1985-10-16

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we now have to admit that the Government did not live up to its formal commitment to promote a full employment policy.
In his Budget statement the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had publicly expressed full confidence in the private sector. The election of a new Conservative Government was expected to create such a climate of confidence among businessmen that the unemployment problem was going to disappear altogether.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the reality is something else again. The Conservative Government shirked its responsibilities, deeming it preferable to rely on companies to create jobs. The only thing we can see today is that plants are closing down one after another: Bombardier, Vickers, CSF Smelting, CSW Foundry, Gulf, Dominion Bridge and Dominion Textile are all black marks and proof positive that the Conservatives have reneged on their promises.
This morning, textile and clothing industry workers met with our Quebec Liberal caucus and told us that the pending shutdown of Dominion Textile plants at Saint-Jean and Val-leyfield is a hard blow to them. We deplore such inaction on the part of the Government, for it will swell the ranks of the unemployed in Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the Hon. Member that his allotted time has expired. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).


PENSIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, the more closely one examines the Budget of last May the clearer it becomes that the Budget's provisions help the wealthy and large corporations at the expense of low income Canadians, the elderly, the young, and the disabled. While allowing high income earners to reduce taxes through greatly increased Registered Retirement Savings Plan contributions, the Government will take money out of the pockets of Canadians trying to survive on pensions, even from those receiving disability pensions.
The Budget proposes to restrict the rollovers of pension incomes into RRSPs. This means that those forced into early retirement or those on disability pensions will not have the option of sheltering a small part of their minimal income for the future. These people are not wealthy individuals. Putting money aside for the future means a loss in their present standard of living. The Government wants to tax them on those savings but it offers a bonanza to those earning far above the Canadian average.
The Government had the good political sense to withdraw its unfair attack on senior citizens' well-deserved pensions, but it is obvious that the same Budget treats the rich very well. Mr. Speaker, it is time that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) withdrew that Budget and brought in one that treats ordinary Canadians in the same manner that the rich are now being treated.


THE LATE SHANE VAUDRIN
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday at Pittsburg Children's Hospital a tough little three-year-old boy passed away. Shane Vaudrin of Nanaimo died just a day after undergoing his third liver transplant. The new organ failed and infection had set in. On September 5 Shane had received his first liver transplant. On October 1 he underwent a second transplant operation. Despite the best efforts of his doctors, the third organ was rejected as well. Throughout his ordeal his parents, Claude and Cleo Vaudrin, were at his side, often going without sleep for three days at a time.
I rise today not just to say goodbye to Nanaimo's little hero. I want to acknowledge the people of central Vancouver Island,

October 16, 1985
and indeed across Canada, who contributed to Shane's fund which made the care he received possible.
In particular, the House should note the special efforts of Marlene Siegrist of Nanaimo who fell in love with Shane's newspaper photo and became the co-ordinator of the Show You Care Society. She and her fellow citizens organized special events to raise tens of thousands of dollars so that Shane could travel to the Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh.
Perhaps the finest tribute to Shane Vaudrin came from the Hospital staff who said. "The Vaudrins are very fine people and Shane is a dear little boy. He's very easy to love, and that has made things very hard for all of us here when we know he isn't doing well". Mr. Speaker, he did do well. He showed us more spirit than any three-year-old could show. His brief life touched us all.


WAR MEASURES ACT
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, this is an important anniversary in Canadian history. Exactly 15 years ago today at four o'clock in the morning the Government of Canada imposed the War Measures Act. Under its Draconian provisions hundreds of Canadians were deprived of their basic civil liberties and detained without charge. This was an unprecedented move in peacetime. There can be no more serious threat to democratic institutions than to deprive citizens unnecessarily of their basic rights. If there were compelling reasons for the Government's actions, we have not heard them.
At the time the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) stated, as was reported in Hansard'. "It is my hope that some day the full details of the intelligence upon which the Government acted can be made public, because until that day comes the people of Canada will not be able fully to appraise the course of action which has been taken by the Government". I hope that "some day" is today. 1 call upon the Leader of the Opposition to make public the information upon which he acted. Canadians have been waiting 15 years for answers. Mr. Speaker, I believe 15 years is long enough.


DEREGULATION-EFFECT ON CONSUMER PRICES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) very proudly states that she has made all those oil men in Calgary rich again, but she has done precious little for the consumer. Remember last spring when she predicted that by decontrolling the oil industry a climate would be set for lower prices for consumers? Prices are falling in all areas of the world except in Canada, and the Canadian consumer can
look forward to even more price increases. Not only has the Government added two cents a litre to the price of gas since the Budget, but when we greet the New Year we can expect to pay two more cents on a litre.
The Government has gone out of its way to make sure consumers do not settle for just tax increases. No way! Since Petro-Canada has purchased Gulf it will effectively mean the end of price wars in Canada. That is because Petro-Canada will be closing dozens of Gulf stations in order to boost its profits, because that is what the Government has told it to do. You could say they are putting their energy into squeezing the last cent out of the consumers' pockets.
It gets worse. The ever-generous multinational oil companies, in a move to express their gratitude to the Canadian people, are trying to introduce rack pricing. This means absolutely no chance of a price war because the retailer will not be able to afford any price cutting, so the consumer is put on the rack to see if any spare change falls out. Yes, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources can say that those rich oil men owe her a debt of thanks. The consumers-well, they are just not as grateful.


WAR MEASURES ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, fifteen years ago on October 16, 1970, the Liberal Government, supported by the Conservatives, invoked exceptional powers under the War Measures Act. New Democratic Party Members objected to a reaction that was grossly exaggerated, considering the danger that actually existed. Hundreds of men and women in Quebec were arrested during the night and unjustly detained, like many Canadian citizens of Japanese origin during the Second World War were at the time, under the same Act. The Liberals have never revealed what the basis was for their decision.
On April 4, 1984, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) asked the following question:
I wonder if the Minister of Justice would tell us whether it is his intention to continue to keep secret the information which Mr. Turner kept secret 14 years ago.
The Conservatives are now in power, but they too are keeping secret the information they asked for so often. And they also promised us several times they would amend the War Measures Act to make it less of a threat to Canadian citizens. Nevertheless, the legislation remains identical to what it was in 1970.
Furthermore, although Members of the present Government have often taken a stand against the Emergency Planning
October 16, 1985

Order adopted by the Liberals in 1981, the Order is still in effect today.
The threat of another October 1970 is still a possibility. The Government should protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault).


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the present Government recognizes the major role played by small businesses in innovative economic growth and job creation.
To promote the availability of capital for small businesses, the Government has announced a number of measures including the capital gains tax exemption, increased availability of capital from pension funds and registered retirement savings plans, and tax incentives for labour-sponsored venture capital funds.
The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes) has set up a supplier awareness program to help small businesses acquire a larger share of public sector purchasing.
Small- and medium-sized businesses involved in research and development will receive a full and immediate refund of the tax credit which they earn on their first $2 million of research and development.
Thanks to the changes in RRSPs announced in the Budget, private sector entrepreneurs will now be able to manoeuver in order to plan for their retirement as adequately as other Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, small business is said to be responsible for most of the new jobs created in Canada in recent years. By trying to encourage small business, the present Government is helping to create jobs and stimulate the economy.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Since the September 4, 1984 election, Mr. Speaker, Quebecers have witnessed a considerable improvement in their province's economic situation as a result of the new climate of co-operation which followed our predecessors' confrontation approach.
Last week Statistics Canada confirmed that our Government's economic renewal and job creation initiatives have given encouraging results. The Bank of Canada rate has
Oral Questions
dropped 3.53 per cent since the election and now stands at 8.35 per cent, the lowest in seven years. The 4 per cent inflation rate, practically unchanged in over a year, has created the most stable climate since 1971. Those figures show conclusively that, since we took office, Canadian men and women have been more confident in the future. That was the sentiment expressed to me by community groups of the riding of Chambly when we met recently.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, all such signs clearly show that, unlike those of our prodecessors, our 1984 election campaign promises were not empty words. Once again our Government has lived up to its commitments.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, the right wing of the Tory Party has emitted its first scream against women in the Armed Forces. One Tory M.P. has said, "Certainly there are jobs that women can do but not in combat". Another has said that three of his brothers served in the trenches but "I certainly would not want my sister there". The point is that it is for the sister to decide. If equality means anything, women have the right to decide whether they go in the trenches or anywhere else.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) has not even attempted to justify the current policy of excluding women from combat. We can only hope that the strident and Neanderthal right wing of the Tory Party will not carry the day and that the Government will move quickly to implement the recommendations of a parliamentary committee and make all trades and occupations in the Armed Forces open to women.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Employment and Immigration admitted she had no concrete plan to revive the industrial base of Montreal East. Does the Minister intend to convince her Government colleagues they should stop dragging their feet about the problems facing employees at Bombardier, Vickers and the Gulf refinery? Is she also going to convince

October 16, 1985
Oral Questions
the Prime Minister to keep the promises he made to textile workers in the Eastern Townships?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Member is ignoring the exceptional upsurge of employment in the Montreal area. The employment rate in Montreal is rising faster than in Quebec and Canada. Since we came to power about 51,000 jobs have been created in Montreal, and I am very proud of this perfomance. It is better than the Liberal Party's record.


SALE OF GULF REFINERY-GOVERNMENT'S HANDLING OF ISSUE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, these are very vague answers to specific questions.
Does the Minister of Employment and Immigration intend to convince the Prime Minister to provide a loan guarantee for the purchase of the Gulf refinery in Montreal East? Does the Minister intend to make her colleagues understand that it is entirely unfair to provide a billion-dollar tax exemption for the people who purchased Gulf, while at the same time refusing to allocate resources to help employees keep their jobs?
Does this mean everything for the big corporations and nothing for the worker?-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Member seems to want to disparage what has been taking place in Montreal. In the last year some 51,000 new jobs have been created in Montreal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What is more, the community of Montreal is confident that that kind of record will continue as it sees growth in the transportation sector, in the communications sector, and in other sectors throughout Montreal.


André Ouellet: What a farce.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Leader of the Opposition would like to disparage that kind of growth, but he cannot ignore, Sir, that it is a fact.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RECALL PROMISES FOR PRIME MINISTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is no help to the workers in the company I just mentioned. I would like to ask a supplementary.
In Sherbrooke on July 26, 1984, the Prime Minister promised to maintain jobs in the textile and clothing industry in the Eastern Townships, in Quebec. Does the Minister intend to remind the Prime Minister to keep his promises, especially
when this morning, we were informed that Domtex will be closing down two of its plants three months from now?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we have, indeed, been keeping our promises.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We promised jobs. There have been more than 300,000 new jobs created in Canada since we came to office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Two hundred and fourteen thousand of those jobs have been full-time, Mr. Speaker, 70,000 part-time. When the Liberals served their last full year in office, full-time jobs decreased, not increased.


Mr. Gauthier:: Three hundred and forty thousand, Flora. [Translation]


REQUEST THAT MONTREAL EAST BE DESIGNATED DEPRESSED AREA
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday in Montreal, a citizens' committee was set up to help save 5,000 jobs in Montreal East. Is the Minister willing to urge the Prime Minister to designate Montreal East as a depressed area, so that businesses and workers can take advantage of the benefits of programs for designated areas?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, since this Government came to power, the number of jobs in the oil industry has increased by more than 7 per cent, and we are working with the private sector to maintain this trend.

We will do that, as we have done it with various firms. We are working with the private sector. We are giving time to allow for various private sector offers to come forward. That has happened in the case of Gulf Canada. It has happened in the case of the textile industry. We will continue to work with the private sector to ensure that increase continues.
[DOT] (M20)


CITIZENS' COMMITTEE AND UNION CHAIRMEN-MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is not answering the question. When 5,000 workers are about to lose their jobs, figures and statistics will not pay their grocery bills.
October 16, 1985

The Minister has a lot of courage, so would she care to come along next Monday and meet the citizens' committee and union chairmen? Is she ready and does she have the courage to come to this meeting and give the same silly answers she is giving now?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has always lacked confidence in the Montreal area, in the province of Quebec and even in Canada!

It really is a shame that the Liberal Opposition lacks such confidence in the country that it cannot recognize that in the last year 300,000 new jobs were created. Some 51,000 new jobs were created in the City of Montreal, and almost 100,000 new jobs were created in the Province of Quebec. That is a record to be proud of.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who is well aware that the Bank of Canada has received less than 2 per cent of the total liquidity package that it provided for the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank, leaving a balance of $1,291 billion, and increasing by an interest loss in excess of $10 million per month.
What assurances can the Minister give the House and the people of Canada, knowing that it has already cost taxpayers $1 billion, that the final bail-out package for the Canadian Commercial Bank and Northland will not be $2 billion, or perhaps even $3 billion? What assurances can he give?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is using outrageously exaggerated figures. He knows what the Bill is before the House. The Minister of State for Finance has indicated that there will be recoveries on the sale of assets on the unwinding of the loans which are in place right now. This will reduce the amount in the Bill to a lesser amount as it occurs over the next couple of years.


EFFECT OF LOSS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that it will take at least a couple of years or many more years, likely, for all the assets to be disposed of and to return at least a portion of that $1.3 billion to the central bank.
Knowing that this incredible cost has to be picked up by the Bank of Canada, at least in the short run, and by the Canadian economy as well, what will be the effect of this outstanding
Oral Questions
balance of $1,291 billion, increasing at $10 million per month in lost interest, on interest rates, inflation, and monetary policy?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the liquidator has already received some funds back on the liquidation of assets, so the recovery is starting right now. However, in response to the Hon. Member's question, the economy has been growing at the rate of 4 per cent per annum. That is pretty good, I should say. The inflation rate is less than 4 per cent, and 300,000 jobs have been created. As my colleague has said, 70 per cent of those jobs are full-time jobs. Investment in the country has been increasing at 20 per cent per annum. Housing starts are growing at the rate of 170,000 per annum. I could go on and on.


INQUIRY ABOUT POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that there is an opportunity to make statements of that kind. I will ask him my question again. When he made the original decision to provide the liquidity from the central bank, and when he knows that it is costing in excess of $1 billion, what effect will the pay-back to the central bank over many years, costing us hundreds of millions of dollars in lost interest charges, have on the interest rate policy, the monetary policy, and on inflation, knowing that someone has to make up the difference in both the short and long run?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not listening to the answers to questions. I indicated to him that the amount it will cost taxpayers will be less than the amount which is in the Bill before the House right now. As he knows, that amount is less than $1 billion. The premise on which the first part of his question is based is dead wrong, as are all the premises on which the Hon. Member bases his questions.
On the matter of interest rates, why does the Hon. Member suggest that interest rates should be rising at all? Interest rates have come down three percentage points in the last 12 months to the lowest level we have seen since 1978. Surely the Hon. Member should be congratulating the Government for getting interest rates down.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT FULFIL PROMISES
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
There are now 755 people, 755 workers in Salaberry and Saint-Jean who were advised yesterday that they would be losing their jobs in June 1986. The reason behind the shutdown is a massive and uncontrolled increase in imports. Could the Minister inform the House whether her Government

October 16, 1985
Oral Questions
intends to act on the promises made by its Leader on July 26 in Sherbrooke, to save these 755 jobs?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that, thanks to representations made by the Members from Drummondville and Sherbrooke in the House of Commons, my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, has been looking at this question and examining it very closely. Hon. Members of the Conservative Party who are interested in the textile industry and the future of this industry have indeed been bringing their representations to the Cabinet and that is why the matter is under consideration.


