1985-10-18

Mr. Alfonso Gagiiano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker,
I rejoice over the Canadian Federation of Independent Business announcement that 250,000 jobs will be created by Canadian small businesses in 1985.
The announcement is related to several factors. The number of new jobs might be three times as high had the Conservative Government completely abolished the capital gains tax, provided such gains would be invested in small- and medium-sized businesses.
The $500,000 exemption advocated by the Conservative Government will not channel investments towards job-creating small- and medium-sized businesses. The new owner of an apartment building does not create a single job, yet the seller is entitled to a tax exemption.
The odd job this Conservative measure might create will not be an adequate substitute for the thousands of other jobs we lose every day as a result of the Conservative Government's lack of leadership.
Montreal East is a telling example-5,000 jobs lost within a few days.


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should draw the attention of the House to a wonderful letter that has come to me. The letter goes on for three pages about the terrible things which the Conservative Government has done, and, by golly, it is all true. Right here, you can see the letter has been signed by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), the Leader of the Opposition. He is inviting me to join the Liberals. One of the reasons he said I should join is because the Tories have "saddled Canadians with a hodge-podge of backward sales taxes and surcharges
likely to cost the typical Canadian family thousands of dollars over the years ahead".
But, wait a minute. Does my memory fail me, or was it the Liberals who brought in that sales tax increase in the first place? Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it was in Marc Lalonde's 1983 Budget that the Minister of Finance announced a "special recovery tax". The major effect of that 1 per cent sales tax increase, which the Conservatives opposed and then introduced last year, was to take a billion dollars out of the economy and slow down any recovery which might have provided jobs for Canadians.
Well, it seems the Liberals have seen a light on the road to Damascus, and are now writing to thousands of Canadians calling the sales tax increases backward.
The Leader of the Opposition writes a great letter. But perhaps, just perhaps, the next time he writes to Canadians he will be honest enough to point out that the programs he was criticizing were introduced First by Liberals.


Mr. Speaker:: I must tell the Hon. Member that his time has expired. The Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier).

[ Translation]


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, over the 12-month period ended in September 1985, 304,000 more Canadians found gainful employment, and the unemployment rate dropped from 11.6 to 10.1 per cent during that time. The New Democratic Party does not even mention it.
The Bank of Canada prime rate decreased by 3.53 per cent since the election and now stands at 8.85 per cent, a seven-year low. Mortgage rates are down 2.5 per cent to the current level of 11.75 per cent. The Grits are tight-lipped about it.
Over the first seven months of 1985 the value of building permits rose by 17 per cent over the same period the year before. The New Democratic Party has nothing to say about that.
The 4 per cent inflation rate has remained practically unchanged for over a year. The Liberals are silent.
Over the first eight months of 1985 there were 13 per cent fewer bankruptcies as compared with the same period the year before. The Liberals have nothing to say.

October 18, 1985
Last month's construction starts were 29 per cent higher than in September 1984. The New Democratic Party will not even acknowledge it.
Mr. Speaker, investors have regained confidence, consumer spending is up, prices have levelled off, manufacturers' orders are on the rise, and the performance of our economy puts us ahead of our American neighbours.
We will continue to work because we were elected to improve the living conditions of Canadians. We will let the Opposition talk about phoney scandals and patronage abuse, for that is their negative approach and they should know better.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, today, on the occasion of Persons Day, tribute is said to the five Alberta women who led the fight for women's recognition as persons in 1929.
Last night six contemporary Canadian women, who have dedicated their lives to the ideals espoused by the Alberta five, were honoured at Rideau Hall as the recipients of this year's Persons Awards.
They are: Grace Hartman, a founding member of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women-Grace became the first woman president of a major Canadian union; Marguerite Bergeron-Tremblay, whose long-standing involvement in Le Cercle Des Fermieres, La Federation des Femmes du Quebec, MATCH, and Amnesty International is evidence of her commitment to the betterment of women in Canada and around the world; Nazla Dane, a guiding force behind the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs and its former president-Nazla was an early proponent of equal pay for work of equal value and of non-traditional careers for women; Gemma Pelletier Caron, long active in promoting the interests of Francophone women in New Brunswick, she founded La Federation des Dames d'Acadie; Pearl Steen, who combined her involvement in the Vancouver community with 30 years of activity with the National Council of Women, including its national presidency; and Evelyn O'Bomaswin-Lamirance, a founding member and president of L'Association des Femmes Autochtones du Quebec, who has worked tirelessly to promote the rights of native women.
These six remarkable Canadian women are worhty successors to the standard of strength and commitment set by Emily Murphy-


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the Member that her time has expired. The Hon. Member for Outremont.
[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, today on the anniversary of the Person Case, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the unconscionable manoeuvring by the Progressive Conservative Government against groups that are fighting de-indexation of family allowances.
Hearings by the Legislative Committee on Bill C-70 were to be held until November 22, but that has now been moved up to November 5. This is an obvious attempt to gag pressure groups by preventing them from coming or by limiting their preparation time.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Committee is refusing to hear comments by a pan-Canadian coalition against de-indexation of family allowances, which has now been established. This coalition consists of more than 80 groups including women's groups, unions, catholic parents, people working in daycare centres, and so forth. The Legislative Committee is ignoring the coalition and trying to give it as little hearing as possible. It is true that the Progressive Conservative Government was put in a difficult position by the de-indexing of Old Age Security pensions, and the parallel with family allowances is so obvious that my hon. colleagues opposite are running scared.
Let there be no mistake: Canadian men and women are not at all pleased with the Conservative Government's social policies. Neither the elderly nor women nor families appreciate them.


STATUS OF WOMEN-SEARCH FOR EQUALITY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, 56 years ago, the Privy Council of Great Britain recognized Canadian women as persons. However, women have yet to achieve equality in Canada. There are still laws to be amended and programs to be set up before full equality of both sexes is achieved in our economy, in politics and the arts.
The courts have a role to play. Unfortunately, some judges are following the example of the Supreme Court of Canada which in 1929 decided that Canadian women were not persons. I am thinking of the discrimination against Justine Blainey, who was excluded from a hockey team, despite the support of her teammates and her coach, because an Ontario court decided that discrimination in sports was acceptable.
October 18, 1985

We are also seeing this year a loss of economic rights by women as a result of de-indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit. Equal sharing in pension benefits has yet to be achieved by women.

In short, for women to be fully and genuinely equal persons in Canada, we have much work yet to accomplish, and the work of this House must be a good part of it.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, the Economic Council of Canada sees good times ahead. The Canadian economy has been showing growing signs of strength since the election of the Progressive Conservative Government in September, 1984. Employment is up-304,000 new jobs have been created. Interest rates are down. Investor confidence is strengthening. Consumer spending is rising. Prices are stable. Bankruptcies are down. The Canadian economy is outperforming the American economy. Our Gross National Product is up 4.1 per cent. Unemployment is the lowest in many years; it is down to 10.1 per cent. Youth unemployment has fallen to 16.1 per cent. The Bank of Canada rate is down to 8.7 per cent. At the time of the election it was 12.7 per cent. It is at its lowest level in many years. Housing starts are up.
In general, the Government has created a climate of confidence in Canada because of such achievements as the Western Accord and the Atlantic Accord.


Mr. Skelly:: What about the weather?


An Hon. Member:: It is sunny.


Alex Kindy: We in the Conservative Party have confidence in Canada.


FIGHT FOR EQUALITY-ROLE PLAYED BY CERTAIN CANADIAN WOMEN
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, on October 18, 1929, after a lengthy legal battle Canadian women were granted the status of "person". On the fifty-sixth anniversary of this event which marks a milestone in the struggle of women for equal rights and opportunities, we honour the memory of five Alberta women who presented a petition requesting those rights.
In the Person Case, they asked that Section 24 of the British North America Act be interpreted in such a way that the words "qualified Persons" would also apply to women. The
implications of the decision were immense. In fact, without a favourable interpretation, women could not be called to the Senate and were thus prevented from participating fully in our parliamentary system of government.
The "famous five"-Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby and Henrietta Muir Edwards-took their case to the Supreme Court of Canada, expecting a favourable decision. Nine months later, the Supreme Court ruled against their petition, thus dashing their hopes.
However, the "famous five" were stubborn and decided to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, the court of last resort for Canada at the time.
October 18, 1929 was a red-letter day for Canadian women. On that date, after four days of deliberations, the British Chancellor, Lord Sankey, declared that Section 24 included members of the male and female sex-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but her time has expired.

[DOT] (U15)


THE PRESS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of all eastern Canadians to apologize to the people of Edmonton for the untrue, intemperate, and uncalled for description of their fair city as a "used building lot" in The New York Times.
As a new Member of Parliament I saw Edmonton for the first time last fall and was incredibly impressed, not only with the natural beauty of the city but also with the cosmopolitan flavour of a city that has managed a graceful combination of old and new.
As a Hamiltonian who often faces disparaging comments about my city from outsiders who have never taken up the challenge of visiting Hamilton, I want to say to the people of Edmonton that Mordecai Richler does not speak for eastern Canada.
Your city is a beautiful one and one that deserves applause, not derision.
This kind of internecine squabbling in The New York Times does nothing to enhance the interests of our great country as a whole, nor of beautiful cities like Edmonton.
Mayor Decore, hold your head high. As for The New York Times, we want equal time to tell the Americans "like it really
is".

October 18, 1985
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I reflected on his replies to my questions about the Gulf Canada deal yesterday, and I am far from being convinced.
I ask him again to respond to my question, and it is this. The former Deputy Minister of Finance, Marshall Cohen, has said that the whole Gulf deal was discussed by the Priorities and Planning Committee, a committee presided over by the Prime Minister of Canada.
An integral part of that deal must have been the tax exemption of up to $1 billion. Obviously, that matter must have been discussed at the same time.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada really sticking to his position yesterday that the Prime Minister of this country, who presides over that committee, a committee which discussed the Gulf deal on several occasions, did not know of this $1 billion tax exemption?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my response has to be the same as that given yesterday.
The right hon. gentleman used two phrases in his question which obviously constitute conclusions, and I am speaking of his use of the phrase "he must have known" and the phrase "it must have been a part of the discussions".
Those are conclusions that he reaches on the basis of a newspaper article. My answer of yesterday remains valid. In addition to that, he has the Prime Minister's own words at a press conference held last Friday.


REPORTED ALLEGATIONS OF FORMER DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we also have the words of the former Deputy Minister of Finance.
It was not a matter of routine, as alleged by the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister. It was an exemption, it was a tax ruling for one billion dollars. It is obvious from the comments of the former Deputy Minister of Finance-it was not an article but a special interview-that the matter was discussed in the Canadian Cabinet, presided over by the Prime Minister.
Is the Deputy Minister... the Deputy Prime Minister, repeating that neither the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the country's tax system, nor the Prime Minister of Canada were aware of this one-billion-dollar exemption?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I answered the question yesterday as well, and I shall do so again.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows full well that it is totally improper for me to be discussing, in the House, discussions that take place in Cabinet, even to the extent of discussing what items may or may not be on the agenda. He knows that that is the practice.
He also knows that there is a process that is applicable within the Department of National Revenue with respect to the tax treatment of individuals, or firms, or corporations in situations such as this. He knows that there is a process by which advance rulings are given, and the appropriate Minister to report to the House with respect to that process is the Minister of National Revenue.


