1980-07-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
As the Canadian government is about to export huge quantities of natural gas to the United States, and as this will create the threat of a shortage as well as an increase in the price of natural gas, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin):
That the House reprove the government for that decision which will force Canadians to pay more in the near future for the natural gas produced in their own country.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to put a motion of urgent and pressing importance.
Given that Canada will be sending a delegation to the International Whaling Commission meetings next week, and in view of the fact that the bowhead whale, with a worldwide population of only 1,200, is on the verge of extinction, as verified by the overwhelming weight of international scientific
opinion, and whereas the Canadian government recently published an endangered species list which includes the bowhead whale, upon the recommendation of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That the Canadian delegation to the International Whaling Commission be instructed by this House to oppose absolutely the killing of bowhead whales, and to resist with determination any proposals to allocate quotas for the killing of bowhead whales by the commercial whaling fleets of foreign nations.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FLYING TRAINING
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas the federal government recently imposed a 9 per cent sales tax on all new small aircraft and related spare parts purchased by flight training schools which, compounded with a 15 per cent increase in landing fees at most airports as well as landing fee increases at Vancouver, Toronto, Dorval and Mirabel-up from $ 1.65 to $5-has forced these schools to increase their rental rates and lesson charges, and considering how these increases deter the expansion of energy efficient light aircraft travel which is so vital to this country, particularly in remote areas, and that many students take up flying to expand their educational horizons, further facilitating the use of light aircraft travel in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
That this government recognize the importance of these flying schools as educational rather than recreational institutions, and remove this tax and roll back increased landing fees which amount to taxation on classrooms in the air which we would not tolerate on conventional classroom facilities.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
2952

July 16, 1980


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Two prominent Liberals, former cabinet minister John Turner, and Quebec MNA and former Pepin-Robarts task force member Soulange Chaput-Roland, issued statements over the weekend critical of the approach taken by the Prime Minister to the reform of the constitution.
Madam Chaput-Roland charged that the Prime Minister was needlessly making life difficult for Quebec federalists by his insistence on an early deadline for constitutional reform and his threat to act unilaterally to patriate the constitution, and that the Prime Minister seemed incapable of approaching constitutional questions in other than a confrontationist spirit. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House direct the Prime Minister to make a statement before the House recesses as to the government's position on constitutional reform deadlines and the policy of the government respecting the use of referenda for constitutional amendment.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas at least two annual meetings of the U.S.-Canada Parliamentary Committee in Calgary and San Diego have discussed the question of the Alaska pipeline in some detail, and whereas it has been consistently demonstrated at those meetings that an export-directed pre-build pipeline may be in the immediate interests of the United States but, without guarantees, makes as much sense as building the middle floors of a skyscraper without knowing whether or when the upper floors may be built, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House reaffirms the consistent position of the majority of the Canadian delegation to Canada-U.S. meetings that the Canadian section of the Alaska pipeline will only be built when there are firm and irrevocable guarantees that all sections of this transport pipeline will in fact be built.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nielsen:: Ironclad.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous
pnncpnt nf tFip Hnncp. Is tlipre unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
*
* *


EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to place before this august assembly a matter of urgent and pressing importance.
1 would move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That we offer apologies to Robert Service and John Milton for taking poetic licence, and offer the following epic entitled "The Laddie that's Known as Lloyd, or Closing the Bar".
A bunch of the boys were whooping it up in the Axworthy boys' saloon;
The hour was late, the beer was great, and the lonely western Liberals bayed at the moon;
Elbows were bent, and so was the law.	*
Leadership talk was out in the raw.
Young Lochinvar from Winnipeg footed the bill;
Now, the Liquor Control Commission is wishing him ill.
Talk ranged from the status of women to interim supply.
And all those goodies that money can buy.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hooray.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 41.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: Standing Order 43. It seems we are all in need of a summer vacation.
In view of the 31.8 per cent increase in passenger activity at Toronto international airport in the last four years, resulting in growing and sometimes intolerable congestion, particularly in terminal 1, where it sometimes takes well over one hour to process departing and arriving passengers, and because during the same period of time no substantial improvements have been made other than, perhaps, cosmetic, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to act forthwith upon the conclusions already reached as a result of consultations regarding the SOMPS report.
July 16, 1980


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a grave matter of urgency which I hope will receive sympathetic support on all sides of this House.
In view of at least 26 more Iranians dying on Monday before a firing squad, including two leaders of the Baha'i religious sect, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille):
That this House of Commons deplores the continued persecution of religious minorities in Iran, especially the 200,000 Baha'is, and urges that this total abuse of religious tolerance be brought to the attention of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will recall that in 1968 he had two great themes when he came into power in Canada. One was to overcome regional disparity in Canada.
I want to draw to his attention that in real, 1971 dollar terms, DREE spending by the government decreased 22 per cent between 1970 and 1978, while other government departments' spending, in real terms, rose 60.6 per cent. DREE spending is now only 1.2 per cent of total government spending, whereas it was 2.5 per cent in 1970. Whereas Atlantic Canadians earned 34 per cent less in earned income than
Oral Questions
Canadians generally in 1974, by 1978 they were earning 34'A per cent less.
In view of these facts, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a commitment that the government will give first priority to the overcoming of regional disparities in Canada. Will he make a commitment? Will he review his position on offshore mineral resources so that the people of Atlantic Canada can be given a chance to develop their own earned income now that government assistance in this way has failed so miserably despite these great efforts?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the situation in the Atlantic provinces obviously is one of disparity compared with richer parts of Canada. We have many policies to attack that. DREE is only one of them.
When we refer to the energy policy of which the hon. member talks, I can assure him that it is the policy of this government, in our energy policy in the past and in the future, to ensure that the maritimes and eastern Canada have, indeed, received equalization funds to the tune of many billions of dollars since we brought in our energy policy.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: When was that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Since 1974. If we have the support of the House for the energy policy we proposed during the campaign, the Atlantic and other parts of Canada would benefit greatly-consumers as well as industry.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, Atlantic Canadians do not want to be subsidized by the rest of Canada. They do not want hand-outs; they want to earn their own way.
The figures show that despite attempts by the government since 1968 to overcome this, the proportion of earned income of Atlantic Canadians compared with the rest of Canada has declined, not increased. We are not being given the chance to earn our own way. That is what we want. Would the Prime Minister specify what new initiatives he is taking? One suggestion would be to confirm ownership of offshore mineral resources in the provinces. Let them earn their own way, rather than give them equalization.
Second, would the Prime Minister give orders to his ministry to expedite the development of Lower Churchill power resources? The reports are now in to his Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and to the Newfoundland government. Will the Prime Minister expedite that? What actions will he take to expedite economic development in Atlantic Canada- not hand-outs? They are not working.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, hand-outs have certainly never been our approach. But when the hon. member complains that there is not enough money in DREE, for instance, and then goes on to say that the maritimes do not want to be subsidized, I fail to see how he is consistent in suggesting that

July 16, 1980
Oral Questions
we put subsidies into the Atlantic provinces in order to create economic growth there. That has been our policy.
1 cannot understand the hon. member, who is certainly in disagreement with the Atlantic premiers, when he says they do not want any form of subsidy. They hope eventually to reach the stage of economic growth where they can help the rest of Canada, and this is our hope too. The commitment we have made regarding the offshore is that until the provinces with resources off their shores have reached the average income in Canada, we intend to see that they get the overwhelming part of the resources from the offshore, precisely so that they will not have to receive subsidies.
We do not count DREE as one aspect of subsidy, as the hon. member seems to do, as against comparative statistics on income. I know that the statistics show that since DREE was instituted in 1969, the migration from the maritimes has been reversed. I think this shows that people are now moving to the maritimes because they see that in the ten years of Liberal federal government they have been given a chance to prosper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I have a final supplementary question, Madam Speaker. People are moving back to the maritimes because under Liberal government there is no opportunity anywhere in Canada, and they might as well move back to the Atlantic provinces where the Tory provincial governments are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I cite the figures that government spending has increased, in real terms, 60.6 per cent from 1970 to 1978, while DREE spending decreased 22 per cent, to show the Prime Minister that he is falling down in his commitment to the people of Atlantic Canada.
1 should like to ask him this: would he give his ministry directions to expedite economic and industrial development projects, such as the Synchrolift in the dockyard owned by the government in St. John's harbour which will create jobs, or institute a policy of building east coast fishing vessels in east coast shipyards, something that was done in the budget of December 11; or would he direct his Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to help expedite the opening of the Come-by-Chance oil refinery? These are all things which will create employment and wealth in eastern Canada. That is what we want-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, and it is essential and at the very core of the energy policy which we will be proposing to this House, and which 1 will be discussing with Premier Lougheed next week, that this great windfall in energy prices serve to benefit all Canadians and permit us to expedite the very projects with which the hon. member is concerned. This makes me hope that we will have the support
of that party when we try to redistribute the wealth which is coming to this country from windfall OPEC prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OFFSHORE RESOURCES
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, the words of the Prime Minister, of course, are welcome if we could understand and believe that in fact he would give a directive to his ministry to undertake those things. But it is a little difficult to believe him when neither he nor any of his ministers-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


J. Michael Forrestall: -called at the constitutional conference to take place at Acadia University, the first one in Atlantic Canada recently, to back up-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wonder if the Prime Minister, in light of what he has just said, could give us some assurances-a personal commitment-that the hydrocarbon resources of Hibernia, of the eastern Arctic, of offshore of the Sable shelf, will produce the industrial benefit in the maritimes or in Newfoundland and not be deflected to central Canada. Would he give us that assurance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, that is a very reasonable position. It is certainly one that this government takes, that the fallout from offshore resources benefit largely the provinces which are neighbour to those resources. I have stated quite clearly in my policy statements on the offshore that this would be our intention, and 1 am glad to approve the hon. member's policy in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: We are a little leary of gifts. What we want, as the hon. member for St. John's West indicated, is to get out from under transfer arrangements. The Prime Minister knows that we exist in Atlantic Canada on the basis of government to government, and government to people transfers of money.
I am asking the Prime Minister for his specific assurance that hydrocarbon development in any petrochemical industry, or in any other significant industrial development which comes out of hydrocarbons we are talking about, in fact will take place in the maritimes or in Newfoundland, not in Quebec or Ontario.


An hon. Member:: That is the same question.
July 16, 1980


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I just answered in the affirmative. The hon. member said that he is wary of gifts. Why does he ask me, if he does not want to be given this assurance?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. The language of the Northern Pipeline Act passed by Parliament two years ago, which 1 read out yesterday, is unambiguously clear where it says that the financing of the whole pipeline must be provided before commencement of the pipeline.
"Pipeline", I repeat, is defined as being a pipeline from Alaska to the American border. Does the Prime Minister now agree that before we proceed in Canada with what has been described as the pre-build, a total guarantee must be obtained for the financing of the whole pipeline?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in fact that is what condition 12 indicates, condition 12 of schedule III, I believe it is. That is what it says. But the act also permits condition 12 to be amended, provided the financing is assured for that particular part of the pipeline which is to be built, and provided that the government is satisfied the financing of the remainder of the pipeline can be obtained. That is what the act says, and those are the conditions under which the government is acting.


An hon. Member:: The NDP invented that.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the act is very clear, that "pipeline" is defined as being a pipeline from the southern 48 states through Canada to Alaska. That is what the act says. That is the kind of guarantee which must be obtained under the act before one can proceed with the building of any part. There is no doubt about that.
Last March, the Prime Minister said that the American administration told the Canadian government that we would be "damn fools" if we went ahead with the pre-build without 100 per cent guarantees in place for the entire pipeline. Since the Prime Minister agreed with that at the time, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources since then has said that we need ironclad guarantees-


An hon. Member:: Old ironclad.


John Edward Broadbent: -and since only 2 per cent of the financing has now been guaranteed, why is the Prime Minister even considering an option which the Americans themselves have described as a "damn fool" option for Canada?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as I answered in the House a few days ago, we in the government must be of the opinion and of the assurance that the whole pipeline can be financed. Otherwise, indeed we would be "damn fools" to authorize a part of that pipeline. That is why I say there is a value judgment to know whether the guarantees we have are strong enough; whether they are 100 per cent; whether they are ironclad or not. That is the judgment we must make, and that is the judgment cabinet will be making.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, obviously we have "Mr. Flexible" as Prime Minister in terms of interpretation of the law. The law asserts very clearly that the guarantees must be in place, not can be put in place.
Some two years ago the Minister of Finance, who was then responsible for introducing the pipeline bill, said that one of the few reasons it was importrant to Canadians was that it would make it possible at some point in the future for Canadians in the south to have access to some five trillion cubic feet of gas in the Canadian Arctic.
Would the Prime Minister not agree that unless we obtain ironclad guarantees for the whole pipeline, Canadians in the south may never have access to our natural gas in the north, which we need?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, I do not agree with that. When the hon. member referred to the law, I referred him to condition 12, section 3, which does say what the hon. member says it says. But the law also says that under section 20(4) of the act that condition can be amended by the governor in council authorizing a decision by the National Energy Board. That is what the law says; that is what the law of this Parliament says. This is what we have to decide as a government: shall we authorize the amendment of condition 12, or not?
We are saying we will only authorize that if we are assured that the whole pipeline will be built. That, I repeat, is the value judgment. What is the nature of those assurances? That is exactly what this government is examining. I am sure that is what the people of the country are examining. As the hon. member knows, the United Steel Workers of America are very much in support of this pre-build.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government and the people of Alberta are very much in support of it-


John Carnell Crosbie: And the "ironclad" workers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: - and those who have discovered gas and want to sell it are very much in support of this.


John Carnell Crosbie: And the makers of "ironclad".


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All these people who are interested in jobs for the workers and in further exploration for the benefit of Canadians are saying to us, "Look; will you study this serious-

July 16, 1980
Oral Questions
ly?" Our answer to that is that we will have to be assured that the whole thing will proceed.


An hon. Member:: Ironclad guarantees.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 see the Tories are talking about ironclad.


An hon. Member:: No; Lalonde did.


John Carnell Crosbie: The iron duke did. Old iron head.


Miss MacDonald:: He is just another Cromwell.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, we will have to make the judgment that the guarantees are ironclad. When you can say an ironclad flip-flop, I am sure ironclad has a lot of meaning for a lot of people.


John Edward Broadbent: Especially you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 heard the Leader of the Opposition use that expression, "ironclad flip-flop". Madam Speaker, 1 am saying to this House that we will have to have that assurance.


An hon. Member:: That is Liberalism.
At the moment there are a number of possibilities being explored. One of the most plausible or productive is the export of oil to Mexico. There are a number of companies interested in that now. I am aware, and I am pushing and doing my best to support efforts in that direction.


Mr. Elowie:: I had hoped that where a general policy decision had been taken by the former government, the minister might be able to give us a definite date when he could make a decision on the principle.
Does the minister have under active consideration a proposal to close the Canadian Arctic north of 60 to all but Canadian-built or registered ships within the next five years? If so, when does he contemplate taking a decision on this matter? Is this decision part of the comparable program to replace the 20 per cent subsidy on shipbuilding in Canadian shipyards? Is it related?


Mr. Pepin:: Madam Speaker, I cannot answer the hon. member's question; I need more information.


FISHERIES
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is why the decision we have to take is a very difficult one. I am thankful for the interest of the House. At least the position of the NDP is very clear; they do not care about the jobs. But the position of the Tories is not always clear.


TRANSPORT
J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, who seems to be temporarily out of his seat.


John Carnell Crosbie: He is temporarily dislocated.


An hon. Member:: He has gone on the blink.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: He is off the rails.


