1992-04-02

Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, the government's complete response to the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 28 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



THE ENVIRONMENT


Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of members of the House and Canadians the many activities taking place across Canada to celebrate National Wildlife Week from April 5 to April 11.
We should not underestimate the significance of wildlife to Canada's development, both economically and culturally.
First, our aboriginal peoples developed a traditional way of life in close harmony with nature. Later, European explorers marvelled at the wealth of the wildlife in our seas and in our forests.
Canadian literature and art are rich in themes of wildlife and landscape, bearing witness to the powerful influence of nature on our actions and ideas.
But despite our land's vastness and its rich endowment of wilderness, wildlife is threatened here in Canada, as elsewhere, by human activity crowding our natural habitat. Canada's list of endangered wildlife gets longer each year and now stands at more than 200 species. This trend is alarming, but it is not irreversible, and in recent months a range of wildlife initiatives have been launched under Canada's green plan in order to halt it.
These initiatives include a National Wildlife Strategy for Canada, the newly introduced Wild Animal and Plant Protection Act, the recently launched federal policy on wetland conservation, two agreements with the World Wildlife Fund Canada, and the establishment of a new migratory bird sanctuary in the Northwest Territories. All of these will help Canada's goal of preserving 12 per cent of the country as protected spaces.
In the international arena, Canada is active in protecting wildlife. During the ongoing negotiations leading up to the United Nations earth summit in Brazil this June, Canada is taking a leading part in working to develop a framework convention on biodiversity.
The Prime Minister has recently announced his decision to attend the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and his presence will underline Canada's commitment in this regard.
Efforts such as these to ensure the health and diversity of wild species, both nationally and globally, will be highlighted during National Wildlife Week.
Many private organizations and government agencies dedicated to conserving wildlife are joining forces to celebrate this week with a wide range of activities. For example across Canada, children are becoming more aware of wildlife conservation issues through the highly successful Habitat 2000 educational program developed by the Canadian Wildlife Federation.

April 2, 1992
Routine Proceedings
Here in the national capital region, Wildlife Festival '92 will include events such as displays at shopping centres and museums, an international film festival and nature tours.
One of those nature tours will take place right here on the Hill on Tuesday, April 7. I invite all members of the House of Commons and their staff to join with me on a "walk on the wild side" of the Hill around the Parliament Buildings.
I am very pleased that the Speaker of the House of Commons will co-host this walk on Parliament Hill. The walk will be under the direction and guidance of a biologist from the Canadian Wildlife Service. Following the walk, we will have an opportunity to express our own wildlife artistry in a special painting, and our co-operative artwork will be displayed in the Wildlife Festival '92.
Canada's wildlife is a vital part of our history. It is up to all of us to ensure that it is also part of our future. I encourage Canadians to join with their governments, their local conservation authorities, their communities and their friends in celebrating this year's National Wildlife Week.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the ingredient necessary, if we are to preserve this fragile ecological sphere, is political will.
National Wildlife Week has a great deal to do with creating that political will. We must make Canadians more aware of our wildlife and more aware of the peril in which many species find themselves. Without that increased awareness eventually stiffening political will and backbone to protect those species and to ensure that Canadians for generations to come will continue to enjoy as our parents, grandparents, those who first came to these shores and those aboriginal Canadians who were here for many centuries before have done, the richness of life in this country.
Species do not live in isolation, and wildlife requires wilderness. Endangered species are also a question of endangered spaces. We have to look not only at what will look nice in a picture, because if that is primarily where we focus our efforts, all we will have in a few generations
is pictures. We have to look at wildlife where it actually lives.
I know all members of Parliament are aware of this marvellous book and the marvellous program on endangered spaces that is seeking to protect the very habitat which ensures that species can survive and thrive.
There is little doubt that a strong, unifying bond among Canadians is our deep appreciation of our natural environment. One of the things that unites us from coast to coast is to know that we share in common some of the most beautiful and unique natural spaces that exist on the face of the earth.
For members who have not looked through this book in some time, I encourage them to do so. They will see the diversity of forests, tundra, water, all of which to some extent without political will are endangered. Without us protecting those spaces, the natural environment in which wildlife flourishes, our wildlife is in danger.
A week is important because it focuses public attention. Children learn, we all learn that we are not doing all we should to make sure future generations will enjoy what Canadians now have.
It is beyond the commitment of Canadians. It is a commitment that we have to the world to protect a unique environment that exists nowhere else. That is why Canada has in principle adopted the world-wide commitment to protect 12 per cent of natural areas in this country.
However, we would all admit that we are far from achieving that. As we have been cautioned by the Canadian Nature Federation which will soon be appearing before the environment committee, the real test of our commitment is: Do we allocate our resources to accomplish the goals that we say we want to accomplish?
In the budget that was presented to Parliament just a month ago and in the estimates that were tabled more recently, do we have the funds to ensure that we are preserving not only national and natural treasures but world treasures? That is the responsibility and the stewardship we have for being fortunate enough to live in Canada. We have a responsibility to preserve what is ours so that we can share it with the world.
April 2, 1992

Routine Proceedings
We also have to look at the specific actions we take on a daily basis in this House through the instruments of government to see whether in fact we are meeting the global commitment that we so eloquently state to protect wildlife. For instance, do we have the regulations on pulp and paper mill effluent to ensure that wildlife is protected? Do we have the tax policies that allows Canadians to donate land for preservation?
The community has led on these issues. It is up to all of us in Parliament to ensure that we carry out the trust that they have placed in us to protect our wildlife.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in anticipation of National Wildlife Week. As somebody who comes from a riding which is well known, starting with the beluga whales and the polar bears and many various types of wildlife species, covering three-quarters of Manitoba, I certainly welcome this week and recognize the importance of wildlife to Canadian history and to Canadian nature.
Both previous speakers have talked about the aboriginals and their traditional harvesting of wildlife. At that particular time in our history, when it was the dominant economic feature of sustainable development within our country, there was a balance. That balance has been lost over the last hundred years. It is a balance that we must restore.
I welcome the remarks of the minister. I noticed that she did make reference to the Prime Minister's attending the conference in Brazil this June. I would hope that in making his presence known, the Prime Minister will also urge the President of the United States to attend and make sure the United States government is not sabotaging the efforts of this biodiversity conference. It is very important that the American government and the American people become involved in the process and not be destructive to that process.
Within our own nation we need to see the federal government's words being matched by the federal government's actions. Within the province of Manitoba, there is an issue with regard to the Oak Hammock Marsh. Ducks Unlimited is building its national headquarters right within that marsh. It is going to affect drainage. It is going to affect the breeding areas of many species.
What is the federal government's position in this? The federal government is helping to fund that headquarters right in that marsh. For that matter, under the western economic diversification office the federal government is supplying $2.48 million for that centre.
Right now the federal government again is being taken to court on this very issue. I would like to see the federal government providing financial support to those organizations that are concerned about this potential development within Oak Hammock Marsh.
It is interesting to note that the Government of Manitoba found that this particular project could not go through on the basis of the 1987 laws. In June 1991 it changed the laws in Manitoba to allow this particular project to go forward. The federal government was silent.
That is just one example. I could go through any number of examples of why this is a problem in our nation, but I do not want to give a long political speech of that nature.
There are many positive things that can be done. We have to continue to develop our national parks system. If I can do a local plug for a few seconds, one of the things we would like to see is quicker action on is the national park in Churchill, a very important park for the people of that region. It should be recognized as one of the special geographic features of our nation.
I recognize that my time is short on this issue, but I hope that all Canadians will participate in National Wildlife Week next week, that it will be a very successful week for all of Canada, and that it will result in concrete action on behalf of the environment of Canada.



FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
10TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Clement Couture (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act. The committee has agreed to report this bill without amendment.

April 2, 1992
Routine Proceedings
11TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE


Clément Couture: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-56, an act representing the control of government expenditures.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE STATUS OF DISABLED PERSONS


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That eight members and six staff of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons be permitted to travel to Vancouver, B.C. from April 20 to April 27,1992 to attend the Independence '92 International Convention on Disability, and to hold hearings in conjunction with the convention.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: 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.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I think you will also find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the Standing Committee on Environment be empowered to have televised and radio broadcasting of its meeting on April 6, 1992 according to the principles and practices governing the broadcasting of the House of Commons.
That, notwithstanding the report of the Standing Committee on
Elections, Privileges, Procedures and Private Members' Business
concurred in by the House on October 20,1989, a broadcast of the
proceedings on the parliamentary channel be permitted on Sunday,
April 12, 1992 at 12 o'clock p.m., Eastern Standard Time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: 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.

Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House a petition certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 36.
This petition bears names of concerned citizens from across Canada, from Halifax to Vancouver, who humbly pray that Parliament amend the Income Thx Act such that child related benefits and deductions for child care are fair and equitable to all family structures.
I might add that this petition was circulated and the signatures were collected prior to the budget of 1992 and that some of the objectives of this petition have already been met.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present today petitions signed by residents of Calgary Southeast, Calgary Southwest and Red Deer, pursuant to Standing Order 36.
These petitioners wish to draw to our attention that two Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, who have been sentenced to 28 years each in a Brazil prison, have suffered miscarriages of justice, cruel and unusual treatment.
April 2, 1992

They ask Parliament to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada.


CRIMES OF VIOLENCE
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by numerous residents of the beautiful city of Kingston, Ontario.
These petitioners object to the failure to recognize the seriousness of crimes of violence against the person and call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act and the Parole Act to make clear our abhorrence of the seriousness of these crimes.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I wish to inform the House, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(a), that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 15 minutes beginning at 1 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its unwillingness to concede that the deregulation of the Canadian transport industry has been a failure and in fact has led to fewer carriers, fewer jobs, higher prices, reduced service and less safe operations in air, road and rail transportation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my caucus I guess in a large way to repeat once again that we told you so.
The motion before us deals with the government's failure to concede that deregulation did not work, did
Supply
not work for air, did not work for trucking, has not worked for rail, and certainly has not worked on behalf of Canadian consumers.
Let me start by asking a rhetorical question. There is a song out there from my youth: Where Have All the Flowers Gone'l Let me change that to: Where have all the carriers gone? Where is Wardair? Where is City Express? Where is Nordair? Where is Austin Airways?
The list can go on and on and on in Canada and the United States. Where is Braniff? Where is Eastern? Where is National? Where is Western? Where is Frontier? Where is Ozark? Where is Piedmount? Where is Air Cal? Where is PSA? Where are Empire, Horizon, Air Atlanta, Jet America?
They have all gone. They have been gobbled up or they have gone into bankruptcy.
The same thing has been happening in Canada. It should not have come as a surprise to the Canadian government. We entered into the full formal debate on deregulation. The white paper Freedom to Move was tabled by the then Minister of Transport who is now Deputy Prime Minister. The indications were there in the United States which had been in a deregulated mode for about 10 years that we would have fewer carriers, not more; that we would have less competition, not more; that we would have higher prices, not lower prices; and that safety would be undermined.
Regretfully all that has come to pass in Canada. The Conservative government decided to go full bore into economic deregulation.
I want to make clear what that means. That is not just getting the government off the backs of the industry, which is how the government would like to phrase it. It changed the way in which the system was managed. It took those sectors-air, road and rail, primarily road and air-from a test of public necessity and convenience to a fit, willing and able kind of test.
What that means in layman's terms is that under regulation, carriers who wanted to change their rates, to change their routings, to drop a city or to add a city to their network would have to apply. They would have to prove that there was a need and that there was a public benefit from the proposed change, or that the negative aspects were minimal and they had no choice because of rising fuel costs or what have you.

April 2, 1992
Supply
That is all gone. What we ended up with is a system where the banker made the decision. If you could convince a banker that there was a need for a service and if that banker was prepared to advance you the money, you were in business. Yes, you needed a safety certificate, but the reality we have seen from the Moshansky report is how easy it was to get that safety certificate without going through the proper requirements of assurances of safe operations.
That is the kind of system we went to. In Canada we have gone from three major airlines, Air Canada, Canadian and Wardair, down to two. Initially we saw the emergence of a number of independent regional carriers: Atlantic Canada, central Canada, western Canada, the north. Just as an aside I want to remind the House that the north retained its regulatory regime because the transport committee unanimously recognized that the north was different. There is a different kind of regime north of 60 that allows greater control by the government. However, that is aside from the point.
We now have Canadian Airlines negotiating very seriously with American Airlines for an infusion of equity. As much as 25 per cent of Canadian Airlines is up for sale to American Airlines. Air Canada has suggested if that happens it may have to follow suit. It is the beginning of the end of the word "Canada" in those two airlines.
At the same time, as part of this new regime of competitiveness brought to us by the Conservatives we have ended up having all those regional carriers that emerged in the rush to get in on the bandwagon to make a buck being acquired in some cases 100 per cent, in some cases 50 per cent and other ranges by the two major carriers. We have a duopoly in Canada, an unregulated duopoly.
That has not benefited customers. It has not benefited communities. In terms of customers, they are required to pay even higher prices for less service. A number of communities lost jet service, communities like Sault Ste. Marie, Diyden, London, Windsor, North Bay, Sudbury, all in Ontario, and Brandon, Manitoba, to name a few. They lost jet service. Their replacement service was the smaller, commuter Dash-8 type of equipment, albeit a very excellent aircraft. But when you go from a jet service which has in some ways an elitist feeling about it to a lesser service, in the eyes of those communities their communities have been down-graded; it is no longer the economic stimulater they once had.
The community of Dryden, for example, used to be the regional hub for northwestern Ontario. It was not Thunder Bay. Because Diyden had jet service, it made sense for the smaller northern carriers to base their operations there, or at least to provide connections there up into the far north, to the northern reserves, to Kenora and to other communities in the northwest. As a result of deregulation, Dryden lost its jet service. Even more important, it lost its hub status. That moved to Thunder Bay.
That is a plus for me and my constituents, and it certainly has helped us make the argument for a brand new terminal at the Thunder Bay airport because of the rapid increase in traffic that has occurred there. So we are winners. But Diyden was a loser. It has also had an impact on its economy, because without the jet service, without the ease of connections and the quality of service, the business community is less likely to see Dryden as a place in which to locate. I think if you talk to the mayor there you would find that what I am saying is very accurate.
At the same time, the passengers have been squished into smaller seats. In some cases they have lost in-cabin services. In some cases they do not even have washrooms, although that is slowly changing in terms of providing bigger and bigger equipment. So there was a decline in services offered. Yet they were still expected to pay the same to fly from Thunder Bay to Winnipeg on a Dash-8 as they were paying on a jet.
Let me touch briefly on the fares, because I think it is a key element. The government and the promoters of deregulation argue that it is cheaper flying today than it was in 1984. I have a service bulletin put out by the Aviation Statistics Centre from Stats Canada. It shows a year-by-year, in fact quarter-by-quarter change in air fares. It breaks it down between northern economy fare and northern discount fare, southern economy fare and southern discount fare.
When you look at the southern fares, the ones that most of us in this room have paid for by the taxpayer, economy fare since 1986 has gone up around 50 per cent. The Consumer Price Index has only gone up by 27 per cent in that same period. In terms of the full economy fare, the business person who does not have discretion in terms of when he or she may fly but has to get to Toronto or Ottawa today, buys his or her ticket with no discount. That has gone up by 50 per cent, if not more, since 1986.
April 2, 1992

That has an impact on the business community. It has an impact on governments in terms of additional costs to them because governments do have to fly people from city to city in order to do their work.
On the discount fare in the south, it has not gone up as much but it has still gone up slightly above the CPI. It looks like it is about 130 per cent of what it was in 1986, again comparing to a 27 per cent increase in the CPI. So it has gone up marginally more than the Consumer Price Index.
To say that we have all gained because of deregulation is not accurate. We may have not seen the increases as drastic, I would grant you that, but we are still paying more today for the discount fares than we were in 1986 and we are paying more than we would if the Consumer Price Index had been the measure. Keep in mind that under regulation, any of these fare increases would have to be subject to the test of public convenience and necessity. While there was some inflexibility under the old CTC when it came to rate setting, I think that could have been fixed in such a way to provide greater opportunities for the carriers to provide discount fares while at the same time not affecting their bottom line.
Let me turn now to the bottom line because that is really the nub of the issue. When you take the decisions about safety, the cities that you service, the rates you charge, out of the hands of the regulator, i.e., out of the hands of the state and give it to the bankers, the driving force is: "Can I make a buck? Where do I have to reduce my input costs in order to maximize my profit?" I think what we saw throughout the last six years, if not more than that in Canada, and certainly in the last 15 years in the United States, is that as a result of the cut-throat competition with prices being driven down in order to attract traffic to a particular airline, they have put themselves in financial jeopardy.
That is why Wardair went under. In a sense, it had no choice but to sell to Pacific Western. That is why City Express could not make a go of it, even though I can remember the owner of City Express telling the trans-
Supply
port committee as we were studying deregulation: "Just watch me. I can compete with the big boys and win". He could not. He lost. Quite frankly, we all lost because that was a good service, an entrepreneurial service that filled a niche in the market.
The other element of the bottom line regulation is that you begin to look at ways to cut costs that you would not have looked at before. There is nothing necessarily wrong with working smarter, but we saw what was happening in the States and we gave a warning, my colleague from Regina-Lumsden and 1.1 have handled this matter since 1984 and my colleague for decades before that. At one time an airline would replace its component parts well before the legal limit of that part or the specifications said to. For example, a widget that had 1,000 air hours of use might be replaced at 800 hours to give that additional margin of safety. At the same time, minor maintenance problems on a plane would be fixed immediately.
What has happened because of cost cutting is that part that has to be replaced in 1,000 hours is not replaced until 1,000 hours. Those minor problems with the plane are stacked up and, therefore, they end up as part of a major repair job.
Certainly, Justice Moshansky in his report outlined that on the Air Ontario flight, the fatal flight that crashed in Dryden killing 24 people, there were a number of maintenance deficiencies that had been noted a number of times and while by themselves they did not cause the accident, they certainly helped to create the atmosphere in which the accident was caused.
We see from an economic point of view that when the banker rules the roost, too many things go by the way. We would prefer a return to regulation so that carriers, those that still exist, can in effect be guaranteed a reasonable return on their investment. After all, they are there to make a profit. They are not there as public servants, although we wish Air Canada was back in that mode as a publicly-owned company, publicly owned by the taxpayers as opposed to the individual shareholders. But that is a matter for another debate.

April 2, 1992
Supply
The key thing is we need some stability. Carriers have to be assured of a decent return. In doing so, we then ensure that they can afford to pay for the kind of maintenance we need, the kind of safety we need, the kind of services we need.
Let me turn now from air to trucking. We saw a separate piece of legislation in this House deregulating trucking and parallel action in the provinces to also deregulate trucking. I found that whole aspect quite ironic because as a provincial member of the legislature in Ontario in 1976,1 was part of a select committee that studied trucking deregulation in Ontario. Deregulation never occurred there under the Conservatives, but as a result of what the federal Conservatives did here, the provincial Liberals agreed and followed through with deregulation.
What we saw happening in trucking was in a way a microcosm of what happened in air. We saw the emergence of a whole bunch of new truckers. A lot of the independents that for years were operating illegally became legal. They had the ability to get out and make a buck. A lot of new ones came in, again with the same test. If you can convince your banker, you can buy a rig and you can go out and hustle for the work.
We raised expectations and a lot of mom and pop operations developed, that independent spirit. What happened was that the industry grew too fast. There were more trucks than there was cargo, so costs became a factor. We saw outside this House the place was almost surrounded by rigs. We saw in Windsor the bridge between Windsor and Detroit shut down because of truckers who were angry at the inability of governments to assist them. They were angry that there was not enough work for them. They saw their limited cargo access being siphoned off to American truckers because they have different tax laws, different write-offs and what have you.
We created a situation where we had gone from a regulated environment where there were some controls on the number of trucks as a way to guarantee quality of service, a restriction on the quantity of service so that the number of trucks on the road matched the cargo that was available, so that there was a good bottom line that those who were in business had a decent return. Yes, they tend to be larger companies, almost back to that point where a
lot of the independent operators are now locked into contracts with a major company. They are finding themselves no better off as a result of that.
Mr. Speaker, I know that I have limited time left. In conclusion, the motion that we put forward not only is a statement about deregulation itself, but is also an indication that this government has failed to recognize that its philosophy did not work. It did not create more competition, it did not create more jobs; it did the opposite: less jobs, less service, less safe operations.
I know it is time to turn things around again and provide some stability in our air industry, our trucking industry and in our rail industry, which I have not even got to because of the time available. If we do not then what is happening to Canadian Airlines is going to happen to CN, CP, Air Canada and our trucking companies. More and more they will be bought up and controlled by individuals and companies south of the border.
I would like to leave you with just one parting word. The reason that this country developed as it did in an east-west mode was because of the foresight of our first Prime Minister who said we had to have those connections. By deregulation, we have lost those connections entirely.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to be involved in this debate on the opposition motion this morning.
I listened intently to a colleague of the House defending this motion which deals with deregulation. It does not surprise me that he and his party would be opposed to deregulation because they are basically opposed to privatization of most things. They would like the government of the country to own all transportation, to basically be involved in a major way in the activities of trucking and rail. In other words, it is the socialistic view that he presents in his place. Although we never talked about that part of it, his view is quite simple. It is that private enterprise should not be into transportation.
He shakes his head, but if he had heard what he said this morning, he is opposed to deregulation which allows for the private sector to invest in the transportation industry not to be dictated by the government. But in fact, in his case it would be.
April 2, 1992

He did not acknowledge that the customer becomes the king. The consumer decides how many airplanes should fly, how many trains should go back and forth as opposed to imposing this at the expense of taxpayers and the state of the economy of this country.
I want to get to the specifics of what he talked about. He made a statement that deregulation reduced services and made air traffic less safe.
If that is the statement of the opposition today, let the hon. gentleman stand in his place and tell this House what safety regulations were taken away or were reduced by the Department of Transport. What specific safety regulations were ended because of deregulation? Let him be specific. Which specific safety regulations do we not have today that we had before we went into this deregulation?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. It shows the underlying lack of knowledge of the government as to the impact of deregulation.
Let me deal with his last question in a very direct way. There were no safety regulations that were changed as a result of deregulation. There is no question about that.
As to what was not done, as far back as the spring of 1984 the departmental staff were warning that they did not have sufficient inspectors to ensure that as we moved into a deregulated environment we would be able to make sure that it remained safe. That is point number one.
With respect to point number two, I will repeat what I said in my speech. When you take away the economic stability of a carrier and that carrier begins to look for ways in which to cut corners, then instead of an extra margin of safety that it would operate under-in other words, replacing a part at 800 hours instead of the prescribed 1,000 hours-the margin of safety was reduced. There was no violation of the law, let us make that clear. But it created a culture that left open the possibility of a Dryden crash which regretfully happened.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, who talked about trucking. I have an article from March 1992 written by Jean-Roch Savard which says: "On December 6, 1991, the Government of Canada announced a series
Supply
of measures concerning the transportation industry, especially trucking. These provisions should in principle improve the tax system for carriers and subcontractors. By taking advantage of these measures, highway transportation companies should become more competitive, it is thought". He concludes his article by saying: "In my opinion, only a concerted effort of the federal and provincial governments will get the trucking industry back in shape. Ottawa has shown its goodwill. Given the present political context, Quebec must get the message and do its part".
Will Ontario now do its part to help the trucking industry in southern Ontario?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague's question. First of all, let me say that I welcomed the federal initiative. It was a good short-term solution to a long-term problem. But it would not have been necessary had we not allowed the proliferation of truckers to exceed the ability of the suppliers to provide goods to move. That is the reality.
In terms of Ontario, I do not have the specifics with me. Ontario did participate with the federal government in trying to find solutions to the situation as it related to Ontario. It is working on it. It has made some announcements. I am not sure if they parallel those of Quebec.
Certainly, we all recognize that truckers are in deep trouble. Not just the independents but the whole system is in trouble because of the competition from the United States. If we let the NAFTA agreement go through, assuming that the draft that I read into the record in this House is accurate, giving them full access to trucking, then we might as well kiss all of our independent operators goodbye.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciated the speech by my hon. colleague that pointed out to some degree the inevitable impact of deregulation and the difference in philosophy. It is clear there is a difference in philosophy between this side and the other side.
I want to ask a question about the government acting within the context of its own ideology, within the context of the American experience in this House during the debate.

April 2, 1992
Supply
I clearly remember the warnings given to the government about the inevitable rise in the amount of traffic, for example at Pearson airport, and the necessity of increasing the number of air traffic controllers.
I ask my colleague what was the government's reaction to that? What has been the sequel? I ask him if he is aware of the increase in the number of planes that do not take off for mechanical reasons? Also, what is the impact of increased traffic on the availability and adequacy of inspection of aircraft in the latter regard?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I could use a whole ten minutes just responding to my colleague.
Let me try to deal quickly with the elements. With regard to planes not taking off because of mechanical difficulties, there is a definite indication of an increasing number. There is also an increasing number of the smaller commuter carriers that cancel in-between flights. Say there is one flight every hour but there are not enough passengers, so they cancel a flight. Under regulation they would not be allowed to get away with that.
In terms of air traffic controllers, in terms of inspectors, the government was warned time and time again that what it was doing was inconsistent with the realities of deregulation. If you are predicting more planes in the air as a result of your policy, then you damn well better have more air traffic controllers to handle that in the air and more inspectors to ensure that the operations are in fact safe.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to bring a little reality to this debate and to demonstrate that the government's regulatory reform has been quite a success. I have the facts to prove just that.
I must say that I welcome the contribution to this debate and also the sense of reality brought to the debate by the hon. member for Portage-Interlake. The member for Abitibi also posed a very good question.
During the mid-eighties, the government saw that the legislation which had served and protected transportation industries well in the past was impeding their growth. This legislation served neither the Canadian industry nor the travelling public.
In 1987, the government introduced economic regulatory reform in transportation, a regulatory framework to meet the needs of modem Canada. The National Transportation Act of 1987, the Motor Vehicle Transportation Act of 1987 and the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act of 1987 brought in a new era of economic regulations for the transportation industry of Canada.
That legislative package recognized the importance of transportation in enhancing Canada's competitive edge in the global economy and in promoting the economic growth of its regions.
To achieve those ends, specific provisions in the legislation were designed to encourage the development of a new competitive environment, an efficient transportation system that meets the needs of shippers and travellers and a simplified accessible and responsive regulatory process.
The key elements of the new national transportation policy are safety, competition, less regulation and increased accessibility. Safety of the transportation system is the top priority. The transportation system exists to serve the needs of shippers and travellers. Competition and market forces are the prime agents in providing economic, efficient and adequate transportation services at the lowest cost.
Economic regulation of carriers will be minimized to encourage competition both within and among transportation modes. Carriers should, as far as is practicable, bear a fair share of costs and facilities and services provided at public expense and to be compensated for publicly imposed duties.
Transportation is a key to regional development. Carriers should not create undue obstacles to the mobility of all, including disabled persons.
In proceeding with these major reforms, the government did not underestimate the strategic importance of Canada's transportation industry. As a prudent manager of Canada's assets, it mandated that the National Transportation Agency review the operation of the new regulatory framework and report to the minister each year for four consecutive years.
April 2, 1992

Supply
Three such annual reviews are now in and they indicate that the economic regulatory reforms and objectives are being met. Let us look at the facts as reported by the agency.
First, there is no evidence of a reduction in safety. This was confirmed by the preliminary 1991 statistics from the Transportation Safety Board which, as compared to 1990, indicated a slight decrease in the railway accident rate, a decrease in the number of shipping accidents and no change in aircraft accident rates.
Generally, Canada's transportation accident safety record in the 1980s was good. The trend in accident rates in the air and rail modes has been downward. Moreover, the available data indicate that the introduction of economic regulatory reform in 1988 had no detrimental impact on the transportation accident rate. The rates have generally continued their downward trend.
Second, competition and market forces have kept real rate increases down. Let me highlight a few examples to illustrate this point. In the air mode there was an increase in the use of discount air fares. About two-thirds of passengers travel on discount fares on southern routes and there is a growing use of discount fares in the north. In the rail mode, freight rate increases have been lower than inflation. The level of competition has kept downward pressure on trucking rates. The market conditions have also kept freight rates of international liner shipping services in check.
Third, there has been a growth in the number of air and truck carriers. While some consolidation has occurred, competition still predominates. Moreover, in the rail mode we are witnessing the emergence and expansion of short-line railways.
Fourth, there have been major improvements in levels of services and increased competition. For example, in the air mode comprehensive national networks of the two major carrier groupings have resulted in widespread competition and increased services in terms of domestic city payers connected by direct and indirect flights.
Alternative services are being offered for the first time to many communities in Canada. In summary, travel options have been expanded with increased competition in price, service and quality.
Finally, intermodal services are improving. Shippers report improvement in intermodal services for domestic and transborder traffic. Port container traffic reached its highest level ever in 1990, while railways and port terminal operators made a number of intermodal facility investments in 1990.
The facts are there to prove that our regulatory reform is successful. However, the government recognizes that not everything is rosy. The demand for transportation services is derived from the demand for goods and services in the economy in general. The reduction in economic activity world wide in the recent economic downturn has slowed transportation activity. Moreover, the air mode was doubly affected by last year's Persian Gulf crisis. All modes have been affected and the drop in transportation activity has affected the financial position of the carriers and of employment. The transportation industry is not immune to slower economic growth. The transportation sector is expected to improve, however, as economic recovery gathers momentum. We are seeing those trends already beginning.
On February 3 the Minister of Transport announced a comprehensive one-year review of federal transportation regulatory legislation. This review will complement other consultations that are under way in conjunction with the government's prosperity initiative. The review will provide valuable information on the transportation industry by identifying and assessing developments since economic regulatory reform was introduced in 1988. It will also highlight opportunities for improvements in domestic transportation.
As we move through the 90s, transportation will be as strategic as it was 125 years ago at Confederation. Transportation is a pillar of prosperity in Canadian competitiveness. Economic regulatory reform has been successful in bringing about a strong and vital transportation sector.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport for boldly stating what few other members in this House would probably state, in fact, what few Canadians would believe.

