1983-05-11

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, earlier this week the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) issued an open letter to all Canadians concerning the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada. While many of the comments I have seen have perverted the Prime Minister's letter, at least some of the print media published, along with their rather fallacious stories, the text of the Prime Minister's letter. That is not the case, however, with the comments made on the CBC "National News" last evening. Those comments were a total perversion of what the Prime Minister had to say. I think the Canadian public and Members of this House have a right to expect better than that from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I would hope, Madam Speaker, that the newscaster in future would read such documents before he makes fallacious, vicious and perverted comments about them. I hope we will see the estimates for the CBC separated from the general Government estimates in this House so we can vote on them separately and some of us can express to the CBC with our votes what we think of its perversion of truth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RAILWAYS
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, some 86 years ago the historic Crow rate was struck at one half cent per ton per mile to export grain from the Prairies. For some 70 years grain producers, the livestock industry, railway companies, and secondary processors all made money. However, during the last 16 years, primarily as a result of inflation, the Crow rate has caused an enormous distortion between the grain industry on one hand, and the
livestock industry and secondary processors on the other. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) appointed Mr. Clay Gilson who, with 12 commodity groups and approximately 60 or 70 people, came up with a phased solution which was balanced between the legitimate interests of the competing groups.
Then, Madam Speaker, politics became involved, which resulted in the Pepin compromise of last February. Then raw, ugly politics entered into it, which resulted in Bill C-155. That Bill is totally unacceptable to the livestock industry and is not in the long-term best interests of the nation. I call upon my colleagues opposite and in the NDP to make sure we do not write off that livestock industry because, if we do that to western Canada, we are going to cut off a lot of tax revenue for this part of the country.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I would like to spend a little bit of time recounting a story, to make my point.
Some years ago a constituent of mine took over a farm after learning to become an experienced farm manager at university. He applied the most efficient methods known to man at that time, and ran the farm with a great deal of success. His First crop was a very good one at the lowest cost per unit produced for years.
At the end of the harvest he went walking around the farm to check out other things he could do to make the operation more efficient. He came across a little plum orchard that his father, and his sister who was a plant geneticist, had set up.
He noted that of the dozen trees in that orchard only nine had fruit on them. So, being very efficiency minded, he immediately went in with a tractor and pulled out the three that were not producing fruit. Since then there has been no fruit growing in that orchard. He killed the orchard because he pulled out the male trees.
I think this is what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is doing when he introduces a new Crow rate. He is looking at the hole, not the doughnut. He has missed the point entirely, and I urge him to change his mind.

May 11, 1983


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, one issue which has been receiving the attention of Conferences of Catholic Bishops globally is the moral implications of the controversial use of nuclear deterrence as a means of defence and as a means of promoting eventual arms reduction and peace. But the average practising Catholic is confused by the number of statements issued by Catholic leaders on the subject of nuclear arms.
A quick survey of decisions reached indicates that in Italy no directive or guidelines were issued by the Italian Conference of Bishops. In West Germany, Catholic Bishops published a pastoral letter condemning the arms race but upholding the right to use the threat of nuclear retaliation as a deterrent to war. They also condemned the expansionist aims of totalitarian states. The Roman Catholic Bishops of the United States, who have the support of the Canadian Bishops, condemned first strike use of nuclear weapons and condemned the targeting of nuclear weapons against civilian targets. They accept as moral the deployment of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, but not as a purpose in itself-only as a step toward progressive disarmament.
Pope John Paul II, in his message to the Second United Nations Special Session on Disarmament on June 11, 1982, said, "In current conditions, deterrence based on balance, certainly not as an end in itself but as a step towards progressive disarmament, may still be judged morally acceptable". He went on, "I reaffirm my confidence in the power of true negotiations to arrive at just and equitable solutions. Such negotiations demand patience and diligence and must-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House another paradox involving taxable benefits under the Income Tax Act.
For some time in Nova Scotia, National Revenue has been questioning road foremen and other classes of employees of the provincial Department of Transportation in a dispute over the use of vehicles and rates of pay affecting taxable benefits, involving these employees.
On the other hand I have reason to believe that Massey-Ferguson, the beneficiary of many millions of dollars of taxpayers' money for loan guarantees, which the Government had to pay, rewarded certain of its executives for their success in negotiating benefits for their company from the Government. The rewards apparently consisted, in some instances, of trips abroad for these people and their families, in lieu of
bonuses. Has Massey-Ferguson been audited in this respect? Have any of these executives been audited, or indeed, have any of the executives included these benefits as part of their taxable incomes?
If not, we have two standards-a very strict one affecting many workers in Nova Scotia who are relatively low income people, while this company, which may be closer to an Edsel than a Chrysler success story, although I hope not, may be playing fast and loose with the tax system. I would appreciate it if the Minister would check into this situation.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, as most Canadians are now aware, the Liberal-Conservative coalition of the right is in support of testing the Cruise missile and other nuclear technologies on Canadian soil.
Just as insidious is the recent decision by the Liberals to test H-16 at McGill University in Montreal, this year. This chemical is undergoing tests on dogs, rats, and pigs and, according to National Defence officials, it "would be used by our troops in the event that they are subjected to chemical attack".
The Geneva Convention, of which Canada is a signatory, is an international agreement prohibiting the practice of chemical warfare. Canadians would be naive to assume that the H-16 tests which are now under way at McGill University are being conducted solely for defence. Clearly, this synthetic replacement for atropine is being designed to respond to certain nerve gases and chemicals for use in warfare; most likely against civilian populations.
Perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would explain to Canadians just what Canada's role is in the field of chemical and biological warfare, and explain to the House what situations he foresees where Canadian troops will be in contact with chemicals requiring H-16 as an antidote. Perhaps the Prime Minister would also explain the $204,000 order for chemical air burst dispensers in February, or the $109,000 in March for chemical simulators, while he is at it.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, with the skill of Houdini, the Government has dazzled Canadian shipbuilders with promises of wonderful and amazing things to come. The shipbuilding policy announced last January was heralded by the Government as a program to save the Canadian shipbuilding industry. The Government has failed to produce even the slightest evidence it seriously intends to implement new policies that will be meaningful.
May 11, 1983

Two weeks ago the Government announced the Canadian Coast Guard Fleet Acquisition Program to modernize the aging Coast Guard fleet at a cost of $630 million over the next four years. It will be late June before any contracts are awarded, and Christmas before any work begins. In the meantime more jobs will have vanished from the Saint John shipyards and other shipyards across the nation.
The Canadian Patrol Frigate Program has been a mystical illusion. Shipbuilders have repeatedly urged the Government to move up the starting date of the Program. Delays in implementing the frigate program mean a needless loss of jobs.
Programs are being pulled from hats like rabbits, while jobs are disappearing quicker than you can say abracadabra. In 1981 some 1,627 people were employed at the Saint John shipyard; by Christmas the shipyard is expected to be a graveyard if the Government's programs fail to materalize.
Canadian shipbuilders are saying, "Quit the hocus-pocus and the shell games. Implement a new shipbuilding policy, spread the Coast guard work fairly throughout the country, and accelerate the frigate program." Shipbuilders want jobs- not another performance of the Government's magic show.


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) betrayed the national voluntary organizations.
The Minister of Finance consulted with the voluntary organizations before his budget, and then betrayed them in his budget. The national volunteers requested that a 50 per cent cent tax credit replace the standard $100 deduction for charitable donations, but the Minister did not comply. He removed the $100 standard deduction only, thus hurting the thousands of people who donate to Poppy Day and Daffodil Day, where no receipts are given; hurting the thousands of hard-working volunteers who do work that the Government would otherwise have to do.
The removal of the standard deduction increases the administrative costs and mailing costs. In fact, Canada Post is about the only winner. It perpetrates the inequities in the tax treatment of charitable donations and fails to provide a stimulus needed by voluntary organizations. It is a slap in the face to the national voluntary organizations.
I urge the Minister to introduce the tax credit now or, at the very least, keep the $100 standard deduction until the entire proposal made by the voluntary organizations can be accepted.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Housing. The Minister will recall that on October 27 of last year, the Minister of Finance announced that the $3,000 grant provided under the Home Ownership Stimulation Plan would be extended with respect to new homes until the end of April, 1983. In the circumstances, and considering the increasing concern of many Canadians who want to take advantage of this very attractive program, could the Minister give the House the assurance today that he will take steps to have his Government meet its commitment and ensure that all applications that meet program criteria and were sent in before or on April 30th will be considered and that applicants will receive a positive answer?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, last October the Minister of Finance did in fact announce that $100 million had been earmarked for a program that would be administered according to the budget it was given, which was the $100 million. It was expected that this amount would be sufficient in normal circumstances, even if the housing sector should become very active, and that the $100 million would last until the end of April. This year, following representations by Members on all sides of the House, I asked the Minister of Finance to allocate a supplementary amount of $30 million, especially to help Canadians in remote areas where, because of heavy frost, it would be impossible to do any excavation during the month of April. It is a fact that the confidence shown by Canadians in the housing sector at the present time has resulted in an avalanche of applications since April 15, which were sent to the office of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We accepted applications until last Friday. They have been filed by order of priority, and site inspections which are required by law are now being carried out. I do not know exactly what the situation is at the present time. I have the impression that we are over the $130 million mark, but as soon as I have a clear picture of the situation, I shall be advising and consulting my colleague, the Minister of Finance. What I would like to say to the Hon. Member is-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Joliette may ask a supplementary question.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I am sure this will give the Minister a chance to finish his answer. The Minister knows perfectly well that his Government had committed itself until the end of April. I could even mention the next stage, when the Minister of Finance went so far as to tantalize Canadians with

May 11, 1983
Oral Questions
a grant that might be extended until the end of May. However, I would rather get back to the first commitment. I think the Minister is aware of the commitment made by his Government and of the fact that he must treat applicants with respect, and I would like to put my question to the Minister again. Could the Minister confirm today that his Government will approve applications made in answer to this first commitment up to April 30, and I fail to see how the Government could renege on this first commitment to extend the program until April 30?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, we have to find out, and that is what we are doing now, how many applications came in before the end of April and how many of these are legitimate applications which represent an obligation on our part. As soon as I have a clear picture of the situation, I shall be able to answer the Hon. Member's question. All I want to say now is that I will do everything in my power so that Canadians who sent in bona fide applications before the end of April, will not be disappointed.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could ask the Minister of Finance, if he were in the House, how he could commit himself again until the end of May without a proper assessment? The Minister has proved this today, but I think the Minister will understand the point I am trying to make today. Thousands of Canadians are waiting and are concerned because they have acted lawfully, and I would like to know whether the Minister could at least promise that he will make an announcement this week to reassure Canadians who sent in applications before April 30th and whether he intends to consult the Minister of Finance later on.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I must repeat, and I hope the Hon. Member listened to my answer, that the Minister has allocated $100 million. We thought this amount would be sufficient until the month of April. That may still be the case. In fact, that is what we are trying to find out. But I cannot and I would not want to raise false hopes among Canadians who are listening to us today, nor do I want them to panic. I want to say this to all Canadians, further to the Hon. Member's question: We shall consider all applications. Some are perfectly legitimate, and we shall try to be as flexible as possible, expecially where remote rural areas and northern regions are concerned.


TREATMENT OF APPLICATIONS-POSSIBLE LOSS OF PURCHASE DEPOSITS
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary and it is for the Minister of Public Works also. In his answer to the question from my colleague he said CMHC cut off all applications on May 6. Will the Minister make a commitment today that all the applications that came in before May 6 will, in fact, be honoured? Some of these people have given notice to quit their
apartments and have purchased homes. They are now in a spot where they are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. If they do not get that $3,000 grant they will lose the deposit they put down on the purchase of a home. Will the Minister make that commitment today to those people?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I have explained at some length. Three questions were asked on this issue. Those applications made before April 30 were being examined, the number of applications and the possible overrun were being examined. If I am not able to give an honest answer to the Hon. Member for Joliette-and I do not want to cause panic-obviously I am not going to be in a position to answer the Hon. Member's question about May 6. I might say to him that he is using some scare words. The fact is that anyone who gives notice in an apartment before an application is processed and accepted, is really not looking at his or her business very carefully.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL COMMITMENT
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance in his statement of April 19 said he was going to put $30 million into a program to carry on until probably the end of May. In fact, the Minister of Finance was throwing in $30 million to make up a deficit in a program that he knew full well at that time would not go beyond April 30.
The Minister of Public Works has caused considerable concern among a number of people. The Minister shakes his head but he should start to answer his telephone calls from his constituents, as I have calls from people in my area who signed on April 21. Thirty-nine homes have not been approved and likely will not be approved, according to the information being sent out by CMHC. Will the Minister make some kind of commitment? The Minister of Finance can find $200 million to bail himself out of trouble. Surely the Minister of Public Works can find a few million dollars to finish off this program and keep the commitment made to the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I have said, and I repeat, that I will make every effort to accommodate and to meet the needs of those who made legitimate bona fide applications before the end of the month of April. I might say the advice given to the Minister of Finance for the $30 million extension was the best information that we had a CMHC. In fact we took the highest figure for the months of April and May, and we even improved on that number. Those were our predictions.


Mr. Jarvis:: And they were wrong.


Roméo LeBlanc: They are the best that the corporation, which has a lot of expertise, could come up with.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
May 11, 1983

Mir. LeBlanc: The fact is that the housing industry, following the initiatives taken by my predecessor, is in a booming condition. Canadians are buying houses and are now building houses as we have not seen for some time and that is causing the problem. But surely it is also a reason for rejoicing in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, earlier this week I was asking the Prime Minister about the progress of the Canada Health Act, to no avail. Since then we have learned that the Minister of National Health and Welfare intends to meet with the Minister of Health in Alberta to discuss the user fees which that Province intends to implement as of October 1. The Minister is reported to have said that she would not consider any punitive action against Alberta until October 1. Will the Minister tell us whether we can expect to see any positive action between now and then, in the form of a concrete Canada Health Act proposal that would address the problem of user fees? Hopefully the Act would be good enough for Canadians to rally around in the defence of medicare; this would help the Alberta Government change its mind, and also counter the hysterical, paranoid, and blatantly false advertising of the Ontario Medical Association and other opponents of medicare.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I have often said that there is no point in bringing in a new Canada Health Act which would not effectively be stronger in detail than the one we now have. The Hon. Member keeps putting the two issues together. Under the present Act a very serious and unfortunate situation has developed in one of our wealthiest Provinces, the Province of Alberta, with user fees apparently being introduced. They have not been introduced. They have only been promised, if I can call it a promise, by the provincial Government, as of October 1.
My interest, the interest of Canadians, and I think the interest of the Hon. Member and all of us in the House-and I hope the interest of the Conservative Party, but nobody knows-is to ensure that these user fees never see the light of day. Is that good English?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: That is what we want. We are trying not to have any disruption of services but to talk with the Province. Of course we are talking with the people of Alberta who are the first ones to be hit by that most unfortunate situation which seems to be creating a chain reaction in other Provinces
Oral Questions
like New Brunswick, with the announcement of its budget last Friday. Therefore I have requested the New Brunswick Minister to send me information to ensure that they are not going overboard either.


REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, that is precisely the point. That is the reason we need to bring in a Canada Health Act to address those problems. If we do not, the Minister will be left in a situation where she can only act within the confines of the existing legislation, which leaves her only an all or nothing proposition. Either she withdraws all the money from Alberta or she is unable to do anything about what is happening in that Province. This is precisely why I am suggesting she bring in a Canada Health Act which addresses these problems; that people can discuss and support, if it deserves it, and which will help the Alberta Government to see that the federal Government does not intend to leave itself in an all or nothing situation, that it intends to have more flexibility and be able to do something about it.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, a concrete situation, not a potentially dangerous one, has developed in one of our Provinces, possibly the second one. I forgot to mention the very unfortunate rise of OHIP premiums last week.
Why do we speak of all these problems which are introducing financial surcharges in the system today, when nobody ever established that there was money missing in the system? We will deal with the situation which has developed, not with the potential situation of the future Canada Health Act, to ensure we know how to strengthen the existing legislation in the best practical way.


POSSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL FEDERAL ACTION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, that is precisely the point. While the Minister makes up her mind what she will do about medicare, which she has been doing ever since the SOS Conference on Medicare in the fall of 1979, things get worse and worse. Alberta is the stalking-horse for other provinces that want to do the same thing.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member ask a question, not make a speech?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister is this. Given the lack of likelihood that she will obtain agreement from eight of the ten Provinces on an Act which would really clarify and strengthen the principles of medicare, has the Minister considered acting unilaterally in bringing in a Canada Health Act? If she has, what options has she considered in that regard?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, we want to avoid as much as possible-and I think every Canadian understands that-any

May 11, 1983
Oral Questions
disruption of services. I do not know what the provincial Minister will do to the services. He does not have to cause any disruption but he may; anybody can other than us, the federal players. I have that responsibility in the name of Canadians. That is the answer to one part of the Hon. Member's question.
As to the preceding part of his question, I imagine this Government did something right since Canada, with New Zealand, is the only country in the western world that has a complete, free, working medicare system, and I will say the best in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: I say that without any hesitation.
I have often told the Hon. Member that I regret it is not a black-and-white case. It is more complex. It is one of the most complex institutions in this country. We will strengthen it. We did not fall into Reagonomics. We still have full medicare almost everywhere in the country. We did not cap it. It is one of the few programs this Government decided to keep fully indexed. It received 12 per cent last year and 10 per cent this year. Where is that money?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PENSIONS
Mrs. Suzanne Beauchamp-Niquet (Roberval):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). The Minister has received notice of my question.
Yesterday, the Government of Ontario announced that it intended to withdraw its veto against allowing women who are raising their children at home to be eligible for the Canada Pension Plan, and I would now like to know whether the Minister could inform the House when this provision will become effective and whether benefits will be retroactive.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I am very happy, and I am sure all Canadian women are, about the fact that the Government of Ontario, which had prevented the Government from acting on this point, withdrew its veto yesterday in its budget and thus opened the way for women who take, I think it is up to seven years off to raise a child and in doing so temporarily leave the labour market, to take advantage of a measure that will prevent any loss of benefits under the Canada Pension Plan.

The measure will require a special Order in Council from the Province of Ontario. I hope to have that in the month of
May. In turn, the federal Government will sign an Order in Council. The measure should be retroactive to 1966 for all mothers who, in effect, stayed home to raise their children. I realize that many will be penalized because they did not know they would be able to benefit from the clause and had to make different working arrangements.


SHIPBUILDING
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The shipworkers of the nation welcomed the frigate program which was announced sometime ago. However, there is now grave concern that it will end up being nothing more than a scrap on the bottom of the political pork barrel. With the regard to the long-awaited shipbuilding policy that was recently announced, the most exciting thing that has happened has been the $1.7 million announcement of the conversion of an old ship to a cement carrier in Ontario. We have some of the finest shipbuilding facilities in the world in eastern and western Canada. Our shipyard workers are second to none in the world. They are first-class. What we need in this country is a policy with substance.


Madam Speaker:: What we need in this House at this time is a question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to direct this question to the Prime Minister. I hope that he will favour us with an answer. Does the Prime Minister agree that what we need in this country is a shipbuilding policy of substance, one that will prove to be beneficial over a long period to the shipyard workers and aspiring shipyard workers in this country? Does the Prime Minister agree that we should revitalize the merchant marine in this country? If not, is he prepared to instigate a feasibility study to investigate the potential?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I do not think we need a feasibility study. The Government's objectives in the shipbuilding area are the same as those of the Hon. Member. We have long recognized, well before the Hon. Member was elected, that the Saint John shipyards are some of the best in the land. We have that in mind.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta.
May 11, 1983


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of State for Mines, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. In a notice printed in the U.S. Federal Register last December 8, the United States Government appears to lay claim to valuable polymetallic sulphide deposits along the Juan de Fuca ridge which lies off the west coast of Vancouver Island and partially within Canada's 200-mile economic zone. Subsequent diplomatic exchanges have occurred between Canada and the United States on this matter. Will the Prime Minister assure Canadians that the U.S. has no intention to claim or mine valuable strategic minerals lying within our 200-mile economic zone or in any areas lying north of the Juan de Fuca Trench?


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I would reassure the Hon. Member that we are monitoring the situation very closely. There is no danger that mining will occur within the 200-mile limit. The activities that have been announced would be within international boundaries.


INQUIRY RESPECTING POSSIBLE CANADA-UNITED STATES COOPERATION
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I would hope the Prime Minister might answer my supplementary question, because it leads to a very important policy question. As the U.S. Government does not recognize the Law of the Sea Treaty, American mining companies could conceivably lay claim to seabed minerals lying along the Juan de Fuca ridge off the coast of British Columbia, yet outside the 200-mile economic zone. Should U.S. interests decide to develop such resources off the coast of British Columbia, would Canada encourage and co-operate in such activity, which could bring immense economic benefits to Canada, or would we see this as a violation of the Law of the Sea convention which should, therefore, be vigorously opposed? Would we side with our American neighbours or with the international seabed authority?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is so hypothetical it does not really require an answer.
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. As the Minister is aware, the American Veterinary Association has placed the Ontario Veterinary College in Guelph under limited accreditation for the first time in its 121-year history and has given the college five years to modernize the premises and update its instruction or else lose the right to license veterinarians. Along with this, the Ste. Hyacinthe College for French-speaking veterinarians is now under a two-year probation regarding accreditation. What action are the Minister and his Government going to take, financially or otherwise, to assist these two colleges, bearing in mind that the federal Government relies heavily on their graduates to maintain and fill the several hundred veterinary positions in his Department?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that education is under provincial jurisdiction. We have previously entered into contracts with veterinary colleges to fund as high as 50 per cent of the cost of construction projects. I am sure he is also aware that the Government of Canada, through the Secretary of State, funds the operating costs of these schools. In Ontario, I believe the funding is approximately 59 per cent of the total cost.
For the last addition at Guelph, we funded $3 million of the construction cost. They made an agreement at that time that they would look after all of the costs involved for the next ten years, and would up the number of students to be educated from 80 to 120. They now say the school cannot do this. I have visited quite a few veterinary schools in different parts of the world. I would say that Guelph is up to the standard of any school in the world, and we will continue to do everything in our power to ensure that it continues to be so.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: I am well aware that veterinary colleges are under the jurisdiction of the respective Provinces and that the Provinces must as well pursue a more active role to turn this around.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DISCUSSIONS
Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Minister whether he would take it upon himself to get the ball rolling and perhaps arrange meetings with his provincial counterparts along with the deans of the two colleges, taking whatever steps are necessary to rectify this whole matter which should never have been allowed to occur in the first place.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the president of the university has been at our office. We have also had meetings at Guelph about this. I had a discussion as recently as ten days ago with the provincial Minister of Agriculture. But if you will recall, it was because

May 11, 1983
Oral Questions
of the wisdom of someone in the Ontario Government that the veterinary college and agricultural school was taken away from the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture and put under the jurisdiction of the Minister of education in the Province of Ontario. The downgrading of the agricultural school began at that time.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and concerns women and part-time work. Seventy-two per cent of part-time workers are women. Most have low wages, no benefits, no pensions, and no job security. This kind of exploitation must stop.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I want to ask the Minister what changes he intends to make to the Labour Code to extend protection for all part-time workers who are under federal jurisdiction, and will he also remove the restrictions that deny part-time workers in the Government the right to unionize?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House do not need to be lectured by the Hon. Member on the increased importance of part-time work and the effect it has on women. This is the reason why the Government has commissioned a study on this particular very important issue. The study ought to be ready for publication by Labour Canada in a matter of weeks, and when we have the recommendations contained in that study, which will become public very soon, as I mentioned, then we will be able to answer the Hon. Member's question specifically.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Certainly the Minister could make changes in his jurisdiction immediately. He does not need a study to do that.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment. Many part-time workers and casual workers are not eligible for Unemployment Insurance benefits. Will the Minister amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to cover part-time workers and, in particular, will he change the minimum requirement for Unemployment Insurance to 100
hours of work over a ten-week period, which would help casual employees?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I am afraid the Hon. Member is quite mistaken in saying that the Unemployment Insurance Program does not cover part-time workers. In fact the Government amended the regulations almost two years ago to ensure that part-time workers would be covered under the Unemployment Insurance Act.


MATERNITY BENEFIT PROVISIONS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who undertook in committee the other night to make certain changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act regarding the discriminatory aspects that presently exists with regard to maternity leave. Could the Minister tell us when he would be prepared to introduce those changes which are so desperately needed?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the whole issue of making changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act to eliminate some of the inequities relating to maternity benefits is one that, again, has been strongly supported by the Government. I think the Hon. Member would recognize that what I said in committee was that if the Opposition, meaning her Party and those in the New Democratic Party, were prepared to give quick and immediate passage to those amendments along with others that are absolutely essential and are required to bring about the changes, the Government would look very favourably upon doing so, but we would need that assurance from the Hon. Member and her colleagues first.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CORPORATION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. When will the Government introduce legislation relating to the Canada Development Investment Corporation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I believe the first reading is scheduled for one or two weeks from now.


ROLE OF PARLIAMENT
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell the House why he felt it appropriate that the Parliament of Canada should not have been involved before now in the creation of a Crown corporation which will be the largest holding company of its kind in Canada?
May 11, 1983


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I give the usual answer, the one that has just been given by the Minister of Employment and Immigration and by every other Minister who would like to get legislation through the House. It is the obdurateness of the Tory and the NDP Parties that prevents this House from dealing with Canada's business.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Business. In the recent budget and in statements outside the House the Minister and others have commented on the changes that will occur to the Federal Business Development Bank. I ask the Minister if he could tell us how these changes will affect the access Canadian business people will have to the funds in the Federal Business Development Bank, what people will qualify for the equity position that the bank may now take, and whether people will be able to refinance under those provisions.


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, there was a similar discussion in the House a little while ago. Actually each case must obviously be judged on its own merits. With regard to taking an equity position, that would not be the preferred option. Obviously the preferred option is to let the private sector do its job, but if a case occurred where the only option seemed to be to take an equity position, then the Bank would do that with the understanding that it would get out as quickly as possible.
I might say that the new role of the Bank will be in venture capital, and I think that that is important for small business. We want to make this the small business bank, and we particularly want to make it the bank for the rural areas of Canada.


INTEREST RATES CHARGED TO SMALL BUSINESSES
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. If the Government is prepared to try to make it the bank for small business, is the Government also prepared to look at the interest rates that are being charged to some of those Canadian small businesses that are now financed by the Federal Business Development Bank, and is there any provision or undertaking by the Government to help relieve those businesses which are facing interest rates of up to 22 per cent over a long period of time, so that we can thus protect Canadian business and the jobs that that implies?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, obviously we would want to give the most favourable interest rates possible. The Hon. Member will note that last week we announced a certain
Oral Questions
reduction in the interest rates of the Federal Business Development Bank. I might say, though, that the reason for the higher rates is because, in most cases, the banks have been getting into very high risk situations. We do want to give every possible break to the small-businessman. I repeat that we want to make this a bank for small-businessmen, particularly for those in the rural areas of Canada where, in my opinion, the private sector has not always met the need.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. I believe the Minister has been checking with his seatmate and the Minister knows that there is much concern in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia about the interruption of service with respect to Northumberland Ferries Limited, the first interruption of such services ever. I realize that the Minister appointed a mediator yesterday under Part V of the Canada Labour Code. I commend him for that. I wonder if he can tell the House if there have been any further developments since that time, and can he assure the House that he will monitor them closely? It would appear that attitudes have not yet hardened, and if he would monitor the situation closely before it degenerates into a long-term interruption of services, as did EPA, he will do the region a great service.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, I have been given very good advice and guidance on this matter by the Hon. Member sitting next to me. I would like to confirm what the Hon. Member has just said. A mediator has been appointed and will be meeting with the parties on Thursday, May 12, 1983. It is certainly our wish and our hope that this matter be resolved in order to avoid the interruptions that the Hon. Member has mentioned. Of course, in order to arrive at an equitable settlement, co-operation and good will on the part of all concerned will be required.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Defence. A month ago tomorrow, I asked the Minister if he had any evidence of Soviet involvement in Nicaragua. In view of the fact that perhaps over 100 tons of arms were intercepted in Brazil proceeding from Libya to Nicaragua, could the Minister of Defence indicate if he now has any knowledge of Soviet involvement in that country?

May 11, 1983
Oral Questions


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the Government is looking very closely at the situation in Central America. I think there have been some statements made about our interest there. The Prime Minister has expressed his views and concerns about the situation in Central America to President Reagan in Washington. We are receiving the usual information about what is going on in that part of the world. As far as the implication that other countries are delivering arms to that part of the world is concerned, I believe that it is public knowledge that there is much interference in these countries from one side or the other. As was stated before, I believe the policy of the Government is that Nicaragua should be run by Nicaraguans, and no other country should be involved in the internal affairs of this or any other country.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REVIEW AID PROGRAMS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of External Affairs perhaps 1 could put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that it has been stated that violence has become Nicaragua's most important export to the rest of the world; in view of the fact that that country now has a new army numbering 25,000 men, supported by a militia of 50,000; in view of the fact that there are 2,000 Cuban military and security advisers in that country, backed up with Soviet tanks and other equipment, would the Prime Minister indicate if the Government is reviewing the various aid programs which we have extended to Nicaragua, with a view to seeing if, indeed, they should be continued when there is such evidence of a build-up of a military nature in that country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, our aid programs everywhere are always under review.


CANCELLATION OF U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for External Affairs perhaps I could address my question to his parliamentary secretary. Yesterday the Security Council cancelled its scheduled meeting on Nicaragua's complaint that the United States is trying to topple its Government. Can the parliamentary secretary inform the House whether a date has been established for the meeting of the Security Council to take place on this charge? And can he also tell us whether the Canadian Government is going to take any initiatives to urge the Secretary General, Perez de Cuellar, to participate in the peacemaking process?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I am afraid it is too soon for us to have this
information right now. As soon as the Secretary of State for External Affairs returns, there will be a discussion of Canada's initiatives in this respect.


BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS PROPOSAL
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could ask the Prime Minister if he knows of any Canadian initiatives which will be taken to persuade Secretary General Perez de Cuellar to participate in the peacemaking process in Central America? Also, in reference to a question that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East, asked the other day about the Contadora group's proposal-this is the proposal of the Contadora group which would encourage bilateral negotiations between Nicaragua and the United States, and bilateral negotiations between Nicaragua and Honduras-could the Prime Minister indicate whether the Canadian Government is going to give its support, as part of the requested international support, to the Contadora group's proposal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I believe the Minister has already indicated sympathy and support for the Contadora proposal. Certainly it is one which we see as constructive and one which we encourage. We believe that the states of the region are fully justified to be worried lest that whole area become again a cockpit of international rivalry. Therefore, we support the proposal. Whether it will have the results which the Hon. Member suggests, I do not know, but I believe that is the purpose of the proposal. I certainly hope it will have that effect. There should be more dialogue between the countries, and there should even be more dialogue between some of those countries and the United States of America.


HOUSING
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works who, earlier in the Question Period, indicated that a young couple were grossly ill advised to give notice of vacating their apartment and entering into a purchase order for a new home, on the basis of what I thought was a reasonable expectation on their behalf of what was contained in the budget with respect to the $3,000 subsidy.
The other gross mistake which was brought to the attention of the House by the Minister was that the Government and Central Mortgage, despite the best advice available to it, grossly under-estimated the market. Given these two mistakes, one by a young couple hoping to purchase their first house, and the other by a Department which, according to the Minister possesses the best experts in the field, who, in the interest of
May 11, 1983

fairness and equity, in the Minister's view, should pay the price of that mistake?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I understood the previous Hon. Member to say that some people had given up their apartment as if they were just waiting to enter a house for which a foundation had not yet been laid. I thought that that sort of rhetoric did not help the debate.
I believe the question of the Hon. Member for Perth is a very serious one. Obviously, there are criteria which have to be met when you are applying for a $3,000 home ownership grant. Surely those, at least, should be met before major decisions, such as giving up an apartment, are made. On the other hand, I said that we had estimated, to the best of our knowledge, what would be the normal housing starts in the best years which we have seen in the housing history of the country. It is obvious that confidence has returned and a lot of Canadians want to build houses. There are a lot of savings which are not used and that is what we were trying to encourage.
I did not say so in my previous answers, but Canadians should also look at the other announcements made by the Minister of Finance, such as on the Registered Home Ownership Plan, which really offers considerable advantages in many cases. In fact some of them are superior to the $3,000 grant. That being said, I am assessing the size of the problem. As soon as I have information I will answer the serious question raised by the Hon. Member.


