1985-11-18

Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved:: That, in relation to Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of government business on the above-mentioned sitting day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
She said: Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago on November 20, 1984, I tabled in this House the report of Judge Rosalie Abella on equality in employment. Very shortly after that, in fact within days, almost within hours, opposition Members were demanding and pleading that the Government give its response to the Abella royal commission report. That was a year ago. In March of 1985 I had the privilege and honour of presenting the Government's response in principle. At that time I promised that legislation would be introduced shortly. Still, the Opposition got up and demanded immediate action with regard to legislation. The Opposition said: "Bring it in within the next few days, within the next few weeks".
Sir, the legislation was presented on June 28 of this year. Along with it we presented a working paper which was designed to stimulate wide-ranging consultation and debate throughout the summer months. That, indeed, took place. Mr. Speaker, second reading debate on Bill C-62 has been under way since October 3. In other words, what I am explaining to the House is that this particular piece of legislation has been received, delivered, analysed, scrutinized and debated for the better part of a year. Thoughout all of that time there has been intense consultation with business, the target groups, unions, individuals and organizations right across the country. More consultation, more discussion and more debate will follow at committee stage. Therefore, it is time to move this Bill forward, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Members opposite have indeed made points and we have attempted to answer them. Then they made the same points over again. This circuitous discussion on equity, of course, is not new. This sort of thing has been going on for years and years until the Government has the courage to introduce this specific, practical, employment equity legislation.
I have listened to those who say that the legislation does not go far enough and I have listened to those who say that it goes much too far. It would be nice if one could please all of the people all of the time, but, Mr. Speaker, we live in a real world. The new legislation is a realistic effort to solve the employment problems that are faced by women, native people, disabled persons and visible minorities.
First, this Bill seeks to attain what is attainable. It establishes a mandatory reporting requirement on larger firms under federal jurisdiction which employ 100 or more workers. That, in effect, will have impact on over one million Canadians. Second, in addition to the mandatory reporting requirement, the Bill makes effective use of existing enforcement agencies and resources. In fact, the Bill brings these agencies into operation for the first time in order to ensure compliance based on results. We do not need to create new enforcement bureaucracies when the Canadian Human Rights Commission already has the power to ensure that investigation and enforcement is carried out.
I may say that this approach is well in line with one of the options recommended by Judge Abella in her report. Under Model 4 of the enforcement mechanisms in her report Judge Abella suggests that the Canadian Human Rights Commission would be responsible for issuing employment equity guidelines, for collecting, reviewing and assessing data, for investigating and adjudicating disputes, and for contract compliance. Mr. Speaker, we are doing things very much in line with the proposals of Judge Abella. The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission is preparing equity guidelines and will offer consultative services to the firms involved. Similarly, we will ensure that data is collected and we will make it available to the Canadian Human Rights Commission as well as to individuals, groups and organizations across the country. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, in following up on this data, will handle the investigation and adjudication of disputes about employment equity, such as is recommended in the Judge Abella's Report. Section 32.3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, legislation which is already in force, empowers the Canadian Human rights Commission to initiate complaints where reasonable grounds exist. The mandatory data collected as a result of Bill C-62 will provide the grounds for investigations.

November 18, 1985
Time Allocation
The data that employers will be required to provide under the legislation will be specific and clear enough to ensure effective enforcement. No one will be able to cover up employment discrimination once this Bill goes into effect.
The Government will provide the Canadian Human Rights Commission with the resources necessary to conduct effective investigations. We believe that by using an existing agency rather than creating a new one, we save precious tax dollars and cut down on administrative overhead and overlapping responsibilities. More to the point, we use an agency which has already proven its worth and which has shown to the Canadian people that it can be effective in safeguarding equality and helping to eliminate discrimination in this country.
Contract compliance procedures are also in place. I might point out that these procedures do not require legislation but only the will of the Government to write into the contracts it has with business the requirements that will be necessary. It makes eminent sense to require enterprises that wish to do business with the federal Government to live up to employment equity standards. That has been done. We are doing that by requiring that all contracts for $200,000 or more be backed up by employment equity plans. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission officials will monitor these contracts and advise the contracting Minister about companies who do not live up to their commitments. The result of that may be that the companies will be barred from doing future business with the Government.
I believe that these enforcement and compliance measures will ensure that employers live up to the spirit and the intent of the new law. I would like more time to speak on this particular matter but I realize that my time is indeed limited. I believe that we have reason to be optimistic.
While the opposition Members have spent much time criticizing the legislation, they seem to agree that employment equity is an important and vital objective. Some members in the Opposition claim that it does not go far enough. However, I ask them what they did in previous years. This Government is the first to have the courage to take action in this field and implement new, strong legislation for employment equity. It is time to move this Bill forward. It is time to get on to the next step in this process. The people of this country want and need employment equity. We want to give it to them.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I want to preface my remarks this morning by indicating to the House that at the international conference held in New York some seven or eight days ago, the international reporting group indicated that the existing legislation, not Bill C-62, is among the most innovative and creative legislation in the western world dealing with women's problems.
As the Minister indicated earlier, there is no doubt that there were complaints about the record of the previous Liberal administration. I can assure the House that when I finish my
remarks the Minister will understand that I believe certain portions of this Bill are not strong enough. However, when one examines the previous Government's commitment to the enhancement of the quality of the workplace and the payments related to it, I suggest one will find that the previous Government's record will stand on its own. Furthermore, that record is recognized by the international community.
The Minister is quite correct in saying that there will be representatives of various groups in our society who believe very strongly that Bill C-62 does not address the problems that were dealt with in the Abella Commission's Report to the Government of Canada. These groups which indicate that the Government's response to the Abella Report is far too meagre to be discussed this morning represent a majority of women in this country. These groups include the Canadian Labour Congress, the Urban Alliance on Race Relations and the Canadian Congress for Learning Opportunities for Women. These groups represent a majority of women in this country.
These are the same groups which appeared before the Abella Commission. They represent women, disabled people and members of visible minorities in this country. They stated that there is a need for mandatory affirmative action programs to overcome the inequalities that women experience in the Canadian labour force. They said: "Those mandatory affirmative action programs must be backed up by strong and effective enforcement procedures if we are to see progress toward equality".
Therefore, one of their first criticisms of Bill C-62 is that the Government has not opted for mandatory affirmative action programs.
A second concern is the monitoring process. The Minister indicates that she believes that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has had an excellent track record and should not be concerned about its ability to ensure that the intent of the legislation will be enforced. However, the Bill only requires employers to report the data on their workforce by sex, race and disability. Not only do we maintain a reporting relationship, I believe the Bill indicates that the Government will do little with these reports until 1988. There will be a three year delay while the Government reviews the reporting relationships from these various data bases before any action is taken.
It has been clear in past years that when a Government simply indicates it wants to have a reporting relationship rather than providing strong and effective legislation, it does nothing to address the immediate inequalities that exist in the workforce. Furthermore, while public reporting is useful and should continue, it is important that the Government act on that information once it has been collected. When one considers that there will be a three year delay in accumulating the reporting information, and when one considers the past record of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, 1 suggest it will be the year 2000 before we see the first test case before the Supreme Court.
The point made by these groups to the Abella Commission was that the purpose of affirmative action programs is to move away from the complaints system, to which I just alluded.
November 18, 1985

which places the onus for change on the victims of discrimination. Instead, the onus should be placed where it properly belongs, that is, on the employment systems themselves. We are saying that the reporting stage is only the first step and the Bill should provide greater ability for the Government to respond to inequalities that exist in our workforce.
Before I go into the specifics of the Bill, let me refer to a statement made by the Canadian Labour Congress. It state that it has been possible to file complaints regarding failure to pay equal pay for work of equal value for almost 10 years now. But this complaint system has not been very effective in bringing pay equity to women. It is already law. As an example, federal sector employers should be required to provide equal pay for work of equal value in their establishments.
! 20)
The Government's Bill today does not require this. The onus remains on women to make their employers obey the law. That is a serious flaw in the legislation, Mr. Speaker.
As I have indicated in moments past the complaint system itself has been far too slow and has not yet addressed the systemic discrimination that exists in the workforce toward women.
Let me indicate some other areas where we believe serious flaws exist in Bill C-62. First, Judge Abella herself recommended four alternative enforcement mechanisms to ensure that employment equity is implemented. The Government indicates that the Human Rights Commission, with no formal extension of its own mandate or of its funding, will both monitor and enforce the program. There again that is a very serious flaw. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the backlog in cases before the Canadian Human Rights Commission is sufficient now that there are serious doubts whether the CHRC can fulfil the kind of mandate that Bill C-62 will give it unless its funding mechanism and mandate are extended to deal with it effectively.
Second, the extension of employment equity to federally regulated business will exclude companies with fewer than 100 employees. In effect, what we are talking about is excluding roughly 82 per cent of companies that do business with the federal Government, which is the intent of Bill C-62. With only 18 per cent of companies required to enforce these regulations, I really do wonder about the commitment which the Conservative Government has to address the inequality that takes place now in the workforce with respect to women.
Let us now look at Government contracts for goods and services. I mentioned earlier that employment equity will only apply to those companies with more than 100 employees and to contracts over $200,000. In other words, it means that effectively you have eliminated the need for small business to adhere to the new regualations under Bill C-62.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has indicated on the floor of the House previously that the majority of jobs being created today, never mind the existing pattern, are created by small business.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mostly women.
Time Allocation


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Small business and mostly women. I believe 65 per cent of small business jobs are being created by women, but Bill C-62 will exclude the necessity of small business to adhere to the degree of qualification.
Although reporting by Crown corporations and the larger federally regulated businesses will be mandatory, monitoring by the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be done at random. The Minister has declined to define what, if any, power the Canadian Human Rights Commission will have to enforce employment equity. That is a very serious flaw in the legislation. I can only indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that others who follow me in this debate will point out the flaws that are inherent in Bill C-62. I hope the Government will use the committee structure to allow us to improve this Bill so that the working relationships of women in our society will be improved.
I will not stop without saying that I recall in the last Parliament the howls of outrage every time the previous Government brought in time allocation on its Bills. Yet this Government has done the same thing. I am astounded at the hypocrisy of the present Government, looking at its trade record, which only 16 months ago screamed with outrage every time allocation of time was moved.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the time allocation Bill brought before the House by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald).
I want to oppose the motion brought before the House for many of the same reasons which the Minister herself used to oppose these motions when in Opposition. I can recall the Minister making statement after statement as an opposition Member saying that this represented a guillotine and did not give the House proper time to consider a particular Bill. I can quote speech after speech of hers. She has a very short memory. If she were on this side of the House she would resent being pushed around by the Prime Minister's Office and by the Government House Leader.
We have had only a few days of debate on Bill C-62 since it was brought before the House. We had a debate on October 3, October 21, on October 23, on October 30 and on October 31. That is five days, but in reality we had only four days. On October 30 only one speech was made. The second speaker moved adjournment of the House and the bells rang for the rest of the day. We have had four days of debate on this legislation. Is four days of debate long enough on an issue as important as employment equity for the women of Canada, for native people, for visible minorities and for the handicapped? The answer to that is no, it is not long enough.
Our Party has had 14 Members speak on this Bill, the Liberal Party has had a comparative number, and Conservative Party Members have not been anywhere near as involved.
To me it is passing strange that a Conservative Government that spoke in opposition about openness, consultation and national reconciliation would spend only four days on an issue
8518

November 18, 1985
Time Allocation
as important as employment equity before bringing down the guillotine. It is not fair at all.
This is an important issue to women, to the visible minorities, to the native people and to the physically handicapped. We have to make sure that we have strong legislation to make sure these people have opportunities for employment equity. The program in the Minister's Bill is not adequate. She said we can accomplish these things through a voluntary method of affirmative action in Canada, but that is not the case.
Judge Abella in her report said that we need mandatory affirmative action. The Americans have been saying that for years. Let me read to the House a statement made by Judy Lichtman, Executive Director of the Women's Legal Defence Fund in Washington, D.C. At a conference the other day here in Canada she said that she was dubious about affirmative action programs that do not have fixed goals for employers. She said:
In our American experience, we got no compliance until there was an enforcement mechanism.
We do not have an enforcement mechanism in this Bill and that is what this debate is all about. Everything is voluntary. In the United States they do have such a mechanism. But until there was something mandatory in the U.S. there was no compliance. Miss Lichtman went on to say:
Under U.S. law, firms doing business with the federal Government cannot discriminate by gender and must meet deadlines and targets for hiring women.
In Canada, in this Bill, we do not have any targets, deadlines, objectives, goals or quotas in terms of affirmative action by companies from which the federal Government buys supplies and goods. Miss Lichtman went on to say:
A court can order companies with more than 15 employees to take affirmative action measures.
In this Bill the program applies only to companies that have over 100 employees that do business with the federal Government. In the United States, a much bigger country, the American can make companies with 15 employees or more comply. Why can we not do the same here with companies with 15 or more employees and make this rule mandatory? If that were the case, we would not be having this debate in the House of Commons. The Bill would have gone to committee after a couple of days for detailed study and analysis.
This is the fourth time we have had a time allocation motion in this House since September, that is four time allocation motions in the last two months. I am concerned about that as a parliamentarian. What was in the past an occasional practice is becoming a custom under the Conservative Government of Canada of bringing in time allocation time and time again. Before long this will become a custom and a convention. I do not think that is good for an open and free democratic parliamentary system.
Also, in the last while we have had rule changes. Now, compared with the past, we have 20-minute speeches with a 10-minute question period. After a certain amount of time expires, we are down to 10-minute speeches. There is less need
to have a closure motion or a time allocation motion than there was in the past. I recall what members of the Conservative Party have been saying in the House in the last 15 years after the Liberals brought in time allocation motions after several days of debate. They said that it was the guillotine and that the House had not had enough time to deliberate. In those days we had longer speeches. We would go on for several weeks, such as in the case of the Crow debate, before time allocation was brought in. The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) would rise in the House as an opposition Member and talk about how horrible it was that democracy was being chocked or cut off.
One reason the Conservatives are losing popularity faster than any other Government in the history of Canada is that they have misled Canadians. They have not been honest with Canadians as to where they stand. They said one thing in Opposition; they do another thing in Government. We have another example of that today. While in opposition, they talked about full and fair debates, free-ranging debate and several days of debate. They would rise and be very angry at the Government for cutting off debate. However, once they are in Government, the table is turned; it is a different tale. I think that is why Canadians are becoming very dismayed by the Conservative Party which sits across the way. That is why we are seeing in the House what will become, in my opinion, a one-term Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am getting some reaction from one-term Members sitting across the way. Perhaps they can rise in the House and tell us why, when their Party was in opposition, they made speech after speech saying that it was unfair to bring in time allocation, eight, nine, ten or twelve days of debate in the House, but today that very same Party, in government, brings in time allocation after only four days of debate. They say that it is because it is a new Government, a new caucus and new Members. Part of the reason they won so many seats is that they led Canadians to believe that they would be different.


Some Hon. Members:: We are.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They are different. They are throttling democracy and freedom and speech in the House of Commons by bringing in time allocation. This is a one-term wonder which we see across the way. The Gallup poll and other polls are reflecting that.
The people who are the angriest with the Government across the way are the Conservative Premiers in western Canada who have to face their electorate in the next few months. Grant Devine is shaking in his boots because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his federal Conservative colleagues are pulling stunt after stunt, such as the one they are pulling today in the House of Commons. They won because they misled Canadians. When they were in opposition, they said one thing; now that they are in Government, they say exactly the opposite. If
November 18, 1985

John Diefenbaker were here today, he would be awfully dismayed with this ragtag group sitting across the way.
It would be one thing to bring in a motion like this if they had been saying such things in opposition. However, it is another thing to say the opposite in opposition to what they are doing now that they are in Government. That has been the legacy of the Conservative Party in the last 14 months since they won the Government of Canada. That is why the people of the country are losing trust and confidence in the Government sitting across the way.
I appeal to Hon. Members of the Conservative Party, even those on the back-benches, to rise and speak their minds. They should not be pushed around by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). They should not be afraid of the Prime Minister of the country. He will not be there very long. There is a tradition in the Conservative Party that they gobble up their leaders every few years. They should not be afraid of him. They should stand up and be rugged individuals like they preached during the campaign. They should speak their minds and have the courage of their convictions. Then the people of the country will respect them for it. If not, we will see across the way a one-term Government and a small rump of Conservatives in the House come 1988 to 1989.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate, and thus bring the second reading stage to an end and refer the Bill to committee according to our normal procedure.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today, and not because I feel we are suppressing individual freedom of speech. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we will have ample opportunity within the legislative committees to make our points and to indicate to the Government the amendments we would like to see in this legislation. There is certainly no shame in doing so, and I do not think we are to be criticized for following this procedure.
Mr. Speaker, I may point out that we previously considered a similar Bill in the House. The Bill went to the legislative committee, where we considered again the same motions that had been presented before the House, and I just realized now that when the Bill comes back to the House, we will again be considering the same motions that were presented in committee after first being presented in the House.
Members of the public listening to us this morning and on other occasions often say, and I think we should listen: There is a lot of repetition and a lot of redundancy.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate, because basically, our Bill is based on two concepts:
Time Allocation
trust and performance. We want, and our friends opposite have always wanted to have a system with public servants to run it. We will make a plan and develop it, and penalties will be provided.
Canadians must be told how to achieve legitimate objectives that are set by a government, whatever its political affiliation. Our friends opposite always thought: Not only are we going to give you a plan, we have an objective and we gave you a plan. That is how things were, Mr. Speaker, because we were not working according to a Government plan and that is how people were kept in a state of inferiority.
Mr. Speaker, this must be true because when our friends opposite talk about women in the House, they are always talking about them in connection with their place in society, with family allowances and pension plans. They are kept in a state of inferiority and they are not given the information they should be given, and that is the kind of role our friends opposite have made women play. We want to do better than that.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to set objectives, and we are going to start by cleaning our own backyard. We are going to set general objectives, and then we are going to compare performances from year to year. And that is what we are going to measure. We are not going to measure a plan set up by a public servant. We are going to measure performance.
Mr. Speaker, we must stop telling Canadians: This is what we want. We must tell them: Here is the recipe for achieving what we want to achieve.
Mr. Speaker, the other day 1 was listening to the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) when he said: There was one important measure in the Budget, and that was the rebate on ... that is to say, Canadians would not be paying taxes on profits, on capital gains over four or five years. But he said: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Canadians were not told how to spend the money they would save in the process, and these people are going to invest that money elsewhere.
That shows the difference between our two parties, Mr. Speaker. The party opposite would have said: We are granting a tax rebate on capital gains, but we are also going to tell you what you have to do with the money. This Government is saying: Here is a tax rebate, and we think Canadians are smart and clever enough to know what to do with the money they will save. That is the difference in our philosophies.
Mr. Speaker, it takes a plan based on performance, not a plan set up and run by public servants. That is the essential thing: a plan based on confidence in the public. Instead of being a public servant run plan, it will consist of a public plan and reports that will be tabled in Parliament. We are hearing reactions from the various associations, and that is how it should be. We are now hearing from these various associations across Canada. Some support the Government's action and others do not criticize it except to say it does not go far

November 18, 1985
Time Allocation
enough. But even with this legislation which, according to the Opposition, does not go far enough, we are going much further than you ever did in the last fifteen years.
Mr. Speaker, these organizations will be able to have input in a Government plan and in an office or a commission, and they would not have had that right before, while today, the plan is public, it will be released to the public, and even the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be able to intervene legally as required in certain cases. Not only it will be able to do so, but it will also have to hear individuals or pressure groups which will want to be heard on the matter.
Mr. Speaker, this is the thrust of this Bill. We are ready to discuss it in legislative committee. We are ready to hear once again the views of the Opposition. However, we have to say that this is a constructive measure. The legislation now in effect is the first step. The usual criticism is that it does not apply to all businesses. Mr. Speaker, firstly, we begin by cleaning our own house. Secondly, we proceed by groups or targets and on the basis of performances. The eligible groups will be in a position to resort to self-scrutiny and self-control because discrimination is not a legal issue. First and foremost, it is a matter of attitude and openness. And Canadians, both men and women, have made some progress since then.
Mr. Speaker, 1 spent a week in a riding where 1 visited an Indian reserve. Its leaders are telling the Government that it is urgent to act as far as employment equity is concerned.
All this, Mr. Speaker, still is a matter of confidence and I mean confidence at the level of Canadian businesses and businessmen and not confidence in the plan put forward by the Government. Confidence in businesses on the basis of their performances from one year to another. This is the basic issue. This is the reason why I am pleased to support this Bill and to say: We will now go to the legislative committee to consider and further discuss the subject matter of Bill C-62.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like Canadians to understand the Government's initiative which rests on action-not a voluntary one-aimed at drawing a logical plan for each business. In that respect, the voluntary aspect will not allow the company to choose the direction of its plan, because the direction or the target have already been chosen. As far as means and performances are concerned, year after year, Canadians are mature enough to review them without necessarily relying on a Government plan providing all criteria.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased-and sad-to take the floor on this Bill dealing with an issue which I think should have been given a lot more attention.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that for the first time women, disabled persons and native people are quite justified to feel that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has let them down.
Mr. Speaker, not only is the Government promoting a Bill which reflects the approach of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Government-a hypocritical approach- but at best this is a half-baked measure like all the others. Hon. Members need only recall the deindexation of old age security pensions, the deindexation of family allowances and the 10 per cent tax on sick Canadians. And now we are considering this feeble attempt at a Bill, when for years on end women, disabled persons and native people have been fighting to gain full recognition in terms of employment equity. This Government can only come up with second-class measures.
Mr. Speaker, we Canadians now have laws for second-class women, laws for second-class disabled persons, and laws for second-class native people. Any women lucky enough to get a job with a company having more than 100 employees soon finds out that she rates minimal protection, what we might call token protection.
But if she happens to be one of fewer than 100 employees she does not have any protection at all. That, Mr. Speaker, tells us all about our Prime Minister. The Hon. Member who just resumed his seat, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Hudon), could only keep repeating that it is a matter of confidence, Mr. Speaker. Obviously he got up too early to read this morning's newspapers, otherwise he would know that the latest Gallup poll indicates that 52 per cent of Canadians no longer have confidence in this Government, 52 per cent of them disagree with Government policies after only one year since it came into office. Worse still, Mr. Speaker, most people do not even know what this Bill is all about, so you can imagine how they will react when they do find out what the Government has in store for them!
I have to say that the women who successfully ran under the Conservative Party banner are nobodies! Mr. Speaker, the Coalition des femmes du Quebec met with Quebec women Conservative MPs only to be told that they did not want to be associated with the case of women. That is not what they had promised, Mr. Speaker. Is there one Hon. Member who will try to have me believe that women will be protected if they get jobs with companies having more than 100 employees? Most women who work as waitresses in the restaurant industry will not be protected under this measure, Mr. Speaker. This is where they are being exploited, Mr. Speaker, but the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) would rather bury her head in the sand like an ostrich and heed the advice of the Minister of Finance instead of standing on her own two feet and advocating the kind of Bill she personally favours. If the Tories keep this up, Mr. Speaker, 75 and even 80 per cent of Canadians-not only 52 per cent-will turn against this Government.
Is it acceptable that, in 1985, human beings elected to represent their fellow citizens introduce a Bill for the purpose of granting a minimum protection based on the status or
November 18, 1985

corporation, Mr. Speaker? It reminds me of the Government's Bill concerning the spouse allowance for widows and widowers. Half measures all, Mr. Speaker. If you are single, you are not entitled to it; if you are separated, you are not entitled to it. They create classes of citizens. They have just the Prime Minister's image, just a clean-cut guy with a nice slogan, very nice on the surface but without substance, Mr. Speaker.
When I think of the promises that were made by this Government, 1 recall the debate which Canadian women had organized during the election campaign; how great our dear Prime Minister looked, with such an open-mindedness and so many firm promises. 1 can understand that Conservative Members are anxious to limit the length of the debate, for they are ashamed to see what the Government is proposing now compared to what it had promised; 1 can understand that Conservative women are ashamed and dare not rise to deal with this issue. I can understand that, because if I were they, 1 should be ashamed too to defend this Bill, in view of all the promises their Party had made to the Canadian people.
What will be the end result of this Bill, Mr. Speaker? From now on, companies willing to do so will submit a report to the Government, and a bunch of civil servants will compile the relevant data. On the proper forms, company so and so will state: I have over 100 employees. Last year, I had not a single woman on my staff. This year, I have one. She could be either a caretaker or a telephone operator. All other companies will do likewise. This will amount to a lot of paperwork which will have to be processed, and in three years the Government will table in the House a report dealing with this issue. It is a joke, Mr. Speaker, and a bad one at that. It is worse than if the Government had done nothing. When one does not know what to do, instead of coming up with half-measures, one had better wait. Your party had agreed to consult the various groups and to govern together with the people. Although the various groups are against this Bill, the Government is bent on having it adopted. Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind you of the conference held here, in Ottawa, and during which the Prime Minister acted as presiding MC and where it cost us $1,000 a minute to see Brian Mulroney's face on.
All participants were in favour of equality for women and the handicapped; yet, the Minister of Employment and Immigration had the gall today to introduce a Bill, or rather to try to stifle the Opposition by moving closure. If I were she, I should be quite embarrassed. At the time she was sitting on the Opposition side, she used to fight for women and worked very hard to improve their lot. Now that she is making $40,000 more, Mr. Speaker, she is keeping her mouth shut. She introduces half-measures. That is outrageous. That is a shame. She has lost her credibility. She was the last of the Cabinet Ministers who still had a minimum of social credibility.
Time Allocation
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), the so-called Minister of social injustice, has lost all credibility. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) cannot Find anyone who will believe him. As for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), it is even worse: nobody can trust him any longer. The only Cabinet Minister with a measure of credibility was the Minister of Employment and Immigration, but she has lost it all today.
Not only is the Government not open to consultation, Mr. Speaker... The Parliamentary Secretary has already warned us that in committee he will listen to what the Opposition has to say, but he will change nothing ... In committee, he will listen to the representations of the various groups, but he will change nothing. It is a fraud! The Government should be ashamed to ask Canadian people and groups to step forward and make representations, when it has already decided to have its own way. It is a shame, Mr. Speaker!
My friend the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) who has a lot of experience, reminds me that... It seems to me that these people should stand up. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) refused this past weekend to take part in a debate on family allowances. 1 understand that she was ashamed of her Government's actions, but I feel that people should stand up and be counted. People should defend their position, Mr. Speaker.


Mrs. Mailly:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for guidance. As I read them, it is not allowed under the Standing Orders to refer to an Hon. Member as being present or not in this House, unless that Member is taking part in the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With due respect to the Hon. Member, I do not believe the Hon. Member has mentioned the presence of the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) in his speech. I think he referred to possible debate, but I do not believe he referred to her presence as such in this House. If that were the case, the point raised by the Hon. Member for Gatineau would be valid.


Jean-Claude Malépart: As usual, Mr. Speaker. Her facts are all wrong.
I will therefore resume my comments, Mr. Speaker, as concerns the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly), I would welcome her comments on that, I would like to hear her say sincerely, right in front of her constituents of both sexes, whether she wholeheartedly supports equality for women. Or would she rather say this to all those employees, to all the women in the constituencies of Gatineau, Brome-Missisquoi, the constituency of the Minister of Employment and Immigration: "Ladies, if you work in a plant that has more than 100

November 18, 1985
Time Allocation
employees, there will be a small program. But if you happen to work for a company with less than 100 employees, we will not be looking after you".


Claudy Mailly: This is more than you did!