Supply
I want to take one statement he made in that very short summation on deregulation by this government since 1984-85. He said that there was no reduction in accidents in the air. The parliamentary secretary said that.
I want to give him one example of evidence that we, the minister and Transport Canada have which refutes that very statement. The Canadian Aviation Safety Board's figures for 1981 to 1984, prior to deregulation, show that accidents numbered 695 in 1981 and fell to 458 in 1984.
Then deregulation set in. This government embarked on its program of deregulation. From 1985 to 1991, the number of accidents went up. In 1985 there were 438 accidents; in 1991, 449 accidents. This is not rhetoric. These are figures released by CASB, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board.
I want to ask the member, based on this information, how he can say that there has been no reduction in the number of accidents in the air.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's question. It points out again how these opposition members and this member in particular like to manipulate numbers to mislead those who will read Hansard and those who are watching this debate right now.
Let me say at the outset that I am delighted we have Hansard. It is a printed record of what is said here in the House. It is quite clear through a review of Hansard that at no time did I use the words that the hon. member has just attributed to me.
I said that there is no change in the accident rate. There is a significant difference between the numbers in a given year of accidents and the accident rate. Clearly, if anyone would care to look at the numbers, they would note that there has been a tremendous increase in the volume of air traffic in Canada over the years.
For example, if there were twice as many flights in a given year, one would presume that at the same rate there may be, unfortunately, a few more accidents. If there is only one plane flying, there is considerably less chance of accidents than if there is more than one.
I always have to have a look at the hon. member's motivation when he brings out these facetious arguments with regard to manipulating numbers as he did the other
day in the House when he was asking our minister about the figures for regulatory safety inspectors and asking who was right.
I found it an interesting question, enough to pursue the matter. I found that both ministers were right, the minister who made a reply in this House several years ago to which the hon. member referred his question in the House this week, and also the current Minister of Transportation.
The member, as is usual to suit his purposes, is comparing apples and oranges. He is asking one minister about the regulatory safety inspectors and comparing his response to a question asked several years ago of the former Minister of Transport who was referring in his numbers to inspectors.
I have it here in the total system. This was back in 1985. His answer included air navigation and airport inspectors as well as regulatory safety inspectors.
Obviously, there will be, as there is today, more in terms of numbers when you include air navigation and airport inspectors in the figures of regulatory safety inspectors. These are two other categories of inspectors to which the former minister referred. It is a somewhat clever but deceitful effort to manipulate numbers to the member's advantage.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the parliamentary secretary's response. I want to point out at the outset of my comments that deregulation only applied to commercial aviation. It did not apply to the owner-operators, the general aviation class. It only applied to the commercial ones, the folks you and I buy tickets from to ride on their planes.
We have been playing with numbers. The reason I pointed out that deregulation talks solely about commercial aircraft is that the numbers the parliamentary secretary uses, the numbers the minister uses, while accurate, are meaningless in the debate about deregulation and about the Dryden inquiry. The real numbers from CASB indicate that from 1984 to 1991 the Canadian registered aircraft commercial operations accidents increased by 33.7 per cent. More important, and this comes back to a comment made by the parliamentary secretary just now, the total accident rate per 100,000 hours has gone from 8.3 in 1984 to 9.4 in 1989.
April 2, 1992

Therefore, the member's argument that safety is better because there are more planes in the sky and more hours does not hold water. The agency's own reports show that there has been an increase, not just in the straight number of accidents, but in the rate of per 100,000 hours. It is going up, not down.
My question to the member is: Why does the government continue to insist on mixing apples and oranges in this debate instead of being honest with the Canadian public and saying the accident rate has gone up and it is going to do something to bring it back down?


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, we could keep going around this. The facts are clear. The member stated in his somewhat lengthy preamble to his question that our numbers were accurate. That is on the record as just now admitted by the member. Our numbers, the numbers of the Minister of Transport and the Department of Transport are accurate. There has been no increase in the rate of accidents in this country. He is referring specifically to air safety here.
I would like to repeat that we have just completed a three-year inquiry into a particular crash. The Moshan-sky report has recently been tabled and I think the member is aware that just this past week Mr. Justice Moshansky, who completed this very detailed report and assessment, indicated that Canada has one of the safest aviation systems in the world. That speaks for itself.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I again restate that it is privilege for me to rise and debate this opposition motion regarding the deregulation of our transportation industry.
For the record, let me restate what that motion is.
That this House condemns the government for its unwillingness to concede that the deregulation of the Canadian transport industry has been a failure and in fact has led to fewer carriers, fewer jobs, higher prices, reduced service and less safe operations in air, road and rail transportation.
The thrust of this motion is correct. However, I would like to state one important caveat with respect to the intention of this motion. What it states regarding higher prices and job losses is true. Of paramount importance, however, is the government's complete failure to be prepared to deal with the creature it unleashed. There are literally volumes of documentation rife with examples of this government's failure to deal with deregulation.
Supply
I would like to set out other problems in Transport Canada which, as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, have barred real attempts at reform within the transportation system.
Transport Canada has become a revolving door of ministerial irresponsibility. On the one hand, ministers are replaced at the drop of a hat when cabinet shuffles are completed. This fact severely mitigates any changes to the system which might have been under way as the minister became more familiar with the department.
I have that kind of knowledge first hand from one of the previous five Ministers of Transport that this government has had in office. In fairness I am not going to state who that is. I am not going to say who it is by name, but he knows who it is. He was the one who told me at a dinner one night when we got together with other members of the transport committee. He said to me: "Damn, I was just getting my teeth into this thing. I was just starting to understand that massive portfolio called Transport Canada and now I have to be moved off to another minister's portfolio". That is indeed unfortunate.
On the other hand, successive managers, and we are talking foot soldiers, senior managers and the minister, brought in from the outside have made their mark in the department and then have moved on, of course merely compounding the phenomenon of the revolving door which I just spoke about.
The problem is that ministers and managers trying to make the right career moves did not implement policies which would probably have increased the department's spending. Remember that this is a government that, from the very beginning, made deficit reduction its over-all policy objective.
When deregulation was proposed by this government, its belief was that the industry, air and road, would blossom on its own. It believed-and we have heard it from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport-in that Conservative credo of survival of the fittest and took the reins of the marketplace so that the industry could grow without undue government regulation and supervision. But the government failed to tend to the roots of that system. We know full well that when something has to grow, one has to put in the support mechanisms and the resources that will ensure the steady, strong and vertical or upward growth of that system, but not this government.

April 2, 1992
Supply
I want to take you back, Mr. Speaker, to the excellent and far-reaching report of the Diyden inquiry. The commission chair, Justice Virgil Moshansky, was extremely thorough in his investigation of Transport Canada, as well as the airline involved in that tragic accident of March 10, 1989. In volume 3 of the report it states: "Throughout the hearings of this inquiry into the Diyden accident, I heard repeatedly concerns expressed by Transport Canada witnesses regarding their inability to respond effectively as regulators to an increased demand for air carrier certification, inspection and surveillance services". According to the witnesses, the certification inspection and surveillance workload created by a rapidly changing air carrier industry was not matched by a commensurate increase in resources for Transport Canada's regulatory agency.
The resource squeeze stems from the almost simultaneous introduction of two federal government policies in 1984, namely economic regulatory reform of the air carrier industry and deficit reduction, a program imposing fiscal restraint on federal government services. The combined effect of these two policies created a difficult set of circumstances for Transport Canada personnel responsible for air carrier safety.
At the time of deregulation, under the former Minister of Transport who is now Deputy Prime Minister, it was called a freedom to move. There was concern over what the government was trying to achieve under deregulation. The Official Opposition sounded the alarm bells but was continually assured by the then Minister of Transport that everything was going to be okay. He stated back in 1984: "I would like to indicate unequivocally that the government will neither propose nor permit any economic regulatory reform that might be detrimental to safety standards".
That was not what his deputy minister was saying. I want to quote again from the Moshansky report on page 874. This is what his deputy minister said:
You can't talk about it-
That is, economic regulatory reform.
- without talking about another government policy because while I said a moment ago that, yes, we would implement the policy laid
down to us by the Minister of Transport, one is essentially saying in these major policy initiatives, that one is implementing the policy of the government, of the Ministry, of the decisions, the policy decisions of the government.
Yet, another high priority policy decision of the government was deficit reduction. And the first blush of deficit reduction measures hit in Mr. Wilson's economic statement of November 1984. And these-these measures that were in that impacted upon the department.
The department took a second blow in terms of deficit reduction targets in the May 1985 budget, which was, in financial planning terms, hard on the heels of November '84.
That was back in 1984 from the then Minister of Transport's deputy minister. Clearly the department was struggling within itself, wrestling with two diametrically opposed points: safety and saving a buck. We all know and we all can appreciate, and we have all stated it time and time again in this House, that you cannot fudge on safety.
By 1985 the department realized this problem and undertook to investigate the experience of deregulation in the United States. There was a trip. The purpose of the trip south of the 49th parallel was to obtain the experience of officials from the Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA in the United States, which had six years of deregulation behind it. That trip proved to be a turning point in Transport Canada's awareness of the huge expansion required in the United States of additional safety inspectors. They realized that if the object of deregulation was to increase business in air transportation, they would need to have safety resources commensurate in order to keep up. In the United States, the number of inspectors increased rapidly.
The Canadian delegation was headed by Donald Douglas, then Transport Canada's director of licensing and certification.
I have, for the consideration of this House, a memorandum from that very crucial meeting. I want to read into the record some of those concerns made by the Canadian delegation when it returned from FAA headquarters in Washington back on December 20, 1985: "The FAA has just announced that they would be hiring 500 new inspectors over the next three years to keep up with the effects of deregulation. The FAA is also planning to hire 1,000 new air traffic controllers".
April 2, 1992

Another member of the Canadian delegation was Ian Umbach. He stated in testimony to the Moshansky commission that air carrier inspectors were facing grave difficulties keeping up with the workload of inspectors. He states in his report, page 879, in a question and answer between the commissioner and Mr. Umbach:
Q. And were you making submissions to your supervisors saying, look, I need more staff?
A. Yes.
Q. So your numbers were part of that 1,150 (person-years) requested?
A. Yes.
Q. And what signals were you getting from above, from your supervisors?
A. Other than losing a PY (person-year) we were getting no response.
Q. And what were the reasons-what was your understanding?
A. We were downsizing.
The Commissioner: You were what; you were downsizing-
The Witness: Downsizing.
The Commissioner: -in staff?
The witness: Yes, Sir.
Q. So in effect, you were asking for more inspectors, but in fact, they were taking inspector positions away from you?
A. Yes.
Q. And what about your workload? Were they reallocating your workload or requesting you to do less work?
A. No.
Q. What was happening?
A. We were doing more with less.
That is the crux of it, Mr. Speaker, doing more with less. Time and time again the opposition had raised the need for adequate resources but kept on receiving assurances from the minister that everything was under control.
I, too, put a question to the Minister of Transport and our transport critic, the member for Ottawa South, put questions to the Minister of Transport, as did our members from the north. If you want to talk about playing with figures, if you want to talk about playing and manipulating the numbers, last week on Tuesday, in Hansard, page 9093, the question from me that day:
The Minister of Transport stated in this House last Thursday that the total number of inspectors-
Supply
The total number of inspectors in aviation.
- increased from 456 in 1985 to 569 in 1991. According to the Deputy Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Transport back in 1985, the actual number of inspectors was not 456, but somewhere over 600.
The question was asked, the total number in the aviation business. The answer was 456. But back in 1985 when that same question was put the number was not 456. The number was in excess of 600.
The current Deputy Prime Minister who was Minister of Transport of the day said on one day 600, and then put it accurately on the very next day, 614. Industry-wide inspectors, that was the question. That was the answer. Those are the facts.
While there were the foot soldiers in Transport Canada who were frustrated by the staffing shortfalls in inspectors and repeatedly warned the higher levels at Transport Canada, that middle management, that senior management about the gaps in safety, the warnings of course fell on deaf ears.
Even in later documentation it was admitted that Transport Canada just was not up to scratch on staffing requirements for inspectors. In 1987 a preliminary review of aviation regulation was conducted by the then assistant deputy minister of aviation. It was clear from this internal overview of deregulation that Transport Canada was unable to increase certification and inspection workloads. Part of the executive summary of that preliminary report echoed previous concerns regarding the diametrically opposed concerns of safety versus the almighty buck.
It is very clear on page 887 of the Moshansky report. This is the preliminary review of aviation regulations done in June 1987:
Regulatory reform of the domestic air industry was introduced at a time when the department possessed neither sufficient trained resources, the required planning and operational processes, nor the necessary enforcement capability required to effectively monitor and foster aviation industry compliance with established safety legislation, regulations and standards. In this respect, the Department has generally paralleled the American experience with deregulation-Specifically, the following major areas of concern were noted during the preliminary 1987 review:

April 2, 1992
Supply
(a) The shortage of trained, experienced inspection staff and other personnel has seriously impacted on the Directorate's ability to effectively perform its mandated tasks; (b) The increase in certification workload under ERR, resulting from the need to service new and expanding air carriers, is affecting the Directorate's ability to effectively complete its ongoing inspection program, and thereby assure industry compliance with established legislation, regulations and standards;
We had these findings and again the concerns went virtually unnoticed. The revolving door at Transport Canada continued. Economics continued to win the battle, a losing battle, over providing sufficient financial resources to the most important, the priority mandate of Transport Canada, safety.
Let me take the House once more to the Moshansky report, that very comprehensive report, three volumes thick, to the findings at page 913 where the Justice states:
Based on the information before this Commission, the Aviation Regulation Directorate was not adequately prepared to perform its functions in the latter 1980s.
The warning flags raised early in the 1980s and repeatedly thereafter had seemingly negligible effect. The forecasts of safety assurance deficiencies were soundly based and progressively confirmed, yet there was no proper response by the senior management of Transport Canada in the form of urgent planning or action to meet the inevitable challenge.
I am going to proceed to the last one because my time is short.
Had the Transport Canada Aviation Regulation Directorate been in a position to discharge all of its responsibilities in an effective and timely manner, some of the factors that contributed to the Dryden accident may not have arisen.
What we are saying on this side of the House-and this is not a laughing matter, because all the signals were there-I say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport: What we have been asking for years now is that the department get serious about providing the necessary resources to ensure safety.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, today could be 1985 or 1989 all over again. The warnings have been issued again. Now in 1992 continued warnings are being given. We do not want to hear again in five years' time those words that ring out by Justice Moshansky. This accident at Dryden did not happen by chance, but it was allowed to happen.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important
to re-emphasize that what was deregulated in these economic regulatory reforms, was the economic burden on the industry. The safety regulations have remained in place and have been strengthened over time.
We do not do justice to Canadians and the industry if we do not strongly say that today air travel in Canada is safer than it was 10 years ago. Transportation Safety Board statistics back this up.
The hon. member has made exhaustive reference to the Moshansky report. In a recent television interview, Justice Moshansky was asked: Is it safe to fly in Canada?
The author, the leader of the inquiry, Mr. Justice Moshansky replied on Canada AM: "Yes, I think it is safe to fly in Canada. I think we have one of the safest transportation systems in the world. That is not to say it is perfect. The thrust of my report was to identify deficiencies which should be corrected in order to bring it closer to perfection".
The Transportation Safety Board estimates that its accident rate since 1988 has been slightly below the average of the immediate preceding years. The most important thing for Canadians today is that we have not been standing still and waiting for this report.
Again as Mr. Justice Moshansky said: "I agree that the Canadian skies are safe. We have one of the safest aviation systems in the world, however, that is not to say it is perfect. We must also remember that this investigation was regarding an accident at a particular point in time. Certainly some positive steps have been taken by the department to correct a lot of the deficiencies which we discovered during the inquiry," he went on.
The member for Hamilton prefers to fearmonger and pretend that the government does not adequately respond to safety concerns. Our response clearly indicates our positive approach.
I want to ask the member this question. Does this mean that he has not taken the time to read our 93-page initial response to the Moshansky report which was tabled in this House and which indicates, as the minister has repeatedly said, that we have already acted on 49 per cent of Justice Moshansky's recommendations?
Is it possible that the member does not want to talk about a response precisely because it does show just how much we have done?
April 2, 1992


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport has said is: What was deregulated was the economic burden. An economic burden? Is safety and the resources financially needed for safety a burden for this government?
Safety now falls on the altar of economic policy of this government and has its major operation, its gut and heart torn right out of it. Why? Because it has a system in place that says: "We want economic policy, tightening and rationalization to rule the day and safety be damned".
In response precisely to the parliamentary secretary's question: Yes, safety is there in Canada. Yes, safety is there. I fly. Most of the members in this House most weekends fly back and forth across the country, to then-ridings and back to Ottawa.
As reported in Hansard, December 17, 1985, page 9522, the Minister of Transport of the day and now Deputy Prime Minister said:
I would like to indicate unequivocally that this Government will neither propose nor permit any economic regulatory reform that might be detrimental to safety standards. That is the policy of this Government.
Do you know what happened? On March 10, 1989 there was a plane crash and 24 people died. That is what happened. But the skies were safe. Why? Mr. Justice Moshansky carried out this very thorough complete investigation of that accident touching on resources that were just incredible, the length of time it took, the people he spoke with, from departments to the man on the street. He said in his findings on page 913:
It was known that significant increases in personnel would be required to meet demand,
Demand of what? Demand of deregulation. Yet such increases were not authorized, let alone acquired. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the government has an economic policy agenda: save a buck. But wait a minute, we need more safety. Yes, safety is there right now, but we need more safety inspectors. Sorry, we will have to do with what we have but it is not enough.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question to my colleague deals with deregulation. He will know from his reading of the Moshansky report that in the spring of 1984 the Liberal federal government
Supply
was warned of the realities of deregulation, that they were not ready for the kind of deregulation that was put forward by the then minister of transport, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
Also, the province of Ontario under David Peterson followed the federal lead and deregulated its trucking industry which created the kind of chaos we saw outside this House and in the Windsor area.
I would like my colleague to explain how his position today relates to the positions of the then Liberal government of Canada and the Liberal government of Ontario.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker I want to thank my colleague from the New Democratic Party for that question.
Back in 1984 the then very capable, visionary Minister of Transport of the day had a plan and a vision for this country that would incorporate what we are waiting for still to this day. We hope to get it some time this fall, a comprehensive, multimodal, intermodal pattern of transportation in this country. We expect that some time this fall from the royal commission on transportation.
In 1984 we heard the cries of industry and we understood what the demands of the public were. Yes, deregulation was a consideration. I tell hon. members that step was in its infancy, was going to be worked on and then we all know what happened. There was an election.
In 1985, this government, that has taken us through everything we have gone through in the last seven and a half years and that the Canadian public are just fed up with-if we could have an election tomorrow everybody out there would be saying: "Praise be, let us have the election. Let us get to the polls. Let us get rid of this crazy government".
In 1985 the government also realized: "Let us have a good look at deregulation. Let us carry Axworthy's banner and have a look at it".
They went to the United States. They formed a group and visited the FAA. The FAA by this time had seven years of deregulation behind it. For seven years it watched the industry under deregulation. And do you know what? It blossomed. There were a lot more flights, a lot more congestion, a lot more planes coming and going from airports.

April 2, 1992
Supply
The government said: "If that is the case, we had better have a look at what the airlines will need and the demands upon us by the Canadian public to ensure safety is there". What did it learn? The Canadians who visited, and I speak specifically of Don Douglas, Canadian Air Transportation Administration, learned that the Americans would have to hire 500 new inspectors and 1,000 new air traffic controllers. What did this government do? Well, it is on the record and it was not enough.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I too, wish to address the motion moved by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan suggesting that economic regulatory reform in the Canadian transportation industry has not been successful. I listened very carefully to his remarks, as well as to those of my colleague from the Liberal Party. There has been a lot said about regulatory reform and how it has affected safety. I really want to pick up on the safety of the transportation industry in this country, maybe more particularly air transportation.
The parliamentary secretary, the member from Calgary Southeast, stated that we did not touch the safety regulations. Safety is paramount. It is number one. What was deregulated was the crippling economic burden. The regulations, be they provincial, municipal or federal regulations, were just weighing the industry down.
In 1984 this government took office. It was at the request of the industry that it sat down to look at all the problems of the transportation industry. We did that in consultation with consumers, industry people, government officials, provincial government officials, as well as all areas of the transportation industry. There were seminars right across the country and indeed here in Ottawa. The transportation standing committee met many times-I was going to say hundreds, but I would have to check that-with regard to how we could move into deregulation and never, ever touch safety.
As the member from Hamilton West said, we cannot fudge safety and he is quite right. We did not. The regulation of safety, both in focus and by the reality of the regulations that are there today, remains in place. Indeed it has been strengthened over the intervening years.
With regard to the areas of accidents or injuries which none of us wants to see, they have diminished in terms of transportation over the past five to six years. The rates are down. The trend in accident rates for Canadian registered aircraft, for example-and I know my colleague across the way will be interested in this-has been downward, from 16.9 accidents per 100,000 flying hours in 1981 to 14.2 in 1987 and an estimated 14.0 in 1990. We can do better. Safety has to come first and we will not jeopardize it at all.
I repeat that the government categorically did not deregulate safety or de-emphasize the importance of safety within the transportation deregulation policy. I would not be doing justice to Canadians nor would anyone in this House be doing justice to Canadians if we allowed that type of misconception to go unchallenged.
Let me say that either the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan who moved the motion is perhaps misinformed-and I do not really think he is misinformed-or maybe he is unaware of the events.
The transportation sector is part of the basic infrastructure of Canada. Whether it is on rail, on water, in the air or on the road, it is absolutely essential to the daily economic and social life of this country. It joins the regions together from east to west. It moves goods and people from coast to coast. Its importance is reflected by the large part that it plays in our economy in terms of jobs that are created and revenues that the industry generates. Transportation services account for approximately 6 per cent of our gross domestic product, generating some $35 to $40 billion in revenue and providing over half a million jobs for Canadian men and women.
A strong transportation sector is absolutely important to the consumers and to the industry sectors. It is directly related to our competitiveness. It is directly related to how well this country does and our gross domestic product.
That industry, just like every other industry, is changing with the world. A lot of these changes that are perhaps difficult for us to accept are being forced on us by the outside world. We have to become more efficient. We have to become more competitive. We have to compete in the world. But safety has never, ever been on the table.
April 2, 1992

It is related to our competitiveness. It is what we sell here at home but more important, what we sell abroad where the transportation costs really play a major role. It is based in the final selling price of every product, every service that we sell. Low value, bulk, resource commodities are all major parts of our exports. The transportation costs can account for as much as 30 per cent of the final selling price. That is quite high.
We are trying to become more efficient and more productive and to rationalize. There were some jobs lost and we know that. However, there were too many truckers on the road to fulfil the need of the market that existed.
Getting back to the final price, the long distances we have to travel in this country from coast to coast, from tide water to tide water for our major exports really add a tremendous cost and are why some of our areas have not been competitive. For these reasons the federal government has always been and always will be committed to the future of transportation whether it be in the air, on the water, on the roads, or on the rails.
My colleague for Calgary Southeast was speaking earlier. He demonstrated that the government has put in place a successful regulatory framework that has improved safety services, choices, and has provided lower prices for transportation services for Canadians. Upon doing that the government did not just sit back. It went further and acted to support the transportation sectors with certain initiatives in certain areas to deal with problems they were having.
Let me give an example of our commitment to act when called upon. Last summer there was no doubt the trucking industry was having problems. It was financially suffering. The federal government stepped in. We have to realize that this is not just a federal government area. It also has to do with provincial governments. Of course it has to do with the truckers in the industries themselves. The federal government stepped in right then in order to find solutions to the problems. These were real problems. The Minister of Transport set up a task force to address the issues. It was under this government that the process of dealing with the problems and issues in
Supply
the trucking industry, the way to find solutions, came about.
We did not abandon the truckers nor would we in their time of need. We stepped in to assist. The trucking industry task force involved many months of hard work, including meetings of all the key players, many independent analyses, non-governmental consulting firms making recommendations. At the heart of the problem for owner-operators was their low and unstable income. The studies done suggested that when economic recessions occur-and the whole world is in one-larger trucking companies reduce the level of work. Our owner-operators, in order to maintain utilization of their own vehicles and their own drivers, do this rather than getting out of the industry. Therefore the owner-operators have to accept work from whoever will hire them. This led to successive rounds of rate cutting in addition to the recession. There was a drop in traffic and it compounded the problem. Therefore we went in and met these issues head on. We tried to help in every way possible.
What the Minister of Transport concluded was a partial rebate of the federal excise tax on diesel fuel in aviation fuel. He realized that this was a problem. The rebate applies to the purchases of diesel and aviation fuel subjected to the federal 4-cent excise tax. The program provides for a temporary cash flow benefit of about $120 million per year to the transportation companies by allowing them to elect to receive an excise rebate of 3 cents per litre of eligible fuel. In exchange, businesses which elect to receive this rebate will be required to reduce their losses carried forward for income tax purposes. This was twofold.
The second area was an adjustment of the capital cost allowance rates. This was a major area involving the cost of their rigs vis-a-vis the United States and the major competition. The Minister of Transport along with his task force went in and made an adjustment of the capital cost allowance to reflect the actual depreciation better. We moved from 30 per cent to 40 per cent for freight-hauling trucks and tractors; from 7 per cent to 10 per cent for railway cars; and from 4 per cent to 10 per cent for truck and other specified class one rail assets.

April 2, 1992
Supply
This one move will provide about $30 million per year in income benefits to Canada's transportation industry, approximately $15 million for trucking companies and $15 million for the railroads.
There was a third area that the minister addressed. He also announced the formation of a trucking co-operative with $2.7 million in federal assistance. The co-operative will improve the financial viability and the competitiveness of its members through reduced costs by establishing bulk purchasing power for equipment and supplies of for-hire owner operations and by acquiring assistance of business management experts.
Finally the fourth area was a $3 million federal contribution as a start-up fund for a trucking research institute. This is one area where Canada knows it has to pay more attention to research and development and science and technology.
The institute will satisfy the need for focused research and development in the trucking industry and help address the current difficulties faced by truckers so that they can remain viable and that they can remain competitive.
Our government has also acted responsibly in overseeing the regulation of the industry. In this country regulation of Canadian interprovincial trucking companies is deregulated to the provinces under the Motor Vehicle Transportation Act. Under the legislation that was enacted in 1987, this act was to be reviewed within three years. A report reviewing the reverse onus test under the legislation will be submitted to the Minister of Transport in the very near future. Reverse onus allows applicants to receive a licence if they are fit, if they are willing and able, and if no other carrier or no other carriers can prove that they would be negatively affected.
This places the onus on affected parties to come forward and to make their objections known. One opinion may be to eliminate the reverse onus test which would leave in place the test of being fit, willing and able on the part of the applicant for the motor vehicle transport licence.
This test currently looks at safety records and at insurance as well. However, consideration may be given to include financial viability as a part of the test. I think this is one thing we will probably have to look at. The federal government is clearly doing its share and we can do more.
I really look forward today to the debate because transportation has to be one of our greatest areas and our greatest assets to make this country work. The federal government is doing its share in making the trucking industry viable, efficient and effective. We have not abandoned our commitment, nor will we.
As I stated at the very beginning, we are committed and we will continue to be committed to the future of this industry, but never ever will safety be jeopardized. We cannot do that. It comes first with the Canadian people, whether we are talking health and welfare, whether we are talking transportation or agriculture. Safety of the Canadian people has to come first, but the industry also has to be able to compete.
We need to look at ways to assist the industry in becoming more viable, more financially viable, making it more economically viable, providing it with methods and research so it can meet the competition head on. That is what it is all about. We need regional development and a trucking industry is there to support this.
We move goods from coast to coast by truck and rail. They are probably the most efficient ways. We have a good industry.
It has been unfortunate over the last few years that there has been a recession. Two or three of us have mentioned this. Obviously there had to be some rationalization. We had too many trucks and we had too many drivers on the road. It did mean some loss of jobs. In order to become efficient and effective and have a better industry, rationalization had to take place.
April 2, 1992

Supply
In conclusion, I appreciate taking part in this debate.
I am certainly glad that the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan has put this on the table today. We have heard a great deal about infrastructure with regard to the first premiers' meeting. We realize that perhaps they would like more funding. That is in another department, another portfolio, but it proves that infrastructure is important. Whether it be airports, highways, seaways or freightways, we simply have to make sure that this country can work.
I want to say thank you very much. I look forward to continuing this debate and hopefully we can hear some very good suggestions and solutions to some of the problems that do exist out there.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague on the government side for her intervention in this debate.
She will have known that the recommendations of Justice Moshansky have created a bit of a stir in this House in terms of when they are going to be implemented by the government.
Justice Moshansky pointed out that there was an anomaly between the regulating of the pilots and the engineers and the cabin crew, the flight attendants. The pilots are regulated. There are regulations, as safety measures, that specify how many hours they can work.
This House, through the Standing Committee on Transport, in a review of the Aeronautics Act, gave the government the power to regulate hours of work for flight attendants, the motion that I made supported by the Official Opposition and, most important, by the government.
Justice Moshansky, not knowing that we had done that when he wrote his report, said we should do it. We are actually ahead of the game. The government in its response tabled by the Minister of Transport did not say it is going to do it. It said it was going to refer it to the Dryden commission implementation project. The government response says: "Concur action on the way, a new amendment to the Aeronautics Act enacted March 19, 1992 provides enabling authority for making a regulation respecting flight time limitations for flight attendants. The application of a new regulatory proposal will be referred to the Diyden commission implementation project".
My question to the member is why did the government choose this method when normally it would pull together an ad hoc committee representing the industry, the union, which in this case is the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and the department to draft the regulations that are workable? Instead, it has sent it off to this implementation project which has a whole range of things to do.
Is this the government's way of deep-sixing this very logical change in legislation as opposed to acting on it immediately so that flight attendants can have the same kind of protection the pilots do?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: I thank my colleague for the question. He has raised a very good point. There were a lot of excellent recommendations that came out in Justice Moshansky's report and I believe our government has acted on 49 per cent. We have taken specific action on 49 per cent of the recommendations. We are committed, absolutely and openly, to responding to and acting upon the 191 recommendations.
I believe that you were speaking specifically to the regulating of pilots and cabin crew, the flight crew attendants. The pilots' area has been addressed concerning the number of hours of work. It has to be addressed.
The Minister of Transport has set into place an implementation team that will be looking at the specific areas. There will be no duplication of services required. We have exactly the same goal. I agree with you that safety has to come first.
As I mentioned in my speech, never ever have we tampered with the safety rules. I really welcome the member's specific questions dealing with the hours of work of the flight crews. They have to be limited. You will find that the minister, through his implementation team, will come up with the same goal. I quite agree with you.
It is interesting how prior to the Moshansky report the government acted upon a lot of the recommendations. I can honestly say, and you will have to agree, that we did not sit back and wait and wait. We knew there were errors that we could respond to, or that the Department of Transport could respond to, in order to improve safety. You will find that we have exactly the same goal and the minister has in place an implementation team and we already have responded to 49 per cent and will complete the rest.