PREPARATION OF BUDGET-RETENTION OF FORMER DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE
John Napier Turner: The
Deputy Prime Minister is straining my faith in his words by suggesting to me that a $1 billion tax exemption was a routine matter, handled by the Department of National Revenue. That goes right beyond what the former Deputy Minister of Finance has said quite clearly in that article.
The question that I have for the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, is: once the former Deputy Minister of Finance had approached the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to tell them that he had received a job offer from a major Canadian company in the month of February, why was that-


Mr. Gormley:: Is there a question here?


John Napier Turner: Yes, there is. If you will hold on, you will get it.


An Hon. Member:: We are waiting.


Mr. Gauthier:: The $1 billion question.


John Napier Turner: Why did the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister retain that Deputy Minister for the preparation of a Budget, and for the preparation of a lot of tax measures affecting the oil and gas industry and other measures relating to that company? Why was that Deputy Minister retained for the preparation of a Budget after that information was given to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the question is in two parts and I will answer both. With respect to the first part of the question concerning the allegation which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition insists upon making, the press conference of last Friday given by the Prime Minister put it in
October 18, 1985

these words, and I am reading from a transcript of that press conference:
I can only assume, because there was no involvement by me or anyone else nor would there be in a revenue ruling, that the officers of the Department of Revenue passed judgment on a given situation pursuant to legislation and regulations that have passed the House of Commons.
Even that transcripted verbatim record of the Prime Minister's words has not found its way accurately into the press accounts upon which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is basing his questions. He should take, his questions to the appropriate Department. He knows that as does his colleague who is here today and is interested in the matter.
With respect to the last part of the question concerning Mr. Cohen's continuation as Deputy Minister of Finance, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has press accounts of Mr. Cohen's explanation with respect to how he treated his offer of employment. I would suggest that if the right hon. gentleman has any charge to make against Mr. Cohen with respect to conflict of interest, he knows the process through which he should proceed in order to give any effect to that kind of charge.


STATEMENT MADE BY MINISTER OF FINANCE
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I think we are beginning to flush the truth out of hiding bit by bit.


John Kenneth Gormley: You deserve so much credit.


Donald James Johnston: Thank you. My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Finance told the House, as reported at page 7726 of Hansard, that the matter of the acquisition of Gulf Canada by O&Y was discussed, and was discussed at some length because of the importance of that deal. Judging from his earlier response, is the Deputy Prime Minister telling us that it was inappropriate for the Minister of Finance to be that forthcoming with the House yesterday? Is he saying that it was not discussed in P and P at all?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am simply telling the hon. gentleman, as he well knows, and as he would answer if he were answering questions on behalf of the Ministry of which he was at one time the Minister, that it is improper for a Minister of the Crown to discuss, in response to questions in or outside the House of Commons, the subject matter of discussions that occur in Cabinet committee or in Cabinet. The Hon. Member knows that.


AUTHORIZATION FOR ISSUING TAX RULING
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, 1 would take it from that that the Deputy Prime Minister is telling us that the Minister of Finance was off base yesterday when he told us what was discussed in P and P. Quite beyond that, since the Deputy Prime Minister has
Oral Questions
quoted the Prime Minister's press conference, is he telling us that the management of the financial affairs of Canada have deteriorated to a point where the Minister of National Revenue can authorize a tax expenditure of $1 billion without any Cabinet input and without any input from P and P?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is simply trying to establish what he and the Leader of his Party failed to establish yesterday, and what the Leader of his Party has tried to establish again today. They are trying to get a member of the Government to (a), say there was a ruling, and (b), discuss the details of that ruling. As he knows, that is against the law. The law prevents that information from being disclosed. They both know that. There is a process which can be explored with the Minister of National Revenue. The reason they did not explore it yesterday or today is because they know full well what that process is, as they know full well that it is improper for me to answer in detail.


G125) REVIEW OF TAX LEGISLATION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. It concerns the latest boondoggle give-away to Gulf Oil. Once the ruling was made by the tax Department did the Minister of State for Finance or the Minister of Finance instruct their officials to look at the appropriateness of this specific tax legislation which allowed $1 billion to slip into the pockets of wealthy Canadians?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated in the House many times that tax policy is always under review. We have produced a paper on corporate tax reform. We have changed the arrangements surrounding the SRDTs. It is an ongoing process.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. In view of the fact that it was the Liberals who set this sumptuous table and the Tories who have served up this gourmet meal for Gulf Canada, can the Government tell ordinary Canadians, who would like to know, when this rip-off will come to an end?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think what the Hon. Member is ignoring in his whole line of questioning is what has been happening to the economy of Canada as a result of this Government's policies. The role of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has led to the lowest inflation rate and the greatest increase in the number of jobs we have seen in the country in years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 18, 1985
Oral Questions CONTINUATION OF PRACTICE


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. In view of the fact that Canadians and Parliament have no knowledge of how this deal was worked, can the Minister tell us whether this type of billion dollar give-away is going to go on and on and on?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is going to go on and on and on, just as will the improvement in Canadian economic conditions.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE HEARINGS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Chairman of the Finance Committee with respect to the current business of his committee. Will he schedule meetings immediately to hear the Minister of Finance and other relevant Ministers and officials on the Olympia & York-Gulf tax deal in the context of studying the many documents tabled in the House and, therefore, permanently referred to his committee for consideration? I ask this question in view of the fact that he expressed his interest in holding such hearings in a television interview yesterday.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for his question. I would be delighted to call a meeting of the steering committee of the Finance Committee after we complete our current concerns with the Green Paper.
I might say in passing that it would be good to have the finance critic of the Liberal Party at a steering committee meeting.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Once in a while.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Indeed, it would be good to have Liberal Party members in attendance at meetings more often.
I would be delighted to look into the matter along with the other many matters which are permanently referred to the committee.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for his forthright answer. His ministerial colleagues could learn something from him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT STEERING COMMITTEE BE CONVENED
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Chairman of the Finance Committee if he will undertake to call a steering committee meeting next week in order to schedule the hearings in question to take place within the next 10 days. I can assure him that if he does that there will be Liberals at the steering committee meeting, and certainly at the committee hearings.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to do that. Indeed, I will be meeting with the Finance Committee on Tuesday for a meeting which has been called for 9.30, again at 3.30, and again at 8.00 p.m. It will probably meet on Wednesday afternoon for the whole afternoon, and Wednesday evening, perhaps for the whole evening. We will get together. 1 am sure that the Liberal finance critic and the New Democratic Party finance critic can get together with the other members of the steering committee and myself and we can come up with a new proposal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I would certainly hope that I will have the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was afraid that answer might go on as long as the meetings.


REQUEST THAT LEGISLATION BE AMENDED
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. It is not her responsibility that we have a tax system which is riddled with loopholes for large corporations to make these rip-offs of the ordinary taxpayer. But is the Minister prepared here in the House today to make a commitment to the Canadian people that this kind of escape hatch for large corporations and wealthy people will be closed, in order to prevent this kind of thing in the future?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered this question before. The commitment of this Government is to create jobs in this country and to create growth in future economic conditions. If my friend had read the report today of the Economic Council of Canada, he would have seen that the projections under this Government over the next two or three years are better than they have been in a decade.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, clearly the Minister has had too much practice in not answering questions in the bank debate.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Let me ask the
Minister again if she really believes that the continued existence of this kind of law, which permits $1 billion in tax revenue to escape from the Canadian people, makes sense to the ordinary person in this country? Or is it not simply a rip-off for the corporate sector which is impossible to justify?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, what I believe is that this Government is committed to creating jobs. We have done that and will continue to do so throughout the economic and financial policies we have introduced. I think that that is what the Canadian people want from us. They want jobs and they want growth.
October 18, 1985


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Minister has no specific plans for stopping the massive loss of jobs in Montreal. Two days ago, she misled the House about the unemployment statistics for Montreal, and yesterday, she tried to reassure Montreal workers by claiming that her temporary job creation and retraining programs, which were announced in June, would be sufficient to stop the massive loss of jobs in their city.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister to be perfectly frank and admit to the House that the amounts to which she referred yesterday will be utterly useless in preventing the massive loss of jobs in Montreal East, a subject that has been raised in the House for many days.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, our concern is for the people who are unemployed or who are threatened with job loss. I mentioned yesterday that we would be spending some $200 million in the region of Montreal to provide people with training and with job opportunities so that they can be at work in the future. That amount is an increase over the amount which was spent last year. Whether or not it will be sufficient, we will see as the year goes on. Certainly, under the new Canadian Jobs Strategy there is a flexibility to look at the projects as they come forward to see whether or not they are sufficient, and to adjust them accordingly. That is what we will be doing, Mr. Speaker, so that the individuals concerned are given every possible opportunity.


NEED FOR CREATION OF FULL-TIME JOBS IN MONTREAL
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
This clever verbiage is all very interesting, but the Minister is refraining from any confirmation of what we would like to hear, namely that these programs will contain some specific mechanisms to prevent the loss of jobs at Bombardier, 1,000 jobs at Vickers and losses at several other companies that are part of the industrial base of Montreal and which we have mentioned.
Why does the Minister keep on proposing temporary jobs, which will only reinforce the trend we see in the statistics and which are utterly useless to the thousands of people who are going to lose their jobs very shortly unless this Government wakes up?
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in the last five years there were some 225 plant closings in Canada. That is a tragedy because it affected thousands of people who lost jobs. We don't want to see that continue. No matter where it is, in Montreal, in Newfoundland, in British Columbia or in northern Ontario, we don't want to see that continue. As a result, the training and job creation programs we have introduced are training people, not for further employment but for continuing employment. That applies to all of those people who live in the area of Montreal East, as it applies to people in other parts of the country. That is our concern, and that is what we will be devoting our time and attention to achieve.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women. Recently the Minister appointed the Vice-President of Public Relations of the Toronto Dominion Bank to the Board of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. In view of the fact that banks are among the worst employers of women in Canada and are denying women their right under the Canada Labour Code to collective bargaining, what possible justification can the Minister have for appointing a senior member of the banking fraternity to be an advocate for women's rights on the Advisory Council?


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration) and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that appointees to the Advisory Council not only come from backgrounds which are of concern to women-and access in this area, as the Hon. Member rightly points out, is a matter of concern-but the Advisory Council, as the Hon. Member knows, is made up of people with a wide section of career backgrounds across the country. The background and experience of that mix will be valuable. I believe it will be a two-way experience within the Advisory Council.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I don't really think the Advisory Council needs to have people who will require treatment experience.