J. Robert Howie: In view of Canada's continuing balance of payments difficulties, impending cargo restrictions and the underemployment of Canadian seamen and shipworkers, when will the minister take a decision on the establishment of a Canadian merchant marine, which has the potential of being one of Canada's great industries?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the idea has been around for some time. It has been debated. It is debated more now than it was. I understand that there are continuous meetings between ship owners and shippers to develop ideas. Personally, my view is that it should develop on a progressive basis.


FUTURE OF FISHING VESSEL SUBSIDY PROGRAM
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and it concerns the vitally important question of the future of the fishing vessel subsidy program.
This year the minister is operating with an unusually high carryover in his vessel subsidy program due to a number of reasons, the main one being the difficulty the Newfoundland loan board had last year. Because of this high carryover the minister will be unable to approve any new subsidies for this year.
Since the minister indicated that he was attempting to secure additional funding for the program from his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, so that the program could continue, could he inform the House, today, how successful he has been in securing additional funding for vessel subsidies, so that the fishermen of Atlantic Canada may know what the federal government's intentions are for the subsidy program this year?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, we are having trouble with the vessel subsidy program because of a decision by the previous government of which the hon. member was a supporter: that was to leave in the estimates for the current year the sum of $2 million, which in fact only covers the carryover from levels of funding which had been $10 million two years ago and some $8 million last year. Obviously, there was a carryover which has to be covered.
The previous government decided to do away with the vessel subsidy program. The budget of the former minister of finance of the Tory party suggested a plan which was very helpful to
July 16, 1980

large, organized bodies like big companies, but in fact left individual fishermen high and dry. That is what we are trying to restore. We are trying to repair the damage of that policy.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: By way of a supplementary, Madam Speaker, could the minister confirm to the House that major changes to the program are not being planned by his department for future years, changes which will see the subsidy drop from its present 35 per cent to something substantially lower?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, we have had constant discussions with provincial governments. Some have programs where there is zero per cent interest on their loans, others have commercial interest rates, and others have 8 per cent. We are trying to co-ordinate these programs.
We have also looked at the possibility that a lower percentage of the subsidy might, in fact, achieve the same aim. No decision has been made. I am trying to restore the program to at least an adequate level of funding, which is what the previous government did not do.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker,
I should like to return to the Prime Minister and the line of questioning begun by the hon. member for Oshawa. 1 might say that we find it very difficult to hear, from the man who wants to entrench a bill of rights in the constitution, the notion that an act of Parliament can be fundamentally changed by order in council.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is what the law says.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My question is this: without agreeing for a moment that the government has the authority to change the act-putting that aside-is the Prime Minister telling this House that one of the options he is considering is changing the Northern Pipeline Act so that he can go ahead with the pipeline without the ironclad guarantees, or going to an option which the Americans have called a damn fool option?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I find that the preamble indicates the hon. member certainly has a lesser understanding of the act than his leader does.


An hon. Member:: That is not hard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are not arbitrarily changing the act against the will of Parliament. Section 20, subparagraph 4, of the act states that the terms and conditions can be amended by the National Energy Board with the approval of the governor in council. That is what Parliament said could be done. We are not trying to shirk our responsibilities.
Oral Questions


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, Canadian people know very well that the Prime Minister is trying to skate around this matter and sell them a bill of goods.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You don't understand.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Prime Minister said that he would do his homework on this issue. Last Monday I asked him about the backstop agreement with TransCanada PipeLines. I suggested to him that by that agreement they are obligated to guarantee the shipment of gas out of Alberta to the United States for 15 years-some 4.5 trillion cubic feet of gas. That is much more than the amount which is needed for the pre-build section.
Has the Prime Minister had a chance to look at the matter, and is he prepared to consider it? Does he not recognize a big sell-out of Canadian gas when it hits him in the face?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, this matter was examined by the National Energy Board and no export will be authorized by the government unless, first of all, the Energy Board is convinced that all the conditions concerning future security of supply for Canadians are guaranteed.
Secondly, the government itself must be convinced that the Energy Board is right. This is the situation under the law as it stands at the present time, and it is what we intend to follow in the future.


VETERINARY COLLEGES
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given that each year Canada must import a number of veterinarians because the three existing Canadian veterinary colleges are unable to accept anything more than a very small proportion of the applications from qualified Canadians, is the government committed to supporting the proposed Atlantic regional veterinary college; and if so, what is the share of the cost which it is prepared to meet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I am not on top of the problem of veterinary colleges. There may be an acting minister or a parliamentary secretary who can fill me in on this matter.


INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL SALE OF SEED POTATOES
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, the potato industry of the maritime provinces grows the best seed potatoes in the world from the cleanest soil in the world.

July 16, 1980
Oral Questions
In view of the potential markets for this product, and in view of the industry's capability of being affluent and independent, provided sales and agricultural expertise are combined in the consulates of the world, has the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in view of representations made to him by officials and growers from Atlantic Canada, taken any steps to put the expertise of sales and agriculture combined in consulates in areas in which this type of high-quality product could be sold to assist Atlantic Canada?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, we have been working actively on this matter, particularly with respect to the European Community. We have been increasing our efforts to clear away certain obstacles in the export of seed potatoes to that important market area, and we will continue to do so. We also committed ourselves, in the Speech from the Throne, to organizing a new agricultural export corporation which will be able to work in co-operation with my department to facilitate exports of seed potatoes and other Canadian agricultural products.


Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, while the European Economic Community is a very important market for this product, the market is much broader and much wider than has been described by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The market is international. I would ask him, therefore, to consult with the industry, with maritime officials, make a list of potential markets and to assure Atlantic Canada that this industry could be independent with the proper representation in foreign consulates.
I would like to say that the interjections by the maritime members with respect to representations on behalf of the maritimes indicates their guilty conscience and their incapacity to represent Atlantic Canada as Liberal members.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we have already been consulting with the people mentioned by my hon. friend. My colleague, the Minister of State for Trade, recently met with a major spokesman of the New Brunswick seed potato industry. We have taken aboard those kinds of views and, in particular, the views of our very active and capable Liberal members from the maritimes in a way which will lead to a greatly expanded export of maritime seed potatoes to all relevant markets in the world.


RESOURCE OWNERSHIP UNDER CONTROL OF PROVINCES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister meets with Premier Lougheed later this month to discuss oil policy, will he take into account a recent Gallup poll which shows that only 16 per cent of western Canadians favour the constitutional position of Mr. Lougheed that resource ownership be under the total control of the province?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Don't believe it for a second, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it has always been the position of the Liberal party- and I stated that in so many words in the throne speech debate in this House a few months ago-that when there is a conflict of interest between a regional interest and the interest of the whole nation, the people of Canada would support action on behalf of the interest of the whole nation.


John Carnell Crosbie: Right on.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, I put my question to the Minister of Transport who must have knowledge of all these matters.


John Carnell Crosbie: Some hopes!


Robert Alfred Corbett: Would the minister explain to the House the government's plan to sue the Nile Steamship Company of Great Britain, a respected employer of hundreds of British subjects, over the sinking of the tanker Kurdistan in the Cabot Strait in March, 1979, for the amount involved, and advise whether or not it is his government's intention to sue the Soviet Union for damages incurred in 1978 when the Soviet nuclear satellite, Cosmos 954, crashed into Canada's northland, which it apparently cannot collect?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, indeed I do have a note on that subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: The company-owner of the ship had taken legal action to limit its liability to $3 million. The cleaning-up operation has cost the Government of Canada $6.9 million, and the government opposed the company's action by filing a statement of defence in court on July 15. Action on this matter is not expected to commence in court until after a U.K. formal inquiry which is scheduled to begin in January, 1981.


Erik Nielsen: Now for the second part of the question.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer to the first portion of my question. However, he neglected the second portion of my question, which is whether or not the government intends to sue the Soviet Union for the cost of the Cosmos incident. Canada's claim in the Cosmos incident is slightly over $6 million, despite the cost to the
July 16, 1980

minister's department and other departments of about $14 million.
In view of that fact, how can the minister justify our suing a friendly nation such as Great Britain, or a company associated with Great Britain-without any apparent negotiation-while not suing Russia for a multimillion dollar bill which is only half the real cost? Can the minister explain to the House why his government is so intimidated by the Russians and so anxious to appear friendly that they are prepared to write off millions of dollars without using the same tactics that they use on their supposed friends and allies?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I thought I mentioned everything on the subject of the ship which is my responsibility. I even have the names of the lawyers who will be acting for us on the matter. However, with regard to the Cosmos and our relationship with the Soviet Union, 1 will have to bring that matter to the attention of the Minister of Justice.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister and it is with regard to the northern pipeline. 1 am sure he is aware that the section Caroline south to the American border is, in fact, the cheapest section of the line. In meetings which I had recently with Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, he indicated that the Americans are actively considering moving their gas from Alaska down to the continental United States by tanker, which brings me to the real point. Would the Prime Minister tell the House what sort of guarantees, or what does he expect to be in place for the Americans to construct their connecting line if we are, in fact, going ahead with the construction of the Caroline south section?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, our most recent meeting with Senator Ted Stevens was to the effect that he was in full and complete support of the Alaska gas pipeline route. He was one of the leaders of the Republican minority who pushed the resolution through the Senate, and he voted for it, expressing total and unanimous support of the American Senate for the construction of the Alaska gas pipeline before 1985.


James Ross Fulton: My supplementary is to the Prime Minister. I appreciate what the Minister of Energy has told us; however, it is a sort of conflicting view. They are looking at tankers to move it, and yet they are supporting the line. Obviously, there is a contradiction there without some kind of guarantee. What are we to expect, the tankers or the line?
My question to the Prime Minister goes back to the Northern Pipeline Act, schedule 1 (2), under the subtitle Expeditious
Oral Questions
Construction Timetable. The agreement between the two governments was that the Alaska section would start one year prior to the Canadian section. I wonder why the Prime Minister and the government are moving so quickly to change that, so that the pre-build section will come first, in light of the tanker section, instead of what was agreed between the two governments-that the Alaskan section would come first, guaranteeing it to Canada.


An hon. Member:: That was amended.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, one of the reasons we would be moving, if that is the decision we take, is because it would mean a lot of jobs for Canadian workers and a lot of revenue for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is one argument that I must say is very strong, at least from the point of view of our party. When you get telegrams from steelworkers all across the country saying that they favour the pre-build, it is obviously something we must put in the balance.
In so far as what the act says, I repeat my earlier answer: section 20(4) indicates that condition 12 can be amended: in fact, it has been amended by the National Energy Board. That section, as amended, says that we have to have the assurance that the pre-build will be financed and we have to have the assurance that the whole thing can be financed.


An hon. Member:: Will be built?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry; the hon. member has not read the section as amended.


An hon. Member:: You cannot change the whole.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As amended, condition 12 requires that the minister and the board be satisfied, first, that financing for the pre-build has been obtained; and, second, that financing for the remainder of the pipeline can be obtained.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is what the amended section says.


An hon. Member:: By the National Energy Board?


An hon. Member:: Have you approved of that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is what we are in the process of looking at, Madam Speaker. The opinion of hundreds of thousands of workers across Canada has some weight with us, if not for the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland.

July 16, 1980
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Keep going.


JUSTIFICATION FOR RAISING PRICE OF NATURAL GAS
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Of course I am going to keep going; I have been recognized by Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Go get them, George.


George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-the original "Mr. Ironclad". My question is this. As there never has been any economic justification for the price of natural gas increasing at the same rate as that for oil, following the increase of OPEC oil prices which have taken Canadian oil prices steadily upward, there has been no economic justification for raising the price of natural gas.
Is the government considering increasing the price of natural gas at a rate no greater than the increase in the cost of production, so that our very large and steadily increasing supplies of natural gas in this country can be made more attractive for heating homes, factories, stores, office buildings, apartment houses and for industrial production? In this way we can bring Canada to a state of self-sufficiency in oil in the shortest possible time so that oil can be used only for transportation and plastics.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very helpful contribution. I will just say that the latest increase in the price of natural gas has been for exports to the United States. The domestic price is much lower than the equivalent world price of oil.
The increase in the price of natural gas shipped to the United States, and relating it to the substitution price for oil, was made under the Conservative government in January. 1 would expect that my colleague is not blaming the government of which he was a member for having done it. As far as this country is concerned, I am glad that we have the full support of the hon. members-


Mr. Clark:: Herb does not understand the difference between Canada and foreign countries, either.


Marc Lalonde: -and, I hope, all hon. members of the Conservative party in making sure that both in gas and oil Canada will not be tied to international prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, I was not speaking of the price of natural gas exported to the United States. I am talking about the price of natural gas in Canada. The minister knows
very well that each time the price of oil in Canada has been increased following OPEC price rises, the price of natural gas has been increased by the same proportion. It is that that I am talking about.
I ask, in the interests of encouraging the use of natural gas for the uses I have mentioned, that in future the price of natural gas be increased only to accommodate increases in the cost of production, so that this very valuable fuel may be used for heating, and make oil available only for transportation and for plastics.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, again the contribution by the hon. member is very interesting indeed. He will remember that under Liberal governments we always refused to raise the cost of fuel each time there was an increase announced by OPEC. The Conservative budget, however, wanted to tie in raising the price of oil to international prices.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not true. That is a deliberate falsehood.


Mr.   Neilsen@: That is a deliberate falsehood.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Your nose is growing.


An hon. Member:: Carry on, Pinocchio.


Marc Lalonde: The Conservative budget wanted to tie the raise in the Canadian price of oil to international prices. We have objected to that. This was rejected in Parliament and rejected by the country.
As to the question of the price of gas, the suggestion of my hon. friend, as I have said, is going to be examined with great care, like all his other suggestions.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: My question is to the Prime Minister. It is going to try to bridge some questions on Atlantic Canada with the northern pipeline. My question to the Prime Minister is this: what further guarantees on the pipeline does he have that are better than the guarantees he has, as a government, on the fishing treaty on Georges Bank?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the situation is a bit reversed. In the case of Georges Bank we had the guarantee of the Administration, but we did not have that of Congress-nor do we have it yet. In the case of the pre-build, we have the guarantee of Congress and we are hoping to get a guarantee from the President. So we will have both.
July 16, 1980


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, 1 appreciate the Prime Minister's answer, and only time will tell how valid those guarantees, ironclad from "iron head" over here, are.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Big man; big mouth.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The iron duke, then.


An hon. Member:: That is better.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My supplementary is for the Prime Minister. A number of questions have been asked by my maritime and Atlantic colleagues on many problems affecting Atlantic Canada. Because we have not been able to ask about matters of concern such as commitments to Sysco, Georges Bank, Q and M Pipe Lines; recognizing the Prime Minister's concern and very involved activity in terms of the referendum vote in Quebec, and the fact that his government at an earlier time- because of western alienation-had a western economic conference to help focus attention on western problems, and in view of the fact that in Atlantic Canada we feel a little left out because of attention and preoccupation with other large matters, I ask the following question.
Would the Prime Minister consider having an Atlantic economic conference some time in the foreseeable future, after September, to focus with the four Atlantic provinces and representatives on the Atlantic area problems, and have that conference in Atlantic Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is making a worthy suggestion that we will consider; but it seems to me that the premise of his question is very flimsy. In his very constituency, this government has just made a grant of $43 million to Michelin. Very recently, this government announced the decision on the EPA.