April 2, 1992
Supply


Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to congratulate the member for Calgary Southwest on her comments and on her speech. Her speech has certainly reinforced her reputation as a member of Parliament and an individual who cares, a reputation that was established in previous careers. Her comments indicate that she cares not only about the importance of safety in the transportation industiy, but about trying to establish that very delicate balance between ensuring safety as a crucial priority and trying to solve some of the other problems within the transportation industry.
I would like to reinforce the importance of getting some of the facts on the record. I appreciate members for doing that.
There is some information important to reiterate here. The data from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada indicate that the trend in accident rates for Canadian registered aircraft has been downward from
16.9	per cent per 1,000 flying hours in 1981 to 14.2 per cent in 1987 and an estimated 14 per cent in 1990. The accident rate for Canadian railways has decreased from 17.4 per cent of accidents per million train miles in 1981 to 12.5 per cent in 1987 and to 12.7 in 1990.
The number of shipping accidents fluctuated from 1,075 in 1981 to 1,008 in 1987 and 1,202 in 1990. The data from Transport Canada's road safety directorate indicate that the motor vehicle accident rate has decreased from
133.1	accidents per 10,000 registered vehicles in 1981 to
124.3	in 1987 and to 107.3 in 1990. Preliminary 1991 statistics from the Transportation Safety Board all indicate an improvement.
I would just like to ask the member, in view of the fact that there is a significant improvement, what does she see that the government could do to enhance safety in the transportation industry?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Elk Island. He is quite right, safety enhancement is absolutely necessary. The main thing is to continue the safety research we have already undertaken in the various segments of transportation. We will constantly consult with the industry as well as the consumers. We will be reviewing the regulations and we will be discussing this with the Standing Committee or Transport. We will also talk to all the legislatures so that we can respond very constructively and very positively to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. We are also
open to any suggestions or areas of interest of ways of improving.
I thought I might correct my colleague who suggested, quite rightly, that aircraft accidents are down. There are
16.9	accidents per 100,000 flying hours. That is a little bit different from 1,000 hours.
When I spoke with regard to the transport minister's task force on trucking, we had a start-up fund of $3 million for a trucking institute of research. This is where transportation research has to be looked at, and no doubt there will be new modes of transportation, new types of engines, new hours of work for the cabin crew as well as for the pilots. We can always do more, but all in all we will continue to follow through on research and development.
In conclusion, I want to say that the report from Justice Moshansky with regard to the air disaster will be reviewed. As I said, we have already completed and addressed 49 per cent of the recommendations and will do so with the 191.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, there are two ways of looking at this debate in terms of whether the government was correct.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would appreciate it if you would indicate if your party is going to split the time between speakers in this debate.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I am happy to so indicate.
There are two approaches that can be used in this issue and that is whether to deregulate at all and how deregulation took place in Canada as a result of this government's policies.
First of all, most Canadians see deregulation in the context of deregulation, privatization, the free trade agreement and the destruction of a lot in this country which has been constructive over the years and the recognition of the unique characteristics of this country.
Deregulation is very much like the free trade agreement in that in principle it was fine but when looked at in terms of the fine print, it did not recognize significant differences that existed and exist now in Canada as compared to the United States. There are a lot of differences that are inherent in our country such as the large distances, the thin population, increased energy costs and characteristics and considerations of that sort which have burdened the free trade agreement as well as the question of deregulation.
April 2, 1992

I want to deal with the question of deregulation primarily by looking upon its manifestations in Windsor and to point out in how many different ways the government seemed not to know what were the consequences when it got into this. Had the government committed itself to deregulation then it should have put in place programs, structures and policies which would have been able to somewhat mitigate the inevitable implications of the implementation of deregulation.
Unfortunately we got an indication of the depth and the complexity of thinking by this government when we heard the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. I remember two things he said quite sharply. He said that if you have one plane in the air you will get so many accidents and if you have two planes in the air you are going to get more accidents. That shows you the depth of analysis that was conferred upon this debate and reflects the depth of analysis that was involved when this government chose to deregulate on the basis of relieving the economic burden on the transportation industry.


An hon. member:: In the name of competition.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: What this is supposed to mean I do not know in the context of saying that it has nothing to do with safety because obviously the measures involved in safety do confer a substantial economic burden both on the government and the carriers.
Windsor is a strategic point in Canada. It is the nexus of air, ground and rail transportation between Canada and the United States insofar as Ontario is concerned. If we look at each of the areas, trucking, air transport and railways, we are going to find examples of the impact of what this government did with respect to deregulation clearly manifest.
With respect to trucking, what we have found is that in 1989 there were 57 bankruptcies in Ontario of truckers. In 1990 there were 140 or so, and in 1991 there were 157. Each year after deregulation the number of truckers in Ontario going bankrupt increased. In Windsor, day after day, one reads of truckers going under.
I see behind me the former transport critic. He pointed out at the time of the debate, as so many others have pointed out, that the larger costs, the larger tax
Supply
rates, the lower depreciation and all of those things, plus the habits on the American side of longer runs, longer days and bigger companies with lower marginal costs, without some help for trucking, would inevitably lead to its destruction if it is, at the same time, paired with the freedom of American truckers to come over and carry loads in Canada from one place to the other and not just between Canada and the United States.
The consequence of this government's deregulatory policy was essentially the destruction of the trucking industry in Windsor. The minister says: "The government has taken certain measures to help the trucking industry". What he should have said is: "The government took certain measures to relieve what is left of the trucking industry".
Windsor understands deregulation. We had the Ambassador Bridge blocked twice by angry truckers. We saw highway 401 outside of Toronto blocked by angry truckers. We saw right here on the Hill hundreds of truckers making their point known. It was only then that the government began to act to correct what could have been corrected, what could have been anticipated when it introduced its policy of deregulation.
With respect to railways-and I do not want to take too long with this-but we heard about VIA Rail having to take all of its cars on the Quebec-Windsor corridor off the tracks because of a mechanical difficulty. Mechanical difficulties seem to be showing up so frequently in all of those areas.
Even more important than the frequent discovery of mechanical difficulties on VIA Rail and the other railway carriers in our neighbourhood-and that is not by the way just Canadian carriers-what we see is an utter disregard for the mechanical problems that American inspected cars exhibit when they come into Canada which are unattended by the Canadian transport inspection system.
Deregulation is not just about safety considerations, it is about economic considerations. We have a situation now in Windsor where we have a railway tunnel that goes from Detroit to Windsor that both CN and CP use.

April 2, 1992
Supply
CN in the new deregulated environment is now proposing that the Windsor tunnel, which has the higher transportation load, that is, it has the most frequent crossings in Ontario, will now be virtually in disuse insofar as CN is concerned in favour of building a larger, more accommodating tunnel for the largest freight arrangements on the railway. The result will be the total displacement of the industrial focus of the Windsor-De-troit area to the Sarnia-Port Huron area. In spite of all that will entail there is nothing that government can do about it.
Deregulation is not just something that allows carriers to do things which are in their own financial interests if those financial interests disregard the interests of communities. It can kill communities. That is potentially what can happen in Windsor if CN is allowed to proceed with cold disregard for the interests of Windsor-Detroit in favour of moving its key transportation route across to the Sarnia area.
Finally, all you have to do is be in Windsor for a week, experiencing the cancellations, the delays and the failure to fly of so many aeroplanes because of mechanical difficulties. You begin to understand the impact of deregulation so abundantly cited in the report by Mo-shansky.
What we are saying is that this government knew when it introduced deregulation that there were a lot of things that had to be taken care of first. There were going to be more aeroplanes in the air, they needed more inspectors, there needed to be more intense safety inspection of both the crews and the aeroplanes, there needed to be more air traffic controllers.
To this day, we do not have enough air traffic controllers to take take care of the increased flights that are the result of deregulation.
The consequences to Windsor are all of those that have been predicted: cancellations and eliminations of flights and a significant economic impact on our city.
You do not have to pay attention to Windsorites who have been critical for five years of what this government has done. If you look at the Moshansky report you will see why: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20 different reports that say that this government should have been anticipating what has now led to a crash in Dryden and
can still lead to difficulties if this government does not get its head straight and make up its mind that it is going to take those recommendations seriously.
Deregulation was wrongly introduced in practical terms. Ideologically it was stupid.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I must say I enjoyed the contribution of my colleague and I want to follow up on his last comment about the 20 reports.
I want to read a quote to him which says: "Furthermore the committee believes that the necessary human and technical resources must at all times be made available to the Minister of Transport to ensure that he can carry out his responsibilities to maintain and improve upon the level of safety and security in the transportation sector".
This was not a committee of bureaucrats. This was not a committee of inspectors. This was not a union document. This was the report of the Standing Committee on Transport at the end of its review on Freedom to Move which was the white paper that started us on this process.
My question to my colleague is this: Is it shocking to find that Tory members of Parliament, who were the majority on that committee, who also were pointing out the dangers ahead of us by warning that the minister had to have the resources necessary, meaning inspectors, air traffic controllers and airport security guards, et cetera, knew what they were getting into?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of my hon colleague.
Of course, he is right. The basis of the findings of the committee report was common sense. There is a clear distinction to be made between common sense ideology and the actions of this government.
As I said, our present transportation critic and many intelligent, insightful people on the government side as well as within the Liberal Party were able to anticipate the obvious. The obvious was that if the major airlines were deregulated, they were going to concentrate on nodes. This meant that each smaller community would be bound to be served by smaller, less resourceful airlines that would cut corners.
April 2, 1992

Even in the absence of that, the very burden of increased flights really indicated the need for more regulatory resources. Many of those regulatory resources are supplied by Transport Canada.
At Pearson, there were two things that any idiot who did not know anything would have known. If there were more flights, there would have to be more and not fewer air traffic controllers, there would have to be additional runways and all of that sort of thing. There would need to be more inspectors. There would have to be a very careful regard for those new entries into the air industry.
None of that happened. It was not just the transportation committee. The Nielsen task force said the same thing. Everybody said the same thing because all anyone had to do was go and look at what happened under deregulation in the United States. Every problem that deregulation caused in Canada could have been anticipated on the basis of observations with respect to trucking certainly and with respect to air transportation.
In an ideological context we disagree with what the government did, but it has no excuse within the context of that ideology not to have done what its action required it to do: put in place the necessary measures to ensure the safety of Canadians. It did not do it, and of that it stands guilty. It stands guilty of so much in any case.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to support my colleague from Thunder Bay who has put forward the motion:
That this House condemns the government for its unwillingness to concede that the deregulation of the Canadian transport industry has been a failure and in fact has led to fewer carriers, fewer jobs, higher prices, reduced service and less safe operations in air, road and rail transportation.
I want to direct my remarks to the railway industry, but I want to also address the answer given by the member for Calgary South. In my riding which is very close to the Calgary South riding of the member, part of the highway from Field to Golden on the number one Trans-Canada Highway could be best described as a cow trail rather than a highway.
Where the federal government used to have control of transportation and the trucking transportation, they have allowed the provinces to reach agreements that are much less stringent. Highway tests were taken at Golden
Supply
by the RCMP and many trucks had to be taken off the highway because they did not meet the standards. Large trucks carrying mobile homes or modular homes that are 30 and 40 feet in length used to have pilot trucks driving in front of them to ensure safety on the highway. Down through these heavily graded roads, through these sharp curves, they are now travelling without pilots.
I want to say to the member that it is not safe and there are going to be more and more bad accidents. Had this deregulation not taken place, I am almost certain we would never have had that serious accident in Vancouver in which an innocent family was sitting down at the waterfront in its car waiting for the ferry and that truck broke loose with hot tar and came down and smashed on top of those people. What kind of safety did those people have? That must come directly to the deregulation of the trucking industry and this government has to take full responsibility for that.
I want to refer most of my remarks to the railway industry because I was a railway car inspector for CP Rail for 19 years, from the early 40s into the 60s. In those days, out of the blue would come a government CTC man who would stop a train in the yard and inspect and not allow the cars to go from that terminal. Consequently they had to be switched out and nothing could be done.
Those kinds of safety precautions were important. We had car inspectors right across the country inspecting those trains. Every so often there was a spot check made and the safety was ensured and the government knew exactly what the conditions of those trains were.
Through deregulation that has all gone by the board now. Through deregulation the railway industry has been allowed to reduce the crews on those trains. It is hauling twice as much tonnage. The industry has been allowed to take the caboose off the trains. It has been allowed to put an electric marker on the tail end of the trains and made strong commitments toward it. Now it is reaching the point at which it is talking about putting reflectors on the ends of the trains. Can you imagine the safety of the trains with a reflector on the back and the curves on these railways and not being able to see that reflector until a headlight actually hits it?

April 2, 1992
Supply
There are signals and so on throughout the country showing where the occupancies are, but just the same, surely to goodness we have not reached a point at which we have a 100-car train standing on a piece of track in trouble, with a reflector on the tail end telling the next crew that the train is stopped. That is not safety.
I say to this House that we had better get back to regulating these kinds of things because if we do not, we are going to have some very serious accidents.
The industry also made commitments that car inspectors would be maintained at these points. It said that Cranbrook in my riding would be designated as a car inspection point. Last year, the railway cut back on the car inspections at that point. There are cars coming in from the United States on interchange. They are coming into our yards, not to the first terminal, the first point where it used to be when they entered Canada for an inspection, but coming on into the city of Cranbrook, into its yard where it has now a reduced car inspection group and it does not even know how safe those cars are.
I have reports showing that there has been leakage of chemicals in that yard. The response team that is supposed to be set up by the deregulation is not carrying out the provisions of what the regulations even call for. That response team, if it is going to be a response team to deal with the tragedy, must meet on a regular basis with the firefighters in those communities, with the ambulances in those communities and with the railway companies. If it does not do that on a regular basis, then it is not worth the paper it is written on.
That is the kind of thing that has taken place because of deregulation. I do not blame my union friends on the railway for negotiating because when they are negotiating to reduce a crew or reduce a system, the company offers them large buy-outs, large settlements.
It is not unfamiliar and not unethical for that trade union to want to support its members and try to get the best deal it can. It realizes that it is not going to be protected by governments. Safety regulations are not going to be protected by governments. If it is going to happen anyhow, it might as well get the best settlements it can. Naturally it negotiates for buy-outs and those kinds of things. That is not running a safe, efficient railway and that is causing the kinds of problems that we are having right across Canada.
The riding that I represent, Kootenay East, has probably one of the highest grades. The trains carry 10,000 to 14,000 tonnes a piece. They come down those grades and the hill from a glacier. After, they come through the
Connaught Tunnel or the new MacDonald Thnnel and into Revelstoke. It is all heavy grades, heavy tonnage. There are no cabooses on the back ends. All of the crews are in the head ends of the trains when they hit Revelstoke. There are one or two car inspectors. There used to be as many as 25 or 30.
That is not safety. The air brakes used to be cleaned every four years. The air brakes used to have to be tagged, back ordered and sent to the repair track and new ones put on. Now it is unlimited. They travel across this country with the dust from the coal, the dust from the road bed going into those air brakes that are required to be clean and efficient at all times, carrying hundreds and thousands of tonnes. We have reached the point at which there is not even a mandatory cleaning date.
It used to be four years. Four years is a long time. It used to be four years and it had to be updated. It used to be 90 days for a test. The brakes would have to be tested to make sure the air did not leak and that the brakes were working properly. None of that is in existence any more.
That is what deregulation has done to the railway system. It is not safe and we are going to have more and more serious railway accidents across the country.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for a fine speech and an analysis of the situation. There are probably very few people in the House who have the expertise he has. He was an on-line worker with the railroad. I grant you that the member for Regina-Lums-den was as well, but it was a different kind of line, the telegraph line.
The point is (hat over the years there has been a body of regulation built up which this government is in the process of destroying.
I would like to ask the member why on earth were these regulations put in place in the first place?


Sidney James Parker: I would like to thank the member for the question. He goes back exactly to the situation. We have a transcontinental railway system going east and west. Many railway cars would come in and tie on to us through the prairies and so on, coming in from the United States. Many of the grain shipments and car branch lines would be coming in. Therefore, the government of the day decided it could not allow a railway system to travel across Canada tagging on all of these cars that are coming in from other areas and so on without an efficient inspection.
April 2, 1992

The government could not trust the companies to do it, and rightfully so. After all, they are in it for profit.
There was a very efficient and a very wonderful Canadian railway transport inspection group. It was respected by all railway employees. When it came to town, the engineer set the brake and he would not move that train. When that guy came to town, he had the authority to stop that train. Nobody was to touch it. He would walk down that train and there was no funny business. At the end of the day, it was all marked by CTC and it stated that this car was in order. It took as many as 33 per cent of the cars off of those trains for defective hand-brakes, defective grab irons. It would make them go to the repair track. They were all marked and recorded. With that kind of an inspection by the government, it found the defaults even with all that system in place. Imagine what is going on out there today with the railway system.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask my hon. friend whether it is true about the reduction of railway car inspectors both by the railroads and the CTC.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Yes it is true and the unfortunate part of it is that in the days of these government inspectors, they were highly qualified people.
The car inspector had to serve an apprenticeship of four years in order to be qualified to do that inspection. Now we have lost that because there are fewer and fewer inspectors. There are fewer apprenticeships taking place and the railway industry is going to be in one serious situation if this government does not change its views with regard to deregulation.
Supply
failure. It has not worked and is basically paramount and equated with a government that does not have any answers or any policy program or framework with which to guide, nurture and shape not only the transportation infrastructure, but a very integral part of Canada's economic livelihood. Another aspect of the unity debate in the last couple of months and in the future months is the structure and the transportation role that the government has played in keeping Canadians linked with one another and keeping this large country from east, west and north united.
The government started talking about deregulation in 1985. Finally a few years later, through legislation, it realized that unfortunate nightmare. It preferred to allow the marketplace to dictate. It preferred to take a hands off attitude and allow the transportation policy and network go its own natural course. When we talk today on the floor of the House of Commons about its failure, we can define that failure according to a number of different factors.
The first one is that this government promised my former colleague in the transport critic portfolio, the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, and other members of the caucus that deregulation would lead to great competition, increased competition in the marketplace. It would see the start of regional airlines right across this nation. What happened under deregulation? The reality now is that we are into a duopoly that may soon find itself a monopoly by one airline alone.
We have gone from regional carriers that existed before this government came in to a situation that is largely dominated by almost 95 per cent of all air movement.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the opposition day motion today which essentially tells the obvious tale.
The obvious tale in terms of the government's transportation policy is exactly that deregulation has been a
I am going to concentrate on the air industry because my friend talked about the rail industry. We have gone from an industry that was beginning to become more versatile to an industry that is dominated and controlled 95 per cent by Air Canada and Canadian Airlines.

April 2, 1992
Supply
I have nothing against Air Canada and Canadian, but one of the commitments by this government was to further diversify the industry and give opportunities to the smaller regional air carriers to flourish and it has not. Exactly the reverse has taken place.
City Express used to operate in my area of Toronto and shuttle to different parts of Canada and the United States. City Express, started by Vic Papalardo, is no longer there. One of the reasons he is not there, not the only reason but one of the contributing reasons is that Air Canada squeezed him out of the market. Air Ontario, through economies of scale offered reductions that unfortunately City Express was not able to match over the long-term. So he kept extending himself and extending himself. Then the world collapsed around him. As City Express goes, so do other regional air carriers.
On the measuring yardstick of further competition, the failure is quite clear and obvious.
The government also talked about further competition creating more jobs. Well, with regional carriers going out of business and with Nationair, Air Canada and Canadian, we have had over 5,000 Canadians lose their jobs in the last 16 to 18 months just in the airline industry alone.
Where is the infusion of jobs because of this ideology to free enterprise, no government regulation apparatus, the opportunity to try to guide and make the marketplace fair?
The government also talked on this third promise that it was going to bring greater quality of service to the regions of the country. I question that because it can talk about the odd extra flight into one community or another.
But we should also list a number of the communities in northern Ontario, for example, Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie. Look at Atlantic Canada after the government gutted VIA Rail, after it cannot build proper highways with federal support. It also began to take jet service out of Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario and parts of the west.
Canadians are beginning to ask themselves what standard is at play here. If you happen to live in Vancouver or Montreal, or Toronto where we have the flagship airport into the major Canadian markets, there is frequency of service and quality of service in terms of jets. If you happen to live in Sudbury or Sault Ste. Marie, all of a
sudden Air Canada pulls out its jets. If you want to go into Deer Lake you have to go by prop. Why?
We are discussing the very tender and fragile nature of national unity. Transportation tears at that fragile quilt because Canadians are seeing different treatment depending on where one lives in this country. Add cost recovery services on top of that. Atlantic Canadian airports are paying more proportionally than users are at Pearson airport which happens to be the flagship airport of our country.
Those Canadians living in those regions are asking themselves: Where is the Messiah that was supposed to be deregulation in terms of quality of service? On that note again it gets a failing grade.
We then enter open skies. Can you imagine if we get into cabotage and open skies? American carriers will be allowed to come into Canada. Do you think for one moment that American mega air carriers are going to give a darn about Deer Lake, about Moose Jaw, about Sault Ste. Marie, Sarnia or Sudbury? They are interested in the major hubs of the Canadian air market. That is where their bottom line is.
If the situation is bad now, what is it going to be like if this government does not draw its line in the sand, does not articulate the bottom line in a free trade arrangement in the skies?
We have already seen their bottom line with the free trade agreement. Never mind correcting that. Now they want to get into an agreement with the Mexicans and the Americans on North American free trade.
Where are we going to be in terms of quality of service if we allow American carriers the option of going wherever they wish in this country? We know what is going to happen. It is going to gravitate in the worst shape around those mega major hubs and again further exacerbate the gulf that Canadians are feeling economically now, depending on where one lives in this country.
Lastly, on this side of the House there have been quotes and quotes of my successive transport critics who have obtained assurances and guarantees from the Deputy Prime Minister down to the litany of hall of famers who have been transport ministers. They have a rotating door over there for the transport ministers. Each of them swore that safety was not only going to be protected but also enhanced.
April 2, 1992

Yet, what is the reality of the safety variable? Despite the government's deregulation talk in 1985, the industry started planning deregulation before it even happened. Rather than predicting greater volumes of traffic, greater air movements, greater passenger volumes and rather than plan safety mechanisms for that increased travel, we have had a reduction.
There are fewer air traffic controllers today than there were before deregulation started. There were 1,800 air traffic controllers in Canada prior to deregulation. We are now at 1,400.
In 1985 when the government started talking deregulation, it froze the number of air traffic controllers that were able to come but of the school in Cornwall. Rather than plan in anticipation of greater need, it froze the number. Why? Because it has this thing called ideology and it cannot move beyond that ideological framework.
Now the Minister of Transport is forced to scramble to push through more controllers in Cornwall. Justice Moshansky suggested in his report that we were short 400 to at least have basic minimum standards.
Do you know how many commercial aircraft inspectors we have today? We have 31 commercial aircraft inspectors. In 1988 there was a leaked confidential departmental memo that said for the period leading to 1988 at least 41 commercial aircraft inspectors were needed.
Now we are at 1992 and we are still 10 below the threshold that was established in 1988. And this government has the audacity and the temerity, which is a favourite word of the Prime Minister, to say that it kept pace with its safety regulation and safety apparatus.
In terms of open skies, if we are going to have greater American involvement in our skies I think it is quite well known that our safety apparatus is much safer than that of the Americans. What implications does that have for transporting Canadians? Are we harmonizing-another favourite word of the Prime Minister-positively their system to ours on a safety basis and not the reverse? I do not hear too much discussion by the minister on that when we talk about airline deregulation or an open skies arrangement between the two countries.
Justice Moshansky said it very brutally, clearly and frankly. I am paraphrasing, but he essentially said that
Supply
the combination of a deregulated regime in the air and fiscal restraint has undermined the safety variable in the delicate equation that is air travel. That is essentially what he said, that fiscal policy and deregulation, the combination thereof, as our critic said was a collision in mid-air. And the victim was safety.
Now, we do not want to be alarmists. We do not want to scare passengers. I still believe that the infrastructure has survived this government to the degree that there is a basic foundation.
The premise of our arguments is that if there is going to be deregulation, if volume is going to be increased, if fleets are going to be making more movements-and they are aging fleets-then it is logical that the safety net of the deregulation must keep up with the times. But it is being reduced because of that fiscal ideology.
It is the same thing in the city of Toronto. The Minister of National Defence said: "On the basis of fiscal restraint, we need to consolidate the military depots from Moncton and Downsview and Montreal". Fair enough. So the government commissioned a study in 1990 to obtain the recommendation of which place should have the consolidation.
The report in 1990 by the productivity group gave four recommendations. The first recommendation on the most cost-effective consolidation was Kingston. It was suggested that based on defence criteria and cost, Kingston, along the Toronto-Montreal access, was the logical place to consolidate. The last, least suitable, least economically viable location in the entire Toronto-King-ston-Montreal access was Montreal. Where did the minister consolidate? In Montreal.
I do not want to pit region against region, or city against city. And I do not want to bring Toronto up at the economic cost or price of Montreal, because the shape of the economy in Montreal is equal or worse than it is in Toronto.
At the same time, I do not believe that those 300 Canadians in Toronto should be treated in this fashion. Three hundred job losses in Toronto, very definite, very concrete, very real. I have met with workers already and I have met with the union. I have received their letters, and they cannot understand the rationale of the government moving in this way.

April 2, 1992
Supply
As a Toronto member of Parliament, I would like a few answers from the government, if in fact fiscal restraint is one of its more important ideological compasses that guides its government activities. Because even if it was to be Kingston, then at least it would be seen to be fair. Canadians in Montreal or Canadians in Toronto would then be allowed to perhaps minimize the pain of moving their families and relocating to a new community.
I could sell that in Toronto. I am sure my friends in Quebec could also sell that to Montrealers. But what I cannot sell in Toronto is when people are puzzled legitimately about the rationale of this decision.
People clearly conclude that it has nothing to do with consolidation, nothing to do with financial savings. It has everything to do with the political mind set of this Minister of National Defence who fuels long enough in Canada to give us these crazy decisions, then jets off and we have to clean up the mess.
The other negative aspect of that is that the minister who hails from Quebec, a fellow Canadian from Quebec who is engaged in this national unity debate, by that very decision triggers anti-Montreal, anti-Quebec sentiments. Workers said things about our fellow Canadians that ought not to be said of. The minister has to learn that when he makes a decision that becomes nearly indefensible, he is contributing to the forces that he himself, and fellow Canadians in Quebec are trying to address, together with all Canadians.
What we have is an economic military decision that finds itself in the international unity mix. That is very, very dangerous. With respect to the case of the military depot, I wrote to the minister yesterday and asked that he and his officials reconsider. I am not even asking them to keep the Downsview base in Toronto at present levels.
If that is his decision, I will applaud that decision. If he at least can tell Canadians it is the most effective and cost-efficient and in the best interests of our national security, if those three variables happen to be found in Kingston, then this member of Parliament will defend the Kingston alternative. Otherwise this member of Parliament will be hard pressed to explain and give a rationale to workers who will be coming to my office
tomorrow and Saturday, and saying: "Okay, there is a net loss of 300 jobs. Now what do I do?"
We know what the recession has done. We know what the free trade agreement has done to Toronto. We know that there was not any job stimulus. At least allow this government to maintain a current level of employment without a government action that says: "You will be the net losers of 300 without any replacement".
How am I supposed to keep 300 families believing in Canada under that perspective? It is the same thing when we talk about safety. It wants to deregulate, it is the government. It wants to increase the number of flights, it is the government. But it also has the responsibility to provide a safety apparatus that keeps up with the pace of deregulation and that does not fall behind and becomes victim to an ideological government that simply is looking not to the future but to the past.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague will comment on the last part of the member's comments. I have some sympathy for what my friend across the way has said about air travel. As you know, a number of us spend a lot of time on aeroplanes. I am getting frustrated.
In the old days when you flew out of St. John's you would have to phone to find out if the plane was going or not. In the last six years flying in and out of St. John's, I have only been taken out of that airport once by weather. Now, you just go.
When you arrive at St. John's at six o'clock in the morning, you cannot tell if the planes are going or not because there are so many bloody aircraft flying. You do not know what is going on. There are two Canadian Pacific 737s sitting there every single morning. There are two Air Canada jets. There is a 727 and now they are bringing in the Airbus, plus all the DASH-8s that are lined up along the tarmac. I agree with him. You do not know what is going on, there are so many aeroplanes flying.
Here we are, 560,000 people down there. That is the size of North York. We are sitting there. What do we have? Out of St. John's every day, there are 13 flights to Halifax. Ten of those are direct. Out of St. John's every day, there are nine flights to Gander. Out of St. John's every single day during the week, there are eight flights to Deer Lake.
April 2, 1992

This is unheard of and unprecedented. The situation in Deer Lake is quite serious. There are seven flights a day from Deer Lake to Halifax and six of those are direct. The situation is serious in Deer Lake. Deregulation has allowed so much increase in aircraft that it has blown the government expenditure. We had to build a brand new airport in Deer Lake, Tobin Memorial Airport. There it is, all walls and no roof. The head is right off it.
This is what deregulation has done. With all the 737s and the 727s and the Airbuses and the 146 flying around, including jet service from Stephenville to Halifax and Montreal, how can my friend across the way from Toronto explain this in light of deregulation when we have an unprecedented amount of aircraft, flights and seats and deregulation has supposedly closed us down?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. friend along the way got up because he was not listening to the words I was trying to convey to the House and to Canadians.
I did not define Ontario as being only Toronto and he should not define Newfoundland as only revolving around St. John's. We can ask him about Goose Bay. What about Deer Lake? What about Gander? What about Stephenville? Newfoundland is bigger than St. John's, as Ontario is bigger than Toronto. That is why I tried to articulate, as a Toronto member, the needs of fellow Canadians in Sudbury, in Sault Ste. Marie, in Hamilton and elsewhere across the country.
It was also interesting that the member did not touch upon the whole financial, ideological bent of this government as I defined through the military depot. Perhaps one of the reasons was that between the gentleman's riding and the riding of the minister of fisheries from St. John's West, they essentially have 82 per cent of the small craft budget when both those ridings have the smallest percentages of the fisheries industry. Maybe that is why the member did not touch upon why the military depot, when it was recommended to go to Kingston for financial and other variables went to Montreal. That is exactly the malaise that this government has gripped itself with and it is a malaise that, unlike the government polling or strategist, a malaise
Supply
that is very well understood and recognized by Canadians who will do something about that very quickly.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I will make it short so hopefully my other colleague can get in. Just on the same line, I want to ask my colleague from York North whether he recognizes that a lot of those flights referred to by the member from across the way are two airlines leaving at the same time going to the same destination. We certainly see in Ontario where Air Canada flies at nine o'clock and Canadian flies at 9.05 from Toronto to Ottawa or to Thunder Bay or Montreal or wherever. There is a lot of duplication, unnecessary duplication, and I suspect it is the same thing in Atlantic Canada. I have been at those airports where there are a lot of planes on the ground first thing in the morning, but by nine o'clock they are all gone. You do not see them again until four o'clock because everybody is sort of stacked up.
I wonder if the member could respond to that analysis.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the member, and I thank him, alluded to a fact that I failed to mention. Another promise of deregulation was that it was going to benefit the consumer in terms of the ticket price. This Deputy Prime Minister was the first to lead off by saying Canadian consumers, the travelling Canadian public, will experience reductions in air fare. With the only exception of advance booking months before, the average cost of a seat on any aircraft has not only increased, but increased at a greater pace than the cost of inflation.
That is another failure point. The member speaks generically to something that I would favour as an individual member on this side. We do have two very competent transport critics who are articulating the transport view on behalf of the leader and the Liberal Party of Canada. We need some form of government role, not to create greater bureaucracies, but to fill a very important vacuum that has been created by deregulation.
I believe that Canadians and the nature of our country require some form of re-regulation because re-regulation, or a form thereof, is one answer to the whole plight facing both Ar Canada and Canadian.