PROSPECTS FOR OTHER WORKERS IN SAME SECTOR
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Minister knows perfectly well that her colleague has been looking at the matter for months without any concrete results and that the axe has just fallen on two major industries. She is now referring to Drummondville, Sherbrooke and Magog where, in fact, workers are wondering whether they are next on the list. Could the Minister give these workers the assurance that they will not meet the same fate as their fellow workers in Saint-Jean and Valleyfield because of her Government's inaction?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy-


André Ouellet: Quite confused!
Miss MacDonald -to undertake to discuss the matter with my colleague and also with Conservative Members who are very concerned about this matter and are making representations to our Cabinet colleague.


EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister knows very well that the Toronto Blue Jays will be off to the World Series after tonight's game.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: She is also aware that traditionally, for events that are jointly televised by Canadian and American networks, there has always been a 50-50 crew-sharing arrangement between the two countries.
Can the Minister tell the House why she has agreed to let ABC Television televise the World Series games from Toronto using hardly any Canadian personnel and, once the Series has switched back to either St. Louis or Los Angeles, using no Canadian personnel? Does the Minister not believe in creating more Canadian jobs, and does she not believe in equality between the two nations? Can she tell the House why she struck out?


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that we are aware of the situation. ABC is doing the broadcasts in accordance with Section 19(1)(/) of the regulations which allows for ABC crews to enter Canada without the need of employment authorization. The Hon. Member will understands that there is a reciprocal arrangement which in turn permits Canadian crews to enter the United States to report on Canadian news events.


CLASSIFICATION AS NEWS EVENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister then explain to the House why he and/or the Minister of Employment and Immigration accepted an interpretation from their officials indicating that the World Series is a news event rather than an entertainment event, the guidelines of which would have allowed for more Canadian participation in the production of that particular Series? Why did they listen to their officials and have it classified as a news event rather than an entertainment event?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that it is one of the largest news events in Canadian history.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Franklin McLean: Happily, it will reach both news and entertainment audiences. We believe it will be very positive entertainment and news for Canada.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Cape Breton Advisory Committee appointed by the Government following the closure of the two heavy water plants reports that there is unemployment in excess of 50 per cent in some communities. It has recommended the immediate implementation of a capital works program in 1985-86. In view of the fact that there is available a list of projects totalling $600 million, will the Minister indicate to the House when this program will be implemented and how much money will be forthcoming?

. :



October 16, 1985


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member has raised the question. I enjoy telling the House of the progress being made in Cape Breton. The report of the advisory committee includes no less than 34 recommendations and, as the Hon. Member has correctly indicated, it does suggest certain spending commitments which it would like to see the federal Government and the provincial Governments undertake. I know that the Hon. Member and Members of the House will be pleased to learn that I have been discussing the matter with the Premier of Nova Scotia. Within weeks, we certainly anticipate being able to come out with some important concrete results and answers to which I am sure the Lion. Member will give his support.


REQUEST FOR EARLY ANNOUNCEMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. I ask the Minister is it fair for Canadians in this particular region to wait for such an extended period of time for some form of financial assistance when, in fact, the Government has jumped into the bail-out of two western banks and uninsured depositors, and when it has provided a tax haven in the amount of $1 billion for Gulf? Will the Minister stand in his place today and make an affirmative announcement with regard to this particular program?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, surely the Hon. Member does not have such a short memory as to forget that the people of Cape Breton waited 15 years under the former Government for some meaningful help with respect to their unemployment situation. The fact is unemployment went up during the past decade.


David Charles Dingwall: Do not mislead the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Give us a little time to make sure we can obtain some permanent jobs for the area so that the people can live in a much more viable condition than the Liberals left them in.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare who talks about the importance of families while taking away their benefits. Will the Minister confirm publicly what he indicated in committee yesterday, namely, that he has no plans to reindex family allowances even if the economy improves, and that by 1990 this will mean that he will have taken over $1 billion from families as the family allowance is devalued?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question from a member of the Opposition who attended the committee meeting yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Where were the Liberals?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I give her the same answer as I gave her yesterday. As the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration have said today, economic trends are improving, which is a good sign. She should rejoice with us and other Canadians with respect to this happening. As the developments continue further, obviously this Government and its members will be looking to other social programs to be put forward to the House.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF CHILD TAX CREDIT
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the Minister aware that the child tax credit is going to be reduced by de-indexation, just like family allowances? How can the Minister claim that temporary increases in the child tax credit will replace family allowances, when both are going to be reduced?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has read the Budget and Bill C-70 she will have seen that the child tax credit will be increased. I suggest she look at those figures.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Fisheries. The latest announcement is that the Star-Kist plant in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, will be closing down temporarily, throwing over 400 people out of work. This is no surprise in light of the way the Government has handled the whole tuna issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Roland Henderson: Will the Acting Minister of Fisheries tell the House about the Government's involvement with the Star-Kist plant concerning these problems? What are he and his Government doing to protect these 400 jobs? What is the Government doing to get that plant into full production?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crosbie:: What a hypocrite.


An Hon. Member:: Both sides of the fence again.

October 16, 1985
Oral Questions


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Acting Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the temporary lay-offs should come as no surprise to the Hon. Member. My information is that the temporary lay-offs which have been announced by the company are similar to temporary lay-offs which have occurred from year to year over time in the past.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE EXAMINATION
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that this whole affair has put a cast on the total fishing industry, will the Acting Minister of Fisheries instruct the members of his Party who sit on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to put the affair on its agenda in order to study it in depth and hear witnesses, so that once and for all the issue can be resolved to the satisfaction of the industry?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister may want to answer the question. However, I think the Hon. Member is asking a question with regard to committee agendas, which is really not a House of Commons question.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 cannot disallow the question and then allow an answer. That is not fair.


BRITISH COLUMBIA SOCKEYE SALMON RUN
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Acting Minister of Fisheries. As he knows, well in excess of one million sockeye could have been harvested from the Babine run in British Columbia and are now going to waste as a result of federal policy. Will the Minister explain why his Government has continued to refuse to allow commercial, native and sports harvesting of these stocks despite repeated requests to harvest the excess which is surplus?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the accusation, as embedded in the preamble to the question, and the question are both unfair and untrue. What has actually happened is the realization of the highly successful first phase of the Salmonid Enhancement Program which has resulted in increased stocks. Now, in the name of progress, we should be moving on to phase two as quickly as possible.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is food for thought for the same Minister. Will the Minister explain what kind of Government would place one million cans of rancid tuna on the market and at the same time refuse to allow British Columbians the right to catch food for Canada and the world-some $20 million worth? Will he explain why it should be illegal to possess salmon-
[Editor's Note: Where upon Mr. Fulton crossed the floor and placed a salmon on the Prime Minister's desk.]


Some Hon. Members:: Order, Order.


Mr. Andre:: Kick him out!


Mr.   La Salle@: Very intelligent!


Some Hon. Members:: Out, out.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member should know better.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Kick him out!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. The Hon. Member should know better. He will now please rise in his place and apologize to the House.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to apologize.


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you. That is that.


James Ross Fulton: I think that-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


An Hon. Member:: Stupid!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: It is the only time a fish has more brains than a Member.


Mr. Speaker:: 
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the environment and, specifically, the Prairie Wildlife Interpretation Centre in southwestern Saskatchewan. This centre was one of five which was subject to spending restraints last year. The centre operated last summer under the joint auspices of the Governments of Saskatchewan and Canada. Can the House be informed as to the future of the Prairie Wildlife Interpretation Centre?


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will be interested to know that the Minister of the Environment will have at his disposal within two weeks an assessment of how the Wildlife Centre functioned last summer under the arrangements that were made for its temporary operation. He should also know that the Government intends to ensure that this Centre remains open and serves the public. We would like to thank the Hon. Member for his representations and his concern, and we hope he will take some encouragement from the
October 16, 1985

fact that similar centres across Canada, in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, have remained open under similar circumstances.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and concerns the rapidly deteriorating situation in western Canada. Last summer's drought and a wet harvest this fall are driving realized net farm incomes in Saskatchewan well below $5,000. Every night on television we see farms being auctioned off the RCMP escorting young farmers off their farms.
On September 10 the Minister said that he would have a report within two weeks. Can he give any hope to these young farmers who are losing their farms? Can he say if a decision has been made regarding an acreage payment to these farmers in western Canada?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Hon. Member has been in the House in the last few days. 1 recall having this question posed by a member of the NDP. I indicated to him, I believe earlier this week, that the committee, under the leadership of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia, had brought forth its recommendations with respect to Phase II, which included recommendations for compensation payments concerning crop losses. I also indicated that that submission was going to Cabinet, and that would be next Tuesday.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it was five weeks ago that the Minister indicated that report would be provided to him. Is he willing to stand in his place today and make a commitment that there will be a payment of up to $50 per seeded acre as recommended by the Leader of the Opposition, the western wheat pools and many responsible farm organizations in western Canada? Can he give any hope to these young farmers who will be losing their farms this fall?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the Hon. Member would have a greater knowledge and understanding of the problems of the agricultural industry. One of the prime reasons for holding back was the recommendation of the committee itself in view of the fact that deteriorating weather conditions developed again. Therefore, any decision made prior thereto would simply be inaccurate, insufficient, and premature.
Oral Questions ENERGY


PETROLEUM INCENTIVES INQUIRY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last June he told the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada regarding the replacement of the Petroleum Incentives Program: "I should caution you, we are interested in moving very much to a market-oriented system, with a minimum of tax incentives." Why have the Minister and the Government taken a position of only minimum incentives? Why have they cancelled the PIP grants, refused to offer a replacement, and sabotaged thousands of jobs in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and the Beaufort?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, here we have another example of overblown rhetoric. No one has said that we refused to put in a replacement for the PIP grants. The Minister herself said quite recently that this is under active review between herself and myself and we hope to have a decision very soon. I would also say, in response to the First part of the overblown rhetoric in his question, that the proposal we will be putting forward will be world competitive.


REQUEST FOR NEW PROGRAM
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I was using the Minister's own words in that question. If he has changed his mind, will he stand in his place and confirm that he will put into effect a substantial replacement for the PIP grants and that it will be announced before November 1, as requested by the Premier of Nova Scotia and IPAC? Or is this just going to go on indefinitely and be yet another broken Tory election promise?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I could stand in my place here for the next two hours and talk about the election promises we have kept.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: That is another example of how the Hon. Member is way offside.
As I indicated in my previous answer, we are going to have a replacement for this program which will be competitive with other regimes in the world. If the Hon. Member would just have a little patience, he might not be too dissatisfied with what he sees.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The bank rate has made an encouraging decline since early September, but

October 16, 1985
Oral Questions
the spread between that rate and the rate the banks charge the public has widened. The interest charges of most credit card companies in which banks take an active interest have not changed very much in the past two years. What moral suasion will the Minister consider to encourage these institutions to bring their lending rates more in line with what they are paying for money?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct. We have seen a substantial drop in interest rates, some 300 bases points over the past 12 months. We have the prime rate now at 10 per cent, the lowest level it has been since, I believe, 1978.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We are talking about spreads, Michael.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I know the NDP are very pleased, judging by the response the Hon. Member is giving me now to that information.
We have watched as the spread between the prime rate and the Treasury Bill rate has widened and narrowed. This is something that will happen from time to time. Earlier this year the prime rate and the T-Bill rate were very close together. They have now widened, but I am sure that market forces will bring them together again and I know the banks are very conscious of that.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On October 2 a Statement of Claim was filed in the Supreme Court of Ontario against Mr. Fred Doucet, senior policy adviser to the Prime Minister. Given the Government's pending discussion of a replacement for the PIP grants and further offshore development, does the Minister not think it would be prudent for Mr. Doucet to step aside from his sensitive duties in the Prime Minister's Office while this suit is before the courts?


Erik Nielsen: What would be prudent and proper, Sir, is for Members not to ask questions which interfere in the judicial process when a matter is before the courts.


John Napier Turner: She was not talking about the merits.


Erik Nielsen: That is where it is.


Harvie Andre: It is a civil suit.


Erik Nielsen: To say nothing of the fact that the subject matter of her question has nothing to do with ministerial responsibility here.


SALE OF SHARES-PRIVATE OFFERING MEMORANDUM
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, Mr. Doucet is not a Minister, he is a senior adviser in the Prime Minister's Office. In a private offering memorandum, when Mr. Fred Doucet was peddling East Coast Energy shares across Nova Scotia, he stated: "The company-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Supplementary question, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My question relates to the Government because in the memorandum-I am asking the Minister, does he not think that there is a question in the minds of the public when a now senior adviser to the Prime Minister stated at that time that: "The company intends to conduct itself vis-a-vis Government so as to optimize benefits to the shareholders. The ownership of E.C.E.L. is structured so that every considered attempt can be made to obtain as many of the advantages as possible from these and other relevant-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I really am astonished that the Hon. Member-


An Hon. Member:: What is the date of that memorandum?


Erik Nielsen: -got as far as she did with that kind of question, which in itself explains the traditional rule against raising matters which are sub judice. Using her immunity she has made a statement just now which is the proper jurisdiction of a court and a judge to decide. The "blues" will show that the Hon. Member has accused one of the litigants of peddling shares in some company or other, which in itself is an accusation which she should not have made, and which should not been allowed to be made in the House under the guise of Question Period.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Maybe you want to rework your question.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why don't you get a lawyer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order!


John Carnell Crosbie: We want some order!


Neil Young: Thank you, John.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.
October 16, 1985

[ Translation]


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
In view of rumours we have been hearing for some time that thousands of jobs are going to be cut at Transport Canada, that local activities will be consolidated and moved to regional offices, in Quebec that would mean they would be located in Quebec City, and considering the fact the House was expecting a statement by the Minister yesterday, when is the Minister going to announce his restructuration plan for Transport Canada, put an end to all these rumours, and reassure the workers of this Department?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, much of the innuendo, fear, and anxiety is being perpetuated by Members like the one who has just asked the question. 1 think it is very clear that in the November statement and in the Budget attempts were being made to reduce the overhead and, as much as possible, the cost of operations within the Department of Transport, and to ensure that we can provide adequate service to all regions of the country. A commitment was also made to ensure that there would be greater regional participation. I would be very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to elaborate further as I am appearing before the Standing Committee on Transport. If the Member attends there I will be very glad to give him a full explanation of all the details.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am not comforted by that answer. Every time the Minister of Transport tells me that I am paranoid, the next day exactly what I had feared would happen, happens.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Mayer:: Baloney.


An Hon. Member:: So who's going to win the game tonight?


REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I want to ask the
Minister of Transport to answer the question and to make an announcement to clear up, for employees of Transport Canada and everyone else who is concerned about the reorganization of that Department, just exactly what is going on. When are we going to find out?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Member would try to ascertain the facts and stop going around the country spreading fear, anxiety, and innuendo-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I generally have the facts.
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If he chooses to come to the standing committee tomorrow I will be very glad to answer in detail any questions that he has.


