1991-05-17

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions and I believe you will find consent for the following motion.
I move:
That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1992, laid upon the table on May 14, 1991, be referred to the
several standing committees of the House as follows:
The list is lengthy. If it is agreeable to the House, Madam Speaker, I would ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15,
L20 and L25.
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Agriculture, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45.
lb the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
Communications, Votes, 1, 5,10, 15, L20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50,
55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90 and 95.
Secretary of State Votes 1, 5, 30 and 35.
Tb the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
Secretary of State Votes 15 and 20.
To the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations.
Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40.
Finance, Vote 35.
Governor General, Vote 1.
Industry, Science and Technology, Votes 100 and 105. Parliament, Vote 1.
Privy Council, Votes 1, 5 and 35.
Public Works, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35.
Secretary of State, Votes 10 and 25.
Supply and Services, Votes 1, 5 and 10.
Treasury Board, Votes 1, 3, 5, 10, 15 and 20.
To the Standing Committee on House Management.
Privy Council, Vote 15.
Tb the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources. Energy, Mines and Resources, Votes 1,5,10, L15, L20,25, 30, 35 and 40.
To the Standing Committee on Environment.
Environment, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30.
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
External Affairs, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, L40, L45, 50, 55, 60 and 65.
To the Standing Committee on Finance.
Finance Votes 1, L5, L10, 15, 25 and 30.
National Revenue, Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15.
Privy Council, Vote 25.
To the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries.
Fisheries and Oceans, Votes 1, 5 and 10.
Forestry, Votes 1, 5 and 10.
To the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons.
Justice, Vote 10.
Tb the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. Justice, Votes 1, 5, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45.
Privy Council, Vote 40.
Solicitor General, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40. Tb the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.

May 17, 1991
Supply
Employment and Immigration, Votes 1, 5, 10,15, 20, 25 and 35.
Labour, Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15.
lb the Standing Committee on House Management.
Parliament, Votes 10 and 15.
lb the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
National Defence, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20.
Veterans Affairs, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20.
To the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women.
Employment and Immigration, Votes 30 and 40.
National Health and Welfare, Votes 1, 5,10,15,20, 25, 30 and 35.
To the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Finance, Vote 20.
To the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development.
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Votes 1, 5, L10 and 15.
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 30, 35, 40 and 45.
Industry, Science and Technology, Votes 1, 5, L10, L15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, L60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90 and 95.
Western Economic Diversification, Votes 1 and 5.
Tb the Standing Committee on Transport.
Privy Council, Votes 10 and 30.
Transport, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 and 60.
To the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
Privy Council, Vote 20.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion is adopted. Motion agreed to.


HEALTH AND WELFARE, SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SENIORS AND THE STATUS OF WOMEN REINSTATEMENT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the second motion deals with the health and welfare committee and is as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women as it existed on the last day of the Second Session of the present Parliament be reinstated for the sole purpose of completing its report on the health care system in Canada and its funding, such reconstituted committee being a separate and
distinct entity from the standing committee of the same name as listed in Standing Order 104.
For the purpose of this order, the Standing Orders relating to the committee in effect at the end of the Second Session of the present Parliament continue to apply.
That the evidence adduced by the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women in the Second Session of the present Parliament, be deemed to have been referred to the committee.
That all motions and orders adopted by the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women in the Second Session of the present Parliament, necessary for the completion of its report be deemed to have been adopted by the committee in the present session.
That this committee hereby appointed table its report to the House no later than June 1, 1991, and that upon tabling of the report, the committee shall cease to exist.


Ms. Langan:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I have written to the chair of the health and welfare committee that, in doing its study on health care in Canada and its funding, it give serious consideration to how medical devices in Canada and research on medicine is done by the Ministry of Health and Welfare. I would hope the committee would take that into consideration in its deliberations.


Mr, Cooper:: Madam Speaker, I hear the representation of the hon. member. However, I would suspect it would probably be better dealt with in the new health committee that will be formed as soon as the Whips have completed their work and are able to report their striking committee report to the House.


Joy Langan: I thank the hon. member for his comments and I do believe that would be a good topic for the new committee when it is struck. But if the new committee is looking at health care in Canada and its funding, I think it is very important that this question be looked at by the committee as part of the whole question. I would ask them to at least consider it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not understand if the hon. member is withholding consent for the motion to be approved at this time.
The motion has been heard and has been adopted. Motion agreed to.
May 17, 1991


PRIVILEGE AND ELECTIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I have a couple more to go.
I move:
That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections as it existed on the last day of the Second Session of the present Parliament be reinstated for the sole purpose of completing its report on the question raised by the hon. member for Scarborough -Rouge River regarding the release of certain documents by the Solicitor General of Canada.
That the evidence adduced by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in the Second Session of the present Parliament be deemed to have been referred to the committee.
That all motions and orders adopted by the said Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in the said Second Session necessary for completion of its report be deemed to have been adopted by the committee in the present session, and that upon presentation of its report to the House, the committee cease to exist.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I believe this is the last one:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours with the fact that the House of Commons does unite with the Senate in the reconstitution of the Special Joint Committee on the Process for amending the Constitution of Canada that existed in the Second Session of the present Parliament with all the same powers and conditions contained in the Order of Reference dated December 17, 1990.
That the membership of the House of Commons on the committee be the same membership as on the last day of the Second Session of the present Parliament.
Supply
That the evidence adduced by the Special Joint Committee on the Process for amending the Constitution of Canada in the Second Session of the present Parliament be deemed to have been referred to a Special Committee hereby appointed;
That the portion of the budget of the Special Committee on the Process for amending the Constitution of Canada not expended during the Second Session of the present Parliament be deemed to constitute the entire budget of the Special Committee hereby appointed, unless a supplementary budget is approved by the Board of Internal Economy;
That all contracts entered into by the Special Joint Committee on the Process for amending the Constitution of Canada during the Second Session of the present Parliament be deemed contracts for the Special Committee hereby appointed and be deemed to be in force, unless the Special Committee hereby appointed orders otherwise;
That all motions and orders adopted by the Special Joint Committee on the Process for amending the Constitution of Canada during the Second Session of the present Parliament be deemed to have been adopted by the Special Committee hereby appointed, unless it otherwise orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West) moved:: That this House condemns the government for undermining the Canadian trucking industry through an irresponsible approach to deregulation, taxation, and Canada-U.S. trade, and;
That this House calls upon the government to introduce immediate measures to permit Canadian truckers to compete on a level playing field with their American counterparts.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of my Liberal colleagues in the House of Commons today to make the subject of our opposition day motion the crisis facing the Canadian trucking industry, an industry that in terms of federal responsibility was placed on a very slippery slope in 1988 when the government, the national Conservative government, deregulated the trucking industry. Since then Canadian trucking firms have had to protest without any success, have had to urge blockades to try to get the attention of the government and, this week, those truckers have brought their concerns to Ottawa and have parked themselves in front of the Eternal Flame on Parliament Hill.

May 17, 1991
Supply
On Monday our Liberal caucus met those truckers and met the spouses and the children of those truckers to try to give them at least a forum for venting their frustrations that have come to the fore. We, through the parliamentary opportunities granted to us in Question Period, have tried to raise those concerns. We have also petitioned the Speaker for an emergency debate which was regrettably turned down.
Therefore we have gone the extra distance of dedicating this day for the concerns facing the national trucking industry in Canada.
Our concern did not start this week. Our concern has certainly been voiced in terms of the deregulated mode that the government is introducing in the transport sector, not only in trucking but elsewhere. Not only have members of Parliament met Canadian truckers in Ottawa, but members of the Liberal caucus have met with those trucking companies and representatives in major cities in Ontario and elsewhere. Members of Parliament from Windsor West, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Essex-Kent, Haldimand-Norfolk, the riding of Kent, Lambton-Middlesex, Willowdale, and Prince Edward- Hastings, just to name a few, and others have confronted the concerns of those Canadians.
Deregulation, 1988. To try to make the Canadian industry more competitive, to try to inject competition and efficiency, the government opened the doors of deregulation, and thereby allowed market forces to clearly dominate. Before deregulation, an American trucking firm had to prove that there was indeed a market requirement for that firm to do the hauling, given the fact that Canadian firms were not doing it. It could be appealed by Canadian interests so that if the market between Buffalo and Toronto was saturated, then for all intents and purposes that American firm would not be permitted in that saturated market.
Under deregulation, that market and those doors have been fully opened, and that has meant that American firms have had the license to freely come into our market and compete head to head. It has meant that in 1986, before deregulation, in the province of Ontario there were 500 trucking carriers trying to deal with a $2 billion freight business.
After deregulation there are 3,000 truckers after the same pie, and therefore the survival of the fittest has become the rules of the game. Since deregulation there have been almost a thousand companies-600 last year
alone-that have gone belly up and have gone under and are not returning.
This is not a small industry. It is an industry which employs directly over 600,000 Canadians, with indirect spin-offs. I would suggest to the minister, with regard to the seven famous studies, that the time for study ought to have been before the flood gates were opened, before the deregulated bam door was thrown open, to ascertain what the down sides and the up sides would be under deregulation. The deregulatory doors were opened and then the consequences were studied.
The government deregulated, allowing American companies to come in freely, and it did so knowing full well the realities of the trucking market: Canadian truckers would be forced to operate at a 15 to 20 per cent cost disadvantage; American truckers could write off their trucks in four years, while in Canada that same write-off takes 13 years. American truckers can write off their licences, Canadian truckers cannot. Fuel prices are comparatively 20 cents per litre more in Canada than in the United States. Buying a new track in the United States costs, on average, $70,000; in Canada $90,000. In addition, we have a high dollar and a high interest rate policy which further aggravate an already bad situation.
With the geographic nature of our country, it is very clear that the American trucking fraternity can penetrate most of our market very quickly and very easily through the cross borders. We simply cannot reciprocate because we would not be able to compete in the heartland of America and hit its far-flung markets. Our populations are sparse whereas those in the United States are certainly concentrated in greater numbers.
When we talk about buying tires, equipment and insurance, the Americans pay less. For example, to refit a set of tires on an average rig in the United States costs $2,500; in Canada, the same set of tires is $5,000. In Canada a tune-up for an average rig is double that of an American tune-up.
We have deregulation, then we have deregulation on a basis that the Canadian government knew exactly that the Canadian trucking company, unless it has an equalizer, unless it has an adjustment mechanism, would not be able to compete fairly and successfully head to head. Is it any wonder that those truckers, angered and frustrated with the economic realities of the marketplace, have parked their vans and trucks in front of Parliament Hill?
May 17, 1991

All that reflects the human face of the economic misery which is facing Canadian truckers. It is organized frustration of not only truckers but of other workers who have had enough of this government's policies. These policies are irresponsible and they are insensitive to the needs of Canadians. Canadian interests ought to be priority number one, not priority number two.
None of the Canadian trucking firms last year made sizeable profits. GTL, the fourth largest firm, whose head office is virtually next door in my colleague's riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, went under just last week.
In our meetings, we heard not only testimony from the drivers, but from their wives and children. They are hurting as well because spouses are being forced to take on two jobs to make ends meet at the end of the month because there is no money coming in. There are no jobs. There is no profit. There is no pride any more if the Canadian trucking industry is allowed to continue its slide down the slippery slope of deregulation.
Many wives told us in very emotional ways about the food rationing in their own families. They told us that many truckers do not have sick pay or holiday pay. When they take a day, it comes out of their wages. We met Dave Wallis, who before deregulation had seven rigs operating at profits.
Today, Dave Wallis has one truck left and he is on the verge of losing that last truck. Dave Wallis must pay $60 an hour to a mechanic to fix his rig but he can only get $30 an hour to haul the materials. How does a Dave Wallis survive? How long can Dave Wallis tread water?
The Dave Wallis is symptomatic. We need to talk about the Dave Wallis' of this country. Rather than hiding behind studies or generic terms, we need to discuss the impact on the average Canadian trucker. What is the impact on the average Canadian family in that business and in others?
It is not only a problem in the trucking industry. Talk about Open Skies. The government wants to deregulate
Supply
the skies. Is it going to do to our air carriers what it has done to our truck carriers?
Why does the government not ask the Americans to take down the protectionist walls in shipping? The Americans refuse to compete in shipping. They know that our Canadian shipping industry can compete very well, thank you very much. Oh no. The Americans do not want to ruin their industry.
They put up a wall there, but they tell this Canadian government to bring down the walls on trucking and in your skies so we can compete and do a job on you.
I also want to mention that the infrastructure of VIA Rail has been gutted. It is not only an isolated case of the trucking fraternity. It is a mindset that has been applied to the trucking industry and to the rail industry. It is being applied, perhaps, in the few short months now that the government is negotiating Open Skies, to our air carriers.
I think that the transport industry in this country is not only important economically, but it has been a sense of pride and a sense of unity in terms of the development of this country.
While no one should be an ideologue or dogmatic, we should also protect, preserve and try to promote our own transport industries rather than giving them away.
I would suggest to the hon. minister-I appreciate and thank him-who listened to our appeals to at least meet with the visiting delegation. He has done so and he has met for the last day or day and a half with these owner-operator truckers, which he had not done before. I appreciate the fact that he has given his hours to try to mediate.
The time for throwing out the word "study" is over. There are seven studies under way that may not report until the end of the summer. Canadian truckers need a greater sense of hope because his predecessor, in Windsor last year when the truckers did the same blockade, basically raised the expectations of the trucking community. The predecessor to this minister said: "Do not worry. I will talk to the Minister of Finance. I will put in place reforms that will try to equalize the level playing field between the United States and Canada".

May 17, 1991
Supply
What has happened is precious little. Therefore, the expectations are high. The stakes are high. Those stakes have been raised by the government. Therefore, I urge the minister to be very cognizant of what his predecessors have put in motion.
His predecessor even said in a letter that he would not be prepared to wait until the final seven studies are in before taking action. I think that this minister ought not to simply study the issue to death while jobs are dying, families are struggling and hope is dwindling.
I am going to suggest to the minister nine options that our caucus and our party are prepared to put on the floor of the House of Commons today for debate. Nine options that, either in whole or in part, I believe and my caucus and my leader believes can, in fact, be the immediate remedy to some of the challenges facing truckers.
Option number one is a quicker write-off provision under Revenue Canada. I have mentioned that the United States truckers can write a percentage of their truck off in four years, whereas, the Canadian trucker by comparison takes 13 years. I would suggest that Revenue Canada permit the Canadian truckers to write off their rigs between four to seven years, therefore, cutting the depreciation time in half and bringing it up to speed with the American truckers. A truck costs a lot of money and, therefore, a quicker write-off period would put more dollars in the pockets of Canadian truckers. It would add to the cash flow and would allow the trucker some latitude and some flexibility to meet the hard times. The hard times are here now and, therefore, there is a greater sense of urgency for cash flow during a recessionary time. That assistance is needed now.
Option two is to take a look at the federal excise tax and offer some relief in terms of diesel fuel. The taxes are both provincial and federal. I will come to the provincial one. The federal tax is roughly four cents per litre. However, the federal government ought to recognize that where the inequities really begin is in the base price. Diesel fuel in the United States, before tax, is 18.6 cents a litre. In Canada it is 37.9 cents. After tax in the United States it is 27 cents per litre and in Canada, after tax, 59 cents.
What I am suggesting is that, in terms of the federal tax, the government can have three options. It can provide a temporary relief on payment of the federal
excise tax until the industry is back on its fee. It can perhaps drop the excise tax by a cent or by a margin it feels would provide some leadership to the provincial transport ministers in the provinces to do likewise. This would show good faith and at the same time, of course, relieve the truckers from that.
Third, the government can also provide the truckers, as we do the farming community, with a subsidy on diesel fuel. Those are three possible options the government could implement to deal adequately and efficiently with the federal tax on diesel fuel.
Option number four relates to the GST. We believe the government should scrap the GST, period. However, it seems the government is going to persist with the GST. Therefore, we are suggesting, that the government drastically shorten the rebate period for Canadian truckers. Currently, truckers pay GST on fuel and then receive a rebate. It takes about six months. That period is far too long. Canadian truckers give money to the government, almost as a loan, and have to wait six months for their rebate. In that sue month period, compared to their American competition, the American driver is ahead.
The period for the rebate should be considerably shorter than six months. On average, to fill up the tank of a diesel truck costs $250 more in Canada than it does in the United States. Every fill-up costs the Canadian trucker $250 more. If truckers received their rebate in a shorter period of time that money would assist greatly in their cash-flow.
The other option related to the GST is that the government should provide the truckers with a longer period of time to pay the GST on the goods they ship and collect from the shipper. The problem is that this government requires the Canadian trucker to submit the GST collected from the shipper within 45 days but the shipper does not pay the trucking company for 50, 60 or 90 days. This means that truckers have to pay the GST on the goods shipped and their invoices do not get paid for 90 days. We have again money going out of the pockets of Canadian truckers.
We are suggesting as option number four that the government tiy to equalize the lag so that the Canadian trucker is not out of pocket. As soon as those invoices are paid then the GST would be remitted. This gives a

financial break, in terms of cash-flow, to Canadian truckers.
Option number five. We are suggesting that the government seriously consider allowing Canadian truckers to deduct their licence fees, their licence expenses. American truckers can deduct the licence fees from their taxes. Revenue Canada does not extend the same luxury to Canadian truckers. A licence fee, on average in Canada, costs $2,000. We are suggesting, therefore, to allow Canadian truckers, like the American trucking fraternity, to deduct those licence fees from their taxes.
Madam Speaker, you mentioned that I have a minute left. I seek the co-operation of the House to allow me to finish presenting my nine points so the government can respond.
Option number six. I would suggest that the federal Minister of Transport urgently convene a ministers' meeting of his provincial counterparts because, while there are two levels of government involved with trucking, there is one trucking constituency. That trucking constituency needs a coherent, co-ordinated and harmonized approach to deal with their problems. The federal government blames the NDP government of Ontario, and the NDP government, Premier Rae, blames the federal Conservative government. They are blaming each other and it is a great Ping-Pong game, but those truckers are still outside and still hurting.
We need an urgent meeting to co-ordinate our efforts and begin to deal with the problems head on.
Option number seven is to pursue a federal-provincial trade-off. What do I mean by that?
I am suggesting financial co-operation to ease the provincial tax portion, which is roughly 15 cents, a heavy burden, almost four times the federal tax. I believe that the federal government can encourage the provincial governments, of Ontario for example, to reduce the burden of their excise tax if it, for example, is flexible enough in terms of funding for infrastructure of roads.
In the United States, the national government pays roughly 20 to 25 per cent of road construction. In Canada the federal government pays 5 per cent and the majority is obviously paid by the provinces. The federal government should say: " If we consider increasing the moneys we will give to the provinces for construction of roads, will you, the provinces, give the truckers a bit of a break
Supply
on the excise tax?" What the provinces lose from their fuel excise tax, they will gain in transfer payments from the federal government for construction of roads.
Perhaps Mr. Rae in Ontario would not levy 2 cents, as he did in his budget, and another 2 cents on January 1, 1992. That is exorbitant. I believe there can be a constructive give and take between the two levels of government to the advantage of the Canadian trucker.
Option number eight. Many American truckers and American trucks are now engaging in illegal cabotage. That is a fancy way of saying that instead of going from Buffalo to Toronto and back from Toronto to Buffalo, those truckers are going from Buffalo to Toronto, sneaking into Hamilton, perhaps London, and then back into Buffalo. Canadian truckers cannot compete as it is. We are going to be thrown off the road if American truckers continue to engage in illegal cabotage because we cannot compete with them.
Option number eight contains two subsections. First, a greater enforcement mechanism at our border crossings to ensure that our enforcements may in fact be enforced and American truckers know clearly that we will come down hard and very quickly. I would suggest that the penalty, when an American trucker is found doing illegal cabotage, be increased immediately from a $2,000 fine to a $5,000 fine. This represents a doubling and gives it a bit more teeth. If an American trucker wants to take a chance, he will pay stiffer penalties if he is caught. Hopefully, he will be caught at the border crossings because of stricter enforcement. We have jurisdiction at the border crossings.
Option number nine is a temporary moratorium on new interprovincial licences to try to stand back until this industry has caught its breath. Ontario has done that for its new licences. It does not solve the problem of the existing licences, but it certainly does not aggravate it to the nth degree. In interprovincial trucking the federal government has jurisdiction, so it can impose that moratorium if it wants.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate your flexibility and the flexibility of my colleagues on the other side. I have tried to be constructive. I have tried to give some facts on what deregulation has done, how uncompetitive we are head to head and third, to offer nine options which I believe, if enacted in whole or in part or in combination, will allow those truckers outside to enjoy this holiday weekend just

May 17, 1991
Supply
a little more than they will if this government turns a deaf ear to their concern.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and to Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Madam Speaker, I would also like to respond to what was said by the hon. member opposite. To hear him talk, he and his party have all the answers.
What often bothers me about the hon. member is that every time something happens on this side of the House in Ottawa, it is always because he recommended it. I have been watching the minister for the last few days, and I saw he managed to meet them and their families as well. I also met the truckers.
Madam Speaker, I used to work in the industry, and truckers really have problems. Those people outside really need help. I know them. I worked for them and with them, and I had the privilege of having them as customers. They are really in trouble.
My colleagues do not seem to realize what the situation is, and they seem to be proving it this morning. Fifteen years ago, we repaired trucks for these people. Believe it or not, some garages wouldn't do jobs for truckers because they couldn't pay the repair bills. That is a sad commentary, and these people certainly did not have an easy life.
I hardly think these people are here today because the situation has improved. In fact, they are getting the short end of the stick. There have been taxes, taxes and more taxes. They were taxed on diesel fuel, they were taxed on gas-they were taxed on just about everything.
There is another problem the hon. member forgot to mention. About five years ago, a company in my riding, owned by a good friend of mine, couldn't get insurance. He was paying $30,000 for a fleet of 20 trucks, and he was going to be charged $135,000 for going to the United States. He went to the United States because his company had business there.
And now with free trade, I thought he would keep going to the United States. But nothing has changed. So it isn't because of the GST. Fifteen years ago there was no GST. It isn't because of the GST, because five years
ago the GST didn't exist. There was a tax on gas, but not as high as it is now. Unfortunately, provincial taxes don't only hurt truckers-and I said so when Quebec brought down its latest provincial budget-they also tend to aggravate other problems, because truckers transport goods- consumer goods. It isn't the GST. Here in Quebec, it's the GST plus the QST, plus this and that. But people tend to forget that.
Earlier, the hon. member said there are solutions. There is no miracle solution! Even if we remove the GST tomorrow morning, the truckers might get from Wellington to the next street over, but the problem would still be there. There is no miracle solution. The minister made this quite clear. What we need is a package of solutions.
The Liberal Party's solution is quite simple: forward, reverse, forward and reverse. You don't do that when you drive a truck. You have eighteen forward gears and one reverse. Madam Speaker, I used to work for a company that had 3,500 trucks to repair. But the problem was always the same. I used to say-do I have a few minutes left, Madam Speaker?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We had a ten-minute question and comment period following the speech from the hon. member for York West. But I notice that others yet would like to make comments and ask questions. Therefore, I would ask the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to conclude, if he may, to allow the hon. member to answer and give someone else a chance to ask questions.
The hon. member can of course be recongnized later if he wants to speak again.


Vincent Della Noce: All right, Madam Speaker. I wish I had had as much time as he did, because I would have a lot to say, but I will try again later.
In closing, if my hon. colleague intends to blame the government for everything, there is nothing easier to do for the opposition, but I would like to quote just a few lines from the May 17, 1991, Globe and Mail where it said:

The trucking association had urged the treasurer not to increase fuel taxes. Indeed, the truckers said if they did not receive a fuel tax cut, the industry would be
May 17, 1991

Supply
increasingly vulnerable to competition from U.S. truckers.