PETRO-CANADA EXPLORATION FOR OIL OFF CHINA COAST
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the Minister will know, Petro-Canada has just announced that it is going to spend Canadian taxpayer dollars on off-shore exploration for oil off mainland China. The Minister will also know that Petro-Canada announced the closing of a project in northeastern Alberta related to the heavy oil sands. Can the Minister explain why, in this time of economic stagnation, when jobs are needed in Canada, we are spending, through Petro-Canada, Canadian dollars for jobs off mainland China, but withdrawing funds which are creating jobs in Canada?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, Petro-Canada, like many other corporations which have some experts available, have to find opportunity not only in Canada but elsewhere. I believe this agreement with China is creating an opportunity in the field of oil and gas for drilling in an area where there is a great opportunity. In so far as the problems within Canada are
Oral Questions
concerned, we are working all the time on some projects. I am in constant touch with the Government of Alberta. We are trying to develop new projects. I think that to link the two projects the way the Hon. Member just did, is absoltely unfair and uncalled for.


DEVELOPMENT OF DOMESTIC RESOURCES
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I would disagree with the Minister that linking the two projects is not fair. I would like to remind the Minister that in northeastern Alberta the total known reserves in the tar sands and in the oil sands surpass all of the reserves in the Middle East. Is it not time that the Government looked to our own security of energy supply, of oil supply, and developed those resources, rather than move off to China and develop mainland China resources for their security of supply?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member must realize, coming from western Canada, that Canadian trade with China is very important because we have a very large surplus of trade with China, and most of the goods we sell to China are agricultural products coming from the Prairies. I believe he should be aware that it is quite important to maintain good relations. In terms of his comment on the energy situation in Canada, I invite him to read the comments of Total Petroleum, as reported in the press this morning, where they said that the only place they can do good business in oil at this time is in Canada.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a very brief question I would like to direct to the Minister of Defence. Yesterday I asked if he would table four contracts between the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan. Is he now prepared to table those contracts? If it is a question of the consent of the Government of Saskatchewan, I believe he will find there will be full co-operation in obtaining that consent from that Government.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, in answering the Leader of the Opposition yesterday I said I was looking into the matter as far as the confidentiality of the documents was concerned, and also I thought it was only reasonable to have the concurrence of the Saskatchewan Government before tabling them. There is no confidentiality in the documents, and I have the consent of the Government of Saskatchewan. With your permission, Madam Speaker, after Question Period I will be happy to table the documents.

May 11, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Corbett



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Sixth Report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Official Languages, and pursuant to Standing Order 69(13), the Committee is seeking a comprehensive response.


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS- PRESENTATION OF FIFTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Fifteenth Report, Statutory Instruments No. 19, of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, and pursuant to Standing Order 69(13), the Committee is seeking a comprehensive response.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to table under the provisions of S.O. 41(2) the documents I referred to in Question Period.


PRIVILEGE
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention a matter I consider to be a question of privilege not only for myself but also for the people across this nation who work in shipyards, particularly those shipyard workers who are unemployed. In asking a question today of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) which was terribly important to those people-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member did not get a supplementary but I think everyone else in the House understood the reason. Members have been pleading with me to be a
little more strict about questions. The Hon. Member's question was a very, very long one and he got an answer. I suppose the best way to help the people he wants to help is to conform with the rules of the House, which require that questions be short and seek information. I will be glad to recognize the Hon. Member on any other occasion so he can satisfy his constituents, but he must be brief in his questions.


Robert Alfred Corbett: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Well, no, the Hon. Member is not going to comment on the ruling I have just made. That is final. The Hon. Member did not get a supplementary, and I am sure I have the support of the House in enforcing the brevity of questions.


Robert Alfred Corbett: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is now rising on a point of order?


Robert Alfred Corbett: Yes.


Madam Speaker:: Tell me immediately what the point of order is.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Quite simply, the point of order is that if new rules have been introduced in this House I have not received them. Is there some sort of a


Madam Speaker:: Order. They are not new rules, they are very old rules. I would refer the Hon. Member to our Standing Orders. Questions must be brief and seek information.


Erik Nielsen: And the answers must be brief.


PETITION
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House I would like to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 106, the Petition of Michael Rusnak, praying for the passage of an Act to incorporate the Eparch of the Eparchy of Saints Cyril and Methodius of Slovaks of the Byzantine Rite in Canada, filed after the time limit specified under Standing Order 97, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, together with the Four Hundred and Thirty-Eighth Report of the Clerk of Petitions thereon, presented to the House on Tuesday, April 26, 1983, for any recommendations the Committee deems advisable.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
May 11, 1983

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 4,407.
[ Text]


Mr. Cook: Did any individual against whom a Section 21 Certificate was issued in 1969 enter the country on a Ministerial Permit during the period January 1, 1975 to December 1, 1980 and, if so (a) was the Permit ever issued under a criminal category (b) was the occupation of the individual ever shown as "unknown"?


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes. (a) No. (b) No.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

['Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.']
Madam Speaker:: Shall all items listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the proposer of the first motion but I feel my
Point of Order-Mr. Donald W. Munro
point of order is a matter which concerns all Members on Wednesdays, the timing of the notification of Bills or Motions or whatever is to be brought before us today.
The projected daily order of business reached my office at 11.10 today, Mr. Speaker. The notification which is published and photostated is not in our lobby. The one in the lobby now is the one placed there by our Deputy Whip for last week's proceedings. This is not good enough. There are matters brought before the House by Private Members which are important, not just to individual Members but to the country. We are here to bring forward for the consideration of this House matters which the Governments not prepared to consider. Members should have, and do have, the right to bring them forward. They should have the opportunity to prepare properly for their consideration.
The selection of subjects is also a very great mystery to everyone, Mr. Speaker. I understand there is a fair amount of telephoning to Members asking whether we are prepared to raise a particular matter, say, tomorrow. Perhaps they even call us on the same day the matter is to be brought forward. That selection process is not clear in anyone's mind.
I am sorry to eat into the time of the Hon. Member by ten minutes, not of the first speaker, but of the third matter to be considered today. His time will be reduced by ten minutes or by however long this point of order takes, unless there is unanimous consent of the House to do otherwise.
My contention, Mr. Speaker, is that the rules governing Private Members' Business are not clear. They are not sufficiently clarified in the Order Paper for everyone to receive sufficient notice-the proposer, for example-or for those who wish to speak to the matter to receive notice to prepare themselves. There is not sufficient time for each matter to be considered for an hour for the full three hours.
Those three matters deserve the most careful consideration by the Chair. All backbenchers are concerned and I think I am speaking for them in raising this point of order this afternoon.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, if it would help the Hon. Member, I could prepare an outline of the manner in which the system works so as to establish what the business is for any given day, and I could circulate it to all Members.
If, however, there are any suggestions that there is favouritism or preference given, that is simply not true. If you look at today's list, Mr. Speaker, you will see the names of three Opposition Members. A week or two ago a point was raised by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and just

May 11, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Donald W. Munro
a couple of days ago we contacted him to see if he would be prepared to go on today, but he was not.


Donald W. Munro: Who is "we"?


David P. Smith: "We" is the office that co-ordinates this procedure and reports to me. We then contacted the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) and he was interested in substituting one Bill for another. We thought that was reasonable and we accommodated him.
In order to accommodate Members it is not always possible to get the list out as soon as the Hon. Member would like. That is the only reason. I want to assure him that it is equally inconvenient for the various Parliamentary Secretaries who have an obligation to organize the debate in response to Private Members Bills. They do not get any more notice than the Members who are raising the issue.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the late hour at which Members are notified of their participation has always been a bone of contention. I think it is fair to say that once we start the new session under the new Standing Orders, there will be a draw and Hon. Members will know reasonably far in advance when their Bill will come up. If they are nineteenth on the list, say, they will have a reasonable assurance of when they might have a chance to debate.
I think the problem now is that we are operating with two sets of rules. We are not operating under the draw system that was recommended. I understand it has been quite difficult of late to get Hon. Members to take part.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, when the Parliamentary Secretary is looking into that point, I wonder if he would look into another matter which affects the privileges of Members of Parliament. As one of those who had five minutes to debate the very important and directly related matter of the establishment of a Canadian merchant marine, I felt at the time that the importance of the subject was downgraded and that my capacity under that ancient right of this Chamber that a Member shall be heard was impinged.
The essence of the argument is that we have erred in our rules and we must find some way to correct that; to get the full hour allotted without having to wait for the start of a new session. That may never come, Mr. Speaker.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that under the new provisional rules we now have three hours, or we attempt to have three hours, each Wednesday afternoon, whereas under the old rules there were only two after you reached the 40-hour point in any given session. Strictly speaking, a little more time is given to Private Members' Business now than was given before.
I wish to assure my hon. friend that if I had been here I would gladly have given unanimous consent for the time of the House being extended to accommodate him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) raises a legitimate grievance. However, the Chair must be guided by custom and practice covering these matters. As Hon. Members know, the Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure is reviewing the Standing Orders and rules of the House of Commons, so this would perhaps be an ideal matter to refer to that Committee. The Chair also takes into account the proposals put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith).
I would also draw to the attention of Hon. Members the ruling made on December 5, 1977 by Mr. Deputy Speaker Laniel and reported at page 1557 of Hansard for that date as follows:
Second, a Member who feels that the practice has resulted in an injustice on a particular occasion and that he should have been consulted or given more advance notice may, of course, express his dissatisfaction simply by withholding the required unanimous consent. This would oblige the Chair to call seriatim, one by one, all items preceding the scheduled item.
The various concerns expressed at that time were no different from those expressed today and on a number of previous occasions. In the case of the Bill presently before us, unanimous consent has been given.
The Chair has heard the grievance expressed by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich. The best one can do in the circumstances is to ask that the Committee clarify or tighten up the procedure under which the selection is made. Until that is done the Chair would want to be guided by the current practice established by the House.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that today's contribution to this particular debate be referred specifically to the Committee so that it will be seized of the problem, will understand what the problem of the backbencher is and deal with it in an appropriate fashion. That may be by extending the hours automatically after six o'clock, by providing that notification be posted in all lobbies on Monday or that notification be given at the time of the normal Thursday question. I think that would perhaps be the most appropriate time.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is talking about the rules and regulations and not about the personnel involved. I find that the officer who looks after this is most obliging and does his best to accommodate us in every way he can.
I think it is the rules and regulations on procedures that worry us, rather than the personnel.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The point made by the Hon. Member is well received by the Chair. Short of proceeding with a formal motion to refer this important topic to the Committee looking at procedures, the Chair will take it up itself to write the Chairman of that Committee and submit the points made by all Parties.
May 11, 1983


MARITIME INDUSTRIAL OPPORTUNITIES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of creating a Royal Commission on Maritime Industrial Opportunities for Canada with terms of reference to include studies and recommendations (a) on the feasibility and benefits of creating a Canadian merchant fleet (b) on co-ordinating the efforts of Government, industry and organized labour in creating a Canadian merchant fleet (c) on a course of action which would allow Canadians to identify and capture future economic benefits in the marine industrial sector, such as offshore mineral development and seabed mining.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion originally found itself on the Order Paper on November 26, 1981. It is rather interesting that we should be debating the motion today since some action has been taken to generate shipbuilding interest across the country. However, I still believe that this motion is relevant because what activity has been provided by the Government in this field is quite hopelessly inadequate when measured against the opportunities that are available for Canadians.
I think most Members of the House would recognize that the date of this motion comes after considerable and hard-fought debate on the Canada Oil and Gas Act, Bill C-48. In that Act the Government provided a number of measures which it claimed would provide industrial benefits to Canada from oil and gas development, particularly from offshore oil and gas development. The Government spoke of the benefits that would accrue from the sourcing of materials in Canada and enhancing Canadian producers not only to supply our needs in this field but to develop expertise and eventually sell it offshore. It also included provisions to ensure the procurement of Canadian employment.
The unfortunate fact which became clear when we were discussing this legislation was that it was totally discretionary. The clauses that were written into the legislation were virtually ineffective in providing any teeth, public scrutiny or any input from outside the Minister's office. Although he would have advice from his supporting Departments, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was solely responsible for determining what would happen in this very important industrial sector. I would suggest from the facts that were laid before the committee and the House of Commons when considering the Oil and Gas Act that the Minister's priorities were definitely for developing energy without considering industrial benefits in Canada. Those discretionary powers were far in excess of what was required and certainly excluded many other sectors in the country, including the marine industrial sector, members of organized labour and the public in general who would benefit.
The purpose of this motion is to try to shed some light on these facts. We had envisioned a group of knowledgeable people being convened as an inquiry group which would travel throughout the country to meet with representatives of municipalities, organized labour and the various shipyards and shipbuilders in Canada. They would meet with the oceans industries group who provide materials to the shipbuilding
Maritime Industrial Opportunities
industry so that this inquiry could produce a general and well informed, publicly informed document that could supply some recommendations for improving the marine industrial sector in Canada.
We eventually saw some initiatives on the part of the Government and the acknowledgement that the shipbuilding industry which it had ignored for years was in fact worth the time and investment. I would point out that the federal Government appeared to be interested in developing a shipbuilding policy from what we delivered at the beginning of the year, which advocated a very passive effort with no activity at all.
That passive action came in the form of three basic proposals. It would see the customs boundary extended out 200 miles in the hope of capturing marine activities within Canada, such as marine platforms which would be constructed in Canada in order to escape the duty provisions. This proposal or policy statement, which is all that it is, would eliminate some of the preferential duties that would allow certain nations such as Commonwealth countries and developing nations to dump ships in Canada at much lower prices and without penalties than Canadian shipyards could provide. While obvious loopholes such as that were blocked, that was not the case with the boundary. The boundary was not extended.
Now that the policy is in place I wonder if we will ever see the supporting legislation. It is my understanding that the responsibility now passes from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) to the Secretary of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove). We have no indication that this will occur.
A second token recognition was revealed in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). The Minister of Finance is the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the one who took the position that he would be the end-all and be-all in determining what would happen in Canadian shipbuilding. As Minister of Finance he used his discretion by giving another indication that the Canadian Government had some minor interest in shipbuilding in this country. He indicated that approximately $700 million would be provided for a Coast Guard fleet renovation program.
I would point out, however, that this old plum of the Coast Guard fleet renovation has been trotted out by Cabinet Ministers over the last three Parliaments. Every time that an individual in the Treasury benches requires a plum to trot out during his travelling through the Great Lakes, or on the East or West Coast of the country, he would trot out the old Coast Guard fleet renovation program. When the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) was Minister of Defence in the previous Conservative Government, he proposed a $300 million fleet renovation program. We are still waiting for those vessels.
We also heard about the same fleet renovation program in the previous Parliament. I know that Members of the Party to my right have been asking that the program be put on the drawing board quickly and be accelerated for three purposes. The first is to provide the infrastructure and equipment that the Canadian Coast Guard needs to perform efficiently. The

