resign under dubious circumstances.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre:: So much for the Speaker's admonition.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since Parliament resumed after Christmas there has been information about people who are under investigation by the RCMP, there have been some people who have already been convicted, which we now know about, there have been charges of cronyism and charges of buying of influence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am trying to indicate that on matters which concern all Members of this place there is an appropriate way to ask questions. This is not an appropriate place to make speeches before the question is asked. I ask the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party to put his question, as I know he can, effectively and succinctly.


John Edward Broadbent: I will take your admonition under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker. Under the present circumstances, in which the public believes something should be done, would the Prime Minister introduce some specific proposals for change of the kind to which he alluded on the weekend, and which the public is demanding, within the next two weeks?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that we will have an appropriate response which deals with institutions, people, and the conduct of Ministers of the Government. Members on all sides of the House of Commons must be above criticism. Canadians are entitled to the highest standards and we shall work together to ensure that those standards, notwithstanding human imperfections, are achieved at all times. I give the Hon. Member that assurance. However, for someone of his reputation in the area of civil liberties, the preamble of the question contributes to destroying the presumption of innocence.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: There were unfounded allegations and the use of personal, unjustified and unsustained attacks trying to put it into a package. I say it is unworthy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is unworthy for the Leader of the NDP to be involved in McCarthyism.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ask Ministers, in responding to these questions, to take into account the same admonishment as I have given to those asking the questions. It is the Chair's place to admonish, if that is indeed necessary.


ELECTORAL PROCESS-DONATIONS TO CANDIDATES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I received no specific commitment on the question I just asked the Prime Minister. There is another area I would like to question him on.
There is an increasing need to continue the reforms which were started in the period between 1972 and 1974 with regard to democratic control over spending as it affects the electoral process. Therefore, will the Prime Minister undertake to ask the Chief Electoral Officer, before May 1 of this year, to bring to Parliament a set of recommendations dealing with such issues as donations, disclosure, and ceilings on electoral financing?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his specific suggestion in this regard. He may have noted some of my comments and concerns earlier. Any Prime Minister or Leader of a Party in Canada is clearly committed to the same premise of the purification and improvement of the process at all times.
I take good note of the suggestion raised by my hon. friend. As my caucus indicated on the weekend, there is a strong view in other areas that we co-operate to make substantial improvements in the laws which govern our conduct as well. I thank my hon. friend for his observation.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and also concerns the Public Works contracts in Drummondville.
I have here a copy of a letter from the Hon. Member for Drummond to the Minister of Public Works, dated March 25 1986, with a request for guarantees or some kind of

February 9, 1987
Oral Questions
assurance that Brodilaf would receive the necessary endorsements for putting up a building in Drummondville.
Considering the fact that three copies of this letter were sent to the Prime Minister's Office, how can he tolerate. Political interference by one of his Members even before a call for tenders was made?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, representations were made to our Department about the qualifications of certain bidders and the merit of certain proposals. The award was made on the basis of merit, having regard to the age of the building, to the location of the building and access to the building. The award was made based on quality and value.


Don Boudria: As interesting as that may be, it has nothing to do with the letter from which I just quoted. This is a totally different topic.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Don Boudria: My
supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I also have in my hand a notice of intent of a lawsuit against the Government by Hama Incorporated, the unsuccessful bidder, concerning this affair. Given that we now have criminal charges, a conviction, serious allegations, and now a lawsuit against the Government of Canada, will the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's question is almost in order. I bring this to the attention of the Hon. Member who, I know, will co-operate, but also to indicate to other Hon. Members just what the rule is with respect to sub judice. If a question is asked concerning what somebody did on the periphery of a lawsuit, which does not go to the point of whether or not the claim in the lawsuit is justified, that is not sub judice. However, the Hon. Member is getting very close to asking about the lawsuit, in fact, and getting the issue which is in front of the court in front of this Chamber. That is sub judice. I see the Hon. Member indicating to the Chair that he would not have gone that far. Perhaps not, but the Chair cannot always anticipate exactly where the Hon. Member is going.
I want Hon. Members to understand the distinction quite clearly. The Chair is under an obligation to see that distinction or try to head it off if it is being abridged.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand the distinction you just brought to my attention. Will the Prime Minister table in the House or ask the Minister of Public Works to table in the House all copies of tenders, evaluations and other Public Works and Treasury Board documents pertaining to the award of the Public Works contract in Drummondville? If not, was the Prime Minister serious over the weekend when he referred to this issue of public morality?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to have the Hon. Member review the Treasury Board submission in this particular case and the Treasury Board ruling. It is available through Access to Information but I will make it available at his convenience.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns his intervention in the Walter Wolf matter. Will he clarify why he felt it necessary to intervene personally, by communicating with Michel Cogger with respect to a possible settlement of this matter? Furthermore, did he either directly or indirectly, during the course of that conversation or at any other time, indicate that unless Walter Wolf dropped his lawsuit against the Prime Minister's friend, Fred Doucet, he would in fact receive no further federal Government contracts?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Senator Cogger put out a statement on Friday afternoon in regard to questions that have been raised. He said, first, that I did not initiate the call as the Member suggested. That was the implication of what the Member just said, and that is false, as it is false to suggest that any threats of any kind were discussed. The person with whom I had the conversation, at his initiation, was Mr. Cogger. He states: "In the course of this conversation, which covered several subjects, Mr. Mulroney asked my opinion as to the possibility of an eventual out-of-court settlement of the legal proceedings-". I do not think that is either unreasonable or irresponsible. That is the extent of the involvement.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the question of public morality, Canadians want to know when the Prime Minister will stop using the highest elected office in the land as a post for jobs and graft for old friends and cronies of the Prime Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Shields:: You are a clown.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member began by asking a specific question about an alleged conversation. In my view it is peripheral to the main issue of the lawsuit in question and is a question that is allowed. I would ask the Hon. Member to stick to the issue and not begin his question with a speech.
February 9, 1987


ALLEGED INTERVENTION BY PRIME MINISTER IN LEGAL AFFAIR
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Prime Minister. Does he agree with the Deputy Prime Minister who said last Friday it was only a private matter when a Conservative Minister intervenes personally in a court action and threatens that federal contracts will be cut off the action is not dropped? Is that just a private matter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, who consistently makes eloquent speeches in this Chamber on the need for and the sanctity of individual rights and the presumption of innocence is, with the preamble of his question, right down in the gutter with the rats and the garbage.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is an unacceptable position for a Member of this House to take.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Order. Withdraw.


An Hon. Member:: Look who talks about civility.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The same civility as you project.


Mr. Speaker:: I remind Hon. Members that there are many ways to make accusations and both sides are getting as close to them as they possibly can. I would ask everyone to stick to the facts and to the issue. There is an appropriate way to ask questions, and they are allowable. If they are not appropriate then I, on behalf of all of you-because I only administer the rules that we make for ourselves here-must intervene, and I do not want to do that too often.


PRIME MINISTER'S CONDUCT
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister and I hope his comments about gutter rats and McCarthyism are not representative of his new civility. Notwithstanding statements last Friday by the Deputy Prime Minister that a telephone call involving the Prime Minister was a private matter, is the Prime Minister now prepared to admit upon reflection that it was inappropriate for him to involve himself, through a telephone conversation or any other way, in a private lawsuit involving a senior adviser of his office and Walter Wolf?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to state that in my absence the Hon. Member made two false statements in her question on February 6 in regard to my conduct. The member said: "-the Prime Minister of this country places a phone call", false, "in which he makes threats about cutting off government
Oral Questions
business", false. The Member should learn, once and for all in her parliamentary life, to stick to the facts and to use the same degree of fairness in regard to other people that she would want applied to herself and her family.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: If I had to make a judgment about the honesty of the Prime Minister or Walter Wolf, I know who I would choose.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: When I spoke, the Prime Minister knew perfectly well I was referring to the depositions that were made at the Supreme Court of Ontario. I would like to ask the Prime Minister once more whether he is now prepared to tell the House that it is inappropriate for a Prime Minister, whatever his political stripe, to interfere with testimony and witnesses, including the matter of 200 offices and the deposition by Walter Wolf, or by any Canadian, for that matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has listened very carefully to the question, and the Hon. Member may want to rephrase the question, but it seems to me that the Right Hon. Prime Minister has taken both of the suggestions and allegations and clearly denied them. There is, of course, a rule in this House which is old and is not often used, that once a question has been answered, it ought not properly to be asked again. A certain amount of latitude has crept in over the years, but perhaps this is a time when all Hon. Members ought to be reminded of it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to rephrase the question because I think the Prime Minister has already admitted he did participate in a telephone call.


PRIME MINISTER'S ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Does the Prime Minister feel it is appropriate, upon reflection-he has had a couple of days to think about this-for the Prime Minister of this country to involve himself in a telephone conversation, or in any other way in a private lawsuit involving a senior adviser in his office and another party who, in this case, happens to be Walter Wolf?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is the Hon. Member's version today. She had a different version on Friday and, consistent with the practice of the Hon. Member for Sudbury, she will have a different one tomorrow. In regard to this House, perhaps I am wrong, but I am informed that the Hon. Member has been aware of this information, which she now alleges is major and important, for nine months. For nine months the Hon. Member remained silent. I have a question. If this matter was so important, why

February 9, 1987
Oral Questions
did she not raise it? If so, did she share this information with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition? And if that was the case, why was action not taken before today?


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THAILAND MINISTER OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of all Members the presence in the Gallery of His Excellency, Mr. Tirdpong Jayanandana, Minister of Public Health for Thailand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF JAMAICAN MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker:: I would also like to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the Gallery of Senator The Honourable Jeannette Grant Woodham, Minister of State, Minister of Foreign Affairs for Jamaica.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Still on the subject of democratic political fund raising and similar measures, the Prime Minister has indicated that he had some specific proposals. My question is as follows: Does the Prime Minister intend to act quickly to establish the political morality we need if the Government is to function properly, and when does he intend to disclose the specific measures he was referring to?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question.


Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, I will give him a chance to answer a third time. This question is very important to all Canadians. Does the Prime Minister intend to disclose as soon as possible, and he has the power to do so, his specific proposals for democratic political fund raising?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, substantially the same question was put a few moments ago by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I answered his question, and the same answer applies to this one.


Cyril Keeper: You didn't answer the question!


NATIONAL DRUG STRATEGY
Robert Pennock: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In a recent response to a questionnaire, 89 per cent of my constituents felt that drug abuse was a serious problem in Canada, and want strong government action. Could the Minister inform the House of the progress in establishing a national drug strategy to deal with this serious problem?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will recall the statement and commitment made in the Speech from the Throne, which had clearly been signalled by the Prime Minister earlier in his speech in Vancouver. What has happened since the Speech from the Throne is that an interdepartmental committee has been established to co-ordinate not only the efforts now taking place with, for instance, the Solicitor General, the Department of Justice and the Department of National Health and Welfare, but also to put forward other proposals such as education, and Canada signing the International Psychotropic Convention on Drugs in Vienna in June of this year, which was negotiated 16 years ago. Those are, in the time allowed to me, only some of the details being worked on. There are others and we will announce them as they come forward this spring.


THE ADMINISTRATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has cited me on the presumption of innocence. When it relates to individual responsibility, of course I think everyone in the House is in favour of the presumption of innocence. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are not talking about individual responsibility. We are talking about ministerial responsibility. We are talking about the public administration of this country's business. We are talking about Ministers and how Prime Ministers comport themselves. The burden of proof is on the Government when it comes to public morality, when it comes to public ethics, and when it comes to the administration of the country's business.
I want to recite to the Prime Minister a statement he made in an open letter he gave to all Members of Parliament on September 9, 1986: "The ultimate responsibility for the ethical standards of the federal Government rests with the Cabinet and, more particularly, with me". Does the Prime Minister still stand by that statement? And will he live up to it in his responses to Hon. Members of the House?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition refers
February 9, 1987

to what I think is an important statement, one that all of us ought to struggle every day to seek to achieve. In all walks of life there are difficulties from time to time. My right hon. friend was in this House, I believe, at a difficult time for a Government of which he was a member at that time.
The fact that it happens from time to time in public life does not relieve me or my colleagues of the responsibility of establishing and seeking always to achieve the highest standards of public ethics and morality. Anything at variance with that is completely unacceptable to Canadians and to all Hon. Members of the House. I endorse the indignation of my right hon. friend because the matter at that level is not partisan. It is our commitment to Canadians always to do the very best we can in a very important area.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot quarrel with those words.