That is in Ontario. Perhaps my hon. colleague has a closer insight in this, since he is from Ontario. I am not saying things are better in Quebec. We have the same problem. In fact, the price is even higher. I am against provincial taxes as well, not just the 4 cent federal tax. We tried to set an example was set but, unfortunately, the provincial Finance ministers-
I want to tell my hon. colleague in closing that, if there ever was a reasonable Finance minister dealing with these truckers, it was the federal minister. There has been no tax increase on fuel and gasoline in two years. I want to mention it because he neglected to say that. That is what is important, but those people failed to mention it. The provinces however imposed heavy taxes unfortunately.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that he used to have truckers as his clients and, therefore, he knows their problems. His leader, the Prime Minister, was a trucker himself and he should be as sensitive as the hon. member suggests that he is. If he boasted very proudly of having dirtied his hands hauling in Baie Comeau at one time, then why have we a government that is so insensitive?
I am very grateful to the Chair and to the members on the other side for giving me the opportunity to complete my remarks. Although I accuse this government of neglecting the facts and the realities facing our industry before deregulation, and of inaction following that, what I have tried to be is not so much negative or accusatory, but constructive and I have placed nine possible options. They are not exhaustive, they are not exclusionary of other ideas, they are nine possible actions which can be implemented to give our Canadian truckers a chance and an opportunity to compete.
As I have suggested quite clearly, the government must change the rules by which we are playing the game with Americans, otherwise we are going to lose the game and it is going to be a rout. It is not going to be even close. I have suggested nine rule changes. I look forward to the member offering more rule changes. If it is not
going to change the rules, then I ask the government to let us not beat around the bush, let us change the game. Let us change the game and re-regulate it so that the Canadian truckers have a chance to finish the game, complete the game and be successful at playing the game.
There are basically two options: change the rules so that the truckers can play and compete fairly; or, please, Mr. Minister, do not send our truckers on a collision course with American truckers. I have confidence in Canadians. I have confidence in our industry. I am also a Canadian who is realistic and I have pride in not sending Canadians without an equalizer to compete with the best. Every country does it.
We ought to give the tools by which our Canadian truckers can earn their livelihood, make a profit and raise a family; something that they are being precluded from doing in great numbers.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from York West on his interventions on a very important subject matter, namely the crisis that we have in the trucking industry at the present time.
The member has made nine succinct points in terms of what governments can do. I was interested in his remarks with regard to the mindset of the government opposite. It seems that it was aware of difficulties that would be forthcoming in the trucking and transportation industries, but notwithstanding that, it proceeded with the consummation of the free trade agreement.
My question to my colleague is: is it his view that this particular trade deal and the mindset which surrounds that deal and which has followed that particular deal is, in itself, having some negative impact on the trucking industry in Canada?


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I thank my House leader for a very pertinent question. I met with one trucker on the Sparks Street Mall yesterday. With regard to the seven studies, he said: "Mr. Marchi, why didn't they do seven studies before deregulation? Why didn't they study the impact before they threw the door open to American competition? Not open the flood-gates, not open the barn door and then say 'By the way, we are going to study the impact and see how badly Canadians are being hurt.' "

May 17, 1991
Supply
What my House leader is suggesting is the government clearly put the cart before the horse and it really seems insensitive to the fact the cart is being trampled.
It is the mindset of a government that is driven by market forces and laws of the jungle to allow the Americans to come in on the guise of: "We are competitive. Don't you worry, boys. Go out there and be the best."
The government told us with free trade we can do the job. We can compete. We asked for a better deal. We are not opposed to freer trade. We are opposed to a bad free trade agreement.
There has not been an equal playing field. There have been no adjustment programs. What we see in the dangerous mindset of removing FIRA, Petro-Canada, CBC and VIA Rail, is the dismantling of mechanisms and institutions which have taken a lifetime to build and win.


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, since May 1990, groups of unaffiliated truck owner-operators have been sporadically demonstrating and blockading highway checkpoints.
Truckers' concerns have been focused on taxation differentials between Canada and the U.S., notably on fuel and on the enforcement in Canada of the prohibition of cabotage-the carrying of goods between Canadian points by U.S. trucks-and on the impact of economic regulatory reforms and free trade generally in the industry.
In the summer of 1990, my predecessor established a task force to look at the concerns expressed by the truckers and created a forum for dialogue. I venture to say that this is a much more productive direction than hearing the previous speaker, my hon. colleague from York West, say that a committee of the Liberal Party has been functioning throughout this year.
Today in the House of Commons he deposits on the floor nine quick-fix solutions in an area where there is no quick-fix solution. The solutions that we must look into are medium-term and long-term solutions.
In the summer of 1990, this task force was created. It includes representatives of major trucking associations,
union leaders, independent owner-operators and provincial government officials. This task force has initiated studies on taxation, trucking costs, cabotage and on other factors considered to affect the competitive position of the Canadian trucking industry.
The studies are expected to be ready for release at the end of this month.
Although some laws apply to interprovincial highway transport, provincial governments enforce the legislation and generally take the lead in this field. The situation today is that there is a task force process under way with representatives of all segments of the industry, with the governments involved, federal and provincial, to look at the concerns of the industry.
Earlier this week I met with the coalition. On Wednesday I met with spouses of the truckers and yesterday I met with a delegation from the owner-operators now gathered in Ottawa.
My officials continue at this time to meet with these representatives to address the concerns which fall within federal jurisdiction. I have listened to and heard their concerns, and I understand them. I invited these truckers to join the task force process because this process is an appropriate forum for looking at this issue.
There have been a number of statements about the impact of federal policies on the industry. I would like to clarify some salient points.
First, free trade. The free trade agreement did not include any changes to the ground rules for the trucking industry. Second, under the old federal sales tax, while truckers did not pay sales tax on their purchases of tractors or trailers, they did pay federal sales tax on most other goods purchased, including fuel. The new GST effectively eliminates any federal sales tax from trucking inputs because the truckers will be refunded all the GST they pay on their rigs, fuel, parts, servicing and on other overhead.


Mr. Boudria:: When?


Jean Corbeil: I hear shouts from the opposite side. That member should know that there is a clause in the GST regulation to the effect that if the recipients of the credits are not refunded within 21 days, if I am not mistaken, the federal government is going to pay interest on those payments.
May 17, 1991

After the implementation of the GST, total federal taxes included in fuel prices in Canada are 4 cents per litre; 2.2 cents less per litre than in the U.S.
In relation to the depreciation issue, I would like to explain that in Canada tractors and trailers are given a 30 per cent declining balance treatment. This would be roughly equivalent to allowing truckers to write off their trucks over a seven year period. In the U.S. the corresponding periods are three years for tractors and five years for trailers.
Offsetting this preferential depreciation is the fact that the U.S. also levies a 12 per cent heavy truck and trailer excise tax which Canada does not.
Provincial fuel taxes tend to be higher than U.S. state taxes and this differential has been increased as a result of some provincial budgets, such as Ontario's and Quebec's, where fuel taxes were increased by 3.4 cents a litre over the period of the year 1991.
I want to back up a little here and talk about some of the things that have happened in motor carrier transportation during the past year. I want to first elaborate on some of the initiatives that were begun, not today on the floor of the House of Commons, but last year.
At a meeting of federal and provincial transport ministers last year in St. John's, Newfoundland, it was agreed that the work necessary to find solutions to trucker problems should be divided into two parts. The first part was the examination of owner-operator issues. A working group was created under the chairmanship of Manitoba.
There were three questions posed specifically by the owner-operators: one, should owner-operators be licensed; two, should load brokers-intermediaries who are paid a commission to bring truckers and shippers together-be regulated; the third question asked that the working group be mandated to act as facilitator to bring the trucking companies and the owner-operators together to negotiate a code of ethics.
I must say that the provincial and federal officials on the working group have reported a considerable lack of co-operation on the part of the trucking companies. I find it very disappointing that the members of the Canadian Trucking Association have refused to meet with the working group and the owner-operators to discuss the code of ethics.
The code of ethics was to set guidelines for business relations between owner-operators and trucking companies. The trucking companies have expressed an unwillingness to reduce a long list of grievances that the owner-operators have with some trucking companies. Needless to say, such an attitude has not been helpful.
The second part of the work mandated by the council of transport ministers was to address Canada-U.S. tax issues and transborder trucking competitiveness. Transport Canada officials were instructed to launch a study on global transborder competitive factors. The study was divided into eight parts. The objectives of the study were to determine the nature and extent of the Canadian share of transborder markets, assess the over-all-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister can resume after Question Period.
It being 11 o'clock, pursuant to-

The hon. minister was rising on a point of order.


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, may I have the same courtesy that we extended to the first speaker and be allowed to terminate my speech after Question Period.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think that the hon. minister can present this motion when he resumes his speech. I think that he should be extended that courtesy. Of course, the House will ultimately decide.
It being 11 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Members' Statements, pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Madam Speaker, yesterday in Fredericton the New Brunswick Research and Productivity Council officially opened its new laboratory complex which will be devoted primarily on behalf of small and medium sized business to applied research and technological service in the

May 17, 1991
fields of chemistry, biotechnology, microbiology, and food science.
The facility will also include a pilot plant for the development of new food products and a quarantine unit for aquaculture health studies.
All of these capabilities will be dedicated to the provision of knowledge, skill and innovation for use by manufacturing companies in New Brunswick and elsewhere in Atlantic Canada. In fact, the scientific and engineering services and competence of RPC is gaining a truly national reputation.
This expansion is part of a $20 million strategic development plan for RPC, being funded substantially through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. It is a major investment that conveys dramatic evidence of Canada's commitment to regional economic expansion in the Atlantic region and to the creation of higher productivity and increased competitiveness as key elements in our mission toward national prosperity in Canada.


ASSOCIATION OF POLISH ENGINEERS IN CANADA
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Association of Polish Engineers in Canada, which is being celebrated this weekend in Ottawa. They are a shining example of all an NGO can be and can achieve.
In 1941, with only 100 engineers and a charter drafted by our own Senator George Mcllraith, then parliamentary secretary to C. D. Howe, they began the work of assisting professional newcomers to gain Canadian accreditation and technical language skills required for speaking and writing English.
By arranging for Canadian engineers to teach them, not only were the desired language skills learned, most students were hired by one of the Canadian companies that donated the teaching time.
With Sir Casimir Gzowski, an engineer and builder of our railroads and bridges, as their patron, they expanded to include chemists, physicists, and members of other related professions and now number in the thousands.
Today I ask all members of the House to join me in saluting the ingenuity, dedication and hard work which have resulted in this outstanding achievement by the Association of Polish Engineers in Canada.


KANESATAKE BAND COUNCIL
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil -Papineau):: Madam Speaker, people were amazed to hear on the CBC yesterday that the Kanesatake Band Council was receiving up to $150,000 a year too much for its activities, on the basis of inaccurate population figures. Such a situation is unacceptable and the Band Council's failure to declare the exact population of Kanesatake to the government authorities is a serious offence that victimizes taxpayers.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I ask that an inquiry be launched after May 31 so that those guilty can be punished by law. I call upon the clan mothers to dismiss this Council which has been guilty of committing such a fraud and ask that the government immediately appoint an interim council until the community comes up with a new form of government, that a band census policy be implemented immediately to avoid further incidents of this kind and that the royal commission of inquiry be authorized to do so under its mandate. It is important to act quickly, Madam Speaker, to restore the trust and honour of citizens of that community.


COAL MINING
David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, once again the Conservative government is trying to sap the lifeblood out of the people of Cape Breton.
While the Conservative government nurtures the development of the Westray Coal Mine in Pictou East, home to the new Tory Premier Don Cameron, the Cape Breton Development Corporation is being dismantled.
The Westray Coal Mine will be seizing 300,000 tonnes of Devco's traditional sales to the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. If the Lingan Mine in Cape Breton is closed as a result, 700 to 800 coal miners will be out of
May 17, 1991

work in a area where the unemployment rate is over twice the national average.
The Island cannot absorb any more job losses. We have hundreds and hundreds of families out of work and out of hope, and the Conservative government wants to kick us one more time. We are paying a painful price for the freedom to vote on the Island.
After winning the leadership of the Nova Scotia Conservative Party, the premier said:
I can tell the people of Cape Breton they have nothing to fear from
Don Cameron-will no longer play political games with their lives.
The games have not stopped. We have a provincial and federal Tory government that would rather line the pockets of a foreign investor than make sure that families-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


NATIONAL UNITY
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, traditionally this House has been better at creating conflicts than resolving them, but Canada was created only when George Brown, a Grit, and George-Etienne Cartier and John A. Macdonald, Conservatives, put aside their partisan differences and worked together to bring about a united country.
There is a lesson in that for all sides of this House, but it is not just a lesson for politicians. It is a lesson for all Canadians. Those of us who believe in a strong, united Canada must stop saying: "They do not respect us. Let them go. It has got to be our way or else", and start saying publicly and loudly: "We do respect you. We all have a lot to lose. We are all Canadians".
Who speaks for Canada? Every Canadian must do that.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (THnity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, four years ago Jesus Seferino Aguilar came to Canada seeking protection as a refugee. He had left home in the war zone of El Salvador after witnessing the killing of his
brother. After a long delay, he was placed in the refugee backlog with the minister's promise that all cases would be decided by December 31, 1990.
Jesus waited alone. He could not visit relatives in the United States or El Salvador nor sponsor them to Canada because he was not landed.
In 1990, a psychiatric study sponsored by the Canadian Council of Churches, showed that the mental health of the majority of refugee claimants in the backlog was growing worse with danger of suicide. The United Nations Committee on Human Rights was sympathetic, but the then minister scoffed at the warning.
Jesus had no friends in high places to plead for him. He was repeatedly treated by a psychiatrist for depression and schizophrenia. This month, more than two years after the minister's promise, four years after he came, when only a third of the backlog had received a decision, Jesus Seferino Aguilar killed himself.
Again I urge this government to stop the suffering and death it is causing-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry the hon. member's time has now expired.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Science who, because of his vast wealth of knowledge and experience, knows the importance of encouraging students to pursue studies in the fields of science, technology, and engineering.
These fields will ensure that Canada remains globally competitive in the 21st century by retaining our position among the top 10 high-tech countries. All members of this House must continue to make a concentrated effort in every area concerning the youth of Canada and their education. Education must and will play a key role in Canada's future.


EDUCATION
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Yes, Madam Speaker, education must play a role but not with the approach that is being pursued by this government.

May 17, 1991
I would draw Your Honour's attention to the throne speech in which the government states that with provincial co-operation it would like to see Canada-wide goals in education "established for the year 2000".
Reading this literally, the government appears to be suggesting that it will take nine years just to establish goals relating to education.
Say it ain't so, Mr. Prime Minister. You cannot really be suggesting that it will take nine years just to establish goals. Agreement on goals in education should be part and parcel of the constitutional agreement we hope to conclude. In other words, our constitutional arrangements should support our economic objectives.
First of all we need to agree on goals and quickly; then we need to take action to reach them.
Canadians can no longer afford ambiguity, inaction and the absence of national leadership.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time is up. The hon. member for La Prairie.


NATIONAL POLICE WEEK
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Madam Speaker, we all know that this is Police Week.
I take the opportunity to extend my hearty congratulations to all police officers in Canada for their ongoing efforts to maintain peace and order throughout the country.
I also want to congratulate all police officers in my riding, especially eight policemen from Brossard who received the Distinguished Service Medal for Police at a special ceremony.
I personally wish to point out the tremendous and untiring dedication, as well as the courage and bravery, of Raymond Gagne, Alain Gingras, Michel Grenon, Marcel Gagliardi, Jean-Guy Leclerc, Pierre Morasse and Louis Alieva.
Madam Speaker, a special posthumous presentation was made to the son of Sergeant Gilles Veilleux, who died two years ago.
Congratulations and thanks to our police officers!


EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Madam Speaker, last week I wrote to the Government of B.C. about the potential for flooding due to an above average snow pack. I have yet to hear a response from the Government of B.C. on what could represent a major disaster.
Earlier this week a road was washed out, outside Femie, B.C., and the danger for wider flooding continues to exist.
A recent study has shown that schools in Coquitlam, B.C. would not have a chance of withstanding a major earthquake, and we know the potential that exists on the lower mainland of B.C.
Earlier this spring Canadians watched entire communities being washed away in Quebec.
Given the fact that the Government of B.C. has been slow to act and given the fact the federal government has allocated only $6 million for emergency preparedness for the entire country, I would like to call on the government to take action to better co-ordinate emergency preparedness with the provinces and make a real investment in emergency preparedness instead of waiting for a disaster to happen.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Madam Speaker, of great concern to all Canadians is a terrible toll of family violence in our nation. Because there are many causes there must be many remedies.
To help Canadians deal with the problems, the Canadian government has introduced many programs and initiatives to meet the problems. These include education programs for Canadians regarding the extent and causes of the problem. Other initiatives strengthen the legal framework to assist victims and to stop offenders. The government will increase services to aboriginal communities, provide more housing for abused women
May 17, 1991

and children, including emergency and longer term aid. They will assist in providing treatment services for offenders as well as their victims.
Much more needs to be done but the government is to be commended for the programs it has already initiated.


CANADA POST
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, I hope the minister responsible for Canada Post will realize that postal workers in the Outaouais are going to put the pressure on. For some time there have been rumours that the offices in Gatineau, Hull and Aylmer would be vacated and mechanical sortation done at the Alta Vista branch. Madam Speaker, after talking to some of the unions. I find it hard to understand why no consultations were initiated by Canada Post to find out why these rumours were circulating.
I think the minister responsible for Canada Post ought to put an end to the uncertainly and realize that the issue of mechanical sortation at Alta Vista does nothing to resolve the specific problems of a region like the Outaouais. Ever since Confederation we have had our own postal administration. Now, all of a sudden remours are circulating and a number of steps have already been taken.
We want to ask Canada Post and the corporation's management to do what is necessary to put an end to-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has now expired. The hon. member for Cambridge.


ONTARIO BUDGET
Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, yesterday almost 3,000 people representing a wide cross-section of Ontarians protested outside Queen's Park expressing their disapproval of the recent NDP budget. They believe this NDP budget will provide for massive disincentives for both existing and new companies to invest in Ontario. They know it is a tax time-bomb that will go off in the next couple of years.
Oral Questions
I am sure this group of fiscally responsible and concerned taxpayers was not surprised to hear that both the province of Ontario and Ontario Hydro had their credit rating revised downward. Their simple message to Bob Rae is: "Stop putting the taxpayers' money where your mouth is".



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
The truckers who are still out there in front of the Parliament Buildings are a symbol of the frustration of millions of Canadians who are unemployed or on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of your economic policies.
I personally met mothers with families, and so did the minister, who are going through a family crisis because of your policies. Stop hiding behind studies or other governments. Will the federal government do something today so that these families can live in dignity?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada and the Ministry of Transport did not wait until the trucks lined the streets to do something about this problem.
About a year ago, we had a meeting with all the main parties involved. They agreed there would be studies on every aspect that, in some cases, required clarification and in others presented a real problem. These studies will be used to get the facts, as opposed to perceptions or allegations.
That is being done now. Meanwhile, we have had another meeting with owners and leaseholders, who are now meeting at the office of the Ministry of Transport.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, three years ago, your government initiated its policy to deregulate transportation in the trucking industry. They have now been here for a week, and all they are getting is tickets.

Oral Questions

They have been out front and they are in the rain today. They have been here for a week and all they have got from your government are tickets, 40 tickets, to show for their actions.
I want to ask the minister when he is going to stop hiding behind studies, when he is going to stop playing political football, and when he is going to start providing some real answers.
This minister from Toronto may think it is very funny. I have met with women in the gallery who were in-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may want to speak through the Chair and please put her question at this point.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My question is to the minister. As the speaker will know, it is not a laughing matter. There are thousands of families whose lives hang in the balance, and I want to know if he is going to announce specific measures today so that those families can come in out of the rain and start having a hope for their economic survival. Will he provide answers today?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I can assure you my colleague from Ontario did not consider this a laughing matter. I think his remarks concerned my colleague, today's Acting Leader of the Liberal Party and the Opposition, and her habit of dealing with the subject by daily repeating a number of half truths or unfounded allegations.
I repeat that the studies were not ordered as a result of a unilateral decision by the federal government. The decision involved all the main parties involved, including the truckers themselves, trucking companies, the provincial government and the federal government. In fact, provincial governments can have an even greater impact than the federal government in this area, when we consider that the provincial sales tax on diesel fuel is much higher, four or five times as high, as the federal tax. This makes a tremendous difference when you add up the total cost of company operations.
I would like to ask the Liberal Party, which announced this morning that a committee had been examining the
matter for several months, to tell us about the committee's conclusions. I would like to say to the hon. member for Hamilton East that it would have been far more-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, these truckers are the tip of the iceberg in a brewing tax revolt that is sweeping this country.
Does the government not realize that the GST was the last straw for Canadians? The minister knows that every time a Canadian trucker fills his tank it costs him $250 more than an American trucker for the same tankful.
I want to ask the minister a specific question. He has asked us about our proposals. We have put some specific proposals on the table, and one of them includes ending the excise tax on diesel fuels. Will he do that today?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, it is really unbelievable that the member on the other side is asking the federal government to reduce its federal sales tax which is already 2.2 cents per litre lower than the corresponding tax in the U.S.
She also says we should remove GST. The implementation of GST, which was delayed for almost two years by the members of her party and her friends in the Senate, has had the definite result of reducing the cost of operations for all the truckers. As far as the gas is concerned, the GST is responsible for a reduction of 2.5 cents per gallon.
At the same time, the hon. member comes from a province where the diesel fuel tax has been increased many times and is in the process of being increased again. I think she should invite the truckers, rather than fuelling some political aspects in this debate, to address the provincial legislation as strongly as they can because the real problem is there and not in this House.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, today Statistics Canada, in reporting on the inflation figures, in effect, said that the Minister of Transport does not know what he is talking about.
May 17, 1991

Oral Questions
Statistics Canada today reported that the year over year inflation rate is up by more than 6 per cent for the fourth month in a row. The government's own statistical agency said about these figures: "They continue to reflect the higher price levels resulting from the introduction of the GST".
Will the Acting Minister of Finance admit the Department of Finance was wrong and the GST is having much more than a one-time impact on inflation? Will he take steps to reverse this GST policy which is destroying retail businesses, driving more and more Canadians to shop in the United States, and obviously doing great damage to our trucking industry?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Madam Speaker, first of all I should make it very clear to the hon. member and to those who are watching Question Period today that on the GST and truckers, truckers used to pay 13.5 per cent sales tax when they bought a truck. Now they pay a GST of 7 per cent and claim it back. They claim back the GST on their gasoline. Their operating costs are much less, so that helps the truckers. That is what the GST does positively for the trucking industry. The hon. member should understand that.
We are encouraged that the inflation rate has levelled off and has remained steady. We still believe that we will reach our target. As we have said in the budget, and I would like to quote from The Budget Papers just so that the hon. member understands the targets that we have set for inflation in this country: "The first target is to lower the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index to 3 per cent by the end of 1992. An interim milepost of 5 per cent has been set for the end of 1991".
We believe we are on target.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, not only does the Minister of Transport not know what he is talking about, this is obviously the case with the minister of state.
By the time the truckers get back the GST they will have gone broke because of the delays in this government's approach to this matter.

Madam Speaker, year after year, the inflation rates for Quebec City and Montreal are the highest in Canada. Statistics Canada has said that these fugures continue to reflect the implementation of the GST.

The minister has confirmed that this government wants to have a tough anti-inflation policy more than it wants to create jobs or growth. Will he make a commitment for the government today that in dealing with the inflation its own policies have created it will not revert to the high interest rate policy that has already destroyed so many jobs and businesses in this country? Will he make that commitment today?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, old habits die slowly.
I must say that interest rates have dropped over the past year by almost 5 per cent. Mortgage rates are down. Housing starts are up. Resales are reaching record levels at the present time.
We have made a commitment to get inflation down, to get interest rates down, and to keep them down. As long as the inflationary pressures stay down then interest rates will stay down.
I am encouraged and the government is encouraged by most of the provincial governments in this country that have, together with the federal government, brought in budgets to restrain spending, to control wages, and to try to get the expenditures of governments under control.
There has been only one government that has not gone along with this. It reminds me of my father when he used to say: "Everybody is out of step except my son, John".


NATIONAL UNITY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Constitution. It is in relation to a new approach that is needed to national unity.
I want to begin by suggesting to the minister that if he is truly committed to non-partisanship and co-operation, it is action and not words that are going to show that to the Canadian people.