Supply
If the aircraft industry in this country and the government can sit down I know that we can find a way in which both those airlines can live well and can compete well. We need a form of reregulation that, whether domestically or internationally, begins to address the situation logically and carves out that air space, rather than allowing this vacuum to make Air Canada and Canadian go at each other with the ultimate situation being the vulnerability of both airlines to the detriment of the interests of the Canadian travelling public and the Canadian economy in general.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on an opposition motion.
This Tuesday, the federal Minister of Transport made public the final report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Air Ontario Crash at Dryden. This inquiry dealt first and foremost with a human tragedy. I fully sympathize with the survivors and the families of the victims of this crash.
At the same time, Mr. Corbeil reassured all Canadians that Canada's air transport system is safe. According to the Canadian Transportation Safety Board, the statistics on aircraft registered in Canada clearly show that in the last decade there was a marked improvement in aviation safety in Canada. In fact, from 1981 to 1991, the accident rate for aircraft registered in Canada dropped by 35 per cent. The minister added: "I promise to see this improvement continue".
During the whole three-year period of this investigation, seventeen recommendations were made, but while the inquiry was going on, the department implemented some other measures to improve aviation safety.
I speak today as the member of the House of Commons who represents the largest riding of all 10 provinces, not counting the two northern territories. The riding covers over half a million square kilometres and has more than 20 airports, some belonging to the Inuit sector, some to the Cree sector and commercial and other airports belonging to the Government of Canada.
Concerning the March 10 accident in Ontario, I have a newspaper article here from December 28, 1989 by
Sylvain Blanchard. We can rely on it, because journalists provide us with excellent reports. The headline is: "Air deregulation in Canada: very few bargains, but improved service". The article says: "The changes were much less painful than in the United States. In 1985, when the deregulation of air transport began in Canada, the carriers acted like a group of savages at a feast. Some, like Wardair, that shouted on the rooftops that they would take over one third of the market, had indigestion".
The image is striking, but Robert Obadia, founding president of Nationair, paints a positive picture of air transport deregulation in this country. He thinks that Canada's experience was much less painful than the experience our southern neighbours had, where air transport has been deregulated since 1978. "Deregulation in Canada had hardly any impact on ticket prices," he hastened to add. "They continue to rise at the rate of inflation and the bargains one finds here and there are largely explained by efficient seat management. However, deregulation has considerably improved service in small communities."
Speaking of small communities, let us consider northern Abitibi and Air Creebec. At hearings on air service in remote and northern regions, Chief Billy Diamond, the founding president, was asking whether it was adequate. He said: "The Crees founded Air Creebec to provide air transportation along the coast of Hudson Bay and James Bay and inland. The company, which is run by aboriginal people, provides a reliable and efficient service which is constantly expanding".
And I could go on. Air Creebec strongly supports Transport Canada's new air transportation policy. As for the smaller communities in the north, in the Inuit settlements, Air Inuit, which carries quite a few passengers, says that the local landing strips were in veiy bad shape for many years. After considerable pressure, the federal and provincial governments have agreed to fund construction operations that should bring all airstrips up to standard by 1990.
My point is that both governments, the province of Quebec and the federal government, have invested more than $100 million under the James Bay Agreement-
April 2, 1992

Mr. Speaker, I see you are signalling that my time is up. I will finish my speech after Oral Question Period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Of course. Provided you are in the House, the Chair will be glad to allow you the remainder of your speaking time.
It being 1.15 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
At 1.15 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Every year Canadians across this country look forward to the month of April as their favourite hockey teams take to the ice to do battle in the National Hockey League playoffs.
To many Canadians, hockey is more than just a game. It is part of our culture, part of our identity and a source of pride to us all. Hockey is indeed our national sport.
Hockey is also a business. Last night the business aspect of the game took precedence over the interest of hockey fans. As the players and owners failed in negotiating an agreement, a strike has now interrupted the hockey season.
While the players may lose pay and the owners may lose revenue, the big losers will be the loyal legions of Canadian hockey fans who year in and year out look forward to watching the Stanley Cup playoffs.
Players and owners owe it to all Canadians to make every possible effort to reach an agreement and get back out on the ice.


MOHAWK RACEWAY
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, tragedy struck my riding last night. Barn No. 3 at Mohawk Raceway was destroyed by fire.
Dead this morning are 79 of Canada's finest racing horses, still lying in their stalls. Only 11 standardbreds
were saved and that was due to the efforts of one heroic, and as yet unnamed trainer, who tried to battle the blaze himself before being defeated by it.
Among the lost lives is Scooter's Boy, a three year old colt which many believe had the potential to become a Canadian champion.
I want to express my dismay and sympathy for all those who raised, trained and loved these creatures. The loss is enormous to this industry, which is the largest in my riding. Of course, it is not just an economic loss. Destroyed were 79 athletes, animals of beauty and courage, which will be missed by all who knew them and cheered them on.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, a delegation of five New Democrat MPs has just returned from Washington, D.C. where we met with key players in the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute.
In our discussions, it became alarmingly clear that the political agenda behind the U.S. actions is really all about free trade in raw logs. The Americans want access to Canada's timber resources and are using the countervail to beat us into submission.
The U.S. lumber lobby claims that if Canada would only lift its ban on raw log export, the U.S. countervail would dissolve. Representatives for U.S. Senators Pack-wood and Baucus stated flatly that access to Canada's raw log market is "the prize". They see Canadian timber as a resource to be exploited.
This is an issue of sovereignty. As Canadians, control of our resources is vital to the control of our economy. Canada's provincial and federal governments must stand resolute and say "no" to this invasive U.S. action.


GYPSY MOTH
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, the potential plague facing our western agriculture, forestry and shipping industries is of grave concern to all of us. The Asian gypsy moth must not be allowed to spread. To ensure that it does not, quick and decisive action must be taken.

April 2, 1992
Agriculture Canada will spray next week to eliminate the threat. The agent that will be used in the spraying is Foray 48B which contains a bacteria that is eaten by the gypsy caterpillar, which kills it before it can take on its destructive moth form.
This is a naturally occurring bacteria that is not harmful to humans. The parties that have been involved in developing the Asian gypsy moth eradication program and verifying its safety include Agriculture Canada, B.C. Plant Protection Advisory Council, Forestry Canada, B.C. Ministry of Forestry, the Ministry of Health, federal Department of National Health and Welfare, and the Chief Medical Officer for Vancouver.
This agent has been used numerous times before in British Columbia as well as in the U.S. without ill effects. There is no evidence to suggest that this case will be any different. Some have attempted to suggest that this spraying will be a hazard to the people and the environment of Vancouver. However, this is not true and should be considered inexcusable fearmongering.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, if the government is planning to pursue its urban renewal program in Winnipeg's older neighbourhoods, which would also create the jobs Manitoba so badly needs, I would suggest that before announcing its plans, the government first provide guarantees that local people, including the business community, and also those in St. Boniface and St-Vital, will be involved in the project.

I would also ask the government whether or not it has any other plan for cities such as Winnipeg and many others in Canada, to try to create employment for those Canadians who want to work.


VIMY RIDGE
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Veterans Affairs is to be commended
for the ad that was produced to mark the 75th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge.
Veterans in my riding have often complained about the way Canadian history is taught in our schools. They say young people know more about American victories than our own.
That is why it is good to see the story of one of the greatest victories in our history. Seventy-five years ago this week, the Canadian Corps achieved what other armies before it had failed to do and showed the whole world what a young country like Canada was able to accomplish.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that Canadians will also have a chance to learn more about the Dieppe raid. Fifty years ago this year, Canadians were chosen to test the defences of Hitler's continental fortress, and like the Canadian Corps at Vimy, our forces responded with a great deal of courage and discipline. These campaigns taught us a lasting lesson. As it says in the ad about the victory at Vimy, courage and solidarity triumphed.


GALLUP POLLS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, Gallup is giving pollsters a bad name as a result of political bias and really stupid questions.
Take today's question: "Should a social charter be placed in the Constitution to ensure national standards for social programs, or should each provincial government decide how to implement social programs in a province?"
What is a social charter intended to do? It is intended to produce the national standards for social programs, which, in general, will be implemented by a provincial government within a province, like medicare and social assistance.
I know what tomorrow's Gallup question will be. "Should one clean one's teeth with a toothbrush or with toothpaste?" Anticipated response: "Eighty per cent of Canadians agree that Gallup should be cleaned up; 20 per cent think Gallup is a horse". That is judging strictly on scientific merit.
April 2, 1992


VIMY RIDGE
Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, Canadians everywhere next week will pay tribute to the memory of those in the Canadian Corps who 75 years ago achieved what so many before them had failed to do in the successful assault on Vimy Ridge.
This victory at Vimy Ridge marks, in the opinion of many historians, the real birth of Canada as a nation, whose lingering colonial status was finally put behind it. This most famous victory was a tribute both to the bravery and the intelligence of those who participated. Canadian officers, most of whom were citizen soldiers, had no stubborn attachment to the military tactics of previous battles. In fact, their willingness to be innovative and to adopt new tactics was a key to their success. Moreover, every member of the Canadian Corps was given a role and an explanation. Each in reality was a vital part of the process.
We know what Vimy meant to Canadians 75 years ago. It also could mean much to our future if we follow the lead of that pioneering generation who, in looking up at Vimy Ridge, refused to be overwhelmed by the obstacles which faced them. They chose instead to see an opportunity to be realized.
Mr. Speaker, may we have the self-discipline required to follow in their footsteps.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, ACOA has recently published The State of Small Business and Entrepreneurship in Atlantic Canada, 1991. It revealed that R and D spending in Atlantic Canada is 35 per cent below over-all Canadian spending, 78 per cent below Ontario and 30 per cent below Quebec.
To close this gap a significant increase is required. The best incentive would be the situation where an entrepreneur could commit his or her own funds first, which would then yield a tax benefit.
The most effective method to encourage R and D expenditure is the ITC tax credit which is fully refunded
to CCPC. Presently the Atlantic Canadian rate is set at 35 per cent. This rate should be increased to 60 per cent. This would be a welcome boost for initiative and creativity in the Atlantic region. This sort of program would be an indication that this government supports regional development as well as competitiveness in the 1990s.


SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize the need to establish a balance between economic development and environmental protection. The concept of sustainable development is being accepted in Canada and around the world as a means to achieve that vital balance.
Under the umbrella of the United Nations, the world community will soon join together in Brazil to consider the nature of the critical relationship between environment and development. A way must be found to ensure that new and effective environmental technology is available, not only to industrialized nations but also to developing countries. What is required in each country is a national environmental plan to define sustainable development objectives and describe appropriate processes.
The Canadian government has demonstrated leadership in this regard with the emergence of our own green plan. Our Prime Minister has demonstrated his commitment and leadership by confirming his attendance at the earth summit in June. We all know that we must balance development with environmental protection. Let us all work together to ensure a safer environment and a better world for our children.


BREAST IMPLANTS
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, for several years I have been questioning the Minister of National Health and Welfare about breast implants and have asked the minister when he will provide answers to women who have had implants and who need help. The minister has consistently refused to help and has repeatedly implied that women with problems with their implants are isolated cases. Yesterday I received four calls about breast implants.

April 2, 1992
The first was from a reporter who said that she had been unable to find one woman who is satisfied with her implant.
The second was from a woman looking for a doctor who had some experience in removing implants because she does not want to be experimented on again.
The third was from a woman who was looking for a lawyer who knows something about the issue.
The fourth was a woman who had her implants removed and was not advised to send them directly from the hospital to a lab or a lawyer, thereby jeopardizing possible future lawsuits.
It is time for the minister to provide help for women with breast implants, instead of siding with the manufacturers through his continued silence.


OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, seniors across Canada were thrilled in the last few days to learn that the Government of Canada, in a most unusual fit of generosity, has granted them an awesome 37 cents a month increase in their pensions. These seniors are overwhelmed at this new-found government largess.
With those additional riches, a thrifty senior citizen can afford an extra one third loaf of bread or even a quarter of a litre of milk. With careful shopping, a prudent senior citizen might even be able to use the 37 cents to buy a can of beans.
If, on the other hand, their basic needs permit, this increase will mean a significant improvement in a senior's quality of life. A senior who saves the additional 37 cents every month will be able to go to a movie once every 18 months.
It will be hard for seniors to forget the government's generosity when the next election rolls around.


VOYAGEURS CANADA 92
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Laval-Est):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Secretary of State, accompanied by
Claude Taylor, chairman of the board of Air Canada, representatives of the private sector, volunteers and fellow members of Parliament, this morning officially launched Voyageurs Canada 92, a unique experience in the history of our country, in this 125th anniversary year. Voyageurs Canada 92 is thus in place, ready for the largest exchange program for young Canadians across the country.
I am very pleased that my constituency of Laval-Est is twinned with Edmonton North. This program will give nearly 37,000 young Canadians between the ages of 16 and 21 an opportunity to discover their country, its different regions and its people. Voyageurs Canada 92 is an investment in our collective future. I say to all those young people: Travel throughout our beautiful country, because you are its future. Have a good trip!



Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, this spring and fall some 37,000 young Canadians will celebrate Canada's 125th birthday by getting to know their country better through first-hand experience courtesy of Air Canada and the Secretary of State.
The 295 members of this House will twin with each other and will exchange young people from one part of Canada to another.
The program is called Voyageurs Canada 92. It will be the largest exchange program ever conducted for such a time period. Interested young people 16 to 21 years of age should contact their local MP.
And more good news on the national unity front. Today the Council for Canadian Unity released a survey done by Environics Research which revealed that 71 per cent of Canadians, including Quebecers, support the Beaudoin-Dobbie report.
Congratulations committee and Canadian youth.
April 2, 1992



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister a question.
Canadians wonder if this government will eventually stop confusing the issue. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said in this House that we would probably need a referendum, and the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs supported that view. However, right after Question Period, the Minister of Justice said that there cannot be a national referendum, only provincial referenda. Then, a few moments later, the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration stated that there should not be a referendum in Quebec with federal involvement, or something like that. And it goes on.
As I was saying yesterday, the Prime Minister spends money to tell Quebecers that the Beaudoin-Dobbie report is very good. But when the minister of defence returns from Paris, he will make a stop in Ottawa to tell us once again that the report is not good.
My question to the Prime Minister is: When will we have a prime minister who will take his responsibilities and tell Canadians that this confusion has lasted long enough and that the time has come to let all Canadians express themselves in a national referendum?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand my friend's partisan flights of oratory. I do not understand them at all.
He asked me that question yesterday and I gave him an unequivocal answer on behalf of the government. It was the same the previous day. I do my best to provide him with complete and honest answers on an important issue. A few days ago, the hon. member seemed satisfied with my reply. If he has a problem with that, I will be pleased to help him.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Prime Minister carefully yesterday. We have said on this side of the House that we want to help the government resolve the problem. Will he tell his ministers to shut up if they do not know what the policy of the government is?
Oral Questions
I was on a radio program this morning in Calgary and people were telling me: "When will they stop talking about the Constitution? We are fed up. We have economic problems in Canada".
The Minister of Justice talking about the Constitution says something contrary to the Prime Minister; the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration says the same thing.
When will we have a Prime Minister who will speak on behalf of his cabinet and tell his plan to the people of Canada so we can resolve the constitutional problems? When can we face the real problems that Canadians want us to resolve, to create jobs for the 1.5 million Canadians who want the economy to work?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition asks me a very strange question on the floor of the House of Commons: Will I tell the ministers of the Crown to shut up? The answer is absolutely not. This is a free Parliament, a democratic Parliament and that is why we are here.
If my hon. friend is suggesting that there has been a violation of government policy, then perhaps he could bring that to my attention.
I can tell my hon. friend that in the past, ministers in other governments perhaps ought to have spoken up, ought not to have accepted the party line on a very important matter, some 11 to 12 years ago. Perhaps we would not be in some of the difficulties we are today if others had stood up and said: "This is not good enough. We will not put up with this. Canada must be made whole from the very beginning".


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister after seven years in government will know that a government is a government. The government should speak with one voice. When somebody in the cabinet does not accept the word of the Prime Minister, the honourable thing to do is just to get out of the cabinet and speak outside the cabinet.
I would like to know when this Prime Minister will end this confusion and ask his government to have one constitutional policy so that we can resolve this problem that is bleeding Canadians? They want us to resolve the problem. The hesitation and ambivalence of this government is creating a desespoir among Canadians.

April 2, 1992
Oral Questions
The Prime Minister has nothing to lose. He just has to do his job and the people of Canada will be happy.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I still do not understand why the Leader of the Opposition feels that on something this important he has to surround whatever criticism he may have with such needlessly partisan observations.


Some hon. members:: No.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, on a question like this.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I want you to be the Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Oh, I see.
I will say that when this matter came up the last time, I came before the House in 1987, having negotiated a constitutional accord which I believed was in the best interests of Canada. I brought it before the House of Commons and we initiated a debate. It was supported very widely by almost all members of the House of Commons. When it was not fulfilled, pursuant to the obligations of the Constitution in 1982,1 came back and negotiated it again.
My hon. friend may have had disagreements with it, but I took the risks on behalf of Canada. I believed that Canadian unity was so important that we tried to achieve that degree of unanimity and unity. I brought it back again for full debate and support by members of the House of Commons.
It was approved by eight provinces representing 94 per cent of the Canadian population. That was a great exercise in Canadian democracy. It may not have been perfect, but it sought the end of bringing people together.
We did not succeed even though we achieved unanimity on two occasions, in 1987 and 1990. Some of the most eloquent support that we received was from members of my hon. friend's own party, and I thank those members again for that.
The fact of the matter is that we are faced with another challenge. I am going to commit every effort that I can and I invite my hon. friend to do the same thing, to make sure that at the end of the day there is one and only one important consideration, the unity of Canada. Not whether I am elected or re-elected, that is irrelevant. Not whether my hon. friend is elected or re-elected, that is irrelevant. The only important thing is Canada and the unity of Canada.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. For the second day in a row he has been trying to rewrite history and make excuses for his failure to successfully conclude an agreement. Whatever the circumstances, one thing is for sure, he made promises he was unable to keep. Those are the facts. And the person to blame for today's constitutional crisis is the Prime Minister, who made promises he failed to keep.
The Minister of the Environment knows that the Liberal Party-all members of the Liberal Party-tried very hard to obtain approval of the Charest report. It is clear that the dissenting voices were not on this side but on the other side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, my question is this: How can we expect to settle the constitutional question, when some Conservative ministers cannot seem to make up their minds? We know how hard it is for some of his ministers from Quebec to conform to cabinet discipline, but we are amazed that the Prime Minister cannot even control his Minister of Justice.
When will the Prime Minister manage to control his cabinet and ensure the government speaks with one voice?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as a federalist and as a Canadian, I really do not understand how the hon. member can make these highly partisan comments on an issue that is so vital to the existence of our countiy.
He says we should not rewrite history. I agree. The events are there, and historians will make their own value judgments. The fact is that on June 9, 1990, at a televised meeting in Ottawa, the Prime Minister of Canada and 10 provincial premiers all 10, signed a constitutional document, pursuant to which they agreed to approve the Meech Lake accord or have it approved, either by referendum or by a vote in a legislative assembly by June 22.
In one province, all three leaders-NDP, Conservative and Liberal-expressed their approval of the Accord. But in the tenth province's legislature, the vote that was to take place, as agreed by the provincial premier when he signed the document, was cancelled at the very last minute. If the accord had been defeated by a vote in the legislature I would have said: Well, that's too bad, but at least the MPPs had a chance to say yes or no. However, the fact that the vote was cancelled at the veiy last minute was a very serious development.
April 2, 1992

I am not the one to rewrite history and I would ask my hon. friend to read up on his history before making these negative comments about me.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another question of the Prime Minister because it is obvious that what is at stake here is the future of this country.
The unity of this country is very important. It seems to us on this side that the government has been confusing process with progress.
We have had the Spicer commission. We had the Beaudoin-Edwards committee. We had the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee. We have had six national conferences and many millions of dollars later we are asking and wondering where the government is going.
Very recently the Minister of Finance said in this House that the bad economy was linked with the unresolved constitutional crisis. Well, we would like to be sure that the government is going to come forward very soon with a solution to this constitutional crisis. Unfortunately, we do not see this coming.
When will the Prime Minister come with the united proposal from his cabinet, a uniform final proposal that all Canadians could vote on and agree?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if the challenge were to bring forward a united proposal from the Government of Canada, that would be forthcoming. Perhaps my friend has forgotten under the 1982 Constitution that is no longer possible.
The primary obligation pursuant to the Constitution that was amended was that the Government of Canada meet with the provinces and agree with the provinces on constitutional amendments without which we do not have the constitutional authority to move ahead.
That is the heritage of 1982. I am not being critical. It is simply a fact of life which means we cannot simply stand up in the House of Commons and say we are going to propose such and such constitutional change without the approval of the provinces.
Oral Questions
The point that we have been making, and I think it is a reasonable point, is that we have engaged the process further to consultation with Canadians. They wanted royal commissions, parliamentary commissions, and the involvement of ordinary Canadians to the extent humanly possible. There were five major conferences, plus one that was devoted exclusively to aboriginal concerns. That was very important.
We are now meeting with the provinces with a view to seeing if we cannot come forward unanimously with a package that will meet all of the requirements of Canadians in terms of constitutional change.
I have indicated time and time again to my hon. friend-and I thought he agreed with this-that if we are unable to do this in spite of our best efforts then we will come before the House of Commons and report to him and our colleagues with a device designed to make sure that Canadians have an opportunity to speak for themselves in regard to this fundamental question.
I do not think there is any disagreement between my hon. friend and myself as to our ultimate objective. We are trying to do it in the most democratic and effective way possible.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, there are 1.5 million unemployed Canadians outside this House and another 1.5 million Canadians who are on some form of social assistance, many of whom have given up looking for work.
Today, Statistics Canada suggests there is a stall in the economic recovery, but the Conference Board of Canada goes further and calls it the slowest recovery from a recession in modern history. The Conference Board makes a direct link between the high unemployment and the recovery from the recession. Certainly the unemployed would agree with that.

April 2, 1992
Oral Questions
In its last budget the government has refused to invest in a program like a community infrastructure program to get people back to work. The government's programs clearly are not working. Employment is not increasing in this country. I want to ask the Prime Minister: When will the government bring forth a plan to get Canadians back to work?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party has been referring to the composite leading indicator, which I remind her has increased for nine consecutive months. It stayed level in the month of January, but I remind her that real gross domestic product grew in the month of January. Housing sales are up by some 14.5 per cent. New housing starts are up by some 11 per cent. Motor vehicle sales are up by some 7 per cent over the previous year.
There are indications of a strengthening U.S. economy, but I remind the hon. member that the economy is weak not only in Canada. It is weak in the United States. It is weak in the United Kingdom. It is weak in France. It is weak in Japan. It is a world-wide phenomenon.
I think the hon. member would agree with me that a number of initiatives were brought forth in the budget to help the manufacturing and processing sector, to improve the investment climate, to preserve jobs, and to create new jobs.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand that economies may be weak, but what they need is a strong government in Canada that will stand up for Canadians and put in place some programs that will get Canadians back to work.
This government acts as though it has absolutely no choice and that it is powerless to do anything. A number of suggestions have been put forward by the provinces, by this party and by others that would get Canadians back to work.
The Conference Board today has confirmed that the employment results "of the past months are nothing short of disastrous". That has to be a serious indictment of this government's policies.
One of the reasons is certainly the Canada-U.S. trade deal. We only have to look at what has happened with the Honda ruling, beef exports, beer, all the softwood countervail, and so on. Now we see computers and
textile industries being jeopardized by the proposed NAFTA deal.
I want to ask the Prime Minister: Given what is happening in Canada now, given what is happening to Canadian jobs, why is the government intent on expanding a trade deal to Mexico, taking a bad deal, the Canada-U.S. trade deal, and making it worse?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I presume from that my hon. friend would not have us at the table at all and that she would like to have the Mexicans and the Americans arrange a trade deal among themselves that could disadvantage Canada, that could disadvantage Canadian investment and investment in Canada.
That is simply not the position of this government. We also see some good opportunities for business in Mexico. I remind her that there was a trade show at the end of January. We were looking for some 75 companies to go to that trade show, but because of the opportunities that were there 206 Canadian companies went down.
Automotive products, telecommunications, environmental products and transportation are all products or services for which Canadian business people see good opportunities in Mexico and through Mexico into the rest of the South American market.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. It is clear that this government has managed to export more Canadian jobs and products despite what the minister has to say.

I would like to ask the minister a question about a very specific area, textiles and electronics, industries that employ hundreds of thousands of people in this country. We learned that senior American and Canadian officials are saying that these industries are even more threatened than before because of the trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico.
Here is my question for the minister. Surely it is time to end these negotiations. Once again, hundreds of thousands of jobs are at risk. Is the minister now prepared to end these negotiations, for the sake of Canadians and their jobs?
April 2, 1992


Martin Brian Mulroney: Protection all the way.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how my hon. friend can say as a result of the free trade agreement there has been an export of jobs when our exports with the United States have gone up since 1988. Our trade surplus with the United States has gone up since 1988. The facts do not support the rhetoric that she is using.
As far as the particular question she has posed on the rules of origin for textiles and for electronics, she may be surprised to hear that she and I are in agreement. We are opposed to the position that is on the table between the Americans and the Mexicans, and we are fighting that. We are fighting that because the advice that we have received from those industries is that it would be negative for the position of those industries in Canada and in seeking access to those markets.
That is precisely why we are at the table: to get a good deal for Canada, a good deal for these industries, and to make sure that the national interest is protected.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe -Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that the Leader of the Opposition and indeed members of this party have publicly acknowledged and applauded the position of the Prime Minister in Quebec last week and the posture of the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs in Alberta last week. We have applauded the Prime Minister and the constitutional affairs minister in coming around to the position that we have consistently taken on a national referendum and the need for a national referendum.
Through five questions today from the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Papineau about the division, the conflict and the contradiction within the Prime Minister's cabinet, the Prime Minister has not once said or acknowledged the need for a cabinet to be united on this important question.
Does the Prime Minister agree with those of us on this side of the House that it is important for a cabinet to
Oral Questions
speak with one voice on this question if we are to expect a resounding single and unified voice from the people of Canada on the need to keep this country together?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his original comments, his prefatory remarks. I acknowledged earlier yesterday the constructive views of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Papineau in regard to some important aspects of national unity. When he talked about the division, conflict and contradiction, I thought he was talking about his caucus for a while and not necessarily anybody else's.
With regard to the question of unity, no political party on any great issue, at least not in recent Canadian history, has had total agreement on everything, but in the seven and one-half years I have had the privilege of being Prime Minister I have been very grateful for the solidarity and the support I have received when I have had occasion to speak for my party and my caucus. That has been true from the beginning, with some exceptions, and it remains true today.
With regard to the question as to whether the caucus and the party is united on the important question of the unity of Canada, there is no question about that.
Is it united on the question of putting forward new constitutional proposals that will meet the legitimate aspirations of Canadians from all across the country? There is no problem there. Is it united on the question of this being done within respectable and reasonable time frames that we are all familiar with? There is no problem there.
However, given the constraints of 1982 which force us to deal with the premiers to achieve a constitutional agreement, how it is done gives rise to differences of opinion. Those differences of opinion are not fundamental to the issue of Canadian unity. All of us in our own way are seeking to do the right thing, namely to keep the country together, as I think my hon. friend is.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of Canadians including many on this side of the House who are willing to participate in a crusade for Canada, but we have to know what the game plan is.

April 2, 1992
Oral Questions
It is fundamental, whether the Prime Minister realizes it or not, that the Minister of Justice of Canada, that the Minister of National Defence of Canada, that the Minister of Employment and Immigration of Canada, that the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs of Canada, that the Minister of Transport of Canada, that the Prime Minister of Canada, that the cabinet of Canada speak with one voice in order that Canadians can have some sense of leadership at this time of crisis.
I ask the Prime Minister once again, because Canadians are begging for leadership: Will he assure this House, and through this House Canadians, that at least the members of his cabinet will speak with one voice, that he is presiding over a campaign for Canada and not presiding over the beginning of the Tory leadership campaign, a shocking example of partisanship at a time when Canada needs leadership?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, he was doing okay until the very end.