OERLIKON AND DRUMMONDVILLE ISSUES-REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
John Napier Turner: Why does the Prime Minister not open the doors on all this mess we have encountered ever since we reassembled here after Christmas and have a public inquiry on the Oerlikon affair and the Drummondville matter? That will clear the air around here because, from the responses which have been given today, this is not going to rest today, tomorrow, or the next day.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition says the matter is not going to rest here. He will have to make up his own mind about the extent to which he wants to pursue the notions now being put forward by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. In one of the matters which came before us, one of the first things done was the securing of the Minister's resignation and the police inquiry conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who were appointed.
In regard to another matter which is raised here before the House, there is civil litigation which is ensuing before Canadian courts, by two Canadians. Surely the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is no stranger to these realities. This is the proper way for these matters to be conducted. I think I have set forward my position and the position of all my colleagues in regard to an earlier question.
If, on the one hand, it is profoundly and fundamentally unfair for members of the Opposition to indulge in half-truths and smear tactics, it is also true that the highest standards must be expected of the Government at all times. Notwithstanding the innuendo and half-truth, which are a disservice to the position just taken by the Right Hon. Leader, this Government remains committed to achieving the highest standards that Canadians demand of all people in public life.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise Hon. Members that in view of the fact that Question Period started late we will continue on for a few more minutes.


FISHERIES
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the Canada-France fishing agreement. Today, Premiers from across the country are meeting in Toronto because of the very serious crisis between the federal and provincial Governments. Recognizing the total unacceptability to Newfoundlanders of the recently signed Canada-France fishing agreement, is the Prime Minister prepared to give his commitment that he will scrap the agreement and do it all over again with the full participation of Newfoundland and other interested parties from Atlantic Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, last week the position of the NDP in regard to this sensitive matter was to send in the navy. Today, the position is to unilaterally abrogate an international undertaking.
This is what happens. Members of the NDP look terrific until they have to make a decision. When they are called upon to make important policy decisions they strike out all the time.


Ms. Jewett:: You would know all about that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Premiers are meeting. That is their business. They will give us their points of view. The Government of Canada advised by the Minister of Transport, who has represented so well the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador, will continue to represent the interests of all Canadians, including the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister. The people of Canada expect some action. They expect the Prime Minister and the Government to stand up for the rights of Canadians when dealing with foreign powers. That is what they expect.
The Prime Minister has broken many promises which he made during the last campaign.


Some Hon. Members:: Name one!


John R. Rodriguez: In his refusal to consult to the end with Newfoundland on this treaty he has created a crisis in federal-

February 9, 1987
Oral Questions
provincial relations. Will the Prime Minister tell the House and the people of Canada what steps his Government will take to end this crisis in federal-provincial relations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is the same question. My hon. friend refers to campaign undertakings. I suppose in that campaign if there was one very important formal undertaking made by my Party in regard to Newfoundland and Labrador it was that we would seek to resolve a matter of historic injustice to the people of Newfoundland, namely, the question of the development of the offshore. We have delivered in spades on the offshore to Newfoundland and Labrador. We will do the same in the other matters before us.


FINANCE
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Given that the Minister has closed a loophole in tax regulations and given that he has made these changes retroactive in relation to the B.C. Government's financing arrangements for SkyTrain, will he explain to the House why this action has been taken when in previous incidents, such as the Gulf acquisition by Olympia & York, the decisions were not retroactive? Is there not a double standard here?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is a double standard. The double standard is that provincial Governments are supposed to protect the tax system, not take advantage of it. This particular incident was a twisting of the tax Act to use a non-commercial, family trust provision of the Act for commercial reasons to provide tax-free investment income to high-income investors. For a number of months now we have been trying to weed out these types of matters in the tax Act. I would have expected that the Province of British Columbia would have advised me that this was something that was being proposed to it and that it would have asked me to change it before taking advantage of it, and not try to take advantage of it without notice.


FISHERIES
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime
Minister. He will know that this year his Government deleted 10,000 tonnes of cod from the Canadian quota, much of it going to inshore plants and inshore fishermen. At the same time his Government allocated $4 million to fishermen and plant workers who did not get enough fish to qualify for unemployment insurance. In light of that painful contradiction, how can the Prime Minister justify the total insanity of giving 3,200 tonnes of fish off the coast of Labrador to the French when the Labrador fishermen are the most vulnerable anywhere in Canada and are struggling for survival? How can the Prime Minister justify that?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member were fair he would tell the House that we have taken a number of steps to deal swiftly with the serious problem in the inshore fishery of Newfoundland. Those steps include full observer coverage on all offshore vessels fishing in the waters 2J+3KL during the first three months of this year, along with other measures.
If the Hon. Member were fair to the House, and as a Member coming from that province he should also know that those stocks far offshore the Newfoundland coast and the Labrador coast are not fished by the Canadian fleet to anything approaching the entire quota because they are very costly stocks to reach. We define them, as we have for many years, as surplus to Canadian requirements.


CATCH TAKEN BY FRENCH VESSELS
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, there is only one stock of fish. The fish caught offshore and the fish caught inshore are the same fish. The Minister should know that.
In light of his press release of January 27, 1987, which states that limited French access to that zone, that is, the northern cod, is a small price to pay to have the boundary dispute resolved, will he not admit that the French are really the pirates of the cod? They have overfished for the last two years. He cannot control them. It is not a small price; it is selling the birthright of Labrador fishermen. Why does the Minister not admit that?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member were fair with the House he would point out that wherever French vessels are fishing in Canadian waters other than the disputed zone they always fish under licence and in full accord with all our regulations and quota limits. So his description of French fishing practices in Canadian waters is not only incorrect, it is most regrettable.


Bill Rompkey: They have overfished for the past two years and you know it.
February 9, 1987


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-FARM MARKETING BOARDS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It concerns a public split between two of his cabinet Ministers on the issue of free trade negotiations and farm marketing boards. Last week, on the one hand, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board said that farm marketing boards will not be on the table for negotiation. On the other hand, the Minister for International Trade said that farm marketing boards will be on the negotiating table and, in fact, are. Will the Prime Minister now clarify for the farmers of Canada which of his Ministers is correct? Are farm marketing boards or the functioning of farm marketing boards on the free trade negotiating table with the United States? Are they there or are they not?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is confusing farm support programs and trade restraints. We have made it perfectly clear that the negotiations are about trade restraints, not about farm marketing boards. I can assure him that the integrity of farm support programs and our system of marketing our wheat are not subjects for discussion in the free trade negotiations.


INQUIRY IF FARM MARKETING BOARDS WILL BE NEGOTIABLE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Prime Minister. On Thursday the Minister for International Trade said to the House, and to the media outside the House of Commons, that questions related to the marketing of farm products are on the table in the negotiations with the United States. Can the Prime Minister tell us here and now, for the benefit of Canadian farmers who deserve a clear answer from the Prime Minister, whether the farm marketing boards are on the negotiating table, yes or no?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the question is the same in either French or English. My answer is also the same.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise Hon. Members that the time for Question Period has expired. I recognize the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).


Miss Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I was in the House at eleven o'clock this morning with the aim of tabling a committee report. As events unfolded that was not possible. I wonder if Your Honour might seek unanimous consent in
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
order that I may now table a report from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which deals with the Department of Insurance. While the committee notes the positive response of the Department to the Auditor General's remedial recommendations, the Committee is still concerned about supervision of pension plans and financial institutions. The committee wishes to emphasize the responsibility of the Department in ensuring that the assets and liabilities of all federally-regulated pension plans are actuarially sound, and are audited on a regular basis. Even though the Department has strengthened its supervisory function of financial institutions following recent failures, the Department must still improve its process for monitoring and assessing the financial solvency of the companies it regulates.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, since the House has so generously given my colleague, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), unanimous consent to table that report, I wonder if we could revert back to petitions. I have dozens of petitions I wish to table.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has noticed that they are not quite as generous on his particular matter.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on a point of order.


POINTS OF ORDER
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order which arises out of your comments during Question Period with respect to the application of the sub judice convention. During Question Period, I understood you to say that the test of whether a question is consistent with the sub judice convention depends on whether it relates squarely to issues being litigated in a particular case. This is certainly an important test. I raise the point as to whether

February 9, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
there is another important test which I respectfully submit you should take into consideration in deciding whether the sub judice convention should be applied when deciding whether a question is acceptable when raised during Question Period.
Citation 335 on page 118 of Beauchesne's states:
Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub-judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play.
I point out in passing that this citation makes it very clear that the convention is there to protect the parties in a case, not other people who may have had some contact with the case either as witnesses, or who have some interest in the outcome, even if it amounts to nothing more than some curiosity about the matter.
I also might say in passing that there seems to be some conflict between citations with respect to the degree to which this convention applies to judicial inquiries.
Citation 338 states:
(1) Matters before a royal commission are not subject to the convention.
However, the main citation that I wish to bring to your attention in this regard is Citation 337, which is also on page 118 and it states:
(1)	No settled practice has been developed in relation to civil cases, as the
convention has been applied in some cases but not in others.
The citation further states:
(2)	In civil cases the convention does not apply until the matter has reached
the trial stage.
The source of this citation is House of Commons Debates, February 11, 1976, p. 10844.
As far as I am aware, and if I am wrong in this I am sure I will be corrected, the case involving Walter Wolf and Fred Doucet has not yet reached the trial stage.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What is an examination for discovery?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Therefore, I submit that if the sub judice convention in the terms that you have stated it during Question Period is to apply at all, then it would come into play and is to be applied only once the case reaches the trial stage. I submit that an examination for discovery is not a trial. It is a proceeding before the trial, but it is not the trial.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to take into consideration the following submission. First, it is not clear that the sub judice convention, no matter how defined, is to be applied at all in any civil case, even at the trial stage. But if it is to be applied, including in the terms which you used during Question Period, then this application does not arise until the trial has actually begun.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully draw your attention to Citation 339 of Beauchesne's at page 119 in which the learned editor of this volume draws our attention to the report of the
Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members which, among other things, recognizes that while "the Speaker should remain the final arbiter in the matter" of sub judice, he "should exercise his discretion only in exceptional cases. In doubtful cases he should rule in favour of debate and against the convention."
Because the matter with respect to the application of the sub judice convention will likely arise again in Question Period and in debate I thought I should take the liberty of making these comments for the purpose of saying first, the convention cannot apply to questions with regard to people who are not themselves parties or litigants in the case in question, and second, the the sub judice convention has not been clearly established to apply at any stage of a civil case, and third, if it should apply then it is only once the trial has begun, and it has certainly not begun in the case of Walter Wolf and Fred Doucet.
Finally, with the utmost respect, I draw your attention once again to what I suggest are the very wise words of the Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members with regard to the degree of restraint a Speaker should exercise in applying the sub judice convention at any time.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the arguments of my colleague, partly because I never did much litigation myself. I wish to make a couple of points. When reviewing this matter, Mr. Speaker, as I hope you will, it is in the interests of this House and Canadians who are before the court system at whatever level that you take due note of the words "in the interest of justice and fair play". That is what is at issue here when questions are asked.
There is another convention that was not contained in the argument of my hon. colleague, and that is as to what is the main purpose of Question Period. It has always been my understanding that the purpose of Question Period is for the Opposition to hold the Government accountable.
I submit that engaging in an examination of hearsay where an affidavit is filed, or evidence is taken by examination for discovery in which one individual in sworn testimony recounts what one person is purported to have said to another can hardly be referred to as hard evidence. When I went to law school it was hearsay. Whether it was sworn hearsay or not, it was still hearsay. The point here is whether we are putting at risk-I do not know why my colleague from the NDP finds the abuse of justice and fair play so funny. I do not.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I was thinking of when you were in Opposition and some of the justice and fair play we used to see.