WAR MEASURES ACT
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago today, on one of the blackest nights for civil liberties in Canadian history, Pierre Trudeau and John Turner proclaimed the War Measures Act.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The last time they spoke to each other.


Svend Johannes Robinson: In view of the fact that the Act remains unchanged on the books today and the documentation underlying this shameful decision remains secret, when will the Government repeal this repressive legislation used against innocent Quebecers and Japanese Canadians? When, Mr. Speaker, will John Turner finally come clean with Canadians as to why this was imposed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order! This practice of referring to Members by name must stop.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in my view, subject as always to your correction of course, it does not lie within the ministerial responsibility of myself or the Government to account for the words or actions of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice and is, word for word, identical to a question asked by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs to the previous Minister of Justice. "Will the Minister of Justice reveal to Parliament the reasons that the Government introduced the War Measures Act in 1970 and make public the information kept secret by John Turner so that Canadians can-"


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: That was the question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I'm quoting the question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It's a quote.


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Mr. Keeper:: He can quote.


Mr. Speaker:: Having asked the Member specifically to stop referring to Members by name, he persists. I must, therefore, go to the next Member. The Hon. Member for York West.
7682

October 16, 1985
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


TAIWAN-CANADIAN POSITION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for External Affairs, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of State for External Affairs has stated that the Government's policy is not officially diplomatically to recognize Taiwan. Yet the Minister of State for Multiculturalism said yesterday: "Any Cabinet Minister should be able to appear at events organized by supporters of Taiwan".
This represents an obvious and serious faux pas in the policy of the Government.


John Carnell Crosbie: Never mind the speeches.


Sergio Marchi: How does the Deputy Prime Minister reconcile the official line, as articulated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, with the attitude of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism who recently authorized the Minister of National Revenue to attend the celebration of Taiwan's National Day?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it seems to have been overlooked by the questioner that the Member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell, the Member for Richmond Wolfe, and the Senator for De la Valliere are all members of his Party and all are participating in that trip to Taiwan.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Didn't he get invited?


John Carnell Crosbie: Where is Boudria?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, how the Government of Taiwan spends its money is none of my damn business.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.


Mr. Siddon:: He said it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Member has a question, I am sure.


Sergio Marchi: I am concerned about the policy of this Government, not that of the Government of Taiwan.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, how does the Deputy Prime Minister reconcile the difference in policy? Where does he draw the line with respect to ministerial discretion in a very important and delicate foreign policy issue? What is the policy, who is in charge, and where is the consistency?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Government vis-a-vis the Chinese Government was very eloquently, ably, and fully stated by the Prime Minister in response to questions that were put to him at his press conference last Friday morning.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Not in the House.


Erik Nielsen: In the event that the Member did not view that press conference, or in the event that he is not up to date, I might point out to him that the policy being followed by this Government with respect to mainland China is the same as the policy of the Government which he supported when it was on this side of the House.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. No doubt the Minister was enthusiastic about last Friday's announcement of the national unemployment rate dropping to 10.1 per cent, the lowest level in the last three years. Can the Minister tell us what steps the Government will be taking during the next few months in order to reduce the unemployment rate to an even lower level?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, indeed, as the Hon. Member has pointed out, the unemployment rate came down last Friday to 10.1 per cent, the lowest level since March of 1982. We are not satisfied with that, of course, and we will be working to ensure that the rate comes down lower. We know that there will be fluctuations in the rate. However, we are encouraged by the predictions of the Conference Board of Canada that the unemployment rate for next year will be down to 9.7 per cent. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we have undertaken a new Canadian Jobs Strategy which will provide employment and training for some 400,000 Canadians who would not otherwise have a chance for jobs.


HOUSING
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance responsible for the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation. In view of today's news about the Greymac properties, will the Minister assure this House that no sale of the 10,000-plus Greymac apartment units in Toronto will be permitted until the Minister has consulted Toronto City Council about a likely conflict with the stated policy against Toronto's by-law which restricts conversion of rental apartments to condominiums?
October 16, 1985


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the Hon. Member's position with regard to the shortage of rental accommodation in Toronto. As he knows, this issue is before the courts and in the hands of the CDIC. I would be very happy to inquire into it for him.


REQUEST THAT TENANTS BE OFFERED PURCHASE OPTION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister cannot give us that assurance, can she assure us that before the apartments are offered for condominiums the tenants will first be offered the option of buying the buildings as co-operatives or non-profit corporations at the low end of market price?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, it is the job of the liquidator and the CDIC to maximize the return. My understanding is that there have been a number of consultations with tenants in a variety of these buildings and I am sure that the solution will resolve some of these difficult issues.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, October 15, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) attempted to plead the sub judice rule to avoid answering a very relevant question which you had accepted. I suggest that he was abusing that rule in order to avoid dealing with a difficult subject.
The sub judice convention is set out in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition and it very clearly does not apply to this situation. There is no criminal matter being discussed. There is a civil matter, but even in a civil matter the lawsuit is only at the stage of pleadings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order. If the Hon. Member reads further in Beauchesne he will find that that practice is a convention of the House, not a rule of the House.
Petitions


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, will the Government House Leader put on the record of the House the business for today and tomorrow? I know that it has been communicated to House Leaders through the usual channels but I think it would be helpful if it were on the record of the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to announce publicly the business for today and tomorrow. Hon. Members will know that there is an item in Government Orders with respect to Bill C-79 concerning the CCB and Northland Banks and a Government motion with respect to time allocation. I had communicated earlier this week to determine whether a time at the beginning of the week would be convenient to proceed with this item. After discussions with the Opposition House Leaders, I have decided to have this matter come forward tomorrow morning as the first item of business.
I should also mention that there will be a Ways and Means Motion with respect to the Excise Tax Act on which I will want to move concurrence tomorrow after we have dealt with the matter of time allocation.
The sequence of the order of business in which we are now engaged will continue. In other words, it is my intention to carry on with discussion of the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, followed by the legislation respecting employment equity and, as the third item in that trio, the Bill respecting Canagrex.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from the Toronto area as well as some from Saskatoon concerning family allowance. The petitioners point out that the family allowance deindexation will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that even the poorest families will be worse off by 1990 and fall further and further behind.\nOctober 16, 1985', 'These petitioners call upon the Elouse of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind unfair tax increases.\nI have a similar set of petitions on family allowance, pointing out that the accelerating cut-backs in child benefits, on top of sales and excise tax increases, place an extraordinary burden on middle and low income households. These petitioners call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance.']
Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Minister of State for Finance rising under Tabling of Documents or Statements by Ministers?


Barbara Jean McDougall: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I want to rise under Notices of Motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Petitions.



Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition from a number of citizens, most of whom live in the Vancouver region, asking that family allowances by fully reindexed and that unfair tax increases, which will put a further burden on families, particularly low-income families, be rescinded.

October 16, 1985
Petitions


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of teachers from Manitoba. The undersigned wish to express their disappointment at the actions of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which prevented the settlement of the Fort Alexander situation by the Canadian Labour Relations Board and the Federal Court.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to intervene on behalf of their four colleagues who are obeying the law but are being penalized by an employer who continues to flout the law.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition from a number of individuals from Brighton, Ontario. Those petitioners state that the deindexation of the universal family allowance is an unfair attack on women and families, and further state that the attack will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that other tax increases in the May Budget will place an unfair burden on low and middle income earners.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition on behalf of a large number of residents of the City of Kamloops, British Columbia, who are of the opinion that the deindexation of the universal family allowance and the massive cut-backs in the public commitment to child benefits are an unfair attack on women and families with children, especially single mothers, and call upon the Government to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and rescind the unfair tax increases of the last Budget.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many residents of Edmonton, Alberta. The petition protests the change to the Unemployment Insurance Act which would see pension income being used as earned income for unemployment insurance purposes. The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that all retired employees keep their pension benefits and receive their unemployment insurance benefits without deduction of pension income.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents of my riding in Ottawa and from the City of Hull, protesting the deindexation of the universal family allowance
and stating that the poorest families will be worse off by 1990 with the measures that the Government has proposed.
My petitioners object to the inequities under which banks are bailed out to the tune of a billion dollars while family allowances are cut back. They call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and rescind the unfair tax increases.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition today on behalf of those groups, associations and independent groups across Canada who are asking for a free vote in the House on capital punishment. There are 21,875 signatures, which makes a total of 190,125 Canadians who are asking that the House consider a free vote on capital punishment and that the issue be brought to the floor of the House as soon as possible.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my first petition concerns family allowances. The petitioners point out that the deindexation of family allowances will cost even the poorest families money following the year 1990. The deindexation of family allowances, along with tax changes, will hurt middle income Canadians.


Cyril Keeper: My second petition concerns the postal service. It comes from a number of residents of my riding, specifically the Laurence Apartments at 75 Yong Street who indicate that postal service was interrupted this summer for a number of days and, for a period of time, up to a week and a half and state that this is intolerable.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of petitioners from the Province of Nova Scotia who call upon the Government to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and rescind the unfair tax increases.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from the Toronto area as well as some from Saskatoon concerning family allowance. The petitioners point out that the family allowance deindexation will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that even the poorest families will be worse off by 1990 and fall further and further behind.
October 16, 1985

These petitioners call upon the Elouse of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind unfair tax increases.
I have a similar set of petitions on family allowance, pointing out that the accelerating cut-backs in child benefits, on top of sales and excise tax increases, place an extraordinary burden on middle and low income households. These petitioners call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance.



WAYS AND MEANS


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 65(1), I wish to table notices of Ways and Means motions to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act.
Pursuant to Standing Order 65(2) I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of these motions.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 194 and 424.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	In (a) 1982 (b) 1983, how many pamphlets were published by the Department of National Defence for the purpose of public education?
2.	How many were distributed and on what subjects?


Mr. Robert Wenman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) 1982-31; (b) 1983-31.
2. See below.
Subject Matter	Number of Pamphlets	DistributionMedical Insurance Plans, Medical Benefits, Retirement Benefits	4	230,000Search and Rescue, Air Safety, Survival	2	12,000Teaching Opportunities in Europe, CANEX, Recruiting, Summer Employment Opportunities	19	1,017,000Research Establishments, Scientific Information Services,	6	14,250
Defence Procurement Process, Canadian Patrol Frigate, Research and Development Programs
Motions for Papers
Medical Insurance Plans, Medical Benefits, Retirement Benefits	4	230,000Cruise Missile Facts	1	27,000CANEX, Teaching Opportunities in Europe, Recruiting, Summer Employment Opportunities	19	1,017,000Research Establishments, Defence Procurement Process, Research and Development Programs. Scientific Information	7	5,752
Services, Canadian Patrol Frigate


Mr. Robichaud: Were studies undertaken on the impact of gasoline prices upon tourist trends and (a) if so (i) what were they (ii) did they reveal a relationship between gasoline prices and tourist trends in Canada and, if so, by how many percentage points will the number of US tourists decrease when the federal tax on gasoline increases by 1 per cent and from what source are these figures derived (b) if not (i) for what reason (ii) on what date will the Department commission such a study?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Tourism)):: Tourism Canada did a study in 1984 isolating the impact of gasoline prices on automobile travel to and from Canada and the U.S., using the Tourism Canada forecasting model. The results indicated that a 1 per cent increase in Canadian gasoline prices, with U.S. prices held constant, would have little impact on overnight visitors, resulting in changes of only 0.2 per cent.
The 1 per cent price increase would have more impact on the relatively low spending same day automobile travel, with the price increase estimated to increase same day Canadian exits to the U.S. by 1 per cent and decrease same day U.S. automobile visits to Canada by 1 per cent.
A Tourism Industry Association of Canada study has come up with similar results.
Tourism Canada is not considering another such study at present.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 16, 1985
Motions



JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am a very popular Member of this House. When you called the item Motions, I was in full discussion with at least six or seven of my colleagues from around the House. May I ask the indulgence of the House to return to Motions because I have an Order that has met the approval of all Parties? I think you will find an inclination of the House to accept this motion by unanimous consent, without debate. May I have the concurrence of the House to revert to Motions, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to Motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the order is as follows:
That, notwithstanding its order of reference dated Tuesday, February 26, 1985, it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that it empower any subcommittee studying the status of equality rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to report its Findings with respect thereto, directly to the House of Commons.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, just on a matter of clarification, I am sorry I did not ask before, but I was busy too-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Talking to me.


Ian Deans: I was talking to you, that is exactly right.
What is this significance of the words, "Empower any subcommittee"? It is "the subcommittee", is it not? There is one subcommittee?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I take it back. Yes.


Ian Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: With that correction, the House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make a few comments on Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof. This is a very large Bill, Sir. There is an awful lot in it and I must say some of it is long overdue. Some of the clauses in this Bill will improve our navigation systems. However, I am going to relate my comments specifically to Clause 4 of the Bill as it relates to the imposition, if you will, of user fees.
In the past six months, we have been involved in our Fisheries Committee with the fact that there is not enough money in the small craft harbours budget to repair the wharves, piers and the harbours in this great country of ours. Last night we were told by officials that after engineering costs were taken out by the Department of Public Works there was just a little over $50 million in that budget for all the wharves and harbours in Canada. That includes our marinas in Quebec and Ontario, the commercial fishery of the West Coast, the sports fishery and the pleasure craft in British Columbia, the commercial fishery in the Atlantic Canada as well as the recreational users in that area.
Here we are with a Bill before us today that says that if improvements are to be made to our wharves and harbours, then there is a provision for this Government to pass on those user fees, I suppose, to the user.
I mentioned briefly yesterday what effect that will have in one port in particular in my Province of Prince Edward Island, namely Summerside. We ship about 85 per cent of all potato production from Prince Edward Island through Summerside. Prince Edward Island is basically an exporter of seed potatoes.
I say without qualification that we grow the best seed potatoes in the world, so it is a very important industry to PEI.
The harbour of Summerside gets sanded up periodically because there is sand up and down the coast. If a major storm occurs from either the southwest or the northwest, the harbour can be completely filled with sand at any given time. It does not happen very often, but right now we have dredging operations going on.
The previous Government okayed a deep water berth for Summerside. This project was approved after much arm-twisting by myself and others and the new Government has seen fit to carry on with the project.
October 16, 1985