BANK'S TREATMENT OF FEMALE EMPLOYEES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in a labour dispute at the VISA Centre has offered women bank workers no wage increases, reduced hours of work, no parttime benefits, no protection from technological change, and no grievance procedures? Will the Minister undertake to meet

October 18, 1985
Oral Questions
with these VISA workers as soon as possible so that they may pass on their concerns?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to indicate, as the Hon. Member knows, that one of the reasons we have introduced the employment equity package, for which we are seeking support from all sides of the House, is for the very reason she raises. 1 will look forward to the Hon. Member's support to ensure that we bring this important legislation before the House.

[ Translation]


PATENTS
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The recommendations contained in the report of the Eastman Commission on the pharmaceutical industry failed to deal with the role of our universities in the manufacture of products.
Could the Minister assure the House that the present review of the Patent Act will recognize the fundamental contribution of the universities in the area of pharmaceutical discoveries?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, since the tabling of the Eastman report, we have received of course many representations from various universities and our officials are compiling their concerns and views on a continuing basis.
I can assure my colleague that those views will be taken into consideration when we start drawing up our policy for the review of the Patent Act, especially as far as the pharmaceutical industry is concerned.


MINORITIES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Secretary of State, but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Minister.
A few years ago the Secretary of State sponsored a study on the situation of linguistic minorities in Canada-at my request, I might add. People in every Canadian province were asked about the situation of minority groups with respect to
education as well as access to the courts and Government services. In a speech delivered last May 10 the then Secretary of State announced or stated that the study of Professor Pierre Boucher was complete.
Considering the priority of the case of minorities and the fact that the capital city of Ottawa is today the site of a conference on the theme "Minorities, the time for solutions", can the Minister comment on this and even table the report for everyone to read?


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State is absent and I should think he is attending the conference mentioned by the Hon. Member. I take note of the question and 1 am sure he will provide a complete answer upon his return. 1 know he is extremely interested in this matter and that the report is under active consideration by the Secretary of State.


BUDGET INCREASES FOR OFFICIAL LANGUAGES GROUPS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Given the priority of the matter and the Minister's interest, would she confirm that the Foucher report recommends an increase in the budget of official languages minority groups so they will be in a better position to defend their rights in the provinces?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I did not have an opportunity to delve into this file. I take note of the question and I am sure the Secretary of State will answer the Hon. Member as soon as possible.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.
As the Minister is aware, many thousands of Quebecers will walk Saturday through the streets of Quebec City, Montreal, Rimouski, Baie Comeau, Rouyn, Hull, Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivieres and Chicoutimi, and will ask that the Government of Canada allocate the cost of one F-18 fighter, or $62 million, to the Peace Movement in order to further the cause of peace through international aid and reconversion projects.
Can the Minister today assure this House that he will be sympathetic to such a daring project in favour of peace?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence
October 18, 1985

is charged with maintaining sufficient military forces and equipment to meet our obligations to NATO and NORAD. We are fulfilling that responsibility to the best of our abilities, and will continue to do so.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
[Stage Direction]
Flon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The Young Offenders Act was a major change in the juvenile justice system but, inevitably, the need for some legislative amendments has arisen. Will the Minister bring forward the necessary amendments to make that law effective, or is he content to allow it to become a political football by not responding to the changes that are needed?
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I may have missed something, but was the hon. gentleman who posed the question not the Solicitor General? If he thought there were problems with the Act, why did he not amend the Act while he was Solicitor General?
The answer to his question is certainly yes, where there are problems in the Act I intend to amend it. In the meantime I intend to hold full consultations with professionals who are involved in the field and with the provinces to ensure that when we bring a package forward it will be a comprehensive one which meets the needs of Canadians.


REQUEST FOR EARLY INTRODUCTION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, while I agree that it might be desirable to have discussions that lead to comprehensive amendments being brought forward, some of the changes that are required are now the subject of a consensus among Attorneys General of the provinces and the Ministers knows that. Why will he not at least bring forward-


Mr. Crosbie:: You didn't listen to them.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -the minimum number of changes which have emerged as being necessary now that the law is in effect, in order to make that law work and avoid it becoming the political football which it seems it is becoming due to his inaction and failure to bring in amendments?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, if there is a Solicitor General who is starting to listen to the provinces, that is certainly something new since the retirement of the hon. gentleman who has posed the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I fully intend to have consultations with the provinces and with people in the private sector who are involved in the treatment field for young offenders, and with the police and others. I think it would be worth while
Oral Questions
to ensure that when we bring a package forward it is comprehensive and deals with all of the problems in order to ensure that we do not nickel and dime the Act to death with a series of ill thought out amendments. One commitment that I certainly do make is that, unlike the hon. gentleman during his tenure as Solicitor General, I intend to listen and to consult.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET MOVEMENT FOR PEACE REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, since both our Ministers responsible for External Affairs are on duty elsewhere, and since I have a supplementary to the question put by the Hon. Member for Spadina, perhaps I could direct mine to the Deputy Prime Minister.
In view of the obvious importance of promoting peace through all possible means, will he recommend to his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to at least meet with the representatives of the Peace Movement, Mrs. Claire Bonenfant, Mrs. Francine Fournier and Bishop Adolphe Proulx?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly bring the suggestion made by the Hon. Member to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he returns. I would draw his attention, however, to the fact that was only very recently that the Prime Minister met personally with members of the peace movement here in Ottawa.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I had originally planned to ask a question about the unemployment problems faced by the fishermen in Newfoundland who have not worked enough this year. However, I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. In answer to the Member for Essex-Windsor she said that she can find more billions of dollars as the economy improves. Why can the Government not find more billions of dollars for workers who are unemployed? Why can those fishermen not get jobs? Why are there bank bail-outs, tax write-offs, et cetera? Why are there not jobs?


John Carnell Crosbie: Sit down, you nitwit.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Why don't you ask me about that?

October 18, 1985
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am truly amazed that members of the Official Opposition and the NDP are not joining the Economic Council of Canada in congratulating the Minister of Finance on his Budget, and are not telling the people of this country about the growth predictions of the Economic Council of Canada which call for consistent growth over the next decade, which means jobs for Canadians. The Economic Council of Canada is looking for a lower unemployment rate than we have had in years-well below what it is now. That is its forecast, not mine. Aren't you listening?


GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would rather listen to the workers in Thompson who were told yesterday that they will be losing jobs. I would rather listen to the fishermen who cannot get money from the Government.


John Carnell Crosbie: Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Where are the Government's priorities? Why is it not looking after those people instead of bailing out the banks and giving tax write-offs, costing $1 billion, to corporations?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the jobs that have been created have been created consistently by this Government over the past year by working with the private sector and taking fiscal responsibility. Read the report of the Economic Council of Canada. The rate of job growth is going to continue, Mr. Speaker.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY REQUEST FOR PROGRAM TO UPGRADE LOCKS
Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Transport. The failure of Lock 7 on the Welland Canal in the City of Thorold in my riding of Welland has caused substantial financial loss to the Seaway and the users of it. Would the Minister consider an early implementation of a program of upgrading the lock system, such as the super lock proposal of 1973, for which land has already been expropriated or, as an alternative, the construction of the twinning of Lock 7 in the City of Thorold and Lock 1 in the City of St. Catharines?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question. He will surely appreciate the fact that it is important for us to determine the cause of the blow-out problem that we have in the St. Lawrence Seaway, and only then to take the appropriate measures. We are obviously very concerned about the present situation. We want our system to remain as efficient as possible in order that we may continue
to enjoy the high quality of service we have had in the St. Lawrence Seaway for 25 years.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and is with regard to political patronage.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: In its first year in office the Government has appointed one person every three hours, 24 hours a day.


John Kenneth Gormley: Which flight are you on this week?


Don Boudria: The same flight as Bob Coates. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us when he intends to reform the institution of patronage as was announced by the Prime Minister on September 9? In the last 10 days there have been 145 appointments, which is one appointment every two hours instead of one every three hours. Where is the reform from the Government?


John R. Rodriguez: Look who's talking.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the Hon. Member back-


Don Boudria: I'm glad to be back. I missed you.


Erik Nielsen: -to Canada after his exotic journeys. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that, if my recollection is correct, there are some 2,600 GIC appointments made every year. It is a simple matter of mathematics to figure out how many appointments were made in the 20 years that the Party which he supports was in Government.
Half of the population are probably Conservative, and the other half have other political allegiances. If the Hon. Member were doing his job properly, instead of whining about appointments that are made he would be making recommendations to the Government with respect to those whom he would like to see appointed to these various agencies.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE CERTAIN APPOINTMENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: 1 have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
October 18, 1985

The Prime Minister said in his statement of September 9 that he would immediately choose, through the Government Leader in the House, to establish a scrutiny committee for Governor in Council appointments. One and a half months have elapsed since he said that. Could he tell us when the committee will be appointed to scrutinize those Conservative nominations?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to answer the Hon. Member? As he knows, only last week I made the response on behalf of the Government with respect to the whole question of scrutiny of appointments made by the Government. It was a rather exciting and dramatic initiative as well.
I want to tell the Hon. Member that we have gone further than the recommendations on reform made by the distinguished committee of the House of Commons. We will allow for the provision for scrutiny of all Order in Council appointments. There is no restriction. If only we had this provision during the Liberal years, just imagine what fun we could have had in the Opposition.


COPYRIGHT
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications. He will know that the arts community is anxiously awaiting implementation of a large number of recommendations in the report on copyright revision. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give the Government's assurance that there will be legislation before the House by February, as promised?


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. lady for her question. The report on copyright, which reflects the recommendations made by the Subcommittee on Revision of Copyright, of which the hon. lady was a member, will be made available to the Government.
The Government will give those 137 recommendations its consideration. At the appropriate time the Government will introduce legislation. I hope that legislation could be introduced in the House of Commons, subject to negotiations with the House Leaders of other Parties, at the earliest possible moment.


ARTS FUNDING
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, would the Parliamentary Secretary give the assurance that there will be a restoration in the cut-backs to art funding before there will be any new outflow of funds as a result of the recommendations of the Subcommittee on Revision of Copyright?
Oral Questions


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the hon. lady will realize that this is a matter of Government policy. The Acting Minister of Communications will be in the House next week and I will be happy to draw his attention to the Hon. Member's question.