Jean-Claude Malépart: We will see how that goes. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration said: "Well now, we will check on that. People have every confidence in us". Yes, businessmen had such confidence in Brian Mulroney, the Prime Minister, that in the East End, companies are shutting down 52 per cent, Mr. Speaker. Government Members should say that 52 per cent of the people disagree with Government policy. And speaking of disagreement, they did not even know about this legislation because this is no legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I see I am running out of time, although Government Members are getting interested in my comments. A couple of them are waking up. They were asleep. I hope that my speech is not just waking them up, because waking them up is easy, but giving them at least some courage, the courage to defend the interests they were committed to during the last election.
The day after September 4, and I will conclude on this, I saw on television two or three ladies who are here now, Members in this House. They said: "We are going to be there, stirring up the whole thing, we will change all that". I see two of them smiling. But today, you can see they are stirring nothing, Mr. Speaker, They are on all fours, saying: Yes, dear Brian, yes, kiddy boy, do that-
Mr. Speaker, I pray the Hon. Member for Gatineau, the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Brome-Missis-quoi (Mrs. Bertrand) to show some courage, to stand up and then people will be proud of you. But right now, people are ashamed of you. Mr. Speaker, I conclude by asking Government Members to amend this Bill, to provide protection for every woman, for every handicapped person, and for every native person, whatever the number of businesses, whatever the number of employees in the workplace.


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, there is a certain irony in the efforts of the opposition Members to delay the passage of Bill C-62 dealing with employment equity. This irony, I am sure, is not lost on the Canadians most in need of the positive measures put forward in this Bill, that is, native people, disabled people, members of visible minority groups, and the women of Canada's workforce. Canadian women in particular must find this whole exercise of nit-picking especially ironic. The two decades which have passed since women surged in record numbers into the workforce is a period distinguished by a singular lack of practical action on employment equity from various Liberal Government incarnations. Instead, what Canadians got was a lot of studies, commissions repeating the findings of other commissions, and a lot of high
minded talk, all of it amounting to absolutely nothing in the way of pragmatic progress for women in the office and on the shop floor. Now that the real action on these longstanding concerns is dangerously imminent, the Opposition has once again resorted to type and we are faced with even more talk. This is not only unnecessary but, in the context of two decades of inequity buttressed by inaction, it is totally unconscionable.
Where women are concerned, employment inequity has been twofold, the inequity of opportunity to compete for certain positions and, within the positions they do occupy, inequity of salary-64 per cent of what men make for doing the same work, to be exact. As for inequity of opportunity, statistics show that despite the fact women now represent 41 per cent of the labour force and will reach 50 per cent by the end of the decade, only 4 per cent of senior managers and only 10 per cent of middle managers are women. Yet, in the face of this, we get weeks of stalling on innovative legislation that will require employers to integrate employment equity provisions in their long-range planning.
It should be stressed as well that the importance of the commitment expressed in Bill C-62, and the equity provisions of the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program, go beyond redressing long standing and obvious injustices. As we progress by real and practical steps towards employment equity, there will also be a spinoff effect that will be felt throughout the Canadian economy and Canadian life. As a nation we can no longer afford to exclude any group if we are to revive economically speaking. Be it women, native people, the disabled or members of visible minorities, the growth of the economic dimension these groups represent will stimulate the growth of the economy as a whole. Through the employment and training programs of the Canadian jobs strategy, particularly the job entry program, women are finally being given a chance to realize their goals within the modern workforce. Through important measures like this Bill we will ensure that women will encounter fairness and flexibility on the job as they strive to reach those goals.
This Bill is not a band-aid measure established in isolation from other Government programs and the realities of the market-place. On the contrary, it is designed to complement other federal initiatives to foster equity of opportunity and salary for Canadian women. Quite simply, women and other target groups must be assured of fairness of choice and fairness of income. This precedent-setting legislation is a practical step toward that goal.
I suspect that it is this very practicality which has caused such earnest confusion among the opposition Members. Some say Bill C-62 goes too far and some say it does not go far enough. Perhaps the source of their discomfort is that Bill C-62 actually presumes to do something and to do it in a reasonable, flexible framework which makes its goals achievable. No wonder the Opposition is disoriented. Can you believe, Mr. Speaker, no more studies, studies, studies; no more bureaucratic blizzards of paper work dumped on unsus-
November 18, 1985

pecting business people; no more inflexible regulations which break down the instant they are applied to regional or individual circumstances? What Bill C-62 proceeds from is the almost revolutionary presumption that results are more important than rhetoric.
We are making a clear commitment to employment equity and we are asking Canadian companies to make that same commitment. That commitment is backed by tough enforcement and penalty measures through the Canadian Human Rights Commission, although we hope to receive a level of co-operation which will make these enforcement measures largely unnecessary. The Government will also require contractors who do more than $200,000 worth of business with the Government to implement employment equity. And where Bill C-62 or other employment measures are concerned, we put these requirements into a workable framework. At a time when the Canadian economy is finally struggling, with the help of the Conservative Government, to get its head above water, it benefits no one, particularly women and other target groups, to throw employers an anchor of unattainable, unilateral and over-complicated legislation. A balance must be struck if the goals of equity are to be achieved. Make no mistake, Bill C-62 means business where equity is concerned. This Government is committed to equality for all Canadians and we are proud to be the first to go beyond the rhetoric of equality by taking concrete steps.
Bill C-62 ensures action and results. It also assumes good will on the part of Canadians as its legislative context. The advance interest and enthusiasm of Canadian enterprises, including some small businesses which do not even come under the legislation, indicates without question that this course is the right one.
The enthusiasm of participants, combined with the urgency of the situation for working women and other target groups in the labour force, makes the ongoing argument of the Opposition all the more empty, especially when we consider its track record on this issue.
We have made a legislative commitment to employment equity and we have backed it by real money and by objectives which are both fair and attainable. It is a commitment which is built upon the co-operation and initiative of all concerned. The time for talk is over. The time for action is now. Because it is so imperative that we move this issue forward in the interests of Canadian women, I am pleased to move, seconded by my colleague, the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau):
That, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 9(4)(A), the House continue to sit through the lunch hour this day for the purpose of continuing consideration of the motion of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker;: All those objecting to the motion will please rise.
And fewer than 25 Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There not being 25 Members rising in objection the motion is adopted.
Motion (Mrs. Collins) agreed to.
Time Allocation


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to the well practised rhetoric of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) who eloquently defended what the Bill does not contain, that is, action. The Hon. Member said that the Bill means business. The Bill actually means that business has been heard far more clearly in its 80 per cent opposition to affirmative action than other voices. We have before us now a motion to limit debate on a little Bill that is such an inadequate response to so many of those voices. There has been the clear voice of the aboriginal peoples, of the disabled, of those with skins of a darker hue, and those of women. These voices have been recorded, reported, supported and ignored. These voices have told us that the most significant aspect of life is being able to have the same access to secure employment and decent salaries as everyone else in the country. These voices tell us that they ought to be able to house and clothe themselves and send their children to school on the basis of adequate income and access to jobs. It is an absolutely fundamental right of every person to have a job without regard to sex, skin colour, religion or anything else.
We have been told that it is no longer true that when members of minorities apply for jobs they are faced with a bigot who says: "Coloured people are not employed here". We have been told that complaints presented to the Human Rights Commission have become less and less effective as explicit discriminatory action no longer occurs with the frequency of the past. We have been told that systemic and institutional barriers to members of minorities and women for promotion must be attacked. I have indicated clearly how that must be done.
We do not have a Bill which in fact will implement affirmative action or employment equity. We have instead a Bill which says, "No more. We are going to count minorities and count them twice. We are going to find out which companies are naughty and which are nice". In this Bill there is a mechanism for ascertaining whether or not the statistics of employment of minorities, women and the disabled reflect the population in an area where they have equal access to jobs.
Affirmative action has a number of elements and everyone who has looked at the issue understands what those elements are. If we are going to have an adequate Bill, it should be directed at the entire federal sector and all government contractors. This Bill is limited in that regard. It says that affirmative action dictates that there should be a timetable. It says that affirmative action requires that there should be established goals and targets. The misunderstanding of that concept was clearly indicated by the Minister when she said that quotas become ceilings. That is the clue to the orientation of this Bill.
Affirmative action has been in existence for almost two decades on the North American continent. In places where affirmative action has been effectively implemented quotas have not been set. A quota is a nasty flag raised by those who oppose affirmative action. It elecits all types of negative

November 18, 1985
Time Allocation
responses. It is the bugbear of those who oppose affirmative action. The fact that the Minister herself refers to quotas in the context of affirmative action indicates the orientation of the Bill which is before us. As the previous speaker said, little is imposed upon business in the implementation of affirmative action. True affirmative action requires something more than counts; it requires targets, timetables and an enforcement mechanism. More important than anything else in order to be effective is the necessity for penalties. Affirmative action must be based on a plan or plans which are specific to the businesses involved in a situation which has to be addressed. That plan should also include employee or union involvement along with that of management and members from the designated groups. None of this is contained in the Bill before us. The Bill is a mockery-a mere sham-in response to the needs, concerns and actions requested by women, the disabled, natives and the visible minorities. It is no wonder that the Government is trying to impose a limitation on debate. What the Government is saying to those of us who sit on this side of the House who want to communicate the message that the designated groups would have us communicate is: "Shut up. We do not want to hear any more about it".
We have a little Bill which we intend to pass which ignores all of what has been said. We are purportedly leading the nation on a track of real progress in answer to discriminataion in employment. Yet, when we look south to the United States, which has a history of slavery and struggle in terms of the civil rights movement, a country to which we have compared ourselves and which we consider as being so much better in so many respects in terms of its treatment of women and minorities, we see affirmative action programs which are far more effective in the key areas. The Americans have requirements for timetables. They have targets and penalties which apply to all federally-regulated employers and all federal contracts.
The designated groups under this legislation have asked for contract compliance. Yet there is only limited contract compliance set out in the Bill. They have asked that the number of employees be reduced to 50, as it is in the United States. That has been denied. What we have before us is a betrayal of all of those whom this Bill purports to serve. It betrays the young native who says that violence and suicide is a common occurence on reservations where youth unemployment might be 100 per cent but is actually close to 90 per cent. There is a betrayal of the highly skilled female secretary who makes less than a janitor. It is a betrayal of the 70 per cent of black youth in Halifax who are struggling to find jobs. It is a betrayal of the disabled who were promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that their needs for employment equity would be looked into and that action would be taken.
No wonder the Government wants to shut us up. It does not want to hear the message. It wants to get through with the matter quickly so that, presumably, no one will notice the magnitude of the betrayal of the needs of so many of the people in the country. It is a shame that the Government does not want to listen. It refuses to hear what has already been said so many times. Perhaps it is a waste of time to continue
the debate because for half a century the minorities have been asking for the type of action which affirmative action would provide in allowing them to have equal participation in our society. Maybe it is just as well that we be frank. The Government is not interested and it wants to cut off debate.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this important debate on Bill C-62 and on the motion of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald).
Women, the disabled and ethnic minorities have waited long enough for the type of practical and effective employment equity legislation which Bill C-62 represents. During debate on the Bill we have all heard of the frustrating statistics which demonstrate the need for employment equity legislation in the country. We have heard of discrimination in the workplace which visible minorities and the disabled experience almost every day. We have heard of the wage gap working women face simply because they are women. Above all, we have heard of the tremendous waste of human resource and talent that this type of discrimination wreaks on our country and upon our furture. The time to act is now. Further delay of the Bill will only delay equality in the workplace.
The question we on this side of the House are asking, is why would the Opposition want to delay legislation which will give millions of Canadians new hope and new opportunity? The country simply cannot wait. Why delay legislation which, for the first time, will give the Human Rights Commission the date and the resources it needs to further the cause of equality in the workplace? Why delay legislation which, for the first time, will compel hundreds of private firms which deal with the Government to implement workable employment equity? Above all, why delay legislation which will bring the country into the 21st century in terms of fairness and equality in the job market?
The Opposition would have us believe that the answer to employment equity lies in quotas and Government red tape. They simply do not understand that quotas are unworkable, unfair and unnecessary. A recent poll conducted by the American Enterprise Institute in the United States found that 77 per cent of blacks actually oppose quota-style affirmative action programs. Despite forced quotas, discrimination still exists in the U.S. because employers treat people as numbers and as fillers for Government forms. Our Government believes people should be judged on merit and capability.
Bill C-62 reaffirms our intention of encouraging a positive and progressive environment for employment equity in Canada. As the Minister of Employment and Immigration has said, employment equity is about opportunity, the opportunity for Canadians everywhere to earn a decent living and to participate fully in our society.
This past weekend the newly elected Leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, the Hon. Larry Grossman, highlighted the importance of involving ethnic minorities more actively in the political and decision-making process. I share his sentiments. I applaud his commitment to equality oppor-
November 18, 1985

tunities when a new Progressive Conservative Government is returned to the great Province of Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Browes: Bill C-62 represents an important turning point for Canadians. It signals that Canadian women are not going to be balkanized in clerical and service sector occupations. It signals that native people and visible minorities are not going to be denied opportunity because of the colour of their skin. Job discrimination, whether overt or unintentional, can no longer be condoned by a country that expects top performance in its industrial sector. Systemic, unintentional discrimination is inefficient and a waste of our human resources and impedes the natural flow of the free market. Mr. Claude Bruneau, President and Chairman of the Imperial Life Assurance Company of Canada recently said, and I quote:
I see 50 per cent of the population becoming financially autonomous and scant attention has been paid by business.
He also said there was a great opportunity for women as business leaders. And this, I might add, would be of benefit to the whole country. This Government's vision of a fair and equitable labour market can truly serve the interests of all Canadians. Fairness and equity are more than mileposts for social justice. They also show that this society needs the participation and contribution of all our human resources if we are to be competitive.
We are taking a positive first step towards change, one which works with Canadians, not against them. By requiring the implementation of employment equity we are telling employers to take the time to examine the composition of their workforce. Are there barriers that block the entry of potentially good workers? Are these barriers truly necessary to the job? Does everyone have access to training? Who got promotions last year? Is there under-representation of women or native persons at the executive level, and if so, why?
Therefore, let me say that, in the interests of justice, prosperity, and basic human rights, this Parliament should pass Bill C-62 as quickly as possible and prove to Canadians our commitment to equality and social justice.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak once more about Bill C-62, which aims at promoting employment equity for women, visible minorities, the native people and the handicapped.
These objectives are quite valid and I support them wholeheartedly. However, I object to Bill C-62 as it now stands because it does not provide the mechanisms required to achieve the stated objectives of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Like many pressure groups representing women and the three categories mentioned earlier and covered in Bill C-62, I believe that it is essential that legislation to promote employ-
Time Allocation
ment equity include effective enforcement mechanisms, target dates and penalties.
Since the tabling of Bill C-62 in this House, the Committee on Equality Rights has tabled its report. Earlier, I heard my colleague say that Bill C-62 should have the support of all Opposition Members. However, I am somewhat surprised at what she said because she herself supported the report on employment equity which deals among other matters with Bill C-62.
It has been said that the Conservative Government wants to apply Bill C-62 to all companies having more than 100 employees, but not to the Government itself in its capacity as an employer. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the recommendations contained in the report of the Parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights, of which my colleague was a member included recommendation No. 60, which states:
We recommend that employment equity legislation apply to all federal public sector employers and to employers under federal jurisdiction, with necessary adjustments being made by regulation for small businesses and agencies.
This was one of the recommendations of the Committee, but this Bill does not reflect these recommendations.
I also believe that the minorities should co-operate with employers and unions in developing employment programs. A great many groups representing women, the native people, the handicapped and visible minorities have deplored the lack of mechanisms to enforce employment equity programs. The Abella Report emphasized the importance of having an independent agency responsible for implementing employment equity programs. The report Equality for all also recommends that the legislation designed to guarantee employment equity contain implementation mechanisms through which the Canadian Human Rights Commission would develop special programs and have the financial and human resources it requires to do so. The members of the Parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights also thought that the employment equity legislation should provide for a periodical review of special programs so that they might be adjusted or cancelled according to how the situation develops.
I am somewhat surprised that the Hon. Member described this Bill as sensational this morning, as there is a striking contrast between this legislation and the report she signed herself. Since employment equity concerns not only the labour force, as stated in the report of the Parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights, but our whole social structure, the members of the Committee recommended a series of measures to help women, the handicapped, native people and visible minorities to achieve real equality. I therefore question the statements made by the Hon. Member earlier. Mr. Speaker, the recommendations of the Committee are important since the family responsibilities of women constitute real obstacles to their equality on the labour market. The same is true of the major financial costs which the handicapped must bear if they are to live a relatively normal life.

November 18, 1985
Time Allocation
Realizing the importance of these factors in the daily life of Canadian men and women, the Committee also recommended that, in consultation with the provinces, the Federal Government urgently take measures to ensure that day-care services in Canada be available at affordable prices. The Committee on Equality Rights, of which my colleague was a member, also wants the Income Tax Act to be amended so that the handicapped can be entitled to deduct from their income the costs of special devices and services, including additional job-related transportation costs which are a direct result of their handicap.
This report is one of the best that this House has received, and the Hon. Member who extolled the merits of Bill C-62 this morning was among those who signed it. Once again, I am somewhat confused about this because, in view of this report, Mr. Speaker, 1 am in fact urging the Minister of Employment and Immigration to withdraw her Bill on employment equity and introduce legislation which will better reflect the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights. This report was accepted by the three political parties, I think it is a progressive report, and I believe that the Conservative Government should take advantage of the fact that it was a unanimous report to implement new guidelines. The Minister of Employment and Immigration told reporters last week that the women's movement should deal with basic issues and put less important matters aside. In my opinion, she now has a golden opportunity to introduce in Bill C-62 elements which groups representing women, visible minorities, the handicapped and the native people consider essential. This bears repeating: I think that the report on equality rights ranks among the best we ever had, so I am surprised that the Minister would not implement the recommendations made by the committee members concerning this Bill. I am still more surprised to see my colleague support a Bill which is lacking, when in fact she belongs to the sub-committee which presented a report on equality. I find that quite astonishing.
Regarding the Bill under consideration, we learned last July that the Government would only require from employers a statement that they endorse the principle of equal opportunities for men and women, nothing more for the time being. It falls far short of the Abella report recommendation. The report went as far as urging that the Canadian organization responsible for ensuring compliance with equality provisions related to employment in the federally regulated sector monitor as well compliance with private sector contractual obligations. Well, this Bill C-62 does not provide for any such commitment. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, the lack of enforcement mechanisms makes the Bill under study totally useless.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to refresh your memory concerning the reaction of some politically independent people and groups who are strongly opposed to Bill C-62. At a meeting organized last spring by the federal caucus of Conservative women of the Montreal region, UQAM labour sociologist Evelyne Tardy stated that toothless employment equality legislation would be useless.
I have received a great many telephone calls from groups of women concerned about the Conservative Government's lack of political will in the area of employment. On the other hand, I have received a great many phone calls from groups of women and other people supporting the report of the Subcommittee on Equality Rights. 1 should like, therefore, my hon. friend to come clean. As I listened to her, 1 had the clear impression that she had two different ways to approach this bill.
Of course, I am very disappointed today that the Government should impose closure on such an important bill as this. This demonstrates the Conservative Government's lack of understanding of and sensitivity for women issues. We are all aware that in Canada poverty is a fact of life for a great many women and that today, in 1985, 42 per cent of married women with children must go out to work. I do not think that a bill such as this will make it possible for Canadian women to achieve the place they deserve on the labour market. I am extremely disappointed and I want to make it quite clear again that I categorically oppose Bill C-62 in its present form.
Mir. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls): Mr. Speaker, when I return to my riding of Niagara Falls on the weekends I am very pleased to discuss some of the federal issues which are before this House. One of the things that I am particularly proud and pleased to discuss are the provisions of Bill C-62, the employment equity Act. People like it. It appeals to their basic sense of fairness which, I think, characterizes Canadians.
When my constituents ask me about the progress of this Bill, I have to be fair about it. I tell them that the NDP and the Liberals are against it and are trying to hold it up, just as they are doing with several other pieces of legislation before this House. They argue that it does not go far enough, that it does not have enough enforcement to scare Canada's business community into action. They then issue their classic response: "Let's do nothing, let's forget about it and maybe the problem will go away on its own".
I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, with that attitude. However, having observed the proceedings of the Thirty-third Parliament up to this point, I am not surprised by it. I believe it is that kind of closed-minded outlook that lies at the root of the need for this employment equity legislation. Canadians want strong, forceful legislation which appeals to positive rather than negative qualities. I think the Government has achieved this with Bill C-62, but the Opposition's response is just to keep talking about it and eventually forget about it. I think I know the reason for that. I think they are afraid that this legislation will be successful and, obviously, this is a risk which they would rather not take.
I will use a few minutes to explain why the Government's positive yet firm approach to employment equity is, in my
November 18, 1985

opinion, the best way to proceed. I ask you to think about people who are handicapped, many of whom, up until a few years ago, faced a life of isolation and institutionalization. Many of these individuals are now out in the community ready and willing to work. However, they are faced with a 50 per cent unemployment rate. 1 think that is most unfortunate because these people can and want to work. They do not want to sit at home collecting unemployment insurance cheques or disability pensions. Many of them have valuable skills. Many of them could fit in well as professional individuals. Others have top rate clerical or semi-professional skills. These individuals wake up every morning into a world of "can't do". Those "can'ts" are inspired by social barriers and implied restrictions.
Physically handicapped individuals have a tough time going door-to-door. Many times they cannot physically get through the employer's door. This is one area in this particularly difficult problem where I think we have made progress. It has been encouraging for me to note in recent years that changes in building codes require all public buildings to provide access ramps and other facilities for the handicapped. Even if that individual can get through the door, Mr. Speaker, he must still overcome the invisible barriers of prejudice and fear. This is another unfortunate aspect of this problem. However, many times when 1 have spoken with employers who have hired physically handicapped people I have noticed, almost without exception, that their efforts have been rewarded. However, Mr. Speaker, that is not enough. Where prejudice and fear remain there will continue to be a tremendous waste of potential.
1 believe that Bill C-62 will help to change this situation. No longer will employers be able to hide from the problem by denying its existence. They will now have to implement equity and demonstrate its implementation by reporting on the results. Now they will have to explain what they are doing about hiring disabled individuals as well as women, native people and members of visible minorities. However, 1 think it is important that the Government not lean over employers' shoulders and say that they must hire target groups whether or not they are qualified. There are no quotas here. Too often when quotas have been implemented they have represented a ceiling for the employment of minority groups. Rather, the data which employers must provide in their annual equity reports will provide a bench mark, a public comparison of employment equity performance. Consumers and Government agencies, for example, will know if a business is pulling its weight or is just sloughing off its responsibilities.
As Bill C-62 is aimed at larger businesses, often with a high public profile, a poor equity report is, at the very least, embarrassing. More important, the Human Rights Commission is now going to be able to look for evidence of discrimination and will be able to use its power to initiate investigations. No longer will reliance be placed solely on idividuals or groups to file complaints.
Why should only larger businesses with 100 or more employees be involved? Why rely on the Human Rights
Time Allocation
Commission to assess the report data and decide on enforcement under its human rights mandate? The answer is simple. Canadians hate bureaucracy, Mr. Speaker. 1 know that some of my friends in the Liberal and New Democratic Parties love bureaucracies, but 1 think most Canadians hate them. I hear some of my friends insisting that they probably invented bureaucracy. I am not going to quarrel with their interpretation of history.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, while adhering to the reporting requirement will cost larger firms less than $2 per employee, the administrative burden on smaller enterprises could be unreasonable and unworkable. Unlike my hon. friends beside me, we certainly do not want an army of equity police descending on Canada's employers. Nor do we want to spend more of our tax dollars on bureaucrats' salaries, when the money could be better used to create real jobs. Therefore, the message to the employers of this country is simple. Either clean up your act or we will be prepared to act further. Clean up your act and do it now.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has already indicated to the House that she will see to it that the Human Rights Commission will be provided with the additional resources to ensure that employment equity gets proper attention. Fortunately, the commission is already well equipped with administrative and staff resources to handle equity cases. It is a practical and efficient way to run the Government and meet the needs to target group members.
Let me conclude by making some basic observations. Our Government in the first in Canada's history to go beyond rhetoric and false promises. It goes beyong the bull-headed claims and stonewalling of the NDP and Liberals. It is the first Government to actually implement employment equity legislation.
It took courage to bring this Bill before Parliament. Many vested interests would prefer not to see it happen. My colleagues in the Liberal and New Democratic Parties are part of those interests who do not want to see it happen. However, for the disabled individuals, women, native people and members of visible minority groups, this Bill offers hope and promise. That promise is extended to all Canadians who will be able to learn what these individuals can do.
I think Bill C-62 is a courageous and exciting piece of legislation. It is an historic place of legislation and it is time that it became the law of the land.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson) stated that the approach of the Conservatives to matters like enforcement was to trust the business community to look after itself and respect the ideals set out by Parliament in legislation such as Bill C-62. I find that a particularly interesting comment coming from a Member from Niagara Falls. It should give the constituents of Niagara Falls cause for some concern not only about their present Member but about previous Members who

November 18, 1985
Time Allocation
obviously took that attitude about the industrial community which we now know has been responsible for the pollution of the Niagara River system and indeed of the Great Lakes for many years. What happened as a result of the trust that was placed in the business community with respect to their regard for the environment? At that time it was argued that those who wanted to enforce environmental regulations on those industries were people who had a passion for bureaucracy and did not take a proper attitude toward the business community which should have been trusted to do what was right. That kind of trusting attitude has been responsible for many of the problems that we now find with respect to the environment and many other issues.
People do not talk about enforcement because of a passion for bureaucracy. It is a realistic assessment of how businesses tend to operate in their own short-term self-interest. Very rarely do business do anything other than act in those interests.
Therefore, those of us who complain about the lack of enforcement mechanisms in this Bill are not arguing in favour of bureaucracy but that some kind of enforcement mechanism is necessary in order to achieve the goals that have been set out in this Bill. These mechanisms must be efficient and need not be bureaucratic in the pejorative sense of the word.
With respect to this debate, there is nothing like a closure debate to bring out the incredible hypocrisy and double standard which so often plagues the image of Parliament. The Liberals, now in opposition, complain about the horrible and undemocratic use of closure. They say that the Government does not want to hear debate. On the other hand, the Government is repeating what the Liberals used to say, that people who are against closure are against the Bill. The Member for Niagara Falls said that the Liberals and the NDP do not want advancement for women, native people and others affected by this Bill. It is the same routine over again except that the players have changed.