We have another problem. Vessels that come to Summerside to take on a cargo of potatoes for Argentina, Portugal, Algeria or wherever have to be refrigerated vessels. While they may have 17 to 22 feet at high tide, at low tide there is a shortfall of seven to eight feet. All the piping for the refrigerated units is in the keel and along the hull of the ship. When the loaded vessels are tied up they cannot sit on the bottom or damage to the equipment will occur.
Every five to six years around the Queen's Wharf in Summerside, dredging has to take place. Sometimes it is okay to use cranes on the wharf itself but at other times you need have to have a suction of a clam dredge, a very expensive proposition. As a result, the users, and in this case the users would be the vessel owners, would have to charge a lot more for the use of their vessel to the shipper in order for them to maintain their costs and show a small profit.
I should like to refer to another issue of concern. In the winter-time, communities alongside the Gulf of St. Lawrence and along the Northumberland Straits, whether it be Summer-side, Charlottetown, Georgetown or Surrey, are ice-bound. Normally by the middle of January we find that ice-breakers from the Department of Transport are required to clear a path for vessels either to enter or to exit from those harbours. Over the past six years I have had problems trying to obtain the services of an ice-breaker when a vessel has been loaded and is ready to leave port for its destination. I have always maintained that the Government does not have adequate ice-breaking facilities in Canada, certainly in Atlantic Canada and in northern Canada. Not only will we find ourselves with a scarcity of good ice-breaking services, we will have to pay the cost of those services if the Bill is passed.
What would happen if the Bill were passed into law today and the Government decided to charge a fee? We do not know how much that fee would be, if in fact it were to charge one. If it will not do so, why would it include that clause in the Bill? Whether it is done now, six months down the road or 10 years down the road, this particular provision would allow the Government to do that. This Government, this Minister or indeed any Government or Minister who may follow could at some point in time impose a fee under this legislation.
In any event, on Monday of this week, I was told that the price of potatoes in Prince Edward Island, f.o.b. at the farm-gate, was 1.5 cents per pound and that the cost of production was at least 5 cents per pound. At this point in time producers are losing roughly 3.5 cents per pound on every pound of potatoes produced. What will be the effect of the costs resulting from this legislation as well as the inspection fees which the Government has placed upon potato producers as one of its main efforts to obtain more revenue? If this legislation is passed, in my province, at the very least, 50 per cent of the farmers would be driven into bankruptcy. That may be the case this year without this piece of legislation being on the books. Therefore, I have great difficulty with the Bill, certainly with this particular clause.
Canada Shipping Act
Other areas of the fishing industry will certainly be affected by moorage fees, wharfage fees and so on. I wonder how the users will be charged, in that many fishermen do not necessarily tie up alongside the wharf. They tie vessel to vessel to vessel because harbours are not large enough to permit every vessel to have its own moorage at its own dockside. Certainly that is true in my own province. I suspect that that is the case in many areas in the Provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as well. If the Government goes ahead with the user-pay philosophy, how will it identify just exactly who is the user? I believe it was the Minister who suggested before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, in reply to a question posed by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), that as long as a vessel came into the harbour it would be subject to moorage fees, even if there was nothing to tie up to. I stand to be corrected, but I think it was the version of the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. That presents another fear for the people whom I represent.
I am sure the situation would be the same for a number of other ports in Atlantic Canada, in British Columbia and in the North. Many similar situations will arise. In Newfoundland I suspect that probably 95 per cent of its ports would be or could be affected by this piece of legislation.
I have heard Hon. Members opposite say that they will not be imposing user fees. Perhaps the Minister will reply to that. However, my response to them would be: "If you are not going to do it, why include it in the legislation?" It may not be the Minister's intention to have user-fees, to charge for ice-breaking services, to charge for aids to navigation, to charge for vessel traffic services or to charge for escorting services. If it is not his intention, why is the Minister trying to bootleg the legislation through the House? If he decides on the issue, we could have an open debate on it in Parliament.
I propose to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate, the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "That" and by substituting the following:
"Bill C-75 not be read a second time but that it be read a second time this
day six months hence".
I move that amendment because I want to find out from the Government what user fees or other fees for ice-breaking services could be charged under this legislation. As a Member of Parliament, I represent my province to the best of my ability. We are proud of our agricultural industry in Prince Edward Island, specifically the potato industry. Therefore, 1 require more answers than what 1 have received from the Government, from the Minister and from Hon. Members opposite up to this point in time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the amendment. The debate will now be on the amendment.


Mr. Forrestall:: Questions and comments?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) on questions and comments.

October 16, 1985
Canada Shipping Act


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member. I know that he is sincerely concerned about some of the difficulties to which he alluded in respect of potato producers and fishermen. I can assure him that the comments coming from that side of the House are not going unnoticed.
The Hon. Member indicated that he felt there was a need for more ice-breaking services and perhaps that is true. Currently, something in the order of $180 million is spent annually on ice-breaking services for which there is no cost recovery. Is the Hon. Member saying that these kinds of ice-breaking services should be provided absolutely free even to foreign vessels escorted by Canadian icebreakers? Is that really the position of the Hon. Member's Party?


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question put by the Minister. I moved this amendment so I can get some clarification on what the Government is trying to do. What I am trying to say is that the potato industry on Prince Edward Island is in competition with the State of Maine which has ice-free harbours year round. Indeed, the Province of Prince Edward Island is in competition with the Province of New Brunswick, the producers of which can ship out of Saint John harbour because it is basically ice-free and does not need ice-breaking services. If we are to compete and maintain the industry, there must be some form of equalization. The Government must recognize the geographic realities of our country. Therefore, ice-breaking services in Labrador, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Northumberland Straits are imperative, even if they are for a foreign vessel which is picking up a product from Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland or New Brunswick. I think that the Government and this legislation does not recognize the uniqueness of certain parts of Atlantic Canada and certain parts of the North. That is all I am trying to say. This Bill puts the agricultural community of Prince Edward Island at a total disadvantage at a time when, heaven knows, it does not need to be at any further disadvantage.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the Hon. Member skated around the question. Is he saying that it is the position of his Party that ice-breaking services, in all cases, whether it be for a Canadian vessel or a foreign vessel, should be provided absolutely free of charge?


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I did not skate around the question. I think the Minister is trying to throw a red herring in here. I tried to indicate to the Minister that not all foreign vessels in Canadian waters are there for the total benefit of that foreign country. The Minister knows that Canada has no merchant fleet and we have to rely on foreign vessels to take our product out of the country for export purposes. As well, some oil tankers are not registered in Canada but have to come into certain ports and harbours to bring in oil supplies. If these tankers had to pay for ice-breaking services, would that cost not be added on to the cost of the product? This Government is supposed to be a business-oriented Government. It would be
foolhardy, I would think, for any Member of this House to decide that a foreign vessel should operate in Canadian waters at a deficit.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to prolong this, but I think the Hon. Member knows that ail forms of transportation are subsidized and have some measure of cost recovery. In the case of the marine sector, we are talking about something like $824 million being spent annually providing navigational, ice-breaking and other related services while cost recovery is something in the order of 2.5 per cent. Does the Hon. Member think that this is fair?
We are hearing from Members on the other side that we should treat all modes of transportation fairly. The air and rail modes are recovering a much larger percentage of their costs than the marine mode which literally recovers nothing whatsoever. It seems to me that that is somewhat unfair.
The Hon. Member should not try for one minute to suggest that this Bill is proposing 100 per cent cost recovery. 1 wish Hon. Members of the opposite side would not take this to the extreme. There is flexibility in this Bill. We are committed to discussing areas for which there could be some reasonable cost recovery, which may very well in turn generate some efficiencies within the system. To suggest that we are talking about 100 per cent cost recovery for the provision of these services is really exaggerating the point to the extreme.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, this is the first little titbit of information I have received. At least we now know that there will not be 100 per cent cost recovery. Will the Minister rise in his place today to tell us just exactly what that cost recovery will be? We now know that it will not be 100 per cent. Will it be 99 per cent, 80 per cent, 60 per cent, 50 per cent or 5 per cent? These are the things we want to know. We are not buying a pig in a poke and we will not sign a blank cheque for this Minister or any other Minister. I do not think that the Hon. Minister would expect us to do so. We have to represent our constituents in a faithful manner. We have to be honest with them so we have to know, when people ask me what it will cost them to ship their potatoes next year, what the Government's intentions are.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make an observation. It is incredible to listen to the Minister of Transport compare the charges contained in this Bill with charges for the air mode and other modes of transportation. I would like to point out to the Minister that we are not talking about transportation of people. We are not talking about ships that intend to ply their way down south for a winter vacation. We are talking about transportation that is a necessity, not a choice. The people to whom we are referring do not have any choice. Either they go by boat or they do not go. The Minister's analogy is absolutely ridiculous.
The Minister has stuck in this thing about foreigners. He has said that we should not let foreigners get away with anything. Do we see anything in this Bill that talks about foreigners? There is nothing there at all. If the Minister means
October 16, 1985

to charge only foreigners, then he should put it in the Bill. The Minister's original analogy which compared this mode with the air transportation mode certainly signals to me that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) really does not understand the icebreaker services in eastern Canada.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) if he would not agree that the questions he has addressed and the other questions that have been raised must best be answered in a committee and that the faster we get the Bill into committee the better it will be?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who moved the motion is identified by this Party as the Hon. Member from Prince Edward Island. He represents that province ably in this Parliament. In this particular case, he is standing up for the people of Prince Edward Island and is making sure that the Government does not impose charges on the potato growers and primary producers of this country.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity on the Canada Shipping Act or, as it now happens, to speak on the hoist motion. One might think that a person from the middle of the Prairies would have little knowledge of or interest in shipping and the Shipping Act.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Probably a lot more than what we heard from over there.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: All Canadians must be concerned about how goods are moved in Canada. Canada is a country dependent upon trade-some people would say too much so. We must be sure that regulations which control the movement of goods in and out of Canada do not impose a burden, making it more difficult for us to be involved in trade by forcing organizations such as transportation companies to pay more, thereby discouraging them to use the available facilities. The Bill seems to do just that. It decreases the possible use of facilities. In many ways the Bill proposes what is necessary to be done. It establishes regulations which will increase safety and encourage the use of facilities. However, there is one exception. I refer to the cost recovery clause in this particular Bill upon which I will comment later.
What I wish to comment on at the beginning is the Government's responsibility with regard to this type of situation. First, it is the responsibility of the Government to keep the shipping lanes open in order that they can be used by domestic or foreign shippers. The St. Lawrence Seaway is presently inoperable because of the collapse of part of the walls of the Welland Canal which is blocking Lock 7. This could be said to have been just an accident. However, it would be interesting to look into the reasons behind the closing of the Welland Canal. This blockage is costing shipping companies approximately $20 million a day. Who is responsible for the fact that the Welland Canal is not open to shipping? No doubt the cost of $20 million a day will be passed on in some form or another to
Canada Shipping Act
the people using the canal. In this case a great deal of the cost will be passed on to the farmers who are shipping grain through the canal.
Over the years the Government has been collecting fees for the use of the Welland Canal and the St. Lawrence Seaway. In the case of the St. Lawrence Seaway it has put aside $30 million or more which is to be used for maintenance of the Seaway. The same has been done with respect to the Welland Canal. This means that the Department of Transport recognizes the need to have money in place for maintenance. Therefore, the Department must take some responsibility for the closure in that it has not done the type of maintenance which would have made it less likely.
To a question put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) the other day one of my colleagues received an unsatisfactory answer in that the Minister did not indicate that the Government is willing to spend the money which is available for maintenance. It will not take the $30 million which it has taken out of capital from the Seaway and spend it on maintenance, which will prevent closings such as those which have taken place in the past. This is the key issue in the Bill. It is dealt with in Clause 4. The rest of the Bill establishes acceptable regulations for shipping and is needed legislation which should have been put in place quite some time ago, as 1 understand from my colleagues who know a little more about the subject. Clause 4 is enabling legislation which would allow the Department of Transport to recover the costs for what have been considered a national responsibility in the past.
It is the user-pay philosophy in the Bill which we in the Opposition challenge. When service becomes the responsibility of the user and ceases to be the responsibility of the nation, then we have to look at exactly how it will be paid for and who will be paying for it. The user-pay philosophy needs close scrutiny by the Government and by Parliament because its application can have a tremendous effect on the viability of many industries in Canada. If the user-pay philosophy is applied to all services which are now provided partially or in full by the Government, what effect will that have on the type of services which we have available in Canada? I am not speaking only of transportation in this case. The user-pay philosophy can be applied to all types of services. For instance, what type of services would we have if a user-pay philosophy were established for health care? Should only the sick pay for health care or should we all be concerned with respect to the health of the nation? What about sanitation? Should only those people who have need of water and sewer services pay for them? Should those services be recognized as a responsibility of the nation? What about roads and communication services? These are areas in which Canada has taken a national responsibility to provide the service and where user-pay has not been a factor.
Traditionally, transportation has been one of the areas in which the Government has provided the infrastructure and its use has been either free or partially free. Roads are generally paid for by taxes. Signs, markings for intersections and road lighting are usually paid for by municipalities which provide

October 16, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
the services. There are only a few cases in which tolls are applied to recover some of the costs. The railways were basically paid for and established by the Government. Freight has been almost continuously-and still is to some extent- subsidized by the Government. We continue to depend upon this type of structure although the Government has not given any indication that it will return to the Crow rate which it helped remove.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Neither are you.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Air travel is an area which has been traditionally paid for by Governments. Consequently, air transportation has developed in the country because the Government has taken that type of responsibility. Areas which have been traditionally paid for by the Government in the marine industry include navigational aids, dredging, ice-breakers, lock operations on canals and so on.
What will happen to these services and our country if we impose a user-pay philosophy on the transportation system? In looking at this subject perhaps we could consider when it would be possible for the Government to implement a user-pay philosophy. When does it become illogical to have a user-pay philosophy and who should make the decisions with respect to it? Had the user-fee philosophy been applied to transportation across Canada over the years, many parts of Canada would be inaccessible today. Our road, rail and air transportation system would not have been extended to many of our communities. Many of the Members in this House come from and represent those communities. Many of the industries in those communities would not be viable today if the user-pay philosophy in transportation had been in place. Mines and farms would not have been developed and operating today. It is particularly important to recognize that most of our North would still be the wilderness it was in 100 years ago if the Government had established a use-pay philosophy in 1885.
My predecessor from Prince Albert, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, during his time as Prime Minister, established a policy which was well received across northern Canada. It was called the Roads to Resources policy. It was very far-sighted, but the Liberal Opposition under Pearson at that time scoffed and called it a policy of highways from igloo to igloo. However, those highways are today the main routes to the development of much of northern Canada. That development would not have occurred had the Diefenbaker Government established a user-pay policy. Northern Canada is still reaping the benefits of that nationalistic policy of Mr. Diefenbaker. However, this Conservative Government is showing itself to be almost anti-nationalistic, anti-development, in its policy. It goes against what the Diefenbaker Government stood for and did in its term in office.
If the user-pay philosophy is put into place it will have the effect of turning back the clock. Even now the increases in freight rates imposed by the Liberal Government and maintained by this Government are making farming in certain
areas of the Prairies, particularly grain farming, unviable. If this Bill is passed, the St. Lawrence Seaway may become unviable in the very near future. The Seaway has many requirements for which the Government has accepted responsibility in the past. If we were to increase Seaway tolls a great deal, the time would come when use of the Seaway would drop. Even now it has dropped considerably, that is, 27 per cent over the last year. This kind of an increase in tolls will affect not only the people who work on the Seaway, but the industries which depend on the Seaway to get their goods to market. Canadian ports may become less desirable for export use. And those costs to the already increasing freight costs, and farming, particularly grain and meat production, become less viable in many parts of the country. Canada is so dependent on trade, and the movement of our products so basic to the survival of many industries, that any increase in transportation costs, however slight, will make many Canadian products uncompetitive on world markets. In international markets the difference between getting and losing a contract is sometimes as little as one-half cent per tonne. It seems a small amount, but when millions of tonnes are involved it can make quite a difference to a bid price.
This Bill, Mr. Speaker, and particularly Clause 4, will have an impact which has not been properly weighed by this Government. It will have a social as well as an economic impact. If we start closing farms and sawmills across the country, this small clause will have a national emotional impact. Transportation has traditionally been a service which united Canada. The migration of people across this country was made possible by our transportation system, 'herefore, this user-pay philosophy will affect the basic structu, : of this country to an extent we are unable to recognize at this point in time. Right now there is some semblance of equality between the regions of this country and their ability to produce and sell goods on the world market. Each time you increase the cost of transporting those goods you decrease their competitiveness. You decrease the viability of a particular industry.
Therefore, I appeal to the Government to accept the motion for a six-month hoist and take a good look at the effect this Bill, in particular Clause 4, will have. I appeal to the Government to change the Bill so that it is possible for Canadian industry to export as much as it possibly can and develop as many foreign markets as it possibly can. If they approach it in that way, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the House will pass the Bill quickly and allow the good parts of it to be put in place so that shipping would be safer and better across Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know that there is a temptation for Members to try to associate the $30 million surplus in the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority account with the fact that it may have some impact upon the level of maintenance. I want to clarify that because I think the Member who just spoke clearly left that impression. I can assure him, as I have been assured by the management of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, that there has been no cutback in the level of maintenance and service that has been
October 16, 1985