An hon. Member:: You would not go there.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I don't think it is fair-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is also where Acadia University is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not think it is fair to assume that this government has not been preoccupied with the Atlantic provinces. These two examples, one in the hon. member's very constituency, prove that it has.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, may I put a further question to the Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
In view of the fact that section 20(4) of the Northern Pipeline Act gives the National Energy Board, on approval of the government, power to amend the financial arrangements set out in condition 12 in schedule III, but does not give it any power to change the definition of "pipeline", which in the act is given clearly as a line for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska across Canada, and so on, how can the Prime Minister justify using that order in council power to confront us with something that is totally different from what this act is all about?
This act is about a pipeline as defined in section 2 of the act. Is not the Prime Minister abusing that order in council if he uses it, in effect, to change the whole project?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if in fact it was something totally different, then the hon. member would have a very valid point. But everyone who has been talking about the pre-build has not been talking about something totally different: they have been talking about building, in stages, a part of the entire pipeline.
If it were, in some other area, doing some other thing, I think the argument would be that it is a different pipeline. But when you are building a pipeline of a certain distance, and you decide to proceed with one part of it first, you are not doing something different: you are proceeding in stages toward the whole. That is the judgment we have to make-will the whole be built if we do the part. That is a judgment we will be deciding on tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if it is correct that nowhere in the act is there any reference to the pipeline other than the total, indivisible project, and if what is now proposed is something else, is it not something other that the act provides?
May I also ask the Prime Minister if he is aware of the fact that this House got into serious trouble in 1956 because the government of the day defied Parliament to put through a commitment that C. D. Howe had made to American financiers before he consulted Parliament? Does the Prime Minister want that to happen again?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Unlike the hon. member, Madam Speaker, I was not here in those days and I am not sure of the value of that parallel.


Charles Joseph Clark: You were writing about it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Once again, I understand the concern of the hon. member and his party. It is a concern that we share. That is why it has not been a decision which was easy and which has been made yet. Once again, when the hon. member says that nowhere in the act does it talk of building a part: that does not mean you have to build the whole thing at the same time, which is a physical impossibility.
To take comparisons which may seem simplistic, but which I think will make the hon. member understand, when we built

July 16, 1980
Oral Questions
the Seaway, we did not build every canal at the same time. The important thing was that it was going to be an effective part of a Seaway which would eventually exist. The same with the Trans-Canada highway: it was built at different times, even in different decades, but the same law applied because it was a Trans-Canada highway. This is the way we see the pipeline. It would be preferable-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see the Leader of the Opposition harping. We have not heard from him as to what he thinks would be good for the country and for Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We may end up agreeing or disagreeing with our friends in the New Democratic Party because some of them, like the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, are friends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Why didn't they join the cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They could have joined the cabinet. This we know, Madam Speaker, but we will never know if we will have agreed or disagreed with the Tories, because they don't know what they think.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


COASTGUARD
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that Captain Gordon Hallett, of Lockeport, Nova Scotia-master of the Lady Anne III-had to steam 180 miles from Georges Bank to Shelburne, Nova Scotia, due to the inability of the Canadian coastguard to provide a helicopter to save an injured seaman, I ask the Minister of Transport if he is aware of this situation. If so, what steps is he planning to take so that more adequate protection is provided our mariners when an emergency arises?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the particular case referred to by the hon. member, but the search and rescue program of my department has been a major preoccupation of mine. I wish to underline the fact that, for example, there will be an increase this year over last year from $3 million to $13 million allocated to the marine aspect of the search and rescue program.
I will inquire about the particular matter referred to, but I want to assure my hon. friend that the search and rescue program is a major preoccupation of both myself and my department.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Since it is obvious our Canadian coastguard, as the minister has indicated, requires improvements in order to cope with our present situation, will the minister consider the construction in Atlantic Canada of at least two additional coastguard ships that are equipped with helicopters in order to more effectively patrol our 200-mile fishing zone? That is a whole lot more water than we ever had to patrol before. We would then be in a position to save the lives of our mariners when catastrophe strikes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, a few months ago I rejoiced in the opening of the coastguard college in Sydney, at which time I was present to mark the ceremony. I am now working on the possibility of extending the athletic facilities of that school.
With regard to vessels, we now have six in the program. I cannot tell the hon. member if they will be located on the west coast or the east coast. 1 will find out and report to him accordingly.


SPEAKER'S RECEPTION
[Stage Direction]

Madam Speaker:: Because of the menacing weather, which the Department of the Environment has confirmed will be increasingly menacing by the end of the afternoon, the Speaker's reception, which was to be held at Kingsmere, will be held instead in the Railway Committee Room, Room No. 253D.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: On Monday the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) raised a question of privilege in which he complained that certain information in which he was vitally interested had been made available in his constituency by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on a partisan basis, and that it had not been communicated to him.
July 16, 1980

As the hon. member knows, we have dealt with similar cases this session and in each case the Chair reached the conclusion that an hon. member's grievance cannot be proceeded with as a question of privilege unless it can be shown that the act or the omission complained of was clearly related to the hon. member's parliamentary duties. The hon. member for Bruce-Grey probably had a very serious grievance-I do not dispute that. The minister responded to that grievance in his reply to the question of privilege, and therefore I cannot see that there is a further role for the Chair to play in this matter.


POINTS OF ORDER
Fred Alward McCain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I do not know whether it was intentional but I believe the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) misled Atlantic Canada in the course of some of the remarks he made in response to questions. For instance, he said that his predecessor in office was going to spend only $2 million in fishing boat subsidies. I believe, in answer to an earlier question, he referred to the number of envelopes which pertained to federal estimates and expenditures.
When the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans gets around to opening all the envelopes which relate to expenditures on the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada he will find not only that his predecessor had decided to spend as much money as he had previously spent as minister of fisheries but that in the various envelopes there was a very substantial increment in both the intentions for expenditures in subsidies to fishing vessels and for the maintenance and improvement of small craft harbours. I just want to straighten this out for Atlantic Canada. When the minister gets all those envelopes opened I am sure he will find that what I have said is absolutely in accordance with the facts.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member did rise on a point of order, did he not?


Fred Alward McCain: Yes.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I will reserve my right, with your permission, to comment on the hon. member's point of order. But if my memory is correct the estimates for fishermen's vessels' subsidies contained a very modest amount. As to whatever was targeted for small craft harbours and so on, the reality is that the estimates we have before us, the only ones we can deal with, do not contain provision for the campaign promises made by hon. members on the other side.
Import Policy


MR CROSBIE-REPLIES BY MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order as was raised with respect to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc). If the minister checks the facts he will discover that there was $50 million additional spending provided in the estimates this year for eastern Canada, $25 million of which was to have been devoted by the prior administration to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for employment-creating projects in eastern Canada-particularly small craft harbours-which funds have apparently disappeared since the change of government. The Minister of Fisheries has been unable to locate them, unless he has done so recently, so his colleagues are keeping from him $25 million which he would have had were he his predecessor. And that money could have been used as subsidies for fishing vessels as well as for small craft harbour projects, or whatever.


Madam Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member would not agree that his point of order should stand over since the minister has asked that he be given the opportunity to look into some of the information, thus allowing us to proceed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table in both official languages a working paper entitled "Proposals on Import Policy".
[English |


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Just a minute ago, Madam Speaker, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) tabled a discussion paper on import policy. I am told he has held consultations with the other parties and that there is unanimous consent to agree to the following motion:
That the discussion paper on import policy, tabled this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Yes, Madam Speaker, there has been that type of consultation and it is agreeable to us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
July 16, 1980
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 13, 47, 101, 348, 535, 618, 734, 735, 886 and 1,275.


PUBLIC ARCHIVES-STUDY FOR RELOCATIONS-HULL, QUE.
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the government carry out a study to modify a building in Hull, Quebec to be used for the relocation of the Public Archives of Canada and, if so (a) on what date and who authorized it (b) was the study completed and, if so, on what date (c) was the estimated cost of such building modifications $40,000,000 and, if not, what was it?
2.	Does the government intend to proceed with the project and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Will the government consider cancelling the project?
4.	Is it a question of space in existing accommodations and, if so, will the government consider extending such accommodations rather than moving a further government establishment across the Ottawa river?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	(a) A preliminary study conducted by Public Works Canada employees is currently under way based upon the Treasury Board approval in December of 1977 of a departmental recommendation which resulted in the previously announced move of the Solicitor General to Hull being deferred, and in which the possible moves of portions of Public Archives and others was discussed.
(b)	The preliminary study is not yet complete.
(c)	The cost of building modifications will not be $40 million. The department had included a sum of $82.88 per square metre in their program for building fit-up approximately 23,233.63 square metres. The resultant estimate is therefore $1,925,000.
2.	Yes, to provide for necessary relocation and expansion requirements of Public Archives' facilities with the least capital expenditure.
3.	Until the final estimates of cost are made and approved, the scope of any project is subject to review.
4.	A new facility for Public Archives is included in the long-range program but constraint in capital expenditures requires that a solution be found for immediate expansion requirements with a lower cash outlay in the short to midrange period.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-PERSONNEL
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total number of personnel in all divisions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at the time the answer to this question is compiled and how many are (a) male (b) female?
2.	Does the government plan to expand the size of the RCMP?
3.	Does the government plan to increase the percentage of females in the RCMP?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: (a) Male	(b) Female	TotalRegular Members	12,664	289	12,953Special Constables	1,169	170	1,339Civilian Members	1,027	600	1,627Public Service Employees	646	2,749	3,395Total 15,506	3,808	19,314
2. Yes. Treasury Board has approved a net increase of 185 person-years and related positions effective April 1, 1980.
3. Yes. In line with government policy, the commissioner has expressed the need for increased participation of females in law enforcement. Reduced numbers of females applying for the force have necessitated offering procedural preference to these candidates in order to meet such goals.


MR. PIERRE FRANCHE
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On the date that Mr. Pierre Franche was appointed Chairman of the National Harbours Board, who was the Prime Minister of Canada?
2.	What is a detailed history of Mr. Franche's career in the Public Service?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. The Right Honourable P. E. Trudeau.
2. The detailed history of Mr. Franche's career in the federal public service is as follows:
1967-1970 Department of Regional Economic Expansion
-	Federal administrator for the socioeconomic development plan for the lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe region
-	Acting regional director, province of Quebec
1970	Secretary of State
-	Senior management adviser Citizenship Program
1971	Department of Indian and Northern Affairs
-	Assistant director of the national and historic parks branch
1973	Department of Indian and Northern Affairs
-	Director of policy, planning and research, Parks Canada
1974	Department of Indian and Northern Affairs
-	Assistant deputy minister, finance and administration
1975	Department of Transport
-	Special assistant to the marine administrator, Ports Policy Task Force
1976	to the present, chairman, National Harbours Board.
July 16, 1980


SUPERANNUATION
Mr. Herbert: For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1979, what amount was paid to pensioners from the (a) Public Service Superannuation Account (b) Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (c) Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Department of National Defence and Treasury Board as follows:
Treasury Board:
(a)	The amount paid in annuities to pensioners from the public service superannuation account during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1979 was $297,159,923.
(c) During the fiscal year ended March 31, 1979, the amount of indexing payments made to public service pensioners from the supplementary retirement benefits account was $8,315,665.
National Defence:
(b)	$219,612,443.46
(c)	As it pertains to military pensioners-$65,685,204.66
Order Paper Questions
P - Preliminary
Statistics Canada:
Estimates of person-days lost due to unemployment in (a) 1977 (b) 1978 (c) 1979 are as follows:
(in millions of person-days)
1977	1978	1979Unemployment	213.4	228.7	210.3
Estimates of person-days lost in (a) 1977 (b) 1978 (c) 1979 due to illness (including illnesses or accidents of non-industrial origin) are as follows:
(in millions of person-days)
1977	1978	1979Due to illness	56.4	61.6	61.0
It should be noted that the above data are necessarily rough estimates derived from the labour force survey. Since the survey was not designed to produce direct estimates of person-days of unemployment or losses due to illness during the course of a year, substantially higher or lower estimates could be produced using different estimation methods and assumptions.
Note: Estimates of person-days of work lost in 1977, 1978 and 1979 as a result of strikes and lockouts, and employment injuries and illnesses (including industrial fatalities). See reply by Labour Canada.


SOLICITOR GENERAL-NUMBER OF LAWYERS EMPLOYED
Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed on staff in the Department of the Solicitor General?


LABOUR-PERSON-DAYS LOST
Mr. Orlikow: How many man-days of work were lost in (a) 1977 (b) 1978 (c) 1979 as a result of strikes, industrial accidents, illness or unemployment?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Department of Labour and Statistics Canada as follows: Labour Canada:
Person-days lost directly as a result of strikes and lockouts in 1977, 1978 and 1979:
Federal jurisdiction Provincial jurisdiction
501,130
2,806,750
3,307,880
766,260
6,626,560
7,392,820
1979(P)
766,530
7,067,700
7,834,230


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Department of Justice has assigned lawyers to serve the Ministry of the Solicitor General as follows: four -Ministry secretariat two	-National Parole Board
one	-Royal Canadian Mounted Police
seven Total
Note: (1) The Correctional Service of Canada does not have lawyers on its staff. However, legal assistance, when required, is provided by lawyers seconded to the ministry secretariat.
(2) In addition to the one seconded lawyer shown above, the RCM Police have three members of the force who hold law degrees, are employed in positions requiring such a degree and have been called to the Bar.
Estimated person-days lost as a result of employment injuries and illnesses (including industrial fatalities)* in 1977, 1978 and 1979:
Federal jurisdiction Provincial jurisdiction Total Canada
790,000
10.593.000
11.383.000
857,000
11.420.000
12.277.000
1979 Figures not yet available
* - Temporary impairments, permanent impairments and fatalities are estimated at an average loss of 25 days per case.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Nystrom: Was the responsibility for Statistics Canada transferred in June 1979 from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to the Treasury Board and, if so (a) for what reason (b) who initiated such a move?


David Michael Collenette: (a) and (b) Responsibility for Statistics Canada was assigned to the President of the Trea-

July 16, 1980
Order Paper Questions
sury Board by the governor in council on June 5, 1979, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of the day. The Prime Minister is responsible for recommending to the Governor General the appointment of ministers and the allocation of portfolios and responsibilities among them according to his assessment of the most effective organization of the structure of government as a whole.


Mr. Nystrom: Is it the intention of the government to transfer the responsibility of Statistics Canada from Treaury Board to another more appropriate ministry?


David Michael Collenette: Responsibility for Statistics Canada was assigned to the Minister of Supply and Services on June 13, 1980, by order in council PC 1980-1620. The Prime Minister's announcement on June 17 noted that "The President of the Treasury Board had retained temporary responsibility for Statistics Canada and had continued and tabled in April departmental studies of the agency which had been commenced by the previous government."


POST OFFICE-CURTAILED POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. J. H. Cottrell, A/Manager, operational services of the eastern district of the Ontario postal region. Post Office Department, write a letter to Mr. Don Warren, chairman of the Chaffey's Locks improvement committee on the subject of curtailed postal service and, if so (a) on what date (b) did the letter state in part "the reduction of service in this instance was in line with the eastern district policy on summer offices"?
2.	Is there a different policy in the eastern district from that of other districts across Canada in regard to summer post offices and, if so, for what reason?


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: 1. Yes. (a) 6 May 1980. (b) Yes.
2. No.