Mr. Edwards:: You have stayed where you are.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Yes, indeed. The Hon. Member says that we have not changed. That is true. I would not want to change from maintaining a critical attitude toward this kind of charade that happens every time there is a closure motion.
Eventually we must stop this charade and come to an agreement in the House about how to manage the time of the House and its legislative calendar. Anything would be an improvement to this charade that takes place every time there is a a closure motion before the House. Surely it does not increase the respect for the House of Commons held by those who pay attention to what goes on here. Therefore, I suggest that not only in this instance but in other areas of concern to the House, there should be careful study of how we manage our time.
One of the more pressing problems is how to manage our committee time. In that context, let me comment on the need for some time management in the functioning of legislative committees. I was a member of the committee which recommended the establishment of the legislative committee. As a member of that committee, I am concerned about the proliferation of legislative committees-


Mr. Mazankowski:: You are responsible for it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) says that I am responsible-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Partly responsible.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It was an all-Party committee. I believe that some recommendations have not been implemented as we wanted. I am trying to clear that up. The Minister should listen, if he wants to see it work.
For instance, legislative committees have been established when we do not yet have the smaller standing committees that were recommended by the committee. The workload in proportion to the number of members involved in the committees is larger than the reform committee envisaged. Furthermore, there are many more legislative committees than we envisaged sitting at the same time. Perhaps we should have been more explicit in our report. We thought that common sense would dictate that there would be a limit on the amount of committees sitting at one time rather than having an endless number of legislative committees sitting at the same time. I believe this causes an unnecessary strain on the good concept of a legislative committee.
I realize that we are debating a closure motion, but behind every debate on closure is the larger question of the management of the time of the House of Commons. I believe we must develop a different attitude toward how we manage the time of the House and committees. We must find a solution to the strain being put on Members, individually and collectively as caucuses. We must also find a solution to the strain on reform as a result of the proliferation of legislation committees. In that respect, I hope the Government will allow a debate on its response to the committee's recommendations to take place in the House so that Members can be heard before an agreement on the next stage of reform takes place. I think it is very important that the House have an opportunity to debate those recommendations. I regret we have not yet seen that. I tried to ask the Government House Leader a question about it the other day, but I was ruled out of order.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, if we do not get that debate soon, I say to you, and through you to other Members, that I will move concurrence in the committee's report and then we will have debate if that is what it takes to get an opportunity for Members to comment on the final recommendations of the Reform Committee and the Government's response to the recommedations. That is what I will do if that is what it takes and I say quite openly that I used this opportunity to make a few points that I think needed to be made about the present state of affairs with respect to parliamentary reform and about the question of the management of our time in general.
November 18, 1985


Mrs. Monique Landry (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the time has come to end the debate on second reading of Bill C-62, the legislation on employment equity, otherwise the public might start thinking that South Africa's philosophy has rubbed off on this Parliament.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, discriminatory measures, although usually not intentional, are preventing many members of target groups from enjoying the same advantages as other citizens with respect to recruitment, promotion and remuneration.
We must act to change this situation. We must take action to guarantee their rights: the rights of women, native peoples, the handicapped and members of minority groups. We must take action to ensure that women have equal access to jobs on the labour market.
We must take action for the benefit of native peoples, so that our position internationally with respect to various aboriginal peoples is not used against us and we are not made out to be hypocritical in the extreme.
We must act to help the handicapped, since during the International Year of the Handicapped, we recognized that they have the same rights and privileges as other citizens, and it is therefore essential to take appropriate action to guarantee those rights.
We must act to help members of visible minorities and ensure their full participation in the economic, social and cultural life of this country.
Mr. Speaker, it would therefore be in order to question the motives of some individuals and groups in criticizing this legislation. Some people claim that their hesitation in embracing the intent of this legislation is due to a lack of information, but this is hardly a convincing argument because of the abundant literature available on the subject.
I would like to add that that literature must be read with the requisite objectivity, because there will always be those whose minds are so narrow they will object to fundamental principles such as those that guide this Government.
Individuals or groups who object on economic grounds should be reminded that they are taking a very short view of the situation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the amount to be spent on setting up equity measures is only a drop in the bucket, if we consider the amounts we would have to invest in the future to remedy a situation caused by our neglect. How many billions of dollars will have to be spent on assistance for women, native peoples, the handicapped and members of visible minorities if we do not give them the opportunity to become active participants in this country's economy?
Mr. Speaker, I am thinking of those who are using dilatory tactics to reduce the impact of this legislation or to get rid of it altogether. They will have to take the responsibility for their actions. It is intolerable that in a society that calls itself
Time Allocation
civilized, we should doom a very large part of the population to being second-class citizens or ignore their rights altogether.
And there are those who will claim that we are doing this for purely political purposes. That is not so. We could indeed have delayed our response to the Abella Report recommendations, saving it as icing for a cake for the end of our mandate. Quite the opposite, we wasted no time reacting to the proposals in that report, we introduced a legislative measure, Bill C-62.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, their objections do not hold. What is needed now is that we get out of our lethargy, get rid of our prejudices and act. I referred earlier to South Africa. I will now have a few word on the historical situation of our southern neighbours. After the war in the middle of the 19th century, many generations had to come and go before they could take corrective measures against discrimination. Fortunately, this country did not have to go through that kind of war.
However, because of our peaceful nature and situation, we came to think this was paradise. Regretful as it may be, paradise this is not. We have been practicing various forms of discrimination, more often than not in an unconcious, unintentional way. Some will say they have nothing to do with it, not being at the root of these problems, and not supporting them in any way. But this is a social problem, Mr. Speaker, and we are all involved. Whether by our awareness or through our decisions, we can and must act.
We can act, Mr. Speaker, and we, as a Government, have decided to introduce a bill that will be the starting point of a major movement at the national level to fill gaps that have been plaguing this country for too long, and which we can no longer tolerate.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, I feel the time has come to put an end to these discussions, otherwise we will be showing contempt for Canada's people and institutions.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the rules of the House preclude me from calling any Member in this House a hypocrite, but the rules do not preclude me from calling this Government a hypocritical Government. There is no question, and there is ample evidence for any Canadian to conclude, that this Government is hypocritical. The Conservative Government has mastered the art of hypocrisy.
We are debating a motion by the Government to limit debate with respect to Bill C-62 dealing with employment equity. When that Party was on this side of the House, time and time again it argued against closure. The Conservatives said it was undemocratic and that the Opposition should be given as much opportunity as possible within reason to debate a piece of legislation. They said it was wrong to cut debate and

November 18, 1985
Time Allocation
have the guillotine fall. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) when she was in Opposition spoke out very vigorously on that subject matter. Now the same Minister today has moved the motion to cut off debate to stifle any further debate on Bill C-62.
There comes a time when Parliament must have the authority to limit debate, because a Government has the mandate of the people. In order for the House to continue to operate efficiently, there comes a time when enough is enough and matters should proceed to the next logical step.
Concerning this legislation, which is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have discussed this far, we note that debate has been limited to five days. One can hardly argue that the Opposition is obstructing the passage of this legislation. After five days of debate, the Government decides that it has had enough. That would lead one to question why. Why is the Government invoking closure in respect of this extremely important piece of legislation?
I will try to answer that question in the few precious moments I have to speak today. It appears obvious to me-and I think it is obvious to Canadians-that the Government is embarrassed by Bill C-62. It is embarrassed because it realizes that the Bill is seriously flawed. The Government is embarrassed because, even though the Bill is seriously flawed, there are a lot of Conservatives who disagree fundamentally with Bill C-62.
I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that in 1982, at a policy convention of the Conservative Party of Canada, 75 per cent of the delegates felt that women were not entitled to special employment programs. That is where the Conservative Party is at when it comes to employment equity or employment fairness. That is where the Conservative Government is at when it comes to justice in the workplace. That is one of the reasons it is cutting off debate. The Conservatives are embarrassed about this piece of legislation. They know that the longer the debate lasts, the more embarrassed they will become.
The Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) are now considering prorouging the House in December. They are considering adjourning the House for two months. Is that responsible action? Is that evidence of hypocrisy? I would submit that it is. Today they are telling us that there is other business which has to be attended to, important business facing the nation, and therefore we have to get this piece of legislation through the House of Commons. That is what they are telling us, yet they are considering adjourning the House for two months in order to give Conservative Members a holiday.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: The Government is without direction. It is without vision. It is adrift. It knows not where it is going. It is bankrupt and has nothing further to do, so it is planning on adjourning the House for two months. Yet, it does not have the
time to give this particular piece of legislation adequate consideration.
Canadians wonder about where the Government is at in respect of hypocrisy, sincerity and integrity. The last year has provided us with an abundance of evidence in respect of the integrity and credibility of the Government. During the last election campaign in the summer of 1984, the Conservatives conned the women of Canada, aboriginal groups and the disabled. They promised the people of Canada, including the visible minorities, that they would bring in effective legislation.
I note that my time is up. It is unfortunate, but it is the result of the motion which the Minister presented today. Had I had the opportunity, I would have continued to speak about the pitfalls and inadequacies of this particular piece of legislation. I cannot because you are about to cut me off, Mr. Speaker. That is closure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 1.04 p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 84 have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of this Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.

Accordingly, the question is the following one. Miss MacDonald, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that, in relation to Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill; and that 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of Government business on the above-mentioned sitting day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment. It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. It being past 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.28 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2.00 p.m.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the Federal-Provincial Conference on Tourism will open
tomorrow in Vancouver. A month ago, representatives of the tourist industry met to convey their concerns to the federal and provincial ministers. They raised on several occasions the issue of overtaxation. They insisted that government-levied taxes made the Canadian industry less and less competitive.
Mr. Robert DeGrace, President of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, stated, and I quote:

At this conference, I have heard that cost is not a significant competitive factor. I want to tell you that it is, Mr. Minister. When are we going to look at the tax structures in Canada and their impact on the price of tourism services.
[ Translation]
This testimony clearly demonstrates that the Conservative Government and the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. Murta) are not paying attention to the serious problem the overtaxation is creating for our industry.
In Canada, for instance, gas costs 30 per cent more than in the United States and the Canadian Government is collecting on a bottle of alcohol three times as much taxes as its American counterpart.
That is the reason why the deficit of the tourist industry has increased by 5.1 per cent over the first six months of this year compared with last year. The industry feels that the Government did not get the message and I hope that the-


Mr. Speaker:: I must regretfully advise the Hon. Member that the time allotted to him has expired.
* [DOT] *



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put on notice the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), and the Commissioner of the RCMP concerning the urgent necessity of a federal investigation into this weekend's allegations by the former Ombudsman of British Columbia. Dr. Karl Friedmann has publicly revealed that a B.C. cabinet Minister authorized Government employees in British Columbia to break and enter the warehouse of a company in B.C. and remove 16 tons of files. Dr. Friedmann states that he spent nine months fighting the chief law enforcement agency of the Province, the Ministry of the Attorney General, in his efforts to have criminal charges proceeded with. Dr. Friedmann was not successful.
Since this matter strikes to the very heart of the criminal justice system in Canada, I believe the Solicitor General, the Minister of Justice, and the Commissioner of the RCMP have a moral and legal responsibility to uphold the laws of Canada to investigate, charge, and arrest all of those involved, including the Cabinet Minister who authorized these criminal activities.

November 18, 1985
1 am confident that all Members of the House wish to see this matter brought before the courts. I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to state that outside the Chamber today. The Criminal Code applies to all Canadians-including Cabinet Ministers.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, thousands of miles to the west a major confrontation has emerged between the loggers and native Indians of South Moresby, particularly on Lyell Island. This region contains several areas of high ecological and anthropological importance. As well, the forest industry there provides jobs, local services, and a way of life to many citizens of my home province. It is my view, and the view of many of my constituents, that the best land use is an intelligent, multi-use approach which will meet the needs of many, as opposed to a single use concept which will favour the few.
The economy of our province needs every job we can hang on to, and jobs are definitely at stake in the South Moresby issue. Everyone involved agrees on one thing-there is no opposition to the creation of some sort of wilderness area or park over the vast majority of these islands; but the same people who would object strongly to the flooding of a portion of B.C. farmland see no problem in removing a portion of the allowable cut which provides hundres of jobs.
The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) has advocated civil disobedience on this issue. The provincial Leader of the New Democratic Party has said that he is ashamed to be a British Columbian. I am proud to be a British Columbian. Those who live and work in the shadow of the tall timber do not view trees as two-by-fours with twigs. They respect the ecological balance of the forest. They have a right to share in that resource with all British Columbians.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS RECENT CONCLUSION OF AGREEMENT WITH QUEBEC

Mr. Fernand Ladouceur (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, today 1 would be pleased if all the Members of this House could demonstrate as I do how proud they are of belonging to a Government which once again has shown Canadians that it is willing to make this country rich in similarities and differences into a prosperous nation.
On November 8 last, our Government and the Quebec Government reached a historic agreement providing for the
formal recognition of Quebec and its right to exercise its powers at the international level.
In September 1984, Canadians elected a Government which was to assure at the level of federal-provincial relations, a return to the full mutual respect of rights and aspirations. The theme of national reconciliation meant that our Government was ready to re-establish contact, to renew relations which had eroded with the passage of time and a Government clinging to power.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement is to some extent a peace treaty bringing to an end close to twenty years of flag swapping on the international scene and this thanks to the efforts made by this Government.
This agreement will hear witness in the coming years to an enlightened vision and a better understanding of the legitimate aspirations that make up the Canadian mosaic.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the issue I raise today is not a partisan issue. It is one that I know every Member will support. The issue concerns saving the lives of those Canadians who make their living from the sea.
The Royal Commission on the Ocean Ranger disaster was emphatic on the need for modern helicopters using the latest technology for search and rescue duties on the East Coast. In 1984 the Government decided that occasionally moving one helicopter from Gander to St. John's, Newfoundland, fulfilled its obligation to improve search and rescue techniques. That was not what the Royal Commission recommended. Far from it. The commission emphasized the need for full-time helicopter facilities to be established in St. John's, and that the search and rescue helicopters be the most modern available. It also strongly suggested that they be placed not only in St. John's but also in Halifax and near the Labrador sea when offshore drilling activity is taking place.
Even more disturbing to Members on both sides of this House is the Government's lack of public commitment to replace the Labrador/Voyageur helicopters, now in place for nearly 30 years, with more up-to-date equipment. Helicopters which are faster, have greater range, and a capability of flying in the different types of weather which bring about marine emergencies are available. Canadians who put their lives at risk in order to harness the resources of the sea deserve nothing less than the maximum protection available. Minutes means lives when there is an emergency at sea. The Governments of-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.
November 18, 1985



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the leaders of the two most powerful nations on earth meet in Geneva. I am sure I speak for all of us in this House, indeed for all Canadians, in wishing them well. There has been no meeting at the summit for six years. These have been six years of increasing danger, tension, and rising public fears. We can only welcome without reservation this vitally important summit and urge a continuation of such meetings on a regular basis.
Both President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev have said that there is an urgent need both to prevent an arms race in space and end the arms race on earth. These must be Geneva's paramount goals. We have learned from a CBC poll that one-third of Canadians fear a nuclear war in the coming decade. Half of all Canadians recognize the nuclear arms race as the greatest threat to world peace and Canada's security.
Most Canadians have high hopes that this summit will improve superpower relations. These views are neither naive nor moralistic. They are opinions based on our history of active internationalism, problem solving, and opposition to nuclear proliferation. The Government of Canada should feel secure in the guarantee of public support for initiatives this country might take in easing tensions and ending the arms race. We do have a role in the sombre affairs of Geneva. It is our fate and our future that are at stake. Let us sincerely hope that the leaders will leave Geneva having taken a giant step back from the nuclear abyss.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, it appears that both the public and private sector agree that the economic indicators continue to move in a very positive direction. I refer to two sets of statistics released last week, one from StasCan and one from the independently funded Conference Board of Canada.
The Conference Board's September survey shows that consumer confidence in Canada is up 20 per cent since March of this year. Significantly, one of the factors contributing to the rise in consumer confidence is the increase in the number of Canadians who expect jobs to increase in the next six months. Canadians will not go out and spend large sums of money on so-called luxury items if they are afraid of losing their jobs or that inflation will eat up their income. Confidence in the
economy means that Canadians have confidence in the economic policies of the Government.
The StatsCan figures also prove that our Government's economic policies are working. Retail business in September was up 11 per cent over the same period in 1984. Inflation rates remain in the four per cent range, and unemployment continues to drop. Housing starts for October were up 49 per cent over October, 1984, while bankruptcies dropped 12 per cent. In my province of Saskatchewan 27 per cent more oil and gas wells were drilled in the past 10 months of this year than in the same period in 1984. Business investment intentions are 12 per cent higher than last year.
I could quote many more figures to prove what Canadians all know. The Government's economic policies are working. That is good news for all of us.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on November 18, 1918, Latvia became an independent democratic nation. Latvia lost that treasured status in 1940 when the Soviet Union occupied this small Baltic country. Freedom has always been an important aspect of Latvian life. In the 1890s the first Latvians to arrive in Canada were refugees from Czarist Russia. In 1945 Latvians were fleeing the ravages of two occupiers, the Nazis and the Soviets. Both waves of immigrants from Latvia contributed to the growth and development of our country and both shared the common aspiration of living in a free country.
At times, Mr. Speaker, we take for granted the very special freedoms we enjoy as Canadians. It is through the historical experience of many nationalities which came to Canadian shores in search of safe haven that we can be reminded of our good fortune as Canadians.
November 18 is a special day of commemoration for Latvians in Canada. Let us join with them in marking this day as one of special significance for all who value freedom and the pursuit of liberty.



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DECISION ON THIRD SASKATCHEWAN TELEVISION NETWORK

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Saskatchewan have again been relegated to third class citizenship. They were the last to get CTV, the last to get cable services, and there is still no cable service, in rural Saskatchewan. Now their hope to have a third TV service, like the rest of Canada, is in jeopardy.

November 18, 1985
Aside from the dangerous precedent set by the Government catering to powerful Tory lobbyists and interfering in a CRTC licensing decision, there may be a serious breach of rights involved. Surely the Charter of Rights did not envisage this kind of political dictatorship, this kind of state intervention, this potential control of the mind. The Cabinet took a decision involving the rights of the people of Saskatchewan, involving the right of all of us to full freedom of speech and access to information.
The actions taken by Cabinet fly in the face of everything the Government said in its attempt to get Bill C-20 passed. The promise then, of course, was that there would be no interference in individual grants of licences when Cabinet addressed broad communications policy. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Government will now clearly see the implications of what has been done here and will rescind the order to the CRTC. Je I'espere au moins.



LOUIS RIEL


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago last Saturday, November 16, Louis Riel was hanged at Regina after being convicted of high treason. Since then the merits of that hanging have been debated in the hallowed halls of universities, churches, and cultural centres across Canada. Over the past 100 years Riel has been retried thousands of times and has been pardoned as many times as he has been hanged. Many of my constituents in Selkirk-Interlake can trace their ancestry back to the Manitoba Metis settlements of the 1860s and 1870s.
Louis Riel had seen the need to form a provisional Government at Red River, and on February 10, 1870 was legally elected President of a council later called the Legislative Assembly of Assiniboia. Many of the inhabitants of the Red River area had envisaged a new province of Assiniboia entering into Confederation with Canada. Being closer to the action than was Sir John A. Macdonald, the Prime Minister at the time, Louis Riel and the Metis could see the reality of a nation stretching from sea to sea, while Macdonald could still only dream about it.
Riel's actions at Assiniboia in 1870 forced Canada to accept the Province of Manitoba into Confederation, probably much sooner than the Macdonald Government had wished. If we cannot call him a Father of Confederation then we should at least call him a great motivator for Manitoba to join Confederation. One hundred years ago he suffered-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 regret to advise the Member that his time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment and, in his absence, to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. However, under the circumstances, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
On South Moresby Island in the Queen Charlottes we have a priceless natural treasure which is being affected by indiscriminate logging. The Minister of the Environment has given an undertaking that his Government will move with the Province of British Columbia toward establishing a national park on South Moresby Island. Has his Government been in touch with the Government of British Columbia? Was it informed of the provincial Government's decision to allow the continuance of logging on Lyell Island? What position will the Prime Minister take in order to protect a priceless heritage?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr
Speaker, might I ask the Leader of the Opposition to repeat his question?


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary question.


Mr. Gauthier:: It is not a supplementary. It is a repeat.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment concerning the decision of the provincial Government of British Columbia to allow the continuance of logging on Lyell Island, affecting the priceless heritage of primeval forest on South Moresby. Was the Minister of the Environment informed by the provincial Government of that decision? Has he been in touch with that Government What position does he intend to take on behalf of the people of Canada?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition and the House for being late.
I cannot recall having been advised in advance by the Government of British Columbia of its decision to allow logging on Lyell Island. I learned about it almost at the same time as everyone else.
In response to the other part of his question, I have said in the House, and outside the House, that the Government of Canada would be very predisposed toward pursuing with the Government of British Columbia every possible route-purchasing some of the timber rights of Western Forest Products Limited, for example-for the purpose of expediting the establishment of a national park in South Moresby and of bringing the unfortunate discord between the Haida Indians and that company to an end. However, the prior decision would have to
November 18, 1985

be made by the Government of British Columbia because the land in question is British Columbia Crown land.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PROTEST PROVINCE'S ACTION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, while recognizing the interests of the province over that land and the forest management licences that are attached to that land, would the Minister not reflect what I believe is the opinion of a vast majority of people in this country, that while indiscriminate logging proceeds on South Moresby we are losing a priceless treasure in a primeval forest that can never be replaced, and on behalf of this Parliament protest to the Government of British Columbia about this unilateral action?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the position of the Government of Canada on the subject is at all unclear. We have said that we favour the establishment of a national park in South Moresby. There is some question as to whether the entire island area should be included in such a park or whether some part of the island area should be so designated. In any event, let it be clear that we are in favour of the establishment of a national park.
We have tried to use every possible moral suasion on the Government of British Columbia for that purpose. However, the decision rests first and foremost with the Government of British Columbia. I do not believe the Right Hon. gentleman or anyone else in the House would wish us to act unilaterally. Nor could we.


INTERESTS OF HAIDA INDIANS
John Napier Turner: The
Minister is not talking as tough as he did when he was out in Banff. Nor is he talking as tough as he did when he visited the islands.
I want to put a further question to the Minister. He recognizes that the Queen Charlottes are the ancestral home of the Haida people. He knows that the Haida people are now outraged at the fact that these lands are being despoiled by indiscriminate logging.
While I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there can be an accommodation made with the logging industry, will the Minister consult with his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and assure the House that the interests of the Haida people are being actively considered and, so far as this jurisdiction is concerned, will be paramount in those negotiations?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I am not as interested in toughness as I am in effectiveness.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Thomas Michael McMillan: 1 operate on the assumption that all Parties concerned share an element of good will. There does seem to be a broadly based consensus that there should be some sort of park, whether national or provincial. That is my over-all objective and I am just as committed to it now as I was in Banff and when I visited South Moresby some weeks ago. In connection with that goal, Mr. Speaker, I did meet with Miles Richardson and his band council representing the Haida people, and gave to him and to his people, on behalf of my Department and the Government of Canada, a firm commitment to take their interests fully into account.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DECISION ON THIRD SASKATCHEWAN TELEVISION NETWORK
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, for the first time in Canadian history the Cabinet has set a very dangerous precedent in overturning a well researched and carefully considered decision by the CRTC on the establishment of a third television channel for Saskatchewan.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the television, broadcasting, and radio people if he plans that Cabinet handle all their demands for licence renewal when they know now that they no longer have to accept a decision by an independent CRTC?
[ Translation]


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, concerning the decision to ask the CRTC to reconsider a number of contents, I would point out to the Hon. Member that it was done at the unanimous request of all Saskatchewan residents, and particularly of all Members of Parliament from that province. We thought that, given the request and certain inaccuracies in CRTC market surveys and a number of other considerations, it would be wiser to . . . I would remind the Hon. Member that the main purpose is to seek additional information, not to reconsider the ruling. Under the circumstances, I think that province-wide representations did warrant our request for additional information.


INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO CABINET
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I find it regrettable that the Prime Minister cannot answer for his own cabinet decisions.


An Hon. Member:: He is still in Florida.


Sheila Finestone: As the Acting Minister of Communications stated not very long ago, Cabinet is only going to set major policy directives and is not going to interfere in individual licensing, and I refresh his memory in that regard, I Find it

November 18, 1985
Oral Questions
rather curious that members of the Cabinet are in a position to
do-


An Hon. Member:: Question.


An Hon. Member:: That is not a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sheila Finestone: My question to the Acting Minister then is this. What new information did the Cabinet receive that was not available to the CRTC, that independent licensing body, that made it change its mind?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Hon. Member, but she misunderstood me. I said we had asked the CRTC to look into some of the provisions of the license they issued. That being so, I repeat that seeking more information on the issuance of a license does not constitute a challenge on the issuance per se nor a request for a ruling review. That is all.
As Minister and Member of Parliament I have to make the necessary inquiries, and 1 fail to see in that a breach of the law on the independence of public boards.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and, I believe, only he can answer it. As the Prime Minister is fully aware, the Government of Canada has accepted for legal negotiation the claim for aboriginal title to the Queen Charlotte Islands by the Haida people. I am sure he is aware that in recent days an extremely grave situation is evolving there. In the interest of bringing peace to a confrontation which presently has no solution, will the Prime Minister make use of his good offices today to open negotiations with the Haida people on their claim?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a possibility, at least, of interpreting the question to mean that there have not been negotiations between the Government of Canada and the Haida people. That is distinctly not the case. I myself met with the Haida Indians for almost half a day. I tourned the South Moresby area for a full day, with some Haida people present. My colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs, has been out to the Queen Charlotte Islands for the same purpose. We will continue to work with Miles Richardson and his people in a spirit of openness and commitment to resolve the problem.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is really crucial. The Government of Canada has accepted the legal documents of the Council of the Haida Nation for negotiation. They are with the Government, and the Government has the power to open negotiations with the Haida people. A grave situation is occurring on Lyell Island. It is a confrontation which is very dangerous. I plead with the Prime Minister to offer, today in the House, a signal to British Columbia that he is prepared to open those negotiations. It would be simply the to open those negotiations. The Haida people plead for that. All the people of the country plead with the Prime Minister to start that today.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, when I met with the Haida people I put to them the possibility that the Ellesmere Island formula be followed in connection with South Moresby-the establishment of a national park reserve which might involved setting aside, for the moment, some of the outstanding questions that the Haida people have raised with the Government of Canada, as a means of getting on with the establishment of a national park in South Moresby. All the while the federal Government would pursue the commitment to honour the interests of the Haida people, with every possible consideration being given to acting in favour of them.


NEGOTIATION OF LEGAL TITLE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I go to the Prime Minister again. This is a very serious situation. The Premier of British Columbia is saying that there are no aboriginal rights in British Columbia. It is in the Constitution. The Premier of British Columbia signed that document. There is an absolute stalemate between the Supreme Court of B.C. and the Lyell Island issue. I plead with the Prime Minister. Will he rise in the Chamber today, as I think he must as the Prime Minister, and offer to open negotiations on the legal aboriginal title of the Haida people the Queen Charlotte Islands?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker-


Ms. Copps:: Oh, come on.


Mr. Waddell:: All you care about is Quebec, Brian.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is only Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think Hon. Members know that some language should not be used in this Chamber.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you noticed, as have other Members of the House, that the third question was exactly the same as the second, and that the second was
November 18, 1985

Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
[Stage Direction]
exactly the same as the first. I have said that the Government of Canada has been negotiating with the Haida people. I, myself, have met with them. My colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs, has met with them, and we intend to meet with them again. Those negotiations have been opened and they are flowing well. I have not received any indication from the Haida people that they are disgruntled about the performance of the Ministers of the Crown in that respect.

Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As a result of a poll commissioned by his own Government, which identified arms control as the absolute priority on the minds of Canadians, has the Prime Minister informed President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev that arms control at the Geneva talks must take precedence on the agenda over any discussion about bilateral or regional conflicts or, indeed, any other issue? If he has not made this clear, why hasn't he?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have made precisely that point clear to President Reagan and in correspondence with General Secretary Gorbachev.


SPACE WEAPONRY
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. This past September the Prime Minister gave Canadians assurances that Canada would not become involved on a direct Government to government basis with the Strategic Defence Initiative. Will the Prime Minister now assure Canadians that a renewed NORAD agreement will not be used to enter into a hidden Canadian-American effort of co-operation in the Strategic Defence Initiative?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: As the defence critic for the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member should know better than to ask that question. He knows as well as I that the two questions are quite distinct. The press release of the Prime Minister with respect to SDI still stands intact as being the policy of the Government. With respect to the NORAD agreement, the Hon. Member knows that that matter is currently being considered in committee. Hopefully, it will come back to Parliament with the proper conclusions.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-RETENTION OF COMPANY DIRECTORSHIPS BY CANADIAN NEGOTIATOR
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister recently appointed Simon Reisman to be Canada's chief neog-tiator in our free trade negotiations with the United States. He is well aware that Mr. Reisman is a director of two companies which have a direct stake in the negotiations. Will the Prime Minister confirm that Mr. Reisman was retained, knowing that he wished to retain his ongoing relationship with the Western group and the Bombardier group?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Reisman was retained on a temporary part-time basis as we got into it. He is going to be conducting the necessary work of putting together his team, and if the signal comes from the other side in regard to negotiations which will require a full-time commitment, then obviously he will do what he has always done, conduct himself in the appropriate manner.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is well aware that Category "B" of his own conflict of interest guidelines states that part-time office holders, which presumably Mr. Reisman will be, are allowed to hold directorships but must take care to avoid being placed, or the appearance of being placed under an obligation to any person or organization which might profit from special consideration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is simply this. Knowing what the guidelines under Category "B" state, did the Prime Minister not consciously break his own guidelines by appointing Mr. Reisman?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, not at
all, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be generally acknowledged that Mr. Reisman has always represented this country with honour and will continue to do so.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. It has to do with the St. Clair River which, the Minister knows, is an international body of water and we are responsible for its purity under the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Because of our commitment under that Agreement, can the Minister tell us what kind of controls he intends to promote jointly with the Province of Ontario in order to control the

November 18, 1985
Oral Questions
industrial pollution which takes place daily, so as to protect the quality of the water of the St. Clair River in the future in the interests of the health of millions of Canadians and Americans?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will appreciate, because of the fact we have an urgent and immediate problem, I am placing priority on the identification of the substances found to contain some highly toxic chemicals. My Department is working hand-in-glove with the Department of the Environment of Ontario and with Dow Chemicals, in particular, to clean up the so-called tarry blob, to have it analysed, and to see if we can identify where the substance came from. That will be our priority.
If, as a result of that particular inquiry, we determine that the offending substances are continuing to be leaked into the St. Clair River, say, from disposal sites or caverns, then we will be putting our heads together to see how best to deal with the problem both domestically and internationally.


PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY FUND
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister, as a supplementary question, whether in view of the fact that the Ontario Government has established an environmental security fund of some $10 million per year he is prepared to commit himself today to matching or giving a similar amount of money in order to clean up the dangerous waste sites on the Canadian side of the river which have so far been left untouched?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I assume from the way the question was expressed that the Hon. Member was contemplating the possibility of a federal-provincial super fund, like that which exists in the United States, for Ontario alone. If such is the case, and it seems to be because the Hon. Member talked about matching federal-provincial funding, I would, first, have to have a specific proposal from the Government of Ontario. I have yet to receive a proposal.


ORIGIN OF DIOXIN
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. Ten days ago the Minister stated that he expected the interim report on the St. Clair River dioxin discovery to be in his hands today. Could the Minister tell the House if that report supports his own fears that high dioxin concentrations have resulted from leakage from past disposal sites in the area?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of the Hon. Member's question, the answer is, yes, I have received the report. In fact I received it only moments before Question Period, thus my reason for being late.
With respect to the second part of the Hon. Member's question, I have just received the report and I have not yet had a chance to do more than peruse it. However, I am told by my scientists that it is an interim report only. There is nothing more anathema to science than incompleteness. I think that until we receive the full report in a few weeks we will not know the answer to the Hon. Member's question.
I can say, however, that there is genuine concern that the substances may be continuing to be leaked into the river from old disposal sites. Whether that is in fact the case or whether the substances have been discharged directly by the industries in question, we do not know and will not know for some days yet.


PROPOSED DRILLING PROGRAM
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, given that some of the scientists within the Department itself have suggested that extensive drilling is required to answer this question conclusively, would the Minister be prepared to authorize at this stage, before the cold weather, this kind of extensive drilling program to see that we get answers to this problem as quickly as possible? The drilling is in addition to the river test presently taking place.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, not being a scientist I cannot respond in the House to the question of whether or not the best approach to be taken is one of drilling. I can simply say that we have mobilized the best team of scientists in the country and in the United States for this general purpose. I defer to the technicians, the scientists and the experts, as to how best to deal with the problem. If they determine that drilling is advisable, then I will certainly put some pressure on them to follow that route.


IMMIGRATION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. According to a Globe and Mail survey, the Department of Employment and Immigration does absolutely no follow-up on the investment projects of immigrant entrepreneurs. During the discussions on entrepreneurs in Parliamentary Committee, we have never been able to find out which follow-up procedures the Department applies. We now know the reason why: there are none. My question is this:
Is the Minister willing to take action immediately to prevent abuses by immigrant entrepreneurs?


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration) and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker,
November 18, 1985

I want to thank the Hon. Member for her question which gives me the opportunity to clarify what 1 believe is an important story but one which is misleading to the point of suggesting that somehow Canada is opening rather than tightening and arranging an appropriate security mechanism. We are concerned about the possibility of abuse at the same time as we are anxious to have entrepreneurial investment. Therefore we have taken a number of steps in order to ensure the appropriate security measures are in place.


REQUEST THAT ALLEGED ABUSES BE STOPPED
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister announced two weeks ago with a lot of hoopla that the Government was planning on doubling the quotas for this category of immigrants. Can the Minister guarantee today with as much hoopla that the number of abuses will not double also and that present abuses will stop immediately?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker,
I can assure the Hon. Member that we have not only undertaken a vigorous program around the world designed to indicate to those who are interested in investing in Canada that we wish to deal with them expeditiously; we have also set in motion a program whereby, rather than having to complete their involvement within five and a half months, it is now spread over two years, thus giving us a time frame in order to see that the appropriate checks are made. This will be shared not only by the federal but as well by the provincial authorities whose concurrence we must have.


INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will be aware that there has been a lot of concern about the continuing vacancies on the International Joint Commission. Does the Prime Minister anticipate filling those vacancies on the International Joint Commission in the very near future, and can he assure the House that when he does get around to filling those positions he will not fill one of them with Sterling Lyon, the former Leader of the Opposition and Premier of Manitoba?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we will be filling those positions very shortly and I certainly think it would be the opinion of all reasonable minded people in this House that, if we could attract people of the competence of Mr. Lyon to that kind of position, the Government would be well served.
Oral Questions


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the Prime Minister's commitment to the reviewing of appointments, I wonder if he could tell the House why he thinks it would be good to appoint someone who has a reputation for regarding all environmentalists as subversive-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this is hypothetical.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister tell us why in his view he might see it as wise to appoint someone-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The very verbs are hypothetical. The Hon. Member for York East.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. According to a recent news report, the M16 rifle that was ordered by the former Liberal Government for delivery to Canadian Forces in 1987 is now being phased out by the American Army because they are having difficulty hitting targets with that particular rifle. I wonder if the Minister can advise the House if the-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: You're giving us good targets.


Alan Redway: I wonder if the Minister could advise the House if the former Liberal Government made a mistake in ordering the Ml6, or is it that the Americans are just lousy shots?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, it pains me to have to defend the previous administration. However, in fact this model of the M16 rifle which we are now having manufactured in Kitchener is being and will be used by the United States Army until 1992. The United States Army is ordering another 500,000 of them and the U.S. Marines are ordering 230,000 of them. The armies of France, Great Britain, Italy, Australia, and New Zealand are also using this rifle. However, in answer to the Hon. Member's final question, yes, Canadian soldiers are better shots.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 18, 1985
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I would like to draw his attention to the tragic fact that job losses in Montreal are continuing to occur while the Government is doing very little in practice to stop this.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister why his Government missed a golden opportunity to stop the haemorrhage of job losses in Montreal East by not urging the Hyundai Company to locate its automobile plant in Eastern Montreal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, over 90,000 new jobs have been created in Quebec since the election of this Government. I would have thought that, as a Quebecer, the Hon. Member would congratulate the Government for having contributed to the establishment of such an important industry as the car industry in Quebec.


SIZE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PARTICIPATION
Jacques Guilbault: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about this participation by the Government of Canada. I wonder why it is that the announcement was made at a time when it seems that no Cabinet decision has yet been made as to the participation of the Canadian Government, as well as the nature and the extent of this participation.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that my friend is sorely mistaken. Last August 29, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion announced from Seoul in South Korea the intention of the industry to locate this plant in Canada and also said:

At the request of Hyundai, they are now focusing on several specific locations in Quebec.

This is what the Minister stated last August. The deal had therefore already been made.
Last November 8, I said during a press conference that, if aspects of various joint economic matters could help to create jobs, we would attempt to. . . I know that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East in Ontario does not like to hear good news for Canadian men and women.
However, the agreement announced last August is now becoming a reality which will benefit, in my opinion, the people of Quebec and Canada. These are good news and important news which have absolutely nothing to do with the holding of a provincial election. In any case, it was announced beforehand-


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. A Cape Breton owned potato chip company which would have created 50 jobs in Cape Breton is going to locate elsewhere because the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion not only failed to provide a timely decision but would not even reveal when a decision would be made. How can the Government seriously suggest that Cape Breton will be made the best place in Canada in which to invest when there is so little co-operation given by the Government to that end?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is way off.
I must state that the matter was submitted to me. At least a month has already passed since I gave an answer and made an offer to that applicant, and I am still waiting to know whether or not he will accept it.


ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing like shutting the door when the cows have already escaped. Let us try the question again. It has been six months since the Government wiped out 600 jobs in Cape Breton, so that the 150 jobs that have been announced are not really much of a record-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is there a supplementary question to the earlier question about the plan, please?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister at least tell the House when the Government will respond to the Cape Breton Advisory Committee which recommended that it will be necessary to have direct Government job creation in areas such as municipal and industrial infrastructure in order to create jobs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister and the Government, and in particular the Minister, have given a great deal of attention to this most important question of job creation on Cape Breton Island. I want to assure my hon. friend that we view this as a most serious obligation. We will fulfill our obligations to ensure that fairness and equality of opportunity and new opportunities come to the people of Cape Breton.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 18, 1985


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Many sections of the Young Offenders Act have left Canadians with a frustrated feeling with the justice system as it relates to their communities. Can the Minister indicate what specific changes are contemplated to the Young Offenders Act which are under discussion and will give Canadians a more positive feeling concerning the justice system and the laws of the country?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, we are presently looking at the whole range of issues relating to the Young Offenders Act. There are a series of consultations which we are undertaking with provincial Governments, representatives of the judiciary, Crown attorneys, lawyers, child welfare officials, and others. I might add that one of these consultations will be held in Vancouver this week. As a result of these regional representations I will be meeting with the provincial Attorneys General and Solicitors Genera! and will subsequently come back to Parliament with possible changes to the legislation. It is my hope that Parliament can make changes to the legislation which will ensure that the philosophy incorporated in the legislation is made to work, and work well, for Canadians.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Crown counsel!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF RIGHT HON. ROLAND MICHENER
Mr. Speaker:: 1 would like to interrupt the proceedings to signal the presence in our gallery today of one of Parliament's favourite people, the Right Hon. Roland Michener.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Jean-Claude Malépart: 1
have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It follows from the answer received by my colleague the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques concerning the Hyundai matter.
Mr. Speaker, if only the Hon. Prime Minister will listen . .. Can the Prime Minister tell us first how it happened that there was no Minister representing the Canadian Government at the press conference, and, second, how much the Federal Government will be investing in the building of that plant?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government announced on August 29, 1985, which is several months ago, that the company involved had decided, further to recommendations and pressure from the Canadian Government, to locate in Canada.
Further, it was announced on that day that a major firm had been retained to choose a site for the new company, and that certain sites in Quebec were being especially considered, including the site that was ultimately chosen.
I therefore feel it is a fortunate event for all Canadians and all Quebecers that the company in question decided to locate in the Eastern Townships, in Quebec.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the answer correctly, it was the Hyundai Corporation that decided to locate in Quebec. It was the Hyundai Corporation that decided to locate in Bromont. You are therefore in agreement with me.
The Quebec Premier, Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson, can claim no political merit whatsoever for that, nor Conservative Members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multicultural-ism. The Minister is undoubtedly aware that his predecessor invited comment from ethnocultural organizations on a draft multiculturalism Bill and led them to expect a White Paper on multiculturalism. Will the Minister confirm this afternoon that the multiculturalism sector was in fact working on a White Paper on multiculturalism? Will he also confirm that he has ended that effort?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot confirm either of those allegations. However, I can tell the Hon. Member that we have waited patiently for the major breakthrough which this Government has attained, that is, the creation of a Standing Committee on Multiculturalism.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: I look forward to visiting the committee in the next week or so at which time we will be able to discuss at length the details of an Act and a paper.


REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister, who has just given a useful answer, also assure

November 18, 1985
Oral Questions
the House and the ethnocultural organizations of the country that before a Department of Multiculturalism is created there will be further consultation with these groups?


Otto John Jelinek: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the very questionable awarding of an advertising contract to a firm with a clear conflict of interest. How can the Prime Minister defend the awarding of an $800,000 anti-smoking advertising campaign contract to a Winnipeg firm whose parent company is handling at the same time a $7 million contract from Imperial Tobacco? Knowing the conflict of interest exists, will he now issue instructions to revoke the contract?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will appreciate the fact that the Minister responsible for this area is not in the House today. He will be back tomorrow. I will be glad to take notice of the question and make sure that the Minister responds to the Hon. Member with respect to the matter he raises.


PLACEMENT OF CONTRACT
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, would the fact that the Winnipeg firm which was awarded the contract played a key role in the Tory election campaign of last summer, in terms of its advertising contract, have had anything to do with the awarding of the contract to a company in the home Province of Manitoba and the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe the question is serious.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Last week the Minister spoke to a group in Calgary and mentioned that it was his intention to bring to the attention of his colleagues the idea of an expanded full-scale space agency.
I am interested in the implications of this agency for our universities and research and development in the private sector. In particular, will this agency concern itself with surveillance of Canada's North?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has a proud history of achievement in the area of our space accomplishments. At the present time we are preparing for Cabinet a long-range strategic space plan to cover our ongoing space program for the next decade. As part of that plan we are considering a number of options for managing our role in space, and a number of options to use our competence better in this area with respect to all questions of the sort raised by the Hon. Member.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Post Office. The Marchment Report will be delivered today. Among its recommendations is a recommendation to limit the investment which the Post Office makes in parcel post delivery. In light of the fact that parcel delivery is one of the ways in which the Post Office can raise its revenues to provide adequate mail service to Canadians, will the Minister take this opportunity to dissociate himself from this specific recommendation?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: As my colleague said, Mr. Speaker, the Marchment report will be tabled this afternoon. We will have an opportunity to examine the recommendations, Cabinet will make the appropriate decisions, and they will be announced in due time.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that if he pursues the recommendation to limit the investment of Canada Post in parcel delivery he will be serving the intersets of the couriers by keeping competition away from courier service and he will be making it much more difficult for Canada Post to deliver mail because it will not have the revenues to do the job which needs to be done?


Michel Côté: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, these are recommendations made by an independent study group. We will have an opportunity to examine the recommendations and, whatever decisions may eventually be taken by Cabinet, they will be made public.
November 18, 1985


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PARTICIPATION OF FRANCOPHONES HORS QUEBEC AT FRANCOPHONIE SUMMIT
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Considering that agreement has been reached between Canada and Quebec concerning the February 1986 Francophone summit and that the Prime Minister has given the assurance that Acadia will also take part in the discussions, can he assure the House that all Francophones outside Quebec, including 500,000 Franco-Ontarians, will also be invited to attend discussions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: During the negotiations, Mr. Speaker, we did insist that French-speaking Canadians be adequately represented at any conference. More particularly, attendance by the New Brunswick Acadian Society was considered because the Province of New Brunswick is officially bilingual and it is a major reason for being asked to participate on an official basis. As far as I know we had not received recommendations or response from the New Brunswick Government, but I would indeed be quite pleased were the delegation to include Franco-Ontarians.
I would think that the decision was first made because New Brunswick is officially bilingual, which unfortunately is still not the case in Ontario. Still 1 intend to look favourably upon the proposition of my colleague.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier on a short supplementary.


FRANCO-ONTARIANS-FIRST-CLASS CITIZENSHIP STATUS-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Since the Prime Minister has special consideration for official bilingualism as it has been proclaimed by New Brunswick and Quebec, is he prepared to initiate negotiations with the Government of Ontario to do justice to Franco-Ontarians and thus grant them full-fledged citizen status in the province and the country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend knows full well how I feel about this. I find it altogether abnormal that 500,000 Franco-Ontarians should be denied the same rights and privileges as other Ontario residents.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on Friday, November 8, 1985, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Statements by Ministers



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 47(2), 1 have the honour to table, in both official languages, the committee report on Corporation's mandate and productivity.


UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION GOVERNMENT POLICY
Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my speech today is to address Canada's policy on UNESCO.
First of all, however, let me express the shock and sadness with which Canadians heard last November 13 about the natural disaster in Colombia that resulted in the loss of so many lives.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has already addressed, on behalf of all Canadians, a message of sympathy to his Colombian counterpart, but I am sure that all Members of this House will want to join me in expressing once more our profound sympathy to the families of thousands of Colombians who died or have been reported missing as a result of this terrible disaster. I also wish to extend our condolences to the 50,000 Canadians of Colombian origin who may have lost relatives or friends as a result of this catastrophe.
Mr. Speaker, last Friday I announced that an initial contribution of $60,000 had been made by the Canadian Government to the UN Organization for emergency assistance and a donation of $100,000 to the League of Red Cross Associations and to the Pan American Health Organization. That same evening, a Canadian Forces Hercules aircraft left Ottawa carrying blankets, drinking water containers and emergency medical supplies requested by the Colombian authorities. We have also been able to send technicians with seismological equipment, who will back up experts on the spot responsible for monitoring developments in the volcano's seismic activity. Our embassy in Bogota is offering additional assistance and has also made its vehicles available to emergency relief teams.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I met His Excellency Mr. Orlando Abello, the Colombian Ambassador to Canada, who advised me of his Government's assessment of the situation in

November 18, 1985
Statements by Ministers
this particular area of his country. After consulting with His Excellency, 1 would now like to announce the following additional Canadian contributions:
A contribution of $50,000 to World Vision;
A contribution of $60,000 to UNICEF emergency programs;
A contribution of $30,000 to the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace;
Funding up to a maximum of $100,000 for the Canadian Embassy in Colombia, to be spent on local emergency assistance projects.
I have also instructed my officials to report to me as soon as possible on potential opportunities for assistance.
In concluding this disgression, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate our feelings of deepest sympathy for the people of Colombia during this time of grief following the worst volcanic eruption in 100 years.
Mr. Speaker, forty years ago, Canada was one of the co-founders of UNESCO. Why? Because for all Canadians, then as now, the objectives of UNESCO were and are of vital importance. UNESCO was created for the purpose of enhancing peace and security through exchanges among nations in the areas of education, science and culture. Peace in this world and the well-being of mankind were the goals that motivated the creation of the United Nations Organization and which are proclaimed in its Charter.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my speech today is to reiterate on behalf of the Government of Canada our faith in UNESCO and our desire, following its Twenty-Third General Conference, to remain a member. UNESCO is playing a unique and invaluable role.
It would perhaps be useful to recall its basic mandate. In education, UNESCO combats illiteracy, trains teachers and teaching staff and also builds schools. It dedicates much of its efforts to promoting equal access to education for girls and women, the handicapped and the elderly, and to improving education in rural areas, an important and vital task that is also in line with the priorities of this Government.
In the area of science, UNESCO encourages scientific and technical development in all parts of the world. As a promoter of science, it supports thousands of projects in the world by helping others do the job instead of doing it itself.
UNESCO is also active in the fundamental area of culture, an area of great significance for the Canadian Government. The affirmation of cultural identity is a duty within the international community. We must learn to share our cultural resources. The steps taken by UNESCO to preserve historical sites in Venice, Athens and Carthage have been taken on behalf of the whole of mankind.
Finally, UNESCO has also been able to adapt to new realities. Mankind has entered the era of global communications. This is something which UNESCO, like Canada, was quick to recognize. I hope that all Canadian men and women are duly proud of the pioneer work carried out in this area by a Canadian, Mr. Marshall McLuhan. In 1983, together with Teleglobe Canada, the Canadian Commission for UNESCO created a prize bearing the name of this great thinker which is the highest distinction awarded in the area of communications.
As all can see from its many activites, UNESCO today is a modern and complex international organization.
Over the past 40 years, Mr. Speaker, the number of member states in the organization has increased from 28 to 160. A majority of the member states are developing countries. Many of them do not have the resources to establish permanent contact with an international network to exchange information and ideas on education, science and culture. According to our friends from developing countries, UNESCO greatly helps them preserve their cultural identity and opens for them large avenues of information. UNESCO was therefore right to direct a major part of its programs to Third World activities. In this regard, our support of UNESCO is an extension of our foreign aid program which is very much appreciated by the friends of Canada in the developing world.
Six weeks ago, UNESCO paid tribute to the Canadian Organization for Development through Education, an NGO which provides the farthest corners of the world with pencils, papers and books. I am pleased to report that this non-governmental organization has been supported by CIDA for a great many years. I am happy that UNESCO is there to recognize and encourage the work of organizations such as this.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I have come back from Sofia determined to increase co-operation between the Canadian International Development Agency and UNESCO, for instance in the case of small projects which cost nearly nothing and which can have a great developmental value by promoting education, science and culture.
I emphasized earlier the benefits which accrue to developing countries thanks to their association with UNESCO; however, this does not mean that I underestimate the benefits received by industrialized nations through their involvement with this unique testing ground for new ideas. UNESCO is important not only because it allows a freer flow of information between nations, but also because it contributes directly to the development of knowledge in a world where we increasingly depend on each other economically, culturally, socially and politically. UNESCO has a stabilizing influence on the world because of the exchanges it allows. For instance, its publications make it the most important publisher in the world, and these publications reflect the values, aims and traditions of all societies. Such an activity is certainly irreplaceable.
November 18, 1985

Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, UNESCO has had very serious problems in the last few years.
Canada has long maintained that 1985 would be a decisive year for UNESCO and that the 23rd General Conference in Sofia would be the most critical during this period. That conference has now ended, and 1 want to tell the House today that the Government of Canada is happy with its results. UNESCO comes out with a stronger commitment than ever to reform, and with the image of an organization that will live up to its responsibilities.
Having had the privilege of heading the Canadian delegation in Sofia, I was able to appraise myself of the good will and moderation shown by member states in the proceedings of that conference. Canada's desire for reform was broadly shared. Member states want UNESCO to work efficiently.
Why are we satisfied with the results? Because our reasonable expectations from that conference have been met, in every area where we had been asking improvements for the past year and a half.
What was the ill affecting the Organization to the point of jeopardizing its very survival?
The diagnosis made by Canada and many member states from all continents was the following:
UNESCO had to define more strictly its goals and priorities;
It had an urgent need to concentrate its activities and give up less essential programs;
It also had to review its financial, administrative and other
practices; and
It had to tone down its political debates.
Mr. Speaker, last spring, the executive council-within which Canada exercises its influence-laid the groundwork for a condensed and improved UNESCO program that met with the concerns I just referred to. That program, which resulted from very difficult compromises negotiated over the last year, was adapted to UNESCO's budget, a budget reduced following the United States' withdrawal in 1984. As Members in this House very well know, it is not always easy to operate within a budget that is reduced by 25 per cent. This, however, is what UNESCO has done.
That new departure may contribute in a very major way to the revitalization and refocussing of the essential programs for which the Organization was established. A more modest UNESCO must now double its efforts in order to win the confidence of sceptics over the next two years and beyond. To that end, vigilance will remain the order of the day.
To consolidate what has been gained, all members and especially the major contributing states will have to keep pressure on the Organization. In the long run, it is in the interests of the UN system as a whole to continue the reform experiment at UNESCO. Whether the necessary reforms are implemented will depend on whether we are prepared to persevere in our commitment to work from inside the Organization.
Statements by Ministers
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are interested in UNESCO. This interest is a sign of the tremendous goodwill organizations such as UNESCO enjoy among the general public. 1 am relying on the many non-governmental organizations and provincial and federal departments representing the various components of UNESCO's action in Canada to continue to support this work. I would especially ask the Canadian Commission for UNESCO to advise and assist the Government in this difficult task. I will do so because there may well be no other country in the world that is so conscious, at all levels of its society, of its international connections.
I said earlier that Canadians had a special relationship with UNESCO. I may add that UNESCO has a special relationship with Canada, as was shown by the many expressions of esteem I received in Sofia on behalf of our country.
Finally, I would like to recall at this point the Commonwealth's support for UNESCO, its goals and its dynamics of change. In Nassau, leaders of the Commonwealth countries emphasized the importance of renewal of international institutions in general. Following the same line of thought, the commissioners of a number of Commonwealth countries posted in London, including our own High Commissioner, wrote to Sir Geoffrey Howe, the Foreign Office Secretary, on Friday, November 15. They again mentioned the importance attached by the Commonwealth to Great Britain's participation in this very important international organization. They took this step because the Commonwealth countries realized that a great many of our educational, scientific and cultural institutions are historically rooted in Great Britain. UNESCO needs the wisdom of our British friends, as it does that of all nations.
Mr. Speaker, the results of the General Conference are clear, and we have considered them in the light of our position on the proposed reforms. The Government of Canada is very pleased with the progress already made by UNESCO in this respect. I can state quite positively that we shall continue to work within the Organization towards implementing the requisite reforms. We will not abandon ship. As the Prime Minister said not long ago: "We will not withdraw from UNESCO . . . We have asked for internal reform, and we believe that a start has been made. We want to achieve reform but from the inside."
In short, Mr. Speaker, by remaining within UNESCO, Canada intends to realize the vision of the Organization that its founders had when it was created. Mr. Speaker, if UNESCO did not exist, we would have to invent it.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition and of our leader, the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), 1 wish to express the shock and deep sorrow we all felt when we first heard about this great tragedy in Columbia. Along with the Government we extend our sincere sympathy to His Excellency Orlando Abello, the Columbian ambassador to Canada, and we ask him to convey our feelings to his Government and the people of Columbia.