required over the last number of years. As a matter of fact, the maintenance that was deemed necessary and appropriate has been carried out. 1 think Hon. Members should know that. They should not try to feast upon a misadventure for shortterm political gain because I do not think it serves the best interests of the Seaway and it does very little to enhance credibility and confidence within the Seaway.
For the information of the Hon. Member, this year $26.6 million was appropriated for maintenance. Last year that amount was $33.8 million. It was a little higher due to the fact that some extensive repairs were done to the bridges as a result of the Valleyfield bridge breakdown and the repair of other bridges. In 1983-84 the expenditure for maintenance amounted to $24.1 million. In 1982-83 it was $19.9 million, in 1981-82 it was $19.3 million, and in 1980-81 it was $18.6 million.
The Hon. Member implied in his comments that maintenance expenditures were decreasing and that there was insufficient funding for maintenance. That is certainly not correct. As a matter of fact, the amount of money appropriated for maintenance has been increasing each year. Officials at the Seaway Authority have assured me that at no time have they spared expenditures in terms of maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the Seaway system. I think it is important for all Members to know that and they should keep that in mind when commenting on this. No one like a breakdown; it is not good for the system and it is certainly not good for Canada.
I can assure Members that a contract has been awarded today to Canron to brace and stabilize the wall. Mr. O'Neil, the President of the Seaway Authority, is meeting with the other general contractors right now to determine who will be awarded the job for the repairs. It was not a collapsed wall, but a blow-out. Until such time as we can determine the cause accurately, I think it would be best to leave the speculation to someone who is more of an authority on that than I am.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. He got so wrapped up in his words about user-pay that I gathered from his comments that he had come to the point of saying that all transportation services are a service and, therefore, should be provided free. I really do not understand the rationale. Surely in the marine sector, as in the other sectors of transportation, there is always an element of cost recovery. Is the Member suggesting that we should have a level of cost recovery for the air mode, the surface mode, the rail mode, and literally a policy of no cost recovery in the marine mode?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I accept the Minister's explanation of the maintenance since he is obviously more knowledgeable about it than I am, it being his responsibility. I would like to say, however, that I would much rather have that $30 million go to reduce the Seaway rates-or at least have them frozen for another couple of years-than to have it used to reduce the deficit. It was money paid in by the users and it should be given back to them.
With regard to the user-pay philosophy of the Government, as a westerner the Minister must recognize that if we do not
Canada Shipping Act
have some equality of transportation costs we will eventually eliminate the viability of a portion of the industry operating in the West. Had we had equality of transportation costs across the country rather than this concentration-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That's exactly what we are trying to do.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: If we had had equality of transportation costs across the country, we would not have a concentration of industry in the "golden triangle". That is what we had hoped to do. Many countries-Argentina for example-do not charge for the transportation of grain. Perhaps we could be a little more selective. There are certain things which require assistance in order to remain competitive on the world market, and agricultural products are among them. The main use of the railways and the Seaway is for transportation of those agricultural products. Agricultural products bring in more than half of our foreign exchange, which is a benefit to all Canadians. Therefore, it would seem quite logical to provide, if necessary, free transportation for grain to keep people involved in farming and producing.
1 recognize that a certain amount of cost recovery has been going on for a long time, but is it necessary to increase it? Maybe we should be taking it off the others if they are increasing. Maybe transportation should be a free service. Maybe that would make it possible for parts of Canada, which are not going to survive under the present policy of the Government, to survive.
I know I am exaggerating the possibilities in this case, but I am doing that for a reason. If we are going to spread the population across the country in the next 100 years in order that the extremities can be populated and can survive, we must deal with the inequities in costs of transportation. Those costs are based on geography rather than on anything else. Why do we not start looking at the possibility of having lower instead of higher freight rates? Prince Edward Island could sell its potatoes at a profit if it did not have such high transportation costs. Maybe that is necessary in order to have a viable industry in many parts of this country.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) explained the purpose of Clause 4 and introduced a motion that the Bill be read a second time six months hence. The way that he feels about Clause 4, I imagine that it should not be read a second time at all, even six years hence.
However, Clause 4 is quite clear and I do not believe it is necessary for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to try to evade the issue. The clause clearly states that for the purpose of defraying the cost of navigational services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard, the Governor in Council-the Minister and the Cabinet-may make regulations respecting charges relating to those services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard. What services are we talking about? The clause goes on to state, " . . . without limiting the generality of the foregoing . ..". The Government is giving the broadest inter-

October 16, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
pretation, but these services include navigation, dredging, vessel traffic services, ice-breaking services and escorting services.
The second part of the clause goes on to say that even if the services were not actually performed, the Canadian Coast Guard probably could still charge for that service. The rationale behind that, of course, is that when the Coast Guard is called to perform a service it can still charge for that service even if it is no longer required.
The clause goes on to point out that interest will be charged on late payments. It gives the Government in Council-the Minister of Transport-the right to impose that charge with interest. Furthermore, the Government can go to court to collect that payment. It also gives the Government the right to enter into agreements with provincial administrations.
On the hand the Minister say that this clause does not really mean anything but, on the other hand, he asks why these people should not have to pay. That is absolute nonsense. Think of what you may be confronted with in your own riding, Mr. Speaker, if Hibernia came on stream in the future and they had to bring in oil to service the Petromont refineries. What about those who must pay for ice-breaking services out of the Quebec region?
The Minister of Transport is suggesting that he will balance costs on the basis of where Canadians live. For example, anyone who needs an ice-breaker for their port will have to pay for that. If you happen to live in northern Newfoundland, Labrador or on Prince Edward Island and your fish business, potato business or any other business requires an ice-breaker during the winter, you will have to pay for it. What is the function of the Government of Canada today, according to that logic? Why not pass all of these services on to private enterprise? The Minister is suggesting that everyone should move south. He is asking, why should they not have to pay to have the Coast Guard send an ice-breaker to dig out a ferry run for ferries that service islands? The Minister and the Government must realize that we live on islands. I have constituents who live on islands and they pay a price for living on islands. The price of living there is that transportation is in doubt at various times of the year.
However, the Government wants to turn around now and say that they will have to pay for breaking up that ice in their port. It is telling those who have a fish business and employ people during the winter that they should pay now to have an ice-breaker come in. There are certain ports that service pulp and paper mills, such as the Port of Botwood, that are open year round. According to this Bill, the Minister is saying that there should be a charge to keep that port open year round. If you use that logic, quite obviously it would be much cheaper for a shipper to move his entire operations to a port that never has any ice.
That is strange logic coming from a Government that promised so much prior to the election campaign. It promised better ice-breaking facilities for eastern Canada. It promised better ice-breakers. However, when it came to power, in its first financial statement, the Coast Guard was included in a
cut of $51 million among other services such as aids to navigation. That was the first act that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) imposed on the Minister of Transport. Now the Minister must attempt to show the Cabinet that he is attempting to recover costs by introducing user fees.
There is no question that this clause should not be included in the Bill. It will not be included in the Bill if the Hon. Member for Egmont has anything to do with it. The Hon. Member mentioned that this is a particularly bad Bill in which to include such a clause. He spoke about fishermen and farmers. It was not too long ago when the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stood in this Chamber and announced an increase in moorage fees, the fee to tie up a boat at a wharf that was built with government money. It was not long ago that the Government announced an increase in the cost of insurance on boats. First, it tried to eliminate that scheme and then it tried to privatize it. No private company in Canada would even consider this scheme. This insurance scheme was devised by the Government of Canada because no private insurance firm would ever offer the insurance. The Government turned around and tripled the rates.
However, not content with that, it took another look at its Crown corporation, Fisheries Products International-to which a lot of ice-breaking services have been provided on the north coast of Newfoundland-and made an announcement that would essentially get rid of 15 fish plants in Newfoundland. It did not mention the number of employees affected by this announcement, but it will sell these plants. It has not said what will happen to those fish plants if they are not sold.
There is a total of 2,775 employees involved in those fish plants. Fishermen and employees in those plants do not know what they will be doing two years from now.
Not content with that, the Government took further steps with respect to the Department of National Revenue. It has changed its policy so that there are no more third-party demands. What does that mean?


J. Michael Forrestall: What does this have to do with the Bill?


George Baker: The hon. gentleman asks me what this has to do with the Bill. Obviously, it deals with the amendment by the Hon. Member for Egmont to the clause dealing with charges to be levied. Will the Government charge the Government of Newfoundland, the Government of Prince Edward Island or the people who ordered the ice-breaker? Will it charge the boat owners? Will it charge the entire population of the province on a percentage basis? Obviously, the Government will charge those who need the ice-breaking services.
The people whom the Government will have to charge for navigational aids, ice-breaking services and dredging are those who need that service. Those people are primarily fishermen in Newfoundland. Who else needs to have a harbour dredged if it is not the very people who want to move goods and services through that port?
October 16, 1985

If dredging is required in Twillingate harbour in Newfoundland, whom will the Government charge? Is it going to charge the fish plant that uses the harbour? Is it going to charge the fishermen whose boats have to use the harbour? Is it going to charge the town council? There is no more free dredging under this Bill if the intent of the Bill is carried through, Mr. Speaker. There is no more free dredging by Transport Canada or by Public Works. Public Works cannot do the dredging because it has just sold or is selling its dredging machines for the sake of passing the work over to private enterprise.
Perhaps the most serious part of this Bill is the part we have not really dealt with, namely, aids to navigation. There will be a charge for aids to navigation. Now we will have a cost recovery on aids to navigation. That is a pretty serious matter, Mr. Speaker. As the Hon. Member for Egmont pointed out, with everything else coming down around everybody's ears, what a time to be saying we are now going to think about charging for ice-breaker services!
The fishery in Newfoundland is an absolute and total disaster. There are full-time fishermen going to the welfare office, yet, here we are telling them they have to pay for their phone calls to the weather office-I forgot that one. That is a good subject we have talked about in this Chamber-now that there will be a charge for navigational aids. Insurance on boats has just been upped. In some harbours the cost of tying up to a wharf has been upped three times. There has been an increase in the marine service centre fees. These people have been nailed through National Revenue. The fishery is an absolute disaster, and now the Government of Canada is bringing in a Bill to charge for dredging the harbour and for getting an ice-breaker to come in during the spring. Not only that, but if you have to be escorted or the company boat has to be escorted, there will be a charge for that as well. That is all in the same Bill. It is incredible to be telling fishermen of Newfoundland or the farmers of Prince Edward Island under which you are bringing a Bill into this Chamber that perhaps they will be charged for that service.
Just to drive this home to the Minister of Transport, does he know what most fishermen do now in the spring before they order an ice-breaker, Mr. Speaker? They get out their chainsaws. They dig out a channel with long chain-saws, the big ones, the three foot and two foot blades, and they dig away and cut big blocks around their boats. They lift up the blocks, and they use dynamite. Often Members in this Chamber get phone calls from fishermen asking whether there is any way to get the Government to pay for the dynamite. There is no way the Government will pay for the dynamite.
One time the Government of Newfoundland did pay for the dynamite. But that is after using the chain-saw to get the block of ice out. You work day and night until you get your boat a certain distance into the harbour. The rest of the boats are behind. I hear an Hon. Member on the other side. He is going to learn something if he will just listen. At that point out in the
Canada Shipping Act
harbour they then call the Coast Guard to bring the ice-breaker. If they have to pay for the ice-breaker-


Maurice Brydon Foster: And the chain-saw.


George Baker: -the Hon. Member said "and the chain-saw", that is right. The gas in the chain-saw is not cheap since this Government took over. I can assure you Sir, what the hon. gentleman is suggesting is that these fellows will be out there for six months cutting their way through the ice because there will be no ice-breaker. They cannot afford to pay for the cost of an ice-breaker to come in to their harbours and dig the harbours out.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can they afford to pay for the gas for the ice-breaker?


George Baker: The hon. gentleman is asking me if they can pay for the gas in the ice-breaker. I know what the cost of an ice-breaker is. I can tell you that it is a pretty big cost. It is an incredible cost to operate a ice-breaker. There is no doubt about that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can they pay for half of it?


George Baker: The Government of Canada should pay the whole cost. These fishermen should not have to pay for the cost, neither should the companies have to pay for the cost of the ice-breakers. I doubt whether the Minister of Transport in outlining this Bill made reference to Clause 4.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, I did.


George Baker: He is nodding that he did. He did not talk about how much they were going to charge. He did not say, "Well, we might charge them. We might or we might not". He simply outlined what was in this Bill. Later on during exchanges in the House he said, "Isn't it correct that people should have to pay for those services?"
The people of Canada pay for those services when they pay income tax. That is when they pay for these services. They should not have to pay for these services because of geography or where they live. They are paying enough now to the Government of Canada. They should not have to pay any more. Even to suggest in this Bill giving the Government of Canada the authority to levy a fee for such a thing is absolutely outrageous. It is just the same as when the former Minister of the Environment stood up and announced that she was going to charge people to phone the weather office.
All along we can see what the Government is doing to the fishermen. It is saying, "Look, hesitate before you phone the weather office because you have to pay. Hesitate before you phone the Coast Guard because you are going to have to pay. If you are out in a storm 100 miles off the coast, hesitate before you phone the Coast Guard because you may have to pay". You may have to pay; you may not have to pay.
By bringing in this Bill the possibility is there that people will have to pay. The Minister of Transport should realize that the Coast Guard in Canada today performs functions not

October 16, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
required to be performed in the regulations. It is not the Coast Guard's responsibility to go into harbours. It is not the Coast Guard's written responsibility. It is not the Coast Guard's written responsibility to provide back-up for ferry systems to islands off the coast of Canada and off the coast of Newfoundland, but the Coast Guard does it as a matter of course. With the restrictions being placed on the coast Guard by this Government and by the President of the Treasury Board and now by this Bill, a lot of these services will disappear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions and comments? There being no questions and comments, we will resume debate. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell).