CANADIAN PENSION COMMISSION
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the required (a) total membership (b) distribution by province of the Canadian Pension Commission?
2.	What is the (a) name and date of appointment of each member (b) distribution by province of the commission?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. (a) The Pension Act provides that there shall be not less than eight commissioners, who shall be appointed by the governor in council who may, in his discretion, increase the number of commissioners to fourteen. In addition, the governor in council may, from time to time, appoint not more than ten additional ad hoc commissioners, for a period not in excess of one year. Commissioners, and ad hoc commissioners, on the expiry of their terms of office, are eligible for reappointment.
(b) There is no required distribution by province of the Canadian Pension Commission.
2. The attached list gives (a) the names and dates of appointments of each member of the commission, and (b) the province of residence at the time of their appointments.
(a)		(b)
Name of Commissioner	Date of Appointment	Province of Residence on AppointmentSolomon, A. O. (Chairman)	25/5/70 (as commissioner) 06/4/71 (as chairman)	OntarioClarke, H. J. (Deputy chairman)	08/4/71 (as commissioner) 29/12/77 (as deputy chairman)	OntarioThompson, J. L.	01/4/66	New BrunswickPare, G. A. Y.	10/12/70	QuebecLegault, Carl	15/9/72	OntarioLabrosse, Ray	25/9/72	OntarioBoyce, Phoebe	10/10/72	OntarioMacFarlane, M.	28/11/74	OntarioMcDonald, R. M.	28/11/74	OntarioFlynn, P. J.	30/4/79	OntarioDouglas, C.	26/5/80	OntarioHedger, G. S.	26/5/80	OntarioMorison, J. B.	26/5/80	OntarioGadbois, Y.	16/6/80	QuebecGlibbery, C. L. (ad hoc)	16/10/72	British ColumbiaDavey, E. L. (ad hoc)	15/2/73	OntarioBlais, L. E. (ad hoc)	11/2/74	QuebecGarneau, J. C. A. (ad hoc)	01/8/76	OntarioRitchie, F. I. (ad hoc)	27/6/77	QuebecLasalle, G. (ad hoc)	27/6/77	QuebecMacDonald, M. M. (ad hoc)	13/10/77	AlbertaRivard, J. G. (ad hoc)	15/10/79	QuebecMersereau, H. B. (ad hoc)	26/5/80	OntarioTremblay, J. R. (ad hoc)	26/5/80	Quebec


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I undertook to get an answer to question number 970 by today. However, I have not as yet received it. I undertake to get the answer before the House adjourns.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. [Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
July 16, 1980


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 16 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations pertaining to the confidentiality of certain parts of the information requested.
I would request that the other notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 16 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

STATISTICS CANADA-COMPUTER OPERATIONS Motion No. 16-Mr. Nystrom:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, memoranda, notes, minutes of meetings and other communications, between June 1, 1979 and February 25, 1980, involving the President of the Treasury Board, his staff as well as the staff of the Treasury Board Secretariat on the one hand, and the Chief Statistician of Canada and the staff of Statistics Canada on the other hand, relating to the computer operations of Statistics Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-18, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport.
Madam Speaker:: As hon. members are aware, there are five motions standing on the order paper at the present stage of Bill C-18, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods. All the motions, in the opinion of the Chair, seem to be procedurally acceptable and it is my intention to propose them to the House separately.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River) moved:: Transportation of Dangerous Goods
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-18, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods, be amended in clause 3 by striking out lines 30 to 38 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"this act applies to all vessels of Canadian or foreign registry operating within
the Canadian 200-mile economic zone on the east and west coasts".
He said: Madam Speaker, my brief remarks on this amendment stem from the great concern I have about the weaknesses in this bill. It seems to be drafted in such a way as to present a great many difficulties, not the least of which is that dangerous products transported by sea on the east and west coasts of Canada seem not to be covered by this legislation. In committee we dealt at length with this, and I would like to read into the record of the House what the government proposes in this situation.
In clause 3(5) the government proposes that this legislation not apply to any transporting of dangerous goods in bulk in ships or vessels that is governed by or under the Canada Shipping Act. Subclause (6) says that for the purposes of subclause (5) "in bulk" would mean confined only by the permanent structures of a ship or vessel, without intermediate containment or packaging. As far as we are concerned this eliminates a whole class of transportation in which dangerous goods are being carried, and as a rationale for doing this the government put forward the idea that it is adequately covered in the Canada Shipping Act. I submit that it is not adequately covered in the Canada Shipping Act. I hope we will be able to demonstrate that, but before we do that I point out that Bill C-25 with regard to the same thing-I bring this to the attention of the Conservatives in the House today, and I hope they will be prepared to support my amendments-was silent on this issue. That silence would have allowed the act to pertain to the transporting of dangerous goods on the west coast of Canada and on its east coast under these circumstances. The Conservative bill recognized this problem, and the Conservatives were willing to deal with it, but the Liberal bill presently before us excludes this area of very severe concern.
1 would like to deal with some examples regarding the Canada Shipping Act, which the government feels is adequate to deal with dangerous cargo. If we go back to 1917 and the Mont Blanc in the Halifax harbour, there was a dangerous cargo involved, and its impact was substantial. There are all kinds of examples of this today. We are concerned about preventing loss of life and massive damage which could be caused by commodities carried in large cargoes. The government feels the Canada Shipping Act is adequate. However, a series of sections allow tremendous discretion to the master of a vessel.
The second thing is that if dangerous goods within a vessel are improperly handled, there is a maximum penalty of $1,500. 1 suggest that that is ludicrous and that $1,500 in the present circumstances is just unthinkable. We have argued vehemently that fines of $50,000 and $100,000 are nominal when we look at such things as the Mississauga accident and a variety of other potential accidents. Clearly, the Canada Shipping Act is just a token consideration. It is inadequate. I urge

July 16, 1980
Transportation of Dangerous Goods the government to support this amendment, and I urge the Conservatives also because of a precedent in their bill.
Other members of the government have made a considerable issue of the suggestion that penalties and liabilities imposed are adequate. We have the maritime pollution claims fund, and they claim that as far as oil tankers in our waters are concerned the fund is sufficient. The fund is put up by the Government of Canada through taxing the people who transport dangerous goods, such as oil, up and down the coasts. Hon. members opposite point to a multimillion dollar fund. There are a couple of points 1 would like to make in this regard. That fund is inadequate. We want inspection procedures, and we want penalties which would allow for prevention of accidents. There are not too many people who live on the west coast or on the east coast who are interested in liability or funds to meet liabilities after spills occur.
What we are interested in is prevention, and on that basis I urge the government to support the amendment we have put forward and to allow the transportation of dangerous goods legislation, as weak as it is, to apply to marine transportation and bulk cargoes. There should be a stiffer regime of penalties and more thorough and rigorous inspection procedures.
The government has said that in the liability sphere there is adequate protection for the people of Canada. The government suggests that if there is an accident and a ship blows up or releases a tremendous amount of chlorine gas in some small community on the west coast or the east coast of this country, the liability provisions provided in the Canada Shipping Act are adequate. I will just refer to section 647 in part IV where the maximum liability should an accident occur is 3,100 gold francs for each ton of a ship's tonnage. When we come right down to it, that is S83.50. For a ton of chlorine gas released in a small community-in many communities it is right beside the dock-or for a ton of nitroglycerin or any other dangerous product that amount of $83.50 will not go very far in cleaning up damage or dealing with loss of life or the disruption which would occur.
I suggest that the provision for liability is inadequate. What we are aiming at is prevention, and beyond prevention we are looking at some very weak provisions for liability and for compensating those who will suffer damage. I suggest to the government and to the Conservative members in this House that we require provisions for more stringent penalties for violation and a more rigorous application of inspection procedures.
There is one other feature in this amendment, and that is that the law should apply out to the 200-mile limit. It should go beyond Canada's immediate jurisdiction and its territorial waters. I know that this has been challenged. The United States just recently reiterated that it has no intention of complying with a Canadian law which would impose restrictions on free navigation, as it has been put, or innocent passage of merchant vessels going about their business in the 200-mile limit. The Americans have even extended that statement to suggest that they feel that innocent passage of merchant vessels going about their business, even within territorial
waters, would not respond to Canadian law or any other international law in the area.
I think it is very dangerous to allow such a situation to exist. To quote an example, not too long ago a tug was hauling a barge from Alaska to the lower 48 states. This would have been about May 9, 1980. It was just recently. The barge was carrying a number of barrels containing some very dangerous chemicals. There was a storm and those barrels went overboard. They were clearly beyond our immediate territorial waters, but they were within the 200-mile limit. A barrel washed up onto Canadian territory. What was happening was that an American vessel was carrying extremely dangerous goods in an intermediate container. It was loaded and handled in an improper manner. The end result was that it washed up on a beach in Canada where children could have come along, kicked the barrel open and been killed. The result could have been many other dangerous scenarios.
I would suggest to the government, and again to the many Tory members, especially the ones who come from coastal ridings where this is a possibility, that they have an obligation to vote for this amendment because we have to extend jurisdiction into that economic zone to control the transportation of some of these dangerous goods that are going to affect our citizens.
I would just like to elaborate a little more on this particular example because the Americans, when they were aware that those dangerous goods were floating free in the ocean and in danger of washing up in Canada and creating a danger to Canadian citizens, did not bother notifying Canada or assisting in the search for those goods. We became involved in a token search and, if you reflect back a little further, we sent a bill to the Russians for doing exactly the same thing and insisted on payment for a very costly search. I think in this particular incident we should have conducted a thorough search, and should have submitted a bill for that search to the United States, with a very stern reprimand for acting in a very negligent manner on this issue. There is a vacuum in the law here, Mr. Speaker. We should have a law that allows us to exert jurisdiction in this matter over the 200-mile limit. We have set a precedent for it.


An hon. Member:: We have the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) here.


Raymond John Skelly: Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) might be concerned about this issue because it does relate to our relations with the United States. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the problem in front of us is what we have to do to apply Canadian jurisdiction in this area. My amendment, I am certain, if accepted by the government and some of the Tories in the same area, would fill this vacuum. In the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act we have simply said that vessels that are going to be working within Arctic waters, even though they are not technically within our territorial waters, are going to submit a declaration that goods are
July 16, 1980

carried in a manner which conforms to the regulations. They are going to submit, if necessary, to an inspection before those vessels travel in those waters. 1 suggest to the government that the same thing should occur here.
Many vessels have been built to carry particular products. Once cleared and the passage worked out, there would be no problem. What we are looking at is the rather ad hoc itinerant traffic which carries dangerous drums of chemicals in an improper manner and proceeds to a 200-mile limit where we might want to have a declaration stating how those goods are to be carried and how to protect Canadian citizens from being harmed by these dangerous goods. We might want to inspect those vessels, or least have the opportunity to do so. 1 would submit to the government that this amendment provides that mechanism.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Conservatives, by leaving their bill silent on this issue left the opportunity open under section 28 for the minister to make regulations dealing with this. It provided an opportunity, should we need it, to fill this vacuum. The Liberal bill clearly does not provide an opportunity to move into this area if it is demonstrated to be necessary. Their plea that the Canada Shipping Act and maritime conventions fill the bill is clearly inadequate, and I would ask them to withdraw that. I submit that $1,500 in this day and age is a completely inadequate penalty. The liability provisions are inadequate when we look at some of the things that are going on around the world, the enormous costs of clean-up and repair of damages. So what we need is a stronger regime of penalties and a more rigorous inspection.
In the final analysis, what we have off the west coast of Canada is the example of the American tug dropping barrels into the sea. We have the example of tankers of chlorine lying at the bottom of Malaspina channel which could rise and create a cloud of chlorine gas around certain areas. There are numerous members of the House in both parties who have said they are opposed to tanker traffic and the tremendous danger it could create going up and down the coast. What I would ask them today is to stand up and be counted in supporting this amendment and at least to keep faith with many of the election promises they have made.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, we submit that the transportation of dangerous goods involved in ships should remain subject to the Canada Shipping Act regulations. The regulation of bulk cargoes which fall within the specific or general connotation of dangerous goods involves matters of ship design, construction and operation. In the case of crude oil and refined petroleum, tankers are specially designed, taking into account the dangerous nature of cargoes carried as it affects the requirements for hull, machinery, and additional safety equipment.
The Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization establishes the code for the construction of equipment of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk. The same organization has established a code for the construction and equipment of ships carrying dangerous bulk chemicals. In other words, the ship
Transportation of Dangerous Goods itself is the container. In the case of bulk cargoes, by far the majority are carried in vessels for which the hulls are of a particular design to load, transport and discharge such cargoes under safe conditions, including special consideration of matters such as stability, ventilation, and measures against inroads of the sea. All of the above require the full range of disciplines, that is, naval architecture, marine engineering and nautical sciences which are required to make and implement regulations which come under the Canada Shipping Act dealing with the safe design, construction and operation of any ship.
In all of the above cases, vessels are required to carry certificates of inspection, certificates of fitness, and international convention certificates which are issued under the Canada Shipping Act. Any vessels in Canadian territorial waters are already subject to Canadian legislation. Canadian vessels anywhere in the world are subject to Canadian legislation, and that is under the Canada Shipping Act in the case of bulk shipping.
The second effect that this amendment would have is that it would be a motion which would be in discord with the Territorial Seas and Fishing Zones Act which establishes the limits of Canadian jurisdiction over the seas to something like 12 miles. This would also be declared ultra vires by a court as trying to impose Canadian jurisdiction over waters which are not within the scope of this bill. Therefore it is the view of the government that this motion should be opposed.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member from the NDP has indicated is that there are certain limitations to this bill which possibly can be governed by section 28 of the act and also by the regulations. But I think that is one of the major weaknesses of the bill in that, to a large extent, we are looking to the regulations to handle the requirements of the act. This is an umbrella bill. It does not attend to the problems in itself, which are presented by the movement of dangerous goods.
I raise this point because many residents in my riding of Etobicoke Centre have become very concerned about the movement of dangerous goods in the past year, particularly following the disaster in Mississauga. May I remind hon. members that the disaster occurred five to seven minutes west of the borough of Etobicoke where there are many residents who would have been affected by an accident of that kind. Of even greater concern is that last year again there was considerable discussion of the plans of CP Rail to add a third rail line in Etobicoke, which in itself would allow for increased freight movement and increased speed of such freight movement. Some of the houses directly affected by this third rail are only 50 feet from the proposed line.
In January there was a hearing of the Canadian Transport Commission on this whole matter. In the opinion of the residents most affected, it was a very unsatisfactory hearing. They applied to the department, as well as the Department of Justice, for counsel to be supported by the public purse in order to present their case, which is a very broad case affecting