November 18, 1985
Statements by Ministers
Within a few days, Mr. Speaker, almost two weeks in fact- November 7 as I recall-the Minister who has just spoken was telling us about another great tragedy which had occurred and the measures her Government would be taking to help the victims of that tragedy.
Then I pointed out to her that in a world . . . and what strikes me today in the two statements which I will attempt to link together is that when the two major world powers are about to meet in Geneva-I did say the two major world powers, for 1 never claimed that one was less powerful than the other-to seek ways to put an end to the mad arms race and, in fact, to unbelievable military expenditures while we know they are ready to attack one another at a moment's notice, as I said last November 7, we have yet to find mechanisms to bring quick relief to and defend people who suffer or become victims of disasters such as the one which has just happened in Columbia.
I made an offer to the Minister-and I still offer my humble assistance in such cases-either through parliamentary committee consideration or through non-government organizations with a view to finding ways of responding in an orderly manner to help people cope with major disasters, a world organization ready to intervene so as to demonstrate that we are determined to take action when tragedy strikes just as we are when it comes to military issues.
I would be remiss if I did not echo the Minister's remarks and extend sincere congratulations to our non-government organizations which are doing so much good, yet receive so little publicity. I am wondering whether such ministerial statements as we hear now and again might not be the ideal forum to come up with constructive propositions. In addition to these sums of money which I find quite small under the circumstances, I wonder if the time has not come for the Minister to consider the possibility of offering a so-called matching grant on top of the normal contribution of the federal government, the Government of Canada announcing its willingness to contribute one dollar for each dollar collected by non-governmental organizations whenever great disasters such as this occur. This would be a fine way for the Canadian Government and people to demonstrate their solidarity with the rest of mankind.
I hope that the Minister will contact her colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), so that following this and similar disasters . . . she indicated in her statement that some 50,000 Canadian men and women of Colombian descent are directly stricken. I wonder if we should not consider immediately the possibility of having young children, even though they have not been abandoned by their Columbian parents, to start new lives here, in Canada. I wonder if the Minister should not contact the Minister of Employment and Immigration to make it possible for these 50,000 Canadian men and women born in Columbia to sponsor a relative, a friend, or anybody else and help them to come to Canada. We should demonstrate our willingness and openmindedness through our immigration policies, and abandon certain requirements whenever such great disasters occur for the sake of demonstrating our solidarity with the rest of the
world. I am sure that if the Minister conveyed this wish to her colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration, she would give a lot of attention to representations made not only by myself on behalf of my party, but by herself.
We have also heard upon this occasion an important announcement concerning Canada's intention to remain a member of UNESCO. It would clearly have been a disaster if Canada had announced today its intention to leave UNESCO.
I have read the statement very carefully, and it would be useful for the Canadian people to know-I always like the educational side of politics-about the background of statements made in this House. I must say that I received my copy in very good time. Someone else could have replied to it, but I have been asked to do so on behalf of my party. I have to say that this is a very cohesive and well written six-page statement, which must have required the participation of the entire Department, because many people are involved in preparing this type of statement. It is certainly not a waste of time to repeat to those who will be listening to us on television or on radio or who will read reports of our proceedings in the press how important we have always believed UNESCO to be.
In the field of education, how extraordinary is the fight against illiteracy. How exalting it is to train educational staff and to build schools. Is this a thankless task? Is this insignificant? We do not think so.
Making enormous efforts to promote equal access to education for girls and women seems natural in Canada and the Western World, but it is one of the major tasks of UNESCO, and this must be repeated and re-emphasized.
As concerns the handicapped and the aged, I shall always remember what I was told in my youth. My father, whom 1 often quote when speaking about such matters, told me that you can tell how civilized a society is by its attachment to its senior citizens and its handicapped.
I think that UNESCO is doing a marvelous job. In the field of science, as the Minister said so well, UNESCO promotes the development of science and technology.
UNESCO operates in the basic area of culture. As the Minister has told us, we are entering the era of global communications. Mr. Speaker, I shall not be long, but I must say that this Party, the Official Opposition, has always been and still is committed to supporting UNESCO, and I know there have been all kinds of debates within UNESCO, but as a political party we are sticking to that commitment.
The Minister today announced that Canada will finally remain a member and, I must thank her for that, because for a long while there were all kinds of rumours coming from all quarters. I did a little reading, in the little time at our disposal because I received the statement this morning. We have to work very hard and very fast. Somebody called from Montreal saying: "There is a statement by your friend that very distinguished Minister". So we had to get posted and 1
November 18, 1985

had read of course that there had been all kinds of discording notes concerning our support for UNESCO. I was concerned. But, finally, the Minister put an end to all those endless discussions. There were discussions in Paris, within the executive council, where doubts were expressed, doubts that may have stemmed from the fact that the United States were preparing to leave, as they in fact did. At that point, there is always a tendency to follow the same path, the same direction.
So the Minister said that we were staying. What must be emphasized, Mr. Speaker, is that for all those things 1 referred to, we have a budget this year, and Canadians must know that in the $8 million provided for-an increase of less than 1 per cent from last year's contribution-Canadians must know all the good that can be done with only $8 million. At the very same time that in Geneva certain people will again be shouting at each other, shaking world conscience, as to whether we should slow down or not that crazy arms race that is costing hundreds of billions of dollars, a major friendly country, a powerful friend, the United States, is reviewing its membership, and not only has it reviewed it, but has withdrawn from UNESCO although its contribution is hardly 8 times that of Canada in approximate terms. When we know how much good UNESCO can do, it is obvious, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister said in her statement that an organization whose member countries have increased in number from 28 to 160 in a few years, representing various visions of the world, very poor people, people who have been exploited, who have suffered from illiteracy, starvation and all the miseries caused by illness, the homeless . .. And all those people meet within UNESCO. However, one of the most powerful friends of Canada, our southern neighbour, decides to withdraw because it does not always get the upper hand in discussions. Indeed, it would like to make a scanty contribution when one considers all the good that can be done by UNESCO, and because it cannot convince its colleagues from 160 countries to come to its own conclusions, it withdraws.
I should like to ask the Minister if during the Sofia Conference where several Members of this House were present-I should add that we were invited but we were unable to accept-I wonder if Canada, this close friend of the United States ... I have to ask, as there is no reference thereto in the statement made by six countries . . . called upon the USA to return to UNESCO. I think that it is very important, because this new Government is proud of the fact that it maintains direct communications; a mere phone call. Call me Brian. Yes John. Yes, Ronny. Call me! 1 am listening. Did Canada play the role of a good friend and intermediary, the role of a country that understands tragedies and enjoys the respect of developed and underdeveloped countries.
And 1 wish the Minister or the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister would come back to us in two months and make the following important announcement: We have convinced the United States, in the interests of world peace and international co-operation, to renew its membership. That would be a brilliant coup for Canada. I would be the first to rise in the House and congratulate either the Prime Minister
Statements by Ministers
or the Minister for External Relations or the Secretary of State for External Affairs and say: Thanks to our discreet efforts, we have been able to persuade the United States to renew its membership. And thanks to our own membership, our ambassador did the same for the Commonwealth ... She said so in her statement on page 6.
1 wonder whether the same representations, coming from a close friend of the United States, were made to that country.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, may 1 say that at a time when the two superpowers are expected to meet tomorrow, today, I could not do otherwise but pray, because I am one of those people who believe that in these circumstances, one must meditate-meditation is prayer, after all-and wonder what the world would be like if tomorrow, those two superpowers who are meeting at last. . . just imagine, the world is terribly excited because the two superpowers are going to meet tomorrow. To me, it is the most natural thing in the world for the two leaders of the two most powerful nations on earth to meet. To me that is normal. The International Parliamentary Union, of which I was the president for Canada, expressed the hope many years ago that they would meet, without pre-conditions. And I hope the press will not ask them right after the meeting, as if they had to reach some kind of decision: What did you decide? To me, the fact that the two superpowers are meeting tomorrow is already a step in the right direction, even if they do not solve any problems. Seeing each other, looking at the intentions of the other side and going back home to think it over and coming back would already be tremendous progress.
Speaking of tremendous progress, that would certainly be the case if tomorrow, the two superpowers and especially the United States would realize that the best thing they could do for world peace would perhaps be to come back to UNESCO. And to pay their dues, after all, $64 to $70 million in US funds is not that much for the United States, if you consider the tremendous contribution it can make by being a member of this great institution.
So I thank the Minister for allaying the fears we might have had as a result of various statements which have been made. We know where we stand, Canada supports UNESCO.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to join with all those who-and this is something we do not do often enough-wish to congratulate non-government organizations which do so much good, as I said, with little fanfare.
I cannot do other than conclude by saying that 1 am surprised the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the competent Minister of International Relations (Mrs. Vezina) are not employing their time and their energies trying to convince the Americans, especially having such a close relationship with the United States of America, to return to the UNESCO fold. Look at all the good that UNESCO can do toward more understanding and sharing for such a small amount of money.

November 18, 1985
Statements by Ministers
I hope the Government will tell us in a few months that we have convinced our great friend, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, not to withdraw from UNESCO and that we have succeeded through our efforts and close companionship with the President of the United States to convince that country to return to UNESCO.
We talk about the big problems of the world today. Let us concentrate a little more effort toward a better understanding of the immense problems of the Third World, with la famine, no schools, no teaching and no respect for women or the handicapped-nothing at all for them-for this is part of the silent work of the United Nations. 1 am very pleased to hear at long last that Canada is a supporter of UNESCO. I hope that the Minister will have good news for us in the months and years to come concerning our participation in UNESCO. I am a little worried because she said very clearly in her statement that we will have equal participation in foreign aid. Let me quote what she said:
[ Translation]
In this regard our support of UNESCO is an extension of our foreign aid program-
If we slash $185 million off our CIDA foreign aid program in 1985-86 and $50 million more in 1986-87, if we decrease our over-all financial commitment to CIDA and claim that it is an extension of our participation in UNESCO, 1 suspect we may contribute less. I am sure the Minister will enlighten us on these issues in the coming months and I thank her for her statement today.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I am pleased to respond to the Minister's statements on Colombia and UNESCO. Perhaps in relation to this horrifying disaster in Colombia, no one is pleased to respond. We are all shocked by the consequences and the continuing problems associated with the volcano.
All of us admire the tremendous fortitude of the Colombian people in the face of this disaster and hope very much that our expression of concern will go to the Government from this corner of the House and to the people of Colombia.
Several years ago 1 served for almost two years on the committee of the House of Commons that was studying Canada's relations with Latin America. In the course of that study 1 had the opportunity to visit several countries in South America and became aware of the enormous courage of the Colombian people throughout their history. Not only did Colombia maintain a democratic form of Government at times when many, if not most, of its neighbours were succumbing to military and neo-fascist regimes, but Colombia took a lead in seeking democracy, stability and peace in Latin America. It continues to take that lead today through its work in Con-tadora.
At a time of enormous national suffering in Colombia, I am, as we all are, pleased that the Government of Canada responded immediately and is continuing to respond with financial and
other assistance. As the Minister has noted today, there will be further assistance through non-governmental organizations. It seems to be a very tiny response given the enormity of the problem. I hope the Government will be able to increase its contributions, not only in immediate emergency aid and particularly financial aid which are required by the people of Colombia, but also in further reconstruction efforts.
There have been many tragedies over the past year. There has been the famine in Ethiopia and the response of the Government, which was a good and strong one. However, we were told and still are told time and time again that it is longterm aid or long-term reconstruction that is needed in the case of Ethiopia and indeed in the case of many countries in Africa which have suffered enormous famine. Similarly, in the case of Mexico and now Colombia, we want to help in the reconstruction works. That is what Canadians want to help Colombians achieve. I feel confident that the Minister will want to see us do that.
Also I hope the Government will seriously address the need for reform of our international financial institutions and our international financial arrangements which place such a heavy burden on Colombia, on other Latin American countries and on many other countries in the world that are trying to deal with debt crises. The continuing debt crisis and the inadequacy of the response to the crisis by international financial institutions, while not as vivid or as horrifying as earthquakes and volcanoes, nevertheless, it seems to me, will inevitably bring comparable suffering, poverty and tragedy to the peoples of Latin America and of other countries who are suffering so deeply from the crushing burden of debt.
On UNESCO, I was pleased, as all of us in my Party were pleased, to note the Minister's warm commitment to the survival and work of UNESCO. Indeed, she made a commitment on her own behalf and on behalf of the whole Government. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) mentioned some rumours which had been floating around that Canada might not in fact give its full support to UNESCO. Indeed, I first heard rumours under the previous Government that we might not continue our moral and financial support to this incredibly valuable organization and, therefore, I was glad to see that there was no foundation under the present Government to those rumours. As the Minister has said-and I thought it was a point well taken-if no UNESCO existed, one would have to be invented.
Also I would like to know whether the Minister has had any success in persuading the United States to return to the organization. It made a substantial contribution to the organization. In withdrawing from it, it not only undermined UNESCO and everything UNESCO stands for but, in a sense, it undermined the United Nations itself. In this connection I should like to urge that Canada, now that it has firmly recommitted itself to UNESCO, equally firmly recommit itself to the United Nations charter and move to strengthen the United Nations itself as an integral and essential institution for maintaining world peace. Very urgent measures are needed
November 18, 1985

and must be taken, for example, to curb the growing militarism and the growing anarchy which we see throughout the world. There are many steps that Canada could take within the United Nations to help curb such militarism and anarchy. The United Nations Security Council and the Secretary General could be and should be given-and Canada should press that they be given it-more authority to help maintain world peace. We should urge that the United Nations play a more central role than it does on North-South issues. There are a number of reforms which we could be initiating that could restore the United Nations as the prime promoter of human rights and, in the reform of international law, provide greater access through the United Nations for individuals suffering injustice. Just as UNESCO would have to be invented were it not there, so is that as true or perhaps even more true for the United Nations.
I hope the Minister would take occasion to reaffirm our commitment to the United Nations Charter and specifically give us some of the ideas which are undoubtedly circulating in her Department, the Department of External Affairs, on the ways in which Canada, having now made this clear and firm commitment to UNESCO, will make an equally firm and clear commitment to the strengthening and reform of the United Nations itself.


PETITION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to present a petition to the House, calling upon the Government to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases in the last Budget.


POINT OF ORDER
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order regarding some remarks which 1 made during Question Period as a heckle at the point where my friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) was trying to put a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on the situation with the Haida people in the South Moresby part of the Queen Charlotte Islands in British Columbia. I said that the Prime Minister was only concerned about Quebec and later on that it was only Quebec, or words to that effect. I would like to withdraw the remark. It is very un-Canadian to do that. The situation is that we have a recession in British Columbia and a real problem with the Haidas and the natives. That is what was behind it, and I would like to withdraw it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act [Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Government House Leader to indicate to the House when we might expect answers to questions which I placed on the Order Paper some seven months ago, respecting the involvement of the former Solicitor General in the Hatfield marijuana case in New Brunswick. We have waited over seven months for answers to those questions. Perhaps he could rise in his place today and tell us when we might receive those answers.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a specific date, I must admit to the Hon. Member, but I do recall a previous response from the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) himself, that there would be quite an exhaustive reply because of the nature of the Hon. Member's question which, I am sure he understands, is fairly long and covers not only one Department but a number of Departments. The nature of the question is such that it requires an exhaustive answer. I believe they are working hard at getting a response, quite seriously, for the Hon. Member but it has taken more time because of the length and complexity of the questions raised. However, 1 am assured that the matter is receiving earnest attention and I hope it will be answered soon. It may even be answered tomorrow but I would not want to commit myself to that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, consideration of Government Orders today will be extended by 45 minutes.
Therefore Private Members' Hour will begin at 5.45 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-82, An Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, this is the second occasion on which I have come before the House to introduce changes to the
8550

November 18, 1985
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am looking forward to this assignment with greater hope and enthusiasm than on the previous occasion.

Last year I was responsible for shepherding the PGRT legislation left in limbo by the previous Government. It was an embarrassment for two reasons, the first being that the legislation had been left on the back burner for too long. Some changes had been announced about 24 months earlier.
More significant still, however, it gave rise to confusion because it contained nothing more than a mish-mash of inadequate temporary solutions, whereas a major reform was needed.

The reason for my greater enthusiasm today is that only seven months after the signing of the Western Accord, the Government has now done the major surgery which will restore Canada's oil industry to good health.
On March 28, 1985, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), announced the Western Accord. This historic event marked the end of a decade of dispute between the federal Government and western provincial Governments concerning energy. It signalled the beginning of a new co-operative atmosphere between the federal and the provincial Governments. The amendments included in this Bill are a direct result of that Accord.
I will not take the valuable time of this House to repeat the adverse effects of the National Energy Program, in general, and the PGRT, in particular. I will, however, point out some of the most glaring negative aspects of this national embarrassment. The PGRT was first announced in October of 1980, just over five years ago. I quote from the National Energy Program document:
Initially the PGRT tax will be set at the rate of 8 per cent of net operative revenues.. . deductions such as those for exploration and development expenditures, capital cost allowances and interest will not be allowed. As oil and gas prices rise faster ... the rate of the tax will be reviewed.
This tax was an unprecedented attack on a single industry and single region of Canada. The prosperity of western Canada and its oil industry was simply too enticing for the previous administration and it set about a revenue grab of major proportions. The PGRT collected over $1 billion from the oil industry in 1981 with no deductions for reinvested amounts.
Is it any wonder, I ask Hon. Members of this House, that the oil industry went into a disastrous tail-spin? Is it any wonder that thousands of westerners in the oil industry lost their jobs and their homes? Is it any wonder that businesses servicing the oil industry began to fail? Eastern Canadians as well were not immune. All too often we forget the economic ties we have throughout this country. The PGRT not only hurt western Canada, it hurt the suppliers of steel and other products in Ontario and Quebec, it also hindered young engineers who graduated from our universities from working in the meaningful jobs in their chosen careers.
That was not enough for the previous Government in its crusade to squeeze all of the money out of western Canada. Not content with the damage done by an 8 per cent tax, barely one year later the PGRT rate was doubled to 16 per cent and yet another tax, the incremental oil revenue tax, was introduced as part of the PGRT Act. It is no credit to the former Government that this newest tax lasted only a few months before being indefinitely suspended. It was obvious to all that the industry was in failing health and a number of other steps were taken in a belated effort to repair the damage which the Government itself had caused.
In 1982, a temporary 1 per cent rate reduction for conventional oil was introduced, along with a new small producer credit. An increased resource allowance was introduced for synthetic oil production. In 1983, capital expenditures on enhanced oil recovery projects were allowed as deductions. These changes were an admission of the fundamentally unsound nature of a revenue tax in a capital intensive industry. However, these were band-aid solutions. They were unable to solve the problem which continued to get worse.
It was against this background that the Progressive Conservative Party promised a new and a fair energy deal for all Canadians. In 1984 we promised to remove the petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax. We also promised to dismantle the Byzantine system of oil-pricing controls. We promised to remove the discriminatory system of petroleum incentive payments. One year later we have accomplished all of those things.
I want the House to know that I recently held a pre-Budget consultation with members of the oil and gas industry. I want to share with all Hon. Members today the mood of optimism, the new sense of opportunity and the climate of confidence which now exists in the oil and gas sector. I was told that government policies, including the Western Accord, have brought significant changes to the economic arena. The Canadian petroleum and natural gas industry has emerged from a mantle of politically imposed nationalistic policies to a new era of economic opportunity.
The last six or seven months have seen great changes in the industry. The Western Accord, coupled with non-punitive tax measures, and the deregulation of gas prices have enabled the oil and gas industry to rev up its own engine and contribute in a meaningful way to the economic renewal of Canada. It is with pride and enthusiasm that I present today a Bill which will carry out the promises of the Western Accord to phase out the PGRT by December 1, 1988, and to repeal the incremental oil revenue tax.
I would now like to point out briefly the specifics of the legislation before the House. Clause 6 provides for the following statutory rates to be applied to conventional oil and gas production from the current level of 16 per cent: in 1986, 13.33 per cent; in 1987, 10.67 per cent; in 1988, 8 per cent; and in 1989, nil. Synthetic oil production will be subject to lower rates as follows: in 1986, 12 per cent; in 1987, 8 per cent; in 1988, 4 per cent; and in 1989, nil.
November 18, 1985

The regulations to the PGRT will continue to provide a resource allowance of 25 per cent for conventional oil and 50 per cent for synthetic oil. These resource allowances reduce the statutory rates to result in effective rates over the next three years of 10 per cent, 8 per cent and 6 per cent for conventional oil and of 6 per cent, 4 per cent and 2 per cent for synthetic oil.
The new legislation provided does more than reduce the tax rate over the next three years. To stimulate new activity immediately, Clause 4 allows a full tax exemption available for new wells drilled after March 31, 1985. In addition, enhanced oil recovery projects are provided with options that will result in a more favourable treatment during the remaining years of the PGRT. Enhanced oil recovery projects can opt to exempt their incremental production after March 31, 1985, and major new energy projects can also apply for an exemption from the PGRT.
Another important feature of this Bill is the introduction of a PGRT offset in Clause 7. A new mechanism will allow for 30 per cent of the value of new unused exploration and development deductions to be applied against the PGRT in order to assist companies that are unable to realize income tax savings from new exploration and development expenditures under the Income Tax Act. This measures will be of particular benefit to a number of smaller Canadian companies and that is why we are proud to be presenting this Bill. The taxpayer can eliminate PGRT otherwise payable if he has sufficient unused income tax deductions and the consequential changes to the Income Tax Act that are required to implement this offset are included in the Bill before the House.
A final new measure introduced is a $10,000 annual deduction for individuals starting with the 1986 tax year. This measure will remove the burden of filing returns from several thousand Canadians who have some amounts of royalty income from producing oil and gas wells. All of these measures have combined to produce a remarkable recovery in the oil industry and the economics of exploring for and developing new oil and gas supplies have improved significantly. The provincial Governments in a new spirit of co-operation with us have complemented these changes with policy initiatives of their own and the economic recovery has begun and is well under way. It is creating jobs not only in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia but in all the provinces of the country including my own Province of Ontario.
The Bill before us truly marks the beginning of a new era, an era of restored economic vitality for the oil and gas industry, for the thousands and thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods depend directly and indirectly on the oil and gas industry and for western Canada. I commend this Bill to Hon. Members and I know they will embrace it with enthusiasm.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this Bill, but unlike the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), I do not exactly embrace it with enthusiasm although I appreciate her optimism. During the election campaign, we as a Party
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act indicated that we would review the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax and certainly it was our intention to do so. The Minister spoke of a revenue grab from industry. That is just not the case. What is evident at the present time is that there is a money grab from the consumer as a result of this Bill and as a result of the policies of the Government.
The Government is giving the energy sector to the large oil companies, not the Canadian oil companies but the foreign oil companies. The Government has made sure that the oil companies are flush and will be successful but the consumer and Canadian companies will suffer.
I would like to move away from the issue of the PGRT for a moment and mention one of the things that the PGRT did. With its revenues, we were at least able to have a Petroleum Incentives Program. This is a program which the Government has completely abandoned. As a result, exploration on the frontier lands including the offshore has plummeted and the economic future of the oil and gas sector in Atlantic Canada in particular is very bleak indeed. At this time last year, 10 rigs were drilling in Nova Scotia. There is presently one rig drilling there. I am afraid this is the trend that is being set in Atlantic Canada. Of course this is not the viewpoint the Minister of State for Finance or the Minister of Energy (Miss Carney) have been putting forth. They are saying that exploration will surge and that there will be a very promising economic picture in Atlantic Canada. However, that is not the case and that is certainly not what we are seeing at the present time.
As I mentioned earlier, Canadian companies are in a position very different from that of multinational companies. The tax credit that has been granted for exploration on the offshore will not be satisfactory for Canadian companies. That is, it will not be satisfactory if there is any exploration activity at all. Shortly after the offshore package was announced by the Government, Mobil Oil, which made the application to the National Energy Board for the bringing of the Venture Gas ashore from the coast of Nova Scotia, withdrew its rig from that very field leaving only one rig, that of Shell Canada, drilling off the coast of that province. It is a very, very serious situation. The spin-off effects that the offshore has created in Nova Scotia are completely dissipating. We are left with empty office buildings and with people who had jobs at this time last year and do not have them now. These people have very bleak futures in the oil and gas sector.
What exactly will this new tax credit do for Canadian companies? It is a 25 per cent tax grab and all companies are being treated equally as they were under the regulations first stipulated under the Western Accord. However, what does that do for Canadian companies? It does not allow Canadian companies to take advantage of this particular tax credit because it is not a tax credit to the extent that the benefit is passed along regardless of whether the company pays taxes or not. No, it can only be deducted from income tax payable. As a result, companies which have had difficulties but have taken the initiative to explore and have taken a chance on the country, Canadian companies that are making an investment in Canada and as a result are not in a tax-paying position,

November 18, 1985
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
cannot take advantage of this tax break to the extent that will be necessary. They will be allowed a mere 10 per cent of the benefits as compared to the 80 per cent that they were allowed prior to this measure which in addition to their normal income tax write-offs would require them to pay at best 10 cents on the dollar. These companies that have bought equipment for the offshore and are involved in the offshore have now had the rug pulled out from underneath their feet.
It is a devastating blow to Canadian companies in the oil and gas sector. In fact, the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada met with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to talk about the problems some Canadian companies are having in the transition from the Petroleum Incentive Program to tax credits. Some firms are worried that they will not be able to meet drilling commitments before the grants expire and, therefore, could lose their entire investment to date. Husky-Bow Valley, which has just announced a major oil find off the coast of Newfoundland, says that its financial support system may have been pulled out from under it. This is after three long years of effort on the company's part.
Mr. Robert Blair, the Chairman of Husky Oil, says that the end of the Petroleum Incentive Program throws a wrench into Husky's efforts and that it wants to get help through this transition period. The company needs to be able to utilize the investment which it has made. It has explored heavily and invested a great deal in expensive equipment. It would be economically devastating to have this equipment lying idle if the offshore activity stops after the expiration of the Petroleum Incentive Program.
The new tax system means that instead of receiving $40 million in petroleum incentive grants for every $50 million it spends in the offshore it will now receive $4.5 million. Mr. Blair says that the new tax incentive system leaves companies which have already invested in exploration and otherwise at a disadvantage while advantages occur to those companies which have not been doing so. However, he says that enough goodwill exists in Ottawa that a solution will be found. That is whistling past the graveyard, if there was ever an example of that. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has stated that there will not be any change to the program at all. Yet, Mr. Blair and his company and other Canadian companies are being dragged along over needles. What can they do but go along and hope that the Government will do something on their behalf? Only the Government can change this very Draconian measure for Canadian companies. There is no need for Canadian companies to be at a disadvantage in the country. This is Canada and these are Canadian companies. They have invested heavily and with the best of intentions. Yet, they are now being put at very severe risk. A great many of them will be placed in economic jeopardy and will not be able to survive. Why not give these companies the advantage? Why not allow them to take this tax credit and utilize this 25 per cent even though they do not pay taxes? Why not allow them to use it as a credit per se which would give them a 25 per cent advantage regardless of their income tax positions? Why not allow these
companies to pass it along to their shareholders if they cannot utilize it themselves? There are various ways in which Canadian companies could be helped by the Government if the Government wished to do so.
The Offshore Trade Association of Nova Scotia said that an acceptable level of exploration could not be sustained under this new energy policy. What is really happening is that there are far too many rigs bidding farewell to Nova Scotia. Some nine years ago there was a great deal of activity. Last year there was also a great deal of activity. However, this year there is but one drilling rig drilling off the coast of the province. Even the ex-Premier of Alberta, Mr. Lougheed, told the energy investment conference in Calgary that Newfoundland may need special help to bring the Hibernia oilfield into production. The industry also says that special deals may be necessary to bring western heavy oil projects and Nova Scotian natural gas into production; but the Minister says she has no more money on the shelf. She says: "Ottawa gave at the office." She says that she gave the industry a multibillion dollar break on taxes so she does not have to do anything more to help the smaller Canadian companies or boost the economies of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland by showing some flexibility. This is counter-productive to an area of the country which sorely needs economic activity.
It is not only Atlantic Canada which will suffer. We can now see that the Minister and the Government are retrenching and withdrawing from promises which they made with respect to the heavy oil sector and the tarsands. I would like to quote one example in particular with respect to heavy oils concerning the Husky upgrade which was promised by the former Liberal Government. It was substantiated by the Government in power which recently decided it did not want to go forward with it. The Government decided it wanted nothing to do with equity. It thought it had enough green stamps in western Canada that it could cut back on this project, which is what it did. It was a purely political move. The Government thought it would not be noticed. It thought it could withdraw from this oasis of plenty which it has given the oil industry and that it could withdraw the commitment once again. It made a promise to a Canadian company which it had been relying upon for over a year since the Government took office. Yet, it says it is investigating. It is taking a long time to investigate this matter-and no answer has come up yet. Meanwhile, this company is hanging by its fingers waiting for an answer. The Government has put Husky Oil in a very difficult position as a result of this change of mind. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources says that by removing taxes such as the Petroleum and Gas Revenu Tax there is incentive enough to invest. However, it is certainly not incentive enough to invest in the frontier lands. Nor is it incentive enough to invest in the offshore. She said that this move will be good for the country. I will deal with other points such as Canadianization and security of supply later.
1 wish to touch upon what this move will do for the group which will benefit the most. I speak of the multinational oil companies which are investing in Canada. These companies
November 18, 1985

should see their profits rise by 160 per cent by the end of the decade. Denis Mote, an analyst for Maison Placements Canada Inc., predicted that producing oil and gas companies in Canada will have profits of $8.1 billion in 1989 compared with $3.1 billion in 1984. During the same period of time revenues should jump 37 per cent to $36.6 billion and cashflow should soar by 70 per cent to $14.5 billion. The largest single factor in the profit picture is the elimination of the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax which will increase profits by 75 per cent without any other factor whatsoever.
What has the Minister done for consumers? This is where 1 return to the money grab from the consumers. In the recently announced consumer gas rate agreement there was nothing for the consumers. Certainly the producers absorbed a 12 per cent increase which the distributors were granted. However, when one considers the fact that natural gas prices in the United States are expected to decline by 10 per cent in the next year, then this is of no benefit to the consumers of Canada compared with what they should receive. In fact, the consumers of the country had been paying a fair price for natural gas under the former Liberal Government; but as the price went down world-wide the Government decided that it would not pass along the benefit.
Then there is the question of revenue for the provinces concerned. Will there be compensation for the money lost as a result of this Government's new energy policies? Will there be compensation for the lack of economic activity? The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated last December that the Government was going to do away with the back-in provision. This, of course, was done. However, the Government is very slow to say how it will compensate Nova Scotia and Newfoundland for their resulting losses. We still have no knowledge of what amendments the Government will put forward concerning the Canada-Nova Scotia agreement or when they will be made known. As far as anyone knows there has been no dialogue on this matter. The Nova Scotia Minister of Energy is a man dangling from a 12-story window with little choice but to go along with whatever the Government offers. Purely and simply, the federal Government has hung the Province of Nova Scotia out to dry. That province has been left in a very precarious position and the federal Government is doing nothing to alleviate that situation.
So far as Newfoundland is concerned, there is a very good deposit of oil in Hibernia. As well, the recent discovery by Husky-Bow Valley increases the encouraging feelings we all have as to the future of Hibernia. However, the reduction in the world price of oil has left us somewhat concerned over what Newfoundland will receive from all this. The province has lost the back-in provision but has been told it will receive the royalties. Does that mean Newfoundland will have to wait until the world price of oil goes up before the companies actually start production? If so, what is in it for Newfoundland? Is the federal Government going to assure that province that regardless of the low price of oil it will receive some benefit from these changes? Of course, the economic stimulus
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act resulting from the development of Hibernia will be very important. However, will the oil companies say they are going to leave the oil where it is until the world price goes up? In that case, would the federal Government sit back and allow this to happen as it did with Nova Scotia? If so, production in Hibernia will certainly not start by the target date of 1992. It will be many years after that before we see any oil production in Hibernia unless this Government is prepared to take positive steps and become a factor in encouraging production as soon as possible. It is hoped, of course, that that will happen hand in hand with meaningful changes to offshore drilling practices to ensure the safety of those working on the rigs. The Minister has said that most of the royal commission recommendations were put in place, but we know that the most glaring deficiencies have not been corrected and that the men working on the rigs are still subject to very grave and unnecessary personal risk.
Where does all this leave us with respect to this Government's policies? What is the Government doing? I agree that we certainly have to stimulate oil and gas production and I am very pleased that western Canada is now selling increased amounts of oil. We hope their gas sales will increase as well. However, where does that leave Canada? Where is this Government's commitment to security of supply? By the turn of the century most of the oil and gas production will be controlled by OPEC or communist countries. We will then be in the position we were in in 1970 of being dependent upon the OPEC countries once again. What are we going to do to counteract that? What are we going to do to safeguard our security of supply? This is very important and we have to consider it. If we do not develop the offshore and frontier oil and gas reserves, if we do not make sure that the tar sands and the heavy oil reserves are brought forward when we need them, then we will be in a very difficult position. Our readily accessible oil and gas will be sold to the U.S. and our reserves will have been seriously diminished.
The Conservatives say that their energy policy is based on five goals. The first goal is that of a stable policy framework in which energy resources can support growth for the benefit of all Canadians.