Philip Derek Lewis: If my hon. colleague wants to argue the matter, let him. I suggest he do it. That is what this forum is for.
February 9, 1987

I think it is a very serious matter to interfere with the court process whether it is a criminal or a civil trial. I appreciate, as my hon. friend has pointed out, that the rules for civil litigation are not hard and fast, but fair play and justice are hard and fast. If for pure political purposes you are affecting the outcome of a criminal trial or a lawsuit in any way, shape or form, I do not think that is right and proper. I do not think my colleagues here want to indulge in that.
I would ask the Chair to look at that and I agree with my hon. colleague that it is something that should be looked at so there is some direction for the House as we go along. I urge that we zero in on the words "in the interests of justice and fair play" and decide whether or not this matter is being brought forward for purely political purposes or whether it is really holding the Government accountable. If that is the case, then I think we have to be sure that we are not tampering in any way with justice and fair play whether the litigant is a litigant in a civil matter or somebody being brought before the courts for criminal prosecution.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) for their contributions, and, I think it is appropriate to say, the Hon. Member for	Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). I think he deferred to the caveat the Chair put when he was asking a question and went to some pains to make sure that he did not transgress beyond the stage that the Chair felt it might not be appropriate to go. I want to re-emphasize that the Chair cannot always tell at the start of a question just exactly where that question may lead.
In specific answer to the point raised by the Hon. Member for Windsor West, I think there is something in what he says, that there may be some authorities which indicate a matter is not strictly speaking sub judice until it has reached the trial stage. There is some authority for that. That point was also brought to my attention in a note from the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. However, what I was hoping to do, and I am sure the Hon. Member for Windsor West knows this, was to alert members to the fact that there is a sub judice rule, and to ask members to be careful not to transgress against it. The Hon. Member for Windsor West and other Hon. Members will note that I have not ruled that a question has yet transcended that position, but I felt it was appropriate to make sure that everybody, as much as possible, understands the problem which the Chair has when these questions get increasingly close to that line.
The other thing I wanted to point out, and I think Hon. Members will agree, and that must also be understood, is that questions that are peripheral to the main issue being tested in the litigation are not necessarily excluded under the sub judice rule. It is important that all Hon. Members realize that, because sometimes there is a tendency for Members on one side to seize too quickly the conclusion that just because a
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis
question may concern some actors who may be involved in one way or the other in a lawsuit that it is by its very definition sub judice. I was trying to point out and draw Members' attention to the fact that that is not always so, and that the Chair has to find the middle ground.
I accept with great consideration the comments of the Hon. Member for Windsor West. I hope he will note that as this debate goes on and as these questions may go on that the Chair will try very hard to hew to what is the appropriate rule.
I think it is fair to comment that the point which the Parliamentary Secretary makes about the basis for this rule is that concern for justice and fair play must also be recognized in this Chamber. I must point out again that in all these matters, unless Members are cognizant of just those principles, justice and fair play, then sometimes that leads to a situation which may or may not create disorder, but may get very close to it, so the Chair sometimes has to try to move in very gently to keep that from happening. I thank the Hon. Member for Windsor West. The observations are cogent and they are helpful to the Chair.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is rising on a different point of order?


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am. I find your comments quite helpful and I appreciate the argument. I think they are on a good plane.


QUESTIONS IMPUTING MOTIVES
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to seek your direction in terms of how one responds on this side of the House. As my colleague across the way was pointing out, 1 did spend some time in opposition and 1 appreciate the difficulties one has in drafting questions.
I want to raise a point of order with respect to the questions put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who I see is now in the House. I would not for one minute suggest that Beauchesne is up to date on how Question Period should function in this day and age. I would not for a minute suggest that, but because of the way Question Period has evolved in the seven and one-half years that I have been here, I would ask for some direction with respect to Beau-chesne's Citation 357(i) which suggests that questions should not contain imputations. Similarly, in Citation 360(5), a question may not:
... reflect on the character or conduct of the Speaker or other occupants of the Chair, Members of either House of Parliament and members of the judiciary.
I appreciate that things become heated in this House, that debate becomes heated. That is what it is all about. Question Period has to be tough and direct. But I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this afternoon my colleague from Burnaby imputed several motives in his questions and I think went beyond the bounds of dignity and what is required to place a question and hold the Government accountable.

February 9, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis
Perhaps when you have an opportunity you could review Hansard, Mr. Speaker, and give the House some direction on that particular subject area of whether or not it is fair to impute motives when one asks questions, to the extent that my colleague did this afternoon.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis), I would note that one of the citations to which he refers, Citation 360(5), indicates that a question may not, as he pointed out:
reflect on the character or conduct of the Speaker or other occupants of the Chair, Members of either House of Parliament and members of the judiciary.
As the Hon. Member himself has acknowledged, these rules have to be read in light of the evolving practices and traditions of the House, and surely it is not reasonable to suggest that a member in Question Period may not ask a question which reflects on the conduct of a Minister of the Crown in the course of that Minister's activities vis-a-vis his or her government responsibilities. Surely to suggest that we cannot question the conduct of Ministers of the Crown is reading Beauchesne's Citation 360 in a manner which is not only out of date but which is completely unrealistic.
With respect to the suggestion of imputation of motives, I am not sure to what the Hon. Member is referring. In the initial question I asked, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) quite specifically to clarify the nature of his intervention in the telephone conversation in question and also to indicate whether or not there had been any suggestion of a withdrawal of a federal Government contract. In a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister again whether or not he agreed with the comments of his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) that it was solely a private matter if, in fact, a Minister of the Crown intervened in a manner which had been suggested.
I suggest neither of those questions in any way imputed motives. They certainly asked about the involvement of the Prime Minister, but I suggest they are entirely within the framework and scope of Question Period and that if we cannot ask questions about the conduct of members of this Government, certainly that will significantly stifle an effective and free flow of questions during Question Period.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to make some brief comments on the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis). The Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that Beauchesne's is not up to date and that the practice with respect to questions accepted by the Speaker during Question Period has certainly evolved, to use his word, since the edition of Beauchesne's in question was published. That is certainly accurate. The first citation to which he referred is from 1965, and no source is given at all for the second citation although this edition of Beauchesne's was published in 1978.
For some reason or other, the Government seems reluctant to draw attention to the guidelines for Question Period announced in the House less than two years ago by the previous occupant of the chair. Those guidelines may well have some bearing on this to the extent that you, Mr. Speaker, may wish to use them for guidance in the exercise of your discretion over which questions you will accept or not.
In any event, the citations from Beauchesne's about Question Period have not only been overtaken by a later set of guidelines set down by your predecessor but they have been overtaken by dozens if not hundreds of precedents established in this House day after day, week after week by questions asked by members of the Government when they were in opposition. Those questions were accepted by the Speaker without challenge or question and the questions were asked without doubt, shame or reticence of any kind. I say with the utmost sincerity and respect to you, Sir, that those are the precedents that cannot be overlooked in these circumstances.
Surely Beauchesne's Citation 360 cannot be interpreted literally as saying that the conduct of Members of the House who are Ministers cannot be questioned in so far as that conduct relates to their official duties. If that were to be the case, then Question Period as an essential element not only of the House of Commons but of the parliamentary system would be severely undermined and weakened. I would like to think that none of us would want to see that.
Finally, by way of authority, I would like to refer to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader during the discussion on the point of order I raised just a few moments ago. He said that Question Period is to hold the Government to account. If that is the case, surely it must mean that one can question members of the Government about their conduct as Ministers. Second, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader is correct in saying that questions are not there to impute motives, he should not have said, as he did without challenge from me, that questions cannot be asked during Question Period if they are asked purely for-I think I recall his words correctly- political purposes. If that is not a form of imputing motives, what is?
In conclusion, therefore I think one must tread very carefully before saying that any questions which have some link with an inquiry into the purpose of the conduct in question are out of order because they impute motives. In any event, none of us should be ashamed about being willing to ask questions for political purposes. Is that not the reason for which we are here? We are talking about the operation of the political process which I hope will be exercised with the utmost integrity and trustworthiness. It is the political process that brings us here and it is the political process under which we are operating. Therefore, we should not be concerned if questions are asked for political purposes. I do not say that that necessarily imputes negative motives but I wish the Parliamentary
February 9, 1987

Secretary to the Government House Leader would be consistent in his arguments and would recognize that what he is complaining about has, as I said a moment ago, been well established by hundreds of precedents based on questions he and his colleagues asked when in opposition, questions which were readily accepted by your distinguished predecessors.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) for their interventions on this second point of order. The Chair is intrigued by the alleged suggestion that someone in this Chamber might be political. A distinguished former Member of this place is reputed to have said one evening in a moment, I think, of exasperation: "The trouble with this place is it's getting too political".
I think there will always be politics in a political forum like this one. When a suggestion is made that remarks are made for political purposes, I know that there are high political motives and there are perhaps less high political motives. It is for the Chair to decide to which of those two political motives the Hon. Member is referring.
On the question of the ancient or older precepts in some of the books that are sent to guide us, I think it has been made very clear that the Chair tries to take those rules or suggestions into account as a guide, but I think it is also clear to Hon. Members that the Chair has tried to temper those guidelines with the realities of the present situation in the House of Commons and the evolution of our procedures and customs. However, I do not think that anyone means that the conduct of Ministers or of Members, depending on what it is, is something with which the House cannot concern itself. What is key to this is that when questions are asked, Hon. Members should refrain as much as possible from using phrases or words that are accusatory or start off with an allegation relating to the character, honour or motives of any Hon. Member, whether those comments are made in a question or as a part of a reply.
Certainly vigorous and probing questions are completely in order in this place. I hope that I can persuade Hon. Members that I am very cognizant of the fact that that is part of our tradition. At the same time, I would say that the restraint, discipline and skill that is put into questions will probably elicit the information or put forward the position that is required without necessarily invoking a response which creates disorder in the Chamber and then creates a necessity for the Chair to intervene.
I thank all Hon. Members. As I say, we must look at these things as they come before us with a sense of fairness and justice and with a sense of what this place is all about. I think it will be a rare day when the Chair is too surprised that there is some politics in this Chamber.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the motion of Mr. Lewis (p. 3220).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When we recessed at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Humboldt Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) had the floor. He has 15 minutes left plus 10 minutes for questions and comments.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, just prior to the luncheon adjournment I was about to say that the Canadian trucking industry, for several reasons specific to its structure, will be particularly hard hit by deregulation.
Deregulation has had a devastating impact upon the American trucking industry-massive lay-offs, bankruptcy, increasing concentration, loss of service in the hinterland, et cetera. While that will be repeated in Canada, there is a very real likelihood that because of the particular character of the Canadian industry and the kind of geography with which it is faced, the consequences will be even more severe.
Three main features of the Canadian trucking industry must be borne in mind when we talk about the likely impact of deregulation-market size and orientation, what happens when we have a very large market alongside a relatively small one, and the present vulnerability of the Canadian trucking industry prior to deregulation. All these matters will have an impact upon the effect of deregulation in Canada.
Turning to market size and orientation, unlike the American market with its demographic concentrations, the Canadian market has only three large cities with populations of over one million people. While in the United States there are 1,722 city pairs with one million plus population, Canada only has six such pairings with a huge gap existing between Ontario-Quebec and the far west. Without regulation in the trucking industry in some form similar to what we have now, there will be little incentive to maintain east-west transportation routes and the historic basis of the country will be placed in jeopardy.
Present regulations with control over market entry, pricing, commodity, and destination restrictions have intentionally created a pattern of cross-subsidization of traffic through the encouragement of transportation generalists. For example, someone who wants to participate in the moving of less than fully loaded trucks applies for a licence, obtains a licence, services a particular area, and schedules his routes at well-known times. Thus, shippers and receivers of goods in those areas know when they will receive trucking services. In short,
3246