May 17, 1991
Oral Questions
It seems to me that there is nothing in the throne speech that suggests co-operation when we are told: "Here is the process that is going to take place. Here are the rules. Now everyone had better co-operate".
Will the minister, because I understand he is fully responsible for this area and can make these decisions, withdraw the committee process that is outlined in the throne speech and in a truly co-operative spirit meet with the other parties in this House to discuss a process that we can begin right from the beginning, that is truly co-operative, and that in fact will show Canadians that all parliamentarians in this House are prepared to do that?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to answer what was in effect that question yesterday when it was posed by the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands after my remarks in the House.
We have taken a decision that faced with the cynicism in Canada about elected officials we could either contribute to that cynicism by having parliamentarians walk away from our most basic responsibility for the future of the country, or we could try to change that cynicism by demonstrating that parliamentarians are effective and prepared in dealing with the nation's problems. But we are not going to do that in old ways. We are prepared to establish a joint committee of this House and the other place and then adopt the most original means we can to involve the Canadian public.
I said to her colleague in the House yesterday that I would very much welcome specific suggestions from the NDP, the Liberal Party, or indeed from individual members of the House, as to means by which we can preserve the well-established tradition of parliamentary democracy in this country and add to it the most effective possible involvement of other Canadians interested in this process.
As to actions speaking louder than words, I agree with her. That is why I began my responsibilities in this portfolio by acting, by going to talk directly to people who had felt excluded from the process in the past. I intend to continue to act in that way, as this government does.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, it is clear that any constitutional decision will be made by the Parliament of Canada.
We will not be undermining the authority of the parliamentary tradition in Canada, it seems to me, if as politicians we show to Canadians that we are listening to what they have to say.
In fact, I am suggesting to the minister that that is our responsibility and our duty so that the process that we institute at the beginning indicates that we are listening to Canadians.
No one is suggesting that elected members would not be a part of that process. I am simply suggesting it should be enlarged to include those who are under-represented in this House.
I will say to the minister that women make up 51 per cent of the population of this country. They make up 14 per cent of the population of this House. Aboriginal people and visible minorities are under-represented in this House.
Will the minister consider seriously that we try a new way, perhaps a less traditional way, which will include elected officials but expand that process right from the beginning to show Canadians that we are listening and we are prepared to do something in a really new way?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the answer to that general question is yes.
Certainly I agree with the observation of the hon. member. It is one of the problems of any elected institution that it is not as representative of the country, demographically, as it should be.
Will we take a variety of means, as innovative as we can find, to listen to people, to involve them in the decisions? The answer to that is clearly yes. Will we abandon Parliament? The answer to that is no.
Our view is that Parliament needs to be reformed, but not abandoned. We recognize the cynicism that exists in the country. We think it is corrosive. We think that succumbing to that cynicism could in fact make it more difficult for us to build the kind of strong Canada we want. We intend to reform the way this Parliament works. We intend to reach out as widely as we can to
May 17, 1991

Oral Questions
involve Canadians in the process of deciding our future together, but we do not intend to abandon one of the institutions that has served this country very well in 124 years of our history.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, no one is talking about abandoning Parliament. We are simply saying that this an extraordinary, absolutely serious and crucial issue for the future of Canada. Surely the authority of parliamentarians will be reinforced when we say that we are prepared to do things in an extraordinary, innovative way right from the beginning for this particular situation.
I think to characterize it as abandoning Parliament is clearly not presenting what I am suggesting.

I would remind the government that the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee will soon make its report public. Can the government promise today in this House that it will not ignore any recommendation to increase the participation of as many people as possible at the beginning of the process advocated by this report?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I clearly said yesterday in my speech in the House that I have no intention of judging the Beaudoin-Edwards committee report before it is received and I have no intention of rejecting the suggestions it may contain. If the Beaudoin-Edwards committee suggests ways for Parliament to consult Canadians better, I would be quite interested in hearing them and I intend to take them seriously.
As far as innovation is concerned, we already said in the Speech from the Throne the other day that, for the time in the history of our Parliament, we would give a parliamentary committee, as a formal part of its mandate, the right to work with elected provincial legislators and not only to consult them. That is something new. There are other ways to ensure more citizen participation, but on a parliamentary basis that serves Canada well.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
On Wednesday the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the only problem with the Al-Mashat case was not that Mr. Al-Mashat was admitted on the fast track, but that ministers did not know.
Once again the new Secretary of State for External Affairs has it all wrong. We will find out what ministers knew. We are equally concerned about why Al-Mashat was given a fast track when so many people are not given any preference, any kind of access, because they do not know people in high places.
I would like to ask the minister this question. In 1988, close to 27,000 Kurdish refugees escaped from the chemical attacks of the Iraqi government. Three thousand applied to come to Canada, and according to a report of the Turkish government, not one has been accepted or interviewed up to this time. They are still tragically waiting to be accepted.
Rather than being solely preoccupied with defending the reputation of ministers, when is this government going to afford the victims of the Iraqi government the same kind of treatment it gave to Al-Mashat.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I would like to quote from page 21 of the McGrath commission report which was unanimously endorsed in this House and signed by the hon. member's seatmate. It states:
The idea of a minister being responsible for everything that goes on in a department may once have been realistic, but it has long since ceased to be so. A minister cannot possibly know everything that is going on in a department. The doctrine of ministerial accountability undermines the potential for genuine accountability on the part of the person that ought to be accountable-the senior officer of the department.

Oral Questions
The recommendation, endorsed unanimously, was:
We recommend that all ministers co-operate with committees
exercising their expanded mandates by making available public
servants that may be called to testify before a committee.
We have made that commitment. That committee will implement these recommendations which were approved-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the problem with these ministers is not that they don't know everything that is happening in its departments, they don't know anything at all about what is going on in their departments. Especially when it goes into their own offices, they have no control or judgment on it.
If that minister is now speaking for government, my specific question is about why the Kurdish refugees who escaped from a brutal chemical attack are not given any consideration at all? I have a specific case of one of my own constituents who, over a year ago, married a Kurdish woman who has been sitting in Iran for close to a year without any kind of treatment or review whatsoever by the Department of Immigration.
Does this not show that there is an unfair and discriminatoiy system? I ask that minister, is that not one of the primary topics and subjects of investigation that the parliamentary committee must address: why the immigration system gives preference to people in high places but ignores the plight of ordinary citizens?


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, there are no doubt cases where there is unfair and discriminatoiy queue jumping. I remember very well when one potential immigrant drove to Manitoba, was put into a ministerial car, given a ministerial driver and driven to Emerson, Manitoba for the Emerson shuffle so that he could be landed. Does the member remember that? We would be glad to bring that forward in the committee.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and, in his absence, to the Acting Prime Minister.
Recently, Zbigniew Redka, a man of Polish origin, was told, after waiting for two years, he would have to wait another two years to have his immigration case heard. Shortly after, he hanged himself.
Last week, Jesus Saferino Aquilan, a Salvadoran refugee claimant committed suicide in Toronto.
How can the government of the day allow Mr. Al-Ma-shat, no friend of Canada, to jump the queue and yet have refugees and self-exiles wait three, four and five years for a landed immigrant status?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the point I was trying to make by reading the McGrath committee report, which is the recommendation we have approved, is that these kinds of detailed questions are unsuitable, as this committee recommended, for this kind of exchange. They are good for scoring political points.
The committee will meet just as soon as his party co-operates with establishing the membership. In fact, those questions about Al-Mashat can be dealt with and we can put this strawman aside and deal with the real issues that affect Canadians.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I drew a potential suicide case from Montreal to the former minister of immigration's attention. Today the minister says: "People who are committing suicide because of the government's bungling should not be raised in this forum?"
I have just drawn attention to two cases. How many more such cases are there in the refugee backlog?
I would like to ask the minister if he will hold an inquest into the two cases that I have mentioned and report to Parliament? Will he agree today to grant work permits and permission to go to school to self-exiled refugees who have to wait 18 to 24 months for their landed immigrant status? Also, will he promise today in this House that the government will clear up all refugee backlog cases within six months?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the minister is unavoidably absent from the House today. I know this was a serious question raised by my hon. friend and I will treat it that way, and I trust his colleagues will.
May 17, 1991

He relates to the House circumstances which all of us would regard as tragic. Certainly the problem of refugee backlog is one that has been of concern to the House and to the government for some time. We have taken some actions to deal with it. He has made some specific requests that I will draw immediately to the attention of the minister who will, I hope, be in a position to reply either directly to the hon. member or to the House as soon as he is back next week.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday the Federal Court ruled that the cabinet broke the law to cut a special deal for Alcan. Today I would like to pursue the special deals found in the green plan communication contracts which have been flowing to friends of the Prime Minister and the cabinet at $250,000 a month since the last election.
Does the Acting Prime Minister feel it is appropriate to pay $20,000 a month to Paul Boomer Throop for advice to the Minister of the Environment, knowing that P. Boomer Throop was the 1988 election tour co-ordinator for the Prime Minister and is presently employed by the Conservative Party?


Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Environment)):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity today to respond to the first question to come to me as the Minister of State for the Environment.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Pauline Browes: Some three weeks ago the Prime Minister put additional emphasis on the preservation and the protection of the Canadian environment by appointing an additional voice to the cabinet. I am very privileged and pleased to be able to fulfil those duties.
In relation to the question that the hon. member has brought forward, the green plan that was established by the Government of Canada had extensive consultations. Over 10,000 Canadians were consulted about the green
Oral Questions
plan, in co-operation with the provincial governments and industry.
It was an opportunity for us to reach out to hear what people have to say and at the same time bring together the green plan of over some hundred initiatives.
Now we have an opportunity to bring forward the information about the green plan to the Canadian people. I am very pleased we are doing that and we are going to continue to be consulting and implementing the issues and the green plan.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister to her new position but my question is for the Acting Prime Minister about corruption and the need to do something about it.
I am sure it is just a coincidence, but would the Acting Prime Minister explain why Ian Anderson, the Prime Minister's former deputy communications director received $75,000 for communications advice on the green plan, or why Pat Delbridge who is now head of the government's environmental logo board received $200,000 for two months work last year?
Will the Acting Prime Minister support sending all of these contracts let so far under the green plan to a public auditing function by a special committee of this House to determine where these untendered $8 million are going and whether or not they are just going from the public purse to friends of the Conservative Party?


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, the green plan is a tremendous, major undertaking by the Canadian government and by the people of Canada. We want to discuss and implement these various initiatives which are set out in the green plan and we will continue to have these consultations and the implementation.
In relation to the particular issues that the hon. member has mentioned, there will a thorough analysis of all of this. The Minister of the Environment and myself are new to these positions. We are looking at all the analyses as to how we can communicate best with the people of Canada.

May 17, 1991
Oral Questions


CLOTHING INDUSTRY
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the new Minister of Labour. I want to congratulate him on his promotion.
I would like to ask the Minister if he is aware that 39 women's clothing factories have closed down since 1986, resulting in some 2,000 lost jobs in the Montreal region and elsewhere in Quebec.
The Minister's predecessor had already met these people and given them promises which he did not keep. Will the new Minister of Labour try to help these people and be more effective than his predecessor?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
I can tell you that my predecessor was veiy, very effective and probably even more effective than my colleague opposite when he was Minister of Labour in Montreal.
The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel knows very well that the Department of Employment and Immigration has some training programs to help these people who lost their jobs. If some of those companies are eligible for the Older Worker Adjustment Program which the Minister knows very well, we in the Department of Labour will be pleased to see that those people are compensated adequately.


André Ouellet: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker.
I would remind the Minister that it is incredible that his predecessor did not know that the regulations for the Older Worker Adjustment Program required a certain number of employees per factory and plant. Now, 90 per cent of this women's clothing industry in Quebec has about 30 or 40 employees and the Minister's regulations required a minimum of 100 employees.
Will the new Minister be more competent and effective than his predecessor and change the regulations?


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel knows very well that the regulations of the Older Worker
Adjustment Program are negotiated with the provinces. It is a federal-provincial program.
We are now looking into the various regulations with the Quebec Minister, Mr. Bourbeau, and I can assure the Minister that we will do everything possible so that the workers in the Montreal region whom he has just mentioned can benefit from as many programs as possible offered by the Department of Labour and also the Department of Employment and Immigration.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for the Environment.
The minister, coming from metropolitan Toronto, is well aware of the fact that, like so many other Canadian cities, metropolitan Toronto is facing an imminent garbage crisis. One of the worst offenders in this crisis is excessive packaging.
Since the voluntary packaging program does not seem to be working, will the government introduce immediately a program of stiff regulations to reduce packaging and do it before the 1993 deadline or target date set in the green plan? If we do not do that, we are going to have garbage piled up in our back yards and our parks.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, I want to first compliment the member for Don Valley East on his continued interest in environmental issues. I have worked with him on those in metro Toronto and I appreciate his good work.
The national protocol on packaging, as established by the environment ministers of Canada, is to reduce packaging by 50 per cent by the year 2000. Nobody in this House wants to wait till the year 2000 to have all of this done, so by 1993 we are going to have regulations. If by 1992 we see that the voluntary action, the consultation with the provinces, the consultation with industries, is not accomplishing what we want it to do, the federal government will put forward those regulations. The provinces monitor the volume of waste into the landfill sites so that will be our indication whether or not the program is working.

I want to say that the consumers themselves can do a great deal in terms of reducing waste. Just yesterday I received 30 letters from the-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. minister will find another moment to get into what seems to be a speech.


BANKRUPTCIES
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister for employment or the Minister of Labour. Yesterday Pascal's hardware, a successful Montreal business for 87 years, fell victim to the recession and went bankrupt. As a result 21 stores have closed and 1,600 employees have lost their jobs, many of them with more than 20 years service.
Would the minister say whether this massive lay-off will qualify for help under the program for older worker adjustment and what other initiatives does the government have to retrain and re-employ these workers?


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, a committee will be formed immediately between the Quebec representatives and the federal representatives to decide on the eligibility of the workers of Pascal's.
With regard to the retraining, the hon. member is aware that the federal government through the Department of Employment and Immigration has a significant number of retraining programs. We could even have had more had the Official Opposition not blocked Bill C-21 for two years. We do have the programs in place and we will use them.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, that is not enough. When is this government going to recognize it bears a heavy responsibility in closures such as this. The goods and services tax, high interest rates, the free trade agreement and mass crossborder shopping have all contributed to this closure.
Why is the government ignoring the economic and social conditions in Montreal and right across this country?
Oral Questions


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Madam Speaker, no one is happy when a company goes bankrupt, but I think it is very important that Canadians understand the reasons why and not the fallacious reasons-


William Warren Allmand: GST and the free trade agreement.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member, Madam Speaker, just mentioned the GST as he did in his speech. Practically the price of everything in a hardware store is going down as a result of the GST because of the tax credit.


Mr. Tobin:: That's nuts.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend from Newfoundland says: "That's nuts". If he would go and look at the nuts and bolts in a hardware store, he will see that the changes in prices are significant. Prices have gone down on a broad range of items in a hardware store.
The point I am making, Madam Speaker, is there are reasons for companies going bankrupt, but let us not confuse the facts. Let us make sure that the GST is credited for being a benefit to hardware store owners.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I would like to return to the Acting Prime Minister and the Al-Mashat case. Canadians, particularly those who have been involved with the immigration process and know its delays are asking why he received this veiy special treatment. There is a suspicion that Canada was being used as a safe house for an American informer.
Given that today Mr. Al-Mashat claims that he was offered asylum in both France and the United States, which the French doubt and the Americans now officially deny, will the minister confirm that the Prime Minister of Canada himself is willing to appear before the parliamentary committee; that the government has no objection to Mr. Al-Mashat being subpoenaed to that committee and will the government make representations to the United States government so that representatives of the National Security Council and the CIA can be brought before the parliamentary committee to testify. Maybe we can get to the bottom of this.

May 17, 1991
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, just to confirm what was said yesterday on several occasions, we are very anxious to get this matter before the committee as soon as possible. Then all relevant officials can be called before the committee because we are absolutely convinced that the facts we have elucidated will become obvious to those who keep an open mind. We are anxious to put behind us the innuendo and so on that comes forward as a result of lack of information and pure unsubstantiated suspicion. Let us let this committee do its work. I am sure at the end of the day we will all be better off when we know what we are talking about.


JUSTICE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the same minister.
This morning I learned from a Crown attorney, in the case against the member for Levis, that the defence had indicated last Monday, May 6, that they would be using C-79 in the defence at last Wednesday's court hearing. As a result, the Crown told witnesses not to appear, in that a non-proclaimed piece of legislation would not have any status before the court.
Is this minister in a position to assure this House that neither the member for Levis, his lawyer, nor anybody else acting on his behalf, approached cabinet ministers or their offices, urging the proclamation of C-79, prior to that specific court hearing?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, after two years of all-party activity on committee, there was unanimity among the parties to introduce Bill C-79 to regularize the relationship between the House and the RCMP in terms of responsibilities. There was unanimity in that regard.
When bills are given Royal Assent there is sometimes a time separation between Royal Assent and Proclamation, because administrative matters need to be taken care of and put in place. No such requirements were necessary with this bill.
When I became aware, as a result of a conversation with a member of Parliament whose offices were being searched by the RCMP at the time, that C-79 had not
been proclaimed, I was on my way out of town. Three days later when I got back, I asked my staff to have it proclaimed.
The reality is that it was given Royal Assent on April 11. It should have been proclaimed on April 12. It should have been passed last year.
The hon. member, in looking for conspiracy and in suggesting that there is something wrong in proclaiming a bill which was endorsed by both Houses, which was unanimously approved by all political parties in this House, is really, really searching for scandal. I wish he would be more sympathetic to peoples' reputations as members were sympathetic to his reputation when he had problems.


PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION OVER EDUCATION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. Last night, a few minutes after his appointment as federal minister responsible for meddling, his colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration said on the CBC, and I quote: "Education is nobody's exclusive domain." I would like to ask the minister responsible-


An hon. member:: It's true.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I hear another conservative minister say "it's true". I would like to ask the responsible minister whether or not he is willing to correct what his colleague for Employment and Immigration said, and remind him of Section 93 of the BNA Act of 1867?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I don't have to read the Constitution to my Cabinet colleague. The Speech from the Throne is very clear. We do not intend to interfere in provincial jurisdictions and we clearly accepted- we said in the Speech from the Throne that education would remain a provincial matter.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister. Mr. Remillard, a distinguished lawyer who has read the Speech from the Throne, says: "It is unacceptable that Ottawa should intrude in a field of provincial jurisdiction like education and training". Is the minister telling me that Mr. Remillard did not read the Speech from the Throne correctly or will he explain to me how he can
May 17, 1991

reconcile the statement from the minister of Canadian affairs and the attitude of his government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, when I will need to talk to Mr. Remillard, I will do so directly and not through someone who changed views and party while in this chamber.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax, one question please.


JUSTICE
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the hon. Government House Leader.
As we understand the hon. House leader to have responded to a question previously, a member whose office was the potential subject of a police search had approached him on proclamation of Bill C-79.
Does the hon. government House leader not think that this is obstruction of justice?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, those are not the facts. The facts are that the office was being searched under a search warrant. The hon. member phoned me up to inform me of that fact so that I should know in the event it became-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the member for York South-Weston would allow the hon. minister to complete his answer.


Harvie Andre: As I was saying, Madam Speaker, the hon. member, in view of my responsibilities, phoned me up to inform me that the search was under way, not to ask for any action.
Incidentally, in the conversation he informed me that Bill C-79 had not been implemented. That would have had no effect, because that bill which was unanimously adopted by her party had been given Royal Assent. It had
Routine Proceedings
been approved by both Houses back in April. I then asked my staff, three days later as a matter of fact, why it had not been proclaimed and asked that it be proclaimed.
I am sorry the hon. member cannot seem to listen to my answer without her jaws moving and noises coming out of her throat.


POINT OF ORDER
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I want to refer to my answer to the hon. member for Windsor West. I gave some inaccurate information in my response to him when I said that the truckers paid federal sales tax on trucks and trailers. They did not under the old system. Under the new system they do not pay federal sales taxes on all their business expenses as they used to do. I apologize to the House for that misinformation.
While I am on my feet, I have two Ways and Means motions which I wish to table today.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to lay upon the table a copy of notice of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act and other legislation respecting the implementation of the goods and services tax, and a Ways and Means motion to amend the excise tax and the Excise Tax Act.
I ask, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 83(2), that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of each of the said two Ways and Means motions.

May 17, 1991
Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House thanks the hon. minister for setting the record straight.


PETITIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



RAILWAY ACT


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I have several motions that relate to the reinstatement of bills from the previous session. The first one deals with Bill C-26.1 move:
That, notwithstanding any standing or special order of this House, the following bill introduced in the Second Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament be reinstated forthwith in this session as follows:
An act to amend the Railway Act (Grain and Flour Subsidies), be deemed to have been introduced, read the first time and ordered to be printed, read a second time and referred to and reported by a legislative committee with an amendment, concurred in at report stage with an amendment and ordered for third reading.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion is denied.



YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the next motion deals with Bill C-58, the Young Offenders Act:
That, notwithstanding any standing or special order of this House, the following bill introduced in the Second Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament be reinstated forthwith in this session as follows:
An act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, be deemed to have been introduced, read the first time and ordered to be printed, read a second time and referred to and reported by a legislative committee (with amendments).


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Consent has been denied.



CROWN CORPORATIONS DISSOLUTION OR TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION ACT


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, this relates to Bill C-73, something that is up and running right now. It is an attempt to save money for the taxpayers:
That, notwithstanding any standing or special order of this House, the following bill introduced in the Second Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament be reinstated forthwith in this session as follows:
An act to provide for the dissolution or transfer of certain Crown corporations and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, be deemed to have been introduced, read the first time and ordered to be printed, read a second time and referred to and reported by a legislative committee with an amendment.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. The hon. member may allow me to look around the House. I have now heard him and consent has been denied.
May 17, 1991



CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT


Albert Glen Cooper: I am on a roll, Madam Speaker.
This relates to Bill C-78, the environment bill:
That, notwithstanding any standing or special order of this House, the following bill introduced in the Second Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament be reinstated forthwith in this session as follows:
An act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, be deemed to have been introduced, read the first time and ordered to be printed, read a second time and referred to legislative committee C (Bill C-78); and that the evidence educed and documents received by any special committee of this House in the Second Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament in relation to this bill be deemed to have been referred to legislative committee C (Bill C-78) in this present session.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary is not receiving unanimous consent to move this motion.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion is denied.



APPOINTMENT OF A PORT WARDEN FOR THE HARBOUR OF QUEBEC REINSTATEMENT OF BILL C-82

Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, this relates to Bill C-82:
That, notwithstanding any standing or special order of this House, the following bill introduced in the Second Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament be reinstated forthwith in this session as follows:
An act to amend an act to provide for the appointment of a Port Warden for the Harbour of Quebec and an act to amend and consolidate the acts relating to the office of Port Warden for the Harbour of Montreal, and to validate certain fees and charges established pursuant thereto, be deemed to have been introduced, read the first time and ordered to be printed, read a second to a second time and referred to and reported by a legislative committee (without amendment), concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed.
Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion has been denied.



FEDERAL TRUST AND LOAN COMPANIES


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing or special order of this House, the following bill introduced in the Second Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament be reinstated forthwith in this session as follows:
An act to revise and amend the law governing federal trust and loan companies and to provide for related and consequential matters, be deemed to have been introduced, read a first time and ordered to be printed, read a second time and referred to and reported by the Standing Committee on Finance with several amendments.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I will advise the House that this is my last attempt:
That, notwithstanding any standing or special order of this House, the following bill introduced in the Second Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament be reinstated forthwith in this session as follows:
An act to provide for certain matters respecting official languages, employees' pensions and labour relations in connection with the

May 17, 1991
Routine Proceedings
transfer of certain airports, be deemed to have been introduced, read a first time and ordered to be printed, read a second time and referred to and reported by a legislative committee without amendment.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that unanimous is being denied?