July 16, 1980
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
many, many parts of the country, in particular many parts of the city of Toronto. This was turned down, and at very short notice the residents were required to present their own case to the CTC. They felt the results were not satisfactory, and they are anxiously awaiting the results of that hearing before any further action will be taken.
1 wish to address the question of regulations this afternoon because, unfortunately, as has been the case in many pieces of legislation brought forward by the government opposite, much government in this country is by regulation now. Those regulations, as they apply to this act, will make or break the intent of the act. On a number of occasions I have urged the minister to consult widely on the form and the content of these regulations. I have urged him to educate himself on the practice of shippers and the concerns of residents most directly affected.
In particular I asked the minister if he would be interested in meeting with representatives of the Metropolitan Toronto Rail Action Committee. I think the committee now is composed of over 15 ratepayers' associations in the metropolitan Toronto area that have vital concerns about the movement of rail transport through residential areas of metro Toronto. To date the minister has not seen fit to meet with these representatives.
Today I want to put on record concerns expressed to me at ratepayers' association meetings. Freight moving from Sarnia to points east and north of metropolitan Toronto moves right through residential areas of metropolitan Toronto such as Etobicoke, Parkdale, Rosedale, Don Valley West, East York, and into parts of Scarborough.
Recently 1 mentioned in the House that CP Rail is soliciting business out of Michigan to move goods to the New England States through residential parts of metropolitan Toronto. There is movement back and forth in the delivery of dangerous goods in the Toronto area, over to Scarborough and back to points west of Scarborough. They do not feel this increased movement of dangerous goods is necessary. Finally, dangerous chemicals are shipped from Sarnia, through metroplitan Toronto to Montreal, and similar types of chemicals are shipped from Montreal to Toronto and points west of Toronto. The people in M-TRAC feel it is worth considering whether there can be some exchange of these chemicals. As I understand it, basically they are similar chemicals with different trade or product names.
These are some of the concerns which have been expressed. 1 believe they must be dealt with in the regulations. 1 appreciate some of these things must be dealt with by regulation, and 1 am sorry others are not dealt with directly in the act. As I have said, on four occasions I have implored the minister to meet with representatives of M-TRAC before these regulations are brought down. I have done this through personal conversation, by letter, by a motion under Standing Order 43, and also recently with a question in the House. By consulting personally, by hearing first hand the concerns, and by attending a meeting of the affected residents, I am sure the minister will have a much better understanding of the direction which the
people directly affected in residential areas feel the regulations should take.
My final point concerns the whole area of inspection and the administration of the regulations under the act. The inspector plays a very delicate role, and the minister must give a very delicate set of directions to the inspector. On the one hand, he must be aware of and concerned for the interests of the shippers so that the economic costs of the administration of the act do not outweigh the benefits achieved. On the other hand, he must not be totally concerned with the concerns of the shippers because it is the people living in the areas that are so close who are directly affected. My riding of Etobicoke Centre is affected in two ways. It is affected by the CP Rail line going through the centre of Etobicoke and also the major highway running through the centre of Etobicoke. 1 ask the minister to take great care in the direction he gives to the inspectors in order that the administration of the act will not favour unduly the interests of one side or the other affected by the regulations concerned.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to intervene very briefly just to place another view of the amendment in front of us. The remarks of the parliamentary secretary are shared largely by the official opposition, but I want to extend the parameters touched upon by the mover of the amendment. This brings the whole question of marine transport somewhat into focus.
I think it is fair to say that in the course of discussing this matter in committee there was an interjection by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Penner) which I thought had a lot of validity. It caused some extensive discussion with respect to the attitude of this House to sea-marine matters in general. I think the proper or the best way to dispose of the concerns raised by members of the New Democratic Party in this respect will be realized when the chamber gets on with the work of dealing with books 3, 4, and 5 of the Maritime Code. We have books 1 and 2, with the exception of the coastal shipping provisions.
The hope of all of us in this chamber-certainly those members on this side-is that when the House resumes in the fall or at an early date into the new session the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) will move himself, if that is at all possible, to put before the chamber the provisions contained in books 3, 4 and 5 of the new Maritime Code. Having said that and reiterated that, it is only when we have had a discussion in this chamber and in committee with the industry and community of interests involved that we will begin to address ourselves to the major and significant outstanding problem in marine transportation in this country.
With that caveat, and with the understanding given to us by the parliamentary secretary and others during the course of the discussion of the amendment in committee, I would indicate to the parliamentary secretary that we are prepared to support the position of the government so that we might not mislead anybody into believing that Bill C-18 contained provi-
July 16, 1980

sions that, in our view, are sufficient to meet all of the concerns which are very broad and obviously go beyond the requirements of the bill,


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 just want to make a last ditch appeal to the parliamentary secretary. I wish the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Guigan) would not leave just yet since this is something he will end up having to deal with. The monkey will be on his back. I see he has left anyway.
The limit of Canadian jurisdiction-12 miles or 200 miles- under our economic and fisheries zones, begs the question. The reasons given by the parliamentary secretary for the government not wishing to accept this amendment border on unreasoning stubbornness. If, as, and when the Canada Shipping Act is amended, it will provide more adequate law covering the transportation of dangerous goods in bulk in vessels up to 200 miles out to sea. That would be fine, but we are not going to get such a provision tomorrow.
At the moment the situation is that a rust bucket flying a Panamanian or Roumanian flag and carrying a SI million cargo on which it can collect up to $300,000 in freight charges, say, might be liable to a fine of $1,500 under the Canada Shipping Act. That is surely sufficient evidence of the lack of provisions under that act.
I am not optimistic that there will be any speedy amendments to the Canada Shipping Act which would bring its provisions and its jurisdiction up to the standards of the transportation of dangerous goods act. We might get some amendments every year or two or three years.
1 would say to my good friend, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), that I am even less optimistic about any kind of speedy decisions on all aspects of the Maritime Code. They will take another two or three years.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, as and when the government amends the Canada Shipping Act and as and when the Maritime Code is revised, they could then include in appropriate legislation the repeal of this provision that we are proposing in the transportation of dangerous goods act.
My point is that the Canada Shipping Act is inadequate. The Maritime Code is not in place. Until such time as those two measures are in place and are sufficient, surely we need some kind of measure that covers these dangerous bulk commodities in vessels up to 200 miles out to sea, in our economic and fisheries zones.
When the government brings in amendments to the Canada Shipping Act it could repeal this particular amendment, if it were accepted today. That may be a year or two years from now. This party fails to understand the government's unwillingness to make a provision to see us through this interim period at least. I would hope that the officials in the House who are here to provide assistance to the House and to the parliamentary secretary would quickly send a note to him saying, "With those kinds of things that we have here in the future about the Canada Shipping Act and the Maritime
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Code, this amendment could be accepted until such time as we do the other pieces of legislation."
This is just too big a problem, with the possibility of a disaster, because of the transportation of a dangerous commodity in bulk in some rust bucket 100 miles off our coast on which we can impose only a $1,500 fine. It is not as if we have not had problems in other instances, whether with the British government, the Russian government or whatever. We do not have anything in place that is of any consequence and that would serve as an incentive for maritime shippers to do a better job with the transportation of dangerous goods in bulk or that would deter them from taking any chances. All it is going to cost them is a $1,500 fine out of a freight charge of $100,000 or more. They will take their chances and pay the $1,500 fine.
That is all we are asking for, Mr. Speaker. We are not suggesting this would be the be all and end all forever. Until the Canada Shipping Act and the Maritime Code are amended, however, we do not have anything to cover this kind of situation. 1 hope the parliamentary secretary will reconsider the government's position on the amendment and will accept it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion is lost on division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Skelly) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As the Speaker indicated earlier this afternoon the motions are being taken separately. 1 will now move to the next motion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: July 16, 1980
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-18, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods, be amended by deleting clause 10 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"10. It is sufficient proof of the offence to establish that it was committed by
an employee or agent of the accused whether or not the employee or agent is
identified or has been prosecuted for the offence."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment endeavours to do away with what has happened too many times in various areas of the transportation industry in Canada. Where there is wind and where there has been a mishap, a spill or an accident, too often the employee on the ground or the employee next to it, is taken out of service, is given demerit marks, is subpoenaed to a coroner's inquest or is charged with manslaughter or a lesser offence. This amendment would make companies responsible for the actions of their employees. The way the bill reads at the moment it could encourage a sort of fancy footwork on the part of corporate lawyers and officers, trying to fit corporate activities into definitions of reasonable.
In particular, clause 10 invites corporations to avoid penalty by pointing fingers at specific employees. We contend that the only way to ensure compliance with the act and its regulations in the corporate context is to impress upon corporate directors, officers and officials the fact that the corporation will be liable for the actions of its employees. If that is law, then surely one can be more reasonably confident that the corporation will be sure to give proper instructions and see to the carrying out of those instructions by its employees. 1 do not suggest that if an employee was wilfully negligent, the corporation would not be absolved. I submit that if through a court, hearing or inquiry, the corporation can prove that it carried out proper instructions, continuing instructions, supervision, and seeing to it that the employees followed those instructions and implemented them, then it is not to blame. However, if an employee still wilfully, criminally and deliberately disobeyed those instructions, then that employee would still be liable in those kinds of circumstances.
I would like to cite an example from my own experience during my many years on the railroad. It involves a section foreman who was awarded the prize by the company for three years in a row for maintaining the best section in the whole division. When there was a mishap and eight cars were in the ditch and a locomotive was upside down, it was felt that a broken rail was the cause. Who received the demerit marks, was taken out of service and lost pay? It was that section foreman. He had carried out all the procedures available to him which he had been instructed to follow by the company. But though the company had reduced its maintenance procedures, lengthened the number of miles of track that he was to patrol and reduced his crew from four men to three men to two men, he still had to inspect the track adequately. Of course, he was just not able to do the job even though he worked after hours and did not put in any claims for overtime. This section foreman was the one who received demerit marks and was taken out of service.
None of the company officers or the corporation itself was given a slap on the wrist for what was obviously inadequate maintenance, provision of personnel, equipment and worn out rails. The employee was the one who got it. Surely our amendment covers that kind of situation. If an employee wilfully, deliberately and negligently disobeys the instructions, training and use of the equipment and material provided to him to provide for the safe transportation of dangerous goods, he is still individually liable. We are trying to plug the availability to officers, and corporate lawyers on behalf of corporations of the move which leaves the blame placed upon the shoulders of one or more individual employees.
It is a collective responsibility, and the first part of the responsibility belongs to the corporation concerned. We hope that the government has reconsidered its position since we discussed this matter in committee and that it is now prepared to accept this amendment.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this bill is not only designed for the railroads.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I was using the railroads as an example.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) used the example of the railroads. This bill applies to all modes of transportation, all people who contract or are engaged in that work. The deletion set out in motion No. 2 is a very serious one since it removes any possible defence on the part of any employer for the employees' actions and would make the employer liable even if he could show that he exercised reasonable care. In other words, he is presumed to be guilty without proof or identification. In other words, it changes the common law doctrine which absolves an employer for liability for the actions of its employees outside the course of their normal duties.
This amendment would conceivably encourage carelessness, negligence, recklessness and subvert the legislative or regulatory controls normally applicable to employees. The government recommends that this motion be opposed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
July 16, 1980


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion is negatived on division.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Benjamin) negatived on division.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-18, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods, be amended in clause 17 by striking out line 23 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"sion or escape and shall, as soon as possible in the circumstances, restore the
natural environment as nearly as practicable to its previous condition."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion we are proposing here would require those in charge of dangerous goods which were involved in an accident during their transportation to restore the natural environment, as nearly as practicable, to its previous condition following that accident. I appreciate that the government is up tight because it does not want matters of the environment in this bill to the extent where it transgresses other environmental laws, either federal, provincial or municipal. We appreciate that fact.
We believe, from what legal advice we were able to obtain without fee, that anywhere and everywhere we used the word "environment" in this legislation or in our amendment, it applies only as it relates to or is as the result of the transportation of dangerous goods, and nothing else. This motion applies to the environment only with regard to incidental transportation, so as not to invade what might otherwise be of provincial jurisdiction or municipal jurisdiction.
There could be room for the constitutional argument that provincial environment legislation does not apply to railway accidents. We submit that there is room because that is an area of federal jurisdiction. This amendment would fill such a gap. There could be an equivalent justifiable argument with regard to interprovincial trucking. Each province may rule upon rates, conditions of transport and so on, and even agree upon these subjects interprovincially. In other words, the federal government has allowed the provinces to have most of the say in matters of interprovincial trucking.
We submit that in the transportation of dangerous goods interprovincially and where one province's laws and regulations are lax and weak compared to its neighbouring province and there is a spill which harms the environment, this law would apply. It would apply with regard to the process of cleaning up and fixing up the local environment after the spill, in other words, restoring it to its original state as much as is practicable. That is all we are asking. This restoration would come after, and sometimes long after, the emergency measures to remedy dangerous conditions have been completed. Therefore, it would not interfere with any immediate or current emergency measures. It has been suggested in committee that this amendment would interfere with any kind of emergency action being taken immediately upon an accident. We submit that that is not the case. I want also to remind the House that our point of view of this coincides with what has been recommended by the Canadian Environmental Law Association.
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
I am not a lawyer, and I confess that we have relied to a great degree on the opinion of those eminent legal people who have specialized in law as it relates to the environment. Their work in fact recognizes that any amendments to this legislation in terms of the environment must be restricted only to where it pertains to the transportation of dangerous goods and nothing beyond that. Federal or provincial environment laws would take place, take effect, or take over anything beyond that harms the environment as it relates to the transportation of dangerous goods.
We think the government worries overly much on this one, that the amendment is restrictive enough, that it would not interfere with provincial autonomy or jurisdiction. In fact it could fill some gaps probably welcomed by many provinces. I understand the provinces have been most co-operative in discussions with the government on joint action in implementing this legislation. We feel that the amendment is narrow enough to apply only to the environment being restored as a result of a spill or an accident due to the transportation of dangerous goods, and nothing beyond that.
We hope that the government has reconsidered and thought about the arguments that we have put forward, and has had a recommendation from the officials that this amendment will be acceptable.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, the clause in its original form was meant to handle emergency measures consistent with basic public safety. This would hold any person having the responsibility to report or having "the charge, management or control of goods" to restore the natural environment after an accident even if that person is in no way responsible for the emission or discharge. This motion interferes with the provinces' control. It would conflict with environmental protection legislation being enacted in the provinces. I repeat, a person having the charge, management or control of dangerous goods may not have caused or even contributed to the causation of the discharge and thus should not be held responsible for this activity.
The actions needed for restoration of the environment might be completely beyond the resources of the person burdened by this proposed responsibility. We recommend that this motion be opposed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 16, 1980
Transportation of Dangerous Goods


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on motion No. 3. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. Member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Benjamin) negatived.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-18, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods, be amended in clause 20 by striking out lines 6 to 8 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"danger to the health or safety of the public or damage or danger to property
or the environment, the minister may direct a public inquiry to be made in the
manner directed".
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a long struggle. 1 want to say at the outset, and I wanted to say it earlier, that members from all parties in the House and in the committee along with officials in the department have done a lot of work on this bill so I do not want in any way to denigrate the great efforts made by members of the committee, the parliamentary secretary and the officials. But again we have an amendment that we feel improves and strengthens the legislation. All parties are agreed that we want the legislation. I do not think there is any disagreement that wherever we can improve or strengthen it, all parties should do so.
Our motion No. 4, would add danger or damage to the environment to the list of reasons for calling an inquiry into the spill of dangerous goods during transportation. It would also provide for public hearings. Again, we have been very careful to word our amendment to make it as narrow as possible so that there is no way that it could go beyond this legislation. There is no way it could interfere with, contravene or in any other way injure the interests of a province which has jurisdiction, or in any way encroach upon federal or provincial environmental laws that apply to everything else other than the transportation of dangerous goods. We have tried to be exceedingly careful in the wording or our amendment.
I think there was general consensus and agreement by all sides in the House concerning the validity and desirability of providing for public hearings. I am confident that there is no argument on that aspect of our amendment.
The Canadian Railway Labour Association in its submissions to the committee and to the government has called for public hearings. The committee accepted an amendment of ours which we appreciated. It requires the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to publish all inquiry reports instead of being able to keep them confidential. We appreciate the amendment
that was accepted in the committee was useful, and wc appreciate it being accepted by the government and all other members of the committee. But this motion No. 4 would extend public participation and information a little bit further, including environment as the result-and I repeat