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak briefly to the legislation before us. I have a particular interest whenever there is legislation relating to shipping because the Port of Vancouver is surrounded by my riding, that of Vancouver East. Many people in Vancouver East earn their livelihood in port, shipping or fishing related activities.
I want to concentrate on the aspects of this Bill that appear to have some real implications for the people of B.C. We have heard many speakers talking about the East and the Seaway area. I would like to concentrate on some of the aspects of the Bill that may, and I underline "may", have an implication for those in British Columbia. I say "may" because this Bill is pretty vague. It is heard to know exactly what the impact will be. It is enabling legislation which in some ways is good, but for some areas like the St. Lawrence Seaway, as my colleagues have pointed out, it could spell real disaster. Perhaps certain sections need to have more specifics and more teeth added.
Many aspects of the Bill, we feel, are a step in the right direction, although we would have liked to have seen policies spelled out in more detail.
It is a change from the deregulation policy of the Progressive Conservative Party and also of the Liberal Party. This Bill seems to provide opportunity for more regulation rather than for deregulation, which seems to be the transportation policy of the Government for all modes of transportation.


J. Michael Forrestall: Better regulation.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: We hope it will be better regulation, but not necessarily. That is one point we want clarified and made more specific. I am glad to see that it at least provides for some regulation regarding the impact of hazardous products carried by shipping vessels. However, we would have liked these measures spelled out more specifically.
I have a particular concern about this matter, as do people living around the Port of Vancouver. We live within an area which is faced with a very explosive situation on land, at sea and sometimes in the air where there are major transfers of goods, some of which are very dangerous products. We would have liked the safety measures spelled out in more detail. I
appeal to the Minister to look at the matter and to give us more assurances that there will be a review of the safety provisions or the lack thereof, and that there will be changes to tighten up the protections.
The Bill enables the Governor in Council to make regulations to ensure public safety, but few details are spelled out. Safety in terms of the transportation of dangerous cargoes is a very major concern, as I have said, in the Port of Vancouver. 1 should like to mention one example of this. Two or three times a year there is a Japan-bound ship which goes quiety through the Port of Vancouver, with its hold full of liquid petroleum gas. It is a 40,000 tonne tanker and it carries highly explosive propane. It goes under the second narrowest bridge where there is a lot of shipping. When people take a good look at this situation, they realize that it is a very explosive and dangerous one, but it is only one of many vessels which carry dangerous goods.
Apparently there has been no consultation with concerned groups in the development of this piece of legislation. The Government spent most of last year talking about how it intended to consult with all affected groups before making changes and bringing in new legislation. Yet every time we look at a piece of legislation, it seems that there has been no consultation with the groups directly affected. We are sincere about wanting to know what people around the Port of Vancouver think about the Bill. We telephoned fishing vessel owners, and they had not heard that there was a Bill. They were very surprised, very concerned and wanted to know what was in it. Also we telephoned the fishermen's union, and we were told the same thing. We telephoned the ILWU, the longshoremen's union, and it had not heard about the Bill. Of course, many of its members are unemployed; approximately 2,000 of its casuals are unable to obtain work. It wanted to know immediately what impact the Bill would have upon shipping costs and its eventual impact on the jobs of its members. We also telephoned the office of the Mayor of Vancouver which has a special economic committee that is very concerned about shipping and shipping-related matters. They did not know anything about the Bill. In addition we telephoned the Vancouver Waterfront Coalition. I think this coalition is a good development. It includes most community groups representing neighbourhoods along the Vancouver side of the port. It also includes all maritime unions. It is a very strong coalition. It has been looking at all aspects of the port, particularly its impact upon surrounding communities and jobs. That coalition had not heard anything; it had not heard a word about the Bill. Why was it not consulted? Also we contacted the Pacific Coast Maritime Council, a council of all maritime unions concerned with all of British Columbia, not just the Vancouver area. It had not heard about it. Even some of the officials at the Port of Vancouver whom we contacted did not know that the Bill was being brought forward. What kind of consultation is this? Surely it is important to let these groups know that a Bill is coming forward. Hopefully it makes sense to have these groups involved in consultations both before the Bill is brought in and when it is before committee.
October 16, 1985

However, none of these groups had heard about it. We are disappointed in that.
I should like to talk a little about cost recovery for Coast Guard services, a part of the Bill which is of considerable concern to people right across Canada. I was very interested in the remarks of Hon. Members from the eastern coast and from the St. Lawrence Seaway area in this regard. Of course, we in British Columbia are very concerned as well. As I understand the Bill, the Conservatives are imposing a user-pay philosophy, a philosophy which was initiated by the Liberals. It is implicit in the Bill that shipping companies and vessel owners will have to pay for the cost of Coast Guard services. This seems to be ridiculous. The Clauses in the Bill are very vague, and it is difficult to predict the exact impact. However, my Party and I challenge very strongly the principle. My Party has always challenged user-pay policies relating to essential services for which all taxpayers should be paying because the services benefit all taxpayers. Clause 4 would require cost recovery for Coast Guard services. For example, this could have a serious impact upon people in the fishing industry, upon commercial shipping and subsequently upon the costs of activities in the Port of Vancouver and upon the costs of consumer goods.
Currently, the Coast Guard costs $824 million per year. Most of us would agree-certainly those of us from my part of Canada-that we need a vastly improved Coast Guard service. It needs to be improved; it needs to be expanded, particularly the inadequate search and rescue services along the coasts. Many Hon. Members will recall a very serious incident last spring wherein there was no adequate prediction of an approaching storm. There was some satellite information, but there was no accurate prediction of the storm. Off the Queen Charlotte Islands there was a major disaster. A number of vessels went down and there was a loss of lives. This happens all too often on that coast. We need improved weather services as well as Coast Guard services.
I think it is important to look again-and I would like the Minister's view on it-at having weather ships off the coast. I know weather ships cost money. If they are out there, they should be paid for by all of us through our taxes; it should not only be charged back to the boats using the weather information.
If there are increased costs for Coast Guard services, we know that the costs will be charged to the vessel owners, the shipping companies, the Port of Vancouver and so on. This ultimately will increase shipping costs. I should like to talk about it because it is a very real concern to those of us on the West Coast. It is really a desperate situation for the Port of Vancouver to remain competitive with American ports and in international trade. Of course this is basic to our whole trade in the Pacific Rim. We are very concerned about any added costs. It is very difficult to compete even now. The Port of Vancouver must have every advantage from the Government and from all of us in Canada, not just those people in British Columbia. This port serves all western Canada, and it must have every advantage if it is to be able to compete with the Port of Seattle and with the Port of Bellingham.
Canada Shipping Act
I would like to tell the House of a new development of which I just heard recently, a pretty threatening kind of development which again illustrates how very important it is to help the Port of Vancouver to be as competitive as possible. 1 learned through an article in Vancouver's The Province of last week that the Port of Bellingham has bought a 13.3 hectare property next to the Canadian border to serve traffic bypassing Vancouver. It is said that this land is near Sumas, and has been bought for $400,000 and is expected to be awarded foreign trade zone status by the U.S. Government by the spring of 1986. This facility would receive truck and trailer deliveries of cargo from both the U.S. and Canada. Of course, this foreign trade zone which would operate at reduced costs like a free trade zone would allow its trans-shipment centre to function as a free port.
Traffic sought by the Port of Bellingham for its new facility could include the transfer to a Canadian railway for onward delivery to eastern Canada, thus avoiding the Port of Vancouver all together, of Japanese goods coming into Canada. The people who are developing this port admitted that its chief aim will be to serve shippers who wish to avoid the Port of Vancouver.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Why?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I see that one of the Ministers who happens to be from the Lower Mainland is present. I would be very interested to hear him comment on this matter. Perhaps he knows some more about it. I should think he would agree that this poses a tremendous threat to the Port of Vancouver. 1 raise this matter because competition is very tough. We in Vancouver need to have every advantage.
While speaking of the Port of Vancouver, I would like to remind the Minister of something. I must admit-and sometimes it is pretty hard to admit this-that we thought that the Government had a pretty good policy on shipping. As I recall, during the 1979 election campaign, Conservative Members were even talking about a merchant marine. Perhaps my friends across the way could substantiate that. We have not heard anything about it, however, since they have been in power. That is something about which I would like to hear more.
When the new structure, the Canada Ports Corporation, was established to replace the National Harbours Board and the system was changed through decentralization under local port corporations, we expected to have an efficient, decentralized and autonomous operation in Vancouver. That was particularly relevant for Vancouver because there is enough income to upgrade facilities without having to wait for six months for approval from Ottawa. We did not like the way the boards were appointed politically, and I notice that the Conservative Government has continued to make patronage appointments to the board of the corporation. However, we were pleased with the idea that ports would be decentralized, become relevant to the region and hopefully become more efficiently managed.

October 16, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
When members of my Party were making inquiries about this Bill, we heard some complaints indicating that the new Government has influenced the ports policy. 1 thought that the central Government was to have a hands-off policy, but apparently that is not so. In particular, the Conservative Government has changed leasing practices. As a result, there is considerable confusion and there have been delays. We of course had had enough of this under the old Liberal policy. I would ask the Minister to check into this matter and see that the Government will not leave the short-term subleasing to companies that are on the port rather than have them under the control of the port itself. Each company, of course, has a very special vested interest. We are particularly concerned that the use of all land around the port should be in the best interests of the entire community, including the residential communities surrounding the port.
The new board of the Port Corporation has been in place for some time now. It would seem to me that it is now time to review what is happening in the Port of Vancouver in view of these challenges from the South.
I would like to return to the question of dangerous goods. I would refer to a very significant report that was made in 1983 by a man called Joseph Marsten who was a federal public servant in marine planning and whose report entitled Danger, Chemical Cargoes in Port, illustrated many concerns that he had as a professional about the Port of Vancouver. I think that this report is relevant to this Bill which deals with hazardous products.
Mr. Marsten listed all of the very dangerous products that go through the Port of Vancouver including ethylene-dichloride which is a component of the plastics industry, chlorine which is used for the pulp and paper industry and is shipped up the coast, LPGs and propane exported to Japan for fuel and methanol which is used in the petrochemical and plastic industries and is also exported to Japan. He indicated that people do not realize the extent to which these products are present within the harbour and that assorted chemicals have come to Vancouver by rail and barge.
Because of Expo '86, we are pleased to see that there has been a recent move of the rail transfer of dangerous goods by land from downtown Vancouver to outside greater Vancouver itself. This is long overdue and my constituents are very grateful for this move.
I am sorry that I do not have more time to talk about its details, but the study to which I referred substantiates the fact that the standards in the Port of Vancouver are very low. Again, I would ask for an update on this report and I would ask for regulations in this Bill specifying in much greater detail the kind of safety measures that are needed. We need strong enforcement measures so that we are not living with the threat of dangerous cargo going through our ports.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I noted that the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) drew attention to the potential plight of the Port of Vancouver arising from the recently announced proposal to create a new port of entry at
Bellingham just immediately south of the Canadian border which would presumably allow offshore shipping companies to gain access to Canadian markets not through the Port of Vancouver but through a nearby port operating under United States jurisdiction. The Hon. Member made reference to the fact that this proposed American port would operate as a free port or an economic free zone of some sort.
Perhaps I might ask the Hon. Member if she and other members of the New Democratic Party believe in the concept of a free port or an economic free zone. Second, perhaps the Hon. Member could explain why it is that this proposed U.S. port which I agree will represent a considerable threat to West Coast Shipping interests and the Port of Vancouver would indeed pose a threat. In other words, does she feel that it will operate at a lower cost per unit volume of commodities shipped than the Port of Vancouver? If so, why would the cost be so much lower in this nearby port? How does she feel the proposed Bill and the amendment to the Bill proposed by the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) will affect this competitive situation?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister knows only too well, I am a Member of Parliament from the riding of Vancouver East and the new Democratic critic for social policy and women's issues. The matter before us is not directly related to those areas for which I am my Party's critic.
If 1 may digress for a moment, I meant to say that the Bill has sexist language in it and we will have to change that. That is a Conservative approach to such matters.
Getting back to the field of shipping, in which I am not an expert, I know what the Minister is getting at. I also know that he supports the Social Credit Government of British Columbia which is why he asks this underhanded question.


Thomas Edward Siddon: It is a fair question.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: He wants the type of free econmic zones in British Columbia which would give the freedom to exploit workers and women and do away with unions. The high-tech field, which he is supposed to be in charge of, is one of the worst fields for doing that. If he is looking at this situation as a model for his Ministry, then I say that he is in for a great deal of trouble in British Columbia. I think that is really what he is aiming at.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member has either not heard my questions clearly or she has misunderstood them. I was not making any statement as to my own disposition with respect to the question of an economic free zone concept or the free port concept. However, I noted in the announcement of this new and potentially damaging initiative in Washington State that it was claimed that it would allow commodities to enter Canada on a much lower per unit cost basis and that these goods would be delivered to market areas, presumably in eastern Canada, by way of entry through Washington State. I asked the Hon. Member if she had some
October 16, 1985

comment with respect to the view of the NDP on free ports and the question of whether there is any good reason why a port operating in Washington State should be more price-competitive than the Port of Vancouver, part of which is encompassed in the Hon. Member's riding. I would expect that she would be somewhat knowledgeable with respect to the operations of the Port of Vancouver since part of it is encompassed within her riding.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Of course I am.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I understand that the amendment before the House proposes to suspend the debate on this measure for six months. If that were to take place, then what will that do for the status of the Port of Vancouver in the eyes of offshore shippers?
I am also advised by way of the announcement dealing with the new port in Bellingham that, in fact, it is the frustration with the delays at the Port of Vancouver, as well as the fact of higher operating costs, which has encouraged the location of a port in the United States so close to our city and so close to the major and important Port of Vancouver.
Could the Hon. Member answer these questions? Is the NDP in favour of free ports? Why is it cheaper to bring products into Canada through a port in Washington State than through our own Port of Vancouver, part of which is in the Hon. Member's riding?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I do not have any profound specialization in this area. I do know that the Port of Vancouver has been struggling and that there are many, many reasons for those struggles. One of the reasons- and I wish my colleague from the Prairies were here to expound on it-is that there is sometimes a difficulty in transferring grains to ships. We have seen ships paying demurrage costs in the port. When I checked into the matter I found many complex reasons why this has taken place, not the least of which is the complex type of specialized grains which we have which have to go into different containers for transportation.
I mentioned earlier an administrative delay in some circumstances in the Port of Vancouver. I mentioned the method of contracting out leases which I understand is the new method in which this Government has had a hand.
There is also the matter of labour costs. There is no question about that. If the Minister is saying that we should not have trade unions-


Thomas Edward Siddon: I did not say that.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: -and that workers on the waterfront should not have decent wages, then let us hear him say that since that is what he is implying.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.
Canada Shipping Act