Some hon. members:: Denied.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Albert Glen Cooper: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, there is one more that has been brought to my attention.
This one is a request of the New Democratic Party effecting changes on the management committee for the first striking meeting on which I think notice has gone out for Tuesday:
That effective May 21, 1991, the following changes be made to
the membership of the Standing Committee on House Management:
Ms. Langan for Mr. Angus, Mr. Axworthy for Mr. Riis.
And that effective May 27, 1991, the following changes be made
to the membership of the Standing Committee on House
Management:
Mr. Angus for Ms. Langan, Mr. Riis for Mr. Axworthy.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, it is rather interesting to note some of the comments of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader who either intentionally or whatever brought these particular motions to the floor of the House today to seek unanimous consent of the House.
It was discussed earlier this morning with myself and the parliamentary secretary. There was a clear undertaking from the government that we would pursue discussions on these various matters. Obviously, in a sense of not wanting to co-operate with opposition members, they have proceeded to introduce these particular motions.
It should be noted that this is a very significant point of order, very, very significant. Since the beginning of this session contained in the throne speech, leading up to the throne speech and shortly thereafter, we have been hearing the buzz words and the rhetoric with regard to non-partisanship and co-operation among the parties.
We have co-operated when we have been consulted such as on the Beaudoin-Edwards committee. We have agreed to that. On the standing committee for health and welfare we have agreed to reinstate that. With regard to elections and privileges, we have been consulted on that and with regard to the references in terms of supply to the various standing committees, but lo and behold the government House leader is at it again. He is trying to drive things down our throats.
I am informing you, Madam Speaker, and through you members opposite, that members of this caucus and of this party are not going to put up with that. We are not going to accept that kind of conduct from government members opposite.
Very briefly my point of order will conclude. On the substance of those motions, the parliamentary secretary knows very well that the contents of those bills in many of those instances is that we have opposed them and opposed them vigorously. If they wish to proceed with them, they have an opportunity to lay the legislation before the House of Commons. But if they were so desirous of having all that legislation introduced, consummated and passed by Parliament, why did they not extend the sittings of the House and not call for a new Parliament?
The fact of the matter is that they do not want co-operation from opposition parties; they do not want that at all. They want to have it their way and to heck with those of us in the opposition.
I wish to inform you, sadly, Madam Speaker, that we in the opposition will not accept that kind of conduct from
May 17, 1991

Routine Proceedings
the parliamentary secretary who we always believed to be an honourable person. But obviously he has taken instructions from the thug of thugs.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I realize that the hon. member had a message which he wanted to put across, but I still do not see where there was a point of order.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I do not wish to extend the debate. I just simply wish to express to the House that no, we on this side of the House have not abandoned any desire to co-operate and to provide every opportunity for consultation with the hon. members.
I want to indicate to the House and to members present that what I did do was have meetings with the two opposition House leaders earlier this morning. We had some discussions. I had a change in circumstances at about 10 to 10.15 this morning which I tried to relate to the hon. members. I was in fact successful in communicating that to the House leader of the New Democratic Party, but was waiting for and have not yet received a return phone call from the House leader of the Liberals so I had to proceed.
I apologize to the hon. member. But perhaps in the future what he can do is return my calls. Give us a chance to discuss these things and we can then resolve them without having battles on the floor.


David Charles Dingwall: To my colleague opposite, I have never heard such blarney in all of my 11 years on the floor of the House of Commons.
In point of fact, the parliamentary secretary and I met in his office this morning at 9.40. The parliamentary secretary made the request at 9.50, prior to the House leader of the New Democratic Party coming, that we have to meet on a daily basis to discuss the various motions and matters which are going to be laid before members of Parliament on each and every day.
At that time, we concluded that we would meet again to discuss further the possibility of the reinstatement of bills. Now, to come into the House of Commons and say at 10.10, when we are on an opposition day-and the opposition House leader should be here with his official critic for transport to participate in that day-he drags out a phoney, lame excuse that he called and the phone call was not returned.
If there is not a demonstrable way of misleading the House, I do not know what better fact is. If the hon. member does not believe that it is misleading, I will withdraw that. But I will say this to the hon. member: You are awfully careless with the truth.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I do not wish to extend this discussion or debate any further. I simply want to state that what I have said is true and I stand by what I have said.



POINT OF ORDER


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to express to the House and to you, that I believe that an essential document for the functioning of our Parliament has not been provided for members of this House.
When the throne speech was presented to members of both Houses by His Excellency the Governor General, it was accompanied by a background paper which was provided to all members of the media. Members of the media, who were consulted only moments ago by myself and my colleagues, stated that they all received this document. No member of this House has received this document which accompanied the Throne Speech and which was entitled Background Paper. In other words, an explanatory note to the Throne Speech that was supposed to tell all of us how the document worked was given to members of the media and to no member on this side of the House, and it was probably not even given to the Chair.
It is essential that if this House is going to function, and if members are to be able to do their jobs, they must have access to all of those documents, a document which is supposed to be the original paper that tells us how the whole session is going to work.
Under the definition of privilege in Beauchesne's fifth edition citation 16 is stated:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.

May 17, 1991
Routine Proceedings
If we cannot even get a copy of the totality of the throne speech of this Parliament, how can we as parliamentarians do our job?
There has been neglect on the part of the government, at the very least.


An hon. member:: And negligence.


Don Boudria: Probably even worse. I want to know, why in this House, you and I and other members of this House were not given a copy of the document, which is an explanatory document to the throne speech, at the same time that it was given to every single member of the media in this country.
The opposition House leader just indicated the lack of co-operation we are getting from the government. It is even worse when we cannot even get a copy of the throne speech.
Madam Speaker, I hope you and your officials will examine this situation because it goes to the very root of how this Parliament can or cannot function by the way this government is operating.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I do not believe that the hon. member has a case of privilege. I looked at the throne speech. I did not see anything in it that indicated an addendum or an annex that was attached to it, so I do not know what the hon. member was protesting about. If in fact the press received background briefings or press briefings, that is a normal practice that many of us engage in, including the hon. member who from time to time gives the press materials.
It is clearly not a question of privilege. It is clearly a matter of debate. I am sorry that the hon. member has chosen to use his Opposition Day to do that.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, one of the principles on which Parliament operates is that Her Majesty the Queen is not to be injected into partisan debate. I regret very much that the deputy House leader for the government is taking this step. I hope that this will be noted in your ruling.
I want to draw your attention to a column which appeared in The Toronto Sun on May 15 written by Douglas Fisher. This column comments on the throne
speech. It speaks of the background paper which in the words of Mr. Fisher elaborates on the throne speech and which he calls "an accompanying paper".
Mr. Fisher goes on to quote the portion of the throne speech which says that the government will ask MPs to "consider new procedures for assessing legislation, for raising grievances on behalf of constituents and for questioning governments to further enhance the role of individual members and their greater independence". Then Mr. Fisher goes to say: "The background paper says much of the public debate about reform of Parliament is focused on free votes".
The background paper apparently also talks about the government's desire "to avoid what is visually and physically reinforcing the we and them phenomenon which largely dictates the outcome of votes."
This is not in the throne speech. This, according to Mr. Fisher, is in the background paper which, in the words of Mr. Fisher, elaborates on the throne speech. In other words, it gives information about the government's plans and intentions sketched out in the throne speech. Information which, if it pertains to the throne speech, should have been given to members no less than to the press.
It is clear from this column by Mr. Fisher, a longstanding commentator on Parliament and a former member of Parliament, that this background paper was more than just a press summary of the throne speech. It developed the government's ideas as set forth in the throne speech beyond the actual words of the throne speech. If that was the case, then the government had an obligation to present that background paper to Parliament in the same way, and frankly, at the very least, before it did so to the press.
Not having taken this step, if this is not a breach of the privileges of the House, certainly we have a valid point of order and I ask you to rule accordingly. By the way, I am sure that the assistant deputy House leader, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, would want to make clear that if you find a prima facie case of privilege, one of us in the Official Opposition will be more than happy to move the appropriate motion.


Albert Glen Cooper: I believe that the press person that my hon. friend refers to is probably Mr. Doug Fisher, who is a well-known watcher of Parliament. Someone whose reputation is highly regarded as an individual who knows a lot about this institution and the way that it functions. I think what the hon. member may want to do is sit down

with Mr. Fisher in terms of the definitions that he used of any documents that he may or may not have had.
I do want to say that if the hon. member had been interested in the kind of issues that this government was concerned about and wants to see the House act upon, then all he would have had to have done is either watched or read the speech of the government House leader delivered in this House on Wednesday. The House leader went into detail about the kind of parliamentary reform and the kind of changes that we feel are necessary to try to restore to this institution, and to members, the confidence that I think has been lacking in us as demonstrated by the people of Canada.
I think that is what needs to be done. They can talk to Mr. Fisher. They can read the House leader's speech and it will give a clear indication of the kind of direction, the kind of commitment that this government has made in the past to parliamentary reform, has made in the present and will continue to do so in the future.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I listened very carefully to the remarks made by the hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell and the hon. parliamentary secretary.
I think the debate that just ended is much more a political than a procedural debate. I do not believe it would be necessary for the government to present a document that was prepared for other purposes. For now, I do not consider there is a question of privilege. If, in the future, one were to submit others arguments to the Speaker, this decision could always be reviewed but for now, I do not consider there is a case of privilege.
We will continue with Routine Proceedings. Presentation of petitions; the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel.


PETITIONS
André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition signed by Montrealers of Lebanese origin who are asking the government of Canada to take step as
Routine Proceedings
soon as possible at the United Nations so that the Security Council of the United Nations reaffirms the independence and sovereignty of Lebanon and guarantees its territorial integrity. Also, that the Security Council intervenes in order to insure the complete removal from Lebanese territory of foreign forces that are presently on Lebanese soil.
I would like to say, Madam Speaker, that the government of Canada has a responsability in this issue.
Lebanon is a beautiful country which deserves to be protected, and the government of Canada should take its responsabilities within the Security Council of the United Nations.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present a petition signed by residents of Marcelin, Saskatchewan, who have recently been informed that Canada Post plans to close their community post office which is currently staffed by a postmaster who has done a fine job for the past three years that the post office has been under review.
The petitioners state that the Marcelin post office has been serving them well. They call on Parliament to support full service post offices like the one in Marcelin and to reject any proposal that would result in the closing of an existing post office.
I have another petition which is my duty and honour to present. This petition is signed by nearly 300 residents of the Saskatchewan community of Canwood, where Canada Post corporation has announced that the full service post office will close in early July.
The petitioners say their post office has served them well and they call on Parliament, first, to support the maintenance of rural postal services from existing full service post offices like the one in Canwood, and second, to reject any proposal that would result in the closing of this existing post office.
I hope the government will heed the wishes of my constituents.

May 17, 1991
Supply


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition that has been signed by Canadians right across this country. In this petition they are asking the government to make good on its promise, made in 1986 to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited grounds of discrimination in Canada.
The government has yet to introduce any type of legislative amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, despite it being over five years since they made that promise.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission has consistently called for an amendment to the act.
The petitioners also say that in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and in the Yukon, the provincial governments have made these provisions in their human rights legislation.
They call upon the government to ensure that it brings forward, immediately, an amendment to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited grounds of discrimination.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that all the questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all the questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchi (p. 233).
David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I do not wish to take away from the time of the minister unduly, but I believe there might be a disposition within the House that opposition members be given the opportunity to split their time as they see fit, 10 minutes and 10 minutes. I think that is in keeping with the traditions of this particular House and I am sure that members would want to concur.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate our full co-operation and concurrence and, in fact, it is consistent with the rule changes that we recently brought in.


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I would like to resume my speech in this important debate where it was interrupted at 11 o'clock this morning for the Business of the House.
So, Madam Speaker, as I was saying this morning, our government is aware of the truckers' situation. Let me repeat that we have already acted. Last year, we asked officials in my department to do a comprehensive study of the factors involved in cross-border competitiveness.
The study was divided into eight parts; the purposes of this study are to determine the nature and parameters of the Canadian share of the cross-border market, to evaluate the competitiveness of Canadian trucking companies in these markets and to analyze the impact of factors that can affect their ability to compete. The priority of all concerned is the comparative study of the Canadian and American tax systems. That is why we speeded up the process in that particular area.
The firm of Peat, Marwick, Thome has thus undertaken a thorough study of the tax systems in effect in both countries and their impact on the cross-border competitiveness of Canadian transportation. This study is to be printed this weekend, and I will then send it to task force members. Until then, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the contents of the study, since the task force has not yet made it public.

Believe me, if I could I would because I believe it will, once and for all, lay to rest much of the negative misinformation that is currently being circulated about Canadian taxes.
May 17, 1991

The study has been extremely helpful in clarifying the issues. It shows, for example, that broad generalizations cannot be made about taxes and the trucking industry. There is not one over-all factor that explains disadvantages and advantages. Taxes obviously are not the only matter of concern to truckers.

For the other expenses concerning trends in crossborder transportation, analyses of the economic conditions for Canadian carriers operating in cross-border markets, a comparison of their economic performance, the costs of Canadian and American truckers in the cross-border market and an evaluation of alternative standards for cabotage, a study will cover and summarize all the action taken.
This study must be completed for the task force to review it and draw conclusions and make recommendations next week. All concerned must be present at the discussion table to be able to review this very important aspect of the studies. I am sure that every member of the task force will participate in this review and in making recommendations.
I would like to add a few words about the methodology of these studies. I am convinced that the way they were conducted can only give great credibility to their findings. So that no group in particular be targeted by any part of the studies, the task force was comprised of two groups of truck owners, one of them representing seven associations represented, as well as the three unions representing the majority of the transport companies employees, the Canadian Trucking Association, the Truckers Council which represents hundreds of truck fleet operations and six national freight associations.

As the provinces play a very prominent role in the administration of trucking regulations, each province and territory has a place on the task force.
Finally, because many federal departments are touched by the issues on the table, six federal departments are represented. No point of view was overlooked, as 40 different organizations are represented. Not all members attended every task force meeting but a good cross-section of each industry and government was
Supply
present at each one. They were present and actively participated in the selection of consultants. They have criticized the draft reports and sent the consultants back to do again various parts or all of the study in order to meet their demands. They are expected to meet for the sixth time on June 4 to criticize the wrap-up study and formulate their recommendations for action.
I fully expect that there will be work for everyone coming out of these recommendations, for the federal and provincial governments and for the industry itself. No one will get off scot-free. The task force has worked as a team. Even though some of its members have not always seen eye to eye, they have, in the vast majority of cases, gone away from meetings with a feeling of positive accomplishment.
I only wish that other jurisdictions were as co-operative on other issues as they have been with regard to the studies.

It is ironic that, just a few weeks ago, the Premier of Ontario wrote the Ontario Truckers Association to tell them, and I quote: "Having worked closely with Ed Philip, the Ontario Minister of Transport, you are certainly aware that we are presently reviewing the short term tax measures affecting the trucking industry."
I bet the Ontario Trucking Association was surprised when it found out that the real intentions of the government had to do with tax measures concerning the trucking industry. Over the past few days, many figures were quoted concerning the number of bankruptcies in the trucking industry in accounts from truckers, from the media and from the members opposite.
While there is a proportional increase in the percentage of bankruptcies in this industry, it does not exceed what can be expected in such a cyclical industry as trucking.
I know that this is of little comfort to those affected, but the number of bankruptcies in the US trucking industry also reached a record high in 1990.
Some claim also that the American carriers are taking all the work away from Canadian companies. It may seem like that because the figures from Statistics Canada indicate that tonnage carried by trucks between Canada

May 17, 1991
Supply
and the United States dropped 7 per cent between 1988 and 1989, and declined an additional 3 per cent last year.
Before 1988, Madam Speaker, Canadians had an apparent advantage because of the deregulation of the trucking industry in the United States in 1980. It is a fact that since January 1, 1988, there are more U.S. carriers in Canada. This, combined with a drop in traffic as a result of the recession, accounts for the difference in market share, compared with what the situation was like before.
I would like to focus a few moments on the impact of the recession. We can give many reasons why the present recession hurts as much as it does. One is that we had previously enjoyed a period of unprecedented strong economic growth.
Entry controls in the trucking industry were relaxed in the early 80s, soon after U.S. deregulation. During the five years prior to January 1,1988,95 per cent of trucking licences were issued by provincial transport commissions.
Many new Canadian companies started operations during this period, and we have good reason to believe that many will survive to enjoy the next period of growth which all economists say will start in a matter of weeks. These companies are challenging old concepts and bringing innovative solutions to the industry. We need these companies to become competitive on new world markets.
Our truckers would never have acquired the requisite "lean and mean" approach if we had continued to hide them behind the protective walls of regulation. We have good reason to believe the economy will recover in the fall. Our truckers will be ready to respond to this economic renewal and to the higher wages the Free Trade Agreement will bring as a result.
Meanwhile, I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that I and my colleagues on this side of the House have listened to the genuine demands made by the hardworking and determined men and women in the trucking industry. We are actively trying to find ways to help them weather the present storm. We have asked all parties, including governments, labour, the trucking industry and the business community to co-operate with us. I am convinced, Madam Speaker, that in the course of the process that is now going on, which includes all parties involved in this area, we will find the kind of solutions
that will help these men and women who are truck owners and who represent a very substantial part of the vitality of Canada's trucking industry.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I listened to the minister attentively. I would like to ask him a couple of questions.
He referred to the fact that as minister he is not able to refer to some of the findings of the studies that have been commissioned by this government. I am wondering how he reconciles that comment with that of his predecessor who, in a letter to the Canadian Trucking Association, said quite clearly that he would not be prepared to wait until the final chapter is written on those studies, and that he would like to commence on some of the obvious findings rather than waiting.
It seems that the comments of today's minister are very much at odds with those of his predecessor.
Second, I am wondering if he could perhaps explain what he meant in today's Toronto Star where he is quoted as saying that there is "one major component" of the cost of doing business as a trucker in Canada that can make our drivers uncompetitive with American drivers. He has suggested that there is one trump card in a deck of options that he has focused on. I am wondering whether he can clarify for this House and for Canadians what that one major piece of the puzzle is.
Last, could he inform us or provide us with an update-again, I made reference to the fact that I thanked him for meeting with the delegation. He has been meeting for over a day. The meetings are still ongoing. Could he give us an update as to how the discussions are going. Are there any specific items on the table that he can tell us about and any commitments that have been made to show that there is indeed momentum and not just meetings? Thank you.


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, in reply to the first question, I think that what I said earlier contradicts in no way what my predecessor wrote in his letter because, aside from these studies, work that could be conducted in-house, within the Department, was indeed undertaken. As a matter of fact, we have been provided with partial findings of these internal projects to allow us to determine, once the studies are completed and the findings submitted to the
May 17, 1991

Department, whether we will be able to answer this or that question and, more importantly, discuss the facts.
As regards the status of the present round of discussions, I have no indication that they are over. So, I have to assume they are ongoing. The meeting started yesterday afternoon, at 5:30 p.m., and went late into the evening. Just the fact that they have agreed to continue the discussions this morning is certainly a very clear indication that they are relatively happy with how things are going. Otherwise, they would have left the table a long time ago.
However, I am not at liberty to disclose specific items to my hon. colleague from York West. It was agreed from the outset between the representatives of the independent truckers at the table and my senior officials that, as long as the discussions were not finalized, neither side would comment on the contents of the discussions. Of course, I intend to honour that commitment.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister about some remarks he made before the Question Period started in which he said that the Canadian Trucking Association refused to co-operate in drafting a code of ethics for truckers. My office has received a call from Mr. Ken MacLaren, the executive vice-president of the Canadian Trucking Association, in which he said: "The government is hiding behind studies. The trucking industry has not been consulted about the direction or the content of studies".
More seriously, Mr. MacLaren denies that the Canadian Trucking Association has refused to co-operate in drafting a code of ethics for truckers.
Now if I know Mr. MacLaren I am sure the minister will be getting a letter with smoke coming out of the envelope very shortly. I want to know if he can present to this House whatever evidence he has to refute Mr. MacLaren. He was most adamant in saying to my office only half an hour ago that at no time did the Canadian Trucking Association refuse to co-operate in drafting a
Supply
code of ethics, and that they were not consulted about the direction or content of studies.


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I will certainly not get into a debate here on what someone might or might not have said. The information I obtained from throughout my department indicates that what I said just now is accurate. I will recheck after this debate to ensure that my words indeed reflect the actual situation, but nothing leads me to believe the opposite for the time being.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I had asked a second question of the minister. I am wondering if he went on honestly to the last question. I appreciate that if an agreement was made with the truckers not to release detail it is something that the minister and the truckers will have to honour.
However, the minister did speculate out loud with some of the media yesterday. He was specific in saying that there is one major component that can make the truckers either competitive or non-competitive. I assume that it is uncompetitive and therefore some improvement is necessary to that one major component.
Perhaps the minister would share with us today, or the Minister of State for Transport later on during this debate, what that one major component is so that we in the opposition can address ourselves to it as well.


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I would really like to satisfy the wish and request of the hon. member opposite, but in discussions with the owner operators yesterday morning, we identified, an important component of their operating costs. After we did so, we mutually agreed to extend the talks last night. If I commented on this important component of operating costs, I would not keep my word because that is precisely one of the subjects of our discussion and the main subject of the discussions now going on.

May 17, 1991
Supply


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with the vice-president, who says that the government is hiding behind studies.
I would like to ask the minister what his department has been doing for the last three years. Presumably, before the department embarked on the deregulation of the industry, which was a precursor to the free trade agreement, there should have been some studies done.
In the same way as the Department of Finance kept most of those studies secret from the public, I believe that there were studies done in his department as to what the effect of deregulation would be and what the specific effect of the government's tax policies will be. If studies were not done then clearly the government moved in a manner which showed complete and utter disregard for the jobs of Canadians.
The minister said that he is waiting until the studies come in. His predecessor said he did not have to wait for the studies to come in. I would like to ask him specifically what action he is prepared to announce today in the House of Commons to give some hope to those truckers and their families who will remain here on the Hill. The tie-ups across the province of Ontario have had an effect on its already reeling economy. Is the minister going to continue to allow that to happen and is he going to continue to play political Ping-Pong with his friend Premier Rae of Ontario who, like the minister, is not prepared to hit this problem head on and provide some real solutions to the truckers?
[ Translation ]


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, when the hon. member for Hamilton East makes statements like the one she just made, she does not lead us all to practical solutions. As I said in this House several times, it is precisely to determine whether the perceptions and allegations of the Canadian tax system putting owner operators at a disadvantage are accurate or not. The government did not decide to conduct studies-I repeat it and I will go on repeating it forever-it was the various interested parties. The provincial governments, in spite of what our friends opposite
might say, have a tremondous responsibility in this issue because of the taxes they impose on diesel fuel.
It is therefore at the request of the interested parties that we created this task force made up of all interested groups and this task force decided to conduct studies to establish the facts.