Mr. McDermid:: Done.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: It has not been done in Atlantic Canada or the North. Another goal was self-sufficiency and energy security.


John Horton McDermid: Done.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: That certainly has not been done. The readily available and low-cost reserves are being developed, but nothing is being done for the long term. That commitment to self-sufficiency and energy security has been completely abandoned by this Government. Another goal was that of enhanced Canadian participation. The Government is completely doing away with Canadian participation in the offshore. Yes, the Government says there has to be 50 per cent Canadian participation at the production stage, but what

November 18, 1985
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
about the time it is taking to get to that stage? This whole sphere of activity is going to be closed to Canadian companies.
The fourth goal was that of fair treatment for consumers and producers. Certainly there has been good treatment for producers so long as they are not Canadian. There has not been fair treatment of Canadian consumers. There is no benefit for oil and natural gas consumers in this country. Consumers were told that deregulation would mean a reduction in the price of oil at the pump, but the price went up. The Government is supposed to be looking into ways of investigating and dealing with these price increases, but once again we have heard nothing as to what progress is being made. This whole thing is getting out of hand. It is ironic, to say the least, that the multinational oil companies will always increase their prices within one day of each other and in the same amount. The consumer is being ignored. Security of supply is being ignored. Canadian oil and gas will be sold in the U.S. at a lower price than it is sold to Canadians. It is only a matter of time before that is going to become evident. It is fine to sell oil and gas in the United States. The producers must have a market for their products. There is no question about that. You cannot lock in an important resource such as that. Natural gas, for instance, means $4 billion to this country annually. We are not in a position to be able to lock in that kind of resource. We need to sell it, but we need to look after the long-term security of this country as well. That is a tremendously important feature.
I hope that the Government will remember its promises, Mr. Speaker. A few short months ago when we were debating the Canadian Oil Substitution Program and the Canadian Home Insulation Program, the Parliamentary Secretary told us in the House that it was not necessary to give people financial incentives to reduce the amount of energy consumption in their homes but that it would be done on a voluntary basis. We were told that there would be a program put forward by the Government which would promote conservation. It was proven in that debate that of all the energy money spent in the country the best value per dollar is in conservation. There is nothing even close to the value we get for conservation in the energy field. Yet, there has been no program put in place by the Government to deal with conservation. There has been nothing to substitute for that. All the Government wanted to do was to institute a money grab at the expense of the Canadian consumer and taxpayer. Any promise or commitment by the Government was thrown to the wind after the Government got its way with the Canadian consumer.
I think the Canadian consumer is becoming very jaundiced in its opinion of the Government as is indicated by all we are seeing in the press and all we are hearing from our constituents. The reason, of course, is that the Government is not taking the interest of the consumer first and foremost as it is necessary for any Government to do. By not taking the needs of the consumer first and foremost, and by not considering the consumer at all, the Government is on a catastrophic course and the people of the country are going to suffer greatly.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand on behalf of the New Democratic Party and debate this Bill today. I have heard the speech of the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and of my colleague, the Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), the Liberal energy critic. I will try to deal with some different matters, although there will be some overlap.
This is an important debate although one would not know that from looking around. That fact could easily be lost in the statistics, facts and terms that will be used. Generally critics are saying that the Government has not really done very much in most areas, but they have applauded the Government for what it has done in the energy sector. I acknowledge that. I think the critics are dead wrong. In my remarks I will try to explain why I think they are wrong. I think we have an energy crisis in the making. It is just a question of time.
This Bill specifically deals with the abandonment over the next five years of the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax. The PGRT, as it is known, was Ottawa's most effective instrument for taxing petroleum companies which have been masters of tax loopholes. This tax worked. It raised a lot of money for the federal Government. It was not liked by the oil industry. Handing over the proceeds of the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax to the oil companies, more than $2.4 billion a year, is supposed to encourage investment by the industry. This is the argument of the Government. It says it is giving all this money back to the industry to spur investment and create jobs. I believe that it is unlikely to do this because the real barrier to investment is the falling price of international oil and the glut of petroleum on the world market.
I think the real impact of this Bill, of the Government's energy policy, and of the Western Accord will be increased taxes for consumers, as my friend the Liberal energy critic, has just said. I think it will also mean cut-backs in social services in other areas because the Government is going to be starved for the money it has given to the big oil companies. I think it will also mean an end to the efforts to Canadianize one of the most important industries in Canada which has always been dominated by foreign-owned and foreign-controlled companies. One of the reasons for the National Energy Program and the motive for Canadianization was that between 1975 and 1979 foreign-owned oil companies were responsible for an outflow of $3.7 billion to their American parents. That is going to continue and it is going to increase in spades.
There is a double standard here, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the money that has been given to the oil companies. The double standard is that the federal Government's deficit is no problem when it comes to handing out money to the oil companies, but it is a problem when it comes to social programs for ordinary Canadians. At the same time as the Government gives, by its own figures, something like $5.5 billion in foregone tax revenues under the PGRT, it will have to recoup those revenues somewhere. Guess who pays. Ordinary Canadians pay. We saw evidence of that already when the Government tried to cut back on the indexation of the seniors' pensions. Only a mounted lobby by the seniors stopped
November 18, 1985

that from happening. We see evidence of that now in the Government's efforts to deindex family allowances. So you have a system where-
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the ordinary Canadian is the one who has to pay for this energy policy of the Progressive Conservative Government.
And the major oil companies will receive $5.5 billion by 1990.

It is a double standard, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to give some of these figures. In the first six months of 1984 the profits went up 40 per cent over those in the same period in 1983. Those are the figures of the Petroleum Monitoring Association. There was a 22.7 per cent increase in energy industry profits in the last 12 months over the previous 12-month period. That was reported in The Globe and Mail of May 16, 1985. Of those companies which made profits, the four largest oil companies in Canada, Imperial, Shell, Gulf, and Texaco, increased their profits for the first quarter in 1985 by 24.8 per cent. That was before the Western Accord and before this Bill. The oil industry was already recovering before it received this immense giveaway. Now, with the removal of the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax, large profits will accrue to the oil industry with a loss of revenue to the federal Government. It is estimated that with the stepping down of the PGRT under the Western Accord, $5.26 billion will be lost to the federal treasury by the end of 1989. Peters and Company, a Calgary energy analyst house, has projected that in 1986, the loss to the federal treasury will be $430 million; $680 million in 1987; $1.36 billion in 1988; $2.79 billion in 1989 for a total of $5.26 billion by 1990. Therefore, a rich industry is receiving more money. In addition, the price of oil was deregulated in April and went to world oil prices. As a result, the various companies made money. The price of oil found before 1979 was $29.75 a barrel. The price rose to the international level which was $37 a barrel at that time. Although new oil decreased in price, the increase in price for old oil was a windfall to those producers. Who got the windfall?


Mr. Fraleigh:: Who discovered it?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will come to that in a minute. Some 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the production by each of the major integrated oil companies was in old oil.
Imperial Oil and Texaco, both foreign owned, are this nation's largest oil producers. According to The Financial Post these companies will receive at least $50 million of additional revenue each year as a result of decontrol. The phase-out of the PGRT will result in a saving to these two companies of approximately $30 million in 1986, up to $150 million in 1989 when the tax is completely eliminated. The Minister of State for Finance did not say today that the two big winners, in addition to receiving the windfall as a result of going to world
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act oil prices, will now receive a tax break with the elimination of the PGRT. That is not to say that these companies do not pay taxes. They are supposed to pay taxes but those companies are experts at working their books in terms of paying taxes.
John Ferguson of Southam News states:
How can any government justify increasing sales and income taxes, higher gasoline prices and cuts in the indexing of family allowances-all in the name of spending restraint-while pumping billions out the back door to clever corporations with smart accountants?
I challenge the Government to deny those facts. According to the Government's figures, it will lose $5.5 billion by 1990 as a result of this change within the legislation we are debating today. According to Peters and Company Calgary, this figure is $5.26 billion.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) stated in the House of Commons that in the first year, the figure would be approximately $800 million. Furthermore, the western provinces agreed in the Western Accord not to take more royalties. In return for this system of vast giveaways to the oil industry, the Government gets a promise to create more jobs. There is no doubt that some jobs will be created.
This capital intensive industry has indicated that 300,000 jobs will be created. That figure is from the brief of the Canadian Petroleum Association and is used as part of the propaganda we see on television daily in the form of a progress report from the Canadian Petroleum Association. They have progressed by managing to reverse the entire energy policy of Canada and revert to an old system which existed before the first oil crisis in 1973.
My hon. friend, the energy critic from the Liberal Party, dealt with the effects on the East Coast as a result of this policy. While we will see some increased exploration and production in the offshore because the PIP grants are being phased out, we will see a system in which the multinational oil companies will dominate frontier exploration at the expense of the small Canadian companies which had a chance under the old National Energy Program. They will no longer be layers in these fields.
I recently read an article about Joe Mercier, who runs a small oil company in Alberta. It said:
Energy Minister Carney didn't know what she was doing, giving away the store. The oil industry did a great job with several years of full-page newspaper ads, containing all the catch phrases that Carney used-engine of growth, market-oriented prices and end discriminatory taxes.
This was stated by an oil man. He said:
Small and medium-size Canadian companies do the lion's share of drilling in Western Canada, thanks in part to federal government exploration grants to be phased out under the new energy deal.
He gave an example:
-in 1984, smallish Universal, had revenues of $25 million and spent $15 million drilling 103 wells.
By contrast, TexacoCanada Inc.-200 times larger than Universal-spent only ten times as much on exploration, drilling 53 wells in 1984 at a cost of $161 million.
Texaco Canada also handed out $156 million in cash dividends to shareholders-92 per cent of which went to its U.S. parent, Texaco Inc. of New York.

November 18, 1985
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
And another $500 million flowed to its parent to "buy" a Canadian subsidiary Texaco Inc. already owned.
The Government has given the biggest windfall to Texaco, which is perhaps the worst spender in the oil patch. Imperial, while a better spender, will also receive a windfall.
The consumers are the ones who will suffer. They are beginning to realize this because I am beginning to receive letters concerning the increase in gasoline prices. I recently visited Saint-Jean, Quebec.

I was in Saint-Jean the other day, Mr. Speaker, and it was 60 cents a litre, while a litre of gas now costs 57 cents in Vancouver, British Columbia.

What we are seeing is increased prices for consumers.
I suggest that a matter which has gone unnoticed in the press and in the House of Commons throughout this debate concerns the fact that the basic issue in an energy program for Canada is the split of the energy pie between the federal Government, the provincial Government and the industry. A basic reason why the National Energy Program was developed in 1980 was that the federal Government was receiving virtually no money from the oil patch while giving more money in tax advantages and tax breaks.
I have written to the new Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to obtain a breakdown of the energy revenue between the federal Government, provincial Government and the industry under the Western Accord. I am told that these records are no longer kept and that the figures are speculative. While I criticised Marc Lalonde in this House many times, he always provided the figures. We are unable to obtain those figures from the present Government. That is a serious problem. As I suspect, the Government will be very short of revenues. I see the chairman of the Finance Committee in the House. I hope he will speak in this debate. If you give away $5.6 billion how do you recoup? What an immense gamble it is that the industry will create jobs and pay a lot more taxes without any control over it. We are dealing largely with a foreign industry that could send that money out of the country in dividends. How can you give a guarantee at a time when oil prices are falling? It is an immense gamble. It will not work and we will suffer.
I want to say a few words why I think there is a future energy crisis in the making. Canada is blessed with all the energy sources known to humankind. Canada is actually energy self-sufficient right now even in crude oil. We export one-third of our production of crude oil and one-quarter of our natural gas. We are back into the old system before the 1970 oil crisis of exporting to beat hell, if I might put it that way. It will cost us in the future.
When you look at the Western Accord you will see that it deregulates the price of oil. It gives massive windfalls and tax breaks to the oil companies and it substantially weakens the
control of exports of oil and gas. I draw Hon. Members' attention to an article in the Ottawa Citizen for Saturday, November 2, 1985 written by Les Whittington. It is a very perceptive article. Mr. Whittington quotes the opening words of the National Energy Program:
This is a set of national decisions by the Government of Canada.
The National Energy Program did not work as Mr. Whittington says. He said the program was hurt by the downturn in oil company activity in the western provinces, the fierce defence of provincial resource rights mounted by Alberta, criticism from the United States and the well-heeled oil lobby, and the scandalous air of wasteful spending associated with the NEP's generous exploration grants. As well there was the price miscalculation that oil would go up to $80 a barrel, which never happened and which really ended the National Energy Program. Notice the opening words of the National Energy Program: "This is a set of national decisions by the Government of Canada".
We now have an energy policy that is made by the oil industry, largely in New York of in the provinces. That is the difference between the National Energy Program and the program we have now.
The National Energy Program did make Petro-Canada into one of the largest gasoline retailers and refiners in the country. It expanded Canadian ownership of the industry from 28 per cent to 47 per cent. It turned up the reserves in Hibernia and Venture. It had those positive aspects but it had negative aspects as well. What we have done, to quote Mr. Whittington, is:
-passed the economic levers over to the companies with no way to guarantee results other than vague threats of renewed high taxes.
That is the gamble of which I was speaking and that is what we have done. In Mr. Whittington's words we have returned to a situation in many ways closer to what existed prior to the energy crisis that erupted in 1973.
Let me talk a little bit about that crisis, Mr. Speaker. There are many issues in energy, nuclear, hydro, conservation, alternate fuels, to name only a few. In my view the key energy issue, and it has always been key, is the level of our oil reserves and consequently the pace of our oil exports. Gas and oil are non-renewable resources. We are rapidly depleting the light sweet crude oil in Canada's western sedimentary basin despite a more than 1,000 per cent increase in wellhead prices from $3 to $38 a barrel.
Our accessible conventional crude oil reserves have gone steadily downhill since 1969 and they are still going down. This year we are exporting, as I said, about 30 per cent to 33 per cent of our domestic oil production. The world is now burning its oil at a rate of 900 billion gallons a year. One-fourth of the recoverable oil that existed when the first well was drilled just over a century ago has been burned. Exploration has already found about two-thirds of the oil it is likely ever to discover. At the present rate of consumption, there is roughly a 60 year supply remaining of world oil. The United States, which consumes one-fourth of the world's oil produc-
November 18, 1985

tion and which has only one-tenth of its oil reserves will look increasingly for its oil supplies, my friend was saying, to the Persian Gulf where what is left of the world's oil will be increasingly concentrated. You know the security problems there, Mr. Speaker. As we in Canada deplete our conventional oil resources, we will have to go further into the tar sands, the heavy oil, the Beaufort Sea and Hibernia. That oil will be more expensive to produce and it will cost consumers more money. Ordinary Canadian consumers will once again pay dearly. Geoffrey Edge, the retiring Chairman of the National Energy Board has forecast:
An increase in oil prices in real terms in the 1990s.
The National Energy Board has forecast that Canada will rely on the tar sands and the frontiers for more than two-thirds of its oil by the end of the century. Yet the oil companies still follow a consistent pattern. They want to export to get more cash. That is why they want to get rid of the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax. They want more cash to pay for further exploration. Once they find the oil, they push and lobby to export it. There is big money to be made largely by foreign companies and they make a big buck, about $4 billion a year in natural gas alone. Canada is now the second most important oil supplier to the United States.
Tommy Douglas, when he was the NDP energy critic, once said that while a person can be forgiven one mistake, it takes a fool to make the same mistake twice. That applies to a country too, but that is what Canada is doing.
The Western Accord, as it is embodies in this Bill before Parliament, is a repeat of the mistakes of the 1960s and early 1970s. Quick exploitation of non-renewable resources, supported by tax breaks and other incentives, exported at fire sale prices to make a quick buck for largely foreign corporations is what Conservative energy policy is. That is going to cause us trouble in the future.
I have already talked about the winners and the losers in terms of deregulation. I have talked about the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax and why it was disliked by the oil industry because it was so effective in capturing revenue from that industry.
I have already said how much money the federal Government would lose. John Helliwell, a UBC economist, concluded that following deregulation, the rate of return in the oil industry would be well above, and I say this to the Parliamentary Secretary, average even without the deregulation and the end of the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax.
This is an industry whose profits are already up. We are already paying more money at the gas pump. We are paying 2 cents a litre more as a result of the Western Accord. Another 1 cent a litre is going on effective January, 1986. We are paying on the pretext of paying for the indexation of Old Age Security.
What we should have instead of paying 1 cent a litre at the gas pump is a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. We should have tailored the PGRT, and I say this to the Member for Calgary, so that smaller Canadian companies could get
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act exemptions and tax breaks making the big majors pay the taxes. Instead we are going with a policy that is in the opposite direction. I want to see jobs in the oil patch too but I want to see it done through small Canadian companies which, to my mind, are the best investors.
The Minister said in this House that the Western Accord will be the engine of economic growth and there will be up to 300,000 jobs. From where does that figure come? The phrase the engine of economic growth comes from the Canadian Petroleum Association, the lobby group for big oil. It comes from a brief to the Senate committee submitted by the Association in April, 1984. I wanted to quote the President of the Canadian Petroleum Association, but I do not seem to be able to find it. Basically, he was surprised at how much money the industry was able to get from the Government. As a matter of fact, he was shocked that it got everything it pretty well wanted.
Where is the evidence of job creation? I filed an application under the Freedom of Information Act and tried to find out whether the Department had studies. One would think that if $5.6 billion was to be given to the oil industry by 1990, there would be some studies on how many jobs would be created. One would think that they would not take the word of the Canadian Petroleum Association. It would be like Little Red Riding Hood taking the word of the wolf that she would be safe-"You are fine, little Red Riding Hood", says the wolf at the door. One would think that the Department would have some studies, but I found out that there were no such studies. In fact, the Department indicated that it had a compilation of other people's studies but noted that the prediction of the number of jobs to be created were based on "outdated and possibly unrealistic assumptions".
What kind of policy is it other than just a giveaway? Indeed, we have returned to the bad old days which saw us so unprepared for the last energy crisis. That is simply not good enough for the 1990s. This is why I think we will face another energy crisis, and that is why this policy has the seeds of the making of a crisis.
Disregarding present market price fluctuations, I believe we are seeing the underlying patterns like those which led to the 1973-74 crisis, the first OPEC crisis, and the 1979-80 prices. That is why we had a recession in Canada. The increase in prices was the source of much of our trouble and the great suffering of our people in the recession of 1981-82. In my view we do not have to vacillate between panic and complacency. We do not have to be manipulated by the big oil industry. We can do better. We must have security of supply. We must end our need to import oil in the future. We cannot continue to export a third of our production of sweet crude oil.
In the view of the New Democratic Party, the vehicle for doing this is significant Canadian ownership-public, private and co-operative. We can use our abundance of energy resources-and as I started my speech by saying, we have every one known to mankind-to give us economic growth and

November 18, 1985
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act to make us the richest country in the world. It will add to national unity by opening up the North, the frontiers, the East Coast and the tar sands. We should not export it for a quick buck. We should not return to the pre-1970 policy which failed in the past and did not pass the muster when it came to an energy crisis.
That is what the Bill is about. This is one of the most important debates we will have this year in Parliament, and it was a privilege to be able to speak in it.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Children-Proposals to establish National Centre for Missing Children; the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly)-Fisheries (a) Standing Committee Hearings (b) Effect of licensing factory freezer trawler; the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano)-Textiles (a) Inquiry about $30 million given to Dominion Textile (b) Inquiry respecting use of funds paid to Dominion Textile.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-82, an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate in the debate on Bill C-82. Today, we are putting an end to one of the most unpopular taxes in the history of our country. The Bill incorporates the legislation to remove the petroleum and gas revenue tax or the PGRT, as it has come to be known.
I was very interested in the comments of my two colleagues with whom I work fairly closely, the energy critics for the
Liberal Party and for the New Democratic Party. I will come to their particular arguments a little later in my discourse. There are a few points I should like to make before I deal with what they had to say. Suffice it to say, if I can just make a passing comment before I make my prepared remarks-


Cyril Keeper: Be nice.


John Horton McDermid: I will be nice. I found both speeches to be very interesting but very contradictory. They contradicted themselves many, many times during their addresses. 1 will try to cover that a little later in my remarks.
During the last general election, the Progressive Conservative Party made a commitment to the people of Canada to rid ourselves of the highly controversial and divisive National Energy Program introduced by the previous Government, a program which robbed Canadians of opportunities and very seriously impaired the economic and energy potential of Canada. My Party has always supported the goals of the National Energy Program. I think everyone in the country supports those goals of opportunity, fairness and energy security. However, we adamantly opposed the measures of the National Energy Program by which these goals were sought and the manner in which it discriminated against the regions of the country.
Canadians were presented with a choice on energy policy a year ago last summer. They voted for a new approach. I campaigned on it in my riding of Brampton-Georgetown. 1 know my colleagues from Ontario, Quebec and right across the country campaigned on a change to the National Energy Program. Canadians responded in spades; they voted for an end to the National Energy Program.
During our first year in office, we worked hard to fulfil our promise to change Canada's energy policy. The Bill before the House today represents but one element of a new energy policy for Canada. These new energy initiatives have become a reality through the Western and Atlantic Accords and then, more recently, through the frontier energy policy statement and the agreement on natural gas prices and markets. These energy initiatives have truly marked the end of the National Energy Program and ensured a replacement by a fair, non-discriminatory and constructive energy policy.
In establishing a new energy policy for Canada, it was most critical to get the Canadian petroleum industry back on its feet again. We wanted to return the industry to the days before the National Energy Program, to the days when the Canadian petroleum industry was a major source for investment in job creation, to the days when this industry was clearly the engine of economic growth for Canada. To assure that we could achieve our goals of national reconciliation and economic renewal, we consulted all Canadians, including members of the oil and gas industry. The message from the petroleum industry rang loud and clear. I might point out to the Hon. Member in the New Democratic Party that large and small firms, Canadian companies, and foreign-owned multinationals all sent the same message. They wanted a system of less Government
November 18, 1985

intervention by way of lower taxes and lower Government grants. That is what they asked for.
With the Western Accord and the subsequent energy announcements, we have introduced an approach which relies less on Government hand-outs and intervention and more on the opportunities provided in the market-place. This approach also reflects our commitment to implement an oil and gas taxation system which recognizes bottom-line profits. "Profits" is not a dirty word to this Party. It should not be a dirty word in this country. Profits rely less on Government hand-outs and intervention. More opportunities are provided in the marketplace, and we recognize bottom-line profits as the basis for assessing taxes. The failure to recognize profits was clearly one of the major shortcomings of the PGRT tax.
[DOT] (nio)
I would like to give a brief history of this tax if I might, just to put the Bill in its proper perspective. The PGRT was introduced in the National Energy Program effective January 1, 1981, at an 8 per cent level. After only one year, the rate was doubled to 16 per cent, although many taxpayers were given a resource allowance of 25 per cent so that they paid an effective tax rate of 12 per cent on their net operating revenues. This represented a 50 per cent increase in one year. I suppose it is fair to say that the PGRT became the single most unpopular tax of all of those taxes introduced as part of the previous Government's National Energy Program revenuesharing scheme. That occurred for a number of reasons. First it was a tax on net revenues and not on profits. As such, it became a very blunt instrument for grabbing revenues for the federal Treasury. No recognition was given, for example, to the high capital costs associated with bringing on new oil and gas supplies. If anyone has taken the time to visit, as I have, some of the new exploration which is going on, not only in this country but in other countries as well, one would soon begin to realize the tremendous high capital costs which are associated with bringing on new oil and gas supplies. Second, the producing provinces as owners of the resources always objected to the federal Government imposing a discriminatory tax only on their industry and their resource. No special taxes were imposed on hydro, nickel or iron. They were just imposed on the resource of oil.
Third, to add insult to injury, the same income was taxed twice, once by the PGRT and then again by corporate income tax. Unexpected hardships resulted for many companies due to the double taxation of resource income. Most importantly, however, the PGRT reduced the incentive to reinvest because it was not profit sensitive. This insensitivity to profits led to a very poor investment climate and an unwillingness to invest in what otherwise might be attractive opportunities. The PGRT was a major factor which led to the downturn of the oil and gas investment activity after 1980. The Canadian reinvestment ratio in the petroleum industry fell from 147 per cent in 1980 to 83 per cent in 1983. That is a decline of nearly 45 per cent.
Western Canadian drilling activity in 1982 was 30 per cent below its 1980 level. Who can forget night after night seeing
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act pictures on the national news of those Canadian oil rigs leaving this country for the United States where there was a better opportunity. They were not the big oil companies, the multinationals. They were the little guys out west who provided the rigs and did the exploration and drilling. They were the little guys who provided the supplies. They were the small business people of the west who were absolutely destroyed by the National Energy Program. The National Energy Program sent them out of this country and now we are trying to get them back. We are now saying to them they are welcome. We are saying: "You have the expertise in the oil industry. You are welcome to come back to this country. We want you back here and not in the United States. This is where you belong".
What else was going on, Mr. Speaker? Western Canadian drilling activity was down 30 per cent. Canadian exploration expenditures in 1982 were only 60 per cent of what they were in 1980. Of course, this downturn had a tremendous ripple effect throughout the country in lost job opportunities. In Ontario, the province 1 come from, there were tremendous job opportunities lost in the manufacturing industry in Ontario. These figures are well documented, I might add.
In 1982, the former Government, God bless it, finally recognized that there has been damage done. It actually admitted it, albeit, timidly. But rather than concede to the error of its ways and get rid of the tax, it made a few ad hoc changes. It reduced, for one year, the effective rate of PGRT from 12 per cent to 11 per cent, a dramatic change of 1 per cent. It introduced a new quarter a million dollar tax credit for incorporated working interests and it reduced the PGRT rate on existing tar sands plants to 8 per cent for two years. The response from industry and the western producing provinces to these measures was predictable. None of these measures did much to change the basic nature of the PGRT. It was still a blunt, onerous tax which was not profit based.
Following the 1982 announcements, it took the former Government another year before one small step was taken to make the PGRT even partly sensitive to profitability. The Budgets of the former Government were a real delight, by the way, Mr. Speaker. You were not in the House between 1980 and 1984, but I can tell you that we always looked forward to the Liberal Budgets. They were comic relief in what is a very serious place otherwise.
The April 19, 1983 Budget proposed some capital expenses for enhanced oil recovery projects be deductible in the calculation of PGRT. I believe my colleagues in the House today are willing to admit that production of oil by enhanced techniques is expensive. It was clear that under the combined burden of the 12 per cent PGRT and high provincial royalties-my NDP friend alluded to the fact that the provinces should put on higher royalties which I found very interesting, at least that is how I interpreted his speech-these projects would not have taken place. The result would have been even higher rates of unemployment in an industry which was ready to get back to work.
This fundamental change in the character of the PGRT, along with more profit sensitive provincial royalties, was