An hon. member:: He got mad hearing his own voice.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Just for once in his life, Brian went on a little too long. I indicated-


Brian Vincent Tobin: I will be in your comer in the campaign.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend said he will be in my comer. That is one of the most terrifying things that has been said. Could I have a glass of water and think about that, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: May I say to my hon. friend that I think we are probably in fundamental agreement. That may surprise him. I think we probably are.
The fundamentals of what we are talking about are, for example, what I laid out most recently in Quebec City last Friday and in Baie Comeau last Thursday evening: the fundamentals of Canada, the benefits of a united Canada, the ferocious opposition that must exist to those who would destroy and dismember this great country. The fundamentals, the heart of the argument is there, well known and widely acknowledged across the province of Quebec and across Canada.
How we achieve constitutional amendment given the constraints of the 1982 Constitution, how we bring forward new constitutional proposals, when and under what auspices, using what instruments are questions for legitimate debate. These matters are now in the process of being considered by the country. At an appropriate time, when the government makes a choice and brings it in, the cabinet will support that decision fully. My hope is that the hon. member will support it fully because at that point in time it will be clear to him, to coin a phrase, that the universe is unfolding as it should.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the harassment by the United States of the Honda automobile exports from Canada is a threat to jobs and to future investment and manufacturing in Canada.
A United States trade official has admitted that what he called "ambiguous and contrary" rules of origin are at the root of the current dispute, adding that they were "badly drafted" in the existing free trade agreement.
What will the government do in the current North American free trade negotiations to ensure that these "badly drafted", "ambiguous and contrary" rules of origin are eliminated?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the question, just to make a point, colleagues opposite have tried to draw some spurious differences among our cabinet.
I would say that if you compare the trade position of the member for Etobicoke North to that of the member for Winnipeg South Centre, you will see a significant difference in the trade positions within that party on one of the fundamental matters of our time right now. I think the hon. member should be careful.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Etobicoke North.
April 2, 1992

Oral Questions


Roy MacLaren: I do not
know, Mr. Speaker, whether I should conclude that the minister has no answer or he just wants to evade the question altogether.
It is not just automobiles which are the target of protectionists in the United States, as the minister well knows. Now U.S. negotiators in the current North American free trade talks are asking for a higher content requirement for Canadian-made computers. Certainly all that casts some doubt on the government's continued claim that somehow Canada won secure access to the U.S. market.
I will repeat my question. What is the government doing to obtain an improved definition of content requirements at their current levels in the free trade negotiations?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend mentioned in his earlier question that an American official points at the loose drafting in the original wording of the rules of origin. Both sides of the agreement thought we had a good definition of rules of origin. Clearly we are finding now with the Honda issue-he points out some other problems-that we have to tighten up these rules of origin.
This is something that we are attempting to do, working with the Mexicans in the North American free trade agreement. That work will help us as well in the event that there is not a Mexican agreement. We will be able to use that work to good effect in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
Nothing is perfect in this world. I wish it were. But we are going to try to make it a lot better as we learn from our mistakes.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Minister of Finance realizes quite how serious is the accusation from the Conference Board of Canada. It is an accusation that says that consumer confidence in this country continues to be extremely poor despite the efforts of his budget to make things better.
The minister does not seem to know on whom to blame the continuation of this recession. One day he
blames it on the Constitution, the next day on Mr. Rae, today on the American economy.
Is it not time that the minister recognized that the problem is with himself and his government's policies and is it not time to change those policies for the sake of people across this country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have acknowledged that the economy is weak and acknowledged in the budget speech the fact that there was negative growth in the fourth quarter of 1991 and that the prospects for the first quarter of 1992 were not at all promising.
Having said that, I remind the hon. member that real GDP rose in January 1992. There has been a lot of activity in the housing sector, thanks to the lower interest rates, the moderate price of housing and the initiatives this government has brought forward, both in terms of lower down payments and the RRSP program.
The merchandise trade balance is improving. There has been a 4.6 per cent pick up in trade. It is an indication that the U.S. economy is strengthening and is having an effect on Canada.
In addition, to address the critical area of job creation and job preservation, we brought forward a number of initiatives that will help the manufacturing and processing sector both in terms of making them more competitive and improving their investment climate.
I ask the hon. member to make sure in his next communication with the premier of Ontario that he ensures the premier does nothing to undermine or nullify those very positive initiatives we have taken.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact the Conference Board gave a report card on this past budget the minister brought in and said that there would be an addition of 0.1 per cent to economic growth thanks to that budget.
I want to ask this minister if he is satisfied with an addition of 0.1 per cent to economic growth when, in fact, that means there are going to be hundreds of thousands of Canadians kept off the job, out of work, not contributing to our economy and costing the people of this country and their own families immense amounts in human damage.

April 2, 1992
Oral Questions
Is he prepared to accept that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. member's conclusion.
As the hon. member knows, the budget projects that there will be 1.5 million jobs created over the next five-year period or roughly 300,000 jobs a year. We are not only going through a recession, we are going through a restructuring program which is causing industries, particularly the manufacturing and processing industries, to go through a restructuring and adjustment process as a result of globalization and more competitive economy.
We have tried to support industry in that initiative with very positive measures. We believe that there will be a growth rate pick up of about 2.7 per cent this year and more than 4 per cent in 1993.
Contrary to what the hon. member has suggested, I think the budget has received a very positive response and has served to improve optimism and hope for the future.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or whoever is answering for him today.
While Canadians are on their knees begging for relief, Canadian chartered banks have increased service charges by over 365 per cent. But this minister, the government's so-called chief consumer watch-dog, has remained silent.
What action will the minister take today to confront Canada's bankers, protect Canadian consumers and prove that Canada's watch-dog has not turned into a lap-dog for the big financial institutions in Canada?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has taken his responsibilities very seriously. I point out to the hon. member the legislation that was passed which resulted in disclosure is now part of the law, part of the manner in which the banks have to conduct their business. There was also
additional competition that was approved in the legislation.
I put those forward to the member and I mention one other point. He knows and I know that consumers are the best watch-dogs for their own dollars and for the manner in which they are going to reduce their own costs. Again, getting financial services is still the best way to take a look at one's own interest and one's own concern. Many people in this House have said many times that the consumer can best protect him or herself by shopping for the best services at the best price they can.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting response.
At the same time that we have double digit unemployment, record bankruptcies right across the country and close to one million Canadians relying on food banks just to stay alive, Canadian chartered banks reported a record $2.2 billion in profit. That is 1,100 per cent increase in 10 years.
What will it take before this minister and this government realize that Canadian consumers have had it and they are fed up by being ripped off by big banks? They want something done about it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will remind the hon. member again about the legislation. I would also remind him about the work that was done in the parliamentary committee and the testimony before the committee.
But I point out to him again that many of us, and I do not want to take it from any single point of view, shop around for the best deals. Service charges are not the same at every bank and the charges are not the same in every branch. We can, in fact, shop around. That is part of the marketplace and I would suggest that is still the best way to do it. If he does not like it I could give him some figures to show what some of us are spending.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
April 2, 1992

Oral Questions
I would like to ask a question on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose UI benefits have run out, who are unemployed and who are in desperate need of training.
Can the minister explain why his government cut $100 million from the training fund of the Canadian Jobs Strategy last year and a further $110 million this year? Does the minister not realize that these cuts are gutting community-based training from one end of the country to the other?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the adjustments to the CJS project are not gutting training, quite to the contrary. Maybe the hon. member would be pleased to learn that we have increased training funds for unemployed Canadians by $400 million this fiscal year. We are going to be spending $1.8 billion to train unemployed Canadians throughout Canada.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to hoodwink Canadians into believing that this government is committed to job training. He knows that the amount of money being spent on job training is coming out of the UI fund, that the government has cut funds from the Canadian Jobs Strategy. People who are unemployed and who are not receiving unemployment insurance are in desperate need of training. These are the people who are being affected.
I would like to ask the minister again why is he gutting community-based training programs across Canada? Does he not realize that the most disadvantaged of the unemployed-women, youth, the disabled and visible minorities-are the ones more desperately in need of training?


Bernard Valcourt: Maybe the hon. member should get out of Ottawa, go to the country and see those people with whom we work.
The Labour Force Development Strategy that this government introduced is working on behalf of Canadians. We are working with the labour movement, with business, educators, trainers. I was in Toronto yesterday and I got a standing ovation from people in need of employment and training and who are getting it.


QUEBEC REFERENDUM
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Further to the
many reports which we received today, what does the Prime Minister think of the statement made by Mr. Parizeau, leader of the Parti Quebecois, to the effect that it would be preferable to delay holding the referendum in Quebec for a year or two, in view of the economic situation?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that Mr. Parizeau has just scored a goal in his own net.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: First, he says that he wants a referendum as soon as possible and he votes against Bill 150. But in English Canada he says that he wants the referendum delayed for a year or two. I quote him. On March 15, he said: "If you ask me whether it would be preferable to make a decision on Quebec sovereignty today or in a year or two, I prefer waiting a year or two, because we will be in a recovery then".
So in Quebec, he wants the referendum right away, and in English Canada, he wants it in two years.
Mr. Parizeau also wants a sovereign Quebec with Canadian currency, Canadian citizenship, the benefits of the Canadian economic union, the FTA, a Canadian passport, the Canadian flag and the Queen. If this were a hockey game in Baie-Comeau, Mr. Parizeau would be playing for the separatist Quebecers while proudly wearing a federalist sweater.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
In speaking on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the minister will know that within the past week grave human rights concerns have been raised with respect to both Guatemala, where a delegation of respected church leaders just returned to Canada, and India in which Amnesty International has documented serious violations of human rights, particularly in Punjab and Kashmir.

April 2, 1992
Oral Questions
I want to ask the minister this question. Will the government take serious action to implement the recommendations of the Interchurch Committee on Guatemala? What action will the government take with respect to the recommendations of Amnesty International and in particular with respect to the ongoing detention of Akali political leaders in Punjab.
What action is this government going to take with respect to human rights violations both in Guatemala and in India?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the hon. member's abiding interest in human rights issues, and I am sure he realizes our government is extremely concerned and is acting accordingly. In fact, he will recall statements by the Prime Minister to Commonwealth countries and members of the Francophonie that we would support those governments and take appropriate action.
As for the two specific cases mentioned by the hon. member, in the case of India, we have frequently made representations, both to the government directly and through various organizations, including the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva not long ago, and also last fall, in November, at the UN General Assembly. In other words, we are doing everything we can to inform the authorities concerned that we cannot tolerate human rights abuses and that we want them to act accordingly.
As for Guatemala, here again we are aware of the problems facing people in that country. I can inform the hon. member that we are trying to change attitudes and persuade governments to act accordingly.
And very briefly, Mr. Speaker, as far as our aid programs are concerned, very often, and I wish the hon. member would realize this, our programs are directed to the disadvantaged, and we are trying to have a positive impact on both the governments and the people of these countries.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
Since 1987 the government has demonstrated its commitment to the people of northern Ontario through FEDNOR, the federal government's highly successful economic development program specifically tailored to the north.
As the minister well knows, the FEDNOR program sunset on March 31. The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, who is directly responsible for FEDNOR, is touring the north at the present time. I am wondering what the government program is where that particular program is concerned.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend would agree with me when I talk about the enormous success of the FEDNOR program.
There has been an almost unanimous outpouring of support for it and as a result we will be increasing the funding to $60 million over a five-year period. This will continue support for tourism, which I know my hon. friend is very interested in, as well as small business.
There will be an additional office in Kirkland Lake and that, we hope, will help better the record we had in the last five years where 487 projects were approved to create the total of 3,000 jobs.
That is the record of success we know must be continued by this very good program of FEDNOR.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Leonard Simms, Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Bill Matthews, both members of the Newfoundland House of Assembly.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
April 2, 1992


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader with regard to the business of the House for tomorrow and for Monday through Friday of next week as we will be breaking on Friday for the Easter recess for members to return to their constituencies to work on behalf of those in the riding.
While the minister is on his feet, could he share with us any information pertaining to possible enabling legislation with regard to the referendum to which the Prime Minister has referred. As the minister will recall, I posed that question some time ago and I believe departmental officials had been working on it. Perhaps the minister could inform the House accordingly.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, today of course is an opposition day. Tomorrow the government's priority would be to ask the leave of the House to waive the 48-hour notice and proceed with report stage and third reading of Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act. The have not provinces are waiting for those funds. In fact, this bill should come into effect on April 1, the new fiscal year.
We will be asking members opposite for their co-operation in this regard. We attempted that yesterday but it was turned down by the New Democratic Party. We will try again this afternoon. If we receive a no again to that request then it will be my intention to call an allotted day tomorrow.
On Monday the government will call second reading of Bill C-46, an act respecting contraventions of federal enactments, followed by report stage of Bill C-31, an act to amend the Extradition Act.
On Tuesday we expect to complete third reading of Bill C-31.
On Wednesday the government intends to call Bill C-49, an act to amend the Criminal Code respecting sexual assault for debate at second reading.
I would like to discuss with colleagues the remainder of that week as to what other legislation might be completed.
Business of the House
Concerning the referendum legislation, the Prime Minister has indicated all of our energies, all of our hopes, all of our aspirations, along with, I believe, those of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, are working to receive an agreement with the provinces to achieve a constitutional amendment that will unite this country.
As the Prime Minister indicated, that should we require to hold a plebiscite then there would be discussions among House officers to find the way in which the appropriate legislation could be brought forward. In the meantime, rather than getting into the minutia, we should keep our eye on the ball, the ball in this case being the constitutional unity of this country. I will try and avoid playing political games with this important issue if the hon. member will.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member opposite has anything to fear from me. As a member of my caucus, and as exhibited by our leaders as well as other members in this caucus, we proceed in a way in which the best interests of this country come first, putting politics aside.
In response to Bill C-60,1 just want to confirm for the government House leader that the consent the hon. member is seeking is to have this bill come before the House for debate. I know the hon. member is astute enough to recognize that we have given that consent and we intend to give that consent.
However, I hope the hon. member does not confuse our consent with agreement with the subject matter in terms of what the government is doing under the fiscal arrangements. We would like to have that bill before the House in order to debate it fully. I want to make that undertaking quite clear to the hon. member. It does not necessarily mean that we agree with all the substance of that particular bill.
Perhaps the hon. member could indicate what he might contemplate for next Thursday and Friday.
I know that is far off into the week, but is he thinking of continuing supply days or is there other legislation of which we might make our critics aware? Then they can prepare for the debate which will ensue.

April 2, 1992
Business of the House


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, when considering future legislation, I am not sure how long is going to be required for the amendments to the Criminal Code respecting sexual assault, for example.
We also have legislation dealing with oil and gas regulations for offshore drilling that is important in terms of Hibernia. We have to bring that forward, perhaps, for passage.
There is another bill respecting the transport of dangerous goods which I would like to bring forward for passage. Of course, all of that depends on the amount of co-operation we receive concerning other legislation.
With respect to Bill C-60, I need to remind the member that there is another house, and the other place will require time to deal with the legislation. The fact of the matter is the failure to agree not only to bring it forward for debate but to complete debate within this week means that the cheques that go out to the have not provinces will not go out on time.
They will not be delivered until into May as opposed to April 16 and 22 when they are expected. That is fine. In fact, it will save a little interest for the federal government but cost interest for the have not provinces. I leave it up to the opposition to decide how they are treated.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, there have been several references to Bill C-60.
I would like to clarify if I could some of the points to which the House leader referred. He suggested that discussions had taken place to which a no had been answered. In fact, it is not the case.
Discussions took place at which we indicated that under certain conditions we were quite prepared to pass the legislation with extreme rapidity. One of those conditions was that we receive the chance to put an amendment with respect to this legislation in committee and to have that discussed.
It was something of a surprise to discover yesterday that while the very discussions were taking place with the deputy House leader of the Conservative Party, the finance committee passed this legislation through committee without the possibility of the amendment, which is quite important to all of us who want to see a much greater sense of urgency with respect to review, with respect to renewal and with respect to change in other major transfer programs besides this present transfer program. It was important to have that debate take place.
I look at the House leader's comments that he is open to further discussions this afternoon as a welcome signal. I look forward to seeing those discussions go forward.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that he welcomes those discussions but I see the chairman of the committee standing.
He will probably confirm that the hon. member for Essex-Windsor filibustered all day Tuesday rather than allow that bill to come through committee. Perhaps it can be confirmed by the parliamentary secretary that the discussions that the hon. member said were not held were in fact held.
Perhaps it can also be pointed out that what he is expressing in committee is Bob Rae's position that Ontario no longer wants to contribute to equalization and he wants to cut back the period from two years to one year.
That is legitimate, but he should put the motion and have it voted on rather than obstructing and filibustering. What he is doing in the process is delaying cheques that will go out to these have not provinces. Let there be no mistake. The delay of those cheques will be due to the activities of that member.


Some hon. members:: Shame, shame.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. [Translation]
I am willing to let the debate proceed, but the Chair would like to suggest that, considering the signals that have been sent, the three House leaders might wish to pursue their attempts to reach a consensus outside the House.
That being said, I am willing to allow further comments for a few minutes. The hon. member for Edmonton Northwest.


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify one point that was just raised by the hon. member for Essex-Windsor. On Tuesday the entire meeting was taken up essentially by that member on a discussion of this bill. There was an agreement that we would put this bill ahead of the other bill that was scheduled to be debated or dealt with in committee on Wednesday and that we would do it at 3.30.

I contacted the Liberal deputy Whip. I advised her. At 3.30 members of our party were there. The Liberal members were there. The hon. member for Windsor West was there. The hon. member for St. Boniface was there. We waited 10 minutes. No one was there from the NDP so we commenced the meeting. We passed the bill. There was nobody there to move the amendment so the amendment was not moved. It is not up to us, necessarily, to wonder where members are who are not there to move their own amendments.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have just two quick points. I agree that it makes sense to continue the discussion.
The first point is that there has been a complete distortion of the position I put in the committee. At no stage was it suggested that we should delay equalization payments to provinces this year because we wanted somehow to block them on behalf of Ontario. That is simply not the case.
With respect to the comments of the chairman of the committee, I simply want to say that if there is not sufficient communication between the House leadership of the Conservative Party and the Conservative chair of this committee it is not my fault.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, whatever else the plans might be for next week, I certainly hope there is agreement to pass Bill C-49, the rape shield law, in a quick and timely fashion. I think we have been assured that it will move through the House quickly.
Will it be coming up earlier and will we have an opportunity to pass that bill?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, it is my intention to call it, to call it early and to call it on time. If we take up all next week discussing Bill C-60 then there might not be an opportunity.
I think the choice is the hon. member should discuss with her colleague from Essex-Windsor. This is what happens with unnecessary delay on legislation. I cannot commit absolutely, but it is our plan to bring forward that bill.


David Charles Dingwall: I am wondering if the government House leader could just confirm what I understand will
Business of the House
happen if Bill C-60 is not dealt with tomorrow in terms of the time frame of getting cheques to those poor provinces across the country. He alluded to the fact that they would not get them in April but would be postponed until May.
Can he confirm that? Do I understand correctly?


Harvie Andre: The situation is that the other place, like this place, intends to adjourn at the end of next week. We have to get the bill passed through this House and over to the other place. They demand the right to examine it at second reading, committee study, report stage and third reading. On that which has taken our House several weeks to do, they react rather badly when we suggest they should do it in half a day.
Therefore, if we delay past tomorrow and some time to next week before we send it to the other place, there is a very good likelihood it will not receive royal assent prior to our adjournment. It will not be considered by the other place, in which case the cheques that I believe are due on April 16 and April 22 will have to be delayed until the bill is dealt with. That is the only point I am making. I regret that we are in this time bind, but that is what happens when bills get delayed for purposes of making political points.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to rise, but the minister suggested it was our fault that the bill was being held up and I want to correct the record.
The bill was not tabled until late February. It was only given two days of review by committee. If the government were that worried about priorities, it would have brought the bill in earlier. It would not have had day after day of opposition days. It would have gone on with government business.
This malarkey that it is our fault is just that, malarkey.


Harvie Andre: I want to remind the hon. member again of what happened. There was a meeting of finance ministers in Quebec City at that time to work out the details of new fiscal arrangements. Immediately after that meeting a bill was introduced in the House by the Minister of Finance to give effect to those agreements.

April 2, 1992
Supply
The hon. member is suggesting that it is quite appropriate for his colleague from Essex-Windsor to keep the thing in our House for a month or several days in committee. But we should be able to send it over to the Senate some time next week and it should deal with it in a few hours so that the provinces are not going to be denied their cheques.
The reality is that might not happen. Let there be no mistake as to where the fault lies if in fact those cheques are delayed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I invite both sides of the House to pursue their efforts to reach a consensus. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Angus (p. 9219).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: At 1.15 p.m., when the House took recess, the hon. member for Abitibi had 16 minutes left to finish his speech.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to continue my comments on the opposition motion. As I was saying, after the crash at Dryden, Ontario, several months later, on June 19, 1989, we read the following in an article by Frederic Wagniere in La Presse:
We need a second round of deregulation in the air transportation industry.
A recent study predicted a 30 per cent increase in the cost of air transportation in Canada within the next two years. The increase was predicted on the premise that 98 per cent of domestic traffic is controlled by two companies, Air Canada and Canadian Airlines. The two companies share the same reservation system, which gives them an advantage over their competitors.
In the case of commercial aviation in Canada, deregulation has caused rates to go down but has also eliminated regional carriers, which have been absorbed by the two major airlines.
If regional carriers had been able to remain independent, the industry would have become more competitive.
In concluding, our journalist wrote:
Generally speaking, the entire industry would be in better financial shape if it used its equipment more efficiently. This would mean more efficient use of airports and the services of air traffic controllers, since the fees charged for these services are the same
whether an aircraft is half empty, with passengers paying full fare, or almost full, with passengers paying economy fare. Overloading is a problem today at airports in Canada, and one solution would be more efficient flight scheduling.
This was in 1989.
Pierre Jeanniot, in an article that appeared in La Presse on June 10, 1991, writes:
Canada's transportation industry is at a crossroads. The climate of pessimism affecting the industry has spread to the commercial aviation sector. A new approach is necessary. In the seventies the emphasis was on airport infrastructures. To keep voters happy, the government, instead of building airports on the basis of need, was rushing to provide facilities left, right and centre, as a sop to the electorate.
This was in 1970.
In the early eighties, deregulation became fashionable. The government wanted to let market forces prevail, which is not unreasonable, except that at the same time, investing in the future of airport facilities was no longer considered necessary.
Fortunately, after a seven-year gestation period, a policy for decentralization is expected to be announced this year.
This was in 1991. In his article, Mr. Jeanniot also said, and I quote:
Another suggestion would be to establish genuine, intermodal integration, combining railway and air transportation. The facilities of Dorval and Mirabel could be used as a single airport by providing for rapid railway transportation between the two. The experiment would not only be useful as a pilot project for renewal of the railway industry but would also make Montreal more competitive with Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue in the same vein, on the motion of the hon. member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan, which also mentioned roads. At the first ministers' meeting in Toronto on March 23 and 24, they talked about the railway system. I asked the Minister of Transport a question in the House this week on this subject. I said: "I understand that the Quebec government is neglecting highway 117, the Trans-Canada Highway in Abitibi-Temiscamingue. However, further to the First Ministers' Conference on the economy held on March 24 and 25, the governments had agreed to give priority to proposals regarding the national highway system".
When we talk about the highway system, be it the Trans-Canada Highway or other cross-Canada roads, all the provinces say that they have their own priorities, and that is important. For us in Abitibi, as far as highway 117 is concerned, it is really important that the road from Louvicourt through Val-d'Or, Malartic, Riviere-Heva, Cadillac and the Rouyn-Noranda area to the Quebec-Ontario border be completely rebuilt for the safety of users and the public. For many years, economic interest groups have been asking both governments for this.
April 2, 1992

It is time for both governments to become fully involved so that a remote region like Abitibi-Temisca-mingue has the money to rebuild this highway for the greater safety of road users.
Another important area, Mr. Speaker, is the trucking industry. This morning, other members spoke about it. I have here an article published in the March 1992 Echo du transport. It says:
On December 6, 1991, the Government of Canada announced a series of measures concerning the transportation industry. These provisions should in principle improve the tax system for carriers and subcontractors. By taking advantage of these measures, highway transportation companies should become more competitive, it is thought.
To put this in context, let us give the measures affecting highway transportation. The government has done much in recent months, in cooperation with the unions, independent carriers and so on. They set up a two-year loss compensation program offering a partial rebate of the federal excise tax on diesel fuel to transportation companies in exchange for a reduction in the losses that they would use to reduce their income tax in future; truckers will thus be able to choose a similar rebate that is administratively simpler and is meant primarily for independent truckers; depreciation rates will be adjusted to better reflect actual depreciation, with the CCA going from 30 to 40 per cent for trucks, tractors and semi-trailers used in carrying freight; $2.7 million will be allocated to establish a cooperative that will use its buying power to help lower the costs of supplies and equipment for truckers who rent their services.
There were many measures. Although the federal government adopted these measures to help the trucking industry recover, we must also keep in mind that this initiative of the Mulroney government finally recognizes that freight transportation is a very big business and that economic recovery is closely tied to it. Therefore it must support the trucking industry with economic incentives.
Mr. Speaker, this magazine article was written by Jean-Jacques Savard. In closing, he adds this:
In my opinion, only a concerted effort of the federal and provincial governments will get the trucking industry back in shape. Ottawa has shown its good will. Given the present political context, Quebec must get the message and do its part.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the trucking industry is important, but all governments must get involved. It is not only up to the federal government. We must maintain this security in Canada.
Supply
The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan mentions rail transportation in his motion. Mr. Speaker, in Abitibi-Temiscamingue, we know that it is very difficult to find out what the executives of VIA and Canadian National, those Crown corporations, are thinking in their ivory tower in Montreal. For months, the workers have been trying to get answers. I have tried to obtain answers in this House by putting questions on the Order Paper and Notice Paper, and every time, the answer that comes back to Parliament is the same: it is confidential.
We have been fighting for months to maintain the railway network. One only has to look at the Franquet-Chapais case, one of the very few that was won by economic stakeholders, by workers, following a decision made by the National Transportation Agency in favour of the Abitibi-Temiscamingue area. Immediately after, CN officials and their lawyer, Mr. Cantin, came back with a slew of lawyers to appeal that decision. Today, the case is again before the courts, but I can tell you that one day the remote areas will win this battle.
A few years ago, when CN board of directors and members of the Saint-Laurent section in Quebec chose to make a detour via Lac Saint-Jean and go directly to Rouyn-Noranda, they penalized the workers of Sennet-erre and of the Abitibi-Temiscamingue region. Indeed, many jobs were lost.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that this government works very hard, but it is through cooperation with the political parties, the unions, the economic stakeholders from across Canada, and particularly the provinces that we will be able to improve safety in the airline, highway and railroad sectors. There is a lot to be done, but we can do it together.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak on a very important issue to the riding of Kenora-Rainy River.

April 2, 1992
Supply
Of course, it is well known in this House that the air crash everyone has been speaking of in the last few weeks, to be specific, the Dryden air crash, occurred in my riding. It is obviously an area of tremendous concern to the people of Dryden and of course specifically to the people of northern Ontario, and to those of us who fly in the regions of the north on a regular basis.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Justice Moshansky for the excellent report that he did, and the huge amount of work that was involved in the inquiry and the tremendous recommendations that were put forward by him and his colleagues.
There were roughly 191 recommendations to improve the air safety in Canada and specifically bring to light some of the difficulties that we have encountered since the advent of deregulation.
First of all, I want to say that I am somewhat disappointed in the government's reaction to the recommendations by Justice Moshansky. Justice Moshansky put forward some very comprehensive recommendations that are necessary, in order that northerners in particular and Canadians in general can feel safe about flying in airplanes, going on trips abroad or just going to visit their neighbours a few hundred miles away in this country called Canada.
What the minister and the government did say about these recommendations is somewhat hard to understand and very difficult to imagine considering the ramifications of not paying heed to the recommendations that Justice Moshansky has put forward.
First of all for those who are not aware of what the government has said, it is simply that it is not completely in agreement with Justice Moshansky's report. It feels that he has not been fair in making some of the recommendations that he has made.
In particular the recommendations suggested that Transport Canada, the government of Canada, were at fault in some instances relating to this particular tragic incident and some of the issues that are ongoing in this country relating to air traffic since the advent of the deregulation that we are now talking about in this particular motion.
I want to say to the government opposite that something is drastically missing and something is really appalling to me as a member of Parliament about this whole episode. I hope this afternoon we will rectify that.
I would like to suggest to the government that it would
be very appropriate to officially recognize the heroic acts of bravery by the flight attendant, Sonia Hartwick, who risked her life to save many passengers on that very frightful day.
Also we should as a government and as Canadians officially recognize the survivors of Flight 1363 whose lives obviously have changed drastically because of that incident on that very difficult day.
It is important for the government to officially recognize the importance of the town of Dryden and the people who were involved in making sure that the rescue process was done as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
Since the accident and the inquiry there has been no recognition by the government of the very obvious fact that there were some heroic people on that exceptional day who put their own lives at risk. They went above and beyond the call of what is expected of any human being, to see that justice was done and that lives were saved. It shows just how much respect we as parliamentarians and all Canadians have for the heroics of those individuals on that day.
I have been waiting in anticipation for the minister and the government to put forward that kind of motion or publicly make that statement. At the end of my 10 minutes I will be presenting a motion to the House which basically suggests that very thing. It is my understanding that all parties have agreed through negotiations with the House leaders that it would be appropriate to put that kind of motion.
Doing something even as small as that shows that we understand just how exceptional those people were on that exciting day. I say exciting because in one moment people were frightened and the next moment their adrenalin was moving. As an individual who was there the very next day, it was like being in another world. People have to realize just what that means.
One of the things I was somewhat discouraged about was in reading some of the official documents put forward by the department in 1986 relating to deregulation and how it would be dealt with. The individuals who put forward these documents suggested certain things should be done.
I want to read into the record a few comments of what is classified as appendix A in relation to improvements of safety because of deregulation. Also I want to explain the importance of surveillance and inspectors as it relates to deregulation in that context.
April 2, 1992

Let me read just a few of them and then with that I want to go back to the recommendations of Justice Moshansky. When the two are put together it will be seen just what is lacking in this whole affair. Let me touch on some of the safety issues. Let me read from the document:
4.	100 per cent of the inspection coverage each year remains a goal (not a requirement). Its achievement is being sensibly deferred in order to conduct more frequent and intensive inspections on higher risk activities and carriers.
5.	The following initiatives have been implemented to determine actual inspection requirements, forecast future needs and ensure maximum effectiveness of the staff in this area.
a)	A performance monitoring system has been initiated. It will result in greater efficiency with respect to inspection functions.
b)	Dedicated training programs have been developed for regulatory inspection personnel to improve inspection effectiveness.
Those particular areas that I have read for you were also areas of concern in 1984 in the Auditor General's report. If you take a look at the 191 recommendations made by Justice Moshansky, he comes at tnis again. Practically all 191 recommendations deal with safety inspection and monitoring, but he goes back to almost identically what is suggested by management in 1986.
In Moshansky's report, chapter 25 dealing with management performance says in 105: "Transport Canada ensure that air Navigation Order Series VII, No. 2, section 5, be amended to provide a clear statement of the duties, responsibilities and qualifications for all air carrier management positions set out therein".
In 106 it says: "Transport Canada ensure that, once standard criteria referred to in MCR-105 are established and published, all carrier management candidate approvals be subject to such criteria being fully satisfied".
And again in 107 it says: "Transport Canada ensure the ongoing and adequate surveillance and monitoring of new aircraft implementation programs by Canadian air carriers".
It is hard to believe that, on the one hand, in 1986 they talk about the importance of doing these kinds of things,
Supply
of making sure that there are safeguards and monitoring devices, when again in Justice Moshansky's report he suggests that what should have been done has not been done. It makes me wonder just what has been going on in Transport Canada.
In the short time I have left I want to touch on something that I think is very, very important. It relates to the minister himself.
It is very important that people realize the significance of this. I want to put this one thing on the record. In chapter 37 dealing with safety management in the Transport Canada organization it says that: "Transport Canada proffer for enactment an amendment to the Aeronautics Act to delineate clearly the minister's responsibilities for aviation safety. Such amendment should emphasize the minister's responsibility to ensure that the department is organized in a manner to keep this minister accurately informed of the ability of Transport Canada to deliver its mandated aviation safety programs effectively".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The member's time has expired.