[ Translation]


STATUS OF WOMEN
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for the Status of Women. Last September, we learned that CIDA was providing half a million dollars to the International Federation for Family Life Promotion. The purpose of this organization is to provide services in natural family planning to developing countries. Why did the Government choose to support the least effective method of contraception for the women of the Third World? Does this reflect an ideological preference of the Government for natural contraception rather than for other means of contraception?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know, one of the priorities of the Government and CIDA is women in development projects. My colleague, the Minister for External Relations, who has the responsibility for CIDA, is not in the House. However, I will take notice of the Hon. Member's question and see that she gets a response.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT DOES NOT LEAVE CHOICE TO WOMEN
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary was going to be addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but I shall also ask it to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. I would like to know why the Minister and the Government have reduced the budgets of organizations which promote all methods of contraception in Canada, such as Planned Parenthood, and why they have increased the amounts allocated to organizations which favour natural means of contraception. Why does the Conservative Government not leave it up to women to choose their own methods of contraception and why does it subsidize mostly the organizations which favour natural methods?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member and indicate that this matter has been brought to my attention. I have raised the matter with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, including the concerns expressed by women's groups

October 18, 1985
Oral Questions
and other concerned citizens across the country. Once again, I will see that the Hon. Member's question is brought to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Last spring the Deputy Minister of National Revenue confirmed the scandalous abuse of the Scientific Research Tax Credit initiated by the previous Government. I have been advised that this $200 million program may now cost the taxpayers of Canada $3 billion.
Will the Minister advise the House if $2.8 billion overspending estimate is accurate? Furthermore, what is the status of the investigation of one of the largest Liberal scandals in the history of that Government?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has pointed out, this Scientific Research Tax Credit was introduced by the previous Government. We acted to put an end to this particular drain on the Treasury. The losses have been substantial, but it is premature at this stage to give an exact amount.
I can assure the House and the Hon. Member that my officials are closely monitoring the Scientific Research Tax Credit program and its aftermath. In due course the results will be reported to the appropriate committee.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Science and Technology and of the President of the Treasury Board, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Much important work of the Science Council of Canada was cancelled when its budget was cut in half by the Government. The Treasury Board has refused to confirm that the budget of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology has been increased by the same amount that was cut from the Science Council of Canada- some $2.5 million, or 38 person years. Will the Minister confirm whether such an increase, or indeed any increase, in the budget of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology has been approved by the Government?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that kind of specific and detailed information is normally requested on the Order Paper. However, I seem to recall that the Minister of State for Science and Technology has answered that question in the
House before. If it is not satisfactory to the Hon. Member, he could raise it in the Adjournment Debate.
In the meantime, I will take notice of his question and ensure that the Minister is made aware of it when he returns.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, how can the Deputy Prime Minister justify raping a consultative body like the Science Council of Canada while bloating the Government's bureaucracy at a time of restraint? How can he justify such a power grab by the Minister?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the question is designed on a basic assumption that is false. The short answer is that I cannot condone his use of the term "rape" in any way, shape, or form.


FINANCE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Given the large holes in the tax system that permitted nearly $3 billion in research and development tax avoidance in the previous Liberal Budget, and given the $1 billion tax that has been avoided during the Gulf takeover, why has the Government not given higher priority to reform of the Canadian tax system?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this is the first Government in years that has made any real commitment to tax reform. This is the Government that brought the SRTC'S under control; this is the Government that is producing a minimum tax, and this is the Government that is undertaking corporate tax reform. Considering what we have done in a year, what has been happening for the last 25 years?


CORPORATE TAX REFORM
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker. I could point out to the Minister that something over $4 billion has been lost in the last year and a half, during the period that the Government was in charge. Why has the reform on corporate tax not come much quicker? Why were there not stop-gap measures put in place?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this Government has moved consistently on tax policy, and we have made a number of changes. We will continue to do this, as I have indicated to prior questioners.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Such as?
October 18, 1985


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, October 17, 1985 meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with Members of the House on behalf of the Government to pay tribute to five Canadian women, Nellie McClung, Emily Murphy, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby and Henrietta Muir Edwards.
It was through their strength of will in challenging an interpretation of the British North America Act that 56 years ago today Canadian women were recognized as persons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Franklin McLean: As a result, women gained the right to be appointed to the Senate and thus to participate fully in our parliamentary system of Government.

Today, eleven women sit in the Senate, twenty-seven are Members of the House, including six Ministers, and our Head of State is a woman.

But women's representation in Government is only one measure of what Canadian women have achieved, Mr. Speaker.
Women have proven their ability, commitment and stamina in every field of endeavour, in industry, the professions, the public sector, the arts, academia, in community work and the voluntary sector.
In business, women are making significant inroads. Women now make up 30 per cent of business owners in Canada, a growth of more than 20 per cent since the mid-1960s. I was particularly heartened by the results of a recent Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey, which showed that 42.6 per cent of women employed by Canadian small businesses hold management positions.
But women's struggle for equality is far from over. Women cannot be truly equal if the employer they approach for a job, or the bank manager they ask for a loan, or the coach of their child's hockey team possesses outdated notions of what women can do or, what is worse, what women should or should not do. Women cannot be equal while their career potential is hin-
Statements by Ministers
dered by the lack of affordable quality daycare and if in their older years they are dogged by the insecurity of an inadequate pension system. They cannot aspire to equality if they are left by men to battle for their rights by themselves.
My Government will not leave women to struggle alone. We have made a commitment to integrate women's concerns in all aspects of our policy formulation. We need only look to the two major economic conferences held earlier this year-the First Minister's Conference in February and the National Economic Summit in March-to see evidence of this commitment. For the first time ever, the special concerns of women received full prominence at the discussion table.
Since then, Mr. Speaker, we have undertaken an active program of legislative and policy changes. Our employment equity legislation is leading the way to improve the status of women in the workplace. We have focused on the needs of women in the redesign of our job creation and training programs. We have improved pensions for women to make them more equitable. We have outlawed the discriminatory aspects of the Indian Act, making it possible for 16,000 native women to regain band membership and status.

In the coming months we will deal with other problems of direct interest to women, among them the need to continue our concerted efforts to help women who are victims of family violence.

In these and many other areas, we are showing strong evidence of our commitment to the goal of full equality for women. This year marks the culmination of the United Nations Decade For Women dedicated to equality, development and peace. As a result of the activities of the last 10 years, there is now a much greater awareness of women's situations, greater advocacy of their rights and greater understanding of their contributions and concerns in Canada and in the rest of the world. The decade has firmly demonstrated that the integration of women in all aspects of society is essential, both for the advancement of women themselves and for the development of society as a whole.
We are now about to embark on the implementation of one of the most significant legacies of the decade for women, the forward-looking strategies that came out of that decade. These strategies, as Members of the House will know, were adopted at the United Nations World Conference on Women in Nairobi three months ago by an unprecedented consensus, a consensus that had eluded the two previous conferences in Mexico City and Copenhagen.
With the forward-looking strategies, all member states of the United Nations have, for the first time in history, pledged themselves to implement a set of strategies designed to enable women to participate fully in all aspects of society. They are, in effect, a blueprint for progress on women's issues for the rest of this century. The strategies are a tool women can use to encourage and indeed, I would suggest, demand Government action on their behalf.

October 18, 1985
Statements by Ministers
It was my honour, Mr. Speaker, to lead the Canadian delegation at the World Conference on Women in Nairobi last July. 1 was pleased to have on the delegation representatives from a broad range of groups involved in the status of women, federal, provincial and territorial Ministers, Members of this House from all Parties, representatives of non-governmental women's groups and federal Government officials. I believe Canada played a key role both at the Nairobi Conference and in the crucial preparatory period preceding it. I think we can take credit as a nation, as a Parliament and as Canadians because, in addition to being heavily involved in drafting strategies, Canada proposed several key resolutions, including a precedent-setting resolution supporting the rights of indigenous women.
As well, Canada was the lead country in calling for a precedent-setting meeting of Commonwealth Ministers for women's affairs. This meeting took place just prior to the Nairobi Conference. It was once again an opportunity for preparatory work for the present meetings going on between heads of Commonwealth Governments.
Now as we begin to implement the forward-looking strategies within Canada, we must continue to increase the efforts we have already begun in a number of areas. As a first step, I am working with my Cabinet colleagues to discuss how the strategies can be implemented within each of their areas of responsibility. As well, yesterday I convened a special meeting of provincial and territorial Ministers responsible for the Status of Women. Our discussions focused on ways in which the forward looking strategies apply within each of the jurisdictions within our nation. I will distribute this document widely, especially to women's groups. Indeed, I would suggest that the Nairobi strategies are required reading for all women and men who believe in Canada's future.
These forward-looking strategies need some interpretation. They comprise over 370 paragraphs divided into five broad sections dealing with equality, development, peace, areas of concerns and international and regional co-operation. Each section identifies obstacles to progress, basic strategies to overcome those obstacles and a range of measures for the implementation of basic strategies, many in areas not traditionally considered as women's issues. For example, in areas of energy, environment and transportation.
Some of the concrete measures proposed in this broad, global, forward-looking strategy, in the document from the World Government meeting to Governments, call for things which are close to home to Canadians. For example, I think of the resolution for an assessment of the impact of economic development policies on women, of the elimination of sexual harassment in the workplace, of the measures to reduce negative effects of technological change on women, of the health care which is accessible and available to women, of the increased attention to the need for girls and women to receive education in science and technology, of the integration of women's needs and views in the design and planning of homes
and communities, and of the promotion of women s roles as owners and operators of transportation. The list goes on. Far from being some kind of esoteric, international statement, it comes directly into the lives of Canadians and of Canadian women.
My Government is firmly convinced that women's concerns must be integrated in all of our ongoing policy work in order to remove or reduce any impact on men and women before decisions are made. In putting the forward-looking strategies into practice in Canada, our initial emphasis will be on the continuation of our economic integration strategy for women.

This strategy was the mainstay of the commitments we made in the Speech from the Throne. Through legislation and by setting an example we have already begun to meet these commitments.