vessels and floating equipment under construction or on order, with a gross tonnage of 186,000 tonnes. This reflects a reduction of 59 per cent in the number of units under construction and a 35 per cent reduction in tonnage. New orders were down drastically from 38 in 1981 to 11 in 1982. The report goes on to indicate that there are no new orders for 1983 in the order book. This is a desperate situation. With the exception of the soft commitment, the statement of policy on which the Government has not delivered, and the Canadian frigate program, there is very little in the works for the Canadian shipbuilding industry.
In the discussion of the Canada Oil and Gas Act, discussion was had of some of the models other countries such as Norway or Britain develop. I am speaking of the offshore supply office concept. Certain specialists could take a look at Canadian industry where there is potential for development and encourage the taking on of new lines of products that would meet maritime industrial needs, co-ordinating those activities with the shipbuilders, the oil companies and the offshore resource exploration companies who require it.
In Britain they had hundreds and hundreds of people working in the offshore supply office. They were involved in marketing, engineering and in on the ground, hands-on assistance to business in a variety of areas. It was effective assistance. But what did we put forward, Mr. Speaker? We put forward 24 people in the Department of Industry's office of industrial benefits. It is a joke. By the time they get just the simple paper work done and manage to organize it, it is a wonder they can do anything in the area of practical assistance.
Over the next two decades we are looking at the expenditure of billions of dollars. We are talking in the order of $33 billion. There are 400 different projects over the next two decades at which Canadian yards could have a crack. It would employ tens of thousands of Canadians. But the Government in its very soft commitment wants 24 people to do all that work. It is ridiculous. That is a failure to deliver on the commitment.
I say to the Government double or triple the resources. This is not Goverment intervention; it is a desperate and real need to co-ordinate and disseminate information to encourage the private sector to take on more activities. Some assurance should be given in the beginning that the investment will find a return. That can be guaranteed by proper timing of programs and by proper resources allocated to assist business to get rolling in this important field.
It is interesting that over the years on the merchant fleet side we probably have had a very large Canadian-owned merchant fleet, with companies such as Federal Commerce and Navigation, Canadian Pacific and Papachristidis Mara-time Inc. A large number of Canadian firms benefit by registering those ships offshore. They have tax concessions and reduced requirements for employee benefits and benefits like that. This Government could very quickly see those ships returned to Canada. We would have ready made employment for shipyards, ready made business for Canadian crews and the entire secondary area of employment and economic opportunities that accrue out of it. This Government could very quickly
Maritime Industrial Opportunities
put those Canadian ships onshore by one simple method. It could adopt the UNCTAD procedure of cargo reservations and say that the selling of Canadian goods offshore would be applied under the UNCTAD proposal. Then those shipping companies would come onshore to carry our goods. They are carrying them already, but the benefits are going elsewhere.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) for moving his motion today. He almost apologized for doing so and questioned whether or not it was relevant since he placed it on the Order Paper back in November, 1981. I want to assure him that it is very relevant today.
I am pleased that he acknowleged the federal Government is interested in the deep sea fleet subject. Also I was very pleased he gave the federal Government some recognition because we have done something modestly, as he put it. He also gave recognition to the present budget which earmarked over $700 million for the Canadian Coast Guard Fleet Renovation and Acquisition Program.
More important, his motion allows us to present to Canadians what has and what has not been done in this entire area. As the Hon. Member probably knows very well, Canada made a conscious decision in the late 1940s to rely on market forces for international shipping requirements, which led to the demise of the post-war inefficient Canadian flag fleet. This does not mean, however, that the Government has ignored the issue of Canada's participation in ocean shipping over the past 30 years. Several very extensive studies have been commissioned over past years to ascertain whether or not it would be in the Canadian interest to encourage the development of a Canadian presence in deep sea shipping. Before recommending further studies or Royal Commissions, as the Hon. Member suggested, I think it behooves us to examine some of the history and results of earlier studies.
In order to understand better the present situation, it is important to go back to the situation which prevailed after the Second World War. In 1945 the Park Steamship Company was administering a fleet of 176 vessels. By 1948 the Canadian fleet comprised 215 dry-cargo vessels totalling two million deadweight tons. The post-war shortage of shipping services and high ocean freight rates allowed Canadian vessels to operate in the deep sea trades despite the fact that Canadian flag operating costs were the second highest in the world. By the end of the decade, however, growing competition from foreign fleets, a drop in world freight rates, labour problems and changing technology began to tell upon Canada's merchant marine.
After a substantive review of the international shipping situation in 1948-49, the Canadian Marine Commission concluded that:
Having regard to the cost of construction and operation and taking trade balances into consideration, it is inadvisable as well as uneconomic for Canada to

May II, 1983
Maritime Industrial Opportunities
consider the construction and operation of a Canadian flag, ocean-going merchant marine of sufficient dimensions to accommodate all her export trade or any fixed percentage thereof.
The Commission recommended that Canada maintain the shipping and shipbuilding industries as a nucleus capable of rapid expansion in an emergency. The Government, however, conscious of the difficulties faced by the Park fleet, decided to rely fully on market forces and approved a liquidation of the inefficient Park fleet. Owners were given seven years in which to use the proceeds of the sale of war-built ships for the acquisition of new or reconditioned ships, preferably ones built in Canadian shipyards. Because owners were reluctant to build deep sea tonnage, a large portion of the sale proceeds were ultimately diverted into lake and coastal shipping. It is worth noting that these fiscal privileges were a key element in the development of the Canadian Great Lakes fleet, which not only serves as a low-cost, efficient carrier of Canadian domestic cargoes, but has managed as well to capture a large proportion of the marine cargoes moving between the United States and Canada. I am told that this now amounts to about 90 per cent.
Ever since the decision to liquidate the Park Steamship Company, the debate has been going on as to whether or not it is economically sound to revive the Canadian deep sea fleet. Although there has been in the past, and continues to be, selective participation by Canadian flag shipping in specialized deep sea trades, it is generally recognized that Canada may not possess a world-wide comparative advantage in the deep sea shipping sector which would allow the country to become a major maritime power. The conclusions of the various studies have been similar. Although Canadians face some cost disadvantages, the studies all pointed out the potential for Canadian participation in certain trades, particularly those where capital intensive vessels were required.
In 1970, after the passing of the National Transportation Act, a report prepared by Hedlin Menzies and Associates for the Canadian Transport Commission assessed the potential feasibility of a Canadian deep sea merchant marine. The Hedlin Menzies study was an exhaustive evaluation of the economics of deep sea shipping. Construction and operating costs were obtained for both Canadian and foreign flag operators. A computerized economic evaluation model was used to identify prototype ships that would result in minimum carrying costs for each major Canadian deep sea bulk trade.
In total, 26 separate East and West Coast Canadian trade patterns were examined, which embraced various Canadian trade cargoes, possible cross-trades and possible ship types. On the basis of these most efficient ships, the study then calculated the freight rates and revenues operators would require. They concluded that Canadian flag operators would require annual revenues between 14 per cent to 20 per cent higher than those required by low-cost foreign flag owners in order to achieve the same after tax return on equity. They attributed the higher required revenues to the impact of Canadian taxes and the higher operating costs caused by Canadian crew and subsistence costs. Despite this general cost situation, the study identified as potentially economic for Canadian owners those
trades using bulk-type vessels with capital costs in excess of $10 million, using 1975 dollars.
An exhaustive study of the commercial viability of shipping into and out of Canada was carried out in the late 1970s by Alcan Shipping Services Limited. The basic message from the Alcan report with respect to the commercial viability of the various options studied was that a number of routes were potentially profitable for Canadian entrepreneurs. The Alcan study examined the relative competitiveness and profitability of foreign flag shipping versus Canadian flag options and tested them against 23 selected commodity routes accounting for 54 per cent of Canadian 1974 deep sea exports and 30 per cent of deep sea imports in tonnage terms. These included 12 bulk routes, five neo-bulk routes, four container routes and two break-bulk routes. For purposes of analysis, costs and revenues were projected for each route on the assumption that vessels appropriate to the nature and amount of the cargoes involved would be employed.
The 12 bulk commodity routes accounted for 55 per cent of Canadian deep sea bulk exports and 35 per cent of deep sea bulk imports in 1974. The five neo-bulk routes accounted for 48 per cent of all neo-bulk Canadian deep sea trade during the same year, and the four container routes represented 78 per cent of Canada's container trade.
The study did not attempt to select routes for potential Canadian investment. It simply examined the commercial attractiveness of these four options. Results were based on anticipated average conditions over a 20-year period. A typical vessel was identified for each route and traffic flow volumes estimated. Future freight rates were calculated, as well as future vessel costs. Other variables included were vessel purchase and charter costs, payment schedules and loan terms, write-off periods, maintenance and crewing costs, port and fuel costs, market freight rates and appropriate discount rates.
The analysis indicated that Canadian-built and Canadian registered ships could prove profitable on seven routes. Canadian registered ships obtained from the cheapest source of supply were considered potentially profitable on six routes.
In light of these types of findings, it is difficult to find justification for any further studies of the commercial competitiveness of prospective Canadian operators in deepsea shipping. In fact, there are many reasons why it is very difficult to compare Canadian flag operations with foreign operations, a large proportion of which are influenced by various Government assistance programs. First, there is very little economic regulation of the international shipping industry. Hence reliable and timely cost data is very difficult to come by.
Second, the international deepsea industry is a very large industry which is not homogeneous. Conditions which prevail in one part of the industry may not be similar in another. There are a variety of types of operations with often a clear separation in the behaviour of various market segments. For example, there are the three principal shipping markets, liquid bulk, dry bulk and general cargo, as well as the specialty
May 11, 1983

markets such as heavylift, short-sea, roll-on-roll-off-ferries, cruise ships and more. Each one of these is completely different in the type of size of vessels employed, often in the ports they serve and the economic conditions which affect them. Thus, simultaneously it is possible to have a boom in the bulk carrier market due to extraordinary wheat purchases by an East European nation, a bust in the large tanker market due to a crisis in the Persian Gulf, a simultaneous boom in the offshore supply vessel market in the hunt for alternate resources, and a slump in the cruise market due to a recession in the United States. Thus it is not possible to draw conclusions about the industry that are applicable to all situations.
Third, the ocean shipping industry is very volatile with rapid changes in rates and in second-hand ship costs, as these reflect the capitalized value of earnings potential. In very few sectors, is it more evident than in international shipping that forces combine to make it a volatile sector. Transportation being a derived demand, all cycles affecting one particular commodity or specific trade route are immediately passed on to shipping in terms of reduced volumes, rates or irregular patterns. On the other hand, ar demonstrated by the world petroleum pricing situation, the increases in commodity prices are not necessarily reflected by higher freight rates, although often there may be a relation between the value of commodities and the level of rates.
Rates are also affected by political factors such as the closing of the Suez Canal or military activities, creating a demand for commercial shipping, as demonstrated by the Korean and Vietnamese wars. Any analysis of freight rates in the international marine sector will quickly show that rates fluctuate violently, not uncommonly rising by some 250 to 350 per cent within weeks, if not days, then dropping just as rapidly to original levels or even well below.
An illustration of rate fluctuations is transportation charges for wheat between Canadian St. Lawrence River ports and Antwerp, Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Ocean charter freight rates from these St. Lawrence ports on a yearly weighted average basis were $10.84 U.S. per tonne in 1973, rising to $18.18 U.S. in 1980 and falling back to $6.31 per tonne by 1982, a level only 60 per cent of the rates prevailing nine years earlier.
It is very important to note the fact that Canada does not have a major deep sea fleet does not mean that there has been no participation by Canadians in the industry. As of the beginning of 1982, total registered tonnage of the Canadian merchant fleet of 1,000 deadweight tonnes and over under the Canadian flag amounted to $3,600,000 deadweight tonnes and included 271 ships. Of these ships, 85 were identified as being able to navigate on the oceans but only a few were actually engaged in deep sea services, the majority of vessels being used almost exclusively in domestic coasting or transporter trades.
An important fleet, which is indicative of Canadian interest in shipping and illustrates the potential for more direct participation, is the one controlled by Canadians but registered abroad. Although no official Canadian records show the real extent of Canadian control, estimates prepared by the Canadian Transport Commission show that at the end of 1982
Maritime Industrial Opportunities
Canadians controlled at least 108 ships which totalled over 6.5 million deadweight tonnes. Controlled by companies such as Canadian Pacific Limited, Cast North American Limited and Fednav, Limited, this fleet is registered in countries such as the United Kingdom, Liberia, Belgium and Hong Kong.
The largest and one of the most successful components of the Canadian flag fleet is the fleet operating in the inland waters of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. Canadian Government support for the Canadian laker fleet was extensive following the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959. The result of these policies was a Canadian flag fleet that expanded rapidly to take advantage of the larger ship sizes made possible by the new Seaway locks.
As well as moving domestic Canadian trade on the Great Lakes, the Canadian lake fleet moves over 90 per cent of the transborder cargoes between Canada and the United States. The solid establishment of a Canadian fleet on the Great Lakes and similar successes on both coasts in the domestic and transborder trades show that given the proper environment, Canadians can operate successfully and innovate to remain competitive. For example, Canadian ship owners have pioneered the use of self-unloader ships in the Great Lakes, and on the West Coast many tugs or barges have been designed to serve specific needs of the forest industry. As well, those successful operators have demonstrated the feasibility and viability of using Canadian crews and dealing with unions in a constructive and stable manner.
As well as successes in domestic and transborder trades, certain Canadian operators have discovered commercially viable selective opportunities in deep sea trades based on some market or technological advantage. The most recent venture in this direction has been the decisions of some of our Canadian Great Lakes ship owners to build ships that are capable of operating both in the deep sea trades and in the Great Lakes.
Two of these ships were delivered last year, a further five are being delivered this year and a final two are scheduled to be delivered in 1984. At an average cost of $40 million each, these nine ships constitute a very large financial commitment by Canadian ship owners and reflect the belief of Canadian ship owners that they can compete in certain deep sea trades based on the advantage of the self-unloading technology which they have developed in the Great Lakes and based on the strength of their present domestic operations.
However, a study recently completed by Professor Shaw of York University for the Canadian Transport Commission argues that the technological advantage which these ships presently enjoy may be lost in a few years as operators of foreign flag shipping gain access to the same technology. He argues that the tax rules applicable to these Canadian operations will have to be changed if these new ocean-going lakers are to continue to operate in deep sea shipping on a commercial basis.
The Government is continuing to determine the specific tax and shipping policies which will create an environment that will be more attractive for deep sea operators to invest in

May 11, 1983
Maritime Industrial Opportunities
Canada. I have more to say but I see, Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that my time is up.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, first may I compliment the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on bringing forward this motion to create a royal commission on maritime industrial opportunities within Canada. There is no need for him to apologize about the timing of his motion, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) said.
In my opening comments I want to say how sorry some of us on this side are for the Parliamentary Secretary when he has to stand up in this House and read a memorandum prepared by some bureaucrat deep in the bowels of the marine section of the Department of Transport, feeding out information that they assembled. I believe that memorandum may have been circulated in the form of a magazine or an article directed to the nation at large. It would be nice to hear the Parliamentary Secretary speaking from his gut and from his heart about how he feels as a person representing the people rather than as a bureaucrat deep within the system.
This very, very critical issue is uppermost in the minds of most of us who reside in the Maritime areas and regions of Canada. The mover of the motion, myself and another colleague here in the House come from the West Coast. In my riding alone there are eight shipyards including one major shipyard. These eight shipyards have pioneered the technology that created ships to service the emerging oil industry in the North Sea and the offshore rigs. They have designed and built marvellous vessels that work in the Arctic Ocean and serve the drilling rigs and islands in the Arctic.
We now have an unbelievable technology that has emerged from the marine colleges of the world. I would say that the marine architects from the West Coast stand second to none. Our products can be delivered all over South America, into Asia, Europe and the North Sea. What we on the West Coast seem to want is equal and fair treatment by the Export Development Corporation that will enable us to put together compatible packages that are small enough to allow us to deliver the great fishing technology and service technology and auxiliary vessel technology that has been developed on the West Coast.
I have struggled with the bureaucracy here in Ottawa many times to try to get the Export Development Corporation to recognize the needs of the West Coast consortiums that deal in only a few million dollars, but these few million dollars are very important to this type of highly specialized shipyard. If the package is not in the hundreds of millions of dollars, the Export Development Corporation does not seem to be interested in it. It is too much bother in terms of the red tape and paper work that must be done. That really is a tragedy. We are losing much of our ability to build and service our domestic Maritime needs because of the total financial packages coming from shipbuilding countries that have similar design and architectural capacities but have perhaps a far higher level of productivity with lower cost.
The essential difficulty that the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) is trying to overcome is something that I have pondered and struggled with quite a bit. We in the House keep telling ourselves that it is our national need to improve national productivity at all levels, and that to challenge costs and really bring inflation down to levels where mankind is served properly by the system, productivity must be improved. As we improve our productivity, the capital quotient of production will have to be improved. We will have to improve the person-hours in production as a quotient and we will have to bring capital and labour into optimum balance.
Just recently the Government saw fit to announce that it will finance a productivity centre in order to bring us out of the productivity dilemma that we are faced with in this country. Well, is it not interesting that the Right Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker structured a productivity centre back in the 1960s that the Liberal Government then closed? We have now returned to more rhetoric on the need for productivity.
I believe that the essence of truth in terms of our need for productivity is something that we as politicians in the House who stand for election are failing to grapple with. It is far more important to grab money from the federal pot and sprinkle it around our ridings than face up to some hard facts. I would love to take to my riding some of the Coast Guard fleet renovation programs.
Mr. Speaker, what is being done in the Coast Guard fleet renovation program? As I understand it, the major dollars involved in that program will replace three of the larger Coast Guard vessels that are used as buoy tenders, channel tenders and so on. Just last Monday I was told by a very responsible official in the Department that there were ten to 15 years of life left in each of three vessels that this Coast Guard fleet renovation program will replace. The new vessels will have an efficiency in fuel consumption that is lacking in the old vessels, but the old vessels were very efficient and well constructed with ten to 15 years of good service left in them for the duty that they perform; but here we are phasing them out at a time when they have no market value. They will go to the scrapyard. We will deliver these three new vessels in order to create some temporary work in our shipyards and probably in order to upgrade accommodation on those vessels for the employees of the Coast Guard. It seems to me to be very wasteful and tragic to resort to that kind of program in order to make work.
On the other hand, what if we were to direct our energies back to ALRT, the automatic rail transport system that is being installed in Vancouver for Transpo 86? Why does this Government not take a type of export development credit and put together a financial package on the ALRT, and give this country a domestic working model from the Lower Mainland all the way up through the Fraser Valley on both sides of the river to open up a whole new vista of land and lower the cost of housing and living within the Lower Mainland of British Columbia?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 11, 1983