Robert Daniel Nault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I could just finish, Mr. Speaker, I will go very quickly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Robert Daniel Nault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize if I went a little over my time. Ten minutes seems so short on a big issue like this.
I have asked members of the House on all sides to allow me to put this motion, seconded by my colleague from Thunder Bay-Nipigon:
That this House also call upon the government to publicly acknowledge and recognize the heroic acts of the flight attendant, Sonia Hartwick, the survivors of Flight 1363 and the men and women from the town of Dryden who were involved in the rescue efforts of the Air Ontario crash on March 10, 1989.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank all members for allowing that very important motion to be put on the record.

April 2, 1992
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Five minute question or comments period, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I just want to use this opportunity to support the amendment put forward by the member for Kenora- Rainy River.
The efforts of Sonia Hartwick, the efforts of the crash fire rescue crew in Diyden, the municipality, all of the people who risked their own lives in a lot of ways to assist the survivors must be commended.
I would suggest that perhaps at a later point the House may be able to be seized of the actual motion and have it formally adopted by the House.


Lee Richardson: Like my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan who has just preceded me, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House I would also like to thank the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River for his thoughtful gesture and add our recognition to the heroic rescuers, survivors and the people of Diyden.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Following consultations, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, seconded by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, does not meet the Rules of this House since it goes beyond the substance of the main motion. However, as there seems to be a consensus and since the Speaker's role is to serve the House, if there is unanimous consent for the incorporation of this amendment, I will be glad to submit to the decision of the members of the House.
Is there unanimous consent to incorporate the amendment to the main motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to add my comments to those we have already heard.
It is about time that we honoured on the floor of this House those people who did what they did with respect to helping the survivors of that crash and the families of the victims to live through this terrible experience.
I compliment my colleague from Kenora-Rainy River. I listened very carefully to his words. The amendment
that was just passed by unanimous consent certainly addresses those issues that have not to this point in time been considered by this House, nor have they been referred to on the floor of the House.
I also compliment my colleague from Thunder Bay- Atikokan for rising in his place to support the motion and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport who added his support to the motion. I thank both those two gentlemen and my colleague for bringing this matter before the House.
The substance of the motion today is to talk about deregulation and how it affected all modes of travel within our country, particularly air. This motion comes at an appropriate time inasmuch as we are considering the Moshansky report.
What we are talking about here when we talk about deregulation is deregulation coupled with financial restraint that happened at the same time. It is like trying to combine oil and water; it just does not mix. At this time, suffice it to say, when we try to combine those ingredients we need strong ministerial support and strong ministerial direction to ensure that those people charged with the responsibility of regulatory control and with the responsibility of providing safety to the air-travelling public of this country have had the support of those at the highest decision-making level and to ensure that they were not overworked and their responsibilities in investigating and training were followed through. Unfortunately this was not done. I hope all of us on all sides of the House have learned a lesson from this terrible tragedy.
Out of every tragedy there emerge Canadians who truly should be honoured as my colleague from Kenora has just stated. Not only should they be honoured but recognized on the floor of this House in some tangible way through which we can continue to show on behalf of all Canadians the thanks which they rightly deserve.
I know my time is short. Let me just talk about the three areas I think are important. One is the support shown by all the people from the town of Diyden led by then Mayor Tom Jones. He has shown leadership over the years as mayor of that wonderful small community. Their support and leadership were evident. In very adverse and terrible weather circumstances they were able to accommodate not only the families of the victims of this terrible tragedy, but also those who survived the tragedy.
April 2, 1992

I had the opportunity to sit through the hearing process in Thunder Bay, in Dryden and some of the hearings in Toronto. When I heard the evidence that was educed at the hearing and in the hearing process I could not help but admire every person who made a contribution from the town of Dryden. I, along with my colleagues on this side of the House, certainly give heartfelt thanks to everyone who made a substantial contribution, including the leadership of the mayor of Dryden.
Sonia Hartwick was the sole surviving member of the crew. What else can be said? We heard the evidence at the hearings and looked at the pain that she was going through in order to give this evidence again. She relived this terrible tragedy not only through her own evidence but through the evidence of those who survived and those who saw her perform in a very professional way and in a way that showed her empathy for the people who needed her help at that particular time.
I lack for a better word but, if I can paraphrase, if ever I have seen a heroine in my lifetime it was truly evident in her performance in this trying time. She truly deserves the thanks of all Canadians. I hope, as my colleague has stated, there will be something in a more tangible form to honour Sonia Hartwick who in our judgment is truly a heroine of this terrible tragedy.
We watched the evidence given by the survivors and Ms. Hartwick. We looked at her husband and her family during this tragedy. There should be some mention made of them. We saw the pain that they were also going through as their wife or daughter was reliving this terrible experience. As father of three girls you always put yourself, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, in the position of what you would do. I can only say on behalf of her husband and her parents how proud I am sure they must have been of her during that critical time. They should be truly thanked for the support they gave her after the tragedy and I am sure they continue to give her.
There is another group of people who are truly worthy of the thanks of the Canadian people. Mr. Justice Virgil Moshansky conducted this tremendous in-depth inquiry not only into the tragedy itself at Dryden but a further
Supply
inquiry into air traffic safety and how the methodology of accident investigation is conducted in this country. He has shown, through the four volumes of his report, that there are certainly deficiencies in the process.
The work and the dedication Mr. Justice Moshansky undertook in this three-year process along with everyone that was associated, particularly the commission council, Mr. von Veh, certainly deserve, as my colleague has stated, the thanks of those of us who travel a lot on Canadian airlines and the international air community. I am sure they will take the sum and substance of this report and use it as a guide or a model by which all future investigations into air disasters will be conducted.
Just as an aside, I was truly impressed in the first several hearings that Mr. Justice Moshansky conducted a coroner-type inquest into the why, when, where, and by what means all of the victims came to their death.
I had to draw a parallel at that time because we were also involved in the Gander situation in 1985. It has been under constant review. I could not help but compare the quality of the investigative process conducted by Justice Moshansky and Mr. von Veh to the way the Gander inquiry was conducted. That one little episode could have helped family members in the Gander situation. Had the people responsible for the investigation in Gander even gone to the fundamental principle of conducting a coroner-type inquest into the reasons and by what means those soldiers came to their death, they would have satisfied the dilemma all of us not only in Canada but in the United States find ourselves in today because of an improper investigation.
That shows the tremendous importance and contribution of Mr. Justice Moshansky, his commission counsel, Mr. Frederick von Veh, and all the others involved. The lawyers representing the families, Mr. Chris Knutsen and Mr. Sandy Zaitzess, made a substantial contribution.
I appreciate the opportunity to have voiced my concerns.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the hon. member opposite.

April 2, 1992
Supply
I have listened to the questions asked in this House since Justice Moshansky's report was given to the public domain. I have also read the motion we have today. It seems we have a conspiracy which says the total fault of the aeroplane accident was deregulation.
I recall reading in the Moshansky report that there was also some error on the part of the people who worked for the airline in that they did not follow through some of their own prescribed procedures.
I am wondering how he could rationalize those two things and make sure there is a balance on the public record for the Canadian people to look at rather than see only one position put forward from this House as we have seen in the last couple of weeks, that it was an accident purely because of deregulation. Would the hon. member care to comment?


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. We worked very closely together when he was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and I was on the transport committee.
He will recall that our committee was instrumental in changing the deficiencies in what was then known as the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. We brought in a multimodal new concept with respect to the investigation of any accident involving trains, pipelines, or in the air or sea.
He will recall that we listened to the evidence given by Captain Norm Vindon of the Canadian Airline Pilots Association and many other people. What really came through to all of us was that there was no one single contributing factor to any accident today. Everything is just too complicated. I appreciate what the member has just asked, but I ask him to take his mind back to the time of that investigative process. It is not one single incident that causes an accident.
I would like to answer the question on deregulation. Although we had deregulation at the time of this incident and the Gander incident, it was one of the major contributing factors. It was not the sole factor, not the only reason why we had this disaster, but it was one of the contributing aspects that caused the accident in Dryden to happen. There were others. I believe the report states there were others. The report also states that it is one of the contributors toward this unfortunate incident and I hope, as I said earlier, that we can all learn from this situation so that it will not happen again.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague from Thunder Bay-Nipigon two questions. As I understood, he indicated it was not only deregulation but also financial restraint, including lack of support from the highest ministerial authorities, that together, working in concert, had a potential, extremely negative impact on what occurred. I want to know whether I understood that.
Second, while we speak of Gander and Dryden, and they were terrible tragedies, Canadians are also interested in whether deregulation, financial restraint, and lack of appropriate government support could lead to certain problems in other areas as well.
He could perhaps give two quick comments.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. As I stated earlier, the financial constraints that were imposed gave an unholy mix here which was almost like oil and water. On the one hand we have financial restraints being imposed by the Minister of Transport and the government through its endeavours. On the other hand we have deregulation. What does that mean?
It means that in the open market concept or the free enterprise concept anyone could enter the system. What we faced on the other end of the spectrum was a regulatory body which was very important within the air safety in this country and which was confined. Through the reports, the numbers were being cut back rather than being really even kept.
What we have here is a huge workload and a smaller amount of people who could do the work adequately.
Justice Moshansky addresses that issue when he says it was an unworkable combination. That is why I said at the outset that it was ministerial decision-making at the highest level that should be looked at.


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate today because I am proud of the government's achievements in transportation. A strong and competitive transportation system is vital for the development of all regions of Canada. I must also applaud our government's efforts to reform the laws and regulations that apply to the transportation system. This vital change has been long awaited. I am confident that it will enable Canada to remain competitive throughout the 1990s, while providing Canadians with safe and reliable transportation services.

April 2, 1992

The principal objectives of the reform of the economic regulations that apply to transportation in Canada are to stimulate competition, to improve the price and range of transportation services and to encourage the development of key economic sectors in our society. As competition among carriers intensifies, the transportation sector becomes more efficient and effective. Our products thus become more competitive on both domestic and international markets.
Regulations have played a very important role in Canada's social and economic development. They met a need to protect the public interest and ensure the provision of adequate services at a time when markets were simply too weak and underdeveloped to count on competition.
Today, our transportation system, like other industries, has grown and matured. Regulatory protection is no longer needed. Furthermore, competition is much stronger today in all sectors than it was just a few years ago.
These reforms were necessary for Canada to remain competitive in the world economy. The area of Canada is extremely large, second only to Russia. Yes, Canada has many and varied natural resources and a large manufacturing sector, but marketing all these products requires long-distance transportation. Efficient transportation is therefore critical.
In Canada, the share of transportation in the total cost is 1 or 2 per cent higher than in most of the countries with which we compete. On average, transportation accounts for about 5 per cent of the total cost of Canadian products. For resources like coal, pulp, paper, and potash, transportation makes up about 20 or 30 per cent of the delivery price and even 45 per cent for some coal exports.
Of course, we can do nothing to change the long distances that our products have to be shipped to market. It is therefore crucial that we overlook no factor in our control that would keep our costs higher than they could be.
Supply
In late 1984, we determined that the transportation regulatory regime was an obstacle rather than an incentive to competition, both in Canada and abroad. Our regulations prevented the transportation industry from attaining the efficiency of which it was capable.
The main difficulty was reconciling the interests of shippers and carriers in improving the package of reforms. Shippers, especially captive shippers, were offered competitive choices through initiatives like competitive line prices and higher interconnection limits. Carriers obtained the management freedom that they sought, which lets them sign confidential contracts and not have to report prices, for example.
The legislative provisions are based on the following principles: First, safety remains the top priority. Transportation safety will be subordinate to no other objective. Second, transportation services exist to meet the needs of shippers and travellers. We cannot consider these services an end in themselves. Third, as much as possible, market forces and not the government should determine what services will be offered at what price. We will thus have a more efficient and economical system and be able to provide shippers and travellers with a wide range of services. Reducing the regulatory burden and government intervention will encourage transportation companies to innovate. Fourth, economic regulation must continue to protect the public interest as often as necessary. Given the weakness of markets in remote regions like the far north, for example, some regulations must remain to ensure orderly development of these markets and guarantee essential services. The disabled must have fair and decent access to the transportation system.
Finally, any regulation that remains in effect should be open, accessible and economical in time and money.
Let us now look at what has happened. First, the two basic laws, the 1987 National Transportation Act and the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, have been in place for over four years. Transport Canada and the National Transportation Agency are following events closely.

April 2, 1992
Supply
One concern raised in the debate on the new National Transportation Act was that regulatory controls were needed to ensure adequate service. So far, everything indicates that the markets are mature enough and strong enough to benefit from increased competition.
In air transport, for example, there is strong competition, not only on the long-haul domestic markets but also in all regions of Canada, with the result that the frequency of service has increased.
The reform of economic regulations has made it possible to better adjust the size of aircraft to passenger demand on short hauls and for services to small communities.
The greater number of flights and the better service that turbo-prop aircraft operators can therefore provide to travellers have dissipated the fears of a loss of services by jet airplanes.
These services are expanding in the north, where some regulations were maintained to protect already established airline companies, as well as vulnerable markets. Also, the legislation gives the authority to ensure essential air services. So far, it has not been necessary to use this safety device.
As regards the railroad industry, shippers and carriers work jointly. More innovative services are offered, as was hoped when we introduced this legislation.
The confidential contracts have proven to be very effective and popular marketing tools.
As you know, the interprovincial trucking business remains a provincial jurisdiction. As expected, achieving uniformity at the national level proved to be a challenge. However, the system works and truckers get some relief as regards regulations, which translates into savings of time and money. This situation is also beneficial to shippers, since they have access to a wider choice of carriers and services.
The reform also included the marine sector. The provisions of the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act of 1987 protect the public interest while also promoting greater competition.
I also want to mention an important reform regarding transport and handicapped people. Thanks to the co-operation of all members, Bill C-131 was passed on July 7, 1988. Those amendments to the National Transportation Act enabled us to determine and implement accessibility
standards for every mode, something which was not previously possible.
Our objective is to ensure that handicapped people can use means of transportation that meet their needs while preserving their dignity. It goes without saying that the new economic legislation will not bring about a slacking off of the government controls regarding safety. The new National Transportation Act puts safety among its top priorities; in fact, safety is the main reason justifying the existence of the Department of Transport. I might add that numerous initiatives were undertaken in recent years to ensure and improve safety for every transport mode in Canada.
The measures that we have taken, as well as the global changes to the act are part of the gradual transformation that our transport network has been undergoing for numerous years.
Before Confederation, transport was a real challenge in all our regions. A vast uneven territory needed some links. Our original needs were met with the construction of a transcontinental railroad, which was the dream of Sir John Alexander Macdonald. Then, there was the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959 and the Trans-Canada Highway in 1962 which both contributed tremendously to economic expansion and transports in our country. Our airline companies and our communication networks are expanding, thereby bringing the regions closer, to the point that we are now all neighbours within a great nation.
The transport modes will continue to play an essential part in the years leading to the next century. The transport network of the future will have to meet five fundamental criteria: (1) it will be safe; (2) it will be accessible to all travellers, including handicapped people; (3) it will be efficient and effective in the sense that it will represent the most judicious use of each transport mode: the aircraft, the railway, the automobile, the truck and the bus; (4) it will meet the needs of shippers and travellers; (5) it will be innovative, both in terms of use of technology as well as provision of services.
In conclusion, our new regulation policy has promoted a climate of competition which has benefited our country. In this fast-changing global village that is today's world, Canadians cannot act like ostriches and bury their heads in the sand, hoping that memories will drive away today's realities. That is why our government has given Canadians the means to take advantage of new opportunities and to face the challenges ahead.
April 2, 1992


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I do not much like people who say: "I told you so". I am going to say it anyway. I told you so.
Not only I, but dozens of others, knowledgeable experts nationally and internationally in transportation, warned the Conservative government and the previous Liberal government repeatedly about the problems they would face bringing in deregulation. Neither the present government nor its predecessor listened.
When the transport committee was holding hearings for about a year and a half on the white paper called "Freedom to Move", which really meant deregulation, I said that the government was going to kill some more people. It has.
I served for 21 years continuously on the transport committee. I have 15 years experience on Canadian Pacific Railway. I know a little bit about it, but I sure as heck am not an expert.
My problem, in those 21 years on the transport committee, was being continually surrounded by amateurs who did not know one end of a boxcar from the other. My hon. friend, the Solicitor General, whom I like very much, I must rank among those who did not know the difference.
Transport was the largest department in the government the last time I checked. If it is not now, it is in the top three. Here is the kind of attention and priority this government since 1984 and the previous Liberal government gave to that department.
We have had 13 transport ministers in the past 24 years. There were six Tories in eight years and seven Liberals in 15 years. They served anywhere from one month to 44 months. The one with the record of 44 months was the unlamented Otto Lang, who started all this. They are fine people. I like them individually and there is nothing personal about this.
They were amateurs, they were in a department in which they were not the slightest bit interested. It was not their cup of tea but they had no choice but to do whatever the officials of the department said because they did not know any better.
Supply
We have had seven or eight Ministers of State for Transport. They were supposed to relieve and take some of the huge load off the backs of the Ministers of Transport. None was any help.
Going through and recalling what occurred when the transport committee held those hearings on Freedom to Move, and thinking of the witnesses who appeared, it was obvious then that the new Conservative government was on an ideological binge that the bottom line syndrome, deregulated transportation, competition and so-called free enterprise would be the priority, the guiding policy of the government.
We in the NDP, and before that the CCF, are accused of being ideologues. When it comes to ideology, we were amateurs compared to these birds.
When one looks at trucking, it is a jungle out there. There are thirteen jurisdictions with different regulations and rules. Under our Constitution, interprovincial and international trucking are under the jurisdiction of the national government. It vacated it and turned it over to the provinces and territories. When it brought in deregulation, it was warned and told not to do so until it had some co-ordination and identical rules and regulations regarding safety, load limits, speed limits, whatever, jointly arrived at by the provinces, territories and the national government. Some efforts have been made but most of it still has not happened.
Regarding the railroads, the most efficient and environmentally friendly mode of transportation, the government is doing all it can to abandon railway lines. We particularly noticed this in western Canada, although I note it is now happening to a large degree in Ontario and Quebec over the last couple of years.
Grain has to be trucked further because of the abandoned branch lines in the prairie provinces. It means that you have to have larger trucks. One hundred cars of grain will move as much grain as three to four hundred trucks. The beauty of the ideological binge the government is on is that the railroads get out from undermaintaining and improving railway branch lines. The government gets out of its responsibility of making them run a good railroad, and the costs are shifted to the provinces and the municipalities.

April 2, 1992
Supply
There are the airlines. I want to point out two of the witnesses who appeared before the committee when we dealt with the white paper and with legislation. We had difficulty getting one of them accepted by the committee as a witness on his own. He appeared as a member of another delegation. I refer to one John Nance, and I invite my colleagues to read his book. Mr. Nance is a commercial airline pilot, a recognized national and international expert. He was on television the other night as a result of the New York incident. He sure is no socialist but he warned, pleaded with and begged us not to bring in deregulation until we have everything in place necessary to keep safe, efficient and properly maintained and equipped airlines and staff.
He urged us not to make the same mistake that was made in the United States. We have to have in place a sufficient number of air traffic controllers and back-up controller staff. We have to have in place a sufficient number of civil aircraft inspectors. We have to have in place increased training of air traffic controllers and civilian aircraft inspectors. It takes several years to become either one of those. They are high-stress jobs. Some of them do not last long. They have to be replaced fairly frequently. He told us that.
Then the immediate past president, head of the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States, the governing body of airlines down there, the regulatory body similar to our CTC, said the same thing. He urged us not to make the mistakes that the United States made by deregulating too quickly before government, airlines, airports and regulators were ready and prepared for it. We got the same message from him. Again, the government would not listen and chose not to believe him.
The figures the Minister of Transport cited were the statistics for all aircraft movements. He did not tell about just the commercial airlines. The figures are abysmal. The figures prove that deregulation has harmed safety in the air and among commercial aircraft in Canada.
To some people who have not learned anything since, the theoiy was, and with some it still is, that deregulation would increase competition, would lower fares and give a better deal for the consuming public. What has happened? It is so ridiculous it is laughable.
I have a list here of 39 carriers in the United States. Of those 39, 10 are bankrupt, some pretty large ones too. Eastern Airlines, for example, which used to be one of the largest, went belly-up. There were 17 takeovers by the present existing airlines and 1 merger. Out of those
39,10	are still operating. So much for increased competition.
Then we come to Canada. Prior to deregulation we had four regional carriers, medium-sized airline operations. A couple of them were doing okay. One was borderline, one was having troubles. We had Air Canada, Canadian Pacific and Wardair.
Max Ward was one of those who appeared before the committee more than once. He is a nice guy. He even gave me a ride in his limousine back to the hotel after a hearing one night when we had a knock down, drag 'em out argument. Max said to us: "Leave me alone. I don't want any subsidies. I don't need all these regulations. All I want to do is operate my charter airline. I'm not interested in domestic routes." Within a year or so of deregulation, who was down in Ottawa pleading and begging for domestic routes? Max Ward, that great entrepreneur of the international charter airlines.
I do not know that Max was hurt all that much personally, but we know what happened to Wardair. It was sort of taken over. I doubt if it got its money, its market value. Canadian Airlines International Ltd. acquired Wardair in 1989.
To go back to 1983, Pacific Western took over Time Air. In 1984, CP Air acquired Eastern Provincial Airways. Innocan Inc. acquired Nordair. A year or so later, Innocan, which had acquired Nordair, was taken over. In 1985, Air Canada and Pacific Western each acquired 24.5 per cent of Air Ontario. So much for competition. Canadian Pacific helped establish Nordair Metro. So much for some more competition. Nordair Metro acquired Quebecair. Talk about banditry. Bank robbers are amateurs.
In 1986 Air Canada acquired 49 per cent of Air Nova. There went some more competition. PWA in 1987 acquired CP Air for $300 million. It was great for the CP Limited shareholders but did not do much for increased competition due to deregulation.
April 2, 1992

The more one goes through this you do not know whether to break into hysterical laughter or throw up.
In 1988 Air Canada acquired 90 per cent of Northwest Territorial Airlines. Now it is into the territories. In 1990 Air Canada was reported to have outbid TWA to acquire Air Toronto, a commuter carrier to some U.S. cities. This sale was not completed by the end of May 1990 but I think it has been since.
What happened? We have two airlines that acquired several other outfits that were jerkwater, fly-by-night, two-bit operations. They are now called Canadian Airlines' partners and Air Canada's partners. Some partners. All those partners can do is take over the short haul, small numbers routes at the orders of Canadian or Air Canada.
Some of the flights out of the smaller and mediumsized cities in Canada, and I use as an example my city of Regina, are the short-haul routes: Regina-Saskatoon-Edmonton-Calgary-Winnipeg. The planes are not held together with chewing gum and rubber bands but they are propeller driven and might go 280 to 300 nautical miles per hour. It is a lesser service. But under deregulation we are supposed to get better service. This is a lesser service.
As we predicted and as the government was warned during their white paper discussions, it would mean lesser and poorer service to the small and middle sized cities in Canada. The government conveniently ignored that and forgot that there is more to Canada than Montreal, Toronto, Halifax and Vancouver.
If the government is really serious about safety being its number one priority, and we have heard that from every one of the 13 ministers of transport we have had in 24 years, that is less than two years each. One of them, the hon. member for Vegreville, a good buddy who sat on the committee with me for a number of years, only served nine months one period, just barely the gestation period. But if it is deadly serious, why does the government not fill the 70 vacant safety inspector positions, as pointed out by the aircraft operations group which represents the 500 civil aviation inspectors who work for Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board? Seventy unfilled positions for inspectors. Why did the
Supply
Minister of Transport not announce yesterday those positions were being filled?
Remember a couple of years ago the government brought 40-some air traffic controllers who had been fired in the United States to Canada, gave them a refresher course and put them to work because we were desperate for air traffic controllers. If it is deadly serious, it will hire, train and put to work the dozens more air traffic controllers that we desperately need.
Deregulation has been a disaster. It will continue to be so until we re-regulate and enforce what is required to keep our civil air traffic safer than it is now.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed at the amount of knowledge that my colleague, the member for Regina-Lumsden, has about transportation. With very few notes he is able to remind us of a number of things that people have said and done over not just the deregulation debate of the last six to eight years, but for a greater period of time.
I say that by way of a preamble because I want to ask him about statements made by the head of Canadian Airlines, Rhys Eyton, when he promised that when Wardair was taken over it would continue to operate as Wardair. It would not be gobbled up, it would not become part of Canadian Airlines.
I am going to ask my colleague for his interpretation of the words of that same individual today, when he says that American Airlines buying 25 per cent of Canadian will allow Canadian to operate independently, that Canadian will not be gobbled up in any way by American Airlines. I am wondering if he could pass on his wisdom of those kinds of statements in terms of the reality of them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend. One thing I can say about chief executive officers not only of airlines, but also of many other corporations which appeared before the transport committee in my years, is that most of them to make a buck would run over their own mothers if they had to.
Nobody believed Rhys Eyton concerning Wardair, but that was the pitch he made to the government and that was the pitch he made to the CTC and he got away with it. All of Max Ward's charter routes were long gone before very long.

April 2, 1992
Supply
As far as I am concerned and the position of the New Democratic Party is concerned, what is required is for Air Canada and Canadian Airlines to merge and let the transport commission carry out its duties as the enforcer and regulator and guardian of consumers' rights.
Instead of that, we have Mr. Eyton now crawling on his hands and knees to American Airlines, which you can bet will get 25 per cent ownership of Canadian Airlines. I will make a little prediction. I hope I turn out to be wrong, but in the life of this Parliament, before the next election, this government will allow a foreign airline to take up to 50 per cent ownership of a Canadian airline. Do you want to bet, Mr. Speaker? Does anybody over there want to? It is in the cards. I do not believe Mr. Rhys Eyton when he says this will not affect Canadian's operation. Baloney.
American Airlines will end up running Canadian's entire maintenance operations, the allocation of its aircraft, the routes it will or will not go on internationally and Canadian will not have any choice but to say: "Aye, aye, ready". That is why Canadian Airlines should merge with Air Canada.
Countries like Germany, Italy, France, Great Britain, the Scandinavian countries, and I could list some more, decided decades ago-and by the way, all of them have populations anywhere from twice to five times ours, a market of 400 to 500 million people just in Europe alone, eastern and western Europe-they could not afford the luxury of more than one national airline. Canada is trying to copy the great U.S. of A. We have lots of geography, lots of climate, not too many people. The only way we are going to operate more than one airline nationally and make money is by increasing fares by half again.
When I was first elected to Parliament, the round-trip economy fare, Regina to Ottawa was $126. Now the round trip regular economy fare is just about $1,000.
If anything proves that deregulation does not work, if anything proves that this country cannot afford a multiplicity of jerkwater, fly-by-night, overnight airlines, the experience of the last eight years should be enough. Surely a brick wall does not have to fall on the government, but I am afraid it will have to, and that brick wall will be called an election.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Regina-Lumsden for going through an exercise, certainly he has years and years of experience on the transport committee. I enjoyed his presentation, which in the beginning talked about the concern of starting with three nationals and four regionals, and the concern of coming down to two, and then his recommendation to bring it down to one. So I will have to examine Hansard tomorrow to follow the logic of that particular argument.
Let me say at the outset that Canada's aviation safety record is among the best in the world. A major accident, any accident, serves to remind us that aviation losses are unacceptable to the public and to any government. All Canadians grieve for the survivors and families of the victims of the tragic crash at Diyden. We are grateful to Judge Virgil Moshansky and the members of the commission for their tireless hard work and dedication in preparing the report that was released last week.
Now that the report has been released, Transport Canada has initiated a thorough, top priority examination of each of its recommendations. The report contained 191 recommendations, of which 35 have already been implemented by Transport Canada. There are 58 recommendations with which the department agrees and for which action is under way.
Seventy-three of the recommendations have been referred to the government-industry implementation team and the remaining 25 which deal broadly with legislation, the Transportation Safety Board and Transport Canada, are under review by the government.
Aviation safety is a product of a partnership of industry, government, unions and passengers. The work of the commission of inquiry has underscored the need for sustaining and strengthening these partnerships to ensure Canadian skies are safe.
Justice Moshansky's investigation is notable not only as an exhaustive study, but also as a constructive analysis which has contributed to our ongoing efforts to maintain and enhance aviation safety in this country. This report is not just a document to be taken under advisement; it is something that must be acted upon and Transport Canada is doing that.
The department's commitment has already been demonstrated by its actions in response to the 17 recommendations contained in the commission's two interim reports. These include key recommendations concerning the clean wing concept and new regulations governing the inspection of aircraft for the presence of ice, snow or frost. The Department of Transport is continually reviewing all aspects of its aviation safety operations and taking corrective action to ensure the system's safety. In 1987 the new National Transportation Act was passed to ease economic regulation of the transportation industry,
April 2, 1992

but I would like to assure this House that safety was not deregulated and air safety had not been compromised.
Since 1981 statistics compiled and released by the Transportation Safety Board show that there has been a 35 per cent decrease in aviation accidents. As the demand for efficient, affordable transportation continues to grow, transportation safety remains the top priority at Transport Canada.
Each year the department devotes a great deal of time, energy and resources to maintain and improve the safety of Canada's national transportation system. This commitment is especially important with respect to aviation. The department remains responsive and diligent in ensuring aviation safety. As I have said, aviation safety is a shared responsibility. Everyone involved in aviation has that responsibility: the aircraft designers, the builders, the technicians, engineers, the pilots, flight attendants, air traffic controllers, the regulators, executive and administrators. All have a direct professional and personal interest in aviation safety. This requires that all participants work together to promote safe operating practices in all aviation activities.
Transport Canada is responsible for the following: to develop and ensure effective safety regulations; to develop and operate air navigation and air traffic control systems; for promoting the use of practices which exceed the regulated standards; and finally, working together with other agencies to monitor the performance of air traffic networks and identify areas where safety can be improved.
Transport Canada also sets out the rules and safety standards for operating aircraft in Canada. It licenses pilots, commercial operators, flying schools, airports, aircraft, aircraft manufacturers and maintenance personnel. These safety standards are upheld through regular inspections of aircraft and safety audits of companies.
The foundation of Canada's aeronautics legislation is the Aeronautics Act which was substantially amended in
Supply
1985 following several years of analysis and public consultation. The amendments to the act not only introduced the most progressive aviation safety legislation in Canada, they enabled Transport Canada to better maintain a consistent watch over aeronautical activities.
The Aeronautics Act has just been amended again to further strengthen and improve safety regulations, including a provision for the introduction of urgent safety regulations in a more timely manner.
Transport Canada monitors the performance of the air transportation network and identifies areas where safety can be improved. The department also constantly monitors the air traffic control system.
Since economic regulatory reform was introduced five years ago, Transport Canada has undertaken many safety related initiatives. First, the $800 million radar modernization project, which is nearing completion, will provide the entire air traffic control radar surveillance system.
Second, the $660 million Canadian automated air traffic system called CAATS, which will be completed by 1995, will provide pilots and controllers with improved control capabilities.
Third, the air traffic controller training capacity has been doubled at the Transport Canada training institute. The nation-wide complement of air traffic controllers will be fully met by 1994. The current level is 90 per cent of the requirement of 2,200 controllers.
Fourth, the new air traffic flow management programs are ensuring traffic volumes are kept at manageable levels in air space around our busiest airports in Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Montreal.
A new aeronautics code is being implemented. It deals with standard operating procedures for air carriers, restraint systems for flight attendants and carry-on baggage limitations, among others. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you get frustrated, but sometimes I am amazed that some passengers seem to have eight arms when they are carrying on some of their luggage.
April 2, 1992