February 9, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
the truck does not wait to be filled before making a run. The reduction or elimination of this regulatory control would encourage the super efficient and the transport specialists to the point of driving the transport generalist out of the market. Along with the demise of the transport generalist would come the demise of a great many small centres which are now providing goods and services to rural and lesser populated areas of Canada. With that goes the whole concept of maintaining east-west links in Canada.
The second aspect of Bill C-19 which I want to discuss, as it has an impact upon the trucking industry, is the size of the American market and our own market. When the United States introduced deregulation in its trucking industry in 1980, it did not have a large nearby neighbour with the geographic and economic capacity to enter and predominate in the transport industry. There was no nation 10 times or 11 times larger sitting just across the border to move in on its markets. With the upheaval caused by deregulation, the U.S. industry did not face the additional distraction of competition from an economically stronger and better prepared international competitor. However, Canada has that problem. We are faced with a neighbouring country which has been involved in deregulation for a number of years. It has consolidated its trucking business to the point where it has three very large companies which have almost taken over the market. It is in a position to treat the Canadian service market as a very small part of its market.
In fact, in the last six years one of the largest companies in the United States has expanded the terminals it services from 154 to some 540 or 550. It has indicated that it could serve most of the Canadian market in which it is interested by the establishment of another five or six terminals in Canada. One only has to look at highway maps of Canada and the United States to realize that that number would certainly be adequate for any U.S. trucking firm to service the most important aspects of the Canadian market. It could run through U.S. routes and take advantage of low cost fuel and low cost equipment. Our truckers estimate that the advantage of being based in the United States, paying U.S. licences, and buying U.S. fuel, amounts to about 10 per cent. That in itself is very difficult to overcome.
In addition, American companies have the advantage of being able to use the terminals they choose to set up in Canada as loss-leaders in order to get rid of existing competition in Canadian markets.
With more than 500 terminals one can readily see that a company, which only wants to expand its market by five or six terminals to get control of most of the Canadian market that might eventually be profitable, is not faced with any risk, even if it cuts prices by 50 per cent or as much as 65 per cent. Indeed, we have seen evidence where some of these companies have moved into new areas and have cut rates by as much as 65 per cent in order to get rid of existing competition and, immediately thereafter, switched to a form of billing more consistent with their pricing elsewhere in the country.
I have pointed out that the access of American companies to the Canadian market was relatively easy because they would only have to purchase a few terminals here. However, Canadian truckers do not have the same market advantage. They are operating in smaller markets and working from six to ten terminals scattered along the Canadian border. For them to penetrate the American market, five or six additional terminals would not do it. They would have to be prepared to expand by much more if they are to seize an important part of the American market, and the costs and risks would be simply too high. On the other hand, the penetration of the Canadian market is relatively easy for U.S. truckers, and Canadian truckers would find it difficult to compete.
The American trucking industry has been preparing for deregulation in Canada or for reregulation, as the Government prefers to call it, by analysing the market. It has also become involved in buying out trucking firms in Canada. A large trucking firm known as Yellow Freight System purchased three fairly substantial trucking companies operating out of the Windsor area in the past year. It now has a virtual stranglehold over that particular marketing operation. That industry has been preparing for deregulation in a way which will eventually make it pre-eminent in Canada as far as trucking is concerned.
As I said, the U.S. trucking industry is dominated by three very large firms-Yellow Freight System,Consolidated Freightways, and Roadway Express Incorporated. We are a little short of absolutely reliable figures about the structure of our trucking industry and its financial position, but available figures portray an industry marked by many small firms and a few very large firms, all of which are operating with a very slender margin of profit. The majority of the approximate 10,000 trucking firms listed in Canada are small operations with one to three trucks. Even among the very large trucking firms historically there has not been a pattern of large profits. An industry spokesman recently remarked that even in the best of times industry-wide profit levels seldom exceed 3 per cent. In 1984, 22 per cent of the companies reporting to the Ontario Trucking Association were suffering losses.
In 1985 there were at least four major takeovers and mergers which were precipitated by companies on the Canadian side attempting to get ready for the competition with which they will be faced from the U.S. side. Reimer Express Enterprises bought Inter-City Truck Lines in April to create one of the largest trucking companies in Canada. In August, Dominion Consolidated Truck Lines and Overland Express merged to create the largest trucking company in the Ontario region. That same month CP Express, Canada's largest road carrier, bought Pickard Moving and Storage. As well, Direct Transportation System was sold to Canadian Motorways, creating what The Globe and Mail referred to as the biggest shake-up in the industry so far.
February 9, 1987 ____________________________COMMONS
All of these occurred within a few months of each other. I am sure that had we looked further we would have found even more concentration and mergers taking place. The same pattern emerged in the United States when trucking was deregulated there. I have already pointed out the extent to which that has happened with the domination by three very large firms.
One of the myths which accompanies deregulation is that with the elimination of government's visible hand competition will again be brought into the market. The theory is that the economy will revive, the consumer will again be sovereign, and there will be so many winners that the few losers will be grateful to be martyrs for the sake of efficiency. Indeed, that was the theory for a new world which the then Minister of Transport put forth when he presented his paper, Freedom to Move.
However, some of the trucking companies are less enthusiastic about this. In the U.S. less than 10 companies now control more than half of the industry's total profit. The irony of deregulation is that by opening the doors to unregulated competition concentration is promoted. This is the problem to which I have been alluding throughout my remarks.
One of the arguments which has been used by my colleagues with regard to the Government's efforts to deregulate is with regard to the road hazards which will be created. Even American truckers are admitting that regardless of safety provisions, deregulation brings hazardous road conditions. Carriers which operate on a shoe-string can hardly attend to matters of new tires or brakes overhauls when they live, as a vast majority of them will, from shipment to shipment. Trucking equipment will stay on the road longer as companies are forced to cut expenses for new investments to the bone. The quality of repair work and upgraded equipment will deteriorate in all but the most profitable of companies. Truckers, particularly small owner operator truckers, will drive longer stretches as they search for freight to ship, increasing the danger to themselves and to those with whom they share the highway.
That is what we are concerned about with regard to deregulation, or reregulation, whatever the Government chooses to call it. We think there should be a slow-down in the process to permit better understanding of what has happened in the United States and to give our industry an opportunity to make the necessary corrections to ensure that whatever changes occur in this country can be made with safety and security. We must maintain Canada with an east-west economy rather than a north-south one as this change of regulation tends to encourage.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's words of wisdom. They were indeed very informative. While I was listening, I could not help but think of the impact which deregulation would have, particularly on the West Coast. I am particularly concerned about connections to the Port of Vancouver.
DEBATES_________________________________________________3247
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
Most of the trucking industry in Canada consists of the trucking of resource products, whereas in the United States it consists more of manufactured goods. What does the Hon. Member think the impact may be on east-west transportation, particularly between the prairie provinces, with the transport of grain, and the Port of Vancouver on the West Coast? Will the north-south pull have a real impact on this route? Will deregulated trucking compete with our railways, resulting in our railways not being used as extensively for grain traffic in particular?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, this concern is often raised. I can speak only from my limited experience with the regulations which apply to raw products in the Province of Saskatchewan. Items such as grain and livestock are not regulated to the same extent as is the trucking of parts and other necessary goods from distribution points to various towns.
The immediate impact on the Port of Vancouver with regard to the shipping of grain or raw material would be almost non-existent since most of that traffic was not particularly regulated beforehand. In my province it is relatively easy to get a licence to move such raw products. It is much more difficult to get a licence to transport goods and services.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke and I both come from a resource based part of the country where thousands of men and women earn their living by producing products which are exported to other parts of the world, 80 per cent to the markets south of us. The member has repeatedly mentioned the trucking industry in which we on this side of the House have considerable interest, too.
Why do his remarks seem to pay no attention to the workers who create the goods which trucking companies move? Will he not bear in mind the number of people in his province and in mine who work on farms and in potash mines, and who produce pulp and paper, all of which create livelihoods for people in our provinces? I remind him that a number of shippers have been forced to establish trucking companies themselves because of the inadequate service trucking companies have provided under the status quo. That is something we are trying to deal with in this Bill. I would like him to comment on the men and women who work in the industries that create the goods to be shipped.
Is the member suggesting that the laws should be changed so that U.S. trucking companies in Canada that employ Canadians should be barred from Canada? If so, I point out to him that there are over 1,000 Canadian trucking companies in the United States doing business for Canada. He may not know that with virtually the stroke of a pen those 1,000 Canadian trucking companies in the United States could be expelled, which would be a loss to Canada.
I want the Hon, Member to speak particularly about the interests of those who produce the goods that are shipped by the trucking industry. Why did he not mention them in his speech?

Adjournment Debate


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since I only had 20 minutes, I did not get to that part of my speech. It is my understanding from reading what happened in the United States that many of those companies, which believed it was in their best interests to provide their own trucking companies prior to deregulation, discovered they were forced to abandon those trucking firms because of the extreme competition to expand or maintain their market share after deregulation. Their routes were being invaded by some of the very large companies in an attempt to expand their market share.
For the short run it was actually more costly in many instances for manufacturing companies to use their own trucks to deliver goods because the competition was offering rates that were below the cost of production. I doubt this will continue for many years, but as long as some companies have control of a certain segment of the market, they can cut rates to much less than their real costs in the process of expanding simply to force out any competitors, including some manufacturing firms that had run their own trucking business.
I believe there is enough access to transportation services under our current system. I represent an area that is rather thinly populated and we appreciate the fact that there must be some effective cross-subsidization of the transportation system since there is not enough demand in the small villages and towns that I represent to warrant a full truckload of goods each week or more. We need some regulations requiring service so that heavy goods will be delivered when we need them. We are prepared to pay the higher price for that service.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, why does the Hon. Member believe that Canadians are incompetent to drive trucks, own trucks and own trucking businesses? There are 1,000 Canadians who run trucking businesses in the United States. The Americans have shown that they are incapable of competing in steel, pork, fish, and lumber. Why does he think they are so capable of competing in transportation, particularly when one considers that in this industry an individual can own a truck and, with a little capital, form his own trucking system?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I hope I did not leave any such impression. If the Hon. Member had listened carefully he would have understood that I said Canadians would be much less competitive than their American neighbours. There will be thousands of Canadians who will be able to compete, just as there are hundreds of thousands of Canadian farmers who can compete with American farmers even when the circumstances for our productive ability are much more difficult than on the other side of the border. We can and will compete, but we will also be laying many trucking firms open to takeover not only by American firms but by Canadian firms. There will be a tremendous shake-down in the industry after these regulations are put into law.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.
February 9, 1987



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)- Human rights-U.S.S.R.-Plight of Ioffe family; the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp)-External affairs-Request for reconsideration of decision; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper)-Supply and services-(a) Awarding of CF-18 fighter aircraft maintenance contract-Technology transfer factor, (b) Request for publication of documents.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the motion of Mr. Lewis (p. 3220).
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker,
earlier today the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and other members told us how undemocratic this debate had become. They said that the Government was trying to quash the debate and was somehow trying to prevent people from speaking. This is what we hear from Members on the other side, who last week engaged in a procedure whereby they moved the adjournment of the House one day after another.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Flon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) is using my name in vain, and I cannot believe it. He said that I accused the Government of using procedures that would cut off debate. That is true. The question before the House now is that the previous question be put. That debate will only last as long as we can keep it going. Members on that side will not speak to this question, and the vote will be taken. He is indeed speaking the truth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that that is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) has the floor.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, that is not even decent debate. There is nothing in the motion that prevents every member in the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party from speaking. Indeed, every Member of the House can speak once on second
February 9, 1987