Last night, we honoured six Canadian women at the seventh annual Persons Awards Ceremony-Grace Hartman, Marguerite Bergeron-Tremblay, Nazla Dane, Evelyn O'Bomsa-win-Lamirande, Gemma Pelletier Caron and Pearl Steen. All these women have had long histories of involvement in activities to improve the status of women within their own communities and across Canada. Their actions echo Nellie McClung's vision of women's role, as she expressed it in 1910, when she said:
Women set the standards for the world, and it is for the women of Canada to set the standards high.
As elected representatives, we have a responsibility to create the conditions which will enable Canadian women, on an equal basis with men, to pursue their ambitions, realize their potential and discharge their full responsibilities in all spheres of society. I invite colleagues in the House to join with us in this high purpose.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity today to pay tribute to some of the winners of the Persons Awards for 1985. After 50 years of oblivion, this award is now being given in recognition of extraordinary contributions to the quality of life of women in Canada.
Marguerite Bergeron-Tremblay and Evelyn O'Bomsawin-Lamirande are honouring us today with their presence in the gallery.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lucie Pépin: An award also went to Grace Harman, who has worked for women in the labour movement, not a traditional area for women to be active in! Mrs. Hartman has been President of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
Emma Pelletier-Caron, who also received an award, has been involved in many community actions in Acadia and collaborated on a collection of biographical sketches of 100 exceptional Acadian women.
Finally, Pearl Steen took up the cause of pushing for legislative change to improve the status of women. Mrs. Steen has been President of the Council of Women, among other duties.
Mr. Speaker, I find it significant that a decision was made to give the Persons Award to five women instead of just one. We must remember that in the twenties, five women protested the fact that they were not persons before the law. As was said earlier by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mr. McLean), that meant they could not become lawyers or judges or sit in the Senate.
Today, 50 years later, we should not only take a lesson from the courage and perseverance of Emily Murphy and her four companions, but we should also realize the importance of joint action in the struggle for women's rights.
The women of the Eighties have understood this very well. The women's movement has made great progress in 15 years, and although today's movement is not as noisy as the movement of the Sixties and Seventies, the fact remains that it is very effective. The progress made by the movement is irreversible, and those who see it only as a passing fad should think again.
Today I would like to point out some of the causes being championed by the women's movement. Despite the good faith expressed a few minutes ago by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, I believe the Conservative Government should not be too quick to brag about being on the side of women. The employment equity legislation introduced by the government does not satisfy Canadian women at all. As a matter of fact, it does not satisfy either the handicapped, the natives and the visible minorities, the other three target groups which it was meant to help.
Bill C-62 does not provide for any employment equity program which would be compulsory, although all similar programs on a voluntary basis have proven ineffective time and again. Only compulsory programs are likely to succeed, something of which Canadians women are wearing themselves out trying to convince a Government which will not listen.
Canadian women are also waiting anxiously for the Katie Cooke Task Force's report on day care centers. I am aware that the Prime Minister promised quite recently to set up another task force to study the day care center situation. But why reinvent the wheel? Why not use instead Mrs. Cooke's report, her findings, the many briefs which were submitted to
Statements by Ministers
her as well as the many research papers on which the report was based.
As for prostitution, all the Government could introduce was tiny Bill C-49, dealing with soliciting, when what women really needed was a complete reform. I am not the only one to say so, Mr. Speaker, for the Fraser Commission has concluded likewise.
On September 25, the Conservative Government announced a new and expanded litigant assistance program to help people who want to institute proceedings under Sections 15, 28 and 29 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But instead of distributing the funds among the various organizations representing Canadian women, the native, the handicapped and the visible minorities, it gave all the money to the Canadian Council on Social Development.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against the Canadian Social Development Council, but we have to be realistic. Funds are allocated on a case by case basis and the same battles will be fought twice, which will mean a waste of money and energies, and this is not what women wanted. If the Conservative Government had put aside part of this amount for the women's legal action and education fund, some kind of action plan could have been developed for women, but perhaps the Government is somewhat afraid of organized women's movements.
Today, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women has lauded the organized action of women 50 years ago, but it is different when comes the time to recognize in practice the organized action of women today and provide assistance for the battles they are fighting now.
I would like to speak about the fight of Canadian women against the deindexing of family allowances, Mr. Speaker. The Government is attacking family allowances and we have to realize that this is the only check received by a great many Canadian women, namely all those who stay at home to take care of their children. Is this the message of the Conservative Government to Canadian families, that it wants to make the task of raising children even more difficult than it is?
I hope that the Conservative Government will realize in time the mistake it is making by cancelling the full indexation of family allowances in the years to come.
In closing, I would like to point out that today's women have different objectives than those of their sisters of the twenties, but that their battles are just as urgent.
Women in the eighties must effect a major restructuring of the labour market and the family. This must be done on a collective, not an individual basis.
The real battles to be fought are those which will guarantee the economic survival of women and which concern daycare services, part-time work and parental leave.

October 18, 1985
Statements by Ministers
I invite the Conservative Government and all the Members of this House to reflect on this and to support this fight as it will make the lives of each one of us better.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, we in the New Demoratic Party join in the tribute to the outstanding Canadian women who pioneered the fight for equality and who won the right for us to be recognized as persons 56 years ago.
We warmly congratulate the women who received Persons Awards last night on behalf of many Canadian women. In particular, we congratulate Grace Hartman, Marguerite Berg-eron-Tremblay, Nazla Dane, Evelyn O'Bomsawin-Lamirande, Gemma Pelletier-Caron and Pearl Steen.
Women continue to struggle for a better life for themselves, for their sisters, and for their daughters. We have learned that change will not come as a gift. We must continue to speak out against injustices, demand equal opportunities, and organize so that many voices will be heard.
Canada did play an important role at the UN Decade of Women Conference held in Nairobi, where forward-looking strategies were adopted to guide us to the year 2000.
Women in Canada cannot achieve equality in a vacuum. We must join with our sisters and brothers around the world to achieve equality, peace, and development.
But the starting place to achieve these goals is right here at home. We have now achieved a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but now text cases must be litigated. Women are disappointed that the Government has ignored their requests for direct financing for Charter litigation cases. This funding is essential to ensure independent selection and timing and to win these test cases on behalf of women generally.
Economic equality is basic to the resolution of all inequalities facing women. Feminization of poverty has escalated; older women are destitute. And the Government's answer is to cut the indexation of social benefits, and in particular the indexation of family allowances.


Some Hon. Members:: Shameful; shameful!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Canadian women still earn only 60 per cent of the salaries of men. They carry double burdens at home and in the workplace. They work primarily in underpaid job ghettos and are now being forced more and more into part-time jobs.
Regrettably, the Government has ignored many of the recommendations of the Abella Commission, which proposed mandatory employment equity in the federal sector. Voluntary programs with no enforcement mechanisms will not achieve the reforms which women demand as their right.
To achieve equal opportunities in the workplace, women also must have accessible and affordable daycare. We look forward to early and positive action in this area, as was promised by the Progressive Conservative Government,
Mr. Speaker, the Nairobi experience reminded us that practical development programs operated by and for women are essential, both here at home and in developing countries. Poor women, immigrant women, farm women, northern women and battered women must have access to resources and mutual help if they are to overcome the difficult burdens that they carry.
Madam Margaretta Papandreou, who headed the Greek delegation in Nairobi, moved us all when she said:
We women are a rising force in society. We must fill the ranks of the worldwide mass peace movement and we must at the same time move into the centres of decision-making where our voices, where our insticts for protecting life, where our concern for human rights can become the dominant forces in affecting the future of the planet and the future of humanity.
Mr. Speaker, the women of Canada are not merely persons. We are people with passion, pride and increasing power to work for a better world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITIONS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which follows appropriately on the comments just made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). It is the petition of 306 people in Essex county and Windsor, from the following communities: Windsor, Amherstburg, Oldcastle, Tecumseh, Essex, Woodslee, Cottam, Belle River, Kingsville, Maidstone, Leamington, Emeryville, Lasalle, Puce, McGregor, Ruthven, St. Clair Beach, and Harrow.
In each case, the petitioners are conveying their stern sense of opposition to the changes being undertaken by this Government to the Family Allowance Program. They are putting in a call for tax fairness as an alternative.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my petition is also very appropriate on this day, Persons Day. it relates to family allowances. In their petition the people say that the cut-back in family allowances and the tax increases are inequitable and unbearable in the face of budget hand-outs such as a half a million dollars in tax-free capital gains, greater RRSP deductions for high-income recipients, billions of dollars in hand-outs to the oil companies, and a $1 billion bail-out of the banks.
Mr. Speaker, the people presenting this petition humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate the full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.
Mr. Speaker, this is obviously something that should be done on Persons Day.
October 18, 1985


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Canadians in the Vancouver area calling on the Government to rescind the deindexation proposals for family allowances. They call for the cut-back in family allowance and other benefits, which will amount to some $600 million by 1990, to be reversed.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of people in Vancouver and Burnaby in respect of the deindexation of family allowance benefits. The deindexation proposal, combined with tax increases, places an extraordinary burden on families.
The petition calls upon the House of Commons of Canada to reinstate the full indexation of family allowances and rescind the unfair tax increases that are hurting families.


An Hon. Member:: Do it now!


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to present a petition submitted by residents of Vancouver, Burnaby and North Vancouver, calling upon the Government to turn back on its measures to grant bail-outs and to provide incentives and loopholes through the tax system and to concentrate, instead, on the needs of Canadian children and families by reinstating full indexation in respect of the universal Family Allowance Program.



EXCISE TAX ACT AND RELATED ACTS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: to introduce Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 234 and 309.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: From January I, 1984, to date, how many women are receiving survivor benefits as widows of (a) war veterans (b) retired armed forces personnel (c) retired members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (4) retired public servants?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am
informed by the Departments of National Defence, Solicitor General, Treasury Board and Veterans Affairs as follows:
(a)	The statistics maintained on survivor benefits do not differentiate between widows and widowers. As a result, the Department of Veterans Affairs cannot answer the question as formulated.
However, they can ascertain that most recipients of survivor benefits are women (the vast majority of veterans being men) and that the total number of recipients as of January 1985 was as follows:
War Veterans Allowance/Civilian War Allowance 34,719
War Disability Pension-Canadian Pension Commission	42,037
Persons receiving both	2,845
(b)	There are two accounts maintained for surviving spouses eligible for benefits under the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act (DSPCA) or under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA).
As of February 1, 1985 they were as follows:
Defence Services Pension Continuation Act (DSPCA) 827
Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) 8667 (c) In so far as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is concerned, as of January 31, 1985 the following widows pensions were in payment:
RCMP Superannuation Act	334
RCMP Pension Continuation	Act	105RCMP Pension Continuation	Act-Part IV	134
There are, in addition, 43 widows pensions in payment
under the Pension Act. It is quite probable that in most, but not necessarily all of these cases that an RCMP Superannuation Act pension is also in payment.
Supplementary Benefit Income Plan for survivors of members of the RCMP killed on duty	7
{d) 36,103.


Mr. Gagliano: Are Mr. John Wynne of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Unions, Local 170, Burnaby, B.C. and Mr. Tom O'Sullivan of the PCO., members of the Deputy Prime Minister's mixed study team on Services and Subsidies to Business and, if so, what are their qualifications?


Erik Nielsen: The Team has completed its work and has been disbanded however, Mr. Wynne and Mr. O'Sullivan were indeed members of this Team. Mr. Wynne has had experience in chairing and participating in negotiating committees for

October 18, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
major contracts, investment of union funds, and the maintenance and operation of a budget in excess of $1 million per year. Mr. O'Sullivan was an exchange officer with the Australian Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, with the Canadian Privy Council Office. He has a wide range of experience in the economic and policy areas.
The disclosure of specific personal information is governed by the Privacy Act.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rise again to ask about Question No. 296 which appears on the Order Paper. As I indicated yesterday, it has been over a year since the secret meeting between Premier Hatfield and the former Solicitor General took place. I also indicated yesterday that my particular question was put on the Order Paper some seven months ago.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to withhold the answering of those questions until after the provincial election in the Province of New Brunswick to avoid any possible embarrassment to Premier Hatfield.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not the intention of the Government. I happened to be here yesterday when the Hon. Member asked exactly the same question. I assure the Hon. Member that the answer will be given as soon as it is available.
[ Translation]


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Henderson (p. 7687).
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that there were a few minutes left in the question and comment period following the remarks of the previous speaker. Are there any questions or comments?
Prior to resuming debate, may I inform the House that because of the ministerial Statement, consideration of Government Orders will be extended by 24 minutes this day. Therefore, Private Members' hour will begin at 4.24 p.m.