Arthur Ronald Huntington: We will not sell the Canadian ALRT program until there is a complete working model at home in our own land. ALRT was originally justified because there is something like a $4 billion world market for this type of technology. We in Canada will not be able to sell on the world market. We do not have a really efficient working model on a domestic urban scale because the financial package has not been available to that demonstration project.
What I am getting at is that if we are to resolve the problems we are facing today, we must address the national productivity. In order to address productivity we will have to be honest with ourselves and stop being so political and dishonest with our national interests.
We are now in the age of GATT. A struggle with protectionism is going on in the country. We are trying to break down barriers and open up free trade. Mr. Speaker, we have a very hard five to eight years ahead of us adjusting to international free trade. How are our shipyards and steel industries to compete when Canadian labour is at S20 an hour, Japanese labour is at $9 an hour and Korean labour is at $4 an hour? Right there in the labour quotient of capital goods is a productivity challenge.
These are problems that must be addressed. Maybe the royal commission that our colleague from the NDP is calling for will address those problems. But a royal commission consisting only of shipping interests and Maritime union interests, totally self-interested, would be a total waste of money and a national tragedy. If we are to structure a royal commission, we must open it up to all input from the nation and the world in order to find a solution that is meaningful. It is a basic change in attitude, it is a basic change in work ethic, it is a basic emphasis on the word "productivity" which is needed if we are ever going to move ourselves into the world of a competing Maritime nation.
The essence of having a Maritime fleet is to be able to compete with those countries which attract a Maritime fleet. That means creating a tax system which is compatible with the international world of reality in shipping. You cannot create a Maritime fleet under the tax system and tax law we have in Canada. It is just impossible. The Parliamentary Secretary told us there were 108 Canadian ships on the high seas all sailing under other flags, except for our domestic inland fleet. Therefore we must be realistic with some fundamental truths and stop trying to pump out this dishonest rhetoric and programs like the Coast Guard fleet renovation program, the recycling of $4 billion for reconstruction in the West and the recycling of double-track every six months, in every budget speech or in every Prime Minister's speech. The rhetoric has to stop and some basic honesty has to go into the hard issue of the challenge which is ahead of us in this House in the years ahead.
In addressing this problem, another essential consideration is where are the world's markets for products from Canadian resources and Canadian manufacture? There are none. There
Maritime Industrial Opportunities
are no buyers in the world for what has filled the bottoms of ships.
We do, however, make some moves in the direction of Canadian interests. I can remember back in the Thirty-first Parliament being part of the Government when we insisted that Cominco take 50 per cent of ore from its mines in the North to Europe in a Canadian bottom. They thought we were being very hard on them because we were penalizing them with the higher cost of shipping that tonnage in a Canadian bottom when they could get a lower price from other vessels available to them on the world market. Therefore we were penalizing them for being Canadian, harvesting Canadian minerals and shipping them to foreign markets. There was quite a debate on that issue, but the Minister of Transport of that day hung on. The fact that there are now reduced markets for our products is an indication of the trouble which Canadian National, that great Crown Corporation is in with Cast. Much wiser private sector people want out when they see what is ahead, but the Crown Corporation goes in and invests all kinds of money in Cast and now has some real economic headaches.
When we start to talk about a Maritime industry for Canada, we should go back to some of our recent experiences in the last decade and a half. I refer to the building of these beautiful tugs and supply vessels to North Sea oil drilling rigs and that whole vast capital explosion which took place, which kept the eight shipyards in my riding completely busy putting out these beautiful little ships. These tug companies which built and contracted these ships had them under a Canadian flag could not get Canadians to man them. These ships, between the steel walls, had a rubber lining so there was no vibration and noise inside the ships. I had never been on ships of such comfort and of such a high standard for crews. The wages some ten years ago were $20,000 to man these tugs and you could not find Canadian seamen to man them. The seamen came from Portugal and Spain. Even today when Canadians do go aboard these ships in the North Sea and the Arctic, where do they live? They are flown back and forth to Spain and Portugal. That is part of their contract; three weeks on, three weeks off. When we have that level of anticipation among maritime union members who want us to develop a Maritime fleet, we have to look at the emerging Third World and what other people in the world will work for. If we are not going to be productive and competitive, using our brains to be productive and competitive, then why do we keep talking about a Maritime nation? It does not make economic sense?
I mentioned the example of ALRT where we have a chance of moving out into world markets along with our technology, if we complete the financial package. It has been proven that we must look at these areas instead of pouring all our dollars into losers. I was Minister of State for Industry and Small Business for a short period of time. In our budget of 1979-80 we were pouring something like $78 million into subsidies for shipbuilding. There was no Government program which was more costly in terms of work creation than that program which was

May 11, 1983
Maritime Industrial Opportunities
subsidizing ships built in Canadian shipyards. I believe the total benefit was for about 3,300 workers and we were pumping some $78 million into it. That is why both Governments have had to reconsider this program. It is just not equitable to pump that kind of tax dollars into that industry for the benefit of 3,300 or 3,400 workers. I remember making the very hard decision to send the subsidy down to build the last three Canadian fish trawlers built in Canada in Halifax. The rest since then as the Parliamentary Secretary said, have come in from offshore.
I have always believed that we have the technology and the efficiency to build vessels for the harvesting of our national resources in Canada. But we get all tangled up again in dishonest politics. It was the Liberal Government which denied Northland Navigation on the West Coast the right to spend some $22 million of their own money to put in a ro-ro fleet, to put in docks, so that the whole North Coast of British Columbia could be served with modern transport. The Liberal Government denied it, wiped them out, bankrupted the company and gave $4.2 million a year to the Province of British Columbia, who have had a disastrous situation ever since. There was total disregard for the outback, for the people who still use outhouses, out on the frontiers of Canada.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned freight rates. In markets of the world, where there is a balance between supply and demand, freight rates are one of the most critical issues which people involved in marketing and commodities deal with. I have been in the world of freight rates all my life. I lose the City of Winnipeg as a market when freight rates change. I lose the City of Regina when freight rates change. I lose the City of Saskatoon when freight rates change. I cannot move products beyond the eastern boundary of Alberta when freight rates change. Back in the Thirty-first Parliament I remember screaming in this House for weeks at a time over the antidumping decision brought about by Algoma Steel whereby it denied our West Coast steel industry steel from offshore because they had surplus capacity here in Ontario. As soon as it won that case, it changed the freight rates so that finished steel going to the West Coast had the same freight rate as raw steel. Consequently, if it had not been for the dropping of the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the United States dollar, all of our steel workers on the West Coast would have been out of work.
That is the kind of lack of equity which we have to address if we are going to bring strength back to this nation and some kind of long-term, meaningful work. It is only in the area of productivity and sensible application of national resources that we are going to have anything which lasts beyond just a little buffer over the next 6 to 18 months.
[ Translation]


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be taking part in the debate on this matter this afternoon. It is a very important subject, and I do not have much time, so I will give the House my conclusions on the debate right away. First of all, it seems to me that although the third speaker
seemed to want to support the proposal made by the Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), he in fact spent most of his time providing eloquent proof that what the Member for Comox-Powell River was suggesting did not make much sense. I think that although the proposal has some validity and the question of having a Canadian merchant fleet has some merits, the message is far too simplistic if we are to determine the problems involved in having a share of world shipping. There are many other responses Canada can give-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["Order, please. In accordance with the order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 6.21 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Thursday, May 12, 1983']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Shall all items listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding No. 480 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Gordon Edward Taylor: that Bill C-680, an Act to amend the Holidays Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-680, an Act to amend the Holidays Act, is an important Bill and I have great pleasure in moving second reading. The purpose of the Bill is to emphasize the fact that the constitutional independence of Canada was achieved on April 17, 1982 by the proclamation of the Canada Act, 1982. Consequently, April 17, under this Act, would be celebrated in the future as Canada Day. The naming of July 1, marking the beginning of the Dominion of Canada, as it was known in 1867, would be restored to its historically more appropriate name of Dominion Day.
I want to emphasize today, Mr. Speaker, that we are a young nation and we should be putting great stress and emphasis on our historical beginnings. In many countries in Europe, and in Great Britain, we see how they preserve their history and traditions by marking them; yet in this country we have not realized the importance of commemorating those things which were so important to the beginning of our nation. I want to see July 1 restored as Dominion Day for many historic reasons and I want to outline a few of them, just as I
May 11, 1983

want April 17 to be remembered for historical reasons as Canada Day.
Back in 1867, when Dominion Day came into its own, it was a tremendous challenge to the Fathers of Confederation. When the name Dominion of Canada was chosen it represented a great deal to every Canadian, whatever his origin might be. Dominion Day commemorates a great feat in history as far as Canada is concerned. It signifies the making of a nation, indeed the making of a new nation. It signifies that two peoples of different background, different creeds, different history, language and religion came together and formed a nation.
Even though there were many, many obstacles, discouragements and frustrations, the Fathers of Confederation still went to Charlottetown and together the four Provinces, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec, or Upper and Lower Canada as they were then called, formed a new nation.
It was a huge country, Mr. Speaker, running for hundreds of thousands of square miles with relatively few people. There was practically no industry. Manufactured goods came mostly from Britain and through United States ports. Central Canada knew little about the Maritimes and the Maritimes knew little about Ontario and Quebec. There was no railways as such. The only railway was one which came from and went back to the United States, known as the Grand Trunk. There were poor communications. Yet the Fathers of Confederation had the vision of a great country to be.
So my first reason for wanting July 1 restored as Dominion Day is the fact that it commemorates and honours the Fathers of Confederation for the stand they took and the imagination and vision they showed at that time.
Confederation was also an act of faith; faith that a country could be successful; faith that people could live in the cold climate of Canada, particularly that of the far North; faith that there was a heritage worth preserving; faith that it was a country worth developing; faith that a great nation could be built. Looking back, I think we have again to honour the vision and determination of the Fathers of Confederation in their promise and faith of what this country could do and could be.
My third reason for wanting Dominion Day restored is that it maintains the heritage not of one race but two. The union of the four states at that time, and later all the rest of the Provinces of Canada, was an act between people of two different origins, two different languages, two different creeds, the English and the French. The determination was that each of those people would keep their roots and those roots would be embodied in this great new land, so the Fathers of Confederation sought a name that would show that Anglo-Saxons would keep their roots and the French would keep their roots.
They thought of many names. There were many names suggested and discarded. There was the suggestion that it be called the Kingdom of Canada, but there were objections to that. Then Sir Leonard Tilley produced from the Seventy-second Psalm something that thrilled the people of that day
Holidays Act
and which has thrilled Canadians of all origins ever since. It reads:
He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, from the river unto the ends of the earth.
Shall have dominion, Mr. Speaker, from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth. The Fathers of Confederation, of both origins, accepted that name and the Queen consented. That is when the Dominion of Canada was born.
This new nation was a small nation, but it had the vision of those Fathers of Confederation that we would some day build a greater and greater nation. Yes, it embodied the desire to bring all of the Provinces into the union. And it did. They were not content to have just New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec as part of the union; they looked across the nation. They looked north and west and east and saw the tremendous possibilities. That vision has become a reality. We now have Provinces all the way to the Pacific Ocean; we have Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland to the east and we have two great potential Provinces, the Northwest Territories and Yukon, to the north.
The Fathers of Confederation embodied that vision again in the name "Dominion of Canada". That tells us something of our history.
This country is founded on a belief in God, on Christianity. We recognize the religions of all peoples and do not say ours is the only religion, but the country was founded on the precepts of the Bible and on the precepts of God. We became a Christian nation. Whoever had the power in the Government of this new nation decreed that that power, provincially or federally, would be exercised under God. Too often today we start to cut the roots that bound us at the beginning; what bound the Provinces together was a firm belief in the omnipotent God. We have to go back to that if we are to reach the potential that the Fathers of Confederation envisioned.
That vision implied that more than two cultures would join to form this new nation. It implied that people from all over the world could come to this vast land and build a new nation. That is all embodied in the words "Dominion of Canadian"- "from sea to sea, from the river unto the ends of the earth".
That is a reality now. People from every country in the world now live in these domains. We live together peacefully for the most part, bound by the objectives and visions of the Fathers of Confederation which were to build a great nation where freedom would be the byword and belief in God would be basic to everything.
Dominion of Canada implies that this nation would not be four separate states but a nation with a federal Government and provincial Governments. There is a division of powers as set out in the British North America Act and it would be federally united into one dominion, with the constitution similar to that of the United Kingdom.
That is part of the history of the early days that we would lose if we threw aside the day that was established as the
25362

May 11, 1983
Holidays Act
birthday of this great country. It implied also parliamentary responsibility and a Government that would be answerable and accountable to the people. It was never intended that it would simply be done by majority Government without consultation and without full and free discussion. The Fathers of Confederation saw this vast country developing through discussion and consensus. It implied the rule of law-that this country would be ruled by law and that the Government would obey the law in the same way as the humblest citizen would be required to do. That is the vision that is tied up in the name of Dominion Day.
It implied also our membership in the great British Commonwealth of nations, and that too is a reality today. Two or three weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending a ceremony in Westminster Abbey where representatives of 18 Commonwealth countries, men and women of all colours, creeds, religions and language, met united as part of the British Commonwealth. Each had his flag, his language, his differences, his own form of democratic government, but all were there as members of the Commonwealth of Nations. When the Fathers of Confederation made Canada a nation instead of four separate states, they brought us into that great commonwealth of nations.
I was thrilled when I saw Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh walk through that throng of people in Westminster Abbey. Representatives of 18 countries, including Canada, carried their flags proudly and put them on stands on the platform during that service.
We need to honour tradition in this country by remembering how the Dominion of Canada was formed and why it was formed. Our friends in Quebec say, "Je me souviens". It appears on their license plates and it means "I remember". Let us remember the history of this country and give every citizen, irrespective of language and country of origin, the chance to remember the beginning of this nation called Canada, this nation of which we are proud to be a part.
We have to show vision as the Fathers of Confederation did when they started out with the four states. Now we have this vast part of the continent as the Canadian nation.
On April 17 last year the Canada Act was proclaimed and Canada severed its dependence on Britain but not its membership in the Commonwealth of Nations. Canada became independent. Now we do not have to approach the British Parliament for approval or the British High Court to finalize our court cases.
The Bill was signed on April 17, 1982. It shows a tremendous interest in the future. It shows vision. We are to continue to be members of the Commonwealth, and our links with the monarchy of which we are all so proud will continue. Our Queen is the Queen of Canada. April 17 has a great significance as it marks an important moment in the history of Canada.
I ask all Members of the House and the people of Canada to remember our past, to build for the future. Let us remember it by restoring Dominion Day to our laws and by ensuring that
we expect April 17, Canada Day, to have meaning for the future.
We can serve the people of this country well by restoring to this nation Dominion Day as the birth of the Dominion of Canada and Canada Day when the Canada Act was passed.
Mr. Maurice Bossy (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary
of State): Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to say a few words concerning Bill C-680. As Hon. Members know, last year on July 1, Dominion Day was changed to Canada Day. The change in the title reflected several needs in Canadian society; the need for a modern application to reflect modern Canada and a name which reflected the identity of the country rather than denoting a status.
The name of this country is Canada; Canada is a name that is known throughout the world. The word "Dominion", while a perfectly good English word, presents difficulties for some people.
Like so much in society, language evolves. The word "Dominion" appears, in some ways, to be old-fashioned or even archaic. It also translates very poorly into French. "Puissance" appears to be the nearest one can come to it in French. Canada is the same in English or French.
What better name for our national holiday than the name of the country itself, a name of which all Canadians can be proud.
It is suggested in Bill C-680 that April 17 should be Canada Day to emphasize that the constitutional independence of Canada was achieved on April 17, 1982. I wonder if the Hon. Member has considered how confusing this change would be to most Canadians, many of whom have been informally referring to July 1 as Canada Day for years, even before its official designation.
I believe that Canadians do not want to become confused by juggling names, titles and dates. There already is a Canada Day. It is July 1, and it honours the Canadian Constitution. The celebrations take note of what happened on July 1, 1867. They also take note of what happened on April 17, 1982. Canada Day is a day on which to celebrate Canada's nationhood. We do not need to have separate days to celebrate separate significant dates in our nationhood. It can all be celebrated together on one day, Canada Day on July 1.
Many polls have been taken to assess how Canadians see the terms Canada Day and Dominion Day. In fact, data tabled before the Senate committee last year said conclusively that Canadians of all cultural persuasions preferred the title Canada Day. Public opinion was measured last year by the National Committee for Canada's Birthday. It suggested that, on the average, the title Canada Day is three times more popular than Dominion Day. Why should we go against public opinion by taking up the name Dominion Day once more?
I wonder if Bill C-680 is primarily concerned with ensuring that the events of April 17, 1982 are well commemorated, or whether the Bill is simply a backdoor attempt to get back to
May 11, 1983