reading debate. What is more democratic than that? The Hon. Member does not understand the purpose of this place when he says that this is a form of closure. Surely the purpose of this place is not to filibuster, move motion after motion to hear another member speak, or to move the adjournment of the House at least six times. They cause vote after vote, for no other purpose than to delay the passage of legislation.
We have only passed two Bills since the House commenced after the Christmas adjournment. We have been held up day after day by procedural motion after procedural motion. It is nonsense for the member to suggest that asking the question to be put is somehow limiting debate. There has been ample debate and ample time.
It is time that this Bill is passed and put to a vote, if necessary. I ask whether a vote is necessary because much of the substance of this legislation stems from the theory and concepts developed in the last Parliament, this Parliament and in the Standing Committee on Transport. I suggest that these Bills reflect the views of members of the Standing Committee on Transport as well as members of the previous Government and this Government.
It is nonsense to suggest that there has not been ample debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is wrong. This Bill reflects the very spirit by which we hope this country can be revitalized, particularly in the transportation of goods. This Bill will provide shippers with the opportunity to compete in the shipment of goods. They will have the right to choose their method of shipping, obtain alternative tenders for shipping from various trucking companies and, according to Bill C-18, from other forms of shipping. It is a Bill designed to enhance the freedom to move. If we can make the freedom to move a real possibility, if we can get rid of the monopolies which have existed, the restrictions and curtailment on freedom of enterprise, then we can open the whole thing up and probably wind up with lower cost goods, more employment and better conditions for all.
I have a petition here from a company in Hinton, Alberta, with respect to the movement of its goods. It talks about the opportunity to move lumber and pulp to its American market by truck if it cannot make a deal with the railway. The company says the railways are effectively a monopoly and giving it the right to engage truckers, gives it the opportunity to break that monopoly. It is important that our various producers have the right to shop around.
Clause 22 of the Bill gives the definition of a public carrier, which is any railway company and any operator of an extraprovincial truck undertaking. Therefore, one of our largest agricultural products, grain, can now be moved by truck under the provisions of this Bill. I am surprised that this has not been recognized by the Opposition. I am surprised those Hon. Members would not realize that under the terms of this Bill, the system is being opened up. Some truckers are upset about this Bill, but they are established trucking companies which
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
have what we call in Ontario a public commercial vehicle licence or a PCV licence, which enables them to have certain monopolies on certain routes.
The theory behind this Bill is that the monopoly age is over. However, the New Democratic Party is today saying that it wants to support the continuation of the monopoly age. The Liberal Party says it wants to support the continuation of the monopoly age. How does that monopoly work? A particular trucking company has a monopoly, for example, with one kind of freight from one shipper to one point, or a Class A situation where it can ship goods of every nature and kind between two cities on a particular highway. The effect of that is to limit the number of people who can engage in shipping goods. When we limit the number of people who can do that, we have a monopoly. When we have a monopoly, those companies can get whatever kind of fare they want for the goods to be delivered, and can charge, generally speaking, what the traffic will bear. That kind of monopoly situation is what this Bill is designed to stop.
There are some problems. For example, a number of trucking companies have capitalized the value of their licences. The capital value of their licences represents a very important item on their balance sheet. They say to us that if we do away with these licences, they will lose the capital value of the licences. However, these licences are monopolies which allow those companies to operate their trucks in a protected fashion. Very much like a railway has a monopoly because it owns the track, they have a monopoly because they own the right to run certain freight down certain highways exclusively. If we want to continue with a society which believes in giving monopolies, then, obviously, the monopoly has a value.
One of the problems we face with this legislation is somehow phasing in the loss of that monopoly to the companies involved. The companies which have capitalized the monopoly in the normal fashion will be able, bit by bit, to write off their goodwill or the value of their licence which will get them the money back in the tax system. However, some companies have not capitalized their licences. They developed the licences a long time ago and they now have a real value but have never been capitalized. Those companies are going to have to accept that if a state gives a monopoly, a state has the right to take that monopoly away. Surely, in a free society, monopolies which have ceased to serve their purpose cease to have any right to be there.
I would have thought that the New Democratic Party would have recognized that monopolies in transportation should not exist. They should recognize that the borders should be open and those people who want to go into trucking should be able to do so as long as they have top-notch equipment and provide a good service. But the New Democratic Party wants to protect the existing situation. Those Hon. Members say: "Don't let it change", which almost defies the logic of a Party which would call itself new and democratic. It is supposed to be new and democratic yet is in favour of monopolies, in favour of the status quo and of ensuring that some people have

February 9, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
privileges which others cannot enjoy. That is the position of that Party today.
This House through this Bill throws the light on the situation. It throws open the situation. We are saying: "Look. If you want to get involved in interprovincial trucking, get yourselves some equipment and some local licences and away you go". That kind of freedom will make it possible for shippers to move their goods in a competitive fashion. We say that the greater good is the movement of goods. I say that, Sir, because one of the major problems we face in this country is the problem of regional disparity.
Earlier today the Mayor of Kamloops was in to see me. His Member of Parliament, the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis), arranged for him to come and see me with respect to a promotion by the City of Kamloops to attract business. The Mayor of Kamloops is a pretty optimistic fellow. He told me that Kamloops had an advantage by being on both the Yellowhead Highway and the highway which passes through Rogers Pass. It has the advantage of the two main Trans-Canada highways as well as the advantage of having both railways go through the town. He said: "We have these advantages and we want to make sure the people of Canada are aware of these advantages". The freedom of movement legislation, the right to be able to provide trucking any way one wants on an interprovincial basis, without the restrictions which did apply, ensures that cities like Kamloops will have a better chance at the business.
One of the problems has always been that the big cities attract the industry. Big cities attract activity because of the cost of shipping goods. If we are going to attack regional disparity, we have to attack the cost of shipping goods. We do not attack that cost by protecting monopolies and vested rights. This Bill is out to get rid of vested rights. It will allow people who want to go into business to do so on their own, to do it the way they want to do it. If we carry on with the present system we will continue to deprive the outreach parts of our nation of efficient cheap transportation.
It was said earlier by my friend from the New Democratic Party that somehow there is cross-subsidization involved. In trucking there is no such thing as cross-subsidization. If money cannot be made running a truck, then it is not run. That is the way it is. There may be cross-subsidization involved in a rail system; but there is no cross-subsidization involved in a trucking system.


Mr. Benjamin:: Do you want to bet?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: If there are no goods, then one does not run a truck. If some people think that that somehow happens, then they really do not understand what is going on. If one runs a truck half full, then one charges for a full truck. The same is true in the case of a truck which is one-quarter full.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You don't know what you are talking about.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A truck is run on the basis of making a profit. It makes a profit either on the trip out or on the trip back. I do not know how many of my friends opposite have been personally involved in the trucking industry as lawyers or business consultants for the industry, but I can assure them that anyone who has talked to people running trucking companies would pretty soon find out that they do not run their companies on the basis of cross-subsidization.
Indeed, the trucking industry is one of the most competitive industries that there is in terms of transportation, largely because relatively small amounts of capital are required to get into the industry. The equipment used is relatively standard. Trucks which are essentially American designed and manufactured are bought and run in a conventional fashion. There is nothing particularly modern, new or different in the industry other than in respect of the quality of the vehicles which are generally available. In general, roads go everywhere. So it is not a question of a person not being able to get into the business because he cannot afford the capital. The capital is relatively easy to obtain. A relatively small amount of money is required as a down payment on a unit. Financing is relatively easy to arrange from banks, trust companies and leasing companies. They can think of many ways in which to finance units. The real question is getting the freight moving, and moving it efficiently. If it is not moved efficiently, then one cannot remain in the business. This Bill removes the burdens, the problems, the regulations and the state-controlled monopolies that prevent the movement of goods.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling of sheer amazement as a result of listening to the ignorance of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) concerning the trucking industry.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not need to tell the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that there are no rules around here about anyone being ignorant. The Minister should know that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Otherwise there wouldn't be a Tory in the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Hon. Member has been talking about monopolies in the trucking business. Does the Hon. Member not realize that there are 2,000 U.S. truckers in Canada, 1,000 Canadians truckers in the U.S., that there are currently 15,000 licences currently out in Canada, 4,000 new or renewal licences are issued every year, and 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the applications for licences, routes and franchises are approved? Can the Hon. Member please tell me and the House how he arrived at this monopoly nonsense in terms of the trucking business?
I want to tell my hon. friend that under deregulation in the United States the six largest trucking companies, which make ours look like peanut operations, control 87 per cent of the traffic. That is where monopoly has come about under
February 9, 1987

deregulation. More truckers have been bankrupted and more mergers and takeovers have occurred than has ever been seen before in the history of the American industry. How does the Hon. Member arrive at his argument concerning a monopoly in the trucking industry in Canada? Will the Hon. Member please explain his remarks, since there are some truckers watching this nonsense of his who are outside waiting for him with a rope?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the rope. Perhaps the Hon. Member can tell us how easy it would be for him to obtain a Class A licence to haul goods from Montreal to Toronto or from Toronto to Ottawa and how many people he thinks would oppose him if he were to go before a regulatory body in Toronto.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I did not think I was being asked questions. Would the Hon. Member please answer my question? If I were to apply for a Class A licence to haul goods from Toronto to Montreal I would receive that licence.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You would?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I just told the Hon. Member that 90 per cent of the applications are approved. The Hon. Member does not know what he is talking about.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Hon. Member would be able to obtain a trucking licence with such ease. He must have some interesting abilities which other trucking companies do not have, particularly when one considers the value of these licences as they are traded between companies. The fact is that this Bill takes away the commercial value of licences, which is the real reason the Canadian Trucking Association has its concerns. People have set up the licences as being worth something.
If the Hon. Member thinks for one moment that one can obtain a PCV licence in the Province of Ontario just by winking and nodding, then he is seriously mistaken. When one goes before the transport board in Ontario with an application, one usually takes with one all sorts of collateral materials setting out public necessity and convenience. The moment one arrives before the board one is faced with a battery of 10 or 12 lawyers who represent people who may or may not have an interest in an existing licence but who are there to make sure one does not obtain one's licence. The only way one can obtain a trucking licence is to buy one from someone who has one, which costs a great deal of money. I suppose the New Democratic Party is in favour of monopolies and I understand the Hon. Member's concerns in that respect.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, I would be more impressed by the argument of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), who argues that what this Bill attempts to do is to remove a monopoly situation in the trucking industry, if he were able to explain to me why it is that the Government, under Bill C-22, is trying to do exactly what he is saying the Government is not attempting to do with this legislation, that
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
is, create a monopoly in the pharmaceutical industry. Prior to 1969, as the Hon. Member must know, the reason for the high drug prices in Canada-in fact the highest drug prices in the world-was that the multinational corporations enjoyed a monopoly in pricing in Canada. In fact, no less than six federal studies clearly showed that that was the reason for high drug prices. In effect, what was done in 1969 as a result of removing patent protection from brand name manufacturers was to introduce competition in pricing in Canada by allowing generic manufacturers to enter the field. On the one hand the Hon. Member is saying that he is opposed to monopolies, and on the other he seems willing to go along with creating one in terms of pharmaceutical products.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, it is rather humorous that the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) would make mention of Bill C-22 in his remarks when we are talking about highway transportation. The Hon. Member knows perfectly well that Bill C-22 is a Bill that merely gets rid of a situation whereby people can pirate other people's patents. Perhaps the Hon. Member is right. Perhaps we should not have any patent protection in Canada at all. As a member of an international industrial community, we find that we had better protect the interests of inventors.
The problems in Bill C-22 can be taken to the committee. Here we are talking about highway transportation. Because the New Democratic Party cannot find any reason for standing behind the opposition to this Bill, it now brings in Bill C-22. What specious nonsense.


Raymond Garneau: The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) said that this Bill will break down the monopoly in the trucking industry and that trucking licences will disappear. I understand that this Bill will not reimburse truckers for the value of this licence. I wish to ask the Member if this is a precedent for what may happen to the farmers. The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) suggested on the week-end that the marketing boards for farmers could be put on the table in the negotiations. Should the farmer expect to see the same type of treatment, wherein the milk producer, the chicken farmer, and the egg producer who paid a certain amount of money to buy a quota will see those quotas disappear with no reimbursement in the same manner as the truckers will not be reimbursed?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) does point out a serious problem that develops when for some reason or another Governments give producers or users in effect a monopoly over a certain service or certain right to produce. A bankable value is built into that monopoly. When government policy changes, or the right to produce is extended, or something else of that nature happens, people then say, "My goodness, that right you gave us that I did not pay anything for originally is now worth something, and you have deprived me of it".

February 9, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
The fact is that the marketing boards themselves that control the food processing, or the food products involved like e88s>
chickens, or milk, are all concerned. The farm organizations are concerned about the value of their quotas, and how they will manage to get back to reality. There may have to be a number of actions taken to return to reality. When we wind up with a market sharing milk quota that is worth 90 cents or a $ 1 a litre, and the right to produce a chicken which is worth $30, then a situation arises where the licence to be in the business is unrealistic, and the Government creates a value that one citizen has over another.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will entertain a supplementary question from the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), and one from the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). That will be it.