Mr. Penner:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) would like to speak on this Bill and that he must speak before one o'clock in order to meet other commitments.
I would be prepared to yield to him if I could be recognized as the first speaker from my Party at two o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am sure the House is happy with that arrangement without in any way admitting to setting a precedent in an American concept called yielding.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, as a Member from the Province of Manitoba which has a very substantial interest in the movement of grain which is produced in Manitoba and as a Member from the City of Winnipeg which plays such an important role in the rail system of this country by which many residents of my constituency are employed, 1 feel that I ought to make a few comments about this Bill. Bill C-75 amends several Acts having to do with marine transportation and pollution caused by shipping. Primarily, however, it amends the Canada Shipping Act.
We can support some of the provisions of this Bill. The licensing and certification of personnel aboard vessels, an up-dated inspection procedure, new regulations governing the transport of hazardous cargoes and the prevention and cleaning up of pollution and particularly oil spills caused by ships are all provisions which we can support. Some of these provisions, and particularly the ones dealing with oil spills and transportation of hazardous cargoes, are long overdue. However, there is one clause of the Bill, and we believe it to be the most important clause in the Bill, which we much oppose, that is, the clause dealing with cost recovery.
According to the latest estimates, the cost of providing the services to which the clause refers is anywhere from $136 million to close to $200 million. As it now stands, these costs could be imposed generally on all vessels regardless of whether or not they use these services. This could include everything from pleasure boats to super tankers, but it is pretty obvious to us that it is most likely that most of the costs, if not all of them, will be imposed upon commercial shippers. This would have very significant ramifications in a number of areas.
I am sure Hon. Members will realize, if they think about the history of the St. Lawrence Seaway, that the Seaway was conceived and promoted by Canadians and the Canadian Government and was for many years opposed by very important interests in the United States including the railways. It
October 18, 1985

took many years for the American Government to agree to co-operate in the establishment of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
The Seaway was built with the idea that it would make possible the movement of grain from Canadian and American mid-western producing provinces and states to world markets at reduced rates and would make possible the movement of iron ore from Quebec to the industrial heartland of Canada and the United States where at that time the steel industry was in operation. From the time when the Seaway was established in the 1950s until the early 1980s, that concept worked very well. However, the situation has changed dramatically.
Hon. Members know that the production and sale of iron ore from Quebec has come to a virtual stop. Certainly it has been reduced dramatically. As well, Hon. Members know that the shipment of grain from western Canada through Thunder Bay and other ports along the St. Lawrence Seaway has, for a variety of reasons, decreased substantially. As a result, if we proceed with this cost-recovery program, the costs will not be absorbed by the shippers but will be transferred to the producers and therefore to the consumers. This would naturally affect the price and competitiveness of Canadian exports and particularly the price which would be received by Canadian producers of grain.
Additional shipping costs from Canada would encourage Canadian shippers to make more use of American ports. Because U.S. cargo movement through the St. Lawrence Seaway must go through Canadian waters, this would also be a deterrent not only to Canadian shippers but to American shippers. I will try to deal with another aspect of that problem in a few moments.
This last year, cargo traffic on the St. Lawrence Seaway was down by 27 per cent from the previous year and shipments that year were down by 20 per cent from 1977's high. Grain traffic is also down substantially. As of the middle of September, it was down by 41 per cent from the corresponding period last year. To a large extent, that is due to the drought which occurred and, more recently, as a result of the rain and snow which has brought harvesting in many parts of western Canada to a virtual standstill.
This drop in traffic has resulted in much of the Canadian merchant fleet having to remain tied up. In July and August about 40 per cent of our merchant fleet was not operating. The Seafarers International Union estimated at that time that about 2,500 of its members were laid off and there were major lay-offs for grain handlers, particularly at Thunder Bay. Thus, about 51 per cent of the grain handling and transportation industries on and about the seaways were adversely affected. According to a study done for the Port of Duluth, for every job in the grain industry there were 2.5 spin-off jobs in the community. If this projection is used for Canada, we are looking at the possible long-term loss of about 14,000 jobs, at time when we have 1.25 million unemployed Canadian workers.
Canada Shipping Act
The point I am making is that the workers in shipping companies operating on the Great Lakes seaway system and the Seaway itself are already at the breaking point. They simply cannot absorb more reduction in traffic. Nor can they absorb the increased costs which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) is proposing and which will come into effect if this Bill is passed.
The mandate of the St. Lawrence Seaway as was originally spelled out insisted upon full cost recovery. Over the past years the Seaway was able to build up a contingency fund of approximately $30 million. When the fund was set up it was intended that it be used in those years when the Seaway lost money in order to meet the cost recovery mandate. However, in this spring's Budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who has been able to find billions of dollars for big business and corporations through various tax give-aways and loopholes, decided he would take that $30 million surplus. He absconded with the money in order to help reduce the deficit. As a result, the Seaway must look elsewhere for funds to allow it to fully recover the costs of its operations. This means in all likelihood that the Seaway will have to increase its tolls next year. The tolls have been frozen for the past two years in order to help shippers survive with declining revenues. As a result it is felt that once the tolls are removed the increase will be substantial. Given that no improvement in the situation on the Seaway is projected for the next year, a substantial increase in tolls will have a severe and adverse effect. As a result of reduced traffic and, therefore, reduced revenues, the St. Lawrence Seaway, as well as the workers, shipping companies and communities who depend on transportation will be in serious trouble.
The case which I have been making is not merely a case which is being made by members of the New Democratic Party for partisan political reasons. The case I have been making has received support from the Dominion Marine Association, which represents most of the vessel owners on the Great Lakes seaway; the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association, which represents many of the shippers, users and communities along the seaway, including companies such as Stelco, Ontario Hydro, Cargill, the three prairie wheat pools, Dofasco, Iron Ore Company; the Seafarers International Union, which represents those workers on ships of whom so many are unemployed; the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, who represent the grain handlers of Thunder Bay, many of whom are unemployed and have been for some considerable time; and the Public Service Alliance of Canada which represents grain inspectors.
We say that what the Government is proposing will affect not just Thunder Bay but a whole series of cities and towns from Thunder Bay to the Province of Quebec. Apart from Thunder Bay in which 60 per cent of the grain handlers are unemployed, and apart from the seamen, of whom 50 per cent are now unemployed, there is Port-Cartier, in which 50 per cent of the people who work in the grain trade are now unemployed. In Baie-Comeau, 45 per cent of the workers are

October 18, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
unemployed; in Manicouagan, 93 per cent of the workers are unemployed; in Halifax, 25 per cent of the workers are unemployed; in Saint John, 35 per cent of the workers are unemployed; in Quebec City, 31 per cent of the workers are unemployed; and in Sorel, 26 per cent of the workers are unemployed. That is the situation as it stands, which points out how serious it is for so many of the communities from Thunder Bay right through to the eastern part of Quebec.
It seems to us that what the Government is proposing is, in fact, contrary to the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). In July of 1984 the present Prime Minister, in the Prince Albert declaration, made a number of commitments as to what a Progressive Conservative Government would do in respect of this type of question. I would like to put on the record some of the words which the Prime Minister said when he was the Leader of the Opposition. He said:
A Progressive Conservative government will immediately examine ways and means to provide improved services and equitable rates in consultation with grain producers who are discriminated against geographically.
Grain companies, both private and co-operative, have expressed their opposition to what is proposed in the Bill which is before us. The former Leader of the Opposition also said:
The federal government and the railways must continue to provide a special low rate ... to assist producers competing with subsidized grain export nations.
What has happened to that commitment? We know, for example-and I mention it now because my allotted time may expire before I come to the point where I wish to deal with this matter separately-that in the United States, through the Corps of Army Engineers, the American Government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars-indeed, billions of dollars-in making the Mississippi River and the Houston Canal capable of moving grain and other products from Minneapolis right down to the Gulf of Mexico. It did that virtually no user charges at all.
Thus, if we increase the costs of shipping on the St. Lawrence Seaway, more and more grain from the mid-western United States which previously moved through Duluth and the St. Lawrence Seaway to the Atlantic Ocean will obviously move down the Mississippi River because it is so highly subsidized. Indeed, I remind Hon. Members that when we were discussing this matter at the time when the Liberal Government brought in its legislation to wipe out the special transportation subsidizies provided for the shipment of grain through the Crow Rate agreement, we warned that not only would the American grain move increasingly down the Mississippi but that with deregulation we will see a time in the not too distant future when Canadian grain will be shipped to Minneapolis and then down the Mississippi with its highly subsidized rates.
The producers were promised by the Prime Minister in the Prince Albert declaration that there would be an efficient, cost effective and reliable grain transportation system. But if we are going to have increasing users' fees apply to the shipments
on the St. Lawrence Seaway, there will not be a cost effective transportation system on the St. Lawrence for western grain.
In August of 1984 the Prime Minister addressed the Empire and Canadian Clubs in Toronto in which he said, and 1 quote:
A Progressive Conservative Government will freeze existing freight rates paid by producers from any further increase pending the results of the legislation s review mechanism into producers' ability to pay.
What has happened to that promise, Mr. Speaker? If the cost of shipping through the St. Lawrence Seaway is raised dramatically as, obviously, it will be, and since the price we ask for Canadian grain must be competitive with the price charged by other producers, those increased costs will again be passed on to the producers of grain. It seems obvious to us that in this legislation the Government has forgotten or intends to ignore the promise made by the Prime Minister.
It is the intention of our Party to oppose this Bill and to vote against it. We would urge the Government to consider cancelling all tolls or fee increases initiated or planned during the 1985-86 fiscal year, and to cancel the transference of $30 million from the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority to the Consolidated Revenue Fund in the 1986-87 fiscal year. That is what we propose for the immediate presence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? Resuming debate.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, since it is almost the time at which we adjourn for lunch, would the House agree that we call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski);: Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I shall now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 12.54 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, while nowhere in Bill C-75, which we are debating today, does not specifically say, it nevertheless signals, as I think Members who read it carefully will agree, that there will be a growing volume of oil tanker shipping on a year-round basis in Arctic waters. Of course that is built on a policy statement that was made in the House on September 10 by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who said, as reported on page 6463 of Hansard, the following:
The policy of the Government is also to encourage the development of the navigation in Canadian Arctic waters. Our goal is to make the Northwest Passage a reality for Canadians and foreign shipping as a Canadian waterway.
That is the policy statement and it is quite true that the Minister went on to talk about concern for the preservation of
October 18, 1985