the term Dominion Day. Many Hon. Members took the change in the title as an insult and as a way of denigrating Canada's past. That attitude does not reflect the truth of the situation.
The Montreal Gazette dealt with the word Dominion in an editorial on March 10, 1981. I will quote that editorial which reflects well the difference between Canada Day and Dominion Day. It states:
The word 'Dominion' does have a secure and honored place in Canada's history. But not all historical labels remain accurate; this one certainly has not.
At the time of Confederation the word 'Dominion' was hit upon as a new coinage to describe a country which was not, in fact, a sovereign state (as Canada was not in 1867).
But for the past 50 years Canada has been, in all but a narrow constitutional technicality (which should also be rectified this year), a truly independent nation.
It should not retain a label which was coined to describe a colonial link.
Furthermore, 'Dominion' is not nearly as felicitous a word in French as in English. For French-speaking Canadians it is a verbal oddity which serves mainly to inflame old colonial wounds.
It is time to retire 'Dominion Day' gracefully in favor of a name of July 1 which surely no one can find objectionable, 'Canada Day'.
The editorial still rings true today. Surely what we should be doing is trying to build among Canadians a good understanding of the Canadian Constitution and a good understanding of the events both in 1867 and 1982. We do not need two days to do that. One day will suffice, a day known as Canada Day.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by saying that the views I will express are my own. They may be shared by others but they certainly are not necessarily the views of the New Democratic Party on this particular issue. I would suggest that each political Party will find that there are different opinions about what ought to have happened with regard to the change of the name of Canada's national holiday.
I am sure you will recall the circumstances and the indecent haste with which the matter was sneaked through the House by the Liberal Party, with the aid of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), unfortunately. It was unfortunate and ought not to have happened.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I must draw to the attention of the Hon. Member Standing Order 39 which reads:
No Member shall speak disrespectfully-
And the last sentence of that paragraph reads:
No Member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
Therefore I would ask that the Hon. Member choose his words very carefully with respect to a procedure which occurred in this House at an earlier time.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to give a lecture on rules but we are in fact on this day reflecting on that vote. That is what the Bill does: it reflects on the vote that took place and talks about the need to go back to what was there prior to that vote having occurred. Therefore in my opinion, and I think likely in the opinion of the Chair now, for me to
Holidays Act
make reference to how the change was made is entirely appropriate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I would invite the Hon. Member to exercise great caution in interpreting the ruling of the Chair. The Chair has simply put one of our Standing Orders before the Hon. Member. I have seen nothing in the Bill nor have I heard anything in the comments made by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) with respect to the way that that earlier vote was disposed of by the House. I think that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) should exercise great parliamentary caution in what he says.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I always exercise great parliamentary caution and I will do so today, as is my normal practice.
I would like to study the issue itself. I believe that the reason for the change in the first place was mainly that people did not understand the history of the word "Dominion". I do not agree with all of what the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) said with regard to the implications to be drawn from the term Dominion of Canada. However, I still think there are many people in this country who misinterpreted what Dominion was intended to mean. Many saw that as a reflection or an attempt to continue to tie us back to colonial times. Of course, that was an interpretation that was quite incorrect and an interpretation which did a disservice to the phrase "Dominion of Canada".
As the Hon. Member for Bow River said, the name Dominion came from an entirely different source. It had nothing at all to do with Britain, with the United Kingdom, or the Commonwealth. It had to do with the choice made in Canada by Canadians of an appropriate way to describe Canada. That is what it was. It was an appropriate way to describe Canada. As I recall, the name was chosen in the same way as Australia chose its name when it called itself the Commonwealth of Australia. Consideration was given as to whether to call it the kingdom, the commonwealth or something else. Those names were discarded for the very reasons that people in Canada recognized the duality of our country and, recognizing the facts of the time, they did not want to have a name which reflected a tie simply with Great Britain. They chose Dominion simply because it had a more neutral interpretation, if you will, but also, in a biblical sense, it did reflect the reality of Canada. It was a most appropriate name. Looking back I cannot help feeling that because the teaching of history in the country perhaps was insufficient and inadequate-


Donald W. Munro: That is right.


Ian Deans: -there was allowed to develop a sense that to call a national holiday-the national holiday, I might say, which reflects our allegiance to the country, our pride and commitment to Canada's future-to call it Dominion Day somehow was interpreted to mean that we were discarding the partnership between French and English Canada, that we were

May 11, 1983
Holidays Act
thrusting upon French Canada a name that reflected association with Great Britain. I do not think that was true at all.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Cartier agreed to it.


Ian Deans: As my colleague says, Cartier agreed to the name, recognizing that it was the name chosen from among many names truly representing what the great land mass of Canada was all about.
Therefore, I was disappointed when the name was cast aside and when, all of a sudden, we decided that to call our national holiday Dominion Day was no longer appropriate. My good colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, says that the word Dominion is old fashioned. Let me tell him something, there is nothing wrong with a little bit of old fashioned.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: If it is true that Dominion is old fashioned, is it any more old fashioned than the word "liberal"? I put that to you. Because the word was old and it stemmed from that period in history when the country came together, it seemed to me to be an appropriate word to use to describe a national holiday. I might have gone as far as to change the name of the holiday to the Dominion of Canada Day so there would be no doubt in anyone's mind what we were talking about. Then I think we would have covered all the bases. I think that might have responded more adequately to the sense that a lot of people in the country had. I might just simply have left it alone for the time being because I do not think the change was necessary.
There was a great push on in my causus, particularly from Members representing British Columbia from where my good colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) comes, that because his birthday happens to be on July 1, we should call it Skelly Day. We decided not to do that. We decided not to promote that in recognition that maybe it did not have sufficient historical value.
The one argument that worries me, if you will forgive me the argument, is the one made about the close ties with the Commonwealth and how Dominion represents that. There is no one more interested in close ties with the Commonwealth than I am, with the possible exception maybe of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). The very reason why the name Dominion came into disfavour was that interpretation. The very reason why it lost the support of one part of the country was that the interpretation did reflect something to do with the Commonwealth, something to do with our very close association with Great Britain, the Queen, and all of the things that go with that.
I am a royalist, a monarchist. I truly believe that we should have a closer association with the Commonwealth. I think it would be in our best interests economically and socially to do that as a country. I think those things are true, but I do not think they should be done at the expense of other things. I do not think they should be done in a way that is overt or in a way that is destructive of the values of our own country, or in any way that would divide our country. I am concerned for the
very reasons put forward by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). He did so in all good faith, I am sure, as he presented his argument, and his argument rested in part on those close associations, which were good and valuable and remain good and valuable but the very reasons used by the Opposition, if you will, to maintain the name of Dominion Day could be used as justification for changing it.
I argued during that period that there was no justification for a change in name, that people misinterpreted Dominion as a word, misinterpreted what it meant, misinterpreted and misunderstood the origins of it. These were not sufficient reasons for the change that was being proposed. What we should have been doing, instead of allowing the change to take place as a result of that misinterpretation, was to make the effort to try to bring to the public's attention what the word Dominion within the phrase Dominion of Canada actually meant. I think we probably failed in that regard. We got caught up in the politics of it. We got caught up in an ongoing argument. I remember it well and I do not want to reflect on it, however, I do remember it well.
There were attempts being made on a daily basis to find time to pass the Government's Bill. As those attempts were being made and, as the House Leader for this Party, I was in the position of having to sit and look for a period of time when the Government would bring forward its own proposal. That time was simply not forthcoming; there did not seem to be enough time. But I remember the arguments that were made during that period. I do think we failed by not persuading the House of Commons to draw away from the issue and take a much broader look at what the word Dominion in the term Dominion of Canada truly means. I do not think, quite truthfully, it makes much difference to Canadians in the over-all what you call the day, as long as it is a holiday. I think that is probably true. An interesting thing happened. Because the Bill was passed in an imperfect form, it got to the Senate, if you remember, and the appropriate wording was not contained within that piece of legislation which changed the Holidays Act. Therefore, we ended up with Dominion Day having been replaced with Canada Day but Canada Day not appearing as a holiday anywhere. That showed the haste with which the matter was dealt and the inappropriate consideration given to it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Has that been changed?


Ian Deans: To the best of my knowledge, those statutes have not yet been changed. To the best of my knowledge and recollection it is entirely possible come that fine day in July we may well find ourselves with Canada Day not being a statutory public holiday. That reflects badly on those of us who pushed it through, if not on those who were not here to oppose it and demand that changes be made.
There is a need to look at the value of history. A couple of weeks ago we had a debate in the House concerning the
May 11, 1983

tourism industry, at which time I pointed out that if one travelled through parts of the United States, one would find plaques and directions to historical monuments. A great sense of American history is clearly evident on the surface of their lives. One could find it everywhere one looks. They hold with some great passion to names that were established many years ago which may no longer reflect the reality of today but in fact reflect the reality of that day. We must be cautious that we are not inadvertently drawn into doing a disservice to our history. On the day the Constitution of Canada was proclaimed by Her Majesty the Queen in front of the Parliament buildings, I am sure Mr. Speaker will recall the downpour of rain. I wore a brand new suit and 1 was soaking wet as I sat there. But that was not the birth of Canada, that was not a new day or a new dawning. Canada was born long before that day. We cannot suddenly begin the process of changing everything that was established some 100-odd years ago simply because we finally achieved the degree of self-Government we felt we ought to have.
It reminds me of a great urban renewal program which was under-way years ago. In those days urban renewal was seen as tearing down everything in the core of cities and building up brand new buildings. Over time it was recognized that in doing that we lost a lot of our heritage and what had been valuable. We lost a lot of history, and people began to look at the situation and say, "Perhaps we should not have done it that way". I draw this to the attention of the House because this may well be what we are doing now. People have come to realize that urban renewal is a process of improvement and also a process of re-establishing what was of significant value to us throughout the years. It is also a process of ensuring that it is kept in a form which makes it useful and makes us proud of it. This could equally be said of the name of our country. No one goes around saying that this is the Dominion of Canada, but that is what it is. To have taken the step we took for the reasons it was taken, which I think are more important than the fact that the step itself was taken-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: And in the way it was taken.


Ian Deans: -and in the way it was taken, as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill just indicated, was really doing a disservice to the history of the country.
I suggest that we do not need two holidays. I am not averse to having another holiday, I must confess, and I am sure many of my colleagues and most of my constituents would love another day off with pay, which is not likely I might add. However, we could achieve the goals we have set for ourselves, recognizing the value of what took place many years ago, and recognizing perhaps the reality of the difficulties that were allowed to develop between French and English-speaking Canada and the misinterpretation that was allowed to pervade the minds of people from coast to coast over the name, if we were to say simply that Canada's national holiday should be the Dominion of Canada Day. Then we would have achieved everything that would satisfy me and probably most other
Holidays Act
people. It would enshrine for all times the purpose and meaning of "Dominion". It would make clear that the choice of the word was made here. It was made originally by Canadians on behalf of Canadians, reflecting Canadian reality, and it would be reaffirmed by Canadians on behalf of Canadians, again reaffirming and reflecting Canadian reality. I hope the House might consider this some day. We would stop the misinterpretation of the word itself and begin to apply it in a positive manner. We would ensure that in a historical sense it was clearly understood that when the Fathers of Confederation decided on that particular wording they did so because they thought it was truly Canadian and nothing else. In that way it reflected the realities and duality of Canada at the time. Now it could perhaps reflect the multinational characteristic of Canada and therefore would be a holiday we could all celebrate together within the sense of "Dominion". If we do that, we might in fact take a step forward rather than subscribe to what I really believe was a step backward taken some time ago.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was hesitant for obvious reasons to interrupt the speech of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), but I would like to contend with your opinion that it is inappropriate to reflect upon the way in which Dominion Day came to be changed to Canada Day. It is precisely the way in which it was done that made something unacceptable even more unacceptable and brought disrepute upon the House. That day when 12 Members could change a national holiday on a Friday afternoon was one of the times when I was most embarrassed to be a Member of the House of Commons, and I have had difficulty explaining to my constituents what went on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I cannot allow the Hon. Member to carry on in that vein. As I indicated earlier, I made the ruling based on the Standing Orders of the House, which I did not invent. The Standing Orders belong to all Hon. Members, and I am asked by the House to apply them.
Again I invite Hon. Members not to indulge in that kind of critique. I refer once again to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 319(3)-


Donald W. Munro: We will want an extension of time for this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I hear the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) asking for an extension of time, but the comments I am making are pertinent to the debate so I do not see why there should be an extension of time. Citation 319(3) in part reads:
In the House of Commons a Member will not be permitted by the Speaker to indulge in any reflections on the House itself-
Going to the last part of the paragraph, it reads:
-or to reflect upon, argue against or in any manner call in question the past acts in proceedings of the House, or to speak in abusive and disrespectful terms of an Act of Parliament.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-

May 11, 1983
Holidays Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: No, I cannot recognize an Hon. Member on that point of order. I have made my ruling. There is only one way to disagree with a ruling of the Chair-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Is that what you want?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I would not want any Member to proceed in that direction. My responsibility is to apply the procedures, customs and traditions of the House and to ask that they be respected.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on a different point of order, are you telling us that it would be inappropriate at any time for a Member to recall, in the course of debate, circumstances of a vote or the fact that the Government used closure for instance? That is not the case in this case, but would it be inappropriate to recall that a Government used closure to bring in a particular Bill? Are you telling us that it would be inappropriate because we would be reflecting upon the circumstances of a vote?


Ian Deans: Surely not.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Surely not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) is correct in what he is now saying. However, Standing Order 39 refers to a reflection upon a vote of the House. That is different. Surely one should not attempt to do indirectly what is not allowed directly under the rules. It may be a difficult matter of interpretation for the Chair, but I appeal to the sense of fairness of all Hon. Members. They may agree or disagree with the Chair, but I invite Hon. Members not to comment further. If they strongly disagree with the Clair, there are other options open.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I hope the options you are thinking of are not some of those that have been brought down from British history. There were occasional occupants of the chair who lost their heads.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I stand to be beheaded, if that is the wish of the House, but I would invite the Hon. Member to speak to the Bill.