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I do not know a great deal about free ports, as I have already mentioned. This is a proposal about which I heard just last week. I think that would be a major concern.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Would you support it?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: We are for fair trade and not free trade, as the Conservatives are. We are for fair ports and efficiently run, decentralized Canadian ports with a Canadian board supplying a great many Canadian jobs, especially in Vancouver East.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member spoke about her concern with respect to the movement of dangerous goods. If I understood her correctly, she left the House with the impression that there was nothing of substance in the Bill with respect to the movement of dangerous goods. I would ask the Hon. Member to examine the Bill again and look at Clauses 44 and 52. In looking at those clauses she will find that there are amendments contained therein which will in fact provide for more effective regulation of the movement of dangerous goods by sea. This is consistent with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act in the area of packaged commodities. Bulk cargoes will continue to be regulated under the Canada Shipping Act. I suggest that if the Hon. Member were to look again at the Bill she would find that there are some fairly effective amendments in it which I believe will achieve the purposes to which she has alluded.
I believe I heard the Hon. Member say that there was insufficient consultation with respect to this measure. If there ever was a Bill which involved long, drawn-out efforts to consult with all players, then this is clearly one of them. The trade unions were consulted, as were the ship owners, ship builders and ship repairers, the oil industry and the fishing industry. Because of the Bill's importance, its widespread implications and the fact that there are some 12 protocols and conventions to which Canada could not become a party, this Bill necessitated that type of dialogue. I can assure the Hon. Member that type of dialogue did take place.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, because I do not think the Minister was in the House when I mentioned this fact, 1 would like to point out to him that someone in my office called a number of groups in the Vancouver area, and I listed them. He will be able to read that in Hansard tomorrow. Not one of these groups knew about the Bill which is being debated today. I would be very happy to see the safety sections reviewed by some of these groups. I congratulate the Minister for taking up those measures. What I was saying is that we feel there could be more specifics in the Bill in other areas.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have a chance to speak on Bill C-75 because there is a great deal happening at the present time with shipping in the St. Lawrence Seaway system. The motion with respect to giving a six month hoist to the Bill concerns Clause 4 which would amend Section 3.1(1) of the Act. It would give the Government the power to charge user fees for the provision of navigational aids, dredging, vessel traffic services, ice-breaking

October 16, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
services and escorting services. As the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) and the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) mentioned, these are services which the federal Government, the Coast Guard and the Department of Transport have traditionally paid for. At a time when our potato producers in P.E.I. are receiving one cent or two cents a pound less than what it costs to produce them, for the Government to move in and charge for ice-breaking services in order to open those ports in P.E.I. is just incredible. The same can be said for ice-breaking services in Newfoundland so that fishing vessels can get an early start in the spring. It is just incredible that the Government is imposing fees for navigational aids and ice-breaking services. This winter we are facing not only the worst disaster for western agriculture since perhaps the 1930s because of the drought last summer and the damp weather this fall, but it comes at a time when crop prices are adequate. Adequate prices but poor yields. Now the Government wants to impose charges for ice-breaking in the St. Lawrence and on the Great Lakes, and that is unbelievable.
I point that out because not only is there a great likelihood that the Government will have to provide ice-breaking services later this fall and early in the winter, but also because of the seriousness of the crop situation. Not only are farmers losing their farms, they are applying for welfare. Every night we see on television farms being auctioned off and the RCMP hustling the farmers off their land. This is all being done by a Tory Government. The earnings of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool for 1985-86 will be down as much as 50 per cent from 1984-85. The Alberta Wheat Pool expects that its 1985-86 earnings will be down as much as 74 per cent from 1984-85. Statistics Canada's most recent estimate, which was released in July of this year and certainly things have deteriorated since then, said that the 1985 realized net farm income in Manitoba was S299 million, down 15 per cent. In Saskatchewan it was $693 million, down 32 per cent. In Alberta it was $437 million, down 24 per cent. We are looking at an over-all decrease of 15 per cent in July. That will probably get worse because of the very wet harvest season which will result not only in many crops not being taken off, but those that are will have substantially reduced grades which cannot even be sold in international markets.
I would also point out that, in addition to this disaster in western Canada, we have had major damage to Lock 7, I believe, in the Welland Canal. A few days ago the Seaway Authority said it would take three weeks to fix, and I understand it will now be more than a month. There are 32 vessels backed up behind that lock and if that grain has to be shipped by rail, it will mean an additional cost of $10 to $15 a tonne for the producer. These vessels are sitting idle, laying off their crews and this Government is sitting on its hands and trying to impose new user fees for ice-breaking and navigational aids. If the provincial Governments can provide highways and signs and all the rest of it, then surely the Department of Transport should be able to provide navigational aids. What is going to happen if the Minister does not provide proper navigational
aids for the Soo Locks? A lot of people do not realize that the Soo Locks handle more shipping than the Suez and Panama Canals put together. If the Coast Guard does not provide the proper navigational aids for the Soo Locks and out into Whitefish Bay and there is a marine disaster, what will the Minister do, throw up his hands and say that they did not pay for the aids so if they have a shipwreck it is their problem? Navigational aids are the responsibility of the federal Government and it is unthinkable for the Government not to provide them. This clause in the Act should be withdrawn.
Neither is it reasonable for the Government to charge the shipping industry for these services. If you look at the 330 Tory promises during the election campaign, you will see that one promise was to upgrade navigational aids and systems to ensure increased marine safety.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Right.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I do not see any provision in there for charging for that service.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Brydon Foster: Surely that is breaking faith with the Canadian people.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You are unreal. You cannot even say that with a straight face.


Maurice Brydon Foster: There is no provision in the promise for charging for these services. I defy any of the Members opposite to say that they said they were going to charge for these services. They said only that they were going to provide upgraded navigational aids and systems to ensure increased marine safety. They said nothing about charging for it. They also talked about improved search and rescue. I have not heard the Minister get around to doing that. If he is going to provide increased search and rescue services, is he going to charge for it? Does the person who is in serious danger have to pay to be rescued? We are talking about $1,000 an hour for ice-breaking services so it is a very expensive business.
The 20 promises with regard to transportation include an undertaking to conduct a review of CN Marine ferry services to guarantee that they are equitable and not damaging to the competitiveness of local industries with particular reference to tourism. As I recall, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of black Thursday, November 8, 1984 when the Government lowered the boom on Atlantic Canada, were to increase the charges on marine transportation in Atlantic Canada. Now they not only want to increase those charges, as they did on black Thursday, but they want to charge for ice-breaking in those harbours in Atlantic Canada and to charge even for the navigational aids. It is unbelievable that this Bill provides for such horrendous charges on Canadian maritime activities.
I hope that the Minister will withdraw that section or give a commitment that he will not be charging. I think it is entirely possible that we may have to extend the navigation season
October 16, 1985

because I think it is going to take a lot longer than the Minister has been indicating to remedy the serious damage which has occurred in the Welland Canal. 1 think the Minister will have to make a commitment not to charge the people whose ships are delayed in getting through the Welland Canal for ice-breaking. Surely that would be most unfair. That may be the reason he is trying to rush this Bill through the House, but I certainly hope it is not.
Navigational aids are not only involved in commercial shipping but in recreational boating as well. The north channel of Lake Huron is one of the best recreational boating areas in the world. It rivals the British Virgin Islands in the Caribbean and the sailing and cruising areas in the Aegean Sea. Those navigational aids are not only important, but essential. I do not know who the Minister will charge for navigational aids in the north channel, but I do know that it will be very unfair.
We are already feeling the impact of the Tory Government. It has cut back on our mobile surveillance group under customs. We had a year round customs service for Manitoulin Island servicing the airport, harbours, and ports for north channel communities such as Blind River. In that way people were able to phone to clear customs, but that has been cut out. We see in this Bill that there will be a service charge for the provision of navigational aids.
This transportation manifesto of the Tory Party talks in terms of providing ferry and navigational services in an attempt to enhance tourism. We have not seen that because there has been no commitment to improving those harbours or navigational aids in the north channel of Lake Huron. I do not say that simply as an Opposition member. When the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans appeared before the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry last spring practically every Member of Parliament from the Lake Huron area pressed for improved harbour facilities for recreational boating because it is a multimillion dollar industry. I certainly hope that the Minister will withdraw the provision for charging for navigational aids, just as he should withdraw the provision with regard to dredging. We have to spend millions of dollars maintaining those main shipping lanes through the St. Marys River. It is inconceivable that the Minister is going to charge for dredging those channels or for providing ice-breaking services in those areas.
The Minister's area, just as every other area, has suffered tremendously due to the crop situation. There has been at least a $2 billion loss of revenue to western grain farmers. I hope the Minister will not impose extra charges for ice-breaking and navigational aids in the Seaway. If he really wants to help the grain industry and western agriculture he will give an indication almost immediately that he is going to withdraw these provisions from the Bill.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit about this Bill, particularly in relation to the Province of Quebec. First, I would like to inform the House of the rather disturbing news that the Welland Canal blockage will continue for at least a week before we will learn to what extent the damage will continue to interfere with traffic.
Canada Shipping Act
Apparently a contract has been let to Canron Incorporated to stabilize the lock walls. That must be done before the lock can be drained and then it will be possible to find out how long the Seaway will be closed and how much it will cost to fix the damage. The Seaway Authority does anticipate that the Seaway will open again before the end of the season which is about eight weeks away. Given this crisis, which obviously was not anticipated last spring, it seems to me that the Government's plan to take $30 million out of the coffers of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and to force it to come begging to Treasury Board for the expenditures which may be required to repair the Welland Canal, is a very short-sighted policy which should be resisted.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the shipping companies and the producers whose products move via the Seaway, which is the major channel for navigation in eastern Canada, have been repeatedly warned of tool increases of 25 or 30 per cent next year. They are quaking in their boots at the suggestion in Bill C-75 that there may be further increases because of the proposal of the Minister that the costs of navigational aids, dredging and ice-breaking will be levied on a full recovery basis to ships traversing Canadian waterways, regardless of whether they make direct use of those particular services.
We really have not one Bill but two, Mr. Speaker. One Bill is extremely long and technical. As I am not a spokesperson on this particular area, I would not presume to speak too knowledgeably about all of the aspects of pollution regulations and that kind of thing. I hope that consultation has taken place but I was disturbed to learn that perhaps it has not. It is clear from the Minister's statement that this part of the Bill, which makes up about 99 per cent of its clauses, is apparently required in order to enable Canada to come into accordance with international pollution control and other international agreements.
The remainder of the Bill which has provoked members of my Party to express grave concern provides for cost recovery. Clause 4 provides enabling legislation to allow the Government to recover the cost of navigational services provided by the Coast Guard. This Clause concerns my Party and I because it amounts to a blank cheque which the industry is being asked to write for the Government. The cost recovery principle has been actively and almost ardently proposed by certain members of the Progressive Conservative Party. The industry does not know what this means except that it knows that the cost of Coast Guard services is estimated at between $130 million and $180 million a year.
One of the major concerns among shippers and the affected industries is that the allocation of those costs, if that is what the Government intends to do, will be done almost inevitably on a very arbitrary basis. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Epp), estimates that Seaway tolls may in fact double on grain ships moving down from Thunder Bay because of this particular measure. In addition, the Seaway itself has been talking about a 25 per cent increase in tolls for next year. The American Seaway Authority is

October 16, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
opposed to any such change, perhaps because it has reserves while the reserves are being taken away from the Canadian Seaway Authority.
The demand for Seaway services is in decline, as reflected in the cargo traffic which was down some 20 per cent last year and 20 per cent the year before. This is not particularly the fault of the Seaway but due to changing market conditions from when the Seaway was established in the 1950s. It does not take much wit or wisdom to realize that this is not a time to be rushing in with substantial increases in the cost of service. There is a very grave risk of having a downward spiral in which each increase in cost leads to a further decline in the demand. Therefore, costs must be spead over a smaller base of use which means that the cost continues to go up until the cost will be virtually infinite on the last remaining ship to use the Great Lakes waterway and the St. Lawrence Seaway.
I am sure that the Minister does not intend to go down in history as the Minister who killed ocean navigation and Great Lakes freight navigation but that in fact could be the ultimate consequence of a policy of full-cost recovery as it is being proposed by the Government.
Let me remind the House of a number of statements made by the Government when it was campaigning for office prior to the September 4 election. In its Prince Albert declaration of July 5, 1984, the present Government stated quite explicitly that it would immediately examine ways and means to provide improved services and equitable rates in consultation with grain producers who were discriminated against geographically. This would include those grain producers who use the Thunder Bay route.
The Government talked about the need for the federal Government and the railways to continued to provide a special low rate to assist producers who are competing with subsidized grain export nations. Again, it does not take a lot of perspicacity to recognize that this is the situation we are facing this year. It has been a difficulty year for grain exports. Countries like China which have been traditional buyers of Canadian grain are themselves beginning to export and we are facing a situation where there is cut-throat competition from the United States and other grain producing nations. Certainly, there is substantial suspicion that there are very major subsidies involved. Our grain industry, particularly the growing sector, has had little or no subsidy throughout its history.
In July, 1984, the Government stated that producers must be guaranteed an efficient cost-effective and reliable transportation system. While there may be two definitions for "cost-effective", the Government believes that it means full cost recovery. However, if full cost recovery means that the grain is simply bottled up in the Prairies and not shipped because it cannot compete on the world market, then it seems to be a damn fool idea, particularly in view of the desperate problems of world hunger in Asia and particularly on the Continent of Africa.
The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and those of his frame of mind within the Cabinet have adopted the theory invented by Milton Friedman. Will the
Government simply apply this theory in the area of ocean navigation and navigational aids and thereby sharply cut Canada's shipments to the world of grain export which amount to $6 billion a year? Is that what the Government intended? Is that the legacy which the Minister wants to leave?
I strongly urge him to consider deleting Clause 4 which calls for cost recovery on navigational aids and other services provided by the Coast Guard. If he wishes to have that matter become the subject of consultation, let him do so and bring it back as a separate Bill if he is still convinced that something must be done. In other words, let us separate the technical and pollution control aspects of this Bill from the cost aspect of the Bill. Essentially, this measure is two bills in one package.
1 question the Minister's comment that his Ministry has consulted widely with respect to this Bill. Too often the Government, like its predecessor, has gone through the semblance of consultation without bothering to listen to what people were telling it. According to the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, the consultations he has had have demonstrated widespread concern about taking money away from the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. There was widespread concern about the proposals to allocate all of the costs of the Coast Guard to navigation because of the impact that may be felt by the shipping industry, which is extremely important for us in Canada.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on Bill C-75, and more particularly on the need for a strategy concerning the use of our maritime channels. I am referring specifically to eastern Canada because I represent a constituency along the Quebec border, through which runs one of Canada's canals, the Rideau Canal, which gives my constituents access to the whole world if their craft are small enough to ply the canal. It is not a commercial canal by any means, but still we are aware of the fact that there is a link between the world and the heart of my riding in downtown Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, the Province of Quebec now has a secretariat for the development of the St. Lawrence. The Province of Ontario recently set up a royal commission on the St. Lawrence Seaway and shipping on the Great Lakes. Our country's two central provinces have begun to show concern over the fact that the resources of the Seaway as well as those of the St. Lawrence River and of the Great Lakes have been practically ignored in planning and regional and industrial development projects.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the Province of Quebec for giving serious consideration to the way it is going to use such a major resource as the St. Lawrence River. You have the port of Montreal and the port of Quebec City, two major Canadian ports, and all along the St. Lawrence River there are very important industrial sites which offer opportunities for the industrial development of the entire Province of Quebec, but it is indeed a resource which until now has been underexploited by the province and the country. As far as I know, to this day
October 16, 1985