the environment and the welfare of the Inuit and other inhabitants. It is on those two points, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to make some observations and express some concerns about Bill C-75.
The main route for this oil tanker traffic in the Arctic will be the Northwest Passage. Members will be aware that this is an environmentally sensitive region. In January of 1982 a Green Paper on Lancaster Sound was issued. Members will know that this is an area on the shores of the Northwest Passage inhabited by a community of Inuit. That Green Paper, produced by the Department, said as follows:
There are a number of particularly important or biologically sensitive suites within the Lancaster Sound region, which are unprotected at this time ... If the shipment of oil through the Northwest Passage takes place, then the potential for oil spills will exist: The environmental consequences of a large spill could be catastrophic.
I want to admit that the Government has shown some modest awareness and concern for this reality. In February of 1985, for example, the then Minister of Supply and Services, who is now the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre) issued a press release announcing that $1.2 million was going to be spent to conduct a hydrographic survey in Arnott Strait. The Minister indicated:
The over-the-ice survey will map a safe shipping lane for possible tanker traffic in an area close to the North Magnetic Pole-the Arnott Strait lies between Cameron Island and lie Vanier in the high Arctic.
The Minister went on to say:
The Government recognizes the possible danger to the ecology caused by tanker traffic navigation in high Arctic water.
He said:
I'm convinced that this survey will help avert shipping accidents, which lead to costly spillage cleanup and threats to the ecology. As well it will build confidence in the feasibility of moving crude oil southward from northern Arctic regions.
I think members of the Government know that with any means at all at our disposal we cannot prevent an oil spill from taking place. If there is going to be an increased volume of oil tanker traffic through the Northwest Passage, we can be almost certain that at this time, with the technology that we have and without considerably more research and development, there is a very good likelihood of an environmental disaster taking place.
Bill C-75 is telling us that oil tankers will be utilizing the waterways at an accelerated pace. The Bill informs us that the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act is going to take second place to other provisions of the Canada Shipping Act. It says that where a convention ship is involved-and I will explain in a moment what a convention ship is-other parts of the Canada Shipping Act will prevail over the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. In the terms of the Bill itself a convention ship means:
a sea-going ship, wherever registered, carrying, in bulk as cargo, crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil, lubricating oil, whale oil or any other persistent oil;
I believe that this major decision which has been taken very recently by the Government to use oil tankers in the high Arctic ought to have been much more fully debated than it has been until now. I believe that the most careful and cautious
Canada Shipping Act
concern has to be given to the people for whom this region is home. I am talking, Sir, about the Inuit people of Canada. I wonder how serious the Government really is about opening up Arctic routes to year-round oil tanker shipping and about protecting that sensitive ecology and delicate environment. In September, 1985, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) sent a letter of congratulations to Panarctic Oils on the first commercial shipment of crude oil from Canada's Arctic. She said:
[DOT] (UlO)
After 17 years in the north, you and your company have proven that it is possible to ship crude oil from above the Arctic Circle with the maximum regard for the environment, and to the protection of the northern ecology.
More than that, however, the Bent Horn shipment by both the M.V. Arctic and the Imperial Bedford has helped to confirm Canada's jurisdiction over the Northwest Passage.
There were some observers of that particular shipment who had other views and concerns. Some were Members of the House and others were journalists who specialize in this area. One of them, Marian Stinson, writing in The Globe and Mail, made this comment:
The federal Government has relaxed the regulations for environmental protection for this season to enable Panarctic to get the oil to market in the south.
A Coast Guard icebreaker will accompany the M.V. Arctic to compensate for the fact that the upgrading of the tanker has not been completed to meet the standards required for severe ice conditions-
Because the oil will move through Lancaster Sound, which is biologically one of the richest areas in the Arctic, future large-scale deliveries of hydro-carbons could have serious environmental implications. The economy of the Inuit who live in the area is based on hunting on the ice, and any increase in traffic could affect their livelihood.
We know that the M.V. Arctic made it. We also know that the Government played Russian roulette to some extent in this situation because it issued an Order in Council on July 25 in which it amended certain regulations of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act to make it possible for that vessel to carry a shipment of oil from Bent Horn to Montreal.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) congratulated Panarctic. However, we must recognize that this vessel did not meet the safety regulations of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. In congratulating the company, the two Ministers said that this indicates that Canadians are determined to exploit their northern resources. I believe that there is an alarming aspect to this situation. 1 find it alarming if exploitation will take precedence over environmental concerns. I find it alarming if the legitimate claims of the Inuit people of Canada are being ignored in this policy decision.
The Inuit people, through their organizations, are very much aware of what is taking place. They have been concerned about this since as long as ago as May 3, 1982 when a memorandum was prepared for the Inuit Tapirisat Board of Directors.
In that memorandum they indicated the need for an effective campaign against Dome Petroleum's year round Arctic oil tanker proposals. The memorandum said:
7778

October 18, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
This opposition is consistent with the Inuit position now being voiced at the National Energy Board review of the Arctic Pilot Project, namely, year-round Arctic tankers pose an unacceptable threat to the marine environment and marine-based Inuit renewable resource economy. Unresolved Inuit land claims and oil tanker spills form an additional basis for opposition.
I believe that Bill C-75 is an indication, along with the others I have mentioned this afternoon, that apart from expressions of concern the Government is not giving sufficient attention to the Inuit survival in the North or prevention of pollution in the Arctic.
Just this past week, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada issued a resolution for the public. It stated:
Whereas, This past summer, The American ship the Polar Sea, went through the North West Passage without seeking permission from the Canadian government;
Whereas, In 1953, some Inuit were moved to Resolute Bay and Grise Fjord by the Canadian government and the presence of these Inuit have been used to support the claim of the Canadian government to the High Arctic Islands;
Whereas, The Inuit lands and the Inuit living there should not be ignored by any government;
Whereas, The statement made by the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark, Minister for External Affairs in the House of Commons, as to what Canada will do with regard to protecting Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic includes legislation, military activity, marine transport and cooperation with the Americans; but does not include cooperation with Inuit, settlement of Inuit claims including the offshore; or the recognition that Inuit rights and environmental concerns are the root of Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic;
Therefore be it resolved that, ITC call on the Canadian government to recognize the relationship between Inuit and Canadian Sovereignty; to fully disclose to Inuit the nature and scope of Canadian and American military activity; and to enter into a working relationship with Canadian Inuit with respect to the development of comprehensive Arctic policy which will take into account Inuit concerns for survival and for the protection of the Arctic environment.
A second aspect of this same resolution concerning high Arctic development impact states:
Whereas, people in the Eastern Arctic already see changes in animal distribution and behaviour due to industry and shipping now, and they know more industrial activity and shipping will have effects on wildlife and on the environment, and
Whereas, ITC supports fully the efforts of the High Arctic Development Impact Zone Society in making the government of Canada and the government of the Northwest Territories aware of these concerns.
Therefore be it resolved that, ITC call on the government of Canada and the government of the Northwest Territories to hold public hearings in the High Arctic communities to determine the impact of development and shipping, and to work with the High Arctic Development Impact Zone Society and Inuit Tapirisat of Canada to develop regulations and controls for shipping in Northwest Passage.
One can see immediately that the Inuit are not standing in opposition to resource development or in opposition at all to any kind of shipping. However, they want to be included as part of this development by being consulted.
I want to make it clear to the House that I am not advancing the argument that there should be no northern resource development. Nor am I saying that no hydrocarbons should ever be taken from any of the Arctic seas. However, I want to remind the House that in July, 1984, after three years of study through a public review process, the Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment Panel issued a report and I believe its conclusions ought to be considered with great care by
Members of the House and the Government when proposing Bill C-75.
That panel concluded that Arctic oil and gas production and transportation can proceed, but subject to stringent terms and conditions to protect the northern environment and to strengthen northern society.
The panel went on to say that energy transportation issues were of crucial interest to the panel. The report states that a small-diameter oil pipeline could be built through the Mackenzie Valley. The panel also concluded that a natural gas pipeline could be built only if the impacts on local communities would be no more than would be associated with small scale development.
On the question of Arctic tanker traffic, the panel concluded that tankers not be allowed to carry oil through the Northwest Passage to East Coast refineries until after successful completion of a Government research and preparation stage, followed by an experimental program using two Class 10 ice-breaking tankers under specified conditions.
Central to the theme of the report is the panel's insistence that northerners play a major role in energy development projects.
These matters are not spelled out in detail anywhere in Bill C-75. The Bill has created much concern among Canada's northern Inuit people. Zebedee Nungak, the co-Chairman of the Inuit Committee on National Issues, said this past week:
The Government can ill afford to ignore our interests and concerns.
That is my position, Mr. Speaker, and it is the position of my Party. From that point of view we are going to give Bill C-75 the closest and most careful scrutiny when the Bill is referred to the legislative committee for clause by clause study. We hope the committee will not neglect to call before it the Inuit leaders of Canada in order to hear their concerns first hand.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a very brief question. I want to reassure the very distinguished and learned member of our Chamber with respect to native affairs and our north. He has been a very valuable Member of this Chamber over a long period of time.
Some Hon. Mlembers: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: His views are to be listened to because they are given in some degree of sincerity. I want to tell the Hon. Member that the very observations he has placed on the record this afternoon are of deep concern to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and to other ministries in Government, as he is aware.
We would like very much to move this matter into committee where some of the concerns, not only the Hon. Member but which other Members of the Chamber have been expressing over the last two or three days, can be delved into.
October 18, 1985

Could the Hon. Member comment on how we might best address the concerns that he, his colleague the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) and others have expressed? Should we deal with it in the standing committee, or is the legislative committee itself perhaps a forum that would be adequate?