I would like to tell my hon. colleague that in the end there are many people who are saying that deregulation has not been detrimental to the trucking industry, and that in fact is has had significant positive benefits to the whole trucking sector.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I want to first say to my colleague from York West that I am very pleased that he and his party moved this motion today, and I want to compliment him on his speech because it is about the same as I would have said. I probably could endorse 90 per cent of the remarks he made.
When we get into these kinds of crises, we all forget some essential things about transportation. Without a good, efficient, functioning transportation system, all modes that operate at a reasonable profit and the entire economy of the country grind to a halt. Transportation is the foundation of any economy of any country.
Successive governments have played fast and loose with transportation policy in the name of so-called free enterprise, competition, competitiveness and so forth. Today it is not just the trucking industry that is hurting and is in real trouble, but the railroads as well. There are essentially only two of those. Why? Because of the very thing that the minister just said, that deregulation helped them, when the opposite is the case.
I do not know if the minister was here when I sat on the standing committee when we dealt with the government white paper on deregulation for over two years. We held hearings all across the country. Repeatedly, we were promised by the government that something would be done about many things, including the differences in the tax laws between Canada and the United States.
When we were dealing with the legislation in 1987, which took effect in January 1988, we were promised that with deregulation something would be done about a number of matters and still all we are having are studies.
May 17, 1991

Supply
I keep hearing about the word "competitiveness". The word "competitiveness" has been in the government's vocabulary ad nauseam for a long time. "A level playing field", that is another one.
By the very laws, rules and regulations that the federal government and all 10 provinces are carrying out, they are hurting the competitive capacity of the trucking and railway industries in Canada. They are at a disadvantage with the United States operators. Last year in the province of Ontario alone, 675 trucking firms went bankrupt. That is as a direct result of deregulation.
Everybody wants into the act and all that happens is they take turns going broke. When they go broke because of laws and regulations, or lack of laws and regulations, by the federal government, it means the federal government itself is to blame for any lack of competitiveness in the trucking industry in the railroads.
Then there is this level playing field. If you walk out on a baseball diamond or on a football field, you will see that they are not level. They are sloped. They are higher in the middle than on the sides and the ends.
This level playing field that the government has devised under the free trade agreement and deregulation is sloped. It is sloped all down hill to the U.S.A. What the hell is the use of having a level playing field if according to our own laws, rules and regulations, or lack of, the other guy has the ball on our 10-yard line all the time? We have to start from behind. It does not matter whether it is the trucking industry, and it is not just peculiar to Ontario and Quebec. It is the case in every province across Canada.
American railroads can do things in Canada that Canadian railroads cannot do in the United States, depending on what state they are in. That part of the playing field has never been made level. That is part of deregulation and the free trade agreement.
The tax laws have been gone into, the depreciation schedules. I will not repeat what my friend from York West had to say, but let me remind the Chair that the submission to the federal minister's task force by the Canadian Trucking Association recommended that: "In the case of the depreciation rate issue, the Canadian Trucking Association urges the Government of Canada to take immediate actions to equalize the depreciation schedules for tractors and trailers in Canada with those in the United States. It is anticipated that by undertaking this action approximately 20 per cent of the current
competitive disadvantage experienced by the Canadian based motor carriers would be eliminated".
That should also apply to the Canadian railroads, which are victimized by the same kind of depreciation schedule for their rolling stock as our trucking industry is.
In the case of truck tractors, in the United States a tractor owner can write off one-third of it in the first year; in Canada it is 15 per cent. In the second year he can write off another 45 per cent of it; in Canada, 25 per cent. By the fourth year the American carrier can write off the remaining 7 per cent; in the thirteenth year the Canadian carrier can write off the last .5 per cent.
It is similar in the case of trailers: 20 per cent depreciation for a U.S. carrier in the first year, 15 per cent for Canadian; 32 per cent for an American carrier in the second year, 25 per cent for Canadian, and so on down through the piece.
I do not understand the stubbornness. This matter of depreciation schedules was also raised with the previous Liberal government and we got nowhere.
I have been through 14 ministers of transport since I came here in 1968. They should have a revolving door in the minister's office. Every damn one of them, Liberal or Tory, it did not make any difference, would not act.
There is another matter about fuel taxes. All the provinces have a fuel tax and the federal government has a fuel tax. In the United States, fuel taxes are earmarked; 97 per cent of its fuel taxes go into highway infrastructure of all kinds and 7 per cent into mass transit. In Canada, the federal government which collects something in the order of $600 million, puts 5 per cent, is for mainly the Trans-Canada Highway through national parks and nothing else. The government threw out the entire revolving fund for grade separations. Rail line relocation has disappeared.
If the federal government would at least use the fuel taxes it collects to finish four-laning the Trans-Canada Highway, northern Ontario alone would be a $2 billion to $3 billion tab. In the western provinces we are looking at another $1 billion. When we drive through northern Ontario heading west, any resemblance between that and the Trans-Canada Highway is laughable. They could at least spend the fuel taxes on transportation but, no, it

May 17, 1991
Supply
goes into general revenue and the government can do whatever it likes with it.
The finance department does not like dedicated taxes. There are some that should be dedicated or earmarked and the fuel tax is one of them. It is a user fee and you use those taxes for the infrastructure-roads, bridges, highways, and grade separations or whatever-as the Americans do. I am not all that complimentary about very much in the United States, but that is one thing it uses some good sense on. We cannot get it here. Since you are not going to use those fuel taxes for transportation then why not reduce them? Otherwise you are collecting taxes under false pretences. It is a transportation user tax and it is not being used on transportation.
There is another matter that I have raised in this House repeatedly since the mid-1970s, in the days of the late unlamented Otto Lang, figuratively speaking.


An hon. member:: He was Liberal, was he not?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Oh, yes. What is the difference?


An hon. member:: Or even the good party.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes. They are the good guys now, you see. If they had done all the things they said today back when they were in power, there would not be a Tory government in place. But that is all right.
The whole matter of interprovincial and international trucking or any kind of interprovincial-intemational transportation, under our Constitution, comes under federal jurisdiction. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the federal government of that day transferred the administration and the responsibility for that over to the provinces. Ever since then we have had a jungle. We have had 13 jurisdictions: 2 territories, 10 provinces and the federal government, running in 13 directions. It does not matter whether it is load limits, speed limits, size of trucks or safety standards, the jungle is still there. That is something else that we were repeatedly promised. In the two years we spent on the white paper on deregulation and in the almost one year we spent on the bill itself, we were repeatedly told by the government and the then Ministers of Transport that meetings were going on.
I think it was three different Tory Ministers of Transport who came before the transport committee with their annual estimates and a statement and assured us, time after time, of how they were negotiating with the provinces to arrive at a standard that applies across the country.
We have still got some more studies. After all these years, where is this standard? The federal government, through an Order in Council or whatever it takes, has the constitutional jurisdiction to say to the provinces: "We are setting the standards. If you will not agree among yourselves, if you will not negotiate the common standards across the country, then we will do it for you because we have the constitutional authority".
I am sick and tired of various provincial governments in their parochial little centres, and that is of all parties, that do not consider the whole country. We are the ones who have to consider the whole country. If we do not, who the hell is going to? I am tired of these baronial premiers who worry only about their own little bailiwick and not about their fellow Canadians.
There is another area. My colleague from York West mentioned that as well. I liked pretty well all of his nine points. In general, I can support them and I am sure my colleagues will.
I had discussions with Canadian Trucking Association representatives a year ago in which they told me that five or six medium and large Canadian trucking companies had just picked up their head offices and their operations and moved across the border. It is still going on and it is going to get worse. We will end up without a Canadian trucking industry worthy of the name.
The problem is deregulation. If you can find a bank manager to lend you the money, lease a second-hand tractor and, if necessary, a second-hand trailer, you can automatically get a licence and go into business the next day.
The established trucker who has his own mechanics, maintenance and everything else and has put 20, 30 or 40 years into his business has to compete with that. That is one of the results of deregulation. It threw the industry
May 17, 1991

into a jungle. It is survival of the fittest. That applies to Mother Nature, but deregulation is not our mother and it is not natural, nor is it fit.
In a society supposedly trying to keep this country together from east to west and from the 49th parallel to the Arctic, all the government does is to continue to divide us. All it does is allow this kind of squabbling to go on without having the courage to take some decisive actions.
Tommy Douglas taught me that I would rather lose for doing something than win for doing nothing. When the devil are you going to take action to re-regulate.
I am glad to note that Ontario has placed a two year moratorium on new licences in the trucking industry. I hope all the provinces do that. It is overdue. We need more trucking companies like we need a hole in the head.
I want to say to the hon. member for York West that we appreciate the motion he moved. In general, we liked the contents of his speech and I hope the government will decide as a result of today's debate that there are some actions they can and should take.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague who just spoke probably stopped his watch 90 years ago. He is talking to us about the socialist rhetoric that has failed most of the countries in the world that have implemented it. The only countries in the world that are successfully governed by socialists are succeeding because they have returned to the free market and the laws of the free market.
The hon. member said that deregulation has caused all these problems. He asked a question, but I have still not decided in my mind what competitiveness means.
I would like to say to the hon. member that competitiveness-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not remember that.


Jean Corbeil: Maybe he does not remember from one minute to the next what he said. That is precisely what he said.
Supply
The capacity to compete with others is very closely tied to deregulation. Regulation prevents players in any given field from having the flexibility necessary to meet the competition from other countries.
I would like to show hon. member through a little bit of arithmetic. He talked about the federal excise tax which, as I said this morning and I will repeat it again, is 4 cents a litre. The federal excise tax in the U.S. is 6.2 cents. The federal excise tax on fuel in the U.S. is almost 60 per cent higher than in Canada, per litre. In the U.S., it is 6.2 cents and ours is 4 cents.
The hon. member also wants to ignore the fact that the provincial sales tax on fuel is the crippling aspect of the situation. The fuel tax in Michigan, with which most Ontario truckers compete, is 4.6 cents per litre.
By the end of this year, when the announced increases are implemented by his friend from the branch in Toronto, it will be 14.3 cents. He complains about the federal excise tax and the taxing system which is 60 per cent or at least 40 per cent less in Canada than in the U.S.
At the same time he does not see much wrong with the fact that the government with which he is friends is imposing a provincial fuel tax that is 300 per cent of the one that is implemented by the corresponding U.S. state.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad we got another 10-minute speech out of the minister.
I was complaining about all the sales and excise taxes but at least the provinces, all of them, spend as much as they collect from fuel taxes, or more, on highways, roads, streets, sidewalks and mass transit. They do not specifically earmark it, but that is where the money is spent.
The federal government's contribution to the transportation infrastructure in this country is abysmal. If the government is not going to use the tax it is collecting for transportation then it should get rid of it.
My point was that despite all this talk from the government and in the throne speech about competitiveness it cannot happen because the laws we have, whether they are deregulation or provincial and federal taxes, prohibit Canadian trucking and railway industries from really competing.

Supply
Unless those laws are changed, the deck is stacked against them. The government has allowed the other side, the Americans, to have the ball on our 10-yard line all the time in a so-called level playing field. That is not fair ball.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by commending my hon. friend on his very fine, articulate, and at times very passionate speech in defence of some national responsibilities that ought to be discharged somewhat more forcefully.
The minister compared fuel taxes between the United States and Canada. It says in my statistics-perhaps we can take another look at it-that the American federal tax is 4.6 cents a litre whereas ours is 4.0 cents a litre.
Theirs is in fact slightly higher. However, what the minister failed to mention is that the base price for diesel fuel in the United States is 18.6 cents a litre compared to 37.9 cents a litre in Canada.
Therefore, while the two excise taxes charged by the two national governments are almost the same, the big differential is in the spread between the base prices. That is why I believe we on this side have been making an argument that we need to obviously be very concerned with both the federal and provincial excise taxes simply because the base prices are veiy, very different.
I am wondering if the hon. member can perhaps make a comment on that debate and, second, if he would be able to offer his analysis and his party's views on the fact that the government seems so intent on issuing study after study after the advent of deregulation, when in fact those studies ought to have properly been done before the deregulation door was swung open. I am wondering what his rationale would be for a government which studies the down effects after a policy has been undertaken, as opposed to having it done in the reverse order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. gentleman is quite correct about his analysis and the statistics he has. I might add that slightly less than 40 cents per litre, depending on the volume purchased, is the diesel fuel cost in Ontario. The cost of diesel fuel on the more concentrated U.S. trucking routes is 26 cents.
I heard on CBC Radio news this morning of 33 cents cost in upper New York State compared to 53 cents in Canada, and 56 cents on gasoline.
That kind of handicap destroys any possibility for competitiveness. Surely that requires both the federal and provincial governments acting in concert, and not more studies. We have had studies up to our ears.
I remember the two years we spent on the white paper, and we heard witnesses from Halifax to Victoria. Then-big corporations wanted deregulation, but we did not hear that very much from the transportation industry.
I want to say that the whole ideological binge that the government is on has got to stop. Their policies have proven to be harmful, are hurting this country, hurting its sovereignty, hurting its independence, and hurting a hell of a lot of people in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
The hon. minister of Labour has something more to say?


M. Corbeil:: Mr. Speaker, during a previous intervention, the previous speaker-

The speaker mentioned previously that something I had said in my speech was incorrect because he had an indication from an outside source that this was not the case.
I am informed that there have been three meetings of the federal-provincial working group on this matter. This was chaired by Manitoba. The Canadian Trucking Association refused to attend. The owners and operators coalition has also tried and the same organization has refused.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Very well. Back to the debate. The hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, you probably noticed, like I did, that this was not a point of order.
May 17, 1991

I am glad to be able to take part in this debate today, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for York West, for presenting this motion to the House.

Canada's trucking industry is a $12 billion business. It employs directly and indirectly almost half a million Canadians. It is indeed big business and it is a business that we should all strive to help, to assist and hope to conserve, both for the near and distant future.
A little more than a year ago the government was made aware of the difficulties of this industry, if it did not know even before then through the blockages that occurred at a number of border points.

At that time, Mr. Speaker, the government was already aware of the problems. In fact, in 1988, the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel and I made speeches in the House against the deregulation bill, the bill tabled by the government opposite to deregulate the transportation industry.
We said at the time that the rules were not the same on both sides of the border and that deregulation would immediately give U.S. truckers an advantage. Perhaps the minister would care to check Hansard to see what opposition members said. Unfortunately, all of this proved to be true. I say unfortunately, because a lot of my constituents are hurting now.

On April 26 of this year a number of my colleagues and I were holding task force hearings on the deindustrialization of our country. In Alexandria, Ontario, we met with a number of truckers who came to tell us the state the trucking industry was in.
Three days later, on April 29,1 sent an open letter to the Minister of Transport and had it hand delivered to his office here on Parliament Hill. To this date the letter remains unanswered, not even an acknowledgement has yet been received by my office. In that letter I outlined for the minister the problems that were related to us by Mrs. Janet Keusch who was here a few days ago and met with the minister.
Supply
They told us very clearly the troubles the industry was in. They told us that not only was Glengarry Transport, GTL, having big problems but so were they, the small truckers, the truckers, the brokers, and the independent operators of the difficulties.
They told us about the depreciation rules that they felt were unfair. They told us about the fuel that was considerably more expensive in Canada-I am reading from the letter that I sent to the minister-insurances which are very high, the unreasonably high deductibles that they have to deal with on insurance, and of course they told us about the border problems where U.S. truckers come here with little or no verification as to the safety of their vehicles.
Most of all they talked to us about the GST which stands for, they say, "government squashes truckers''. The GST, the minister tells us, is reimbursed to the truckers for their fuel and input costs. When? I have yet to find a trucker who has received a GST cheque. Today is May 17. The GST has been in effect since January 1.

Since January 1, the truckers in my riding and across Canada lend this government money every time they pay the GST. They file for their refund but they never get the money, Mr. Speaker. To justify its position, the government says: They will get interest on their refund. Mr. Speaker, when his company is bankrupt, receiving $3 or $10 in interest is no help to a trucker who just lost his business, his home and all his assets. That is something the government should understand.

Now the government tells us it has seven studies which were started a year ago. Why does it take this long to have studies done? Why can we not get at least interim relief for the truckers? And why has that not been contemplated before now? This is a little hard to understand.
The Minister of Transport will know of the letter sent by his predecessor, the member for Simcoe North, in which he said earlier this year that he would not wait for the outcome of the studies. I quote from the letter of January 11,1991, which was sent to Mr. A. K. Maclaren.
It says:

May 17, 1991
Supply
I have no intention, however, of waiting until all the studies are
complete, to take any action which becomes evidently necessary-
The highways are blocked with truckers. Is it not evidently necessary that something has to be done? Glengarry Transport, Canada's fourth largest trucking company, has gone bankrupt and 1,800 people have lost their jobs. Is it not evidently necessary that something has to be done?
According to a May 9 story in The Financial Post Kingsway Transport is for sale, Federal Industries wants to get rid of it because they are not making any money with the company. Is it not evidently necessary that something has to be done?
The letter of April 29 that I sent to the minister remains unanswered. Three times I tried on behalf of my constituents to get a meeting with the minister, for Glengarry Transport. Once I managed to get a call back from one of his assistants. The meeting was never held between that minister and Glengarry Transport.
The closest I managed to get to the minister was in the lobby with three women, one of whom was from my riding. The minister, in his condescending way, refused to let me be there with my constituents. To make it worse, he did not want to appear outside the House of Commons within the same television screen in case there were cameras there with the MP representing the people in question. That is the kind of work that was done by that minister across the way, and I point the finger at him.
In the moment or two that I have left, I must say, though, at the very least his seat mate, the Associate Minister of Transport, did agree to meet with the people of GTL. She did try. I know it was at the last minute. We were only 24 hours away from the bankruptcy, but when I failed to get a meeting with the senior Minister of Transport, at least I managed to get one with the Minister of State for Transport, who at least was willing to hear the concerns of my constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Transport-I realize he may be a little newer at this game than some of us-that it is high time he helped the industry and my constituents, 1,800 people in Canada in the case of Glengarry, and the 656 other companies that went
bankrupt last year and all other Canadians who lost their jobs.
In a letter dated January 11, the minister's predecessor told us he would not wait for the results of the studies. If that is still the government's policy, I would like to know now whether the government intends at least to take certain measures to help trucking companies, before it announces further measures later on.

Finally, to the people sitting at our left, they should remember the last increase in the price of diesel fuel by the the Government of Ontario. While both the federal government and the Government of Ontario are arguing with each other, trying to figure out which of the two is the worst culprit, my constituents are going bankrupt. The people of my riding do not have jobs. People elsewhere in Canada in the trucking industry need help.

So I want to ask the minister today, in this very last minute, this last hour which may be crucial for many truckers, to help them by at least announcing a number of measures.
I know he had several meetings with the truckers during the past few days, and I hope we will get at least a few measures that will give hope to the people who are about to lose everything, everything-excuse the repetition-as a result of this government's deregulation policy which was introduced in 1988.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Five-minute period for questions and comments.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue on the same theme as my colleague, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I would also like to let him know my concerns and that I too understand the truckers, as I just said to his colleague from York West.
These people have problems, Mr. Speaker. They did long before the GST, long befere deregulation, maybe even before some of my colleagues came to this place, except for the hon. member who just spoke. He has been here for at least 25 years. As I was saying, these people do have problems, not only fuel and tax problems, but
May 17, 1991

also major problems with insurance, licences, buying trucks and repairs.
I can remember garage owners I was dealing with telling me 15 years ago: "Truckers are all fine people. They are having a rough time, but we cannot fix their trucks if they cannot pay the bill." I can tell you that, 15 years ago, many of my colleagues had never heard of the GST stood for. I can see that the opposition always comes up with the same suggestion: "Tike a step forward, a step backward, a step forward. Remove the GST; that will solve the problem."
Even if we removed all taxes-GST and federal tax-tomorrow morning, these guys would not go a block that they would face the same problem. They would come back and say: "Mister Minister, we are still experiencing problems." The minister mentioned that the report is about to be released. I hope so. The truckers are not looking for a quick fix or a two bit solution. They want a long term solution to their problem. Were licences issued? I remember the provinces used to make the decisions and issue licences. I went to get one myself at the Quebec Transport Commission. So, they made the decisions. Unfortunately, they made the wrong decisions at some point because there were too many requests. We cannot prevent people from earning a living, but regulations may be needed in certain circumstances.
The "forward, backward" solution the Liberals are suggesting is not to remove the GST, for the truckers do not pay GST or, if they do, they can get a refund.


An hon. member:: They never got it!


Vincent Della Noce: They never got it. Did they ask for a it? My colleague mentioned that GTL Transport just went bankrupt. I would like to point out to him that there was no GST in 1990. What would the ideal solution be in his view? Would it be to remove the GST or to keep the truckers safely protected by regulation?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russel has the floor for two minutes.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, first the hon. member opposite just told us that the industry had problems before 1988. First, in the case of Glengarry Transport, that is not true. The company was founded in 1948. For 40 consecutive years,
Supply
GTL made profits, from 1948 to 1988. In 1988, the company started to incur losses and this has continued until 1991. That means, since deregulation. I want to tell the hon. member opposite, Mr. Speaker, that at last report, GTL was losing a million dollars a month. This is a company that made profits until 1988 and that had always been profitable.
The hon. member opposite asks us what we Liberals propose to do. I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to read once more the proposals of my colleague, the hon. member for York West-

The hon. member for York West proposed earlier today-I will repeat it for the benefit of my colleague across the way-quicker write-off provisions, federal excise tax relief on diesel fuel, more fairness for the GST on billing.
He wants to have a better system for the GST rebate on fuel, deduction of licence expenses, meetings of federal and provincial transport ministers to solve longterm problems and federal-provincial trade-off issues, stricter enforcement and higher penalties for American firms engaging in cabotage and a temporary moratorium on new interprovincial licences.
I thank my colleague for asking those questions again. They were all answered about an hour ago, but it gives us another chance to put them on the record.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak on a very important industry to the province of Ontario and to Canada.
As the truckers outside this Parliament park their rigs, they wait for action from this government.
If I may, on behalf of the truckers, Dale Hellier, Diane Bell, Dave Wallace and many more offer their thanks to the OPP, the RCMP and the security officers for the courtesy that has been shown to them while they have been here in Ottawa on the Hill. It has been greatly appreciated.
Driving a truck is more than a job, it is a way of life and the current federal government is destroying that dream for many. I have been a truck driver travelling all over the prairies. I know the intense feeling of independence,

May 17, 1991
Supply
of getting the job done on time and with a great deal of pride.
I drove auto transport to Saskatchewan, through small towns in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Manitoba. I also drove in the sugar beet industry and drove the grain runs in southwestern Ontario for many years.
The trucking industry is crucially important to Ontario. It is the lifeblood of every community, especially in the smaller and rural areas. Virtually every person in the province, whether they realize it or not, depends on trucks to keep the products we all use and consume every day moving and available.
Trucks move every product and commodity: consumer goods like appliances and furniture; bulk commodities like grain and fertilizer; delicate products such as fresh fruit, meat and vegetables; major products such as cars, steel, livestock and heavy machinery; and the most intricate products such as scientific instruments and computers. They serve every Ontario community accessible by road, and every day, in some way, they contribute to the lives of every person in Ontario and Canada.
Think of the human factor. Hospitals, food and grocery stores, drug stores and gas stations cannot operate without direct transportation. Indeed, in Ontario, truck transportation accounts for nearly 70 per cent of the total freight shipped. Trucks generate more gross income than all other modes of transportation combined, estimated to be $24 billion just five years ago.
The industry employs over 250,000 people in Ontario; they are drivers, mechanics, computer specialists, marketing experts, terminal workers, accountants and administrators. In fact, the trucking industry employs fully five per cent of the provincial labour force. As well, the Ontario trucking industry, responsible for nearly half of all the trucking activity in Canada, spends over $5 billion in operating expenses.
In addition, it is worthy to note that every sector of the economy relies to some degree on trucking services. As a result, trucking activities have higher than average multipliers or spin-off effects in Ontario. So if the federal government, at this time, would let them have a rebate
they would receive the money back many times over with men being employed and able to operate.
A recent study by Coopers and Lybrand said that a one dollar increase in trucking activity generates more than two dollars worth of goods and services in other sectors. So the money the government does not receive today by allowing them a few breaks will come back manyfold. When the trucking industry is hurting we are all hurting.
Trucking firms paid the federal government more than $70 million in federal corporate income tax. Ontario motor carriers paid over $170 million in federal excise taxes on the diesel fuel they consumed. The little bit of taxes on the fuel saved now could keep these people working and more money in circulation. Of course, none of that money will help to rebuild the road and highway system, so important to truckers and an efficient economy.
I hope that sets in everyone's mind just how important a profitable trucking industry is to Canada and especially Ontario.
I met with many truckers outside on Wednesday. I speak their language. There were no bureaucrats or cabinet ministers or studies or task forces or committees or politics. We spoke straight up with no bull. These people are hurting. Their pride is being devastated. One of the drivers from Windsor, a 21 year veteran, said he could not help but break down and ciy. His frustration was very evident; he has lost his truck, his home and his family.
These truckers, the independent and free spirits of the open road, are having their dreams shattered by deregulation and the big American firms. All they want is a level playing field. Then watch us compete.
A trucker from Ridgetown in my riding was laid off just last month by Central Transport, a division of McKinlay. Two years ago there were 240 drivers; today there are just 67 left, as the routes are being gobbled up by the Americans, with little or no reaction from the federal government. That is just one example of many, many hundreds in my own riding who have lost their trucks and their jobs.
It has been brought to my attention that the American trucks are engaging in cabotage, something that is
May 17, 1991

supposedly illegal. Americans are dropping off loads from General Motors in Oshawa, and then taking another load from there to London or Hamilton. They are only supposed to be allowed one drop, one hook.
I would like to know from the government how many American trucks have been inspected and verified at weigh scales to prevent cabotage. Truckers tell me that because of government cutbacks the number of inspectors has been reduced. Since deregulation, how many additional inspectors have been hired by Transport Canada to enforce our rules? How many charges have been laid?
The truckers' concerns are well know, and my colleague from York West has outlined them extremely well. It was nearly one year ago that truckers were forced to block border points to get the attention of this government. The issues are still the same. But the only response over a year has been the creation of studies. Meanwhile, small and independent truckers are going under every day, losing their trucks, their homes, their families and their dignity.
Because deregulation has relaxed or eliminated government regulation of routes and tariffs, it has opened the door for more competitors, bringing predatory rates.
Because Canadians pay higher taxes and fuel costs, deregulation has left them vulnerable to low-cost Americans. Since 1986, the Ontario trucking industry has lost over 6,000 jobs to the U.S. through no fault of our truckers. It costs about 20 per cent more to send a shipment in a Canadian truck than an American one. With deregulation our firms are left wide open for bankruptcy. Depreciation rates for Canadian trucks are based on 13 years instead of four as in the United States. There is no level playing field on the trans-border issue.
The former Minister of Transport met truckers last year at the Windsor border crossing. He listened. He even sent out a news release that said he will act on the grievances of Canadian truckers. But this is government by task force, action through shuffling paper and bureaucrats and no results. So we have truckers and their families parked outside Parliament Hill and blocking major highways in Ontario.
Why does it take that sort of protest to get the attention of this government? Why does this government not listen? We have native blockades at Oka, people protesting CBC cutbacks, slashes to VIA Rail, army base
Supply
closures. The list goes on. This government, I am afraid, is destroying people's way of life through their policies, a plan to tear Canada apart.
The Ontario trucking industry must be saved from oblivion. Since 1988, the year of deregulation, no trucking firm has been in the black. I do not follow the government's logic, that to be competitive with the Americans, we tilt the playing field in their favour and throw our truckers to the wolves. We just make it impossible for people to compete.
It must also be mentioned that the Ontario socialist government has a role to play here. The NDP's recent budget was practically the straw that broke the camel's back.
A huge increase in the diesel fuel tax, $15 more tax for every fill-up; $4,000 more every year just in taxes. That is the socialist solution to our trucking woes, while the Tories in this House seem to ignore the real problems and set up task forces that are covered with a years' worth of dust.
Trucking is essential to Ontario and to Canada, especially as we try to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Trucking is used for 70 per cent of Ontario's exports to the U.S. and 75 per cent of our imports. Trucking is the lifeblood of our economy. It must be saved.
In closing, I cannot stress too strongly to this government that they are ignoring the people who are losing their jobs, their trucks, their homes, their families and their livelihood. My riding has been devastated.
Many thousands of truckers, including the hundreds here in Ottawa are just trying to make a living, but the government is tying their hands behind their backs. The recession is hitting hard. Give us a level playing field.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Kent for his comments on the nine suggestions proposed by the member for York West. The member for Kent obviously approves of them.
The indication was that the Leader of the Official Opposition also approved of them. As we have heard that this is not a problem that has occurred overnight, that it has been accumulating for over two or three years, I am wondering if the hon. member could tell me what

May 17, 1991
Supply
the cost of these particular suggestions that his party is making is.
Obviously the suggestions did not just come off the top of his head. I am sure his party has carefully analysed the particular cost of this program. Perhaps if the number is not at his fingertips some of his members could help him. Clearly this policy has been supported by the leader of his party. Could he give me some idea of the cost of these suggestions and whether the constituents in his riding of Kent support the use of taxpayers' money for these programs?