Donald W. Munro: Shall we take a vote on that, Mr. Speaker?
We owe a debt of gratitude to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) for the Bill he has brought forward today. It is a Bill of reconciliation. We had 12 Orwellians here who tried to rewrite history, and did rewrite history in a way. They could not rewrite the provisions of the Bill to which the present Bill now called the Canada Act referred.
I would refer to the opening of the preamble of that Bill, which was originally known as the BNA Act, enacted by the British Parliament on March 29, 1867. It expressed the desire of the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of Canada. That is in the preamble. A couple of paragraphs
further down it states, "Not only that the Constitution of the legislative authority in the Dominion be provided for". In Article 3 we find that same word. It states that in the Provinces of Canada it shall be lawful for the Queen, et cetera, "Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall form and be one Dominion under the name of Canada" and that on and after that day those three Provinces shall form and be one Dominion under that name accordingly.
I do not quite see how the 12 Orwellian apostles managed on that particular day to change what is there. However, they did try a thing called "you speak or can speak" to produce another name for a day which stands, and I am delighted-oh, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) is gone. He made a worthy contribution to this debate. I am delighted that he did so. I was a little bit concerned by the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Bossy) who wondered whether this was a back door attempt to undo what this Parliament did so much against the rules one day in July, 1982.
I feel we owe a debt of gratitude to the Hon. Member for Bow River for having brought forward this motion. We have not yet decided what we are going to do with April 17. That was a day of importance for Canada. There is no question about that. No matter how you feel about the manner in which the Constitution was produced in Canada and so on, April 17, 1982 was an important day.
On April 17 this year there were a few people who remembered, but it was not a remarkable day in the true sense of the word. It was not marked as a day of importance in our history. It should be. The solution has been provided in this Bill. It should be called Canada Day, and the original day, called Dominion Day to honour the terminology that exists in the Act which created this Dominion, should remain attached to July 1.
It is a wonderful compromise. We can have the best of both worlds, if you like. We do have something to call April the seventeenth day. I know that in Latin America they have a day called Mayo Primero. They have dates attached to celebrations. I think the actual function of that day should be market by a special name. Canada Day is a most suitable name for the designation of April 17. As I say, we went past the first anniversary without really noting it at all.
When that date occurs during a parliamentary session, we might devote it to a discussion of matters relating to Canada. We could have it as an open day. It would be Canada Day and we could celebrate it as such. It need not necessarily be a holiday. It is a day when we could remember the things for which we should be grateful. There are a number of things for which we should be grateful. There are a number of things for which I demonstrate not too much gratitude, but there are a number of things for which I am grateful, and that is one of them.
The Hon. Member for Bow River is not only to be congratulated and commended, but to be thanked for having
May 11, 1983

brought forward this Bill on this occasion to provide a means of recognizing what happened on July 1, 1967 and on every July 1 there after and also what happened on April 17, 1982. It is a day that should have some sort of recognition.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this Private Members' Bill. 1 quite agree a day should be designated to commemorate the day when we brought our Constitution home. It is a day that will go down in history. However, I believe it should perhaps be known as Constitution Day rather than Canada Day. I much prefer to leave Canada Day as July 1 as agreed to by the Parliament of Canada last July.
Something missing in this debate is the fact that nowhere have we signified any day to commenorate the coming into being of the Canadian flag. In a country as steeped in tradition as Canada, this should be given consideration. Let us look at the debate that went into these projects in the history of Parliament, first the agreement to have a distinctive Canadian flag and then in 1982 a Constitution of our own which can be amended here in Canada, guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of individuals.
Whether these should be official holidays or simply days that are recognized across Canada could be more fully debated later when there are more Members in the House rather than in Private Member's Hour when we are limited to very short speeches. We do not have a proper chance to report on our feelings and thoughts.
My ancestors chose this as their country of choice. In my constituency of Lambton-Middlesex, I recognize that well over half the people there made Canada their country of choice. That is one bond that we all have in common. Whether we made this our country of choice or whether it was our ancestors who made it their country of choice, we are all equally proud of Canada. I believe Canada Day is quite-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, order. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.
Shall all items listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding No. 476 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moved: that Bill C-676, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Canadian Human Rights Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I commence my remarks, I would, after discussions with the Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacBain), seek the unanimous consent of the House to sit past six o'clock if necessary in order to provide for a full hours' debate on Bill C-676. As I have indicated, I have consulted with both the Official Opposition and the Government and I believe I have their agreement in this respect.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House has heard the proposal put forward by the Hon. Member for Burnaby. Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It is agreed and so ordered.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank the Members of the House for their indulgence.
I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-676, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. In order to explain briefly the purpose of the Bill, I will run through the major sections of it. The over-all purpose of the Bill is to implement the recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination at the federal Government level. As I have noted in the explanatory notes, at the present time homosexuals and lesbians receive no legislative protection whatsoever from discrimination under federal jurisdiction.
The Bill would accomplish two or three objectives. First, it would include in the Canadian Human Rights Act sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Second, there is a provision in the Bill which would require the Canadian Human Rights Commission to conduct a comprehensive study of all federal legislation and regulations to determine which, if any, discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and report the results of this study to the Minister of Justice within one year of the coming into force of the Bill. Following that report, the Minister of Justice would be required to reply to the Commission's report within 60 days outlining proposed action to remove discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation from existing legislation.
I would note one other provision, Mr. Speaker, because there has been some confusion about this provision. Clause 4 of the Bill states explicitly that it is not a discriminatory practice for a person or organization to adopt programs which may be designed to remedy historical discrimination. I would emphasize that in no way does this mandate any form of affirmative action. What it does state, however, is that if an organization or individual had provisions within their hiring practices or otherwise to overcome past inequities, these would not be struck down as being discriminatory.
I would note, and I would particularly draw to the attention of the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), that this

May 11, 1983
Canadian Human Rights Act
provision is identical to the provisions of the Private Members' Bill which was introduced by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), Bill C-242, and which was debated in the House on June 19, 1981. At that time I commended the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre for her introduction of this Bill, and I was certainly pleased to be able to speak in support of the Bill at that time. As I say, the provision in Clause 4 of my Bill today is in fact identical to the provision in Clause 4 of the Private Members' Bill introduced in June by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre.
I have indicated that the primary objective of the Bill is to ensure that the prohibited ground of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is included in the federal Canadian Human Rights Act. This would ensure that there would be no further discrimination at the federal level-and I emphasize at the federal level-in the provision of goods and services or facilities, in access to accommodation or housing, and in employment.
As I emphasized earlier, the purpose of the Bill and the reason I bring the Bill forward today is to ensure that indeed this subject is adequately canvassed by the Justice Committee. I was very pleased that in January of this year, the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) gave a commitment to allow the subject matter of this Bill to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in order that that Committee might hold public hearings and invite public input from a wide variety of groups and individuals to assess the ramifications of this particular amendment. That commitment has been confirmed today by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and I am confident and pleased that that side of the House will indeed live up to the promise made by the Minister of Justice earlier this year. I have also received the assurance of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre that she will support the Bill. I am confident that she will be speaking on the Bill.
I do want to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that it is very important to note that in Private Members' Hour, the subject matter of a Bill can only go forward as long as it is not talked out by any Member of the House. I have the commitment of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and of the Minister of Justice that that side of the House will not talk out the Bill as indeed was done to the Bill of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre. Certainly no one in the New Democratic Party will talk out the Bill, and therefore we will be watching the Official Opposition with great interest. I trust that no Member of the Official Opposition will in fact deny the public the right to have input, because all that is being sought at this time is a referral of the subject matter to a committee of the House of Commons where representations may be made. We will be watching with great interest to determine whether or not in fact the Conservative Party is prepared to allow the subject matter of the Bill to go to committee or whether it will block the Bill and deny this important question the kind of discussions that should take place in the Justice Committee.
I would note that there is a wide variety of groups supporting this Bill from a cross-section of Canadian society, including the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Student Christian Movement, of course the New Democratic Party itself at federal and provincial levels, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Mennonite Church of Canada, the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, a number of provincial human righs commissions and, as well, the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
In 1979, the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended for the first time the inclusion of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Every year since that time they have repeated that recommendation. For example, Mr. Speaker, in their most recent report tabled in the House of Commons just a few weeks ago, the Canadian Human Rights Commission states:
The Commission recommends that sexual orientation and political belief be added to the proscribed grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The rationale behind this recommendation was discussed originally in the Commission's 1979 report. The Commission continues to believe that protection is warranted against unfair treatment on these grounds. The Commission's intention is not to see special treatment on these grounds but it does advocate recourse if people are arbitrarily denied opportunities because of prejudice or bias.
I emphasize the point made by the Commission, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill does not in any way seek any kind of special status for homosexuals and lesbians. What it does seek to ensure is that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation must not continue at the federal level.
The recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission followed an extensive study by that Commission. That study in fact was undertaken in response to a letter written by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1978 at the time of the passage of the initial Canadian Human Rights Act. At that time, it was urged by a number of bodies, including those that I have mentioned, that sexual orientation should be included in the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, the Prime Minister stated in a letter of February 4, 1978:
Since the implications of the proposal in Canada have not been fully explored, Canada should not take steps to include it in federal legislation without further comprehensive examination of the problems that might be involved. It is for these reasons that the Minister of Justice has proposed that the question be examined by the Canadian Human Rights Commission which could then make recommendations for further government action.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what happened. And each year for the last five years following that study, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has indeed made recommendations that sexual orientation should be included as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
For five years, the Government, which indicated it wished to hear the views of the Commission, has ignored that important recommendation, a recommendation which may affect some two million Canadians. That is the figure which the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre referred to in her comments in the House in June, 1981. I would note for the record that as a member of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of
May 11, 1983

Canada, I proposed that the prohibited grund of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should have been included in the equality rights section of the Constitution itself, to apply at all levels of Government, be it federal, provincial or municipal. That amendment, however, was defeated on a vote of 22 to 2 with both the Government and Official Opposition unanimous in their opposition to it.
It is possible that the provisions of the Charter of Rights may in fact be interpreted in such a way that indeed sexual orientation will be a prohibited ground of discrimination. Certainly, that would be my hope. As was indicated by a very distinguished jurist in this country, Mr. Justice Berger, in his book "Fragile Freedoms", "Judges may not always be wiser than politicians but they should be able to stand more firmly against angry winds blowing in the streets." It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that we sought the inclusion of this particular provision in the Charter of Rights itself, to protect this very large minority. As I have indicated, the over-all objective is to ensure an end to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It is to ensure that no one can be fired from a job or not hired in a particular area of employment on the basis of sexual orientation. It is to ensure that no one can be thrown out of his or her home on the basis of sexual orientation. It is to ensure access to goods and services which are available to other Canadians.
I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill does not in any way seek any special or preferential treatment whatsoever. It seeks equality. In the Province of Quebec, in December, 1976, such an amendment was passed unanimously by that Legislative Assembly. Fortunately, in the Province of Quebec such protection does now exist for that particular minority.
The Bill also, as I indicated, calls for a full review and response by the Minister of Justice of all legislation and regulations at the federal level. For example, there are a number of provisions of the Criminal Code which certainly are in need of review. Recently, despite the fact that a number of proposals were made by the federal Government in the area of the Criminal Code, the Government caved in, I suppose, to the Canadian equivalent of the moral majority, and refused to make any changes whatsoever to some of the most archaic and repressive provisions of the Criminal Code, whether it was repeal of the offence of gross indecency and the establishment of a uniform age of consent, or the repeal of the bawdy house legislation. We in this House know that in February, 1981 this legislation resulted in the largest mass arrests in the history of this country since the War Measures Act, tactics described by The Globe and Mail as "bully-boy" tactics. I would suggest that police resources are far better deployed in other areas than enforcement of these archaic and discriminatory laws. For example, in the area of violence within the family, wife battering, the police seem most reluctant to get involved, which results in real violence and real harm. Yet they are prepared to spend very significant amounts of time in other areas.
One other provision of the Criminal Code which I believe should be examined is with respect to hate propaganda. I would suggest that the provisions of the Code respecting hate
Canadian Human Rights Act
propaganda should be expanded to include sexual orientation. One need not look far back in our history to see instances of very severe discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In the Second World War, for example, there was the infamous provision by which thousands and thousands of homosexuals and lesbians were branded with a pink triangle and killed in Nazi concentration camps. This was, of course, very eloquently and graphically documented in a play which I hope all Members of the House would have seen.
Hate literature, whether the object of that hate be homosexuals or other minorities, is the thin edge of the wedge. We have seen recently, for example, in the Province of Alberta, the ugly face of anti-Semitism spreading against the Jewish community. I believe we must make it very clear that hate propaganda, whether on the basis of religion or sexual orientation, is fundamentally unacceptable in a free and democratic society.
There still exist a number of examples, some of them fairly glaring, of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. At the federal level, some of the worst institutional homophobia in Canada exists within the Canadian Armed Forces. For example, the Armed Forces' standing orders require that any suspected homosexual or lesbian be fired from his or her job, no matter how qualified or how capable they may be. And the orders go beyond that and require that all members of the forces must report any suspicious activity. One cannot imagine in Canada in this day and age the prospect of a young man or woman waking up to find two military policemen in their room who would interrogate them for hours, possibly taking them to a cell and threatening them, all on the basis of their suspected sexual orientation. Too many young people have lost their jobs, young people who wanted to serve their country in the Armed Forces and who had outstanding records, and there are hundreds of others who, while they may not have lost their jobs, live in daily fear of being revealed and fired from their jobs without any recourse. I emphasize as well that we are talking about all levels of the Armed Forces.
Hon. Members will know that I raised a number of examples in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. One example was of a young, courageous woman whose name was Zoe Matheson. She told the story of how she was interrogated and threatened on the basis of suspicion and allegations which she was not even given an opportunity to confront. Since I raised that matter publicly, I have received letters from quite a number of other people. I received a phone call from a young man, for example, who had broken down in tears because he was interrogated by the police who went line by line through the letters which he had in his room. It was suggested that he was no longer fit to serve his country.
One cannot imagine that kind of conduct in this day and age. I know that many military people disagree with this policy and in fact, Mr. Speaker, if the amendment which I proposed is adopted, then army officers will be able to come before the Canadian Human Rights Commission and if they can argue successfully that there is a bona fide occupational requirement,

May 11, 1983
Canadian Human Rights Act
let them make that argument. However, these kinds of scare tactics and this kind of blatant institutional homophobia is utterly unacceptable in Canada in this day and age. We must not destroy the careers and perpetrate the kind of fear which is created by this policy at the present time.
The Armed Forces are not alone in this. I need not remind Hon. Members of the fact that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police opened up some 1.3 million files on 800,000 Canadians, many of which have not yet been destroyed. The policies of External Affairs leave much to be desired, and there are many others as well. These are the areas which must be examined, Mr. Speaker, and this is the kind of subject which I would hope would be discussed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I stated my views very clearly on the occasion of the speech of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre, that what we are talking about here is a fundamental question of human rights, of the right to live and the right to love without fear of persecution, without fear of discrimination and without fear of the loss of one's livelihood, or one's home, or without fear of being denied goods or services. We are talking about the right of young people in Canada not to be afraid, not to have to keep silent and not to have to conceal their own identity. In fact, we are talking about a fundamental question of the civil liberties of hundreds of thousands of Canadian men and women.
I welcome the agreement of the Minister of Justice to have this subject discussed and considered in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, to give the opportunity to Canadian organizations and individuals to come forward and be heard, whatever their views may be. I would certainly hope, Mr. Speaker, that all Hon. Members of the Official Opposition in the House today would not attempt to subvert this and would not prevent a full hearing being given to this Bill so that all views may be aired. I look forward to their support, Mr. Speaker, and certainly hope that this important question might be studied in the near future by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to say how pleased I am to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill and to support the motion of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), that the subject matter of this Bill go to committee. The reason I do so is that the Bill is very similar to my own Private Member's Bill on this subject, which I put forward two years ago on behalf of my constituents, in particular, and on behalf of the homosexual community in this country.
My own record on this subject is well known. Shortly after my election in 1980 I sponsored Bill C-242 which sought to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The Bill grew out of the efforts of the Human Rights Advisory Council in Vancouver, which I had formed at the request of the Hon. Member for Yellow head (Mr. Clark) when he was Prime Minister. The Council was composed of representatives of the
homosexual community who agreed to help me formulate a policy position on the issue of homosexual rights. Our aim then was to draft a Bill which would be referred to committee for study. We wanted to give the homosexual community an opportunity to describe the frustrations, the experiences and hurts unique to their community.
At that time I received a great deal of support from Members of my own caucus, such as the Hon. Joe Clark, the Hon. Flora MacDonald, the Hon. David Crombie and the Hon. Jim McGrath.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I should remind her again that she must refer to Hon. Members by the name of their ridings.