November 18, 1985
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act viewed positively by the industry and some new, so-called "mini mega" projects were started. The tragedy, however, was that it took so long to recognize the damage that a net revenue tax could do to a capital intensive industry such as the Canadian petroleum industry. We lost many jobs and many opportunities for new jobs in the interim period.
It was also of major concern to industry that no changes had been implemented by the previous Government to the PGRT Act or regulations to even include these ad hoc changes. The Government did not even make the changes in legislative form. The industry had to work with the uncertainty off draft legislation and regulations. Nothing was permanent. In fact, this Government enacted this backlog of legislative changes to the PGRT Act and regulations shortly after we began our term in office.
Unlike the previous Government, we do not intend to keep the industry in suspense. We announced our intent to phase out the PGRT in the Western Accord. We are now following up on these commitments with the appropriate legislative changes as outlined in the Bill before the House today. To this end, the current Bill will implement a number of changes which were announced in the Western Accord and will have an important and positive impact on the industry. These changes include: The phase-out of the PGRT for existing conventional production and for synthetic oil production such that by 1989 this tax will be totally eliminated; the immediate exemption from PGRT of new production of oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids and major new energy projects. New production includes production from wells drilled or deepened after March 31, 1985, an incremental production from new water flood and tertiary oil recovery projects.
During the PGRT phase-out period, new exploration and development expenses not immediately usable for federal corporate income tax purposes will be allowed to reduce PGRT otherwise payable. The implementation of the PGRT offset provision requires certain consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act. This provision is of particular benefit to many smaller companies which are not currently paying corporate income tax. The first $10,000 of an individual's production royalty income will not be subject to PGRT. These amendments are designed to eliminate the PGRT by 1989 for the industry in general and immediately for new production. During its phase-out period, a greater degree of profit sensitivity will be introduced into the tax than has previously existed.
Another major amendment contained in the Bill before us deals with the Incremental Oil Revenue Tax which is levied under the PGRT Act. Around here we call it IORT. We have these crazy names and short forms for everything. As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, the Incremental Oil Revenue Tax was introduced in the 1981 Canada-Alberta energy agreement as a form of windfall profit tax. The tax was so onerous and poorly constructed, however, that it was suspended on June 1, 1982, only five months after it became effective, for all but one
company operating in Canada. Another discriminatory element was therefore introduced into the already very discriminatory National Energy Program regime. As previously announced in the Western Accord and in the May 23, 1985, Budget, in order to rectify this inequity and remove an unnecessary hindrance to investment, this Bill proposes to repeal the IORT for all production after December 31, 1984.
Canadians have been very supportive of the thrust of the energy policy changes introduced by the Government. The reaction to our initiatives has been very positive. I would like to set the minds of opposition Members at ease after all the doom and gloom we have heard from them today. We heard how terribly things were going in the oil patch and with oil exploration. I am pleased to announce that today, oil exploration in western Canada is greater than at any time in our history. Since the Western Accord, exploration activity in Alberta has increased by 30 per cent compared to the same period a year ago. Over-all gas investment intentions are up by $2 billion, an increase of more than 25 per cent over last year in just one year. Deregulated oil and gas markets are creating opportunities for both producers and consumers.
The Government has put a system into place which will provide jobs and investment opportunities for all Canadians. It is a non-discriminatory system which rewards success and initiative and is attractive to international investors. The commitment to changing Canada's energy policy as promised in the election campaign of 1984 has been fulfilled by the Government. The energy tax and pricing systems have been overhauled and the investment climate has improved significantly. The oil and gas industry is again becoming a leading sector in creating jobs and investment opportunities throughout the country.
Members of the NDP want Canadian explorers to find oil and gas and then to leave it in the ground. 1 would like to know what would encourage explorers to explore for more oil and gas if what they find just sits there and they cannot gain from their finds. To me that does not make sense, but that is the NDP policy.
Our friends in the Liberal Party are concerned. They are saying that Canadian companies cannot compete, Canadian companies cannot explore, Canadian companies cannot, cannot. We have faith in Canadian companies. We believe in their expertise. They will participate and they will enjoy the benefits of what we have done to the National Energy Program. Canadian companies will fare as well as or maybe better than they have in the past under this regime.
I hear Members of the NDP saying that our energy industry is mostly foreign controlled and that that is terrible. It is 53 per cent foreign controlled and 47 per cent Canadian controlled. That is not an industry that is largely controlled by foreigners or by those terrible people that do not come from within our own borders.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Misleading figures.


John Horton McDermid: It is completely inaccurate to make those wild statements. He should not do that. He also said that we
November 18, 1985

will be selling our energy off the borders for less than we will to Canadian consumers.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I didn't say that.


John Horton McDermid: No, 1 am talking about my friend from the Liberal Party. That statement is just not accurate. We are now talking about market-sensitive pricing. We will be paying market price for our resource. I think it is only right that we should be paying market price for our resource.
Our friend from the Liberal Party has said that we will not have any exploration. It is interesting to note that at the conference on energy that took place in Calgary last week, one of the experts said that if the PIP program had not been in place, we would have had much smarter exploration offshore and Hibernia might be on stream now.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Oh, come on.


John Horton McDermid: He did. He said we would have had much smarter exploration. The Hon. Member knows as does my friend, the hon. critic from the NDP, that a lot of that exploration money was wasted. They know that and they have complained about it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I said that.


John Horton McDermid: That is right. I agree with you. There has not been smart exploration. Now we will have smart exploration.
I see that my time is up. In conclusion, may I say that Bill C-82 is an important step in the implementation of the changes announced by the Government, changes designed to establish a solid framework for jobs and investment in Canada. We have faith in the Canadian people and in the energy industry. We believe they are going to make this thing work.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question regarding all the money that the Government has given to the oil companies and taken away from the taxpayers, supposedly, as my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has said, to create jobs as set out in the Canadian Petroleum Association study of April, 1980. Could the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary tell us just how many jobs have been created or how many jobs are being created?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that since the Progressive Conservative Party was elected on September 4, 1984, there have been 330,000 new jobs created in Canada. That is performance. A lot of those jobs were created in the energy industry. A lot of those small business people are back to work supplying-


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: How many?


John Horton McDermid: I just spoke about the exploration that is going on in the West.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: How many?
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act


John Horton McDermid: I gave him the figures. Obviously he did not write them down so I will give them to him again if he would like. Activity is starting again. Jobs are starting and the rigs are starting to work. Exploration is up by 30 per cent. The small supplier businesses in the West are back to work. They are happy there. The Liberal energy critic should go out West to see what is going on out there. Maybe then he could rise in the House to speak a little more authoritatively on energy.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a couple of comments to make and a question to ask. I will not say that I appreciated the Hon. Member's speech. It was a real debate. He was making his points and I disagreed with some of them. However, I did agree with some of the points he made as well.
I did not say that the provinces should put on higher royalties. I may have confused the issue when 1 said that the Western Accord contained a clause indicating that the provinces should not put on higher royalties to take away any benefits that were being passed on to the oil companies and I made the point that that was an additional windfall for the oil companies. I would say that that is part of the Conservative strategy of job creation.
In terms of exports, I am not saying that there should be no exports, I am just saying that we should be careful. When we are exporting one-third of our crude oil production while there was an oil crisis only seven years ago, we have to be very careful.
Finally, regarding the figures about Canadian control, I mentioned that the industry was indeed 47 per cent Canadian controlled. However, those figures are a bit misleading because they include the downstream, the gas stations and so on. We have to think of the upstream consisting of the companies that produce the oil and control the exploration, the real key. In my view that is less than 47 per cent Canadian-owned. I put it to the Hon. Member that if the Government plans to give up $5.6 billion by 1990 where will it receive that sort of revenue? Will it not in fact lead to placing more taxes on consumers at the pumps or lead to a cut-back in social programs?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I suppose there are all types of taxes being placed on petroleum products these days. I noticed that the Liberal Government of Ontario in its last Budget placed a sizeable tax on gasoline. That is where much of the price increase has taken place lately. It is interesting to note that the Liberal critic talked about gas stations setting higher prices. On my trip from the airport to Brampton, which is a distance of about 10 to 15 kilometres, it was interesting to see about five different prices at the same company's gas stations along the way. Thus, the market is working, as is the competitive spirit. I invite everyone to come to Brampton because all summer long we were paying between 40 cents and 42 cents a litre for unleaded gasoline. We were actually doing better than Calgarians as far as gas was concerned.
I can tell the Hon. Member for one thing that we are not paying out as many PIP grants, which is where some of the

November 18, 1985
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act money is coming from. We are cutting back in Government expenditures and, thus, we do not need as much revenue. There is increased activity going on in the country today. With the statistics which are coming out today, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said, Pierre Trudeau would have killed for the same type of statistics. Our economy is going extremely well now, thank you very much. Deficits are falling and incomes are increasing. People are getting back to work. Industries are being expanded and people are paying taxes because they are now making a little profit. I know that is a foreign concept to members of the NDP, but profit is not a dirty word with the Conservatives.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal Party do not quibble with the word "profit". We think it is important. We also believe it is important to have one's priorities straight in that a Government and a country is measured, to a large extent, by the way in which it treats the disadvantaged of society and by the way it sets it priorities vis-a-vis those disadvantaged. The Conservative Government is handing over $5.6 billion to the oil industry. We have received estimates that oil profits will rise by 160 per cent as a result of the ditching of the National Energy Program. We know what impact these measures will have on oil companies and their shareholders. We know that those shareholders will become rich-very rich. However, what will happen to the Canadians who are not fortunate enough to own shares in those oil companies? What will happen to the millions of Canadians who are at or near the poverty line?
We know what the Conservative Government thinks about senior citizens. We know what the Government thinks about families. They do not take priority because as far as the Government is concerned those who own shares in oil companies are far more important than the disadvantaged in our society. That is the way the Government thinks. It gives $5.6 billion away to the oil companies thereby increasing their profits by 160 per cent. It does that on the one hand while on the other it attacks the senior citizens of Canada by trying to deindex their pensions. It attacks families in Canada by trying to deindex family allowances. Where is the fairness? Where is the justice? There is not any because the Government does not believe in fairness.


John Horton McDermid: Where is the question?


John V. Nunziata: The Government does not believe in justice. It believes in its rich and affluent friends on Bay Street.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: Like John Turner and Jean Chretien.


John V. Nunziata: I would like to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary who appears to be wallowing in a quagmire of hypocrisy. In all his rhetoric can he tell the people of Canada what is fair about attacking families and senior citizens on the one hand and giving oil companies and shareholders in those companies billions of dollars in profits on the other? Can the Hon. Member justify that to his constituents in
Brampton? Can he justify it to all the Canadians who will suffer as a result of this regressive measure taken by an uncaring and uncompassionate Conservative Government?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, that was fabulous. That was the greatest show I have even seen. The Hon. Member is now sitting down and giggling. We know that he was not serious at all. I would like to given him a couple of examples of a caring Government. Some two weeks ago we turned the sod in Brampton for a shelter which is to be built for battered women. It is being financed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It is something which we have needed in our community for quite some time. I could not talk the previous Government into supporting it but this Government did, I can tell the Hon. Member that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: A couple of weeks ago my Government announced some co-op housing which is sadly needed in the small town of Georgetown. This project is supported by CMHC. So all the baloney that the Hon. Member tries to sell to the Canadian people about this not being a caring Government is so much hogwash. I know what I would like to say it is-el toro pooh-pooh.


John V. Nunziata: El Tory pooh-pooh.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member gives much misleading information. He know full well that moneys are going to create jobs in order to get industry going again. That is very important to a country which was in the depths of depression during the last Liberal regime. That is the reason the Canadian people kicked them out. The Hon. Member talks about uncaring! That was a Government which did not care about a thing except itself. It only cared about its bailiwick. It said "Lets keep this part of Canada fighting with this part of Canada and then we can maintain power." Well, it did not work and it will never work again. My Party is the only Party which has unified the country over the last 20 years. We are doing a damn good job of it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Chair would remind the Hon. Member that Spanish is not an official language of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I find it unbelievable listening to the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) speak about fairness and compassion. It is amusing to hear him talk about what happened a year ago at the polls. Perhaps the Hon. Member and Conservative Members opposite should be reminded of the last Gallup poll and the results of a few other polls which have
November 18, 1985

been released. Those polls show that the confidence which Canadians have in the Conservative Government is dwindling-dwindling at a rapid pace. In fact, the Conservatives are in a free fall with respect to national support. Hon. Members opposite recognize that, which is why we have so many glum and long faces staring at us from across the way. They recognize that the people of Canada are beginning to see through the veneer. They are beginning to realize that they were handed a con job by the Conservative Government.
The reason I am standing here this afternoon is to speak on Bill C-82, not to overly criticize the Conservative Government. I am quite confident, as are other members of my caucus, that the people of Canada will judge this Government by its actions and vote accordingly in the next election. In the few minutes I have I would like to speak a bit about the history of the National Energy Program. As Hon. Members are aware, the NEP, produced by a Liberal Government, had three basic goals.


Mr. Malone:: None of which it met.


John V. Nunziata: The first goal was to boost domestic control of a foreign dominated industry. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to criticize that goal. It was because of the NEP that Canadian ownership of the oil and gas industry climbed to 47 per cent-


Arnold John Malone: False!


John V. Nunziata: -this year from 29 per cent in 1980. What is wrong with Canadians controlling their own destiny? It is not out of nationalistic or patriotic sentiments that I talk about foreign control. However, if we look at the practical impact of increased Canadian ownership of that industry, simple logic tells us that the profits will stay here in Canada and not be siphoned off to the U.S. or other foreign countries. When we talk about profit we say there is good profit and bad profit. Good profit is that which is reinvested in Canada for Canadians to create Canadian jobs. Profit which does us little if any good is profit which belongs to each and every Canadian as a result of the hard work and trials and tribulations of our labour force, particularly from natural resources, but which is then sent south of the border to the head office. We do not believe that is right. We believe that there is a need for that profit to remain in Canada. Therefore, I challenge Members opposite to prove me wrong when I say that the goal of the NEP of increasing Canadian control of that industry succeeded.
Another main goal of the NEP was to give Canadians a larger share of petroleum revenues. Back in 1980, when the program was introduced, oil company revenues were increasing at an extraordinary pace. Was it unreasonable to ask that those revenues be shared by each and every Canadian from one coast to the other? There is nothing unreasonable about that. Surely Canadians should share in that industry's profits.
Environmental Affairs
Canada wanted a larger share of the profits from the energy industry.
The third main goal of the NEP was to achieve oil self-sufficiency. I challenge Members opposite to quibble with that goal.
I note, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating my time is up. I just want to reiterate how ill-conceived and unfair this measure is. Then again, is it any wonder when you are dealing with Conservatives who talk about fairness and justice and equity? They just do not care.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5.15 o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ABANDONMENT OF PRACTICE OF LEAVING CAR ENGINES RUNNING ON PARLIAMENT HILL
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That this House urge all Members of Parliament and drivers of other vehicles on Parliament Hill to abandon the practice of leaving vehicle engines running within the precincts of Parliament Hill, and invite the Senate to adopt a similar motion to this effect, as such practice adds to environmental damage and. further, the Government should launch a public education campaign inviting all Canadians to do the same and to invite the provincial Governments to take the same steps; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as you have just read it, the purpose of this motion is very simple and straightforward. It urges the abandonment of the practice of leaving motor vehicle engines running within the precincts of Parliament Hill and, by way of example, urges Canadians at large to do the same. I will explain why this is important by way of a brief talk on what happens when engines run, particularly at idle. They in fact emit substances which are not considered to be very healthy. They emit carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, lead and soot. These substances contribute directly to damaging our health as well as to the formation of acid rain and smog.
As you know, the health hazards of lead are well documented, particularly regarding children. We do know that lead is one of the ingredients utilized in the cheaper grade of gasoline. When we speak of nitrogen oxides, we are speaking of a substance which damages our lungs, can cause throat and nose problems, and has been proven statistically to aggravate asthmatic conditions as well as increasing the number of admissions to hospitals in certain meteorological conditions in our cities. On a larger scale, looking at the phenomena of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions together, we know

November 18, 1985
Environmental Affairs
through scientific research that they contribute to the formation of acid rain. In eastern Canada alone this has been measured to the extent of 9 per cent, this representing the contribution to acid rain formation by the emission of cars. The effects of acid rain are extremely well known to Canadians, Americans and Europeans. I will indicate the fact that forests are seriously damaged by the effects of acid rain, that buildings and structures are affected, that salmon spawning grounds are particularly affected in the springtime and that the combined effect of ozone on agriculture has already lead to considerable losses in production as measured in southwestern Ontario in particular. I should also mention that the impact of acid rain on sugar maple stands in Ontario and Quebec has been negative.
When we talk of acid rain we talk of a broad economic issue. We talk about damage done to a variety of natural resources. As well, we talk about the fact that our health is affected by this industrial phenomenon. When we consider the question of motivators we must include gasoline engines, diesel engines and the like.
The scale of the problem as covered by this particular motion applies only to the Hill because the Hill is a microcosm of the larger world beyond its gate. I am sure you have noticed that every day a considerable number of vehicles contribute to the problem of pollution on the Hill. I am told that up to 3,000 tour buses per year bring people to visit Parliament. There can be as many as 116 on a given day. Of course, the average is lower and the numbers vary through the year. Buses keep their engines idling while the passengers tour the Parliament Buildings.
There are several RCMP vehicles, marked and unmarked, as well as patrol cars which survey the premises from various vantage points. I have noticed, as you must have too, that when they are stationary they frequently leave their engines idling. There are some 40 Ministers' cars, probably the largest fleet in the history of Parliament. Depending on the weather, the car engines tend to be left running. The drivers sit in the cars when the weather is cold, or stand beside them, and leave the engines running while waiting for their next assignment.
The question, Mr. Speaker, is what are the solutions? We all realize that we have a cold climate and that we want to keep the cars warm. For that matter, we like to keep cars cool in the hot weather. However, let us deal with the cold weather because that is the most uncomfortable of the two. I would like to bring to your attention the fact that it is possible to buy fan heaters which run off the car's battery and provide adequate heat for people sitting in the car. These car heater units retail at approximately $70 apiece. It seems to me that every Canadian who is attracted by the idea of finding a solution to the problem of acid rain ought to think of the possibility of installing a car heater of this kind. This, of course, would apply mostly to the RCMP cars on the Hill and to the trucks that idle while delivering.
In the case of Ministerial drivers, I would suggest that provision could be made for them to wait in a room inside the buildings, thus eliminating the need for them to keep the engines running in order to be comfortable. With regard to the tour buses on the Hill, they ought to be asked by whoever is in charge of the parliamentary traffic division to turn their engines off in order to reduce discharges into the air which, as I mentioned earlier, are particularly strong in the summertime. There may be some discomfort for passengers who return to the bus and do not find the interior as cool as they would like, but it is a minor sacrifice considering the example that they would be setting to the nation by adhering to these rules.
It seems to me that MPs could also set an example on the Hill for Canadians to follow. Of course, in particular, cabinet Ministers may want to adopt the good practice of turning engines off when they are idling in the hope that this practice will be adopted and copied by others. In society we all take leadership for example, and there is definitely a lot of leadership that could be given by cabinet Ministers in this respect.
Outside the gates of Parliament Hill, Mr. Speaker, we would like to ask all Canadians to turn their engines off while waiting in their cars other than in normal driving patterns. This applies to all vehicles, but it seems to me that it would have a particular impact in bus terminals and at taxi stands.
If this motion were to be adopted, it would be necessary to have a public education program. That initiative would require provincial and municipal co-operation with the federal Government. I submit that the three levels of Government should promote the idea of shutting off engines through an advertising campaign which could be carried out in local newspapers, by way of radio and even television. Parallel to that, Mr. Speaker, there could be a campaign of stickers promoting the fact the driver of a vehicle is concerned about acid rain. The slogan could read: "I do not idle. I fight acid rain". In the towns, villages, and cities across Canada we could also seek the co-operation of driving schools which could promote this idea while instructing new drivers. There could be another form of public education with the help of service clubs which could be asked to reward environmentally conscious drivers through a variety of initiatives at certain times of the year. This would stress the fact that keeping emissions to a minimum while idling has long-term beneficial effects on human health.
The Department of the Environment, at the federal level, could launch an annual contest among schools across Canada in which the young people in the schools, our future drivers, could develop creative ideas on how to reduce the habit of idling a car while waiting. While this is not exclusively an urban problem, it is magnified by the larger number of vehicles in urban situations.
In summary, eliminating the habit of idling a car engine needlessly is one important way in which every Canadian car owner can contribute to the reduction of acid rain. Of course, there are other methods, including using unleaded gasoline, accelerating moderately, frequently checking tire pressure,
November 18, 1985

observing speed limits and tuning the engine regularly. Last, but not least, it is increasingly important to install a three way catalytic converter which has the effect of virtually eliminating the nitrogen oxide emissions of a car whether idling or running on the roads. This would considerably reduce the negative effects of pollution that results from the running of a combustion engine.
I am using the example of idling the engine of a car as a symbolic measure and I am using the territory covered by Parliament Hill as a symbolic area. If we were to combine all of these preventive measures, we would go a long way to reducing the extent of acid rain in our country. At the same time, we would make our cars run better. By reducing that pollution, we also reduce the emission of toxic substances into the air which eventually returns to the soil, our crops and forests by means of that acid rain which does so much damage.
By asking Canadians to participate in a campaign to eliminate the habit of idling engines when possible, we would be asking each Canadian who cares to become a real and active participant in the battle against acid rain. It is something, as small as it may seem and as small as it really is, that we can do about acid rain in our country. This is a specific example that I would like to put forward tonight to the House for the consideration of Hon. Members.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words to the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). It is a good motion for a number of reasons. First, it illustrates how all of us can participate in ways that are helpful to the environment. It is not only a question of large policy changes with respect to Government or questions of industrial environmental policy, it is also a question of how we behave as individuals in everyday situations and habits.
It is worthy to remember that we all have a role to play in confronting air pollution and other environmental questions. It can take the form of ensuring that we dispose of empty cans rather than throwing them on the side of the road or not idling our engines unnecessarily. It is certainly true that this occurs on Parliament Hill, particularly with the tour buses and Ministers' cars. I do not have a car so I have not given much thought to this in terms of my own habits. However, I congratulate the Hon. Member for bringing this issue to the floor of the House of Commons.
I must caution him that the real reductions in air pollution will take place when we have the kind of pollution abatement programs that so many of us in the House have asked for from the last Government and the present Government. Those are the programs that will make the real difference in terms of over-all reduction of emissions.
We should be careful not to get involved in blaming the victims of this problem and transferring the responsibility for the quality of our environment to individuals while forgetting that the most serious environmental pollution comes from the action of industry in our environment and economy. It is important to focus our attention in that area rather than
Environmental Affairs
concentrate on how individuals contribute to environmental pollution. I am not saying that individual participation is not important but we should not shift our attention from what can be done by Government policy about the various sources of pollution.
I remind Hon. Members that we have not seen any concrete manifestation of the hopes that were aroused when the Government announced that it was prepared to contribute $150 million with the provinces toward the acid rain problem. I understand that an announcement is forthcoming and I hope it will be beneficial, but we have yet to see something concrete take place at that level.
There has been opportunity to take steps in this context during a recent debate on the question of leaded and unleaded gasoline. I support the views of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) about the need for Canadians to use more unleaded gas but I regret that he has not taken the opportunities to use legislation before the House to do something about the tax framework applied to leaded and unleaded gasoline. I do not believe there would be any political repercussions-unless it affects the oil companies-to provide an equal price for leaded and unleaded gasoline. I would prefer to see a disincentive for using leaded gasoline by making it more expensive, but why could they not be the same price to at least provide incentive for people to use unleaded gasoline?


Mr. Gurbin:: What about the farmers?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Special provisions could be made for farmers. That is not an insurmountable problem, but one which we could surely solve. I would say to the Government that it is one thing to lecture Canadians about what they are doing to their catalytic converters et cetera but there is a policy option choice waiting for the Government. The choice is, if not equalize the price of leaded and unleaded gas, perhaps even make leaded gas more expensive, and to have a compensatory policy to offset the effects of that general tax policy on people who are perceived to be captive users of leaded gas, in this case the agricultural community. This could be done and it would be a forward step. I recommend it to the Government as 1 know other people have. I do not pretend to be saying anything original here, but I am just using the opportunity of this debate to urge upon the Government that it do that and that it move with all speed, so to speak, to show that it is sincere when it comes to the question of leaded and unleaded gas.
I have a great deal of genuine respect for the new Minister of the Environment. I think the kinds of things he has been saying about leaded and unleaded gas have been very good. I hope the Government will be able to follow through on what the Minister has been saying by doing something at the policy level with respect to leaded gas.
I think that is about all I have to say, Mr. Speaker, on the matter. I hope the motion passes. It would be kind of neat for us to try and do within our own precinct what we want people to do everywhere else. It would be an opportunity to show a

November 18, 1985
Environmental Affairs
certain kind of leadership, and for that reason I hope the motion passes.