Rex Crawford: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. Certainly there will be a cost. The cost will be minimal relative to the returns created by people working. It is just the same as putting a man on welfare when he should be working. The return to the government would be much more with him working. The cost of what the truckers pay to run, for repairs, tires, and fuel and the people who are involved with them, whether truck-stop waitresses, mechanics, everyone that is supported by the truckers through their financial payments to them, all of this will come back to the government. The very little that we would be spending initially would be paid back many thousand times over.
I am happy to see we have the ex-minister of finance with us. If he could give me the figure on how much the GST is going to bring in, maybe I could elaborate further on how much money these suggestions would cost. I cannot give a figure right now. As the hon. member for York West mentioned, it is still in the study phase.
If the hon. trade minister could just give me the figures on the GST then maybe we could come up with a figure.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, we have taken a look at the cost. For instance, through the excise tax on diesel fuel, both in trucking and in aviation, this government raised approximately $300 million. That includes on aviation, so revenues from trucking are considerably less.
If we take a fraction of that $300 million, the revenue lost to the Treasury is very much a cost worth paying for an industry that directly employs 600,000 people across the country, a multi-billion dollar industry that is going down the drain. The cost of unemployment insurance,
the cost of welfare to those unemployed people, the cost of losing that infrastructure, the cost of losing 600,000 jobs, the cost of losing multiplier-effect jobs would be a heavier toll for this government to pay.
The government can either pay a cost now worth paying or face a much bigger cost later, after it has lost the industry. Perhaps the hon. member for Kent can make some comments based on this.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry, but the time allowed for questions and comments has now expired. We shall hear from the Minister for International Trade.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate.
I want to pick up on a point that was a topic in Question Period earlier today. Two members were commenting on the cynicism with which Canadians are viewing their members of Parliament these days.
One of the reasons for that is there is too loose a use of so-called truth and a lot of use of myths. We can recall what the member for Etobicoke North said about the free trade agreement.
He said, back in 1988 or 1989: "Every sparrow that falls we are going to blame on the free trade agreement". This is just one of those examples. In the motion that was put today the Liberals have found another sparrow that they are going to blame on the free trade agreement.
I want to substantiate what I say, not with a few generalizations but with facts.
No one in this House is happy when they hear the stories of the truckers. My colleague, the Minister of Transport, has met with the truckers and their wives. They have spent a good amount of time talking about the difficulties that they are facing. We acknowledge and recognize those difficulties.
Let us find out, as members of Parliament, what is causing these difficulties. Let us go to the source of these difficulties and not base our statements on a number of myths.
May 17, 1991

My purpose today is to talk about the free trade agreement and its impact on the truckers. I cannot let the occasion go by without recalling for the House a decision that we took in the design of the goods and services tax on how we would treat the question of tax on gasoline.
We had a tax under the old tax system of 19 per cent. It was going to drop to 7 per cent under the new tax, but we felt that if we just dropped it to 7 per cent the provinces would take the revenue from the consumer. It would have probably been the easiest $500 million the provinces ever took.
We took a decision that we would keep the price to the consumer the same. We had two ways of doing that. One was to increase the excise tax. The other was to apply the GST on the provincial taxes, broaden the tax base and get more moneys out of the goods and services tax.
We took the second approach. The principal reason we took the second approach was that the tax paid under the goods and services tax could be recovered by people in the transportation industry so they would not have to pay that tax. If we had gained those revenues through the excise tax, we would not have been able to provide the truckers with the credit.
However, because we did it through the goods and services tax, they got the credit. I have heard, from the member for Hamilton East and from other members directly in front of me, that the GST is the the cause of the truckers' problems when the truckers are beneficiaries under the goods and services tax in two ways.
First, as I have just described, the truckers get a full credit on the GST paid in the cost of their fuel. They get it 21 days after they present their application or they get interest paid by the government.
The second reason that the truckers benefit from the GST is because under the old tax there was a hidden tax in the cost of a truck and in the cost of a trailer. All of that is recoverable under the GST so that their costs are being reduced.


Rex Crawford: They don't buy that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My friend from Chatham over here says that he does not buy that.
If he did not deal in myths, mistruths, or misinterpretation and distortion of the facts, then he would understand it. This is essentially the point that I want to make to my colleagues here in the House today so that we can
Supply
deal in the facts and not in distortions of the truth like we are hearing in the House today.
Madam Speaker, my role today is to talk about the free trade agreement. I have two principal points and then some examples to make.
My first point is that transportation, at the request of the Americans, was not a part of the free trade agreement. Therefore, there is nothing in the free trade agreement that applies to the trucking industry. I look at this motion today, which blames the problem on the free trade agreement. Now I hear the critic for transport for the Liberal Party saying that the problem started before that. He is saying it again, Mr. Speaker. The problem was before the free trade agreement came into effect. Then why did he make reference to the free trade agreement in the motion today? For what other reason?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I know it is raining outside, but there does not have to be a storm in here.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. That is my first point, that there is nothing in the free trade agreement that affects the trucking industry in a direct sense in either a positive or negative way.
The point I do want to make is that the volume of trade since 1988 has increased by about 12 per cent. That means business, because that trade has to move on various forms of transportation, including trucking.
Exports are up 12 per cent since 1988. Imports are up
11.6	per cent and the balance of trade is up from $14 billion surplus to a $17 billion surplus. So the basis for the business of the truckers has increased since the free trade agreement came in.
I hear again the member opposite saying that the free trade agreement had nothing to do with it. Then why is the reference in the motion that the free trade agreement is the cause of the problems of the truckers outside here? That is the sort of thing that breeds cynicism in the minds of Canadians today.
I also want to look a bit into the future and relate my comments to what some people are saying about the impact of the free trade agreement on their businesses, because we are hearing a broad range of stories from members opposite about lay-offs and plant closings that

May 17, 1991
Supply
they blame on the free trade agreement-more sparrows that fall that are blamed on the free trade agreement.
I want to talk about some people who are saying good things about the free trade agreement. I want to mention a company, Trimac of Calgary. Trimac is one of the largest trucking and service companies in Canada. They expected to see a greater amount of north-south traffic as a result of the free trade agreement, and Bud McCaig has said:
We anticipated that free trade would impact favourably on the bulk chemical transportation sector. Since we are the largest bulk carrier in Canada and well positioned on both sides of the border, we expected that it would impact positively on us as well. While it is difficult to quantify statistically right now, my feeling is that crossborder trade volumes are up, and that free trade has been positive.
Weyerhauser Canada's investments over the last two years at their plants in Prince Albert and Saskatoon have resulted in increased production destined for U.S. markets. The investments have also resulted in an increase in the firm's shipping volume. I want to quote here from Bill Gainer, vice-president of Weyerhauser. He says:
We are part of a competitive North American and world market. We have enhanced our competitiveness and we will be investing more.
Jay Lilje, president of Allied Van Lines, says his company's 1989 purchase, in a bid to capture opportunities offered by free trade of the Canadian operations of U.S. based Mayflower Transit Inc. have:
-strengthened Allied Van Line's transborder operations, which we see growing with free trade, and liberalization of cross-border movements.
He indicates that the company is quite pleased with the results of the acquisition, particularly in the context of the free trade agreement.
Construction is well advanced on Freightliner of Canada's new truck manufacturing facility in St. Thomas. Why would they be making trucks, Madam Speaker? Because people are buying trucks. According to company president John Mosier, the decision to build the St. Thomas factory, which will employ 1,100 people when completed, was taken as a direct result of the free trade agreement.
The point that I want to make here is that if we as members of Parliament are going to remove this element of cynicism which is poisoning the atmosphere in the economy and in society today, we have to deal with facts. I have demonstrated here how the free trade agreement has been a benefit for the Canadian economy, has been a benefit for the Canadian truckers.
There are problems. We acknowledge that, but let us get the facts right, let us get the facts on the table and make the decision based on the facts, not on the myths and distortions.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: I have a very simple question to ask the hon. minister. Having cited the great benefits that have come to ordinary truckers in Canada, I wonder whether he would be willing, with me, to put on his raincoat and rain hat and walk out on to the steps in front of these buildings and talk to those people and tell them and their wives and their children how much free trade and deregulation has benefited them. Will you join me? I will meet you out there in five minutes.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, this was an incredible feat. They go to their club house and they pull out the heavy hitters-just like they did in the 1988 campaign-and they were supposed to give us the truth and the facts. Here is a minister who strolls in and who rarely visits his riding and talks to average Canadians in Etobicoke Centre, and he has the audacity not only in the throne speech to say that the free trade deal has been the security blanket for the economy, but comes in here and suggests that somehow the free trade agreement has helped the truckers.
If the minister had cared to tune in this morning and early afternoon, he would have heard that the trucking industry was given away, was sacrificed before the free trade rounds. And what we had suggested, Mr. Minister, was that you would have had the duty and the responsibility if you had any concern during the free trade rounds to have equalized the two fields, to have obtained for our tuckers an adjustment program, just like your Prime Minister said during the 1988 campaign, just like you
May 17, 1991

said, sir, from the Atlantic to the Pacific .You said: "We will bring in the greatest adjustment programs in the western world".
I ask the minister, through the Chair, where are those programs that were promised in 1988? Where are those programs that the Prime Minister promised? Why does he not give us the truth and the facts rather than spinning out these false dreams that he has been spinning out for six years?
Another thing we said about the GST, again if the minister would have cared, is first, we urged the Minister of Transport to increase the time of those rebates. Does the minister know that since January 1 no trucking firm has received its GST rebates and, therefore, its cash flow hurts. The second thing we asked the Minister of Transport was to give the trucking companies extra time with which to remit their GST obtained from the shippers, because the trucking companies have to remit those receipts in 45 days, but the shipping companies don't pay the truckers until 50, 60 and 90 days. That is what we have said about the GST. Those are the facts. The minister is the myth maker and the dream breaker.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to talk about the adjustment programs. As a result of the change in the unemployment insurance program, we have introduced an increase of $550 million this year, which will grow to $750 million in two or three year's time, of increased amounts for training. These moneys will go to people who are out of jobs, who are looking for additional skills so they can get back into the labour force with better skills to get better jobs and better opportunities. That is on top of the $1.7 billion of the Canadian Jobs Strategy that we brought in in 1984.
I remind my hon. friend that back in 1984 almost the total amount of the moneys that were going into the job market were passive moneys, income support moneys, not active moneys, moneys that would help people gain better jobs through increased training.
The Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, has done studies on this that show the change; show that we are still below where we should be relative to other countries. We have made a clear commitment, reinforced in the Speech from the Throne, to move in that direction. These are a funda-
Supply
mentally different set of policies than were followed by the Liberal Party before 1984.
My friend talked about the GST. I am advised that 70 per cent of the refund requests received thus far have been actioned within the 21 days. The other 30 per cent-


An hon. member:: That could be false.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: These numbers are supported by figures and facts in Revenue Canada. Let me comment, Madam Speaker, on the other 30 per cent. Sixty per cent of the other 30 per cent are from incorrectly completed returns. The balance requires some form of follow-up from Revenue Canada.
We are working on this and I am sure that the Department of National Revenue will have, in a very short period of time, the whole system normalized.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the issue underlying today's motion, the competitive problems confronting our country's trucking industry, is one that deeply concerns me and every member of our government. The need for a dynamic, competitive transportation sector is real, not just for those who earn their living and support their families through this industry, but also because of the role it plays across the broad spectrum of Canada's economy.
But painful dilemmas will not be solved by political grandstanding, and you will not find effective answers by placing blame where it does not belong.
That is why I want to set the record straight for my hon. friends in the opposition concerning the federal tax system. It is not the source of the problem here today. In fact, because of the extensive tax reforms our government has put in place, this is one area where the trucking industry, and Canadian business in general, is better positioned today than it was just a few years ago.
I know there are people who do not want to believe that. Federal taxation makes a convenient target for those who would prefer to think there are easy, instant solutions for serious difficulties. But the facts tell a different story.
Truckers have identified higher diesel fuel costs in Canada as one of the critical disadvantages they face in competing with American firms both here and in the United States. It has been argued that federal taxes on

May 17, 1991
Supply
diesel fuel sales are a significant part of that burden, but that just is not true.
Instead, federal excise taxes on diesel fuel are actually lower in Canada than the federal tax in the United States, 4 cents a litre here compared to 6.2 cents there. In other words, Washington's taxes on diesel fuel are 50 per cent higher than ours.
The only other federal tax on fuel sales in Canada is the GST. And, yes, there is no equivalent federal tax south of the border. The GST is not a hobble on Canada's truckers, not a handicap they face. Instead of tilting the playing field in favour of American competitors, the GST has eliminated disadvantages created by previous Canadian governments through the destructive federal sales tax.
Under the GST, truckers recover every single cent of sales tax they pay on fuel used for business purposes. That means that the GST does not add to fuel costs.
This is not the only benefit the GST delivers, as the minister just said. Under the old manufacturers' sales tax, Canadian businesses, including truckers, ended up paying tax that was included in the price of many goods and services they needed to run their operations.
Some of those costs were direct, such as the telecommunications service tax. Others were less visible, but they were still there. This was because the producers of goods and services paid the FST on many of the items they used to do business and passed them on their customers. But that does not happen under the GST.
Through the use of the input tax credit, businesses at every level now recover all the tax they pay on their commercial transactions. There is no hidden tax passed on through this system. This has already reduced the cost of many items and is helping service providers, such as maintenance garages and mechanics, control their costs and prices. This is helping Canadians compete, not put them at a disadvantage.
There is another issue that truckers have raised and I want to review it. They have pointed out correctly that Canadian tax depreciation rates on tractors and trailers are not as generous as those in the United States.
However, that criticism overlooks that the U.S. truckers must pay a 12 per cent excise tax on the purchase of
heavy trucks and trailers. There is no such tax in Canada. This more than offsets the faster depreciation available in the United States.
The facts I have just outlined are the bottom line realities. They provide dollar and cents evidence that federal excise taxes, the GST and depreciation schedules have not sacrificed the interests of domestic transporters. As Monday's Speech from the Throne made clear, this is a government committed to helping Canadians meet competitive challenges, so we can all benefit from that success.
But this does not mean that truckers are crying wolf about the total tax burden on fuel purchases. American prices are lower and state level taxation is a definite contributing factor. We have to confront the fact that provincial taxes on diesel fuel can run double or more than those in neighbouring American states.
Earlier this year if you fuelled up your truck in British Columbia, you paid 11.4 cents a litre in provincial tax. In Washington State, across the border, it was 6.8 cents.
In Saskatchewan you paid 10 cents, 5.3 cents in North Dakota.
In Ontario you were paying 10.9 cents compared to just
4.6	cents a litre in Michigan.
In Quebec, it was 13.5 cents a litre, four times higher than the 3.1 cents that the same trucker would be paying in New York State.
Following the recent provincial budget, this disparity has become even worse. Ontario's tax on diesel was boosted 1.7 cents with an equal increase due next January.
In reviewing these figures, I am not trying to suggest that provincial governments alone have the responsibility for assisting our freight trucking section to deal with their problems. This is a national problem and one that will only be resolved through mutual commitment and partnership by all levels of government working with the industry, much as the task forces the previous minister set up and the current minister is dealing with.
Let me also suggest a basic, critical principle that we must apply to identifying answers. That is, the solution must not be based on actions that would jeopardize our ability to stay the course in holding down our deficit
May 17, 1991

during difficult times and bringing it down dramatically once economic growth is fully restored.
I know my hon. friends across the floor do not share that view. Spending restraint is not a prescription that they are familiar with. We saw that during the 1981-1982 recession, when our deficit doubled in just two years and then continued to grow as we entered recovery, reaching $38.5 billion a year in 1984-85. The all time record.
Today we are still living with the consequences of those deficits and the $200 billion national debt we inherited. If it was not for the for the interest payments on that debt, we would not be in the deficit position now and we would have the resources to better help the many individuals and business sectors that have been hit hard by another recession.
Just last year, $43 billion in Canadian taxpayers' dollars went just to pay the interest charges on the debt. That is $43 billion that could have been used to lower the debt or lower taxes, $43 billion that was not available to increase unemployment insurance entitlements or for education and apprenticeship programs or to contribute to funding health care programs or to boost family allowances and pensions. That is the part of the tragedy of deficits and debt left to us by the Liberal government.
There is another aspect to that tragedy, one that ties directly to the competitive challenges faced by truckers and virtually every other business sector. The blunt fact is deficits and debt contribute to inflation and to inflationary expectations and by doing so put further pressure on interest rates. There is no member in this House who has not heard our constituents, individuals, local businesses and industry associations say that lower interest rates are essential to get the economy moving and reduce investment costs. But, as the February budget so clearly described, the only way rates can be brought down and kept down is to reduce inflation. To do that, government must play its part, including keeping its own costs under control. [DOT]
Our policies are working. Inflation has stabilized and interest rates have dropped 5 per cent in the last year. Controlling spending does not come easily. There are always ways in which to spend more, always groups and interests, such as the troubled trucking sector, with real problems who can make passionate and convincing
Supply
appeals for assistance. However, good economic management and real leadership mean a striking and realistic balance between specific sectors and interests and the needs of the wider, national community, including taxpayers.
It is clear that Canadians feel they are already taxed too much. They do not want governments to go deeper into debt with the automatic consequences that tax burdens will rise in the future.
This takes me back to the issue of taxation and its impact on truckers and other industries challenged to compete in the North American and international markets.
There are a couple of issues here I would like to touch on briefly in my final moments. Since first coming to office in 1984, our government has recognized the need to ensure our total national tax system did not place Canadians at a competitive disadvantage. At the same time, we were also committed to improving the fairness of the tax system and maintaining its ability to support the programs and services Canadians value.
We acted on this commitment, not just through the GST, but also through extensive reforms to the personal and corporate income tax systems that took effect in
1988.	We are convinced that those reforms have delivered real benefits.
Again, I realize this seems to be a fly in the face of conventional public wisdom. There seems to be a common misunderstanding that we are among the most heavily taxed nations in the world. In particular, Canadians often point to the United States and see it as a taxation nirvana. Figures from the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, the OECD, in 1988, the last year that figures were available, paint a somewhat different picture. On an international basis, the figures show that the burden of total taxation in Canada, by all levels of government, amounted to 34 per cent of our gross domestic product. This was actually lower than 16 of the 24 OECD countries. In fact, among the major group of seven industrial nations, only Japan and the United States had taxes as low as ours. In Japan, taxation was equal to 31.3 per cent of GDP, while in the U.S. it was 29.8 per cent. That was not dramatically lower than our 34 per cent.

May 17, 1991
Supply
While there are many aspects to the relationship between taxes and business, it is a fact that Canadian companies do not face as great a competitive handicap as many would like to believe.
But with respect to our competitiveness with the United States, we have to face the reality that American productivity has grown much stronger than ours in recent years and Canadian labour costs now exceed theirs. Factors like this go a long way to explaining why Canadian firms and workers are finding it harder to compete.
However, there is another aspect to the tax story that we also need to remind ourselves of on a regular basis. We have agreed, as a nation, to allocate tax resources so that every Canadian has access to public health care. We also provide further resources to cover the cost of post-secondary education. Both of these are areas where America places the bulk of the burden on the individual and the private sector.
I do not know of many, if any, Canadians who would trade our medicare system for that in the U.S. The cost of private health care insurance is something that is frequently overlooked when critics compare our tax levels to those of American firms.
I do not want to shift today's debate away from the real problems Canadian truckers face. They are serious, there is a hardship, and we need to look at the problem seriously. However, I know it is essential that, in developing a strategy, this House and all interested Canadians recognize that there is no simple, quick fix solutions that our government can impose by fiat. The perception that the federal taxation is the source of the problem is based on wishful thinking or partisan politics- not fact. Any prescriptions based on such a misunderstanding will run the real risk of missing the mark and could even damage our prospects to strengthen our competitiveness as a nation.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, the idle trucks that are lined up just outside the door here along Wellington Street are really just a microcosm of Canada's labour force. They represent Canada's unemployed men and women. It just happens to be the truckers. That just happens to be the transportation industry in Canada. That is the industry which moves the nation. When that stops, as it has stopped today, it says so much about the inner workings of a nation. It says a once proud occupation has been silenced, that of the truckers, the guys who took pride in their rigs pounding down the nation's highways. They have been silenced
because of the mismanagement of the current government and its economic policies.
This is not because they wanted to be silenced. Their rigs are in good shape and they are ready to go, so that is not the problem. They have kept their rigs in good shape because it is a proud occupation and they know that they are in a very competitive business. They know that the tax write-off on their equipment is spread over many years, unlike their U.S. competitors who can write theirs off in a matter of four years or so. They know that they are working at a terrible disadvantage because their competitors can get an annual tax break of several thousands of dollars on the purchase of that very expensive equipment.
They know too that they are trying to survive in an industry when their competitors in the U.S. can buy diesel fuel for slightly more than half the price they pay in Canada. In spite of these handicaps, they would like to keep on trucking, as they say.
However, now they cannot because every mile they drive means they are losing money and time has run out. When they buy a tank of diesel fuel they do not stop to think how much is tax and how much is cost. They only know one figure and that is the one that is registered up on the pump. That is what they pay.
All they hear from the new Minister of Transport is: "You'll have to become more competitive". It is pretty hard to be competitive if you do not have any money in your pocket. This is a government that has its hands in all four of their pockets, right up to the elbow in most cases, and then the minister says: "Come on boys, be more competitive".
Instead of losing more money than they have already lost they decided to park their rigs out on Wellington Street. I talked to one young man outside the other day. He said he would like to be back at work. I asked him how he could afford to have his rig parked here. He said: "If it wasn't parked here, it would be parked somewhere else". It does not really matter to him whether it is parked on Wellington Street or parked outside his home.
These people are really representative of Canada's labour force today. They are disappointed. They are disillusioned that their lives and that of their families have been turned around so suddenly. "Gone are the days", they say, "when there was work out there to be done" and they were willing to do it. They met the payments on their equipment. They took great pride in what they did well and the knowledge that they would be
May 17, 1991

able to look after the needs of their families in those good years.
It just happens to be truckers that have ascended outside the door here recently. It could have been the farmers of this nation. They have been burdened and bludgeoned by debt for so long that they have become discouraged and disillusioned the same as the truckers.
A callous government is how they described the Tory government, as one which does not seem to understand just how tenuous their livelihood is, whether it is trucking or farming these days in Canada.
Instead of truckers or farmers, it could have been the small town merchants, the restaurant owners and the gas station operators of this nation, who just like the truckers are watching their lifestyles disappear as economic conditions in Canada due to the GST, the high dollar, the high interest rate and the over-all cost of doing business in this country has forced their regular customers, their neighbours to go to a foreign country on a regular basis to do their shopping.
All this is happening in spite of the government having studies over a year ago indicating that these devastations of our economy were on the horizon if the government failed to alter their economic policies.
The government knew this was going to happen and sat idly by. It is unfortunate that the truckers have to illustrate their plight in the manner we see out in front of the Parliament Buildings, but I want to congratulate them for their ingenuity. If that is what it takes to get the government's attention, perhaps the truckers' efforts are not in vain after all. We will have to wait and see.
The government's tax policies and fiscal measures have resulted in 1.4 million Canadians being unemployed. After a Speech from the Throne just a few days ago with no new measures in it, none whatsoever, to suggest that the government is even cognizant of the malaise that has fallen over Canada, what alternatives do the truckers have?
I think the truckers with their rigs standing still are symbolic. They are a reflection of so many aspects of
Supply
Canadian life today. Perhaps it is time for the government to admit what the overwhelming majority of Canadians already know, that this government has caused the nation to come to a halt and is now completely barren of any new initiatives which could get the wheels of the nation turning once again.
Perhaps it is time for the government to be honest with Canadians just this one time. Perhaps the government could admit it has no programs to offer, resign and call an election so Canadians can once more be given a choice.
I think-and the polls would support me-that given a choice today, Canadians would choose to bury the remnants of this government and opt for a government with a new set of priorities for all Canadians.
They would opt for a new government whose number one priority is to address the very real problems of doing business in this country today. The very real problems are dramatically symbolized by the idle rigs outside the House of Commons at this very moment. It is so un-Canadian to have these men and women sitting idle when they would like to get their equipment to work.
They would like to put their expertise and their energies to work but they cannot do it. It is a losing cause.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague who just spoke.
The representation that he is making today on behalf of the truckers is not new. The Liberal Party, the opposition, has opposed deregulation. We said, years ago, that deregulation would be bad for the trucking industry.
Certainly on numerous occasions, we intervened before the House to indicate the danger of deregulation in Canada. Indeed, it has put our trucking industry in a very difficult position vis-a-vis the American trucking industry.
Would my colleague comment on some of the proposals that have been put forward by our party in this debate in order to help the government a solution to this problem?