of an accident or a spill as a result of the transportation of dangerous goods. Therefore, it would include environment only in that narrow context as a reason to hold an inquiry as recommended not only by the Canadian Railway Labour Association but the Canadian Environmental Law Associaton.
I believe our motion says "The minister may". It does not say "He shall". It says "The minister may direct a public inquiry." He may direct an inquiry into other aspects than arc in the bill. We are only adding the aspect of environment where the minister may direct an inquiry. That may be immediately upon, close to, subsequent to, or some time after a mishap in the transportation of dangerous goods as it affects the environment.
The example cited by my colleague the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skeliy) of tank cars of chlorine gas lying at the bottom of an inlet may not produce effects on the environment that can be seen until several years after the mishap. That occurred during the transportation of dangerous goods. If those tank cars rust, as they will, the chlorine gas will escape. Some community may be affected and therefore evacuated. Surely it is not beyond good reason and good sense to have a law whereby the minister may cause a public inquiry to be held as a result of the aftermath of that mishap and the subsequent leakage as it affects the environment. Even if it does not affect any people, it will certainly affect the environment. The minister and his officials may use their own good judgment, and I am assuming the word "good", in all cases. Surely it is not unreasonable to have that in the law.
As the bill reads now, if Mississauga or MacGregor had happened in some isolated area where there was no immediate danger to life or property, the minister could not call an inquiry. Had those mishaps occurred in an isolated area and the only damage was to the environment, and not to persons or property, nothing else would have happened. The stuff would just lie around. Who would inquire into or have the responsibility when it only affects the environment?
This amendment is deliberately narrow enough for the government to accept easily that it be incorporated into the law. I am perfectly prepared to trust and rely upon this and subsequent ministers of transport to use their good sense and judgment as to whether to call a public inquiry as it affects the danger to life, property or the environment.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to accept insertion of the word "public" before inquiry. This wc have agreed upon. Wc cannot accept insertion of the words "or the environment". The reason is that it falls within the purview of cither or both the federal or provincial ministers of the environment who already hold those powers of inquiry. We hold to
July 16, 1980

the original statement that if the members of the New Democratic Party are prepared to submit an amendment, we will approve insertion of the word "public", but we refuse insertion of the words "or the environment".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues who have been working on this bill would certainly prefer the amendment put before the House in the name of the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). However, we recognize that there are times in this place when, if you cannot get all you are asking for, it might be a good idea to take part of it. Since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bockstael) has indicated that the government would accept this amendment if the words "or the environment" were deleted, we are prepared to go along with that. That does not mean any change of conviction on our part. We think those words ought to be in there, but it is better to get something than nothing. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper):
That motion No. 4 be amended by deleting therefrom the following words:
"or the environment"
1 hope my handwriting is legible, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) agreed to.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Benjamin), as amended, agreed to.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-18, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods, be amended by deleting the long title and substituting the following therefor:
"An act to promote public safety and the protection of the environment in the
transportation of dangerous goods".
He said: Again, Mr. Speaker, in the narrow context of the law as it applies to the transportation of dangerous goods, we are moving an amendment that would include the word "environment" in the title of the bill. I remind hon. members that this is the third version of the dangerous goods bill. It is bill No. 3, the grandson bill on the transportation of dangerous goods.
The wording that we are proposing in the long title is "an act to promote public safety and the protection of the environment in the transportation of dangerous goods". We are adding "and the protection of the environment". It was in the title of Bill C-17 proposed in 1978 by the previous Liberal administration. 1 do not understand the hang-up about having it in the grandson bill on transportation of dangerous goods, Bill C-18.
To repeat, it applies only to environment coincidental to the transportation of dangerous goods so as not to invade provincial jurisdiction or other federal laws relating to the environment. The argument could and in fact does apply that provin-
Transportation of Dangerous Goods cial environmental legislation does not cover railway, international marine, interprovincial trucking, interprovincial or international airline transportation of dangerous goods. The law of any one province can apply to that. I am no lawyer, but even a dummy like me knows that much about it.
To counter some of the arguments I expect from the parliamentary secretary, the bill already invades provincial jurisdiction over trucking within a province for regulation purposes. It already invades provincial jurisdiction. I understand that by agreement there have been magnificent negotiations and discussions between the provinces and the federal government regarding this legislation and that the provinces are anxious to co-operate so there will be no duplication. They accept invasion by regulation into their jurisdiction when it comes to trucking. If the federal government is so concerned about other levels of government, why not write in a statutory right of compensation for municipal and provincial police forces and fire departments for emergency measures imposed on those levels of government? It seems to me that the federal authority is trying to have it both ways.
If a Mississauga or a MacGregor were to happen in an isolated area where, again, there was no immediate danger to life or property, the act would not apply. For example, it would not apply in the case of spills on railway property unless protection of the environment is included. The objective should be for the federal government and the provinces to work out a comprehensive program to deal with dangerous goods, from the cradle to the grave, so to speak. But we believe the inclusion of the words in the long title "and the protection of the environment" is appropriate and fits in with actions both the federal government and the provinces will be taking to protect the environment in relation to the transportation of dangerous goods. Surely the proper place for this terminology is in the title to the bill.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I should like to make a few comments at this stage. I shall be brief, but I hope the parliamentary secretary will pay attention to what I have to say.
I know there have been four attempts in recent years to pass legislation of this nature. It is extremely important, therefore, that we should get the bill through as quickly as possible because we all have an interest in improving the situation with regard to the transportation of dangerous goods. This desire is highlighted by the Mississauga train derailment last year. One result of that accident was an increased public awareness of the need to establish rules governing the transportation of dangerous goods.
The House should remember that while accidents on the scale of Mississauga do not happen every day, thank goodness, other accidents with very serious ramifications do occur frequently. I saw one such accident just the other night while driving from Ottawa to Kingston-and I might say that that in itself is a hazardous occupation! Just the other night, though, I was confronted at first hand with the result of a

July 16, 1980
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
transport truck accident involving the spillage of powdered caustic soda, a very corrosive substance. The driver of the truck was badly burned by the soda, and members of the emergency crew who was there to help out were also burned. This came about because the truck driver and the others closely involved were not immediately washed down-it was not known for some time whether or not water would aggravate the situation.
While we can make provision for special handling, packaging and labelling of dangerous goods, we must also see to it that the various emergency services receive adequate training to enable them to deal with the results of accidents involving such cargoes. I have in mind members of police, fire and ambulance services.
In the past several months a great deal of concern has been expressed throughout eastern Ontario with regard to shipments of radioactive nuclear waste. The parliamentary secretary will be aware of this. Much of the public awareness has come about as a result of publication of an excellent series of articles on this subject in The Kingston Whig-Standard highlighting the dangers which are inherent in shipping radioactive nuclear waste. In this case spent reactor fuel which has become highly radioactive after use at Chalk River is shipped some 1,100 miles to a United States refining centre in South Carolina. The route of these shipments passes through much of eastern Ontario, a section of the country which is fairly thickly populated.
I know it was explained to us in committee that when this material is shipped, a security plan is in effect and that the police are made aware of its movement. But who else is made aware of its movement? Are other emergency services, such as ambulance crews, made aware of it? It would appear that apart from the police none of the emergency personnel such as fire and ambulance people are told. And even if they were to be informed, do they have adequate training and knowledge to enable them to deal at a moment's notice with the kind of accident which might take place? It would appear not.
I would draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to the statement made in committee by Mr. Beare of the Atomic Energy Control Board. According to him, the only training offered to emergency officials who might be called upon to deal with a nuclear accident is a one-week once-a-year course at Chalk River. Mr. Beare suggested that the AECB and the Department of Transport might work together to provide special courses for fire and other emergency officials who could be called upon to deal with accidents. I might add that at the present time similar joint courses between the two agencies are being held to train mine inspectors. This is an example of the way in which we might go about making training available to officials who might have to deal with a nuclear accident.
I believe it is incumbent upon the minister to proceed along the lines of this suggestion and apply it across the board to those who might have to deal with an accident resulting from the transportation of dangerous goods. Far too few of them receive adequate training at present to enable them to do so, as
was certainly exemplified in the case of the accident I witnessed the other night.
There is one other matter I should like to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary. A study done recently by a consumer group in the United States has shown that the shipper who has the contract to take the nuclear waste from Chalk River to the United States plant in South Carolina had 152 accidents while moving nuclear material in the period between 1974 and 1978. The shippers of that company had these accidents during that period. Yet officials in AECL who give out the contracts claim that the company's past record is very good. So on one hand we have particulars as to the accident rate of that company or its shippers in the United States while on the other, here in Canada, AECL is saying they have an excellent record. I am worried that the agencies responsible for regulating the shipment of nuclear material are not as impartial as they might be.
I would like to ask if a study similar to the one done in the United States has been carried out by AECL. We do not know. We simply have to accept on faith that the shipper is a responsible company and that AECL is regulating it just as closely as it should be. I just do not want to go on the word of AECL without seeing documentation to back up that claim.
I think the parliamentary secretary would agree that a company's accident record should be a major consideration when it comes to contracting the movement of nuclear materials.
I said that I do not wish to delay these proceedings any longer than they have to be, but I express the very sincere hope that the parliamentary secretary-and through him the minister-will agree that these points are certainly worth considering, that they are very important, and that he will see that they are put into effect just as soon as possible.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have just one observation with respect to the amendment to the title proposed by the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). It occurred to some of us in the committee that the proper amendment to the title might very well have been in the long form, the Marchand-Mazankowski link, and in the short form, the Ellison connection.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, I will digress from the motion for a moment to respond to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). 1 will certainly take her recommendations to the minister. They are valid considerations for us to deal with along with the Atomic Energy Commission.
The hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) wishes to amend the title, and I think it is important for us to stress that the value of the bill rests on its implementation and its regulation, which calls for the co-operation of both the federal government and the provinces. The provinces have generally supported this bill under its present title, and it was within the
July 16, 1980

realm of the provinces that there was objection to calling this or implying that this was also an environmental bill. The inclusion of such a reference in the title might be misleading since the words could be construed at some future date to allow for amendments to the act which might involve the environment, remedial measures, compensation, and new regulatory powers which are outside the proposed ambit of this bill. It could also raise objections from the provinces that the bill is ultra vires the federal government.
We recommend that this change in the title be opposed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker)- Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Benjamin) negatived.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-18, to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Mr. Lamontagne moved: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to preface my remarks at third reading by saying again that all members of the committee, departmental officials, the parliamentary secretary and the minister did much work on this legislation. I particularly want to recognize the assistance officials gave us with their comments and their answers. We did not necessarily like them all, but the officials were very forthcoming during the committee hearings, and I wish that
Transportation of Dangerous Goods could happen on every piece of legislation with which we deal in this place.
While all parties support the passage of legislation regarding the transportation of dangerous goods, as legislators we also have an obligation to tell the public that this act will not eliminate all of our concerns about the movement of hazardous substances.
The illusion that this act will prevent disasters must be dispelled. Some day another train, truck, ship or plane will spill its deadly cargo on an unsuspecting neighbourhood, shattering what is presently being looked upon as the security- and we call it false security-of this legislation. Maybe luck will be with us again and the neighbourhood can be evacuated. Let us hope so.
What the act will do is provide for proper classification, packaging and identification of all dangerous goods being transported-with stiff penalties for non-compliance-which in itself is significant, but it will not deal with safety of transport vehicles per se. In fact, the following statement by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, indicates that. He said:
It is important to note that the bill does not establish safety standards and procedures respecting the safe operation of any mode of transport or any industrial activity ... it addresses only the special question of dangerous goods.
In other words, this legislation will not, for example, require adequate maintenance of railway lines or trucks or prevent some worn out boxcar somewhere on a train from causing the derailment of another car carrying chlorine, for example. The government is leaving policing of safety to other authorities such as the Canadian Transport Commission, but the CTC must be given the resources to do the job.
In the past three years the staff of the Canadian Transport Commission, including staff in the rail safety division, has been cut back. There is no argument that that kind of restraint must be lifted, yesterday. In fact the estimates have called for a progressive reduction in the number of safety inspectors working for the CTC over the last three years under three different governments, two Liberal and one Tory.
There are some shortcomings with regard to our dangerous goods legislation which need government attention. For example, there is no opportunity for the general public to make representations regarding the adequacy of the legislation's regulations, although government members did support an amendment of ours to provide freedom of information regarding reports of inquiries into accidents involving dangerous goods.
The legislation should also be amended further to include a compensation scheme, funded by industry and administrated by the government, which could compensate people for immediate needs after a disaster and then collect expenses from those responsible for a spill later on through the courts. This would avoid such situations as the one at Mississauga, for example, where the CPR provided money only for immediate needs, if people signed away their rights to further action. Let us remember that we are looking at possible damages of

July 16, 1980
Transportation of Dangerous Goods hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases. What if the company concerned went bankrupt? Who pays?
I suppose the best way to reduce damages is to improve safety. In conjunction with this legislation the railways must be required to modernize their operations and hire adequate complements of staff to inspect and maintain facilities. We can have all the transportation of dangerous goods legislation we like, but if the facilities and infrastructure for the transportation of dangerous goods are worn out or inadequate, this legislation will be of little help. It will be after the fact.
Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that between 1956 and 1977 the railways alone eliminated 60,000 jobs, 30,000 of which were cut from maintenance, directly affecting safety, not just in the transportation of dangerous goods but all other kinds of safety? Of course the railways should not be singled out. I only use that as an example. More stringent safety procedures must be required of all modes of transportation, and I draw that to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) because 1 presume that a satellite carrying radioactive material is transporting a dangerous good, and international, let alone the national, ramifications must be apparent to him as well.
If public concern over Mississauga or MacGregor is translated into shifting the movement of dangerous goods from rail to truck, we will not be better off; in fact, we could be worse off. However, the reality is that the Minister of Transport is not God, and he has professed that on a number of occasions. Even with the most stringent regulations, even with a bill with many teeth in it, even if the transport companies did everything humanly possible to prevent accidents, some accidents will occasionally occur. This legislation will not solve all of that, but this does not mean that we cannot significantly reduce the number of accidents, which must, in the short run, be the primary objective. However, some will be missing the boat if we do not emphasize the long-term solution to be the reduction of our society's dependence on non-renewable materials which are themselves dangerous or are made from dangerous goods.
Chemical technology is outstripping our knowledge of its effects. Sixty-three thousand man-made chemicals are now in use, a thousand more are added to the list each year. Transportation is only one aspect of the problem. There is also the manufacture, storage and disposal of these projects. As a society we should ask ourselves if we want to continue producing so many hazardous goods and if we should not be treating them comprehensively from the cradle to the grave.
My purpose in making these remarks is not to alarm unduly but rather to point out that the job has just begun and we should not be content to rest on this one piece of legislation.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I also will be very brief with respect to this piece of legislation. As we know, the need for this type of bill, for bringing together a number of perceived areas, started back
seven or eight years ago under that distinguished gentleman who is now in the other place, the then minister of transport, Senator Jean Marchand. At the time the only real concerns which were being contemplated were in the areas of road transportation, as has been mentioned. But over the years there has been an evolution of thought, a continuation of very dedicated work by officials, indeed, a succession of bills, starting with Bill C-53, followed by C-70, C-25, and now C-18 in front of us. Because each one of them has changed and grown, they have demonstrated the need for a comprehensive piece of legislation, one which at once affords levels of protection which a bill like this can accomplish but at the same time provides us with a legislative basis upon which regulations can be brought forward which will lend substance to the protection of the public and, as my friend the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) keeps referring to it, the environment, because that is not unimportant in this context.
1 recognize, together with those requirements, requirements for the safe handling, identification, training, proper inspection, a little light on investigation, a little light on where transport begins or ends. On the other hand, it seems to me that the perceived requirements of society here in Canada today-and I think this is rather important-should not place undue economic or legal restraint upon the private sector, or where applicable the public sector, which must, on a daily and continuing basis, move dangerous or hanzardous projects around the country. That in itself is no small achievement, brought about by the collective efforts of a small but dedicated branch within transport which is responsible for dangerous goods and a succession of ministers of transport.
The bill as well presents us with some pretty broad guidelines which are fully understood by the provinces, guidelines with respect to regulations which will flow from them. These are pretty broad and clearly understandable guidelines, not only to provincial authorities but to industry and the community of interest which will have to operate within them.
The bill is comprehensive and it lends the necessary statutory authority which at this time is perceivable to all of us. It may not, as some of us might have wished, have gone a little further in certain areas, but I do not believe that to be a limitation on the capacity of this bill because if bills of this nature, indeed most legislation which comes before the House in this broad category, are not living, breathing things capable of change from time to time which reflect need, change in regulation which accommodates that need, change in the legislative character by way of amendment here on the floor of the House to accommodate need, if we have not achieved at least that in this bill, then I believe it could be properly said that we have failed. On the contrary, this bill means all of this.
If the distinguished member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) were here, he might want to make that point today and to emphasize that there is not a single thing in this piece of legislation that puts any barrier in front of the regulatory process to accommodate, and that is what we have set out to do. I think that if the former minister of transport were here he might have made another point with some pride, that is,
July 16, 1980