Pat Carney: I received support from Members of my caucus, such as the Hon. Member for Yellowhead, the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald), the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie). However, when the Bill was called for second reading in June, 1981 it was talked out by the Liberals, who were determined to block its study by the Committee. I want to point out that it was not Members of the Conservative Party who talked out that Bill; it was Members of the Liberal Party who talked out a Bill almost identical to the one being presented here today.
I am afraid that the Government is playing that sort of game with this Bill. If the Liberals had really wanted to support the subject matter of this Bill, they had ample opportunity since they killed my own initiative to demonstrate their commitment to the issue. They could have referred my Bill to committee. If they had done so, we would not have to repeat this debate today. Or they could have brought forward legislation of their own. They have had a lot of opportunity to do so in terms of amendments to the human rights legislation. Instead, they are playing a charade today.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) publicly said he will agree to let the subject matter go to committee, but he knows full well that his own caucus does not support it, and he has privately told me that if it does go to committee, his own Party will not support it. So he is taking this public stance in the hope and expectation that Members of my own Party will talk the Bill out. He is hoping that years of Government inaction can be forgotten in the light of one hour's debate this afternoon.
I must say that I also find the NDP hypocritical to be cooperating with the Government in this charade. I think it is hypocritical of the Hon. Member for Burnaby to advance this Bill-and I share his concern-when he knows the Liberals oppose it. He has put us in a situation where the Liberals are making agreements with what the Hon. Member for St. John's East calls the little red rump, the NDP, on an issue when they refuse to allow the Conservative Party to proceed with it. Of course, the NDP can ignore reality because it knows it will never be in Government and will never have to account for its actions. Well, I am more interested in the people than the
May 11, 1983

politics of this issue. I stand on my own record and will continue to work to see that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is indeed prohibited.
I will keep my remarks short today but I would like briefly to review my position which I stated nearly two years ago in the House. At that time I pointed out-and this point has been made by the Hon. Member for Burnaby-that I was not asking for a special favour for homosexual Canadians. That is why I do not like the term "gay rights". I have never used that term. What we are talking about is human rights, or what the Canadian Human Rights Commission, headed by a former Conservative MP, Gordon Fairweather, calls unfair treatment. We are not dealing here with additional rights for people. 1 have never advocated and would never advocate special rights for any group in our society, whether men, women or whatever. We are dealing with the issue of equal treatment for human beings on any grounds, whether race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. We are not talking about bestowing privileged status on part of the population. We are talking about extending the same rights to them as other Canadians enjoy and take for granted today.
I think that homosexuals should be able to seek a job, housing, and public services without living in the fundamental fear that they are going to be in some way exposed or made public and deprived of basic human rights. Fundamentally, what homosexuals are asking for is protection, tolerance and the human rights that other Canadians enjoy. My constituents are certainly not asking for extra rights in any way.
Canada is an extremely diverse nation, and for its citizens to live with dignity that diversity must be respected and protected. I believe that most Canadians are, as I was before I became a candidate for election in Vancouver Centre, unaware of the extent of discrimination directed at homosexuals in our society. Most Canadians probably shared my rather benign attitude which combined a lack of interest in the subject with a mild sympathy for people who are not heterosexual. Before I had the opportunity to meet and talk with the homosexual community in my riding I had no idea of the kind of discrimination they face, some of which is overt and obvious and some of which is subtle and hard to prove.
Two years ago, Mr. Speaker, I cited examples of these various kinds of discrimination. We have heard examples today. I told the House about a young man of my acquaintance who was forced to quit a very good job because he lived in fear of discovery as a homosexual. Every day he went to work fearing that his sexual orientation might cost him his job. The fear and tension built up until he decided that he could not live that way any more and he quit. No Canadian should have to endure that kind of suspense and insecurity. I also described cases of harassment by the Armed Forces and by immigration officials simply because people were suspected of being homosexual. We have had examples of that again today. Without being given an opportunity to examine the evidence or to find out where the complaint came from, they were taken to hotels and interrogated in a state close to terror. Nothing was ever proved and nothing needed to be proved. In the interest of time
Canadian Human Rights Act
I will simply state my objective, which is to work to ensure freedom from discrimination for all Canadians.
It is instructive to review developments in the two years since my Bill was talked out by the Liberals. Quebec remains the only Province to have passed human rights protection for homosexuals. Of Canadian cities, Toronto, Ottawa, Windsor and Kitchener have passed human rights measures within their jurisdiction that provide a modicum of protection for homosexuals. Notably, in 1982 Vancouver City Council adopted unanimously in principle what has been termed the most powerful human rights legislation in Canada, and that included among its proscribed grounds of discrimination that of sexual orientation. This legislation remains in limbo at the present time while the city seeks appropriate amendments to the city charter that will allow it to enforce this bylaw.
Human rights protection for homosexuals continues to be supported by Canadian federal and provincial Human Rights Commission. As well as the federal Commission, and Quebec which has enacted legislation, Commissions in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario recommend inclusion of sexual orientation in their respective provincial codes. Recently the B.C. Commission under Dr. Charles Paris reiterated its recommendation of 1981, and in the last few months the Manitoba Commission has added its support. This means that Human Rights Commission from Quebec to B.C., as well as the Canadian body, now support the concept of Human Rights protection for homosexuals. Unfortunately, human rights infractions continue.
Because sexual orientation is not a ground against discrimination in most Provinces, few accurate tallies of human rights violations against homosexual people have been collected in Canada. However, since 1977 and the passage of the Quebec law, 83 cases have been filed regarding discrimination against this group in our community. Now, this figure is likely low because people are often scared off by the process, and, further, discrimination is often subtle and difficult to prove as being related to sexual orientation.
Some developments have also occurred in the United States. In 1982, Wisconsin became the first state to include sexual orientation in its human rights legislation. Despite some public outcry, the Governor and the majority of legislators who passed the legislation, were re-elected. People are not as scared of the issue as some would believe. American cities that have included sexual orientation in their legislation on human rights number in the hundreds. Several of the major contenders for the 1984 Presidency, including Mr. Mondale, have endorsed human rights protection for homosexuals. The U.S. Democratic Party has voted unanimously to accept the formation of an official homosexual caucus within the Party and has adopted several major pro-homosexual planks in its policy.
Perhaps the most intriguing situation is that we are starting to see some reversals in the position of individuals opposed to homosexuals and their human rights. Governor Askew of Florida who supported Anita Bryant and is reputedly seeking

May 11, 1983
Canadian Human Rights Act
the Presidential nomination, has shifted his position considerably on the issue. Anita Bryant now admits that she was wrong to campaign against homosexuals.
So we are long past the time for talking. Let us follow some of these examples. Let us send the subject matter of this Bill to committee where it can be discussed in an air of reason and where we can identify the real concerns of members of this community.


Mr. A1 MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) wants Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. To this effect he has introduced Bill C-676, an Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Before commenting on this Bill I must mention that the human rights record of this Government is a proud one. It is responsible for the enshrinement in our Constitution of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result of its endeavours, fundamental freedoms as well as democratic, mobility, legal and linguistic rights are now protected. In addition, from April 17, 1985 onwards individuals will also enjoy the protection of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This Section provides that:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
In addition, the Government is also responsible for the Canadian Human Rights Act which Parliament enacted in 1977. The Act applies in respect of all matters falling under federal jurisdiction. It is also binding on the Crown. This means that it applies to all federal Departments, agencies and Crown corporations as well as to private businesses that are federally regulated, such as banks, airlines and railway companies.
On March 30, 1983, Parliament adopted Bill C-141, an Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof. When proclaimed, the Bill will result in a significant increase of the anti-discrimination protection available at the federal level.
In addition to the Charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act, numerous federal statutes protect the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of Canadians. In this respect, and among others, reference can be made to Canada's reports under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Let us now consider sexual orientation in the context of the Canadian Human Rights Act. When the House considered this Act in 1977, the question of adding sexual orientation to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination was raised before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The Committee rejected the amendment at that time.
I would consider it obvious that it was not the intention of Parliament at that time to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. By the same token, it cannot be inferred that the Government considers sexual orientation to be a justifiable basis for denying equality.
Without condoning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, one can wonder if the social advantages of forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation outweighs the disadvantages of such a prohibition. In 1979, the Commission conducted a survey on the public's knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding discrimination. It asked the respondents to identify possible grounds of discrimination. Of the nine main grounds identified, sexual orientation was the last. Only 1.4 per cent of persons surveyed identified it as a ground of discrimination. Further, the same survey revealed that only 0.6 per cent of the respondents ever suffered discri-mintion on this basis. As the survey reveals, while a lot is said about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it would appear that this practice is not as widespread as it may seem.
Whether or not to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a question with which legislative bodies in Canada and the United States have wrestled for years. For the most part, it was decided that the negative implications of such a prohibition outweighed its advantages. Whatever may be our views on sexual orientation, it cannot be denied that a substantial number of individuals are concerned about the possible social impact of such a measure. Whether or not these concerns are well founded is not an issue here. Suffice it to say that they exist.
While I am not prepared to support the amendment of the Canadian Human Rights Act proposed by the Hon. Member for Burnaby, I do not believe that there ought to be unjustified distinction on the basis of sexual orientation. Business and Government ought to afford to everyone equal opportunity. In this respect, I would note that this is the position of the Government as regards matters which fall within its jurisdiction. For example, access to the Public Service is on the basis of merit, a concept which is foreign to distinction of any kind. This of course includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The Government is not prepared to support Bill C-676, but I would be prepared to move that the subject matter of the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-676, an Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act be not now
read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and
the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
May 11, 1983


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address the Bill. Before I do, I want to make very clear the manner in which I address it. My understanding of private Members' legislation is just that. It is private in the sense that any Member can raise an issue in the form of legislation in this House of Commons. There is no Party endorsation attached to Private Members' legislation.
Additionally, it has to be said that when private Members rise to speak on that legislation, they are also expressing their views rather than the endorsation by their Party. One might argue that the Parliamentary Secretary who just rose had the endorsation of his Minister to make a specific recommendation and I accept that approach. But I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all Members of the House who are here today that when I rise, I do so from a private Member's perspective.
I hope we will always preserve private Members' legislation in the House in that form.
Too often we complain in the House that private Members do not have the opportunity to exercise their good judgment on legislation but are controlled or motivated in their actions on the basis of Party position or by Party whips. All of us have complained about that from time to time.
I would hope that private Members' legislation will not fall under those types of arrangements among Parties which to some degree remove what little independence is left to the private Member in the House.
Having said that, I oppose Bill C-676. It is very difficult to oppose legislation which appears on the surface to remove discrimination. I am sure there is no one in the House who wants to be seen as wanting to discriminate, for whatever reason.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) says that it is a human rights proposition. On the surface, one can make that argument because one is obviously dealing with the rights of human beings by definition. But I think that it goes much beyond that narrow definition. If that is all it was, then I would suggest that much of the legislation which we debate in the House of Commons would not get the debate it is now receiving.
Let me be more specific. Society constantly discriminates; society constantly judges and continually discriminates between that which is right and that which is wrong. Some might argue that that is not discrimination, but rather that it is judgment. Before you can have judgment you must have the discrimination of what is right and what is wrong. While we can argue what is right and what is wrong, I would suggest that in our context, both in the British parliamentary tradition and from a Judeo-Christian background, what we are dealing with today, both historically and on the issues that I have raised, has been declared wrong by society.
Canadian Human Rights Act
Another phrase which has crept into our society to which I have had some objection is, "the moral majority". It is an American statement which seems to be the blanket condemnation of anyone who is not seen to be "with it" in terms of these modern issues. What is wrong with being moral and what is wrong with being in the majority? I ask the House what is wrong with either one? I am not discussing methodology, I am discussing the terms. I am just a little tired of people using that appellation so readily on issues which they see in the very narrow context, that if one is against it one must be either living back in the middle ages, have no concept of the modern society or, at best, has just not yet seen the light.
Historically, people who have argued these cases use another statement, that "in this day and age it is unimaginable to think anyone would still hold these views." Yes, Mr. Speaker, not only is it imaginable but I believe it is right to hold some of these views.
My argument is that that statement is too often used when a person has no actual knowledge, when they do not want to deal with the facts any longer but will deal with a person who holds the view. The attack is on the person rather than on the view itself.
Additionally, I am concerned that so much of our legislation today-and I am not trying to be condemnatory of anyone in this House-is based on secular humanism. That is the orientation of so much of our legislation, and it is very difficult to argue the question, why are you against "people"? I am not. But if you go through the annals of history and through the basis of legislation, you will find that legislation so often in these areas of moral context was based on the traditions I have already cited.
A person who has had a great influence on my thinking about private and public affairs is Wilberforce of the Clapham Society in England. Wilberforce was elected as a very young person to the British House of Commons in an age when youth was celebrated. We sometimes think that only young people today, in this day and age get elected to the House of Commons. Wilberforce was a very close and dear friend of William Pitt the younger, Prime Minister of Great Britain, I believe, at the age of 25.
Wilberforce, with a small group of people, said there were two things he wanted to change in British society. One was the slave trade. That was a discriminatory practice, but it went well beyond just simple racial discrimination. He was challenging the very bedrock of British economic life when he took on the matter of the slave trade. The opponents he had were legion and powerful.
The second thing Wilberforce said he wanted to dedicate his life to in the House was "to change British manners". If you read the journal of Wilberforce, what he meant by manners was morals. He believed sincerely that Britain was in decay because British society was losing sight of the fundamental

May 11, 1983
Canadian Human Rights Act
moral bedrock of that society. In his mind, as you read Wilber-force, there was without question a very close tie between the singular issue of abolition of slavery and the refinement of British manners or morals. I will not go through all the history. Suffice it to say Hon. Members are familiar with the story. The very criticisms which I heard again today in the House indicating that in this day and age it is passe if one still thinks there is a moral code on which society is based and that one is naive in the extreme, are the very arguments used against Wilberforce. Despite those arguments, he prevailed. Yes, he prevailed with the support of the Prime Minister who had great courage to stand against some of the very strongest forces in society. Surely today we say that they were right.
Having said that, the question must be asked, does society generally support the Bill which the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has brought before the House? We can raise all types of statistics on both sides of the issue, but to my way of thinking this is not a statistical argument. To my way of thinking it is not valid to raise the fact that the Hyslops of Toronto were defeated. That is not the argument. But I believe sincerely in my being that the general public, the vast majority of Canadians, does not support the legislation before us.
The Parliamentary Secretary raised the suggestion that there is a certain fear concerning the social impact of legislation of this type. I think I am quoting him correctly. I have no doubt that the social impact is there. The Bill restricts itself to federal jurisdiction only, but that is fairly widespread. Where do we go from there?
There was a recent case in Saskatchewan involving a teacher with a sexual orientation other than the norm which the majority of Canadians finds unacceptable. The following proposition has developed, "You cannot remove me from my teaching position because you are discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation".
The one question which we did not answer during the entire constitutional debate-and the Parliamentary Secretary raised the matter of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms-was the question of group rights. That is a great lack in the Charter of Rights. It was raised during the proceedings of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution. I, for one, am a strong advocate of group rights. People will say that that is not an acceptable concept because what we are dealing with is a Charter of Rights for individuals, therefore by extension, how can we have group rights. Society has always had fundamental groupings on which it is based, be that a community, a service organization or a church, just to name a few.
Is it discrimination if a church decides in its adherence that the public school system is teaching a humanist philosophy to which it does not want children exposed solely and wants as
well an orientation in teaching based on Judeo-Christian traditions?
Having established and paid for that school, they discover laterally that a teacher has a sexual orientation other than that which is supported by that church. They ask that teacher to leave his or her place of service. The matter is then brought before the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the Provincial Human Rights Commission. Do the adherents of that church and the supporters of that school not have the right to discriminate? Do they not have the right to have the type of teaching and teachers who adhere to the articles of faith of that church and on which that school is based? Frankly, my answer is yes, they do. I say there is a very valid reason why there are concerned people when this type of legislation comes before us, because of the social impact.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) raised the matter that Section 4 was not affirmative section. I found it rather interesting that almost at the beginning of his remarks, before I even rose to speak, he mentioned my name. I guess he knew I was going to speak. The section he referred to is defined as a section "of special programs". How do you define the words "special programs"? I am not questioning the Hon. Member's word. He might be accurate in saying that is not affirmative action, but the way I read that section, there is no doubt in my mind that affirmative action could in fact be extrapolated from those words. The problem is not his word or his intent.
What happens when this matter leaves this Parliament and is put in the hands of the Human Rights Commission? How do they interpret those words? What corrective action do they impose on the basis of those words? With all respect to the Hon. Member for Burnaby, he cannot give me an answer as to what the decision of the Human Rights Commission would be at that stage, because we do not know the basis of the case before them which will be testing this clause or, for that matter, the people sitting on that commission at that time.
Lastly, I have before me the Minutes of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of April 26, 1983. I want to make it clear that while the Hon. Member for Burnaby indicated that the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) and he had an arrangement as to how this matter would be dealt with, at page 130:19 the Minister of Justice said in terms of the substance of the Bill, and I quote him exactly:
You may recall, of course, that I opposed the substance of his proposal; but I agreed to allow it to be discussed in order to facilitate the passage of the other legislation.
He referred to the amendments to the Human Rights legislation.
May 11, 1983

So the substance, as I understand it from the Government spokesman, is opposed as well by the Government. Mr. Speaker, you or others might argue that having said these things, especially in relation to social impact, the subject matter should be brought to committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order.
Canadian Human Rights Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. In accordance with the order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.21 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 12, 1983