Neil Young: I have a very brief question for the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). There are two connection points between Bill C-22 and this Bill. Both of them are talking about monopoly situations. Both of them are highway robbery against the Canadian consumer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I listened to the Hon. Member in his earlier attempt or failure to respond to my question. In his answer he talked about what was under the control of a province, and not under this Bill. When the Hon. Member talks about licences, does he realize that those who have capitalized their licences are the big trucking companies?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is right.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They are the ones who will be able to write off the value of those licences, and it will be the little trucker who gets hurt and does not have that type of advantage. Would the Hon. Member explain to the House where this Bill corrects what he is complaining of?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I am glad that the Hon. Member now realizes that the licences have a value. In his original question, he assumed that the licences were valueless.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is the first time I have mentioned it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We now have two positions from the critic of the New Democratic Party at the same time. The fact is that there are some truckers, not all large ones or small ones, that have capitalized licences, and some that have not. For the past three or four years since people started talking about freedom to move, banks have refused to lend against licence values. People who are in the business have been writing those licence values off. They realized they were not going to last forever. Monopolies cannot last forever unless a socialist Government is in power that would protect them.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are over. The Hon. Member for Westmorland- Kent (Mr. Robichaud).


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor on this Bill which is very important for the whole country, particularly so for remote regions such as the Atlantic Provinces.
I feel somewhat restricted in taking part in this debate under present circumstances because the debate is limited. It is just like everything has been decided in advance and we are talking simply to kill some time. However, Mr. Speaker, I will proceed.
Needless to say, Bill C-19 respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings is at the root of as much reaction and controversy as, and in certain cases even more concern than, Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation. Like C-18, this Bill as drafted opens the whole trucking industry to major changes and severe disruptions which might even be likened to an earthquake. This very severe disruption will shake up the industry and, if I still compare it with an earthquake, it will most certainly register between 8 and 9 on the Richter scale. The disruption will be so severe that long-established carriers will come crashing down. Its impact will be such that firms which have been in business for some time will become so weak that they will be easy prey for stronger and larger companies which will buy out or take over smaller concerns no longer able to operate in this new climate of deregulation.
Here we have an industry which is doing $8 billion worth of business and providing employment for over 50,000 people. Through Bill C-19 the industry will be sent on a mad race towards deregulation, which appears to be the answer to everything that ails us. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to imply that every single facet of deregulation is bad, but the way this Government is rushing into this process is alarming and leaves an element of doubt about the Bill.
The first major change brought about by this Bill has to do with the criterion concerning access to the industry, namely the existing public convenience and necessity criterion.
This requirement meant the carrier had to prove the proposed service was necessary and would be of benefit to the public. It will now be replaced by the requirement "fit, willing and able". This new requirement puts the onus of proving the service is not in the public interest on existing holders of trucking licences.
In future, anyone who has a truck and is "fit, willing and able" to go into business can get on the road. Mr. Speaker, your answer to that may be: More carriers will mean more competition and better service, so everybody should be happy. That is how it looks, but the situation contains an element of disaster that may severely affect Canada's industry, because, Mr. Speaker, our industry will be at the mercy of foreign carriers. This Bill will allow U.S. carriers to penetrate our market and take over a large part of the activity in this sector. This of course means less business for our Canadian carriers.
Mr. Speaker, I should add that our carriers will be placed in an entirely new situation with parameters that have nothing in
February 9, 1987

common with the present situation. If we compare Canada's transportation industry with the industry in the United States, we realize that our carriers will have to do battle with the giants, who in addition to the advantages of their size, which is considerable, will not hesitate to use any other means to take over our market. Anyone who is in the business is there to make money and make a profit, and in that case, the end justifies the means.
This Bill will now permit Americans to penetrate our market and to charge predatory rates. By predatory I mean rates below the going rate, rates that do not fully cover the service rendered. In this particular case, owing to the size of the companies, the Americans will be able to charge predatory rates to make inroads in our industry which of course will not be able to survive. Granted, we can survive for a while. Earlier, one member was asking another member here in the House whether he did not have confidence in Canada's industry. That isn't the point, Mr. Speaker. Of course we have confidence in our industry. But conditions will be so different that our carriers will be running into a brick wall.
Although our carriers may be able to fight these predatory rates for a while, we must realize this will weaken them, especially if they have to do so for any period of time. In such a weakened position, they will simply not be able to hold out after a while, becoming in turn the victims of these predatory manoeuvres and on their way out.
Ever since we heard about this Bill and the Government indicated its intention to proceed with deregulation, two Canadian motor carriers have already been bought out by two American giants. On that subject, here is what John Kennedy, president of Kingsway Transport, in Rexdale, had to say:
a (1640)

There is no question the regulation will have a devastating impact on the financial condition of the Canadian motor carrier industry. It will ultimately result in a wave of mergers, buy-outs and bankruptcies.

And these remarks come from a person who is directly involved in the transportation industry.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to transport you in spirit to the Atlantic region where the trucking industry had a few comments to make. 1 am referring to-

The Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association represents 300 members from the Provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Some of its views are as follows:
That the national transportation policy adopted by Canada should not be copied from the U.S.A. due to the vast differences in the historical and economic realities of the two market-place structures, including the presence of Crown corporations.
The need to retain some residual economic test that would allow Canadian carriers a "balanced share" of the international traffic as agreed upon by recent agreements between Canada and the United States.
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1986
Meaningful safeguards need to be in place to prevent the two railway enterprises from excessive market concentration and dominance.
The APTA also would like to point out that regulatory reform in the trucking industry may have a different impact on carriers in the Atlantic provinces compared to other parts of Canada.

And I could go on like this with other recommendations from this Maritime Association.

The Atlantic Provinces Transport Association is also concerned with predatory rates set by rail carriers. It is concerned that the two major railway companies in Canada, because of their size, economies of power and financial strength, have the capability to manipulate rates in ways that could drive motor carriers right out of business. The APTA is also very concerned that if the railways are to be given the power to make rates secretly, how is anyone to know whether or not these rates are predatory? They, therefore, urge the Government to require that within Canada ail rates be published and be compensatory.
The APTA and the people of the Atlantic area are also concerned about the effects of deregulation on the transport industry and its relation to regional development. This is a very important point.
The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, in its submission to the Atlantic Focus Conference, had this to say in paragraph 9:

Mr. Speaker, you no doubt remember this conference where all Atlantic Ministers had come to Moncton to hear what Maritime people had to say. And I quote paragraph 9 of their report:
Canada's national transportation policy, found in Bill C-126 tabled in the House of Commons on June 26, 1986, contains a recognition that transportation is a key to regional economic development. It unfortunately fails to include the second important principle that regional economic development takes precedence over cost recovery when these two principles are in conflict.

Of course, reference was being made to Bill C-126, the predecessor of Bill C-18 and that can also apply to Bill C-19.
That position, Mr. Speaker, is identical with that taken by the Council of Maritime Premiers, which indeed stressed the importance of regional development to the Atlantic Provinces, that is the importance of transportation for regional development. May I quote here, from a submission by the Council of Premiers which is well worth mentioning, the following paragraph:
Since the new legislation does not guarantee that regional economic development objectives in cases of conflict would take precedence over objectives of commercial profitability of a transportation service, we cannot support it. We believe it should contain a clause under which commercial profitability objectives would come second to regional economic development objectives. The federal

February 9, 1987
Immigration
Government s reluctance to include such a clause up to now is of more concern to us as regards the negative impact of Bill C-18 on transportation services in the Maritime Provinces.
Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition are going to fight to have this included in the Bill. Coming from New Brunswick, I must support the Council of Premiers because I realize that theirs is a wise recommendation to include a clause that would give regional economic development precedence over viability or profitability.
Of course, Mr. Speaker... Has my time expired? I have two minutes left. Thank you.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not refer also to this legislation's impact on employment. You may argue that there will be more carriers, that jobs will be created. Well, that is not sure.
We believe that this Bill will first open the door to concentration, it will lead to a degree of concentration around larger carriers which may not be based in our area. Already, Mr. Speaker, we are starting to feel the effects of deregulation, because indeed last week in New Brunswick we already had massive lay-offs, 449 to be exact, for a total 800 jobs lost within a year.
Mr. Speaker, apparently CN is preparing for privatization and must make all their operations profitable.
This is what happens when you think only of profits and not enough of services and of the special roles that you should play in a community. You look only at profits and if you have to lay off a great number of workers, you do so without thinking of the fact that these people will be without a job. I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that in a region such as New Brunswick, and especially southeastern New Brunswick, where a 17.1 per cent rate of unemployment was announced last Friday, such lay-offs are disastrous.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he has followed the situation in California. That state has now begun to reregulate its for-hire trucking industry, and two of the reasons given for that at the hearings of the California Public Utilities Commission were, first, the increase in predatory pricing, and second, the number of serious safety problems that had developed during the period of deregulation. I would be interested in hearing from the Hon. Member if, in his view, deregulation in Canada might also lead to safety problems and predatory pricing.
[ Translation]


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) for her comments and her question. As far as safety is concerned, the truckers and the public are asking serious questions because of reported problems in the United States caused by the fact that, in the race to become more profitable, trucking companies are moving to increasingly large trucks, in fact whole convoys
including not only one truck with a box, but perhaps one truck, one box and one trailer, and even three trailers in certain cases, which makes movement on the roads rather difficult and highly dangerous.
In the case of predatory rates, I mentioned in my speech that, as Canadians have smaller companies, they would be at the mercy of the American truckers, who could use predatory rates because of their profit margin. This would enormously weaken Canadian truckers who would end up being so weak that they would be eaten up by the large American companies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being five o'oclock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   IMMIGRATION ADVISABILITY OF REGULATING PRIVATE IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS
Robert Pennock: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to regulate private immigration consultants with a view to protecting unsuspecting prospective immigrants who seek advice from such consultants who are not subject to any codified regulations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my Private Member's Motion deals with consumer rip-off by unscrupulous individuals who are running a cash-flow business on the backs of unsuspecting victims. The exploitation of potential immigrants by unscrupulous consultants has been going on, unchecked by any government action, for a number of years. It is getting worse; one can ask any Hon. Member.
A 1981 discussion paper outlined the problem and recommended courses of action. Unfortunately it was left to gather dust, although it contained many excellent ideas. The Department of Immigration has no comprehensive statistics on the number of immigration consultants operating in Canada, the type of service they provide, the fees they charge, or the incidents of misconduct. The Department has none of this information even though it was requested to obtain such in 1981 in a directive from the Minister. I have been told by senior officials of the RCMP that media reports suggesting large scale exploitation are not blown out of proportion and that exploitation by immigration consultants is widespread.
Recently I met with a constituent who was charged $10,000 by a consultant for writing two simple letters. Another prospective immigrant was charged $20,000 for filling out a social insurance application.
Unlike lawyers, immigration consultants are not subject to any regulations. They are not governed by a provincial law
February 9, 1987