that as we have developed over the years-1 suppose other former ministers of transport could also take some pride in this-as this bill and its regulations have developed and are yet to be clearly and finally set forth, we have been leaders and not followers.
The bill is innovative in its approach to the statutory requirement for regulation and it has been paralleled by neighbours to the south. In short, we have been the leaders not the followers in the development of comprehensive and, in my judgment, good legislation. The bill was produced with the fullest and broadest co-operation of the industry, the provinces, our neighbours to the south, and indeed a very broad range within the international community that will be subject to this law when in fact they are in operation in whatever mode in this country. It was acceptable to them; it was clear and concise, in their judgment. Again I think that is a credit to the process which brought this together.
As I have indicated, all of us should show some respect and appreciation for that small but very active group within the department who have responsibilities in this area. We have some obligation to wish them well and thank them for the nitty-gritty of putting together the regulations under it. I am satisfied on two accounts. I am satisfied with the competency of that staff and the innate good sense of the chamber to react to need when it is perceived, although seven years might be described as a damnable length of time to achieve and accomplish something as fundamentally good and sound.
Generally we on this side of the House are satisfied that the bill provides capacity for easy amendment and flexible regulations in areas where it falls short, where it fails, or where new understanding is required of intermodal movement of goods in this country, in and out of it, through and over it, or around its waters. I have less certainty respecting the administration of this bill and would express the hope that the wherewithal, as mentioned by other members in their deliberations, for adequate training will be made available. Certainly the Canadian Transport Commission is one vehicle, but it is not the only one. The inspection services contemplated as being the inspection authority within the meaning of this act, no matter what other act they may be operative under, require assistance in the form of upgrading their information, professionalism, and capacity to ensure that this bill and its regulations operate in the interest of Canadians, that it operates effectively in the protection of our environment without infringing upon the jurisdiction of the provinces.
In the course of its public hearings respecting this bill, the committee heard a wide cross-section of Canadians, including consumer groups. I think this morning we were criticized by one consumer group that we had failed as a committee or as a Parliament to pay attention to its views. Simply that is not so. In putting together the list of witnesses, the Standing Committee on Transport was conscious of the broad section of briefs which came before it. The committee chose representative groups and acted arbitrarily. I will explain why in a moment,
Transportation of Dangerous Goods but it accommodated the broadest interests of groups. In response to dozens of briefs, the government-and it is a credit to them-offered numerous amendments. We heard the concern of the New Democratic Party for amendments in certain areas. We on this side offered and debated amendments to this piece of legislation. So I think it has had good public exposure before arriving here this afternoon.
As I indicated, the bill is a living thing, and as with all such living things it will grow and change from time to time. I am confident that in that growth and change, because of its character and nature, it will reflect the legitimate needs of the safety of people and the environment. I am satisfied it is in competent hands. That leaves only to be said that we on this side extend our appreciation to the parliamentary secretary for the knowledgeable and professional manner in which he dealt with this matter in committee and in the House. We are anxious to get on with this today. I think it is pertinent to put the reasons for the need for this legislation on the record, that is, beyond the obvious ones.
We were contemplating the adjournment of this chamber at the end of July, but it was decided that we would move quickly, although I hardly think seven years is too rapid an approach, to deal with this piece of legislation today and to have it looked at by the Senate. It is a matter of some regret that now we are referring this bill to the other place, leaving them only a matter of a few short days in which to contemplate it, review it, and let us have their considered judgment respecting it. It is important to say that. If this bill were not dealt with in the closing days of this session, there is a probability-always we seem to refer to possibilities; I think this is more of a probability-we would have returned to this chamber around Thanksgiving or shortly afterward only to find, because of other pressing matters, an urgency to wind up this session and commence a new one. If that happened, the bill might very well have died, and then it would have been necessary to reintroduce it in all of its stages, thus causing further delay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will not be a new session in the fall; it will be the same session.


J. Michael Forrestall: I do not think this session will last much beyond one or two days after our return. It may; I may be wrong. In any event, it would have called for a total reworking of this particular piece of legislation. That would have been the fifth time around, and it would have been unacceptable.
I hope the Senate is able to consider it and that the matter will be dealt with so that the proper authorities can get on with their two to three-month job of putting together the regulations in the hope of meeting a satisfactory application date for this piece of legislation before December 31, 1980.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the Standing Committee on Transport and the members of this House in all parties for the intense interest and valuable contributions they made to bring the bill to this stage. Also I

July 16, 1980
Transportation of Dangerous Goods want to make reference to the previous minister of transport and his contribution in bringing the bill to the stage it was at when the House adjourned last December. It is on the foundation he prepared that the committee was able to deal with it more speedily and bring it forward today.
Also 1 want to mention the officials who have been so helpful and have demonstrated their expertise in this field. They were an asset to have at our side to ensure that members of all parties have a better understanding and grasp of the intent of this bill. We all owe them a great deal of thanks and gratitude for what they have been able to provide to us.
May 1 underline, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Standing Committee on Transport gave careful and detailed consideration to this bill. The amendments proposed as a result of assessing submissions made to the standing committee have, I believe, strengthened the bill in some respects and brought it into balance. I should like to add that all of these submissions were of value and this House should recognize the work that went into their making.

Mr. Speaker, I am very satisfied with the bill which has been reported to us. This bill has already been introduced three times in the House and 1 know it is important to have it adopted before recess so that the regulations will be published as soon as possible; I therefore urge members to participate with me in the third reading of Bill C-18 so that we will be able to refer it for study in the other place.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, it appears that I have the opportunity to give the benediction on the transportation of dangerous goods bill. Although I want to acknowledge the efforts that have gone into the formulation of this legislation-work which long precedes my arrival in this august chamber-I feel that it is somewhat appropriate that I have the opportunity to speak at this stage. My first question in this House was put in October, 1979, to the then minister of the environment, asking when the transportation of dangerous goods bill would be brought forward. It was only a month after that question that the events in Mississauga occurred, and only shortly thereafter that the move to bring in the bill gained momentum. 1 think we need to be reminded of that, Mr. Speaker.
1 am willing to participate in the non-partisan atmosphere which prevails in the House this afternoon, and 1 should like to extend my congratulations to the committee on the work it has done. I was not a member of that committee so I extend my congratulations to it, to my colleagues for the quality of their amendments, to the officials and everyone involved.
With respect to this bill, as with so many other things, we must realize that we are at third reading stage today because incidents like the one at Mississauga happened, and not entirely because of our own foresight.
As I said earlier, the question I asked in October, 1979, concerned not only the transportation of dangerous goods but also the disposal of dangerous goods. I was reminded of that when the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) expressed concern about the transportation of radioactive material. Another concern that many people have about radioactive material is its disposal once the use for which it was being transported has been executed. Of course this concerns not only radioactive material but many other dangerous products as well.
We have to realize two things about the limitations of what we are doing today, Mr. Speaker. It has already been pointed out that the bill is only concerned with the transportation and packaging of dangerous goods and not with the safety of vehicles and transportation systems responsible for carrying those goods. The bill does not address the much longer-term problem of disposal of dangerous goods. This is something that I hope members of the government in particular will note, and that we will not have to wait for an accident like that at Mississauga before we begin to take the problem of disposal of dangerous goods seriously. As a logical extension of the concern of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, I hope we will not wait for a disaster before legislation is brought forward to deal with the disposal of dangerous goods and, in particular, the disposal of radioactive waste. Of course we would not have that problem in the first place if we were to abandon our foolish commitment to nuclear power. It looks as if the government is committed to nuclear power, however, so we must take very seriously the problem of the disposal of radioactive waste.
Perhaps I am something of a party-pooper and am taking the gleam off the mutual admiration society that we seem to have become this afternoon when dealing with passage of this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, but I want to put these points before the House.
Another matter I want to deal with is the concern felt in my home town of Winnipeg. It is unfortunate that the public's attention and heightened awareness of the problem which the transportation of dangerous goods poses has come about as a result of incidents like Mississauga, MacGregor and the methanol spill at the CPR yards at Winnipeg. Unfortunately, this did not lead to a stronger commitment by the federal government to rail relocation in Winnipeg.
One of the ways in which we can reduce the danger to life, to health, to property and the environment, is to take seriously the opportunities to reroute these products in our major residential areas. It seems that in spite of the awareness created through recent events and the debate on this bill, the government has not been inspired to do anything more decisive about railway relocation in Winnipeg-not just for the sake of safety but for the sake of revitalization of the inner city of Winnipeg. I regret that this opportunity to realize the value of rail relocation is passing with the debate on this bill and that no other opportunities present themselves in the House to speak on this issue from this angle.
July 16, 1980

Given the brevity of the last Parliament, Mr. Speaker, some of us have had the opportunity to become veterans very quickly. This is one of the first bills that I have had the opportunity to see go through from beginning to end. I will be interested to see whether the intention of the bill becomes reality when I see the quality of the regulations. I will wait also to see the depth of the government's conviction to ensure the regulations are enforced. We all hope the government will act in other ways that will promote the safety of persons, property, and the environment by lifting the various restraint programs which are presently imposed upon the Canadian Transport Commission, for instance.
[DOT] (W20)


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a very short moment to say how much I appreciate this bill and the work which has gone into it. We on the west coast are very accustomed to the difficulties of transporting materials, dangerous and otherwise. 1 believe that this bill will do much to alleviate the dangers which we face in this area.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed	to,	bill	read	the	third	time and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE	HOUSE


Maurice Lamontagne: Before we go on, 1 would like to inform the House that tomorrow will be the final day of the address debate. This means that the House will meet at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.


IRANIAN ECONOMIC SANCTIONS ACT
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that Bill C-31, to provide for the imposition of certain economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
He said: Members are well aware of the circumstances that have led to the introduction of this bill. The seizure by Iranian militants of the American Embassy in Tehran on November 4 last year, and the subsequent detention of its staff, constitute grave violations of international law which call for an unequivocal response from the international community.
The strong protests which Canada and other countries have already made to these violations are not an over-reaction to a mere breach of diplomatic form. On the contrary, the hostage crisis is a fundamental challenge to the centuries-old evolution
Iranian Economic Sanctions Act
of orderly relations among states. Without the assurance that governments can confidently exchange diplomatic missions, and that host governments will accord them immunity and protection from acts of violence such as we have recently seen in Iran and in other countries, interstate co-operation will be in grave danger.
That Iran, over the past year has been trying to evolve new government institutions and has so far lacked centralized authority is, of course, a factor which we must keep in mind in deciding the nature of our response to the hostage crisis. However, the internal situation in Iran cannot in any way be used as an excuse to look the other way when a violation of international law of this magnitude occurs. The international community would do so at its peril.
The threat which this crisis poses for the international community was recognized by the United Nations Security Council, which last December passed without dissent, and with even the support of the Soviet Union, two resolutions urging respect for international law and demanding the release of the hostages. The second resolution called for sanctions against Iran in the event of non-compliance by that country with the terms of the resolution. Its purpose was ultimately frustrated when the Soviet Union vetoed the draft calling for specific sanctions against Iran which the Americans introduced on January 10.
The cynical Soviet veto, however, cannot obscure the fact that the international community, both then and now, condemns the hostage affair. In addition to the overwhelming support given to the Security Council resolutions on Iran, this condemnation from the international community has been reiterated by the International Court of Justice which, first in December and then again in May, ordered Iran to restore the embassy to the U.S.A. and to free the hostages. These unequivocal judgments by the UN and the International Court of Justice fully justify the international community in applying economic sanctions against Iran.
After the sanctions resolution was vetoed on January 13, the American government requested a number of friendly governments, including Canada, to apply the measures foreseen in the resolution, notwithstanding the Soviet veto. This American request was subsequently held in abeyance when it appeared in late January that a more cohesive and pragmatic administration was emerging in Iran, and that the UN might be able to mediate the dispute. Regrettably, that has not proved to be the case. Even now that that Parliament has finally come together, a solution appears to be no nearer.
The decision by the European Economic Community and Japan on April 22, and by Canada on April 23, to impose limited measures against Iran was in response to a renewed call for support from President Carter on April 8. At the time they imposed these limited measures, the EEC, Japan and Canada stated that if there was no decisive progress in the hostage situation by May 17, further measures would be taken against Iran. No decisive progress was achieved, and on May 18, EEC countries, followed by Japan, decided to implement the kind of measures contained in the vetoed Security Council

July 16, 1980
Iranian Economic Sanctions Act resolution. On May 22 I announced that Canada was taking parallel steps by placing controls on the export of goods to Iran and by introducing into the House the legislation to which I am speaking at the moment.
I have already explained that the government has been prompted to take these steps out of its concern to uphold a fundamental rule of international law which is vital to the conduct of international relations. It follows from this preoccupation that we would like to see as many countries as possible support such measures, so as to impress on the Iranians that a prolongation of the hostage situation will inevitably lead to their further isolation in the international community. It was this consideration that led us to co-ordinate our recent actions with the EEC countries, Japan and Australia. It is for the same reason that I hope the House will give immediate approval to this bill, and thus put Canada in a position to implement, in concert with our allies, the range of measures supported by a large majority of the Security Council.
In addition to considerations of legal principle, there are compelling political reasons why Canada and other countries should support economic sanctions against Iran. These measures go at least some way to reassure the Americans that the international community is prepared to show solidarity in confronting an illegal situation that is deeply frustrating and galling to them, and is indeed intolerable for all law-abiding states.
In our view patience is required to allow the Iranian political scene to evolve, and imagination will be needed to find a formula for the safe release of all the hostages. Canada will do what it can to support initiatives that have some chance of securing the hostages' release through negotiation. Meantime, however, we cannot accept that no action be taken. We must demonstrate to the Americans as well as to the Iranians our determination that justice in terms of international law is available to all countries. Economic sanctions, in addition to their value in adding to the pressures on Iran to release the hostages, serve this symbolic purpose.
There is a point I should add about Canadian-Iranian relations in the longer term. 1 have already assured the Iranian foreign minister in a personal message on May 12 that we are not mounting sanctions against Iran because of any hostile attitude toward the Iranian government and people, or out of any desire to intervene in Iran's internal affairs. Canada strongly supports the independence and territorial integrity of Iran. It looks forward to the day when the hostage crisis is resolved and it should once again be possible to resume the full range of friendly contacts between our two countries.
Turning to the nature of the legislation now before the House, the Security Council resolution proposed by the U.S.A. on January 10 required all states to take a number of measures against Iran in the areas of trade, transport, finance and diplomacy. Some of the measures, such as the placing of controls on the export of goods to Iran and restrictions on diplomatic personnel, can be taken by administrative measures in Canada, and this we have already done.
Had the U.S.S.R. not vetoed the resolution, all of the other measures could have been implemented under our United Nations Act. The Soviet veto made this impossible and the government has therefore proposed that Parliament enact new legislation that would enable the imposition of economic sanctions against Iran. The bill follows the draft resolution very closely and is designed to put the government in the same position it would have been in had the Soviet Union not cast their veto.
The government recognizes the exceptional character of this bill and has therefore drafted it in narrow terms intended only for the implementation of the January 10 draft resolution. We have provided an opportunity for parliamentary review and debate of regulations made under the new legislation. The bill also contains provision for its expiry one year after the day it is assented to, unless expressly extended.
In conclusion, let us hope that circumstances will ensure that the need for and hence duration of this legislation will be short-lived. The just announced release of one Iranian hostage appears not to indicate any general change of heart, but once the new Iranian parliament has been able to establish its working procedures it should be able to turn its attention to the hostage question. With their country facing increasingly urgent and difficult problems at home and abroad, more and more Iranians may come to see the hostage crisis as an unnecessary impediment to the solution of these other problems. As soon as the hostages are released, the government will move quickly to repeal the legislation now before us and will resume its efforts to renew relations with Iran, for which we think there is considerable scope.
Although the motion as you have presented it, Mr. Speaker, was to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on International Affairs and National Defence, I believe there may be unanimous disposition on the part of the House to deal with the bill in all stages today after members have finished their speeches on second reading, and I hope that that will be the procedure which is followed.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 can inform the House that this party is in agreement that the bill proceed through all stages today, and 1 would like to reassure the minister of that.
In recent days the release of one of the American hostages from Iran has dramatically focused, once again, the world's attention on the detention of American diplomats in Iran, and that makes more relevant the debate we are having on this bill today, which is to provide for the imposition of certain economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran. We hope and pray, sir, that Mr. Richard Queen's release is no isolated incident, and that his 52 comrades will soon follow his path to freedom.
It is now 255 days since the American embassy in Tehran was overrun by the so-called student militants. It is more than eight long months since the American diplomatic personnel in
July 16, 1980