Supply
A special project has also been established to explore and participate in discussions with the Federal Aviation Administration and the joint aviation authorities of Europe to harmonize aviation rules.
Transport Canada Aviation was also reconstructed in 1991 to provide one focal point for the management of aviation related matters in each of the six regions. Also, a government industry task force on air carrier inspections was established in the fall of last year to review and recommend improvements in the manner in which audits, inspections and the general surveillance of the aviation industry is conducted. Finally, inspector training for air carrier audits has also been improved.
These are just some of the measures Transport Canada has taken to ensure safe air transportation in Canada.
I spoke earlier of shared responsibility for air safety. Air carriers are, of course, responsible for ensuring the safe operation of their aircraft at all times. Where icing conditions exist, regulations require a mandatory preflight inspection of an aircraft. Transport Canada has developed a mandatory surface contamination training package which all commercial air carriers must provide to personnel involved in flight operations. In addition, air carriers must have approved training programs for both flight and ground personnel in not only de-icing but also anti-icing procedures.
To ensure that pilots understand the implications of wing contamination, Transport Canada amended the air regulations and air navigation orders in November 1990 to prohibit the take-off of an airplane unless its critical surfaces are free of frost, ice or snow. The amendments also require that flight crews receive annual training on the effects of surface contamination on their aircraft.
In 1987, Transport Canada developed a new national company information system, a computerized system that documents air carrier information and tracks critical activity to strengthen Transport Canada's aviation auditing capabilities. To streamline and standardize its audit procedures, Transport Canada also undertook in December 1991 an extensive review of its audit procedures and has published a manual of regulatory audits which addresses all the shortcomings identified by the commission of inquiry.
Transport Canada and the airlines have agreed in principle on a centralized de-icing facility at Pearson International Airport. Work is progressing on technical and environmental approvals. In most cases, air carriers apply de-icing or anti-icing fluids before the aircraft departs for the runway. In severe conditions, if there is a delay between the time the aircraft is de-iced and the time the aircraft is given final clearance for take-off, the effects of the de-icing fluids may deteriorate rapidly. As a result, Transport Canada has implemented gate-hold procedures at Pearson where heavy traffic may cause unacceptable departure delays. Under these procedures, aircraft are held at the gate until a firm take-off time is assigned, ensuring take-off directly following de-icing. Delays between de-icing and take-off will virtually be eliminated by a new dedicated de-icing facility to be constructed at Pearson.
I would like to take my final moments to point out some of the important facts about Transport Canada's inspections and audit procedures.
Transport Canada carries out a number of activities to ensure that aviation companies comply with aviation regulation standards. Aviation regulation inspectors maintain ongoing surveillance of the aviation community on a regular basis. Monitoring activities are often carried out in conjunction with such activities as pilot proficiency checks, in-flight inspections and ramp checks.
In addition to routine monitoring activities, officials carry out detailed inspection of specific aspects of a company's operation as well as comprehensive company audits at regularly scheduled interviews.
I am sure all hon. members are aware of the important work, the crucial work, carried out by inspectors. This work force has increased since deregulation. The number of air carrier inspectors has increased by an average of 6 per cent per year and air worthiness staff has increased by 4 per cent during each of the past five years.
I would like to point out another initiative undertaken by Transport Canada, the Annual Canadian Aviation Safety Seminar, which brings together representatives from across this industry. This year's seminar began yesterday and is being attended by 200 aviation safety specialists from all areas of the industry. The seminar will permit exchange and discussion on ways to improve air safety. In fact, this year's theme is: Maintaining aviation safety in an era of declining revenues.
April 2, 1992

The number of safety officers has also been increased and additional modules have been provided for the successful Company Aviation Safety Program and Pilot Decision Making Program which were created in response to client-industry demand. As regulators ensuring aviation safety, Transport Canada has made far reaching changes within the industry and has been responsive and responsible to the recommendations of the commission of inquiry.
On the critical issue of de-icing in general and in particular related safety measures, Transport Canada has acted quickly and positively. The department has made clear its commitment to ensuring that the Canadian aviation industry is as informed and diligent as it can be in this crucial area of performance.
I believe that Transport Canada is fully able to provide the Canadian traveller with one of the safest and most efficient air transportation systems in the world.
In conclusion, the Minister of Transport has stated that he is firmly committed to keeping the public fully informed of all actions and plans in response to the recommendations contained in the final commission of inquiry report. The Minister of Transport will be issuing a progress report in six months' time.
This government has an ongoing commitment to making whatever improvements and adjustments are necessary to ensure that a national aviation system is as safe as it possibly can be.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, virtually everything the member who has just spoken has said seems to deny one of the fundamental issues identified by Justice Moshansky after years of investigation, innumerable witnesses and three volumes of report.
What he denies essentially is that a large part of the problem, the risk to safety, arises from a shortage of staff and a shortage of resources. The report is simply riddled with quotes like "excessive workloads", "thrown to the wolves without adequate training", "experienced inspectors leaving because they are not being adequately paid".
We have a series of eight different reports saying that we do not have the resources. We do not have the people to carry out the mandate of the Transport Department.
Supply
We need new resources. We need more people. We need better training.
We have in some areas related directly to safety an increase in workload of 400 times. I think it is important to quote directly from the transcript of the hearings. When an official raised the problem of shortage of staff to cany out the regulations and to carry out the mandate for public safety, the commissioner inquired: "What response were you getting from your superiors?" "Other than losing a person-year, no response". "What were the reasons? What was your understanding?" Answer: "We were downsizing." "You were what? You were downsizing?" "Downsizing." "In staff?" "Yes, Sir". "In effect, you were asking for more inspectors, but in fact, they were taking inspector positions away from you." "Yes".
"What about your workload? Were they reallocating your workload or requesting you to do less work?" "No." "What was happening?" "We were being asked to do more with less."
That is the litany of this government, in Health and Welfare Canada, in marine safety, in ground safety throughout the Department of Transport, in customs inspections, in the inspection of new chemicals in agriculture, in the inspection of new drugs.
I ask the hon. member who with me has spent the last few weeks looking at the future health of the Public Service, will his government admit the essential problem here is lack of personnel to carry out the directions and the laws of Parliament? Will he read this report? Will he admit that? Can we hear something other than denial of the fundamental problem here?


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Mr. Speaker, I have to go back to my opening statement in my presentation that Canada is among the best in the world for safety records.
I stated the number of aircraft inspectors has increased and air worthiness staff has increased by some 6 per cent and 4 per cent respectively over the years. I do not think the member is saying that because there is a vacancy let us immediately fill it with a warm body. There is an expectation from not only parliamentarians but also from passengers and people in the industry that a professional level of service has to be provided.

April 2, 1992
Supply
Again, hon. members opposite say that the government has not responded in a comprehensive way to the work of the inquiry. I mentioned earlier the recommendations of the interim report. We have seen some 49 per cent of the recommendations in this report responded to.
The thing we are discovering not only with Transport Canada but also in the bill that the hon. member and I are spending a lot of time on now is that we are talking about a partnership, working together and everyone has to share in those responsibilities. We are progressing in the right direction.
Whether we are talking about the Public Service or about air transportation safety, the Canadian record is among the best in the world. We all acknowledge that we want to improve on being the best. We will continue to operate in that direction.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I listened veiy carefully to the hon. member's speech. Although he says that perhaps we should not fill a position right away, is he aware of the very huge increase in movement in the air of the very large numbers of smaller planes and that would require a lot more personnel to inspect each and every one of them?
Is the hon. member saying that a very small increase in the personnel is capable of keeping these aircraft in top condition and of making sure that everything is running properly?
I give an example. For Sudbury, Ontario, there was an increase of 171 per cent in the numbers of turbo-planes flying in and out of Sudbury. That is a very large increase in numbers of flights. Even though it is a smaller plane, there are more of them to keep that steady level of traffic going. We cannot service that large number of planes with the same number of personnel. I ask the hon. member, does he think we can?


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member for Sudbury. The question is related in a generic sense to the number of planes. If we were dealing in 1920 where it is a manpower issue, I would have to agree with the member.
However, this is the 1990s. I just did a tour out west where it is now computer assisted to help with the volumes of work that air traffic controllers must handle.
Inspection techniques have improved. The equipment that professionals have has improved.
The member is quite right. I do not doubt her numbers about the increased number of movements in the air. I know that my colleague from Hamilton will also agree that indeed the professionalism and the quality of the inspectors' work is enhanced by the equipment they have. They recognize that. That is why we have added as we get the trained staff and we are just not going to fill it up with warm bodies.
I just want to assure the members that this government will not and has not compromised safety.
I would also like to remind the hon. members opposite that Judge Moshansky's assessment about the safety of our system today was that it was one of the safest aviation systems in the world.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I am more than anxious to participate in the debate today. Just to remind the House, the debate today is on an opposition day motion. It reads:
That this House condemns the government for its unwillingness to concede that the deregulation of the Canadian transport industry has been a failure and in fact has led to fewer carriers, fewer jobs, higher prices, reduced service and less safe operations in air, road and rail transportation.
Canadians who are following the debate today and in particular who have followed the speeches of members on the government side of the House have to realize that this is an important debate. What is important and what is frightening about the debate is that nothing has changed in seven or eight years.
A great many members in the House today have been here since the 1988 election; some came after the 1984 election. Some members will recall the debates about deregulation in Canada from first-hand experience and some will not.
Some have done their homework and will realize that the discussion we are having today about safety in the airline industry, as great a report as the Moshansky report is on the Dryden crash, does not flow, does not find its beginning, does not originate with the Moshansky report. The millions of dollars, the thousands of hours of testimony that gave rise to the Moshansky report do not contain within them the origin of the discussion in Canada and in this House about safety in the airline industry.
April 2, 1992

I had the privilege, as did other members of this Etouse, of being a transport critic once upon a time for my party. At first I was an associate transport critic and then the transport critic when deregulation of the airline industry took place.
I can tell you, Madam Speaker, and you will recall because you were here in those years, that there was a heck of a debate, both in the Standing Committee on Transport, on the floor of the House of Commons and in the forum of Question Period about safety.
With all due respect to Judge Moshansky, there is absolutely almost nothing in this report that was not raised by members of the opposition, by members of the Canadian Airline Pilots Association, by members of the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association, by personnel from Transport Canada and the safety division who came and pleaded with members of Parliament in all parties to recognize the dangers inherent in deregulating an industry, to recognize the requirement to prepare in advance for deregulation.
My colleague from Hamilton West who is now associate transport critic has given me a copy of a question on December 17, 1985 I asked the then Minister of Transport, the gentleman who is currently Deputy Prime Minister. I was joined by the members for Regina- Lumsden, Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Papineau-Saint-Michel, and many others who were asking the then Minister of Transport whether or not safety would be compromised. The Minister of Transport of the day said: "Don't worry about it. We are not deregulating safety, we are only deregulating transportation".
I recall that we asked the minister of the day whether or not he would send the Standing Committee on Transport and the appropriate critics to Washington to examine the United States experience with deregulation. They had been there, seven or eight years along at that point in the game. They had learned some lessons. We suggested that perhaps we could learn from them. What was their experience, what did they do right, what did they do wrong, what was the experience? The government refused to send us to Washington to examine the U.S. experience with deregulation.
Supply
So, a couple of us went on a Canada-U.S. exchange to Washington and we went to the FAA. We saw the transportation secretary and saw members of Congress associated with the congressional oversight committees responsible for transportation deregulation. We met with vice-presidents and presidents of various airlines operating in the United States in a deregulated environment. That was all done unofficially. We came back to Canada and reported on the U.S. experience.
I have in my hand a copy of the Debates in the House of Commons dated January 29, 1986, when we reported to the government. They were not the views of the Liberal Party or the NDP or the union or the air traffic controllers or the pilots association. They were the views of Congress, of the Federal Aviation Administration, of senior executives of the U.S. airline industry that deregulation in the United States had been brought about without proper preparation.
They warned us then, in 1986, that the single most important thing we had to do was train sufficient air traffic controllers and put in place sufficient inspectors to keep the industry safe. That is what they told us and that is what we reported to the government.
Even then as we reported to the government that information from south of the border, this government was laying off air traffic controllers at Pearson International Airport.
So, I am sorry. I do not feel very generous today in participating in this debate. I do not accept the bland assurances, typewritten, drafted, crafted by somebody else for the member opposite by some bureaucrat that all is well in the world. "We can be assured this government would never compromise safety." That is what the government told us in 1985. That is what the government told us in 1986. That is what the government answered when we came back from Washington in 1986, that this government would never compromise safety.
But the same government, including the member on the backbench who just spoke, told us that the government would never compromise safety, would never put the lives and limbs of Canadians at risk, in the words of Justice Moshansky in a royal commission report, bought and paid for with taxpayer dollars which cannot be

April 2, 1992
Supply
written off, ignored and pretended it never happened, judged harshly this government.
It was not Brian Tobin from Humber-St. Barbe- Baie Verte, not an NDP opposition critic, not a union member, not a member of the Canadian Airline Pilots Association, not an air traffic controller, not a concerned citizen. Justice Moshansky said that is exactly what the government did. The government compromised safety.
The government was saying in the House of Commons in answer to me in 1985, it answered to me and to others in 1986 that safety was not compromised. That was the answer up front. Even as it gave those commitments up front in this House, it was back in the shop laying off air traffic controllers. That is the fact.
Nothing has changed. We still get a statement today from the minister, not from an opposition member, not a union member, not a reporter, not a journalist. The minister rejects Justice Moshansky. He dismisses it like the snow in spring. It melts away in front of him, all of the hours of work, all of the blood, sweat and tears and testimony of all of those involved, including some survivors of the crash. It is rejected out of hand.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: You rejected it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We did not compromise safety. And the member opposite blindly stands up and says: "We have never compromised safety".
I never rejected Justice Moshansky's report. The member should be very clear. The member should take this matter seriously. What I said was that we did not need to wait for a crash. We did not need to wait for the loss of lives. We did not need to wait for a royal commission to act. In 1986, well in advance of the report of 1992, those questions were being raised and false assurances were being given. No action was taken.
I say to members opposite that this is a serious matter. I say to members opposite that there is no tangible indication that anything has substantively changed. That is what Justice Moshansky tells us as well.
Take the airline industry, for example. Today two carriers are engaged, and we may as well call it exactly what it is, in a corporate fight to the death. These two Canadian carriers, let us be honest, are in a corporate fight to the death. All of the seat sales, all of the
promotions, all of the little chances to win a bonus, an executive upgrade, a free trip, a free holiday, all of these promotions are part of a corporate fight to the death. Two Canadian carriers have decided that by competitive means only one carrier shall survive. That is what is going on today. As part and parcel of that corporate battle, both carriers are looking at the possibility of finding new American partners, a minority sharehold position that can only go, by law, up to 25 per cent as prescribed in the National Transportation Act, but could result in control.
It is against that backdrop and that environment of a corporate war, the possibility of mergers with American carriers and frankly, with an American corporate culture, that we are having this debate.
I do not care who hears me. I have no hesitation in saying that the Canadian airline industry today, in my judgment, and the corporate culture that engenders the industry today is far superior to the corporate culture that engenders the American industry. The American industry has been floating in debt for so long that it is no longer run by airline industry people. It has been run by the bankers for a heck of a long time. In the United States, they are operating just at the margins provided by the FAA.
It used to be the American industry. If we can picture an invisible line here that is the limit below which you cannot go in terms of safety margins. The American industry used to operate up here, but as deregulation came in, the industry began to operate right at the margin, right at the lowest allowable limit. That is what happened. That is the experience south of the border.
What happened in Canada as well is that we also began moving down toward the safety margin. The trick in any industry is not to operate at the lowest minimum standard. It is to be above it. For every degree you are above it, that is an assurance that you are operating safely. That was the traditional culture in the airline industry. That culture has changed. It is not airline people anymore determining when you push off the gate and take off. It is the banks because they own the carriers. It is because they are awash in debt south of the border and they are awash in debt here in Canada as well.
April 2, 1992

The corporate pressure, the competitive pressures, the deregulated environment that gave rise to the tragedy at Dryden, which gave rise to this report has not lessened; it has increased. The need to make the industry safe is greater now than it was four or five years ago.
You can only begin to deal with the problem when you first recognize that one exists. What is frightening today is to see the government continue to say in a rather bland fashion, no substance whatsoever: "It is safe. You can trust me. We would never allow the industry to operate in a risky fashion".
I accept that no human being consciously-not one on that side of the House, not one minister, not one member-puts another human being at risk. I accept that. I do not believe there is one member over there who would do that consciously. But I recognize as well that if members opposite find themselves on their knees before an ideology, before the altar of so-called unfettered capitalism, if they get blinded by this notion that totally unshackled, unregulated enterprise always provides the best level of service to our society, that in their adoration before that ideology they have lost sight of the need to serve people.
When you judge what has happened with deregulation in Canada against what was promised as the benefits, deregulation has indeed failed. What were we promised? We were promised we would have a more competitive airline industry. Before deregulation came out, let me remind members, we had EPA as an eastern carrier, we had a Quebec-based carrier, we had Air Ontario as an Ontario-based secondary regional carrier, we had a whole variety starting out with Air B.C. Northwest Territories had their own Northwest Air. There was a whole variety of regional carriers all across Canada, some of which had agreements in terms of marketing, in terms of delivering passengers to and fro, in terms of sharing various services at airports. We had a whole variety of regional carriers, all aspiring to expand their base in a partially regulated environment. There were two major carriers, Air Canada and CP, going at it.
What happened after deregulation? Did we get more competition as promised? We ended up with every single
Supply
one of the regional carriers being swallowed up and aligned either with Canadian or Air Canada. Wardair disappeared. EPA disappeared. Quebec Air disappeared. All of these regional small carriers as independent entities disappeared and we ended up with a duopoly in Canada. We ended up with a lot less competition.
We were promised lower air fares. Now there is one for those people who live on the fringe of the country, lower air fares. If you live in a competitive market, such as flying between Toronto and Miami, I suppose you might have got a lower air fare out of deregulation. But if you live where I was last week in Rankin Inlet, you did not get lower air fares. You got practically a prison term in terms of your economic ability to be able to fly in and out of your community.
If you live, as I do, in the area I represent in western Newfoundland, in Deer Lake, if you live in Goose Bay, Prince Rupert, Prince George, Smithers, Prince Albert, if you live in what was known as Chimo in northern Quebec, or Iqaluit in Northwest Territories, northern Ontario, Regina or Saskatoon-let us get some bigger cities in here-check out the air fares. They have not gone down. They have dramatically gone up.
It used to be that we took the high-volume routes in this country. Because we licensed carriers on the basis of the stops they made, which they were compelled to make and we subsidized the far-flung regions somewhat, we cross-subsidized them from the high-volume routes. That is what we did. We gave the people who lived in the smaller centres somewhat of a break by cross-subsidizing under the heavy volume routes.
What have we done now? We have done just the opposite. Now we make people who are captive, served by only one carrier, pay whatever the airline charges. So it cost $2,000 to fly to Rankin Inlet from Ottawa and back.
Then we use the big seat sales in Ottawa between Ottawa and Florida and we cross-subsidize those with the people who live in Rankin Inlet. The ones who are captive living in the small communities pay whatever they are charged. In effect they are subsidizing people to go on holiday in Florida. That is the new corporate culture that has grabbed Canada. On the question of lower fares this is not a success. Safety, hardly a success.

April 2, 1992
Supply
Canada is not the United States. Canada has a larger land mass. We forget that huge land mass called Yukon and Northwest Territories. It is a relatively small population, less than a tenth of the United States. There are a number of things that have bound us together historically for 125 years. This is the 125th year. What are they? The post office and its little flag flying in the smallest most remote community was a symbol of our nationhood. The flag. There were some fundamental social programs, the ability to communicate with each other with telecommunications and a reasonable level of transportation, originally bands of steel from sea to sea on the railway. In latter days, the airlines allowed us, despite our vast differences and distances, to communicate with each other, to share with each other and to celebrate that diversity.
Why start withdrawing those things this year? In a few weeks Air Canada is sponsoring, with the support of the government, the opposition, the Speaker and all members of Parliament, an exchange. There will be 125 young people from every district in Canada going to another district to talk to each other because we recognize the country is hurting and we have to bring people together. Therefore, we have a special program to bring people together. We do it this year as part of the 125-year celebration of Confederation. Why would a country say it is important to do that as a special initiative, but yet in its transportation policy make that impossible in every day life?
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity for an extra minute to conclude.
I will conclude by saying to the extent that deregulation has severed one of the links that has traditionally kept this country together, to the extent that we now recognize through special initiatives that we need to reopen those links, we have to look at deregulation. We have to look at a measure of re-regulation. We have to begin to put back together the bonds that used to bind this country together. One of them is transportation. We have to undo this hastily organized deregulation that has not only put our industry at risk in terms of safety, but put our country at risk in terms of our ability to speak with and to each other.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert -Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to listen to the debate today. I think some very fundamental points, not only about transportation and deregulation, but about the nature of the country are being made in this debate. I think it
behoves the government of the day to listen very carefully to what is being said here.
In my maiden speech in this House in December 1988, I pointed out that having looked at the geographic area of representation, it turned out that 83 per cent of the geographic area of this country is represented by the opposition and only 17 per cent of the geographic area of this country is represented by the government. Obviously, square miles do not vote, nor do the trees or whatever.
That made it very clear to me that the whole direction the government had been on, freedom to move, free trade and so on, was seen by the regions of this country as something that was operating totally contrary to their interests and their future. We have seen this trend accelerate over the period of time I have been in this House.
If we look at government program after government program, how the government funds regional development, how it develops transportation policy, VIA Rail and so on, the post office, it is a kick to the regions of this country. If people are wondering why there is discontent in the land and why people are feeling disconnected from their country, it is precisely because of policies like those.
I would like to ask the hon. member if he sees the same scope to the dimension of what we are talking about as well?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I must say that I think he has given all of us something to think about. I certainly was not aware that 83 per cent of the land mass of the country is represented by opposition members and 17 per cent of the land mass is represented by government members.
Perhaps that helps us understand better why post offices have disappeared from rural Canada. Perhaps that helps us understand better why VIA Rail has disappeared from the smaller stations in this country. Perhaps that helps us understand better why some airports have not only lost jet service, but some have totally lost all service in the smaller parts of this country. Perhaps that helps us understand why the railway has not just declined but has disappeared in some parts of this country, P.E.I. and Newfoundland totally and many other branch lines across this country. Perhaps that helps us understand why in 1992 people look to their provincial premiers to be their spokespersons and no longer look, regrettably, to their national parliament.
April 2, 1992

Perhaps that helps us understand why people in Canada today define themselves politically by whom they are against rather than by whom they are for and define themselves philosophically by what they oppose rather than what they support. We have appealed to the negative, frustrated, angry, disenfranchised, left-out, shut-out side of our character and we have forgotten to appeal to what binds us together in this country.
I could not agree with the member more. This is not merely a matter of dollars and cents. It is a question of nation building. It is a question as to whether or not people believe at the end of the day that by virtue of citizenship there are certain things we hold in common. There are lots of thing that make us different no matter where we come from. Some of us have mountains. Some of us have prairies. Some have water and some have droughts. Some speak one language and some another. Some have booming economies and some have seasonal economies. Lots of things make us different but there are only a few things we hold in common no matter where we live. That is what pulls us together: our sense of values.
When the member says that the withdrawal of transportation services is one of those values we held in common, one of those things we thought defined us as being a Canadian no matter where we lived, no matter what our circumstance, what our language, he is absolutely right. That is the message I tried to bring to this House as often as I could. That is the message I think this government lost sight of in the pursuit of the bottom line and as it knelt before the altar of its right wing philosophy. I do not think it did it deliberately. I do not think it was by design. I do not think it was entirely by accident. It really failed to see, as the member pointed out, or perhaps forgot about 83 per cent of the land mass of the country not represented by members on that side of the House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member for Elk Island will be sharing his time.


Mr.   Brian@: Madam Speaker, I wish to speak in response to the hon. member's motion that the government's economic regulatory reform of
Supply
the transportation industry has been a failure. What fiction indeed. I not only take exception to this claim but find its tenor and argument to be somewhat wanting if not totally preposterous.
Since 1985 this government has taken a number of steps and many a hard decision to ensure that Canadian transportation industries could flourish in a more economically competitive and unfettered climate, liberated as it were from undue government hindrance and given the freedom to move to pursue new heights limited only by the powers of imagination, vigour and their determination.
This environment for change was not brought about by self-serving purposes. Rather it seems to benefit all who would use or rely on transportation for reasons of trade and commerce as well as personal travel or pleasure. Moreover, as business and transportation in Canada are inextricably linked and on the move, this government is scarcely going to embark on a course of action that would thwart one form of success for another.
It is precisely about success that I wish to focus my remarks today as exemplified by VIA Rail Canada, working proof of the railroad maxim: "The little engine that could". Part of the problem with VIA Rail in the late 1970s and in the 1980s was the heavy degree of government intervention in the transportation marketplace. This occurred through direct rail passenger subsidies of about 75 per cent of the cost of services. This meant some inequities for the air mode which was subsidized at a lesser level and indirectly through provision of infrastructure. It meant major inequities for the bus mode which received virtually no direct government subsidies. Moreover, the bus mode was in direct competition with a heavily subsidized VIA Rail on a number of comparable routes.
The heavy government subsidies, as well as the denial of a level playing field, offered VIA Rail no incentives to modernize or innovate, knowing that the government would pay whatever deficits occurred in passenger rail services.
Looking back, the soothsayers of doom and gloom who prophesized the inevitable fall of the sky in 1989 as a result of streamlining VIA Rail are doubtless practising their art of "poultry predictions" elsewhere today.

April 2, 1992
Supply
What remains is a leaner, more efficient and professional national passenger railway company, not to mention that awful word successful which my hon. friend fears and despises. That is not a bad record when we consider the few options the Minister of Transport had back then. Tough times required tough decisions.
This government did not abdicate its responsibility to act, nor was it afraid to take tough decisions. Instead it chose to save VIA by imbuing it with new life, mindful of considerable public cynicism and very much aware of a resurgence in passenger rail travel throughout the world replete with its safety, social and environmental benefits.
Not only does VTA's future look bright on several financial and performance score cards, but VIA is also planning with a view to the future. Once again I would say to my hon. friend that when it comes time to peek into the future much has changed since the days of Mackenzie King and the corresponding practices of the arts and wizardry.
The realities of 1990, however, are proof that the new VIA cannot only operate within the limits of available funding but can do so at even less the anticipated cost to government, and in spite of the current downturn in travel for business or leisure.
As hon. members know, VIA has been operating some 396 trains per week over 19 routes since the change took effect in January 1990. While these frequencies are down from previous levels of operation, VIA still continues to serve Canadians in all regions of the country, including several remote regions where passenger rail service is presently the only link to the outside world.
In addition, VIA has faced and survived stiff competition from the lucrative and heavily travelled airline routes in central Canada, particularly those along the Quebec City-Windsor corridor. Thus what began as an exercise to streamline certain services has ultimately resulted in today's VIA, a trend setting network operating at less expense to the taxpayer, meeting today's needs, and keeping its eye on the future.
Indeed, the newly structured VIA was deliberately focused to rethink the conduct of business for passenger rail not only within funding levels set by the federal
government but, more important, to meet the challenges of increasing its passenger volume while operating in the mode of a cost effective enterprise. At the risk of sounding repetitive, VIA has been successful on both counts.
Much of this success is due in large part to VIA's own awareness of its product, image and service to the travelling public. That is to say the new consumer credo of the nineties, "service, service, service" is not lost on VIA's executive, marketing staff, or on-train personnel. Once on board this mantra becomes innovative: do more and better with corporate pride and the client in mind. Over a year has come and gone since the so-called cataclysmic collapse of VIA and it is still operating stronger than ever.
On December 16, 1991 VIA announced major increases in the frequency of service in the Montreal-Ot-tawa-Toronto triangle based on traffic patterns and demand. Some 22 new trains a week were added into service offering more flexible itineraries, better connections, and more opportunities for same day return travel between these cities.
One month later VIA chairman Lawrence Hanigan released a year-end report and traffic studies confirming increased ridership by 5 per cent over 1990 with revenues up by 7 per cent. With less direct subsidies, VIA was able to operate the network for $8.5 million less than originally budgeted in 1991 and by $38 million less than required from the previous year. This has all been accomplished with the use of better equipment, improved productivity, and the quality of on-board services.
Instead of abandoning transportation industries in Canada, I am pleased to report that this government has spent over $4 billion in direct operating assistance to VIA since 1984, helping the railway to move some 46 million passengers in that same period of time.
Figures such as these and a renaissance in train travel and service since VIA's newly streamlined network came into place do not qualify for, much less deserve, the unfounded and odious criticism of abandonment and neglect. Such is the woeful lament of the ill-informed and not worthy of my hon. friend, unless I misjudge him and his service to this House.
April 2, 1992

In closing, I would just like to borrow two little words often heard in VIA stations as my greeting to the hon. member or anyone else with fixed negative mindsets when it comes to staring reality in the face of success: all aboard.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I take pleasure in being able to participate in the debate of the following opposition day motion:
That this House condemns the government for its unwillingness to concede that the deregulation of the Canadian transport industry has been a failure and in fact has led to fewer carriers, fewer jobs, higher prices, reduced service and less safe operations in air, road and rail transportation.
The problem with this motion, as so often is the case, is that it is stated in the extreme. It is not that there are not some problems in the transportation industry in Canada. It is not that we do not have to do some things to repair some of the areas and improve some of the areas. However, to have a motion that says it has been a failure is absurdity.
Obviously the person who has written this motion has not lived in the regions that have seen improved service as a result of deregulation. The motion reads "fewer carriers". Madam 'Speaker, if you were living in an outlying community 200 miles from one of the metropolitan areas and you had a choice between jet service once a day and you had to wait all day for that jet in the evening or early in the morning and be gone all day, and two or three or four turbo-prop services that same day and a choice among those carriers, which would you take?
To say that there are fewer carriers is an absurdity. All you have to do is look at the back of the airline magazine as you fly to work here to see the network of airline points that were not there a few years ago and to know that deregulation has provided more service to the communities. It just is not accurate to have this kind of a statement.
Then it goes on to say "fewer jobs". I remember machinists from the airline coming to me a few years ago saying: "Please do not support deregulation. We will lose jobs if you do that". Even logic without statistics shows
Supply
that that is wrong because if there are more carriers there are going to be more jobs.
I noticed that just about a year ago in the province of British Columbia they announced there was a shortage of maintenance people in the airline industry. They wanted people to come and train in airline sheet metal work. They needed that kind of worker.
I am not saying that in other areas of the transport industry there has not been a reduction in jobs. There has been a reduction in jobs in the wood working industry. The logging industry used to hire two or three times as many people to work as it does now. There has been a reduction in jobs. In the chicken industry we used to have people shovelling out the bams and gathering eggs. It is done on conveyers now. There have been job losses in every major industry that wants to upgrade its technology.
To pick on deregulation as a sign of job loss makes the motion unbelievable. To say that there are "higher prices" and assign that to deregulation, I think everyone will concede that if you have competition you reduce prices. If one airline is competing against another airline for passenger service, or a trucker is competing against another tracker for passenger service, there is going to be a reduction in price.
I can take the member back to the days when it was regulated. I ask him to look at any financial page where the profits of companies are announced and compare the profits of companies on the free market system with those companies that are regulated by a utility commission to see which one has the higher profits. He will see Quaker Oats might have 3 or 4 per cent but the gas company regulated by the government will have 7, 8 or 9 per cent. Uniformly those that go through a public utilities commission, those commissioners always make sure that the monopoly has a better write-up of profits than the competition. To say that there are higher prices may be the case but not because of deregulation.
How about reduced service because of deregulation? I have not seen it. It would be a useful motion to debate the value of deregulation but to say that it has been a failure just cannot be supported by evidence. The motion says "less safe". The Minister of Transport mentioned in the House the other day that there are fewer accidents now per air mile than there have been in history.