society which can expel members for dishonest or exploitive conduct. This is the essence of the problem.
What control is there of immigration consultants? There is hardly any effective control because the Criminal Code does not deal with exploitive or dishonest conduct. It deals only with fraud in the extraction of fees. Almost always, transactions and advice between consultants and clients are oral and behind closed doors. These unscrupulous consultants are fully cognizant of the law and they know the parameters around which they can legally operate.
Prospective immigrants have a particular vulnerability. There is a tendency on the immigrant's part not to report an incident when one has been victimized for several reasons- first, a feeling of general distrust of government officials, perhaps based upon experience in the country of origin; second, the belief that to succeed in an application something more than mere compliance is necessary; third, a willingness to place special trust in an adviser simply because of a shared language or cultural background; and, fourth, simply to avoid making waves for fear of being viewed as a trouble-maker, thereby jeopardizing the potential success of an application.
Obviously not all immigration consultants exploit potential immigrants. Many provide a competent, useful, and necessary service. The discussion paper accurately pointed out that these consultants, more often than not, are the ones who appear before government boards and agencies such as the Immigration Appeal Board. In these cases criminal fraud is unlikely, and there is better opportunity for control by Government.
The present system is not adequate to deal with unscrupulous consultants. The federal Government has the responsibility to initiate legislation or some type of measure to make certain they are brought under control. In the discussion paper and in my conversations with departmental officials and with various ethnic communities, several courses of action have been suggested. Perhaps this type of activity could be left for the provinces to control under existing provincial legislation.
On the surface this may seem like a sufficient solution, but I hesitate to give it my concurrence. First, this is a national problem and I believe a clear national policy is required. Second, the law society has a very limited capacity for enforcement.
The issue of provincial government control brings up the question of the federal Government's constitutional authority to legislate in this field. I understand that the federal Government has jurisdiction to make regulations in the field of immigration consultants. Section 115(1) of the Immigration Act reads:
The Governor in Council may make regulations requiring any person, other than a person who is a member of the bar of any province, to make application for and obtain a licence from such authority as is prescribed before he may appear before an adjudicator or the board as counsel in exchange for any fee, reward or other form of remuneration whatever;-
The existing power would effectively control any immigration consultant appearing before a federal government board or agency. However, this is not the forum, as I stated earlier,
Immigration
in which unscrupulous consultants operate. The initiative would not go far enough.
Why not establish a federal registry for all immigration consultants operating in Canada, forcing all of them to be licensed. Standards would have to be met and heavy fines imposed for practising without a licence which, coupled with a greater effort by the Government to heighten the awareness within ethnic communities, would mean that all immigration consultants must be registered and must have a licence. We could achieve this buyer beware warning by diverting money already allotted to multicultural advertising.
Enforcement is essential to the success of such an initiative. The federal Government will have to instruct the RCMP to increase its investigation and monitoring activities. More emphasis will have to be placed upon the Enforcement Division within the Immigration Department.
Many caveats are associated with comprehensive licensing. Most obvious is whether the federal Government has constitutional authority. This question deserves serious thought and investigation by the standing committee.
Another concern is cost. How much would it cost to maintain a registry, issue licences, and have enforcement? The registry and licencing would cost nothing because it could be done on a cost recovery basis. Effective enforcement is another matter and it, too, deserves investigation by the committee. Equally important is the problem associated with immigration consultants operating in foreign countries.
In the few moments available to me I have outlined the problems associated with the proliferation of unscrupulous immigration consultants and have suggested a possible course of action. The problem is serious. It may not be in the headlines every day or on the minds of the majority of Canadians, but the activities of unscrupulous consultants are threatening the integrity of the entire immigration system, which will be hijacked by these pirates if something is not done.
If this type of exploitation were occurring on Bay Street or on the stock-market, government action would have been swift and decisive. Yet the problem continues and Governments, both federal and provincial, are silent. I urge that my motion be passed to allow it to be closely examined by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration so that effective recommendations for action can be presented to the Government.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to take part in this debate and to support my hon. friend's motion. I think we could discuss this matter for hours and not get anywhere by 6 p.m.

In the spirit of the new parliamentary system, I am pleased to say that, with an amendment, we should be discussing the matter in the appropriate committee. Indeed abuses are taking place and something must be done.

February 9, 1987
Immigration

For 25 years of my life, I have been involved with all these refugee issues. When I attended Ottawa University, I can remember as their president coordinating students' efforts in welcoming Hungarian refugees.
At the time, I was University President. Later, I became a Member of the House. I can remember during a visit to Vienna seeing all these people arriving from Czechoslovakia. Once more I had done my share either receiving them in Canada or helping groups willing to get involved in these matters. Later on, we could witness the integration of all those refugees into our Canadian society. I do not think that Canada has any lesson to receive from anybody when it comes to its generosity towards the so-called boat people.

We were away ahead of everyone in receiving these refugees. It is sad that people have the nerve to exploit those who are in the greatest need. They are being abused because they have nowhere to turn and no one to trust. The Hon. Member is absolutely right about that.
When the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) was the Minister responsible for immigration he initiated a major study on immigration consultants. We have a very major report on this question, which I am sure my hon. friend has seen and read. It is a discussion paper of April, 1981, entitled The Exploitation of Potential Immigrants by Unscrupulous Consultants. At that time we already knew that people were being exploited.
We would prefer to have a committee consider this motion rather than the Government in order that progress be made on the issue of exploitation. Way back in 1981 or 1982 the then Minister responsible for immigration initiated a number of steps including a special unit in the RCMP, special information programs, and special steps in the Department. I understand that the Department is, unfortunately, sometimes very reluctant to act in these matters.
In recent months my esteemed colleague and friend, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), has asked questions and given his support to the initiative which the Hon. Member has put forward today. I would be most surprised if members of the third Party in the House were not in agreement with us. I am sure we are all in agreement on the matter which is being put forth for our reflection today. However, it is not sufficient to reflect upon this matter; we want action.
Nothing has changed since the Minister made these studies. We thought that the creation of a special unit in the RCMP may send a message, but the exploiters of those who are in the greatest need still proceed.
Canada is still being built. We are building a little every day. I do not agree with people who say that Canada is an old
country. It is a young country which we are building every day. You are contributing in your own way, Mr. Speaker, as is the member who presented the motion. Each government tries to make an imprint. We need immigrants in this country. It is our duty to explain to Canadians that we need immigrants. It is our duty to explain to Canadians that in order to keep Canada as good as it is we need immigrants to ensure that there are enough workers in the country.
The so-called two founding races of this country-if I were an Eskimo or an Indian I would be very nervous to hear Prud'homme talking about the two founding races. Long before my ancestors came to Canada in the 1600s there were already people here. Therefore, I do not like the expression "two founding races". If there are two founding races, they are the Eskimos and the Indians. However, we know that the so-called two founding races, the Anglophones and the Francophones, are diminishing greatly. It is due to new immigrants that Canada is more prosperous and more populous.
Can you imagine what a bad image of Canada these immigrants have when they are exploited by unscrupulous consultants and unscrupulous lawyers? The time has come to study this issue attentively and determine what should be done. We need not study long because we have already done many studies, including those done by the Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry in 1981, 1982, and 1983 when he was the Minister responsible.
In conclusion I will say that I am mainly in agreement with this motion, but believe I have to make an amendment. With the consent of my colleague who moved this motion and my esteemed colleague in the third Party, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), which shows very beautiful co-operation this afternoon:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of introducing" and replacing it with "the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration be empowered to study the advisability of the Government introducing",
I am honoured to present that amendment to Your Honour with the consent of the House. I thank the House for its good intentions.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to second the amendment moved by my friend, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), as well as to support the motion by the Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock). I believe that the proposal to empower the standing committee to look into the questions of unscrupulous immigration consultants and to work out means by which their activities can be regulated and hopefully eliminated is long overdue.
Let me note the comments which were made by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North in his opening statement, as well as before the Committee on Private Members' Business when he appeared there. He stated in November that his staff had
February 9, 1987

spoken with the RCMP to get an idea of the scope of his problem. He said: "We were told that media reports suggesting large scale exploitation were not blown out of proportion. The RCMP claimed that exploitation by immigration consultations was widespread not only in Toronto but right across the country". That is how our federal police force views the problem.
It is deeply disturbing that despite the announcement by the then Minister of Employment and Immigration in 1981, under a former Liberal Government, he was asking the Department to get facts and figures on these abuses, about which many members have learned through dealing with our constituents, no such information has been collected by the Department in the last six or seven years. I believe it is an indication that the Department has failed to take this issue seriously.
I read the discussion paper in 1981. It became apparent that the Department does not want to accept the fact that there is a real problem. The options that were suggested by the former Minister became weaker and weaker as one read through the 1981 discussion paper. Finally, it sounded as though his officials were trying to persuade those who might read the discussion paper six years ago that there was really no problem.
However, as the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North indicates, the number of cases in which people are ripped off by unscrupulous consultants in this country and other countries where it is harder to investigate is legion. Immigrants as well as prospective immigrants are acutely vulnerable to this kind of exploitation.
One of the major activities in my riding office is to handle immigration cases. We attempt to give good and accurate information and we act as advocates, as I am sure do those in the offices of other members. Furthermore, this information and assistance is available for free.
While I do not recall any particular examples of overcharging by consultants, I know that the Immigration Department has put up road-blocks which have been extremely difficult to overcome. We have intervened on behalf of immigrants, sometimes successfully. However, it is clear that the pattern that has been developing is one in which the Immigration Department has been more difficult to deal with in recent years.
I suggest there are a couple of reasons for that. First, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission has been consistently losing staff as a result of cut-backs by the previous and present Governments. People are short-staffed and working under stress, and their direction may be inadequate.
Second, the attitude of management within CEIC seems to have been that immigration officers should be trying to keep people out rather than helping them to get in. Immigration rules have been tightened, often without notice, making it more difficult for immigration. Consequently, if one does not have a particular angle to get into the country, one's chances of entry are quite limited.
Immigration
Many people want to come to Canada because they see it as a very fine country. They are prepared to accept the disadvantages of our climate and the 75-cent dollar when they compare our country to most other countries in the world.
The management in the Immigration Department still staffs heavily in Europe but lightly in areas like Latin America and Asia. Management seems to inculcate the attitude that such things as birth certificates and other documents in certain countries should not be recognized. There have been difficulties with legitimate refugees while others who claim refugee status may be more questionable but find it easier to get into Canada.
Finally, prospective immigrants feel vulnerable, fearing that they may ask the wrong question at the local immigration office. I might point out that when I discuss some cases with my staff I feel that we are vulnerable when acting for a prospective immigrant. We are very careful about how we frame our questions, for fear we may give the Immigration Department a piece of information that would allow them to turn down the immigrant. These are examples of problems which make immigrants vulnerable and encourage them to believe someone who promises them miracles for thousands of dollars.
I had an opportunity to read a letter written by the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) in response to a number of questions by our immigration critic, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), about the activities of immigration consultants. I fear that the attitude reflected by the management of that Department has changed little from 1981. There is a Panglossian optimism that is not justified by the facts.
The Minister states that he believes there are grounds for optimism. For example, he refers to a Private Member's Bill in Ontario, but we do not know whether the Bill will pass. Furthermore, as the Member for Etobicoke North pointed out, this is a matter for national action.
The Minister refers to the Department seeking a consensus from the Law Society and other groups with respect to licensing. Many consultants do not want a consensus so they can continue to be unregulated in the kind of rip-offs in which they are indulging right now.
I hope the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration provides leadership in this area. The Minister admits that despite efforts to get the RCMP to act, he cannot point to a lengthy list of successful prosecutions. He goes on to say that nevertheless, progress is being made and efforts are gaining momentum.
That is clearly not true. The Minister specifically indicates in his letter in January that early optimism about a register is now turning into rejection. This is another question that I believe the committee should study. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North, and while I do not agree with him on every issue, I suggest that he is certainly not only speaking on behalf of his constituents but also on behalf of his

February 9, 1987
Immigration
colleagues in all Parties. I hope Hon. Members will agree to allow this matter to go to committee before 6 p.m. tonight.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate this afternoon on Motion No. 45, presented by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock).
Mr. Speaker, to help Canadians understand this afternoon's debate, I think it might be useful to repeat the contents of Motion No. 45 for their benefit.
The motion says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to regulate private immigration consultants with a view to protecting unsuspecting prospective immigrants who seek advice from such consultants who are not subject to any codified regulations.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has proposed an amendment to have this motion referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, for further consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to clarify the scope of this motion, because there are certain people, certain advisers, who take advantage of the naivete of immigrants who want to enter Canada.
Where this motion refers to consultants, these are people other than lawyers who, for a fee, give advice or represent their clients in immigration cases. I may remind the House that many immigration consultants are competent people and do useful work by providing pertinent advice that is of benefit to their clients. However, since consultants do not have to observe certain standards regarding conduct, fee schedules and knowledge of Immigration legislation and programs, the result has been to attract a certain class of unscrupulous individuals who pass themselves off as immigration consultants.
Mr. Speaker, the 1981 report of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, gives a number of examples. For instance, two sisters had to pay a fee of $14,000 to a consultant who promised to get their sister back to Canada. Fourteen thousand dollars is a lot of money! There were other examples. One consultant demanded $1,000 for representing a foreign national before the Immigration Appeal Board, although his services were of no use to his client. Some people had to spend $1,000 to obtain what turned out to be shockingly little information on how to claim refugee status.
Mr. Speaker, there is a certain degree of vulnerability among immigrants, and it is this kind of abuse that must be dealt with.
Some people are vulnerable because, generally speaking, they are suspicious of public servants and have more confidence in a consultant who speaks the same language or has the same culture as themselves, and they believe that such a consultant can give them a certain advantage. Immigrants to Canada are not suspicious enough, and this leads to abuses.
Very often, such consultants operate openly in Canada or abroad. In Canada, their services range from giving simple advice to representing their clients at hearings or before the Immigration Appeal Board in accordance with the Immigration Act. As an example, we have seen the recent inflow of Turkish citizens claiming refugee status, who had been advised by foreign consultants. As Canada supports immigration, some consultants will have other opportunities to abuse the situation unless our Government attacks this problem.
One possible solution would be to include in the Immigration Act provisions to deliver licences to consultants and regulate their activities. Potential immigrants would tend to go to certified consultants and unauthorized consultants could be sued. However, legislative action does have certain drawbacks. Among other things, we would need to create a mechanism to apply the regulations. This would be one method to deal with the very real problem of unscrupulous consultants who give their foreign victims a very bad image of Canada.
Other recourses are available to immigrants. Of course, they could institute proceedings under a provincial consumer protection legislation or obtain better immigration services. However, court proceedings could create various problems for immigrants.
It is difficult to put together a strong case when clients refuse to testify.
On the other hand, we cannot institute proceedings against consultants operating in a foreign land. There could also be an attempt at solving the problem by increasing the quality of our immigration services to such an extent that seeking advice from a consultant would become an exercise in futility. Among other things, we could make information more readily accessible, increase the availability of staff for consultation purposes, keep NGOs better informed and encourage their participation.
For the time being, people continue to seek advice from consultants; many of them are competent and honest. However, others are taking advantage of their customers. We should also consider the advisability of introducing legislation to regulate private immigration consultants as a means to remedy this situation.
Mr. Speaker, I should like therefore to support motion No 45 moved by our colleague the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock), as well as the amendment just moved by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I indicate my support and wish regulations be enacted to restrain the activities of immigration consultants.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise to support this motion. I am particularly pleased given the fact that this motion has received the support of both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party. I hope that through
February 9, 1987