the Canadian Government has never had an industrial transport strategy on the use of those resources.
Mr. Speaker, we Members of the New Democratic Party are fully aware of the fact that the City of Montreal is an international centre, a world centre of transport and communications. Because of its location on the North American continent, Montreal is the place where head offices of transport companies such as Air Canada, Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific are found. It is also the site of Canada's largest harbour because, traditionally, it has been the Canadian maritime trade gateway, besides being the turntable of our railways. Its airports-Mirabel and Dorval-make it a world communications centre as evidenced by the fact that several major communications companies like Bell Canada and Teleglobe Canada are located in Montreal, as is the International Air Transport Association.
So we have to wonder whether the Government is prepared to promote the development of Montreal through a municipal, regional, provincial and national strategy which would indeed make the city a world transportation and communications centre.
I would suggest that it is the kind of strategy we must implement, but what do we see? We see, for instance, that although the new Port of Montreal is autonomous in relation to the Canada Ports Corporation, it still depends entirely on the federal Government. There is no input on the executive board from the Province of Quebec, no real input from the people and municipalities that depend on the port, no concept of a strategy for using the resources, including buildings and other facilities, of the Port of Montreal for the industrial and strategic development of the City of Montreal and the general area.
Mr. Speaker, the same could be said as far as the province of Quebec is concerned. It is interesting to note that the PQ Government in Quebec has had very little to say about the fact that during the eight years the PQ has been in power, two of the major ports in the province of Quebec have remained under control of the federal Government, and also that nothing has been done by the PQ Government to provide for a partnership system, under which both Governments, the Quebec provincial Government and the Canadian Government, would share responsibility for these important resources in the St. Lawrence River.
Mr. Speaker, instead of seeing the St. Lawrence as a major national resource, this Government has decided to levy charges on navigation and shipping in the St. Lawrence River which may become very high and very costly. There is a serious risk that this may further reduce shipping, which is so important for the province of Quebec and Eastern Canada in general.
Mr. Speaker, because of the physical geography of our country, the cost of maintaining the Coast Guard in Eastern
Canada Shipping Act
Canada is higher than it is in Western Canada, or rather, British Columbia. If we levy charges to cover the cost of maintaining the Coast Guard in Eastern Canada, for instance, this may well create even greater disadvantages than the problems we already have now and which we are experiencing, for instance, with the Seaway.
I think the Minister should explain how we can expect shipping to develop on the St. Lawrence Seaway if we increase the charges for the Seaway by 25 to 30 per cent and introduce a full cost-recovery system which is apparently being proposed by the Government in Clause 4 of this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have an abundance of examples to show it does not make sense to recover the total cost from users of our transportation facilities. Furthermore, we must consider the history of this country, and the fact that the location of our cities and towns, our regions and industries, has often been an accident of history. It is a fact of life and we cannot get around it. For instance, are we going to say that in future, we can no longer provide ferry services for the residents of Prince Edward Island because costs have become too high and the Government wants to recover the full cost? 1 do not think the last passenger to use the lighthouse and ferry services between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick should be forced to pay the entire cost of navigational aids, and so forth.
Is that the Government's position? Well, they will say: Maybe not, because we do have a constitutional obligation. In any case, the same problems exist in the rest of Canada, and especially in the province of Quebec and perhaps also in Ontario.
My colleague from Northern Ontario pointed out that if navigation charges were levied on small pleasure boats in the northern canal near Lake Superior, these boats would be doomed to extinction because nobody would be able to pay the requisite fee. If we apply the same principle to the Rideau Canal, the result could well be the same. We might see a time when this canal, which is very important in recreational terms, would be hardly used because of the charges levied by the Government, thanks to the principles of Mr. Stevens and the Minister of Transport, of Economics, who want all costs to be borne by users.

This principle which is to put forward full cost recovery ignores a great deal of history. It ignores that initially in the development of our country the St. Lawrence was the only highway we had. Settlements along the St. Lawrence in Quebec, dating back to 1642 or thereabouts, were located there because the only way one could get around was by boat, coasting from one location to another. I do not think that in 1640 people anticipated the current Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) would be coming along with Clause 4 of Bill C-75 requiring that the full cost of those navigational aids of ice-breaker services and that kind of thing should be imposed-

October 16, 1985
Canada Shipping Act


J. Michael Forrestall: It doesn't require it.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Hon. Member says it does not require it but the Hon. Member should know perfectly well-and I hope he rises during the opportunity for comments-that we are giving an open door to the ministry to apply these charges. What about a port on which a fish packing plant in a small Gaspe village depended? It could cost $100,000 a year, according to the Ministry's allocation of costs, to send icebreakers up and down the coast of that village in the wintertime. It could happen that boats never come into the village and the winter-time but they would during the spring, the summer and the fall. They would nevertheless be charged an allocated cost for ice-breaking service which they never used, which is permitted in Clause 4 as it is written here. That is why I and my Party are suggesting at the very least that that section be taken out, that the premise be referred to a standing committee of the House of Commons. We changed the rules to look at situations like that to see whether there is not a better way of accomplishing what the Government wants. Alternatively, in order to establish, as I suspect, the idea is a bum idea in the first place and it should not be proceeded with in its current form.
I would hate to see this Government go down in history as the Government that closed up ports in Newfoundland because of the full cost recovery principle, as the Government that closed down villages in the Gaspe because of the full cost recovery principle, as the Government that closed down villages, ports and services in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mul-roney) riding of Manicouagan because of the full cost recovery principle. That is what is under-way right here, Mr. Speaker.
My colleagues have pointed out the very substantial link-


J. Michael Forrestall: It is your imagination.


Michael Morris Cassidy: -between the Port of Thunder Bay and the grain elevators in the Prime Minister's riding of Manicouagan. They have pointed out that the full cost recovery principle, which jeopardizes grain shipments and jobs in Thunder Bay also jeopardizes jobs in the Prime Minister's riding. Everybody knows there are not enough jobs to go around in that area because of the number of other industries which the Prime Minister himself has shut down or have been shut down since he went into politics on an elected basis.
Perhaps I can appeal to Government Members on the basis of "Don't do it Brian". Do not put the Prime Minister in a situation where he has to make special pleadings to the Minister of Transport in order to keep the industries in his riding from being shut down because the Minister of Transport, aided by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion wants to apply the full cost recovery principle. Take this clause out of the Bill. Allow us to think about it separately and then the technical parts of these amendments to the Canada Shipping Act can go forward.
My time is almost up, but I want to make a final comment to reiterate what I said in French. The St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes are an extraordinary national asset for Canadians. They have not been seen in that way in the past. They should be in the future. It is time that the Government of Canada took the lead which has now been demonstrated by the secretariat for la mise en valeur du St-Laurent in the Province of Quebec, and looked at this resource as an opportunity, not as a problem. I regret very much that the Government is looking on navigational areas of Canada not as an opportunity but simply as a milk cow to be milked until navigation is brought to a grinding halt.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-75. I should first like to make a comment on a point which the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) already touched upon. He mentioned in his speech that the Bill does not include drilling rigs in Hibernia, in Venture or off the coasts of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. It may well be that this was not intended, and I say that understanding the particular point. It may not be that this is the place for comprehensive rules and regulations dealing with drilling rigs. However, it is a matter at which the Minister must look very soon.
Hon. Members on all sides of the House were saddened by the tragedy of the Ocean Ranger. Some of us realize that the recommendations of the commission were very good ones. Of course most of them cannot be implemented overnight, but we must keep in mind the importance of this particular tragedy. We must be absolutely certain that it does not happen again. I hope we will have before the House something more substantial regarding drilling rigs and safety precautions than we have seen in the past. Hopefully it will be coming very shortly.
The Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) moved a motion, and I must say that we agree with him. He stated his reasons, and I have reasons of great concern to me and to the area which I represent. The Minister knows my area. He is familiar with the transportation, shipping and unemployment problems of that area. I must say, in fairness to him, that he has not been unsympathetic to many of the things I discussed with him. As we are discussing the Bill and the motion of the Hon. Member for Egmont at this point in time, I should like to mention some points. Clause 4 indicates that there will be charges for aids to navigation, dredging, vessel traffic services, ice-breaking services and escort services. I will not touch that last one. The Minister can explain exactly what is meant in the Bill by "escort services". However, I feel that it will be very difficult for shippers on the Atlantic Coast to meet these charges. I do not know whether the Department has thought out exactly how it will work these charges, upon whom they will be laid or exactly where the burden will fall. As the House knows, the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada has been faced with some difficulties. The difficulty faced by the shipping industry was mentioned by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). Where will this burden fall? If it falls in the wrong way, if it falls on shippers, fishermen and people
October 16, 1985

who can least afford to bear this burden, it will have a very severe impact upon Atlantic Canada. Atlantic Canada will have one of the most difficult winters it has ever experienced this year. This section will not do much for the morale of that region.
Clause 4 of the Bill refers to Section 3.1. In particular, the new Section 3.1(2) reads as follows:
Charges may be imposed pursuant to subsection (1) in relation to any ship or vessel, regardless of whether the Canadian Coast Guard actually provides a navigational service to that particular ship or vessel.
That is a very arbitrary provision. What exactly will it mean? Can charges be laid arbitrarily, regardless of any service provided? Who will be adjudicating this? Who will say who will pay? If I seem skeptical, I think I have a reason for it. Hon. Members of the House have a reason to be skeptical. We have seen what VIA Rail has had to endure at the hands of Canadian National. It was charged for things which Canadian National wrote off and had no right to charge. It made charges and retroactive charges for whatever it wanted to charge. One would think, in this day and age, that these things could not occur. This subsection is very volatile and dangerous. We do not really know what in fact it will mean or what the ramifications will be.
Also the new Section 3.1(3) indicates that interest can be charged on outstanding accounts. The parties to be charged, unless this can be clarified to my satisfaction, will be the ones who may not be able to afford it. They are being told that if they do not pay on time, if their catches are not sufficient that they can pay it or if their shipping company is in jeopardy and they cannot bear the charges, they will not only be taken to court but will have interest placed on top of it. Not only will companies be put in jeopardy; they will also be told that they will be charged interest and taken to court.
Will there be any phasing of these charges? Will there be no charges one day, followed by charges the next day? I think these questions are very important ones. Fishermen and shippers should know the answers to these questions. Is there an appeal procedure? Is there an arbitration procedure? Is there someone in the Department who can hear grievances in this regard and perhaps give rulings without having to go to court? Will things be made easier for people who have to withstand these charges?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Fairness above all else.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I appreciate the Minister's comment in that regard. If it were left up to him, that probably would be the
case.


Thomas Edward Siddon: He is the Minister.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: A Minister does not always know what is going on in his Department.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Let me say that he will be the first one. If he has to spend time calculating whose charges are justified
Canada Shipping Act
and whose charges are not, he will be a very, very busy man, doing that along with everything else for which he is responsible.
I should like to refer to a ferry service which is very important to my area, that of CN Marine. It is a major employer, and there have been severe reductions in employment over recent years. When the new vessel comes into service-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There were 1,200 before 1 came on the scene.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: -there will be further reductions. What will the imposition of costs for aids to navigation, dredging and vessel traffic services do to CN Marine? Granted, this is a Crown corporation. Is the Government going to impose costs for these services on CN Marine? CN Marine is already paid a large subsidy to maintain the service it provides. On top of this, will the Government now charge CN Marine the costs for what it is providing under Clause 4 of this Bill? If so, that will help to literally bury the CN ferry service. On the one hand, imposing the cost of the services provided on top of the subsidy that already exists and on the other hand through user-pay theories that are running rampant throughout the Government at the present time to increase charges for the use of the service will drive everyone to direct water transportation from Halifax and Montreal.
Let us look at the situation as it exists right now. Direct water transportation from Montreal to St. John's is provided by a private company but it is subsidized. The private company receives the subsidy and the subsidy it receives helps it to provide the service between Montreal and St. John's which takes business away from CN Marine, the Government's own Crown corporation. This means that CN Marine will make less money and it will have to receive a higher subsidy.
We have not seen anything come from the Government on shipping as it applies to Atlantic Canada that is reasonable. Why should we believe anything reasonable will come out of this Bill? We have not received any indication that anything reasonable will come out out of it. From history and from this Act, we have not seen that there will be a reasonable interpretation placed upon the shipping problmes of Atlantic Canada.
Until we get some indication of reasonableness, how can we support this particular clause? It has been said by others that there are a great many good provisions in this Bill. That is true. However, there are a great many questions and concerns about this Bill.
I have a concern regarding ice-breaking. In Sydney Harbour, there is a problem with ice-breaking in the spring of the year. If a ferry going from North Sydney to Newfoundland gets stuck, as has happened in the past, the ice-breakers have to free that vessel. Are charges then going to be imposed upon the CN Marine service? If the ice-breakers are stationed in Sydney Harbour for weeks in anticipation of vessels being stuck in the ice, is that cause to charge CN Marine? There can

October 16, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
be no arbitration. The Coast Guard can charge whomsoever it pleases, whether it helps them or not. The Coast Guard can be on standby for weeks and the standby charges are actually attributed to the vessels which may or may not be caught in the ice. This is a loaded gun pointed at the Government's own Crown corporation, and this concerns me greatly. It is unfair.
We in Atlantic Canada were just beginning to rediscover shipping. In the early days before Confederation, Atlantic Canada was one of the most successful parts of British North America. After Confederation, the banks that began in Nova Scotia invested 19 out of every 20 Nova Scotian dollars they received in central Canada. At that time, it was the shipping industry to the West Indies and the northeastern United States that was the bread and butter of Atlantic Canada. We are now beginning to realize that and are hoping to get back into shipping in a bigger way. However, we are going to be stumped by the provisions of this Bill.
If we are going to develop any kind of industry in Atlantic Canada, we have to utilize the cheaper means of shipping. Atlantic Canada is in tide water and shipping goods is much cheaper than sending them by truck or train. However, this Bill will be a real kick in the teeth not only to the shipping and transportation industries but to the entire concept of regional development in Atlantic Canada.
What is the next step? Is the Government going to charge truckers for the use of snow-ploughs on the highways? That may sound ridiculous to some Hon. Members. It is no more ridiculous than charging the ships in Atlantic Canada for ice-breaking.


J. Michael Forrestall: But it recovers 85 per cent of its cost.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: If this were to be applied equally, provinces would charge trucking companies for snow-plough services. Fair is fair.
We are not only talking about the industry, we are talking about people. The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) has been very concerned about people in the
transportation industry in his own region who have lost their jobs. The Hon. Member knows what it is like when someone employed by CN Marine or CN Rail loses his job. I am not talking about young people who have been employed by CN for only two months. I am talking about people who have 10, 15 or 20 years of seniority and have worked for these Crown corporations for a long time. These people still have mortgages on their homes and their children have grown up and are attending university, a very expensive proposition. Not only that, these people have lived in the same communities all their lives. If a person has worked and lived in North Sydney for 20 years and is phased out of his job, and if he is offered another job in Moose Jaw, Montreal or Moncton, that person should be excused if he does not jump up and down in glee. There must be an understanding of that kind of a situation.
This reflex action of laying people off from the CN system has to stop. Often they are laid off without any benefits. In some cases there are pre-retirement leave plans but in most cases there are not and often some employees do not even have pension plans. This is a very serious situation about which 1 am very concerned.
We are not talking about wealth shippers when dealing with the Canada Ports Corporation. We are talking about shippers who may have financial difficulties. We are talking about fishermen and we are talking about anyone who uses the water, according to this Bill. It is an alarming Bill and one that must be studied in much greater depth before we do something very damaging, the repercussions of which will be very severe in Atlantic Canada for many years to come.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is one minute to six. May I call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 17, 1985