May 17, 1991
Supply
On behalf of the Official Opposition, the member for York West put forward a proposal today that is extremely important and could help the government find a solution to the problems of the trucking industry.
I would like to ask my colleague to elaborate on this proposal put forward by our colleague from York West.


Jim Jordan: Madam Speaker, I have a copy of that paper which my colleague presented earlier today.
When it comes to something like deregulation, we are still a northern nation. We live along a little ribbon around the 49th parallel, but the bulk of Canada is in more extreme weather conditions than exists anywhere in the United States.
We have to realize what is practical, in terms of competing, lake, for example, the dairy industry. Anyone who thinks that we can compete with the dairy industry in southern Virginia probably does not know anything about the dairy industry. Go down there and watch that industry in mass production.
They can make it from some of those places in the United States into Canada. It is a long overnight haul. One of those trucks could bring a litre of milk for every man, woman, and child in my riding in one trip. Can we compete with that? Anyone who thinks we can does not know the dairy industry and what is necessary to compete.
That is typical I think. Canadians say: "We can compete. We are honest, hard working people". Of course, we are honest, hard working people but we have to be realistic. There are areas in which we can compete and there are areas in which we cannot compete.
I do not think we can compete in the transportation industry, not when we see these fellows waiting out there. They cannot compete. They cannot let a fellow who can fill up his tank and save a couple of hundred dollars come across, take away their livelihood, and compete with that.
I wish the government would put it in terms that I could understand. I would try to understand, if the government could explain it to me. I cannot understand. I do not understand how anyone could think we could compete in the dairy industry either. I know enough about it. I know that we cannot compete. The government should realize that there are areas in which we can compete and that is not one of them. I do not think we can compete in this area, with the deregulation as it applies to the transportation industry, either.
The Tories talk about the GST as a great success story, the free trade agreement as a great success story. Canadians had better not accept too many more of these Tory success stories. They have resulted in 1.4 million people being unemployed. It is just too much. We cannot take any more Tory success stories.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I speak today in this debate with much regret and bitterness, because this debate reminds me of debates we had here in this House in 1987 when the Conservative government insisted on presenting Bills C-18 and C-19 which at that time seemed to us in the Opposition to be a death sentence for the whole trucking industry in Canada.
Despite our objections, despite the repeated requests from this side of the House to delay that bill, unless we had guarantees from the Americans, the then-Minister of Transport went ahead with his bill, with the consequences we see today.
We are not glad to see these truckers occupy part of Wellington Street here in Ottawa and protest as they are doing on the highways of Ontario. These truckers are suffering unfair competition from American truckers. We in the opposition had warned the government three years ago that this would happen, and we were not the only ones to say so.
I refer you to a debate that took place on February 5, 1987, where, in a statement I made then, I repeated the words of Gerry Reimer, Vice-President of Reimer Express Lines of Winnipeg, and I quote what he said then: "American companies can come here and cut rates to smithereens for a year or two and all domestic truckers will be gone."
I would also like to quote a leading Canadian business executive, Mr. John Kennedy, the president of Kingsway Transport, of Rexdale, Ontario, who said in 1987: "There is no doubt that deregulation will have disastrous effects on the financial position of the trucking industry in
May 17, 1991

Canada. Ultimately, it will lead to a wave of mergers, takeovers and bankruptcies."
Madam Speaker, three or four years later, we find ourselves in a situation where Canadian truckers are giving up hope of getting any assistance from the Conservative government. At the time, the government refused to listen to the industry, and to the opposition members who opposed these bills and were telling it that deregulation would be harmful to the trucking industry. They were saying that tens of thousands of jobs would be lost if the government were to implement deregulation.
So today, about three and a half years later, we find ourselves with the terrible conclusion that, indeed, approximately 35,000 to 40,000 jobs have been lost in the trucking industry in Canada, jobs that we will never get back, that are now in the United States, that have been lost in Canada because of the incompetence of the Conservative government. Those were jobs that allowed thousands of Canadian families to make a decent living here in Canada and that were totally lost to American transportation companies competing with Canadian companies, with the approval and the blessing of the Conservative government.
Madam Speaker, it is obvious that today something must be done before the whole industry disappears, as suggested by representatives of the trucking industry three and a half years ago. It seems obvious to me that if the government has no other alternatives than to study this issue over and over again, it should immediately implement the proposals made by my colleague from York West, who has specific proposals to assist representatives of the trucking industry who are here in Ottawa. What they want from the government is not studies, but decisions that will solve their problems and save the thousands of jobs which still exist in the Canadian trucking industry.
Obviously, one of the worst problems was that according to Bill C-19, the government at the time proposed that businesses drop the public convenience and necessity criterion. I must recall that the criterion existed in Canada since 1954 for the very purpose of protecting the trucking industry. The criterion was effective, as, between 1960 and 1970, the Canadian trucking industry
Supply
prospered and rendered great services, not only to our country, but to thousands of its workers.
But, at the request of some important shippers, a few companies, obviously very rich, very important and very close to the government, deregulation was brought in, without regards to the small truckers' interests, but to please a few big shippers in Canada. That is what happened, again. It is easy to understand: a Conservative govemement listens to the big and the wealthy in our society, but it remains completely deaf to the interests of the less fortunate. So, it agreed to the request of the big shippers and proceeded with deregulating a Canadian industry which was then in good shape. But that is not the case anymore, because deregulation here produced exactly the same results as in the United States where it had been implemented a few years before, supposedly to allow for more competition on the marketplace.
But, what did we see in the United States? Over there, deregulation favoured the largest companies. Four very large companies are controlling almost all the trucking market in United States and today, they literarily gobble up the small trucking companies in Canada.
We said all that in 1987 to a Conservative government who did not want to listen. Today, we live with the consequences of this harmful, completely inappropriate and unacceptable policy of the Conservative government. Today, we tell them: For God's sake, stop your useless studies and do something. Follow the recommendations of our colleague from York West, solve the problems of the truckers and save the few jobs left in this industry.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, on Wednesday and Thursday of this week, residents in my riding and in other part of metropolitan Toronto were terribly inconvenienced by the demonstration by the truckers.
I, myself, spent an extra two hours on highway 2 trying to get through in order to avoid highway 104.1 also spent a very short period after I got on to highway 104 at Port Union Road all the way over to Yonge Street viewing the suffering of people trying to get home.
It was an extremely impressive demonstration. There were enormous trucks as far as the eye could see and

May 17, 1991
Supply
there were enormous numbers of frustrated motorists. Every single arterial road in my riding was clogged.
There was the possibility of very serious consequences. North York General Hospital, which is at the edge of my riding, has the highest volume emergency department in Canada and that hospital had one of the major access roads to it clogged.
I think that this was an incredible demonstration that should never be repeated. I think the truckers are certainly right in their frustration at the lack of co-operation of government in Canada.
Consumers do not want to pay more for goods and services in Canada than they would in the United States. Clearly, they are voting with their feet. If we do not get our industries competitive, we are going to lose a lot of business and people will move to the United States and industry will leave.
This issue is one that is important to us all and very important to consumers. If there are those who think that regulating the industry and protecting the transportation industry in order to keep out competition is the way to go, they are very, very wrong. It is impossible in the global marketplace. It is key to many of the industries in Canada.
Transportation costs are high throughout Canada, and we have got to get those costs lower. We have been trying, at the federal level with our government, to lower those costs. Clearly, the GST, as the minister has explained, has been extremely helpful. One thing that has to be done to help truckers and other businesses is for the provincial governments to harmonize with the GST. Right away, they could give an enormous rebate to many of these truckers so they could compete because American truckers would also have to pay the GST on any services delivered in Canada and it is fully rebatable.
Look at the tax situation. The taxes at the federal level are much, much lower than the Americans and the problem is at the provincial level. The provincial governments are gouging. When you look at Ontario, we have had a budget that has shown no restraint; 5.8 per cent increase in civil servants' wages. That goes all the way through the economy.
I know people at Metropolitan Toronto Council are talking about the fact that they cannot do anything less with the civil servants there. It is an extremely difficult
circumstance and what we have to do is become more competitive.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, a short answer to the intervention of the hon. member would be what Kevin Ford, a married father of three, who drives for a small Guelph, Ontario hauler, said here yesterday when he was interviewed by the press. He said: "There are days when you have to work 20 hours to make ends meet". This trucker had to give up his house and two cars to keep his family afloat.
There are some inconveniences to people who live in residential Toronto, but you have to think of these drivers who also had homes but because of the incompetence of the Conservative government have lost their homes. If the government had moved earlier on this matter there would be no blockage today.
Last year in the summer, independent truckers blocked several border crossings in Ontario and Quebec to draw attention to the problem they have with U.S. truckers paying less for their rigs, fuels, parts, maintenance and insurance.
The then Minister of Transport decided to study the matter. He established a study that was to cover seven points. This week, the new Minister of Transport is telling us that the study is not finished, that it might not be finished before sometime next year. Well surely these truckers want action and they are not going to-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and comments is over. Debate. The honourable Minister of State.


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (IVansport):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on trucking as there is a need to set the record straight, particularly about as what was just said a few minutes ago across the floor.
There is a need, as well, to explain the enormous amount of complex work that has gone on over the past 12 months.
During the past few days, hon. members of the opposition have criticized the government for its approach taken over the past year. This is not unusual or unexpected. The government has been following an approach of careful targeting of the issue; a difficult job with a moving target. It has been doing this with the
May 17, 1991

agreement and support of a large segment of the trucking industry.
During the past week, we have witnessed a number of demonstrations by truckers here in Ottawa and elsewhere which had their genesis in a series of demonstrations which began in Quebec in mid-May 1990. Then, a group of independent truckers demonstrated by blocking highways and the border crossing at Lacolle.
The Quebec Minister of Transport listened to the demands of these independent truckers and agreed to set up a commission to study their demands. The creation of the commission had been one of the principal requests of the truckers themselves.
The provincial minister invited the participation of the federal government in the work of the commission, and in recognizing the shared jurisdiction between the federal government and the provincial government in extra provincial trucking matters, the former Minister of Transport agreed. A senior official of the department participated fully in all the deliberations of what came to be known as the Charbonneau commission.
Approximately one week after the Quebec truckers demonstrated, a group calling itself "Canadian Truckers Fighting Back" blocked the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor. Another sympathetic group closed additional international crossing in southern Ontario at Sarnia, Fort Erie, Niagara Falls and Gananoque.
The Ontario Minister of Transportation agreed to meet the blockaders at Windsor, because of the extreme importance of that transportation link to the health of the Canadian automobile industry.
The auto industry in southern Ontario and in the U.S., which relies on just-in-time delivery, was rapidly coming to a stand still because of the bridge closures. Once again, recognizing the shared federal-provincial responsibility in international trucking issues, the federal government responded quickly and effectively. The former Minister of Transport flew overnight to Windsor and met with the truckers in the early morning to get to the bottom of their complaints.
After several hours of discussions, the demonstrators agreed that the cancellation of the free trade agreement and the setting aside of the deregulation of the trucking
Supply
industry were not responsible or reasonable proposals, which shows that the truckers themselves were a little more reasonable than some of the members opposite.
A short list of action items was adopted which the minister agreed to raise with his federal colleagues and best efforts were assured.
These issues were:
(1)	U.S. carriers doing cabotage in Canada.
(2)	Unfair, even predatory pricing practices by U.S. carriers.
(3)	Collection of federal fuel taxes from U.S. carriers.
Also during the meeting in Windsor, the Minister of Transport agreed with the Ontario Minister of Transportation that a federal official be nominated to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation's Trucking Industry Adjustment Committee.
This provincial committee had been struck several weeks earlier to address the rising industry concerns which eventually culminated in the blockade.
The Ministers of Employment and Immigration and National Revenue were asked to investigate and report on cabotage.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was asked to investigate the alleged unfair pricing practices and the Minister of National Revenue was also asked to investigate the possibility of collecting federal excise taxes from U.S. carriers.
The Minister of Transport met representatives of owner operators and the three major trucking unions in Ottawa on June 27, 1990. At that time progress was reported on the three issues.
Stepped up enforcement of existing laws and regulations against illegal cabotage would be undertaken in conjunction with the provinces. Several blitzes have been conducted during the past year in co-operation with provincial authorities.
The issue of collecting federal tax on diesel fuel and its application to all trucking operations in Canada have been examined by the Department of Finance. It concluded that federal taxes on fuel are not a significant factor in the fuel price differences, vis-a-vis the United States. I think that has been amply illustrated today during the speeches.

May 17, 1991
Supply
At the time, diesel fuel sold in Canada was subject to Departmental officials were instructed to work with total federal sales tax and excise taxes of 6.8 cents per any newly formed owner-operator organization, to en-litre, about 2.8 cents and 4 cents per litre, respectively, sure they would meet this minimum criteria.
The former federal sales tax has since been replaced by the goods and services tax, as of January 1,1991. Since then, Canadian truckers have been able to fully recover the GST paid on diesel fuel. The result has been a net reduction in the total federal tax on diesel fuel, from 6.8 cents to 4 cents per litre.
Under the GST, the federal sales tax paid by truckers on fuel in Canada is significantly less than the comparable U.S. tax.
On the predatory pricing issue, the transport minister said that he was advised by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that the director of investigations and research under the Competition Act would examine any information brought to his attention regarding possible violations of the act.
During a meeting in May with the truckers, they had been advised to report their complaints to the director. Since then, the director has indicated that he has not yet received any new complaints or information that would raise an issue under the Competition Act.
At the conclusion of the June 27 meeting with the three major trucking unions and the representatives of the owner-operators, the minister decided to set up a ministerial level task force to examine the issues in depth.
Membership on the task force was open to all bona fide identifiable stakeholders in trucking: unions, carriers, shippers, and owner-operator organizations. The provinces and any involved federal government departments were invited to participate as observers so that the task force would be composed of all the stakeholders, with government only there in an observing position.
With respect to the owner-operator organization, modest organizational requirements were imposed upon them, basically to ensure that they had identifiable membership and an elected executive, that is, people they had agreed would speak on their behalf.
August 13 and August 14 were decided upon as the meeting dates in Toronto. The task force met as scheduled in August and was chaired in its entirety by the minister. In attendance were representatives from 16 industry groups. Five issues were distilled out of the two days of very frank, open discussions which the minister promised to take to his provincial colleagues at a meeting at the end of September.
Those issues were cabotage, Canada-U.S. tax regimes, driver education and training, uniformity of safety and other regulations, and load broker regulation. Although a strong consensus was reached at the task force meeting, there was a sense among the members that they did not share a common information base or even a common understanding of why an issue was important to a particular group within the stakeholder group.
Timely facts on trucking in Canada, especially facts on international trucking, are hard to come by. This realization was one of the reasons the task force agreed to conduct a comprehensive set of studies after the Council of Ministers meeting.
At the September meeting of the federal-provincial Ministers of Transport, the provincial ministers, without exception, committed themselves to work with the federal government in order to enhance cabotage enforcement. The provincial ministers also reviewed their commitment to uniform trucking regulations and pledged provincial support for the employment and immigration committee on driver training.
Last, but not least, they agreed to set up a working group to study owner-operator issues-items such as load broker regulation, the need for an industry standard code of ethics to govern carrier to owner-operator relationships, and so on.
The working group of officials set to work immediately and over the past seven or eight months has worked hard and consulted widely. They are due to present a report at the end of this month.
If there is a negative note to these efforts, it is that the carrier associations have consistently and steadfastly refused to co-operate on the issue of their relationship with the owner-operators.
May 17, 1991

The reason they advance for not participating in the discussions is that they have no mandate to undertake labour negotiations since they are in the domain of the direct discussions of individual trucking companies.
This is, in my view, a narrow and somewhat legalistic interpretation of the problem. While we have succeeded in convincing the two senior levels of government and the National Coalition of Owner-Operator Associations to sit down and hammer out a model code of practice, the Canadian Trucking Association has stayed away. Nevertheless, it is not too late to join in the process and I sincerely hope they will reconsider their position.
Let me turn now to the studies, as much has been made in this House over the last few days, and especially this afternoon, about the set of studies being undertaken by the minister's task force. As I mentioned earlier, one of the major frustrations surrounding the discussion of the Canadian trucking industry is the virtually complete lack of reliable information, statistical or otherwise. Consequently, the task force agreed to embark upon a set of studies which would rectify this problem.
The objectives of the study are very straightforward and are threefold: first, to determine the nature and extent of the Canadian trucking share of the trans-border markets; to assess the over-all competitiveness of Canadian trucking firms in those trans-border markets; and, to analyse the relative significance of factors affecting that competitiveness.
The project comprises the following individual study components: a survey of trans-border movements at approximately 15 major crossing points across Canada, a review of trends in trans-border trucking markets and a thorough examination of Canadian shares in those markets, an analysis of the economics of the Canadian trucking industry operating in trans-border markets, an examination of the current financial status of Canadian trucking firms, a comparison of Canadian and U.S. trucking costs in trans-border markets, a review of Canada-U.S. tax regimes, and an assessment of a potential Canada-U.S. cabotage agreement. There is also to be a final study to draw together the threads of the individual detailed studies.
At this point I wish to emphasize the complete openness that has been adopted in the conduct of these
Supply
studies. While federal officials have normally chaired the meetings, the task force members have selected the consultants, commented on the draft reports and are currently in the process of reviewing the final text of most of the studies. A session is being scheduled for early June to put the finishing touches on these studies, not next year as was mentioned earlier by the opposition.
Frankly, while we are duty bound to honour the process that we have started with the task force, that is to allow them the last word on the study contents, we will be very pleased to make these reports public so as to lay to rest the simple minded remarks of the members opposite.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, how can Canadians believe that the minister of state or the Minister of Transport are the least bit serious about the truckers who are lining up in front of the House of Commons when their plight is just like the
1,000	Department of National Defence workers and the 120 Bank of Canada workers who have just been laid off in the last half hour?
Eleven hundred workers were laid off in the last half hour, 1,000 from the Department of National Defence and 120 from the Bank of Canada. These workers are victims of the same right-wing agenda that says: "Make the men and women of Canada pay for the fiscal policies of this government".
I would suggest if this government does not tax Canadians out of their jobs as is happening with the truckers, it will recession them out of their jobs as is being done by the workers from the Bank of Canada.
I would like the Minister of State for Transport to please tell us just how this government cares about the workers in Canada.


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, the policies of this government have been undertaken because we do care about Canadians.
We are concerned about the future of Canada. We are concerned about the children of the present and the future. The problems we are facing in this country today and the reasons for some of these lay-offs that have had to take place are due to the fact that we have some very difficult fiscal problems in this country.

May 17, 1991
Supply
Some of these fiscal problems were started years ago when other governments attempted to fight recessions by spending, spending, spending. They were not spending those days' dollars. They were spending today's dollars, tomorrow's dollars, our children's and our grandchildren's dollars.
The Government of Ontario, run by a party which is the same as the party this member belongs to, is doing the very same thing in Ontario today that did not work for Canada in 1981-82, will not work for Ontario today and it is adding to the problems of this country.
I have children and I want to see them have a future. I want the Canadians of today to have jobs. That is why we are making the difficult economic decisions that have to be made to make us competitive in a global marketplace. We cannot build a wall around Canada and live by supplying the Canadian market only.
We can survive only by being competitive in a global market. Being competitive means working smarter and addressing problems, not by throwing money at them. That is the easy way out.
Any government can throw money it does not have by continuing to borrow on the future to try to solve a problem. Throwing money at problems does not solve them. Working at problems is what solves the problems of this country. Working together, management, labour, government and education. We cannot be competitive in this country if we do not have well-trained young people.
We cannot have our young people dropping out of school because they do not have a challenge, because they are not taught properly and because they are not given proper advice by the counsellors in the schools. We cannot be driving all our children into university educations.
We have to look at the trades. I attended a Skills Canada training competition last weekend in my riding, which brought together 200 students from across this country. They were building framings for housing. They were repairing motors. They were working on tin plates to fix furnaces and piping. They were working on electronic boards.
They were competing in a skills competition which proves that we have well skilled young people in this country who want to get involved in the jobs of the future
that are high-skilled. They are going to Louisville, Kentucky to compete. Canadians went last year and there was only one state in the U.S. that got more medals than Canada did at that competition.
They did it because we have young people who are interested in the skills and trades and who want to have jobs in the future. You cannot have jobs in the future of this country if you throw away the money today.
That is why we are taking very hard economic decisions. They are not easy. We do not like to sit here, make decisions and then read in the paper the next day that
1,000	jobs have been lost.
You do not have a monopoly on compassion in the NDP or in the socialist party of this country. There is as much compassion on this side of the House as there is on that side of the House.
We sat here and read statements about the Minister for International Trade from people who were saying: "Yes, there are problems with free trade in some industries but it is also helping industries."
The opposition members say: "That's bull." It is bull when they do not believe in it. When they get up and make false statements, they think they are speaking the truth. One does not hear those comments from this side of the House, at least not from the members who are here today.
We have no monopoly on behaviour in this House. If there were a little more decorum in this House, Canadians might start to believe a little more that we do things in this House.
That decorum comes from all sides of the House. It is something that all members should pay very special attention to. All members from all parties have a responsibility in this House to show the young people in this country that decisions that are made in this House are very important. That is why, as the Prime Minister said, this is the constituent assembly of Canada, this is where the decisions are going to be made, and this is where they are made with a great deal of heart, consideration and understanding, regardless of what the opposition says.
We are talking about governments in general. When the people of Canada don't believe in governments it is not only the government in power that they don't believe

in, it is all politicians, because of the behaviour of all politicians. We all have a role to play.