the U.S. embassy in Tehran were seized as hostages. Throughout this long period, Canadians, of all the peoples in the world, have been front-line observers of the personal anguish and the national anxiety which these events have stirred in our American neighbours. We are reminded daily of their concerns through the medium of television and radio, and through personal contacts with our neighbours to the south.
Canadians are a people who know and cherish our liberties and who understand and respect international order. The flagrant disregard for both of these, that is, of liberties and international order, by the leaders and by the people of Iran, has evoked in Canada a deep and genuine concern for the well-being of the American hostages, and a symphathy for those in the United States administration and in the government who have so patiently worked for the resolution of this crisis.
As Canada's foreign minister at the time of the embassy takeover, 1 was very much aware of the sentiments of Canadians as well as the concern in most nations over the disregard for international law regarding diplomatic immunity. Canadians recognized that the very foundations of international law and civilized diplomacy were being called into question by the situation in Iran.
Canada's involvement in this international crisis was heightened on November 9, five days after the embassy takeover when Ambassador Ken Taylor was authorized by then prime minister Clark to provide refuge to six American diplomatic personnel who were outside the U.S. embassy at the time of the seizure. That decision to offer sanctuary to our American house guests and the vital necessity to keep it a closely guarded secret so as to protect them, made the Canadian government's reaction to events in Tehran more difficult and more complex.
I would like to explain why.
As a government, we were determined to do all we could to lead international opinions, organizations, groups and nations in pressing the Iranian authorities, who were often incapable or unwilling to govern, into releasing the American hostages. We were trying throughout to take a lead in that regard. At the same time we were well aware that initiatives that were too isolated or too high profile, initiatives which would have had the effect of focusing unusual attention on the Canadian embassy, could endanger the American hostages, our house guests, and our own foreign service personnel in Tehran. Yet we were determined to play a vigorous role, both public and private, in seeking a resolution to this situation.
So, on November 27, as a result of a Canadian initiative, a meeting of Commonwealth representatives was held in London. As a result of that meeting a joint communique was issued protesting the actions of the Iranian militants and appealing for the release of the American hostages. Later, on December 4, at the United Nations, Canada welcomed the Security Council resolution calling for the release of the American hostages. On December 13, at the NATO ministerial meetings in Brussels which 1 was attending, the foreign ministers called upon the Iranian authorities to set at liberty the American diplomats.
Iranian Economic Sanctions Act
While these public statements were important, the government recognized that further steps had to be taken, including economic sanctions, and that they should be considered by all concerned nations. This required ongoing consultations if effective sanctions were to be imposed. Because of the secret harbouring of the Americans in our embassy, regular consultation and contact had already begun between Canada and the United States officials as well as between Secretary of State Vance and myself.
In early December I met with senior U.S. officials in Paris to discuss, among other things, economic sanctions against Iran. Indeed, as a result of those meetings, then prime minister Clark privately communicated a set of guidelines to be followed by Canadian banks regarding banking business with Iran. We had also begun other sanctions of an economic nature, some of which are referred to in the legislation before us today.

Because we are neighbours to the United States, we Canadians are aware of the feelings the hostage situation in Iran has aroused among Americans. That is why Canada has acted so promptly to establish various organizations which would help liberate the hostages. Moreover, it was natural that the Clark government readily agreed to lodge the six American diplomats in our embassy in Tehran.
I am proud of the measures taken by the Progressive Conservative government. Our government spared no effort to remedy this shocking incident of hostage-taking in Tehran. My party still strongly supports this approach.
Because Canadians understand, more than any other nation, the enormity of feeling that the hostage situation in Iran has aroused in the American people; because we were so deeply involved in urging various international organizations to seek an earlier resolution to this situation; and because of our overriding concern for the safety of the six Americans and our own personnel in the Canadian embassy in Tehran, it was only natural that, as Canada's foreign minister, I went to New York on December 30 to urge the Security Council to adopt the American resolution calling for the release of the hostages, and if that was not forthcoming, to impose economic sanctions against Iran. This was perhaps not the normal thing to do, given that Canada is not a member of the Security Council at present, but I felt that the circumstances compelled my personal intervention.
In calling for the implementation of economic sanctions, I stated at that Security Council meeting that such action would be "a powerful, positive and peaceful step to help resolve this intolerable situation which threatens the peace, order and good governance of the world".
That American resolution, the text of which is substantially the same as the legislation before us today, was subsequently vetoed by the Soviet Union in the Security Council on January
2984

July 16, 1980
Iranian Economic Sanctions Act
13. Certainly, sir, if these measures were warranted in January, they are even more deserving of our support six months later, with the American diplomats still being held as hostages.
Securing international support for economic sanctions against Iran has not been easy-indeed their total effectiveness is not assured even after months of consultation. But then nothing about the international effort to free the hostages has been easy; it has involved a very real element of personal risk, delicate diplomacy, and considerable danger, for individuals and countries. That was true when the Canadian government gave refuge to the American diplomats, when we communicated guidelines to the banks, when we spoke out in international forums. But I am very proud of the steps taken by the government of which I was a member. In the face of this outrageous violation of international law in Iran, we did what we could to help resolve the situation. And my party continues to support, and strongly support, that approach and the bill that is before us today.
There is, however, one aspect of this entire episode which has deeply troubled me and many other Canadians, and it concerns the behaviour of the then leader of the opposition, the right hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau). In his role as a Privy Councillor and as leader of the official opposition, he was informed shortly after the decision had been taken to provide sanctuary to the six American diplomats, of this secret and very delicate mission. Presumably he would have understood the danger to these American diplomats if their whereabouts had become known. Presumably he would have recognized the difficult balancing act the government was involved in, in which we were making every effort in various international organizations to seek a resolution of this crisis, including by means of sanctions, but doing it in such a way that would not endanger the lives of our Canadian personnel in Tehran or the safety of those Americans we sought to protect.
And yet day after day, in a partisan fashion, the right hon. member sought to embarrass the government over what he portrayed as the government's lack of action and lack of support for American efforts to release the hostages. As he said to me on November 27, during question period in the House of Commons, "we will soon be condemning this government if it continues to take such standoffish attitudes". Yet he knew better, he was one of the very few to be privy to what was taking place at our embassy in Tehran. I say, sir, that his conduct throughout this period was one of the most cynical displays of opportunism and political gamesmanship this House has ever witnessed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have read in the past few days that the Iranian acting ambassador to Canada has stated that if Canada's relations with Iran are to improve, we will have to apologize to Iran for helping in the escape of the U.S. diplomats. I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that most Canadians find that piece of gratuitous advice downright insulting.
The rescue operation carried out by Ambassador Taylor and other Canadians, both in Tehran and in Ottawa, is a matter of great national pride. We certainly have no apologies for compassion, for bravery, and for plain good neighbourliness. Our pride, however, is tempered by the fact that there still remain 52 American diplomats in Iran. It is our hope that the sanctions for which this bill provides will be an effective instrument in securing their freedom. To this end, my party supports the bill before us today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we deeply regret the need for this bill. We have some concerns about it, but we are prepared to give it our support. That includes our willingness, at the conclusion of the second reading debate, that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole so that it can be dealt with through all stages before we rise at six o'clock. I said that we have some misgivings or concerns about the bill, but it is a fact, as stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), that our world is in a bad way if the traditional immunities enjoyed by diplomatic personnel in the countries of this world are violated or diminished, and we have to give very serious consideration to what has developed because of the hostagetaking incident in Iran.
We join with others in expressing our concern for the people of the United States in the long trial they are going through with respect to this matter. We earnestly hope that some time very soon it will be resolved. We are also concerned that there are so many incidents affecting diplomatic personnel in other parts of the world. As I say, we join with others in this House in the belief that this is a matter which deserves very serious consideration.
I said that we have some concerns. I do not intend to spell or spin them out. We note that boycotting by certain other nations is sometimes not carried out very effectively. We know of boycotts which are there on paper but are violated in various ways known to us all. We sometimes wonder whether economic boycotts have any effect in resolving a situation, whether they do anything more than stiffen the spine of those who are boycotted. Yet we are prepared to admit that this situation is so serious that we have to place in the hands of the government the power contained in this bill if the government feels that such power has to be used. I must also say we wish that in circumstances like this our friendly neighbour to the south, the United States, would do a little more consulting before it takes positions and initiates actions which it expects us to follow-this is a view which is understood, I think, by most observers of international relations.
Nevertheless, having said these things, we recognize that the kind of power contained in this bill is something the government should have, and for that reason we are prepared to support the measure.
The main reason this bill is necessary is, of course, because of the hostages being held in Tehran and elsewhere. The other
July 16, 1980

immediate reason was the veto on January 13 by the Soviet Union of the resolution which had been presented to the United Nations Security Council. Had that resolution been passed, this action today would not have been necessary. As the minister has said, this bill simply places the Canadian government in the position in which it would have found itself had that resolution passed. I commend the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government of which he is a member, on recognizing how serious a matter this is.
This is a temporary piece of legislation. I notice it is to be in effect for one year from the time it is given royal assent, unless it is extended, but that it cannot be extended longer than for a further year. There are also limitations with regard to actions which can be taken under the bill. The government has to lay its proposals before Parliament, and Parliament has the opportunity to approve or negate them as it wishes. These precautions having been taken with respect to a serious operation, we are prepared to support the bill through all its stages this afternoon.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Just another sentence. I feel that since the critic opposite has introduced a somewhat partisan note I shall make a brief comment-


Stanley Howard Knowles: "If he speaks now-"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have to advise the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), that if he speaks now he will be closing the debate at this stage.


Mr. Stollery:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when you refer to closing the debate at this stage, does it mean we shall not move on to the report stage this afternoon?


An hon. Member:: Report stage?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: We can go into Committee of the Whole as requested by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his opening remarks. It was requested that the motion be changed to read "and referred to Committee of the Whole". Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mark R. MacGuigan: When I suggested I would finish in a sentence or two, I meant that literally. I merely want to say that since the then leader of the opposition had certain knowledge secretly, he nevertheless had to behave publicly to ask the questions which those in his own party and those in the public rightly and reasonably expected to be put to the government. Even looked at objectively, apart from that consideration, the fact that the government of the day was rightly sheltering the American hostages doesn't mean that they could not also have been engaged in some alliance-related activity.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: They were.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The hon. member says "They were."


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: And 1 detailed them.
Iranian Economic Sanctions Act


Mark R. MacGuigan: Well, that is a possible interpretation. But I think the people gave their final judgment on this and many other issues on February 18.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Forget the ending.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Ethier in the chair.
On Clause 2-Definitions.
Peter A. Stollery: I have a question or two to ask, Mr. Chairman. My first question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs at this stage of the bill has to do with a matter which has troubled me-possibly he can allay my concerns. They have to do with the practical effects of this bill on the well-being of the hostages-their effect on the freeing of the hostages.
Are we looking at a bill which involves a question of principle, are we talking about the principle of supporting the Americans, or are we talking about a bill which is likely to have a practical effect in relation to the freeing of the hostages? Personally, I am interested in freeing the hostages and I believe this should be foremost in the thoughts of hon. members when they address the internal problems of Iran. We have read a great deal about these problems in the press. There are many. For some time it has been questionable whether even the elected government controls the government or whether it is controlled by the Ayatollah movement. What practical effect will the imposition of sanctions have on the well-being of the hostages? Might it not be argued that sanctions will have no practical effect because we do so little trade with Iran anyway, and that the imposition of sanctions might, indeed, be harmful to the well-being of the hostages who are being held in various parts of that country?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Chairman, by no stretch of the imagination could these sanctions hurt the hostages. This action is similar to that which has already been taken by members of the European Economic Community. If it was going to hurt the hostages it would have done so in that case as well. It will help in the sense that it puts some pressure on Iran, although not very much in our case; in our case the primary effect of the legislation is one of principle and of symbolism as 1 explained in my address.


Peter A. Stollery: I have another question, Mr. Chairman. When we talk about sanctions I am more interested in things which have a practical effect, measures which in fact are likely to do something to assist in the freeing of the hostages, something which, to my mind, is a serious business, not just because of the incident in Tehran. There was the recent example in Columbia or Venezuela. There has been a series of such incidents. Quite frankly, I am not sure whether I am interested in resolutions which seem to me to be public relations gestures, if I might be candid about it, and I would like to know if the government is contemplating something which would have some practical effect on the status of the hostages in Iran.

July 16, 1980
Iranian Economic Sanctions Act


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Chairman, the government is not contemplating other measures beyond those taken and those in this bill. Perhaps the hon. member has a different view of this legislation from others in the House, in which case he has his usual remedy.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. It being six o'clock the committee-


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if I am wrong, but I think there is an agreement, or there should be an agreement, that Your Honour does not see the clock.


Mr. Huntington:: Tell the guy behind you.


Yvon Pinard: I am not blaming the opposition. I am not blaming anybody. I am just asking if there is agreement that Your Honour does not see the clock.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, 1 think there would be agreement that we not see the clock, and I hope we can get through the balance of this bill this evening. 1 hope that would convenience the House and that we could do that.


Denis Éthier: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Peter A. Stollery: That requires unanimous consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since when are you the member for Winnipeg North Centre?


Peter A. Stollery: I am a member of this House, and I have the same rights-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, since you did call on me, may I say that as we all know, there was no House order about it, but there was an agreement or understanding that we would finish this bill before we rise. I believe the government House leader has the right to expect that that will be carried out. That is so, as far as we on this side are concerned.


Denis Éthier: We will therefore not see the clock and carry on with the legislation. Was the hon. member for Spadina seeking the floor?


Peter A. Stollery: I will go back to my line of questioning, Mr. Chairman. In the interests of passing this bill today I suppose we are not seeing the clock at six o'clock, although it does strike me that that requires unanimous consent.
I would like to put once more to the minister clearly, and I appreciate the fact that the bill was only brought to us-


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I thought we had received unanimous consent. Is the hon. member saying he is not giving his consent that we not see the clock?


Mark R. MacGuigan: You have already called that, Mr. Chairman.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: We talked about an agreement.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 7-Tabling in Parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I just say, in accordance with some of the remarks 1 made at second reading, that we welcome the fact that clauses 7, 8 and 9 are in this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being after 6 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).
At 6.05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, July 17, 1980