April 2, 1992
Supply
Competition creates better service, better prices and better jobs. If you look at any other industry that depends on the transport industry you will know that is the fact. There are problems now. Canada has, I think, severe transportation problems but they are not problems of deregulation.
We have a problem of critical mass of population. To have a transportation industry that functions efficiently so that it can enjoy the kind of profits it needs to upgrade its equipment and so forth, we need 50 million to 60 million people. Canada does not have that critical mass in order to enjoy that kind of efficiency.
Second, the metropolitan areas where the profits are to be made are scattered and there are not the many centres close together as there are in Europe, for example, or in the United States where you have huge population centres close to each other and they can be connected more easily by rapid transit. We do have geographical problems and they make it more difficult for the transportation industry to function.
We have done some things. We have reduced taxes. If members will remember the budget of just a month ago, the capital cost allowance was reduced so that the trucking industry can function more competitively, so that the airline industry, buying equipment, can function more competitively and so the buses can do that. The cost of operation, when you can write down those costs more quickly, helps them to compete.
A lot has been done. I remember when I first campaigned to come into this House, a seasoned politician statesman in the lower mainland of B.C. was campaigning with me and he said to me: "You know, I don't know why you are doing it. Back there in Ottawa they are not going to listen to you anyway". The major problem for British Columbia was freight rates. My friend from Nanaimo remembers that. Raw materials could be brought from the west to central Canada but to bring finished products from the west into central Canada cost a lot more in order to enhance the industrial complex in central Canada.
One of the first things we did as a government was to take that disadvantage away so that the manufacturing industry in British Columbia at least would not be facing the disadvantage of a built-in bias against western industry and I am proud of that. It was because western members came to Ottawa and said: "We need freedom for movement. The industries in British Columbia deserve just as much a chance to operate competitively as those in central Canada". We levelled off the playing field in terms of the freight rates.
We still have the disadvantage of distance and the disadvantage of large metropolitan areas and it still costs a lot to bring finished products in in the quantity we need to make it as competitive as we would like to be, but we have taken a government-induced impediment out of the way and that is deregulation.
My friend from central Canada laughs. We are used to that. People from the great golden triangle here do not know what it is like to operate a business in western Canada and have freight rates that are prejudiced against you. They think that is the way it ought to be, bring your raw materials to Ontario, bring the finished products to the west. Finally, a few years ago we levelled it and made it more equitable for the people in the west.
I say that the motion, which is designed to ask us to examine freight rates and deregulation would be a useful motion if it were not so extreme, if it did not say it so dramatically.
Do we need to examine it? There are areas we need to examine, but to say it has been a failure when VIA Rail passenger service is up, when it is functioning, as my friend from Edmonton said just a few minutes ago. When we worked with VIA Rail two years ago, the doomsayers across the way were saying: "This is the end of Canada" and now we find that passenger service is up and they are telling us that deregulation is a failure.
Every time you introduce competition, you introduce the opportunity for success.


Harvie Andre: I would like to designate tomorrow as an allotted day,
April 2, 1992



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Angus (p. 9219).
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Madam Speaker, without getting into too much partisanship,
I want to mention to the hon. member the effects of deregulation in my riding of Restigouche-Chaleur. We have an airport at Charlo, New Brunswick. It is a Transport Canada airport and it is managed by an effective and competent board of directors representing the municipalities of Dalhousie, Charlo and Campbell-ton.
Here are the facts. In the 1980s two airlines served that airport. One had jet service, the other had turboprop. We now have one turbo-prop airline. We had a weather station but it was closed by the federal government. We have a flight service station in existence right now, but that has been targeted for closure and unless the Minister of Transport designates it in some way, it will not stay open.
My concern, and the member did not address it that much, is the cost recovery. He talked about regions and about a level playing field for the west, and the east I suppose in the same breath, but how about that cost recovery? That is going to hurt the regions. For instance, the same type of plane, a turbo-prop, landing at the Charlo airport in New Brunswick would pay a higher landing fee than the same plane landing in Toronto. I say to the hon. member that is not a fair way of solving that problem.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I noted with care that the member said at one time there was jet service and turbo-prop service and now there is only one turbo-prop service.
I would like to ask him, does he suggest that under a regulated industry, both should be kept alive by government regulation? Since the economic engine for that region has reduced it to only one turbo-prop service, presumably the additional service that used to exist must have been empty. It certainly is not a profitable picture. Would the member suggest that if the service is not needed, that government regulations should keep it going at the taxpayer's expense?
Supply
I want to quote from the Moshansky report of two weeks ago. He says:
I want to re-emphasize that what was deregulated was the economic burden on the industry.
That is exactly what my friend across the way has just illustrated. When you have two services and you need only one, you create an economic burden. The member wants to maintain that kind of service, even though the people are not using it and even though it is going to be a tax burden.
Judge Moshansky went on to say:
The safety regulations have remained in place and indeed have been strengthened over time.
The motion says that safety has been reduced. The most recent report, the Moshansky report, says just the opposite.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, I do not want to cut into the time of the following speaker, but I would like to ask the member who has just spoken, a question.
He talked about the implications for western Canada. What he said might well be true for the metropolitan centres, as I pointed out in a previous intervention, but could the member describe to me how the deregulation has benefited his former home town of Rosthem, Saskatchewan and what in fact the impact has been due to deregulation? Where are they seeing the new opportunities as a result of the policies the member now extols?


Benno Friesen: In answer to my friend from Prince Albert, I will tell you what I will do. I am going to Rosthem in three weeks' time. I am going there for a fund-raiser to help defeat the member in the next election and I will ask the good folks of Rosthem.
But I do know this. They have a beautiful highway that did not exist when I was last there which runs straight through from Saskatoon to Prince Albert. It was not there when I lived there in the good old days. They have a kind of service and can get to Saskatoon from Rosthem in a matter of 30 minutes. You could not do that before on the old gravel highway.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, in the few minutes remaining in the debate I want to concentrate on the last words in this motion that have to do with reduced service and less safe operations in air, road and rail transportation.

April 2, 1992
Private Members' Business
People out there listening and watching this debate do not have to take my word for it or the word of the member for Hamilton West or any of the opposition members as to why the Diyden air crash happened, and why other factors affecting the safety of the travelling public continue to fail to ensure that Canadians can be assured they are getting the best possible service and the full enforcement of regulations and laws that are designed to protect them.
The report of Judge Moshansky says it all. No matter how often members opposite deny or pretend everything is all right, this report makes it clear that over nearly eight years there were repeated warnings within Transport Canada that there simply were not enough resources to ensure the safety of the travelling public.
There was an A-base review in 1984 and the establishment of a program control board. The Canadian Airline Pilots Association in 1985 issued warnings about deregulation and the impact on safety. In March 1985 the Auditor General had similar cautions about not enough resources.
The Nielsen task force, the work of the greatest hatchet man of all times, recommended an immediate increase in resources to preserve the ability of the department to enforce regulations to ensure safety. In late 1985 we had an official of Transport Canada visiting the United States reviewing the American experience on deregulation.
Literally everything that has happened since then, the reduction in inspections, sending untrained and unqualified inspectors out into the field, everything that has reduced the regulatory assurance that Canadians are entitled to could have been forecast through the crystal ball of the American experience after it deregulated.
In May 1986 the report Aviation Safety In a Changing Environment said the same thing.
In 1989 my colleague raised the issues of safety and staff resources in the House of Commons and so did I. In 1990 we did it again.
The government is continuing to refuse to recognize that if you pass laws, if you adopt new policies that increase the workload dramatically, unless you are prepared to jeopardize the safety of the public you have to be prepared to provide the resources to ensure that your regulations and policies work.
We had a clear conflict between two government policies that the government blindly has refused to recognize for well over seven years. One is deregulation, where there is more work to be done, up to 400 times as much in the case of inspecting aircraft, and at the same time downsizing, more work and less people to do it.
We have the same thing in the marine services within Transport Canada. We have a report that is now over a year old that states there are inadequate resources in marine services to respond to emergencies on the waterways. We have similar warnings in the same reports, which the government ignored for years and years, that land transportation safety is also declining.
Throughout government departments-this is why I raise this so urgently, even with so little time to do so-diminution of resources, lack of training and the loss of highly qualified people are jeopardizing the health and safety of Canadians.
I call on the government to look at the impact, department by department, that its downsizing program has had. Look at how many regulations and laws of this Parliament are not being implemented for protection and safety, simply because the government has refused to provide the resources.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately I must interrupt the hon. member.

It being 6 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), the proceedings on the motion have expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7) the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
April 2, 1992



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enact appropriate legislation to guarantee the political rights of public employees.
He said: Madam Speaker, in moving this motion, I want to refer to the legislation as it now exists, specifically to section 33, which reads in part:
33(1) Except as authorized under this section, no employee shall
(a)	Engage in work for or against a candidate and
(b)	Engage in work for or against a political party or;
(c)	Be a candidate.
Section 32 defines the word candidate. It reads:
A "candidate" means a candidate for election as a member of the House of Commons, a member of the legislature of a province or a member of the Council of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories.
It does not go any further in defining candidate than the words I have read. It leaves me open to wonder whether a candidate is a candidate when that person declares himself to be one or is possibly nominated by a group of those qualified to vote in that election, as is done by political parties. Or does a person become a candidate on the day that they are officially nominated before the returning officer?
When it reads "to campaign for it", it must mean for the whole period, from the time a person indicates his desire to become a candidate and then becomes one by whatever procedure he or she uses. From that point on that person is a candidate. That means that no person in the Public Service could do that, but there are exceptions.
In subsection 2 a person does not contravene subsection 1 simply by contributing money to the person who is running or to a political party. Again, it is vague in that it does not say whether a person can join a party. I know in the past it has been interpreted to mean just exactly that, that while you might make a donation you cannot be a member of a political party if you are a public servant.
There is a further exception in subsection 3: "Notwithstanding any other act, the Public Service Commission may grant to an employee leave of absence without pay
Private Members' Business
to seek nomination as a candidate and to be a candidate for election".
Again, that presents difficulty for public servants. In my case, I was first nominated on May 1 for the election that took place six months and three weeks later, on November 21, 1988. I had been seeking the nomination for the previous 10 months, which means that if I had been a public servant during that period, I would have gone for a period of some 16 months, if my mathematics is reasonably close, without pay.
I would have had to ask for leave of absence. I would have had to depend on the Public Service Commission to give me that leave of absence, and I would have gone without pay for that whole period.
If one knew when the election was coming, one could time it a little better from the point of view of being without pay. If there is anyone who knows that far ahead, it would be only one person, and even the government leader would not know a year or two ahead of time what date the election was going to be.
It does work a considerable hardship against public servants in particular, a hardship that does not exist with respect to anyone else in the community qualified to run. They can run without having to worry about giving up their employment, getting leave of absence or being without pay for that whole time.
It seems to me that a case can be made on those grounds alone for legislation that changes it and gives public servants at least some of the rights of regular, ordinary citizens-I hate using the word ordinary, it is overused with respect to people.
This has been argued over the years and in 1986, I think it was, the trial division of the Federal Court ruled that section 33 was contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is the section I read which said you cannot become a candidate, you cannot try to become a candidate, you cannot do all those things unless you are exempted by having had the permission of the Public Service Commission.
They challenged that legislation on the grounds that it was contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but they lost at that level. They then appealed in 1988 to the Federal Court of Appeal. That court struck down section 33(l)(a) and 33(l)(b). It left in place subsection (c); but it did strike down 33(l)(a) and 33(l)(b) in June 1988.

April 2, 1992
Private Members' Business
The Public Service Commission appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, and in June 1991 the decision was rendered that confirmed the decision of the Federal Court.
It did strike down subsection 33(1) which stopped you from doing almost anything, engaging in work for or against the candidate, or engaging in work for or against the party. Again, it is interpretation. What is working for a party? I can recall a friend of mine who was a public servant when this happened. Someone reported to his employer that he had a lawn sign in front of his house. He was called up before his supervisor who told him he would have to get that lawn sign down because it was contrary to the legislation. He said that it was his wife's house. The supervisor said: "It may be his wife's house but it was his job that was on the line". He took the sign down.
It seems to me that is certainly going to the extreme in saying the degree of participation that a public servant, any public servant, can engage in at the time of an election.
The Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition of public servants working for or against a candidate or party violated the freedom as expressed in section 2(b) of the charter. However, the court recognized the importance of the political neutrality of the Public Service and of public servants. I think we all agree with that. There has to be some recognition of that.
The court stated that the present provision in banning political activities without distinction and without regard for the nature of the work performed by the public servant in . the Public Service went further than was necessary. It stated further that legislation could be enacted which would limit the political activities of public servants. It gave some indication of how future legislation might be framed in order to achieve the objective of a neutral Public Service.
It is still up to the public servant to define in his own mind and hope that what he is doing is proper. Employees are required to exercise judgment and to consider their specific circumstances, the kind of work that they are doing, the level of their position in the public service and the way in which they are engaging in political activities, particularly with due regard to the loyalty they
owe to the government and to their obligation to act and be seen to act impartially when dealing with the public. None of us would want their political partisan activities to interfere in any way at all with their delivery of a service to the public. I think everyone will agree with that.
With the court decisions, the employees are still bound by section 33(3) of the Public Service Employment Act with respect to seeking candidacy. They still have to get permission. They still have to get leave of absence. They still have to go without pay for the whole time they are campaigning to get a nomination and the time they are running until the election is decided, which could easily be in some cases a couple of years. We do not know when that is going to happen. I presented my own case and said that it would have been in excess of a year had I been a public servant before I would have had any pay.
That does not apply all over Canada. I do not know the situation in other provinces, but in British Columbia a provincial public servant can seek and obtain a nomination without sacrificing anything. He or she can ask for leave of absence without pay for a period of up to 90 days and can choose the time when it is most advantageous to him. In all likelihood that would be the time of the actual election campaign itself and perhaps some time before that, if one could be reasonably sure when the election was coming. At least there is that freedom there. They do not have to ask anyone's permission. Certainly, if they are stepping beyond the bounds of good conduct, then they would be called to task. They do have that much freedom, freedom which, to my mind, goes a long way toward satisfying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It is time the federal government approached this legislation, approached its public servants in the same open light with respect to the action of public servants. As long as it does not interfere with their work, they should be allowed to participate as citizens of Canada in the electoral process by supporting a candidate of their choice, by supporting a political party of their choice, by being a candidate if that is their choice, by seeking nomination. Until they actually need time off to participate fully, they should be able to continue with their job and then ask for a leave of absence, unpaid, from the time they feel they have to put all their time into their campaign.
April 2, 1992

I would urge the government and all members of the House to support legislation that would define it so that the people involved would know exactly what the limitations were and the options open to them. All we are asking in this is to make it clear. It is vague now.
We have the legislation, we have the Supreme Court decision and the court suggested legislation could solve the problem. I am urging that the government introduce legislation that will limit the activities to the extent felt necessaty so that people will be fair on both sides, but nevertheless define it so that the public servants engaging in these activities will do so knowing that they are within the bounds of specific legislation.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, that was a very thoughtful speech by the member sponsoring the motion before the House on the issue of where one draws the line appropriately on the role that public servants must play necessary to maintain the political neutrality of the Public Service, which at the same time permits public servants to participate in the public life of our country to the extent that they wish to.
I agree with the hon. member that it is important to clearly define this in law because of the certain hiatus that currently exists with the court decision following the review of the existing sections 32 and 33 of the Public Service act that governs this area of political activity by public servants.
When I heard him say he thought that it was important for each individual member of the Public Service "to define in his or her own mind what is appropriate", I felt that was too subjective an approach to be satisfactory either to the Canadian public, the government, or the Public Service itself. That is why again it is important to have this defined in law.
That word in the motion which says that government enact appropriate legislation certainly is the key word: What is appropriate. If you take a historic view of this, the appropriateness certainly changes over the decades and through the centuries.
When I first wrote about this subject over a decade ago in my book called: Political Rights-The Legal Framework
Private Members' Business
of Elections in Canada, I was interested to learn in my research that the efforts to establish the neutrality of the Public Service by de-politicizing it had, in some cases, even gone so far as to remove the right to vote from public servants.
For example, in the pre-Confederation province of Canada, customs and excise workers were disfranchised in 1844. The majority of postal workers lost the right to vote in 1851, and even Crown land agents were denied the right to vote in 1855.
That was perhaps not unconnected with similar tendencies in England at the time when in the years between 1782 and 1866 postal employees and customs and excise officials had also been disfranchised.
Significantly in 1866, when Mr. Gladstone, the great reformer, was bringing in legislation that generally provided for an extension of the franchise in Britain at that time, it included an express provision that would have denied the right to vote to all public servants.
When you look at those kinds of restrictions that applied in the effort to establish a politically neutral Public Service, it is very clear that the whole paradigm within which this current debate is occurring has dramatically shifted.
We are guided particularly by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is now a fundamental part of Canadian life setting out the democratic rights that all of us have.
What are the restrictions that are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society? Most often the quest for increased rights is put in terms of the benefit or the advantage that will accrue to the individual who acquires and can exercise those rights.
I think that seen from the other side of the coin the political restrictions that are by law traditionally imposed on public servants in this country can also be seen as protection for public servants, almost, if you would like, consumer protection legislation for public servants. That is because there are serious implications for those who take a political role in the course of holding a public office or being a member of the Public Service.

April 2, 1992
Private Members' Business
I think the dilemma was perhaps best set out by J.E. Hodgetts, who was certainly one of Canada's leading scholars on public administration. He wrote about this some years back in 1973, almost two decades ago.
In a book on the Canadian Public Service, Hodgetts said the following: "Partisan activity on behalf of the party in power could be interpreted as a form of job insurance for the public servant or his means of ingratiating himself with his political overlords. But at the same time, such activity jeopardized the doctrine of political non-alignment of public servants that protected them against dismissal when a governing party was defeated."
It is important to recognize that in the quest for seeking political liberation for those who occupy positions in the Public Service of our country, there is a problem for the individuals themselves.
I would like to cast that now, even more broadly, in terms of the collective damage that can be done to the Public Service if we do not get this line of demarcation between what is permitted and what is prohibited in the right place.
We all agree that there has to be a line. I think we all agree that it is best expressed in statutory form so that there is certainty for all. The issue here now is just where that line should be.
In a Public Service where hiring and promotion is based on the merit principle, it becomes problematic, very difficult indeed, if the political persuasion of people within the Public Service is known to co-workers, subordinates and superiors.
This country began with a highly politicized Public Service where following each election the rewards of office included the power to dispense public jobs whether it was in the customs office or any other position to those who had been supporters of the successful party at the election.
Indeed, there was a practice. I see the Mace on the Table before us. There was a practice called macing which was the method by which the members were never permitted to walk between the Mace and the Speaker, as the member for Kingston and the Islands knows, but has forgotten in his reference to the Mace, otherwise a persnickety member for parliamentary procedure.
Macing was the extraction by the government of the day of money from public office-holders as a reward for having gotten the position, a 5 per cent levy, an 8 per cent levy of their salary.
Over quite some time this practice was eliminated, but it was only possible as part of the larger effort to establish the Public Service Commission early in this century and to base hiring and promotion on the merit principle.
We have gone through a long struggle in this country to get to the point where we have, as best as we can achieve it, a politically neutral Public Service. Why is that important?
It is not just for those who are members of the Public Service and looking at this as kind of consumer protection legislation for the vast majority who do not wish to openly become candidates or go out and work in elections even though they may hold serious and considered views about the country and its affairs.
I am thinking now at the next step having gone from the individual public servant to the Public Service as a whole to the third dimension of this and that is the Canadian people.
I believe the Canadian people have the right to look to those who hold public office in this country with a sense that the affairs of our country are being conducted in a fashion that is fair, balanced and in accord with the public interest.
Party differences divide those of us who are elected to this Chamber. They ought not to divide those who work year in and year out in developing policy and furthering the implementation of government programs across this vast land of ours.
I know that it can be quite a chilling reality for many people to think that the civil servant with whom they would be dealing is someone who is actively affiliated with a certain particular political party, perhaps one that is opposed in interest to their own party. That is not something which represents an advance in the public policy of our country but a step backward.
With the historic perspective that I tried briefly to outline in the debate tonight, I hope that when we get to drawing the line that the hon. member wants to see in legislative form, which I agree should be there, we can indeed do it in a way that is fair and responsible for all concerned.
April 2, 1992

That includes the individual member of the public sector, the Public Service as a whole, the government that depends on the advice and the co-operative support of the Public Service, ultimately and above all the people of Canada who look to the Public Service for a fine tradition of maintaining good government and peace throughout our country.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House and notwithstanding the designation of tomorrow as an allotted day, on Friday, April 3, 1992 the government will call second reading of Bill C-45, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods;
That, no later than 2.45 p.m. all questions necessary to dispose of the said bill at second reading shall be put forthwith, without further debate or amendment;
That, any recorded division demanded be deferred until Monday, April 6, 1992 at 6 p.m.;
That, on Monday, April 6, 1992 the government will call report stage of Bill C-31, an act to amend the Extradition Act and report stage of Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act;
That, no later than 5.45 p.m., all questions necessary to dispose of Bill C-31 at report stage and Bill C-60 at report stage shall be put forthwith, without further debate or amendment;
That, on Tbesday, April 7, 1992 the government will call third reading of Bill C-31, an act to amend the Extradition Act and third reading of Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act;
That, no later than 5.45 p.m. all questions necessary to dispose of the said bills at third reading shall be put forthwith without further debate or amendment; and
That, on Wednesday, April 8, 1992 during government business, the government shall call Bill C-49, the sexual assault act at second reading.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I just want to confirm that there have been discussions between the parties on the motion. We are quite prepared to support it. I do have two questions for
Business of the House
the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
With regard to Bill C-31 and Bill C-60, on Monday and Tuesday, we have an order that provides for both of those to be dealt with at various stages. I wonder if I could have the assurance of the parliamentary secretary that each of the two bills will receive an adequate amount of time in the House. Obviously, we are worried that the second one in each case might get short shrift and, as we have seen in the past, really get no debate at all. I would like that assurance.
Second, in terms of Bill C-49 which will commence debate on Wednesday, can the parliamentary secretary indicate whether it is the government's intention to have that bill voted on prior to the scheduled break at the end of the week?


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I do want to indicate to the hon. member that yes, we are interested in making sure that both Bill C-31 and Bill C-60 have an adequate amount of debating time. Of course, that is dependent on both sides of the House. But I can signal to him our co-operation in attempts to make sure that there is time for Bill C-60 on both days.
Second, in terms of Bill C-49, yes I can indicate to him that it is the government's intention to complete second reading before we rise at the end of that week.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I know there have been extensive discussions between the parties to settle on the terms of this order.
I am happy to indicate the support of our party to the order. I may say that I am concerned that with the number of bills that are passing, there will not be anything left on the Order Paper by the end of next week.
I hope that the parliamentary secretary will look to the fact that perhaps the government is a little slow in bringing forward its legislation.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I am flattered by my hon. friend's concerns. More often than not he is accusing me of being in too much of a hurry to get our legislation through the House. It is nice to see that as spring approaches we are finally hitting a balance.

April 2, 1992
Private Members' Business


Madam Deputy Speaker:: According to procedure I must say: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have consent of the House to present 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.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stupich (p. 9291).
Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, it was very interesting to hear the comments of the member who spoke last on political rights for public servants. The history lesson was interesting, that back in the 1800s Public Service employees in many sectors were denied even the right to vote. As one of a category of Canadian citizens who were denied the right to vote well into the 20th century, perhaps I stand up to defend political rights with a little extra verve and commitment. We do have a democratic society. The right to participate in the political life of a democracy is the right of every Canadian citizen and one which should only be reduced or removed for the most serious of reasons in the public interest.
I was recently rereading a submission I made to the commission on electoral reform and I carry into this debate the principle that I put forward in that submission. The principle that should apply is that disenfranchising people should not be done and that if the commission had to err on the side of making it a little too easy for some people to vote, it should do that rather than err on the side of disenfranchising those who should not be disenfranchised.
I support the intention that I think the hon. member has in moving this motion, that the government bring forward legislation to clarify the political rights of Public Service employees. The problem is that the courts have already ruled quite clearly on this. What the government needs to do, first of all, is to repeal sections in the legislation that the courts have ruled violate the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. The opinions of the government member who spoke on the motion may be of great interest, but they really are of no great moment when the court has already ruled on what is currently in the legislation. It has said that the legislation that is now in effect places unreasonable limits on democratic rights and that those limits are not justified in a democratic society.
The only provisions that the court left intact are ones that I think everybody would agree are basic and minimal restrictions on the democratic rights to participate in the political process. Those are the obligation on deputy ministers who advise on policy directly to government to refrain from political activity and the restriction that a Public Service employee who wishes to be a candidate has to have permission to do so and has to take a leave of absence while he or she does.
We have right now legislation that the courts have said is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and after nine months the government has done nothing to make any efforts to change that legislation, to repeal the offending sections. I think that is the first step that has to be taken. In my view we then build on what restrictions need to be put in place that can be justified as absolutely essential to protecting the public interest, because that is the way our charter is framed. Any restrictions on freedoms have to be justified in the public interest.
We have been talking in committee for a month now about the kind of Public Service we want, the importance of a neutral Public Service, the importance of a Public Service based on merit. Quite shockingly to me the government has brought forward legislation that says merit no longer means that we want the best qualified people working in the Public Service of Canada.
There has been deep concern expressed to us from a number of fronts that what that is going to mean is the ability to politicize the Public Service again. We have to remember that legislation to establish the merit principle in the Public Service, to keep it politically neutral, was brought in in 1919 as the result of a whole history in the Public Service of appointments based on who your friends were and whether they got elected and whether they liked the candidate you worked for at election time. Yes, there was substantial pressure on Public Service employees to work for candidates at election time because otherwise they would not be in the Public Service after the election if a candidate won for whom they had not worked.
April 2, 1992

Certainly we do not want to go back to that. Yet there are many ways to undermine that. The current bill, Bill C-26, that the government has before a legislative committee is probably more dangerous to a politically neutral Public Service than is any exercise by a Public Service employee of a right to have a lawn sign or to make a contribution to a political party, or to make a few phone calls on behalf of a candidate.
The Prime Minister in the 1984 election promised that this was something that could probably be corrected quite easily by setting up a standing committee and bringing in new legislation that took many of the restrictions off Public Service employees in their right to be involved politically. The government never did that, and in fact when my predecessor in Ottawa West brought forward a bill to reduce the limits on Public Service employees' political rights, he eventually felt morally compelled to withdraw that bill because his own government insisted on tightening the screws again and again to the point where close to 50 per cent of Public Service employees were again fully denied any political rights of any moment.
This is an important principle in the bill before us. It is not one, frankly, that I expect this government to act on. But I ask it to consider seriously, since it is now into an era of regulatory review, whether its particular commitment to limiting the rights of public servants makes any sense. I ask it to consider, if it has any true commitment to the concept of building trust and partnership between the government and its employees, whether it does not think that most public servants can be trusted to exercise discretion and not to indulge in political activity that is in conflict with their public responsibility.
I frankly believe that most of them are mature individuals who value their jobs and who value their commitment to serve the public impartially. I think they value it more than the government does, and I do not think they are going to jeopardize their ability to serve the public or the future of their employment with the Public Service by acting foolishly in a political way. If we believe they
Private Members' Business
are the kind of individuals who cannot be trusted then I do not know how we can proceed with reform of the Public Service where trusting one another is really the foundation of revitalizing the Public Service.
It appears to me that there are in place mechanisms to deal with Public Service employees who do violate the trust placed in them by the public and by the government. Departments have codes of ethics. There is the obligation to act in good faith toward one's employer. We have conflict of interest guidelines for employees in the Public Service to ensure that their private activities are not in conflict with their public duties.
On top of all of that, do we truly need legislation? I doubt it very much.
We are dealing with the most fundamental right a citizen has in a democracy. That is the right to participate in the political process, to express their views on issues, to support the candidate of their choice, to support the political philosophy of their choice. Only for the most serious of reasons should we deny that right to 500,000 Canadians. That is how many people we are talking about.
The courts have said that the legislation which was in place is not valid; it has quashed those sections of the legislation.
I call upon the government to bring forward an amendment to repeal legislation that no longer has any force and effect and to make it clear to Public Service employees what their rights are.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Since no more members have asked to speak, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 6.40 p.m., the House stands adjourned until ten o'clock tomorrow morning, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.40 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 3,1992