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and to make a few comments contrary to those made by the previous Member. The actions taken by the Government to control vehicle emissions are only part of the picture. They are only one element of a larger program to combat air pollution on all fronts. Measures already taken by this Government will reduce harmful emissions of nitrogen oxide. They will also greatly curtail the amounts of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and lead. The new standards will have the effect of reducing automotive pollution by over 45 per cent by the end of the century.
The Government is moving against air pollution to protect the health of Canadians, to improve air quality, particularly in our urban areas, to reduce crop losses caused by automotive pollutants and to control the greatest environmental problems that Canada has ever faced, namely, acid rain.
Acid rain is caused by two common by-products of our modern industrial lifestyle, sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxides. As a result of acid rain, or more correctly acid precipitation, the rains and snows that once were clean and pristine have now become dangerously acidic and destructive due to human activity.
The main sources of sulphur oxide emissions in North America are coal fired power generating stations and non-ferrous ore smelters. The main sources of nitrogen oxide emissions are vehicles. The Government's initiative to clean up acid rain will vastly reduce sulphur emissions as well. In fact, the Canadian acid rain control program announced on March 6 is the most ambitious environmental program that has ever been launched in this country.
Consider, Mr. Speaker, the accomplishments of this program. Canada is the only country to have based an acid rain control policy on achieving a quantifiable environmental objective, the target loading level of 20 kilograms per hectare per year of wet sulphate fallout, the level which our lakes and rivers can tolerate without damage occurring.
Canada's commitment to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions in eastern Canada by 50 per cent by the year 1994 is the largest percentage cut-back promised by any national acid rain program. The Government has put in place a pragmatic program to see that this commitment will be fulfilled. Our new motor vehicle emissions are as tough as those of any other nation in the world and, indeed, are tougher than most.
The program of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) includes the largest and most comprehensive scientific research and monitoring effort ever undertaken by Canada in the environmental field. Current expenditures equal $30 million, and over $18 million of this sum will come from the federal Government.
In a way which typifies the working of the new Government, Canada's acid rain program is an example of co-operation. It involves the seven eastern provincial Governments in the signing of agreements with the federal Government and the active support of the three western provinces. As well, the program reflects the interests of the private sector and of citizens of all ages and walks of life.
Each of these provincial Governments has now identified the S02 emissions to be cut to safeguard the Canadian environment from acid rain and each has committed itself to make these cuts. The process of developing regulatory orders is now under way.
The Province of Quebec provides a good example of how the acid rain agreement will work in a practical way. Quebec announced its emission control plans on February 8, 1985, in amendments to its Environmental Quality Act. Quebec's sulphur emissions will be cut back by 45 per cent over-all. In some cases, actions must be initiated immediately to respond to the regulations. The implementation of these regulations means that Quebec will have done its share in helping Canada to meet its 1994 reduction target. The other eastern provincial Governments are expected to announce their own emission control regulations during 1985.
These measures to reduce acid rain will not be without cost. The price of designing and installing acid rain control measures is over $1.5 billion, of which $750 million will be spent in the nickel and copper smelting industry.
Industry has the primary responsibility for carrying these costs. The federal and provincial Governments have agreed to provide financial assistance in cases where a company cannot afford to implement the necessary pollution control measures as quickly as required to meet society's best interests.
The Government, Mr. Speaker, has been able to sit down with the provinces, discuss the acid rain problem in a frank and realistic manner, a portion of the cut-backs that are necessary to meet the 1994 targets and hammer out a way to meet the substantial costs involved.
We are supporting technology development for the cleaner and more efficient use of coal for power generation. The objective of this program is to make the continued use of coal, particularly Canadian coal, economically attractive for power generation by both industry and utilities within the established emission levels. More than $70 million has been budgeted for this purpose over the next four years. Together with the western coal producing provinces and Ontario, we are investigating the prospects for using low sulphur western coal in Ontario.
We are also pledged to a continuing scientific investigation and monitoring of acid rain. Annual expenditures in this field will be in excess of $18 million, and will involve Government scientists and engineers from eight different departments and agencies. The private sector and our universities will be asked to join in this work.
The Hon. Member's motion states that:
-the Government should launch a public education campaign inviting all Canadians to do the same and to invite the provincial Governments to take the same steps.
November 18, 1985

In other words, the motion is calling upon the Government to get involved and to educate the Canadian public about better driving habits. I am pleased to inform this House that Environment Canada is already active in the area of vehicle emissions and good driving practices, including excessive idling of cars. I would like to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to just two of the Department's fact sheets, one entitled Air Pollution and Your Car and the other Winter Driving. Both are excellent brochures. Both warn against excessive idling. Last April's issue of Environment Update was devoted exclusively to the automobile and the responsibilities of the user in helping to protect the environment. As well, there are a number of publications put out by the Department of Transport and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources encouraging good driving habits. Of particular note is Transport Canada's 1986 Fuel Consumption Guide which rates new cars' performance and includes reference to low polluting cars.
I hope I have shown that the Government's program to fight acid rain by reducing emissions from various sources, including cars, is a sign of its commitment to environmental quality in general. The Government has been given the wherewithal to carry out its resolve to clean up our environment through the assurance of a stable Budget and sound government finances for at least the next five years.
The Hon. Member's motion is completely in line with the policies and practices of the Government. It brings home to all of us, in a very concrete way, the aims and goals toward which we are working and sets an example for the way in which individual actions of ordinary Canadians can be brought to bear to reduce air pollution. I support the motion and recommend that it be adopted.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether we are on the verge of doing something here which will dramatically affect our life-styles as Members of Parliament. I guess that remains to be seen. We become a part of a very select group of people in the House of Commons after six o'clock in the evening. I guess we will not all have to walk home.
We have before us a very interesting and worth-while proposal by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). Other Hon. Members have supported his motion quite freely. He is asking us, as Members of Government and specifically as Members of Parliament, to set an example which will show Canadians at large that we are serious about the kinds of things we discuss, not only tonight but whenever we talk about environmental issues. Basically he asks us to practise what we preach in this specific area which is under our domain.
A couple of points might be made. I am not sure whether the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) raised some concern as to the balance between private Canadian citizens and Canadian industries on the relative contribution which each might make to air pollution. I do not know whether it is an either-or situation. I do not know whether he
Environmental Affairs
meant to imply that. However, I do not think the motion indicates that it will solve all our problems.
Depending upon what area of the country one looks at, a very significant proportion of the problem is caused by automobile emissions. Probably Los Angeles might be the best example in the world, but we certainly have our own examples in Canada. In some of the downtown core areas of our cities this motion could make a dramatic difference. I think Ottawa itself would be well served if the motion was concurred in.
The motion before the House is very similar to a suggestion brought before us not long ago. I do not have the exact date, but it was presented by the Chairman of the Special Subcommittee on Acid Rain, the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling). Under the provisions of Standing Order 21 he asked the House for unanimous approval to ensure that the buses about which the Hon. Member for Davenport spoke, would no longer idle the way they do.
This raises a very specific point which the Chair might like to consider. There may in fact be instances where there is reason for it not being an absolute rule, where common sense might prevail. For example, it might involve a refrigeration unit containing Hershey bars, or some other very perishable product which requires refrigeration to avoid spoilage or destruction of edible foodstuffs. It may not be the only example. There could be other very specific instances. I am sure Hon. Members have confidence in the discretion of the Chair to ensure that whatever the House decides in its wisdom to pass will be executed with some common sense and in a reasonable way.
What stands out in my mind-and perhaps it stands out in the minds of other Hon. Members or perhaps the scribes who are listening-is that this has been going on for a long time. It is not a new problem which we discuss in the House tonight, it has been going on for years and there can be no question in anyone's mind about that. If we take a look at the figures and the information now available to us we will see that air pollution is an ongoing and very serious problem which we in Canada have been trying to come to grips with for many years.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill asked where was the action about which we had talked. When the Conservative Government came into power on September 4, 1984, we promised an action plan within six months. The last Minister of the Environment delivered that action plan on time, and in a way which provided effective control in one specific area of air pollution. Included in that control program were significant changes, as indicated by the previous speaker, to acceptable levels of auto emissions. We have expectations that we will see the Final touches to that program, the action plan which was presented in full along with the federal commitment, in the very near future. It will be a relief for all of us. Then we will be left to deal with the major problems of trans-boundary pollution.
We know that automobile emissions account for 21 per cent of all man-made Canadian nitrogen oxide emissions. Other transportation vehicles, including heavy-duty trucks, machines and off-highway transport, produce 41 per cent of NO, emis-

November 18, 1985
Environmental Affairs
sions, so that vehicular transport accounts for 62 per cent of NO, emissions in Canada. If we balance that with the industry component, we find that it does not account for all the remaining, but certainly vehicles account for the majority of emissions, and individual Canadians drive those vehicles.
Nitrogen emissions are a dangerous environmental pollutant. I should like to touch upon several matters, but first I would like to review the environmental problems associated with NO,. Some of this terminology may confuse some people from time to time, myself included, but NO, includes a whole range of oxides of nitrogen. They are grouped or clumped together in this so-called NO,. All of them have their own level of danger. Some are more dangerous in certain situations than others. There are direct and indirect effects. The direct effects are on human health, on the environment itself and on material goods. We heard a little from the Hon. Member for Davenport about the effects on human health. Primarily we should consider the effect on the respiratory tract itself.
Also we have seen the effects which nitrogen oxide can have on plants, particularly commercially grown crops. However, there is good evidence to show, especially as a component of acid rain, that not only commercial plants are affected. In some areas of the country-the area in which I live, for instance-acid rain and its effect on small lakes is not really a problem because of a limestone base. Therefore, people in those areas do not have the same sensitivity to the issue as those in other parts of Ontario, or indeed Canada.
When acidic precipitation becomes heavy enough, it affects the leaves on trees, and on other plants growing around homes for example. In fact, leaves experience significant detrimental impact from highly acidic rain.
The indirect effects relate to the reaction of nitrogen oxides with other elements of air pollution. We are all familiar with smog. We usually think of it in terms of very large cities, but smog is formed when nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons combine. They, together with other products of combustion, react with sunlight. A major component of smog is ozone.
If it is difficult for myself or other people to communicate some of this information, it is because we do not exactly know what we are talking about. That is not to say that we do not have good reason to respond or to take action, but the scientific evidence is certainly incomplete. It is not developed to a point where we can precisely indicate the reaction of specific by-products or a combination thereof. We know the end effect of many of these things. We know, for instance, the very serious effect which ozone can have on our agricultural products in Ontario. There are $2 billion worth of agricultural product affected each year and the losses to agriculture in Ontario are as high as $20 million a year just from ozone alone. We know that 7 per cent of people when exposed to ozone have very serious respiratory problems. So there is a health impact as well as a direct impact on other living material such as plants. We know of some specific problems but are unfortunately not in a position to be completely clear on all of these interactions.
Ozone levels in many Canadian cities have exceeded the national ambient air quality objectives which we believe are acceptable. A specific example which impressed me is that Vancouverites are frequently exposed to elevated ozone levels once or twice a week during the summer months. In eastern Canada, particularly in southwestern Ontario, high ozone levels are related to the trans-boundary movement of air pollution. We know as well, and we have heard information on it today, that the NO emissions themselves must be reduced in order to address the acid rain problem in Canada. NO emissions are responsible for about 35 per cent of the acidity of precipitation. In winter months, they can be responsible for up to 50 per cent of the acidity of precipitation. Nitrates deposited during the winter months accumulate in the snow pack and when the snow melts accumulated acid from the nitrates then runs off into the so-called spring shock. This gets into our lakes, streams and watersheds and in those higher concentrations picks up some of the heavy metals which themselves contribute to some of the secondary effects of acid rain and the resultant effects on our forests.
Evidence is mounting which suggests that the combined effects of acid rain, ozone and climatic stress such as drought can combine in ways which are highly damaging, particularly to forests. Dramatic evidence of these effects has already emerged, particularly in Europe. Germany, in particular, has responded very dramatically. It has had almost a complete turn-around in its whole environmental program and concepts within the last two or three years. Its current policy now calls for substantial reductions in both sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.
NO, emissions in Canada have been increasing steadily. In fact, it is predicted that if they are not controlled by the end of the century they will rise to a level 20 per cent higher than they are now. In view of the fact that these emissions have been increasing at such rates that they damage the environment and contribute to acid rain, controls on NO, emissions in Canada are urgently needed.
The Conservative Government has recognized this need and after years and years of inaction a package of measures was introduced last March which we feel can be effective in reducing these emissions to an acceptable level in order to prevent further damage from the acid precipitation.
I could talk about some of the things we have accomplished in gazetting the standards we hope we can achieve and plan on achieving. The second part of the gazetting which would impose those standards is currently being considered now and we hope to introduce it very shortly.
I would like to conclude by making a few points which I believe are important. The question of lead in our gasoline has already been alluded to. This is a part of the total emissions from cars here on the Hill and everywhere right across Canada. We know of the effects of this on human health. What I want to do is specifically mention something which I do not believe has been mentioned before, that is, in September of 1984 the previous Minister of the Environment in this
November 18, 1985

Government asked the Royal Society of Canada to provide independent advice on the present and future risks resulting from the presence of lead in the environment.
The Royal Society Commission on Lead in the environment released its report on October 29, 1985, less than a month ago. The recommendations in the report support the planned reduction of lead in leaded gasoline and the stricter exhaust emission controls for new vehicles which will take effect in 1987. The report also states that the Minister may want to reduce levels of lead in gasoline even further. The Minister has declared his intention to meet with members of the petroleum industry to discuss a timetable for the phase-out of lead in gasoline.
What we have before us, Mr. Speaker, is a very common sense and reasonable motion. We, as a Government, are determined to protect the health of Canadians and our environment as far as possible. We want to encourage all actions toward this end. I believe, Mr. Speaker, if you were to ask for concurrence in this motion you would find the House to be in agreement.
I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Davenport for his foresight and his ongoing efforts on behalf of the environment and I would like to assure him that the Government plans to follow along with things which have been initiated in the past and also to proceed in the future to make sure that we have the kind of environment which will serve us all well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House to proceed to the Adjournment Proceedings?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 46 deemed to have been moved.
Adjournment Debate

Alan Redway: As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, we have a very major problem in this country, that of missing children. Some of the children run away from home, some of them are abducted by their parents and some of them are abducted by strangers. Over the last 10 years in Metropolitan Toronto, apart from those children who were abducted by their parents, some 64,000 cases of missing children were reported. On almost any day in Metropolitan Toronto between 35 and 75 children are reported missing. Of course, this is a problem not only in Metropolitan Toronto, it exists right across the country. There are thousands and thousands of cases of missing children reported each year.
What are we currently doing about this situation? Some of the police departments are very co-operative assisting the parents in trying to track down missing children. Some police departments are not quite as co-operative. Police departments are linked by a computer system, and the Canadian Police Information Centre tries to keep track of all police information, including missing children. Unfortunately there is no common data base between police departments with respect to matters relating to missing children. As a result, it is impossible for the police to access this information accurately and properly to every police department in the country when they need it. We have and continue to have the problem of a lack of information relating to missing children.
In the United States they have tried to meet this problem by establishing the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. On October 10, you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that I asked a question of the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Beatty) relating to the American Centre, and whether he would consider establishing a similar centre in Canada. Subsequently I wrote to him on the same subject.
In his reply on November 1, he indicated that he currently has the Royal Canadian Mounted Police doing extensive work on the question of establishing a central registry for missing children, a registry that would provide, in his words: first, enhancement of police investigations concerning missing children; second, a mechanism through which the public would seek information on missing children; and third, a mechanism which would facilitate the correlation of information with a view to periodically publishing national bulleting on missing children and other forms of public information. This is something that is certainly long overdue.
I have received a letter from a Mr. Gary Rosenfeldt, Director of the Victims of Violence, an organization centred in Edmonton. He mentioned one case involving a missing child in which he has been involved. He tried to communicate with the police department in one particular city on this subject, asking for a picture of the missing child that has actually been published in the press. He did not receive any response whatsoever to his letter. He called long distance asking for a picture of the missing child and was promised a picture, but it never

November 18, 1985
Adjournment Debate
came. Eventually, he received a picture from private sources. The Victims of Violence organization publish flyers and leaflets on which pictures of missing children are printed, and using volunteers they have been posted in some 8,000 post offices across the country. That is the sort of thing that is very helpful, but certainly the police should be much more active and helpful in this area.
In his letter of November 1 the Solicitor General went on to say that the registry he has in mind on which the RCMP is working would not be the equivalent of the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children in the United States. That American centre was established in 1984 and was funded with something like $4 million. It is an organization that is centred within the United States Department of Justice. It administers this system which helps to co-ordinate a volunteer network looking for missing children, a free telephone system to carry the information and a whole network that provides information relating to missing children so that the public, parents and anyone interested can receive this information. This organization has been in existence for a very short period of time but hopefully it will have the effect that all of us wish to see, of helping to locate missing children, whether they are missing as a result of running away or of abduction.
In his letter the Solicitor General went on to say that he has also instructed officials in his own Department to carry on discussions with the Department of Justice and the Department of National Health and Welfare with a view to examining further initiatives that might be taken by the federal Government, either alone or in conjunction with the provinces and the private sector, to alleviate the human tragedy associated with the phenomenon of missing children. That is certainly something in which we are all interested. Hopefully the efforts of the Solicitor General of Canada will bear some results.
I am optimistic that we will see some legislation to assist, and that we will definitely see a registry of missing children. I hope there will be other measures as well to help solve this very, very perplexing and troublesome problem. I am looking forward to hearing the Parliamentary Secretary tonight tell us of his suggestions and hopefully the suggestions of the Solicitor General of Canada regarding what immediate action will be taken by the Government in this direction to help solve the tragic problem of missing children in Canada.


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to expand on the reply given October 10, 1985 by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) regarding the establishment of a national centre to assist in locating missing children. The Hon. Minister of Justice informed the House that the RCMP is presently exploring the feasibility of establishing a national registry to assist in the search for missing children. In addition, I would like to elaborate briefly on the efforts of our U.S. neighbours, and also to describe an important piece of legislation presently under consideration by this Government that will assist in locating children abducted by parents.
The National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children in Washington, D.C. is located within the federal Justice Department and largely co-ordinates efforts of local law-enforcement agencies and volunteer groups to assist in locating missing children. It has in place a toll-free number for the public to use in order to report children who have gone missing and the sightings of any missing children. It is also involved in promoting public education and public awareness programs about the problem of missing children.
For example, it promotes the training of law-enforcement officers and members of the legal profession in a way that would inform them about the realities of missing children. Its staff does not actually search for missing children. However, it has access to the National Crime Information Computer system and other networks to facilitate its work. The success of the centre's co-ordination efforts therefore relies heavily on existing law-enforcement facilities and adequate laws throughout the United States. Without the capacity to obtain reports on missing children and to be able to call on law-enforcement and social agency personnel to carry out the search, a coordinating service such as this would not be able to achieve the desired results. This should make it clear to the Hon. Member that, while a central co-ordinating centre has an important role to play, it plays only a small part in the over-all network that must also be in place.
I would now like to say a few words about our own federal efforts to introduce a similar co-ordinating mechanism at the federal level designed to assist in the tracing of missing children in Canada. The Minister of Justice has sponsored a Bill that is presently under consideration by the Government which, if passed, will allow courts to authorize the release of information to trace missing persons. It would apply to cases in which children are missing due to parental abductions, and also to cases in which children are missing due to the violation of a custody order, a right-of-access order or a custody agreement. It is expected that these provisions will increase the enforceability of parental abduction offences recently introduced into the Criminal Code, as well as secure greater respect for custody and access rights.
[ Translation]


TEXTILES (A) INQUIRY ABOUT $30 MILLION GIVEN TO DOMINION TEXTILE (B) INQUIRY RESPECTING USE OF FUNDS PAID TO DOMINION TEXTILE
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, regarding the question I put to the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) on October 30 of this year concerning the textile industry and more specifically: " .. . the shutdown of two modern plants in Saint-Jean and Valleyfield, the members of a committee to maintain employment urged the Government to inquire into the use and management of public funds given to Dominion Textile by the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board." And my question was: "Was there an inquiry? If so, what has been learned about the $30 million given to Dominion Textiles?"
November 18, 1985

Mr. Speaker, to give some background information and provide some insight into the importance of this issue, I would like to start by talking about the social and economic impact of Dominion Textile's decision to close its two plants. With an unemployment rate near 12 per cent in both communities, the social and economic repercussions of the shutdown of these plants could prove to be disastrous for Saint-Jean and Valley-field.
The two support committees estimate that in addition to the 850 employees, union and management, who will be laid off, there are some 1,200 people, dependent children and spouses, who will also be directly affected. The total wage bill at stake in the case of a shutdown would be around $20 million. Add to this the subsequent loss of at least 200 jobs indirectly related to the industry.
The impact would be even more severe in the Valleyfield area, according to Denis Lecompte, Vice-President of the Chamber of Commerce, since the average age of employees at the Valleyfield plant is 42.8, which is higher than in Saint-Jean, where the average age is 33.5, which means Valleyfield workers would have more trouble finding new employment. This particular impact, this economic fact was described in a document prepared by the committee for maintaining jobs in Valleyfield and Saint-Jean-sur-le-Richelieu.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to quote from an article that appeared in May 1984. The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), at the time Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and of the Official Opposition, said as reported in the Sherbrooke newspaper La Tribune:
A Conservative Government would not get rid of the import quotas imposed by Canada in the footwear and textile sectors.
"The quota policy will remain as is", declared Mr. Mulroney, who said he was not in favour of free trade in these particular sectors.
He added that he would not "give in" to pressure from Common Market countries and the United States to reduce quotas on footwear or textile products imported into Canada.
"And I will certainly say so to President Reagan when 1 meet him in Washington next month. I will make sure our interests are protected at all times. Friendship does not come free. Neighbours like us are worth a lot", maintained the Conservative Leader.
Mr. Speaker, the situation has taken a turn for the worst. Over 800 jobs will disappear. The average age of workers is 42.8 in Valleyfield and 33.5 in Saint-Jean-sur-le-Richelieu. They can therefore expect to have some retraining problems.
The current buzz words are free trade, but the fact is that Canadian taxpayers have put up $30 million to enable Dominion Textile to equip its two plants with the most modern facilities in Canada, yet they will be the first to close down.
Now then, as I said in my supplementary question to the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) on October 30, 1985: What happens to the $30 million-and these funds belong to Canadian taxpayers-paid to Dominion Textile which has now announced the shutdowns? What happens to that money, Mr. Speaker?
Adjournment Debate


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to reply to the question put by the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) who was concerned about $30 million supposedly paid to Dominion Textile which recently announced the closing of its Saint-Jean and Valleyfield plants.
An important element of the textile and clothing policy announced in June 1981 was the establishment of the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board. The purpose of this board is to provide firms in these sectors with financial assistance to enable them to restructure and modernize their facilities.
In February, 1983 the CIRB approved an offer of a contribution to Dominion Textile based on the intention of the company to invest $150 million. To date, eligible capital expenditures by the company have totalled $79,101,011, for which the company has received a contribution of $15,820,202, corresponding to 20 per cent of approved expenditures. The company has until June 30, 1986 to complete its project. It is not expected that the company will be able to finalize its restructuring plan as forecasted.
With respect to the assistance provided to the two plants for which closures are scheduled for June 1986, totals of $2,337,048 and $286,905 were disbursed for the Saint-Jean and Valleyfield plants respectively. There is nothing in the agreement with the company which prevents the movement of assisted assets from one location to another, as long as they continue to be utilized by the company to improve its competitiveness, the prime objective of the CIRB program.
As part of the process of restructuring its activities, the firm has chosen to rationalize its operations further by closing the Saint-Jean and Valleyfield plants. We understand most of the equipment, which is fairly modern, will be transferred to other plants owned by the company. CIRB will not finance the moving of the equipment. From a total of 740 jobs which will be affected in Saint-Jean and Valleyfield the company expects to provide some 350 to 400 extra jobs in Drummondville and Magog. It is hoped that these measures taken by Dominion Textile will result in a return to profitability and the safeguard of the 7,000 jobs which remain in the company.
Although the company has confirmed that its decision to close the two plants is final I can assure the Hon. Member that the Government is continuing to explore, with the company and persons concerned, all the options available for keeping these plants in operation or for attracting additional investment in order to maintain an equivalent number of jobs. Various factors contributed to these two plant closures including increased imports.
The Government is currently reviewing the situation of the textile and clothing industry with a view to developing a revised textile and clothing policy. The policy review is aimed at developing measures to provide longer term certainty for these industries and their employees. It will also include an assessment of the multi-fibre arrangement which provides a

November 18, 1985
Adjournment Debate
framework for regulating international trade in textile and clothing products.


FISHERIES-STANDING COMMITTEE HEARINGS. (B) EFFECT OF LICENSING FACTORY FREEZER TRAWLER
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to elaborate on a question I asked of the Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Nielsen) concerning the licensing of factory freezer trawlers in Atlantic Canada.
At the time the committee was travelling in Atlantic Canada there was only one application under active consideration. That was for National Sea Products Limited to operate a factory freezer trawler off the East Coast of Canada. In our opinion, the information gathered in that committee was gathered behind closed doors without public input and public scrutiny of the process. Of the approximate 106 witnesses who appeared before the committee, the vast majority were absolutely opposed to the granting of a factory freezer licence and saw very serious impacts for Atlantic Canada if it were granted.
The committee travelled through Atlantic Canada between October 23 and November 6 and there were requests to raise the matter. By and large the committee denied those requests and would not permit a detailed hearing of the factory freezer trawler issue. Instead, the committee passed a unanimous motion to hold a one-day hearing in Ottawa on November 21. An advertisement was placed in the newspapers of Atlantic Canada asking for the submission of briefs from groups affected and interested in this particular question. The opposition was so virtually unanimous and so deeply rooted in Atlantic Canada that certainly this should have been done. Unfortunately, the Conservative members of the committee decided today that they would not permit the groups affected and the people of Atlantic Canada to comment on the impact of this licensing. I am not speaking of just one licence but three. We feel it is an incredible breach of confidence in the committee and a breach of the parliamentary process when a committee can unanimously turn around and cut off all input which would occur in a public forum.
We in the Opposition see this as the hand of the Acting Minister of Fisheries, a man whom I would suggest has been given the task of dismantling many of the aspects of Government. We wonder whether or not one of his tasks is the dismantling of the Atlantic fishery through the method by which the Government has chosen to license the factory freezer trawlers. We see the hand of the Acting Minister through the Parliamentary Secretary who gave the direction or the marching orders to Conservative members of the committee to vote against allowing the people and groups they represent from Altantic Canada from appearing before the committee and laying out the problems they have or, in some cases, the support they have for the factory freezer trawler issue. By and large the vast majority of Atlantic Canadians involved in the fishing industry are absolutely opposed to this move.
I would like to mention a couple of small items in addition to the very negative impact on the rural fishing communities
and the inshore fisheries of the Provinces of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. I am referring to the situation in St. Pierre and Miquelon where the French are attempting to use factory freezer trawlers in the area around St. Pierre and Miquelon. Canada has recently submitted that case to arbitration. I think the Canadians have made fools of themselves in the international theatre by grating not only one licence but three for factory freezer trawlers, considering the timing of the granting of these licences prior to an arbitration case. 1 think they have cut their own throats on this particular matter, an act of colossal stupidity.
As well, we are talking about free trade with the United States. It has been said in the U.S. that if we want greater access to that market we should be prepared to allow the Americans to fish our surplus stock with factory freezer trawlers. They would not have to worry about jobs in Canada. They will deliver our fish in their vessels into their ports for their market.
Again, the Acting Minister of Fisheries, with undignified haste, is attempting to muzzle the committee and by doing so demonstrates contempt for parliamentary reform. It demonstrates contempt for the committee system. This Governmenl obviously has no intention of abiding by a policy of open Government. The decisions will be taken by someone who is literally the hit man for this Government behind closed doors.
We suspect that the reason for this muzzling is to allow the dirty work to be done by the Acting Minister. Should the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) ever get around to appointing a new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, one who is concerned about the industry on both coasts, he will supposedly be able to approach the job with clean hands. However, that is not going to happen. If we cannot deal with this matter in committee, we intend to raise the issue time after time after time in this House. This issue must be dealt with properly in a public forum before a decision is made which will literally take apart many of our small communities in Atlantic Canada.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that the Hon. Member again demonstrates his lack of understanding of the Parliamentary process. He has raised matters tonight which took place in the last day or two and are extraneous to the question he asked on November 8. The misinformation and unreliable statements he has added today signifies and typified the reasons he is held in contempt by so many of his colleagues in this House, and he is most contemptible most of the time. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) adequately summed it up on page 8478 of Hansard when he said, referring to the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly):
Mr. Speaker, as has become his unhappy habit, the Hon. Member is speaking nonsense.
That is the same Member who spoke nonsense just a moment ago.
November 18, 1985

I should inform him, in case he does not realize it, that there have been numerous consultations on the subject of the request by National Sea concerning obtaining a permit for a factory freezer trawler. The decision was taken and announced on November 8, 1985.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Therefore this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.04 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 19, 1985