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: I appreciated veiy much the contribution of the minister to the debate today. I think she had a lot of good information and had a lot to contribute to us.
I was impressed with the number of studies that are going on. As it has been stated many times today, truckers are demanding more than just studies.
I would just like to ask the minister a couple of questions. One of the big questions raised frequently is that of cabotage. My question is: Does the government have evidence that this indeed is going on? I have made inquiries myself and I have got mixed answers. So I would appreciate the minister contributing in that area.
It has been reported that there have been 3,300 new licences issued in Ontario alone to truckers in the last six months. To me, this would suggest that there has been a tremendous expansion in a time of recession. I was wondering if she could comment on that. Does she have information on this?


Shirley Martin: When it comes to the cabotage issue, as I mentioned in my remarks, there was co-operation between the provinces and the federal government in looking at cabotage.
I would just like to read, if I may, the following:
There were 2,862 truckers who passed inspection stations. Of these, 344 truckers, both American and Canadian, were referred to the custom officials. Of eight of the ten customs infractions discovered, only two involved cabotage, but all ten involved Canadian companies using U.S. vehicles illegally. Five hundred American drivers were checked for immigration infractions, 11 were found to have minor criminality infractions and two others were arrested and removed under escort for serious criminality infractions. No infractions involving cabotage by U.S. drivers were found.
In Manitoba, during the summer of 1990, an RCMP officer while on regular duty laid a charge against a U.S. driver for cabotage. Some half dozen letters had been received from owner-operators in trucking companies reporting incidents of suspected cabotage. These have all been referred to customs or immigration for action. We have been sending information out outlining Canadian immigration laws to U.S. drivers at border entry points. The same pamphlets are being mailed by Transport Canada to U.S. carriers licensed to operate in Canada to
Supply
make sure that they understand the laws of Canada when it comes to cabotage and our custom regulations.
As to the 3,300 additional licences that my hon. friend mentioned, I am afraid I do not have the facts to confirm that. Certainly, if there have been 3,300 additional licences in Ontario alone that have been issued at this time of what appears to be an over-supply on the market, I would wonder at the provincial government issuing those licences.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: I want to participate in today's debate.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Point of order, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I don't wish to interfere unduly with the remarks of my colleagues, but I just wish to seek clarification from the Chair.
It was the understanding of members on this side that there was a rotation agreed to and which was being pursued by the Chair. Members in this party, like the party to the left, have travel plans to make and we were hoping to be able to participate in the debate which concludes at 4 o'clock. I am wondering whether the Chair has now departed from the rotation which was previously agreed to and was our understanding, and perhaps the Chair would be kind enough to explain to members exactly what is happening. We will abide by the Chair's ruling.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The rotation which has been agreed to has been going on all day. This is a normal opposition day and I do not see any changes in the way we have been operating today than we have on other days. It might be a good idea for future reference that we do get the House leaders and chair occupants together and establish a different rotation. This is the way things have been going for quite a while and I have recognized the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, on the same point if I may, I know that the Thble did check and found that the manner in which the rotation today had been recorded was actually at odds with the normal procedure. That is why I am now up.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Earlier in the day, as I had written the rotation, the representative of the Liberal Party would normally have been recognized. We did look as to what the rotation had been previously and realized

Supply
that I had made a mistake and we then advised the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan that a representative of his party would be next. The hon. members from the Liberal Party were advised that I had made a mistake and everything seemed to be normal.
I think that we should use the time for hon. members to make their representations and not for long points of order again.
I will recognize the hon. member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan.


David Charles Dingwall: Point of order, Madam Speaker. We will consent to the Chair's ruling and abide by that ruling, but since this is a non-votable motion and the House is deemed to close at four o'clock, I am wondering if members would see the clock past four for a few moments, keeping in mind that it is a non-votable motion, in order that the two remaining speakers from our party could have the floor for ten minutes each. I am wondering if hon. members would agree to that in view of the fact that an honest mistake has been made.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I think that might be premature. I certainly would have no difficulty, but depending on how long I go and whether there is a question or comment period, there might be the time to allow the other two members to complete their time.


David Charles Dingwall: Okay, agreed.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today and before I get into the comments about the motion brought forward by the Official Opposition I want to publicly congratulate the new Minister of Transport and the recycled Minister of State for Transport in their new positions. I look forward to working with them.
I want to suggest that today's debate, what has been happening outside this building on the streets of Ottawa, what has been happening on the streets and highways of Toronto and what has been happening at the Ambassador Bridge, is not just about transport. It is not just about trucking.
It is an indication of the kind of anger that has been building in this country since 1984. It is an anger over the way in which the Conservative Party as the Government
of Canada has been changing this country. It is intertwined between taxation, deregulation, the free trade agreement with the United States, the impending Cana-da-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement, the cuts to VTA Rail, the cuts to CBC, the cuts to Canada Post and privatization, and it is almost as if people began to wake up in the last two or three months and said "My God what has happened to us? What have they done to us?"
The truckers, unlike most of us, have found the tool by which to express that anger. They have the vehicles which can be used to occupy space on roads, to blockade highways and entranceways, they have the tool by which to express their anger. In some ways, it is no different than what the workers at the Caterpillar plant did when they saw their jobs being lost and their factory being closed and sent to the United States: they occupied that space.
I want to suggest, very strongly, that if concrete steps are not taken soon to deal with the very legitimate grievances of the truckers, whether it be the owner-operators or the trucking companies and their employees, more and more Canadians will find their own way to express their visible anger to the Government of Canada.
It is important that the government works diligently to do that because I do not want to see this escalate. It is not in the best interest of the economy of this country. Politically it may be the best thing that could have happened in many, many years because it would put the pressure on the government to reverse the direction it has been taking us into, but other people will lose if it does accelerate.
I have met with the truckers and I have met with their spouses and their children and they have had it up to here. They have been waiting for the federal government for a year to take some concrete action. Instead, the government has got studies, it has promises of action and then decisions which say: "Well, it is really a minor item so we are not going to worry about it." It may be a minor item, but it is one more straw on the backs of these men and women whom we need to carry our raw materials and our finished products to market, whether within Canada or in the U.S. We have not been treating them fairly.

When this government deregulated trucking a number of years ago, it did not just match what the United States did, it went even farther by giving American truckers access to Canada without getting reciprocal agreements with the United States, putting our people at a disadvantage.
The anger is real, the frustration is real and the hardship is real.
The Minister of State for Transport, in her answer to my colleague, talked about tomorrow's children and tomorrow's grandchildren and that is why the government has embarked on this deficit reduction approach to managing this country. She pooh-poohed what Floyd Laughren has done in Ontario in terms of trying to fight the recession. I want to say to that minister: kids who cannot have food today are not going to be the leaders tomorrow.
Studies have shown that children who have poor food intake are poor students and have the highest dropout rate. They will not be tomorrow's leaders. We have to recognize that we have to do things today as well as think about tomorrow.
I am not saying it is any one policy, but it is that whole range of taxes and deregulation and free trade and the psychological aspect. Owner-operator truckers have no breaks whatsoever. They cannot get welfare because they have got this asset called a rig. If they want to get welfare they can sell the rig, if somebody would buy it, but then they have no livelihood, no chance. Because they are an independent operation they do not qualify for unemployment insurance.
They would be more than happy to pay unemployment insurance premiums if they could qualify.
As it stands, when times are tough it is their life-long, hard-earned savings they have to draw on in order to keep the mortgage payments up on the rig. I will not call them loan payments. They are a mortgage payment, there is no question about it, to provide a roof over their heads and food on the table.
Some of the truckers I have talked to have been losing those homes, are in danger of losing those rigs. One fellow told me this afternoon that he has had to dip into
Supply
his son's educational savings, money he set aside so that his son could go to university some day. They have had to dip into those savings in order to make ends meet today.
They cannot wait for June for these studies to be completed. In fact, when the minister of state was speaking she made reference to the studies becoming public. I hoped that what she meant was that in this House today, either she or the minister will table them so they could be distributed appropriately and we could all have copies. If not, hopefully, within the next two or three days that can happen.
These people want to work for a living. They are not looking for hand-outs. They are looking for some breaks.
It boggled my mind when one fellow told me that when he blew the motor in his rig, the money he spent to buy a new motor was classified as a capital gain and he was taxed accordingly. Does that make sense? A capital gain to replace an engine that blew. I gather that the folks at finance said it was an improvement to his vehicle. That improvement cost him two or three years of payments.
The truckers themselves have asked for a number of solutions, dealing with everything from capital depreciation to both provincial and federal excise taxes to the federal government following the leadership of Ed Philip in Ontario by putting a moratorium on new licences within the federal jurisdiction, particularly those from the United States. They want American truckers to start paying the same taxes in Canada Canadian truckers have to pay.
Maybe the minister of state is right when she said that when they examined it they found it to be a negligible amount. It may very well be, but it is still unfair. It is unfair that an American company who hires American workers to operate American-built rigs to carry American products into Canada can do so without contributing one red cent to the operations of the Government of Canada which provides services to the trucking industry.
It is a question of fairness. Fairness in taxation; fairness in how the truckers are treated. Also, the cabotage. The minister of state referred to the number of checks they have done and the number of people found in violation. However, it is a psychological threat. The word gets out in the industry and it becomes very real in terms of its impact on cargoes.

May 17, 1991
Supply
When truckers are fighting for nickels and dimes because there are too many truckers and too few cargoes they look for every nickel and dime they can find because that is their livelihood. That is their way of putting food on the table. These folks are hurting.
We have seen some action from the provincial level. The provincial government of Ontario did put on a moratorium. It indicated it would control the brokers, licence them and bond them. That is one of the measures the truckers have been calling for.
I am not going to deny that the Ontario government raised the fuel tax. This government also has to accept the fact that in the over-all scheme of things the fuel tax component is only one part of the equation.
Yes, it needs to be dealt with, but so does the write-off, the capital depreciation, so does unfair competition, so does deregulation. Those items have to be addressed as well and they have to be addressed quickly.
Earlier today the Minister of Transport for Ontario, Ed Philip, wrote to the federal Minister of Transport. My understanding is that his letter has now been released publicly but that the federal minister's response has not yet been completed and made available. I would not mind in the question and comment period if the minister would respond.
Just by way of background, Ed Philip and I first worked together as members of the Ontario legislature. One of the things that we did was participate in the Select Committee on the Highway Transportation of Goods back in 1976-77, which was the first Ontario study of trucking deregulation. We said back then to Ontario: "Don't do it". Just like my colleague for Regina-Lums-den and I said in this House on the white paper Freedom to Move, as well as the NTA and companion legislation, "Don't deregulate trucking or rail or air like you are going to". It is an issue that Ed Philip and I have been involved in for many, many years, fighting to protect the workers in the province of Ontario and in Canada.
I would like to read into the record Ed Philip's letter of May 16:
1 am writing with regards to the current situation facing Ontario's tracking industry. As you know, the activities of the past few days have brought the plight of the trucking industry and the desperation of many individual truckers into clear focus. I believe it is incumbent upon you and I to take the representations of the truckers very seriously.
I met with two delegations of truckers yesterday, and discussed with them the measures that Ontario has already taken to begin to address the problems in the industry. They understood, however, that Ontario's role is limited in that the basic problems-an oversupply of trucking capacity as a result of deregulation, and competition with U.S. trucking companies due to free trade and other federal economic policies-are clearly within federal jurisdiction. I assured them that I would contact you to raise these concerns on their behalf.
You will know, Ontario has already taken measures to begin to address the problems in the trucking industry. We have, for example, announced a moratorium on the issuance of operating authorities under the Thick Transportation Act. We have announced our intention to license and require bonding for load brokers. We have increased enforcement to ensure compliance with provincial regulations. In addition, we are nearing completion of an in-depth study of trans-border competitiveness issues, which will provide us with a base to assess all cost factors relating to U.S.-Ontario competition.
I realize you are also undertaking a number of studies, but I feel it is also of vital importance that you give some indication of support for the plight of the truckers by announcing measures similar to those taken by Ontario. In particular, an announcement of a moratorium on interprovincial and trans-border trucking licenses should be made immediately, to arrest the precipitous decline of the Canadian tracking industry.
I am prepared to meet with you as soon as it can be arranged to discuss these matters further. You and I have a responsibility to explore all avenues which will help to stabilize and ultimately to restore the financial viability of Ontario's and Canada's trucking industry. I will not sit by while this industry goes under, and I believe you will not either. I look forward to meeting you soon.
Sincerely,
Ed Philip,
Minister.
I would echo that appeal for the federal government to, at the very least, place a moratorium on interprovincial and trans-border trucking licences. I think, based on the comments by the Minister of State for Transport, there may be some willingness by the government to do it because of her comments about how awful it was that so many new licences were issued in Ontario in the last six months.
Ontario recognized that they had to find a solution to that problem and the two-year moratorium was part of that solution. I would encourage the government to continue on.
I would also encourage the government to continue, as I know it is doing today, its meetings between officials of the department and representatives of the truckers. Only through that mechanism can the government
May 17, 1991

understand the impact on these human beings and the transportation economy of this country.
I want to take my last couple of minutes to return to what I said at the beginning. This is not just about trucking. This is not just about transportation. This is about real anger out there at the direction in which this country is going. There is a real feeling that we are being tom apart.
Instead of the east-west linkage that Sir John A. Macdonald built in this country, starting with the Canadian Pacific Railway, we have too much north-south. When the truckers argue that they are being unfairly competed against by the American truckers, that is part and parcel of what other Canadians are feeling.
I spent the last 10 days before the House resumed holding a series of working sessions in my riding, particularly in the rural part, to ask people to draft their own throne speech and to give us the agenda items for the Government of Canada.
One thing came out of that totally unprompted. All I asked was: "What do you want Canada to do for your community, for your family, your province, your country and/or your planet?" That is the only question that I put to them. Time and time again they said: "It is as if we woke up one morning and the country was different. We lost the things that linked us together such as VIA Rail, CBC, Canada Post and those kinds of institutions".
They were crying out in anger because they did not like the way this country was being changed. They were afraid they were going to be forced to become American when all our lives we wanted to be different.
We wanted to be Canadians. They are prepared to pay the price to do that. There is no question about it. They recognize that those kinds of things do not come cheap. They recognize that in a perfect world, the north-south linkages would fit the market model.
Canada does not fit the market model. This government does not understand that. This government does not understand that there is a reason why Canada should exist separately from the United States. The only way we can do that is by having east-west transportation linkages, by having viable transportation entities in this
Supply
country whether that means trucking, rail, air or marine. We have to be able to have our own.
At the rate we are going, at the level of bankruptcies we have seen, and at the rate of movement of trucking companies to the United States, we are not going to have our own domestic truck industry in this country.
We will have to rely on somebody else's trucks regulated by somebody else, controlled and owned by somebody else, driven by somebody else and with not one Canadian, perhaps other than a dispatcher or a broker, having any kind of employment related to the trucking industry.
It is time this government woke up to the fact that it has been taking this country in the wrong direction. We have to go east-west, not north-south. That is why we have to find solutions to the trucking problem, as well as the other problems that ail this country which were created by this government.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by saying that I have no doubt of the compassion in the mind and heart of the hon. junior minister of transport. I have no doubt whatsoever.
Unfortunately, the Canadian people and the truckers in particular have some doubts. The reason they have doubts is because actions speak louder than words.
Since Monday we have seen in this city of Ottawa and, on our television sets, in and around Toronto on Highway 401 the manifestation of the frustration, the anger and the fear of the truck drivers who are being forced out of existence and are losing their livelihood in this country. This morning I met with a some of the wives and children of these truckers. I saw the apprehension on the faces of the women who understood what the future held for them and it was not very pretty. I saw the faces of the children who did not understand. They only knew that their parents were frightened and that something was terribly wrong.
This is something that those of us in Atlantic Canada can understand and empathize with all too well. We have seen in Atlantic Canada so much of the infrastructure that makes us competitive and even faintly prosperous as Canadians go the way of extinction. In Atlantic Canada we are losing our trains. Our highways are in abysmal shape. Our great ports, most particularly in the city that I

May 17, 1991
Supply
have the great honour to represent, the city of Halifax, are in danger of shutting down and the Minister of Transport knows this and knows it well.
We know all these things are taking place and we know why these things are taking place. They are taking place because of an absolutely overblown, over-optimistic, and overbearing belief in the survival of the fittest and the somehow deity-given right of the free market to control all our lives.
This is not something that is easily recognizable to Canadians in our 124-year history. Canada is the second largest country in the world with an amazing geography. We have somewhere in the vicinity of 27 million people strung across this huge expanse of country. We are located next to one of the largest, richest, most competitive, and most populous countries on the face of the earth. All of those things drive Canadians into a different mode from our neighbours to the south. They have to. We cannot survive. We certainly cannot survive as a country if we opt for the American free market spirit. It will not work here. It cannot work here. It has not worked here, and it does not work here.
With regard to the trucking industry in particular, the industry was deregulated in 1988 before the free trade agreement. We heard the Minister for International Trade come in and make all kinds of comments about how free trade had nothing to do with the problems in this country. I have no comment to make about that. The Canadian people will and have judged on that already.
The deregulation of the trucking industry fell absolutely within the purview of this theory of free market and survival of the fittest. What has happened? We do not have the survival of anybody. The trucking industry, the Canadian trucking industry, is dying. That is why Wellington Street is choked with trucks. That is why Highway 401 was choked with trucks. That is why those people came and met with the Liberal caucus on Monday. That is why those women were here yesterday meeting with my leader and today meeting with other members of the Liberal caucus.
The fittest who survive in Canada now in the trucking industry are Americans.
It is a wonderful country to the south and I wish it well, but let Americans go survive in their own country. Do not let them survive on the basis of a Canadian government that says: "You have every bit as much right to work and prosper in our country as you do in your own". That is not Canadian. That is not the way we do things. That is not what we expect.
Under deregulation this government tells us that anyone who has a truck can operate and anyone can work. Well sometimes the arguments that we present in this House are somewhat confusing to the Canadian people. There is one argument that people understand and that is prices. They understand the difference between prices in Canada and prices in the United States. Our border towns are in great suffering because of cross-border shopping.
I saw in the paper just last week that a mayor of a New York town wanted to nominate the Prime Minister for man of the year in his town because of what he had done for the economy for upper New York state.
I am sure that the minister of fisheries would agree with me on what happens when you tell Canadians about changes in gas prices. Look at the difference in gas prices for these truckers between Canada and the United States. I heard the Minister of Transport and other members on the government side say that the subsidy is higher in Canada. Well, with the greatest of respect, as we would say back home, big deal. The subsidy may be higher in Canada, but the prices are so much lower in the United States that effectively it is almost one-half the cost to fill your tank in the U.S. than in Canada.
How can we expect our truckers to survive in this atmosphere? We cannot. That is why they are out there. That is why they have been here this week and they deserve better than they have been getting from this government. Pious words like "we are full of compassion, we care about Canadians" are not going to do anything for them. They are not going to put food on the tables of these people or shoes on their children's feet. These words are not going pay their mortgages. Decent work is going to pay their mortgages, the ability to compete in what is one of the most superb countries-if

Supply
not the most superb country-in the world, if we run it the way it has to be run.
This is not the United States of America. We do not have 280 million people. We have 27 million people and we have to deal with what we have. We are happy that we only have 27 million people. We do not have the concomitant problems that we would have if we had these huge populations.
If you tie the hands of Canadian truckers, if you tie the hands of Canadian workers, prosperity will become a myth. It has become a myth in the bankruptcies that have taken place and in the number of people unemployed. Worst of all, it has become a myth in the minds of Canadians who look at this government and see no compassion, no assistance, and most of all, no hope.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Madam Speaker, I have a few words on this particular issue. If you know the geography of this country you will realize that Newfoundland is not on the border between the United States and Canada directly in the same sense that a community like Kingston and the Islands does, for instance, or like some of those communities right along the parallel.
Nevertheless, this is an issue that affects us too. It affects us in Newfoundland and it affects us as Canadians generally. I want to say in the limited time available this afternoon that, as a person who arrives on Parliament Hill every morning and who leaves it every night, I have been rather impressed with the way the truckers have conducted their demonstration. It seems to me they ought to be an example for others. They have managed to do things that many demonstrations have failed to do. They have managed to be effective, and certainly that has to be the purpose of any demonstration of that sort. They managed to get the message across, to get the public's attention both across the country and here, in particular terms, to the attention of the decision makers, including the Minister of Transport, whom I am pleased to see in his place at this time.
They have managed to do it with minimum of aggravation. They have parked their rigs but the traffic flow has not been unduly interrupted. I congratulate them, because they got their message across in spades in a very responsible way.
I was out chatting with some of the truckers in the last few days and was overhearing some of their conversations and I was very impressed in terms of the focus they have brought to this particular issue. I thank them and their families on behalf of other members for the way in which they have focused this issue. It is high time somebody focused on this issue. This issue is only the tip of the iceberg of a larger issue: how a number of initiatives of this government are leading us as lambs to the slaughter. It is terrifying, terrifying if you are a truck driver, a consumer or a worker. Nobody is immune it seems to the wrecking ball of this particular government.
The thing that has astounded me as a Canadian in the past few days is to hear the clinical, detached view being mouthed by the Minister of Transport in Question Period and in this debate today by his Minister of State, and by other ministers of the Crown who in clinical fashion think we are dealing somehow with how to perform some remote operation on some inanimate object literally millions of miles away from us. We are talking about real people here, we are talking about people who are losing their rigs, who have lost their bank accounts, who see their livelihood go down the drain, who cannot meet payments and who cannot buy the groceries. We are talking about real live issues here.
It is aggravating for me as an ordinary human being to sit here and to watch the television when I am out in the lobby and to hear members of that crowd over there talk about it as though somehow it is a game of Monopoly or something. I wish to God they would realize the damage that their policies are doing. It is frightful. Do they realize that they, the cabinet ministers and the members of that Tory caucus, are themselves being led as lambs to the slaughter? Do they realize that?
The Prime Minister knows full well what he has unleashed with his series of policies. When he came to government he came for a particular purpose, as we all did, except his purpose is a lot more diabolical than yours could ever be, Madam Speaker, or mine or almost anybody else's in this House. He came to continue what he had done so well in Labrador City. His test plan, his lab operation was called Schefferville, and he did such a job of devastating that he then took his formula to the country as a whole. He is now doing to the country what he did to Schefferville. He is now doing it through the free trade agreement, through deregulation and through other initiatives. He is now affecting his poison. He is now pursuing exactly his agenda of making us a poor cousin of the Americans, of making us the fifty-first state

May 17, 1991
Supply
economically and of making us an appendage economically. That has been his agenda from day one.
You look at his initiatives and they are all aimed that way. If you spent your corporate life and your business life taking orders from Cleveland, it is not difficult to get used to taking orders from Washington.
The minister can shrug and can put on the old bluff and pretend "My leader, right or wrong." He can do that all he wants, he does not understand what I am talking about because he is not from Newfoundland and he was not one of the people who got the axe in Schefferville. He would not know. He has to believe that his man from Baie Comeau has got some principle left. Well, I have news for him. I have got news for him. If that person from Baie Comeau had any principle left he would not be doing this to the people of this country, he would not be doing this to the truckers of this country. You do yourself a disservice in defending that kind of skulduggery. You do yourself a disservice. I thought better of you than that. I never thought of you as a clown, I never thought of you as a puppet.


Jean Corbeil: Stupid little fella.


Roger Simmons: Ah, we hear it. This is the minister who is going to solve the truckers' problems. This is the minister who wants to bring "cerebral approaches" to the solution, this is the man who wants to rise above it all.
Let me repeat for you, Madam Speaker, because I am sure you missed it. He just called me a stupid little fella. That is his idea of a debate. No wonder he finds himself defending the indefensible, defending the guy from Baie Comeau who wants to sell us, lock, stock and barrel, to the United States.
Who wants to destroy Canada? You say I want to destroy Canada? Am I the person running the truckers into the ground? The minister and his Prime Minister are the ones-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being four o'clock p.m.-


An hon. member:: Let him finish.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There was a question at one point raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. There was not agreement. What was said was: "Let's see how much time there is left."
Actually, if time had to be given to us, there would be actually a minute and a half left to the hon. member's 10 minutes.
The hon. member for York West was rising?


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, the hon. member from Thunder Bay said that if there is no question and answer, there may be time to get both speakers in.
I know he used the word "may". I think we took him in good faith. I know my colleague was simply wrapping up. If you would accord him the extra minute that he needs to finish this debate, I would appreciate it, given the fact that we did change the procedure. We are playing by your rules, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We did not change procedure. Is there unanimous consent to give the hon. member an extra minute and a half to complete his remarks?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unanimous consent has just been withdrawn.
It being 4 o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17) proceedings on the motion have expired.

The House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 21, at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.02 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tbesday, May 21,1991