actions such as this we can get the equilibrium of the House re-established.
One of the focuses of the debate this week has been ethics, so perhaps I can start off by saying I have a direct conflict of interest with respect to this motion. I have the largest, most populous riding in the country. Something like 60 per cent of my constituency work has to do with immigration. A very good proportion of that 60 per cent has to do with the unscrupulous dealings of immigration consultants. I am very determined to reduce my work-load by seeing this motion passed so that we can put these people out of business.
I want to stress, of course, that there are many competent immigration consultants who provide accurate and helpful advice to their clients. Such consultants make beneficial contributions to the immigration process. My problem is that I hear about these people but do not get to see them. The cases which are handled successfully by these consultants do not end up on my desk.
It is obvious that we have a large number of individuals other than lawyers who purport to be immigration consultants. They enter the field untested as to their knowledge of immigration, with no form of qualifications, and charge fees they themselves set which are beyond those of any sort of professional regulatory body. These fees are not trivial. Sometimes they are in the thousands of dollars. There have been cases where fees are charged into the tens of thousands of dollars.
These so-called immigration consultants offer advice to people, in some cases, which is completely impossible to fulfil. Case after case has come into my office where people have been taken by these so-called immigration consultants for every penny they have, and only when they run out of money does the consultant suggest they see their Member of Parliament to see if he can straighten out the problem.
I have a very direct interest in seeing this motion passed today. Mention was made of the earlier 1981 discussion paper on unscrupulous immigration consultants. I believe it is time to take direct action. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock) for bringing this motion forward because I believe those of us from areas where there is a very heavy immigrant settlement are determined that these unscrupulous practices be condemned and stopped.
Not only do these practices take place in Canada but they also take place abroad. People come to me and tell me they are paying large amounts of money to so-called consultants, often Canadians, who operate abroad in cities such as Hong Kong. They hold out a promise that they have an inside track to our embassies and can get these cases through. As we all know, they do not have these inside tracks. What they do have is the ability to gouge people of large amounts of money and then, after they have taken their money, they just throw them aside.
I want to see the motion passed today. In conclusion, I think that the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock)
Immigration
should be congratulated by the whole House for bringing this motion forward. I hope to see us vote to accept both the motion and the amendment so that speedy action can be taken on this matter.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate, especially since I have the impression this is a Private Member's motion that has a chance of being adopted. There is a chance it will get things done. That is important. The motion presented by the Hon. Member in the House today concerns a very important matter. It is about immigration consultants. I think all members will agree there is some exploitation going on in this area and that it should stop.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see all Parties expressing the same views and taking the same perspective on a matter of this importance. Previous speakers have testified to the realities of this problem. I know from my own experience that it is a very real problem. Hon. Members have indicated that a report by the RCMP mentioned the problem existed across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that so far, the Department of Employment and Immigration has neglected to collect a body of information on the subject. Because of this, I think it is very important that this House should point out the urgency of the matter and indicate to the Department that the question must be given consideration. I think individual members should point out to the Government that all of us as members of all three Parties want to see some action in this area.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the very existence of these consultants who exploit immigrants indicates a need for information on immigration regulations, information that should be more readily available, not just outside the country but also within our borders. Many of my constituents, many residents do not know all these immigration regulations. There is a real need for information here.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that nearly all immigrants in my riding are concerned over the question of family reunions. Immigrants who are in Canada want their relatives in other countries to join them here, and this is indeed a very strong incentive. Everybody can appreciate that. All Canadians can readily understand that immigrants want their relatives to be with them here in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think that because of such a strong incentive those people can easily be exploited by individuals who are not really interested in the plight of immigrants.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that if we want to implement a fair immigration policy, if we want to open our doors to immigrants and protect them from people who exploit their situation, we must have a full employment policy in this country because the more Canadians we have on the unemployment lists the stronger the political pressure to stem the flow of immigrants. This creates a climate such that immigrants find it very difficult to come to Canada, and those
February 9, 1987

Immigration
who are already here are thwarted in their efforts to have their relatives join them.
In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, we cannot expect to have a more equitable immigration policy unless we first begin by advocating a full employment policy.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by commending my colleague for introducing this motion in the House, a motion which calls for action.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) next. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Kilgour) also has a few words to say. I hope Hon. Members will govern themselves accordingly.


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, I am happy indeed to second the motion of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock). I welcome this opportunity to speak on the matter of unscrupulous immigration consultants. Although they represent a small minority, their actions nevertheless threaten to disrupt the entire immigration process. Not only do they make a mockery of the system and the essential work done by their ethical colleagues, they prey upon prospective immigrants in a merciless fashion. I have seen this happen in my riding of Willowdale.
Immigration clients are, unfortunately, vulnerable for all the various reasons mentioned by my colleague. In desperation and ignorance they often turn to these charlatans as their best hope for obtaining immigrant status. The results for the unsuspecting client can be very serious indeed.
One odious aspect of this exploitation is the cost involved. The victims are powerless and often poor. The fees charged by these unscrupulous consultants are large, sometimes SI0,000 and more. Once the fee has been paid, the victim has no recourse under the law if the consultant wilfully fails to provide a service. Many prospective immigrants in my riding do not know that their MP provides this service for free and that he wants to see family reunifications happen as quickly as possible.
While the situation is obviously intolerable, we must nevertheless appreciate that the majority of consultants provide a valuable service. Therefore, we are pursuing several avenues to rid the system of the impostors and to protect potential immigrants from exploitation. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke North is proposing new legislation, but there are other options to be considered as well.
First, the CEIC Immigration Group maintains an active, ongoing dialogue on legal issues and immigration practices and procedures with the legal community. It shares our concern for the increased numbers of unregulated and unscrupulous consultants and is equally anxious to put a stop to them. Out of these discussions have come three principal recommendations that merit serious consideration. Alas, they have inherent problems as well.
To begin with, there is a suggestion that licensing would be an economical and effective method of control. It would seem to be the logical solution, but I can see a couple of complications. Who would be responsible for the licensing? Might not the licence itself become a licence to continue these unscrupulous practices? Certainly, the commission could not take on this role because of the impossibility of being open to accusations of conflict of interest.
The second proposal concerns requiring independent immigration consultants to work for and under the supervision of lawyers. That is a possible solution, but it narrows the definition of "counsel" under the Act to mean legal counsel. Therefore, it restricts the clients' right to counsel. We must not forget that many clients still prefer to have their clergyman, community leader, or other concerned individual present their case at a hearing.
The third major recommendation deals with the importance of educating the public, both here and outside Canada, about proper immigration procedures. The commission recognizes this need and it has increased its public relation campaign to inform prospective immigrants that free counselling is available at all Canadian immigration centres.
Finally, I wish to address my colleague, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North, and the recommendation that we amend the present legislation or propose new legislation to regulate private immigration consultants. Awarding licences to or regulating a professional group would normally be a provincial matter and not federal, particularly if members of that group are appearing before a federal appeal board. For either level of government in a time of fiscal and manpower restraint the cost of a regulatory bureaucracy is an important consideration. As well, there are hurdles in enforcing more stringent legislation. The RCMP has no jurisdiction to investigate the many cases which arise outside of Canada. The activities of these unscrupulous consultants are often, strictly speaking, not illegal.
I hope that it is apparent to all present that any new legislation would be one of many options, all of which bear important implications. We are all committed to ridding the system of these impostors. The real victims of their unscrupulous behaviour are the immigrants.
I fully endorse my colleague's motion, as well as the amendment made by my hon. colleague for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I trust that this evening we will be able to come to a vote and send it to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I also am delighted to speak in this debate. If I may paraphrase, the motion and the amendment together basically state that all Parties in this House wish the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration to consider legislation to regulate private immigration
February 9, 1987

consultants with a view to protecting unsuspecting prospective immigrants who seek advice, and so on.
I wish to speak in favour of both the motion and the amendment. Very briefly, I should declare my conflict of interest, as did my colleague, the Member for York- Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan). His riding has about 270,000 people, and my riding has about 120,000. In York-Scarbor-ough about 54 per cent of the people in that constituency have a first language which is not English. Edmonton-Strathcona has about 62 per cent of the people in that constituency who originate from other than France or Britain. Not all are first generation, but a large number are.
I wish to start by making the point that in my view immigration creates jobs, it does not take them away. I am reminded that in York-Scarborough the unemployment rate is now 3 per cent or under. Mississauga also has an unemployment rate of 3 per cent or under. These two areas presently have the highest rates of immigration, and they are the areas in the country which have the lowest unemployment rate.
It seems to me that the point is clear from all objective evidence that newcomers create jobs rather than take them away. As you will recall, that was the experience of Edmonton in its period of boom. The more people that came, the more jobs that were created, the lower the unemployment rate. That is why we are increasing the level of immigration in Canada. We know that immigrants create jobs for services, houses, schools, and all the things that create a healthy economy. They also reinforce the multicultural nature of Canada. Immigration and multiculturalism represent the solution to many of Canada's problems, they do not represent problems to Canada. The independent class of newcomers will be targeted at 48,000 to 55,000, including dependants. I am pleased that the target is increasing this year, and it will increase in the future.
The Government believes in immigration and the arrival of newcomers to Canada. Our birth rate is now between 1.4 and 1.6 per cent. It becomes clear that unless something is done about the birth rate, it will only be a large number of newcomers which will allow us to pay the pensions for the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) and the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan), or any of the other members or people in this country.
I wish to say that I strongly support the motion. There are many ethical immigration counsellors in Canada, but there are also some unethical ones. We are all trying here today, in a great show of non-partisanship, to get at the unscrupulous ones, whose practices are widely condemned. It is particularly regrettable that these people ply their trade with people who are often vulnerable because of language, or because of economic problems as newcomers, or because of family concern about officials from other countries. Mr. Speaker, you know what the consultants did in Turkey or Portugal. Unfortunately, they have done things outside of Canada which have affected the attitude of many Canadians toward newcomers. We all regret that, which is doubtless one of the reasons we are doing this today.
Adjournment Debate
An obvious way to control unscrupulous consultants is to provide immigration services so easily and so comprehensively that clients will not think that they have to get a consultant. In Edmonton there have been problems with line-ups, and on occasion problems with people being mistreated. There are many immigration officers in Edmonton who are excellent people. They are sympathetic and they understand the tension that the people are under. We wish to make services more accessible.
I would move, Sir, that the question now be put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is as follows. Mr. Prud'homme, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of introducing" and substituting the words "the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration be empowered to study the advisability of the Government introducing".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the amendment
carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Prud'homme) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the main motion, as amended, which reads:
That the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration be empowered to study the advisability of the Government introducing legislation to regulate private immigration consultants with a view to protecting unsuspecting prospective immigrants who seek advice from such consultants who are not subject to any codified regulations.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Pennock), as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall I call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.