B. Keith Penner: I want to accept the words of the Parliamentary Secretary that the Minister and the Government are fully cognizant of all of the environmental issues related to oil tanker shipping through the Northwest Passage and that they are as sensitive as it is possible to be to the Inuit people who call that home. They have unsettled claims and legitimate concerns about their traditional way of life. Increased shipping could disrupt that traditional way of life and even result over time in the extinction of a very proud, noble and able people who inhabit an inhospitable environment and therefore have earned the admiration of people around the world for what they do. 1 want to believe all of that on behalf of the Government. I will be looking for evidence that it is real.
As to which committee, the standing committee or the legislative committee, carries out the work of the House of Commons after this reading of the Bill does not matter to me. It is important that members who sit on the committee are prepared to listen to the Inuit leaders of Canada.
I would think, Mr. Speaker, that the Parliamentary Secretary may want to consider having members of the legislative committee visit certain selected Inuit communities to see firsthand why these concerns are so valid, that it is not mere rhetoric on the part of Inuit leaders. They are not simply trying to attract attention to themselves or cause difficulty. Their concerns are legitimate. This would allow members of the committee to emphathize with the Inuit people about these concerns. My suggestion is first to listen to the leaders and, second, Committee members perhaps should go to some communities.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member on time frame. In looking at this Bill, all Members of the House will agree that it is a plan within Transport Canada for marine routing as well as regulatory plans directly related north of 60 and also south of 60. There are some good things involved in it, such as safety measures and so on.
The Hon. Member touched on the Beaufort panel recommendations on the completion of scientific evaluation which are to provide two Class 10 icebreaking tankers and so on. Concerning the time frame, the Hon. Member touched on some interesting matters that for decades have been going on between the Government of Canada, the Inuit and other native people north of 60 concerning claims. A great deal of scientific effort has gone into the Beaufort panel and into looking at Polar Bear Pass, Lancaster Sound etc.
What kind of time frame does the Hon. Member think is reasonable to complete the claims? What about the aboriginal people north of 60? As I said to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) he soundly planted the flag of
Canada Shipping Act
Canada upon their backs in terms of sovereignty. What time frame would it take realistically to complete the comprehensive claim process? We have to involve the native people and northern Governments in setting aside those zones of incredible ecological sensitivity, such as Lancaster Sound and other areas. We just do not have an industrial marine routing plan here where various ice densities are considered. We have to deal with the proximity to Cameron Island and to the various Beaufort fields. We have to deal with the best routing systems either to the Pacific Rim, to Europe or to other areas of the world. How long would it take to implement those things? We have a great body of scientific information. Would it not be more proper for this House to complete the comprehensive claims and to put in place a protection system for those ecological zones north of 60 so we can advise not only northerners but Canadians generally that this kind of a routing system is soundly based?
Many Members of this House tend to forget that the area north of 60 is one of the globe's greatest and most profound deserts. It has very small oases of biological activity and if you do not protect those now in the early considerations of various routes, we may well lose a great global resource through disasters that could beset us.
I know my question is complex, but in terms of the cart, we have the cart here now but it seems to be well in front of some very important moral, legal and ecological considerations that have to be put in place. I am interested in the Hon. Member's well researched views on what kind of a time frame this House should be considering to implement those other phases before this actually becomes a reality?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the regrettable aspects of Bill C-75 is that in dealing in some very necessary ways with navigational concerns with the southern and the northern waters, they are taken together in the same Bill and dealt with in precisely the same way. I think the Hon. Member probably would agree with me that the northern waters ought to be taken out of Bill C-75. This Bill should not apply to northern waters. We should be awaiting settlement of claims. Settlement of claims is long over due. I think there has been an unconscionable delay in settling those claims. However, the Minister is to announce at the end of November a new claims policy, and I hope that claims policy will remove certain existing impediments that delayed the settlement of claims. Those impediments are well known to Members who served on the Standing Committee and who know about Arctic problems. They must be taken out, and then we could move very swiftly to the settlement of those claims. Certainly that would involve extensive mechanisms or arrangements for consultations on the environment.
I conclude my answer by reminding Hon. Members that the Macdonald Royal Commission indicated that the movement toward a settlement of comprehensive claims should be accelerated. Unfortunately, that commission put another obstacle in the way and said that political aspects should be

October 18, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
separated out. 1 think that was naive and unrealistic. Before the life of this Parliament concludes, I would hope that all or most of those comprehensive claims could be settled. That would be my timetable.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it was the presentation of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) which prompted me to rise in my place this afternoon. The Hon. Member is opposed to the Bill. I cannot quite understand why that would be the case. Obviously a good deal of thought has gone into it, not only by the present Government but by the previous one. It has been many years since a major amendment has been made to the Canada Shipping Act. I am sure that all the ideas, many of which are of an administrative nature and a technical nature, included in the Bill were not thought up in the last 12 months. My suspicion is that what we have here is a distillation of ideas that have come forward over the period of many years. It is only with the new Government that the deciding factor has been there to present this to Parliament and to make some movement on these important issues. Undoubtedly the previous Government restricted itself to the collection of these ideas, and for that we should be thankful.
The presentation of the Hon. Member for Davenport was similar in many ways to that of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). However, I must admit that the Hon. Member who last spoke was a little more realistic in his approach to life; he was not dead against the Bill, on account of some of the things he said. Sometimes it is evident that the degree of realism in matters affecting the North directly decreases proportionate to the distance from Toronto. It is sometimes surprising-and this is something which we in the North are quite used to-that those good people from Toronto are quite willing to tell us how we should conduct our affairs and run our lives.
I see the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) who is an expert on northern housing. He would like to tell us how to run our housing policy. However, I cannot be too critical of him because in the recent past he has been extremely helpful.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I would hope the Hon. Member would not neglect to mention that he thanked me for my intervention.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order.


Dave Nickerson: I certainly did thank the Hon. Member for Spadina for his intervention in the question of condominiums in the Northwest Territories. As I said before, he and his colleagues in his Party have been extremely helpful, maybe much more helpful than his colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), who would tell us how to administer the system of justice in the North.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: You are an expert on that.


Dave Nickerson: I certainly am, I certainly am. 1 have had a lot of experience with judicial affairs in the recent past, and I am very satisfied with the way that the judicial system operates in the North.
What we have to realize with respect to shipping in the North is that it already exists. General merchandise is already shipped into the North by vessels. In particular, oil and petroleum products are shipped in. The M.V. Bedford recently hauled out, after trans-shipment from the M.V. Arctic, the first commercial cargo of oil produced in the Arctic. It had brought in refined products from refineries back east. This is a common occurrence. It happens every day. It is not something new. The Northwest Passage is not some pristine wilderness which has never seen a vessel or has never been touched by the hand of man. The people whom I represent and whom the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) represents tell us that they want rules and regulations established pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act and to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, which will ensure that existing shipping and any new shipping likely to occur in the future is done in the safest possible manner. They themselves and their loved ones work on those boats. What could be more natural than to want working conditions to be as safe as possible in waters which on occasion can be quite hazardous? The people there are concerned with the possibility of oil spills. They want legislation such as that envisaged in Bill C-75, which will do the utmost possible to ensure that spills do not occur and, if they do, to ensure that there is proper mechanisms for the clean-up of spills and for compensation or the payment of the clean-up process. That is what they want, and that it what is in the Bill. It is unbelievable that the Hon. Member for Davenport should rise and say that we should not proceed with the Bill, that somehow all shipping in the North has to cease. That type of attitude might get him elected in downtown Toronto, but it certainly would not get him elected in Nunatsiaq or the Western Arctic.
For example, the Hon. Member for Davenport specifically referred to the transportation of natural gas. This Bill ensures that the international conventions into which Canada has entered, dealing with the design and construction of natural gas carrying vessels, are put into effect. That is not the case at the present time, and this is precisely what the Bill would do. Therefore, we should support the Bill, get it through the House and have these highly technical matters dealt with by a competent legislative committee.
I want to dwell for some time on Clause 4 of the Bill, the one which has probably caused most of the debate in the House. It is permissive. It allows the Minister, should he wish, to collect certain fees for certain services rendered by the Coast Guard in respect of ice-breaking, for instance, and of other services rendered to the shipping community by the Government of Canada.
I understand some of the concern of Members from certain parts of the country where there is a likelihood of fees being substantially raised. However, we have had the assurance of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) that this will
October 18, 1985

not be done in an irrational way. If fee increases are to be made, they will be done in a manner which does not cause such a hefty blow to the users of those services that they themselves will no longer be able to operate their businesses.
Recently in my constituency I have had some experience with this in respect of aviation, not in respect of shipping. Were the Minister of Transport to be in the House, I would bring this to his attention. Perhaps he could adopt the policy stated here with regard to shipping fees for those involved in aviation. For example, the new terminals at the Whitehorse and Inuvik airports were built as part of the Liberal election campaign under the process whereby they borrowed the next year's capital funds and built structures immediately before the election. The rental fees for space in those terminals have been increased to such an extent, up to tenfold in some instances, that it has become prohibitive for people to rent space anymore. That is one example where this policy of moderation might be brought into effect.
The question of the services and subsidies provided by the Government to the shipping sector and other modes of transportation is one I would like to think about aloud for a moment.
If I were the owner of a stevedoring or warehousing company in Montreal, I would want the ice breakers to clear the St. Lawrence Seaway, and I would make the argument that that was in the national interest and that the user of that service ought not to be required to pay for it. At the same time, I would probably argue against subsidies to the railways that go from Montreal to eastern Canada, servicing the ports of Saint John or Halifax.
It is only natural, given human nature, that that would be the case. Obviously, it would be to the maximum advantage of the person in Montreal in that circumstance to have that service rendered at no cost.
Conversely, if I were in the same position in Halifax or Fredericton, I would make the argument that we should retain the subsidies on freight rates and that those who are provided with ice breaker support in the St. Lawrence Seaway should be required to pay for it. That would be the most advantageous situation for the individual in Halifax or Fredericton.
I think we have to allow the Minister of Transport to engage in a system which would see subsidies reduced over a period of time, with the cost of such services as ice breaking being passed on to the user at something close to the actual cost of providing the service.
Surely that which is best for Canada as a whole is what should govern. Taking the interests of Canada as a whole as opposed to the specific interests in Montreal or Halifax, the system that should be in place for the transport of Canadian goods to export markets is that which is the most cost effective, the system that would be to maximum Canadian general advantage, and the way to arrive at the most cost-efficient system is to take into account the cost to the shipper, the cost
Canada Shipping Act
to the supplier of the transport, and the cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
In order that Canadian goods can compete in world markets, we have to be as effective and as efficient as possible on a national basis.
Still on Clause 4, I have a few comments to make with respect to the Northwest Passage as it might exist many years from now.
I,	too, share the view of the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) that the Northwest Passage should continue to see a growth in the amount of shipping. I see it, at some point in time, being used as a regular throughwaterway for vessels orginating in Europe en route to Asia.
If that is to happen and if that shipping is to be conducted in a safe and environmentally sound manner, it will require considerable services of a nature usually provided by Government, such as ice breaking services and navigational aids, and there will be a cost attached to that.
Shippers using the Panama Canal are quite prepared to pay a toll, and so it should be for shippers using the Northwest Passage-which I hope would be open to peaceful navigation for vessels of all nations, with the only requirement being that they meet the necessary safety and environmental requirements.
It would make sense to levy a toll on vessels using that route which is more or less equivalent to the cost that the Government bears in enabling the route to be used.
I talked earlier about doing things to national advantage, about the necessity to do things in the most efficient way from a national perspective. Stepping back and taking the global perspective, surely the most cost-effective way of shipping goods from one continent to another would be to the best advantage of all mankind.
If the tolls for both the Panama Canal and the Northwest Passage meet the user-pay principle, then that route which is the most cost-effective will be chosen by world shippers, with the result that everybody in the world will benefit. And if at some point in time, as I believe will be the case, the Northwest Passage becomes competitive with other sea routes, then Canada, too, will benefit, not only as a shipper on that route but also as a provider of services for vessels using that route.
The last point I want to make this afternoon, Mr. Speaker- and this, again, is contained to some extent within the Bill- relates to the way in which the Canadian Coast Guard sets up its various regions.
At present, part of the North is looked after by Montreal and part is run out of Winnipeg or Edmonton. What is needed, or will be needed very shortly, is a separate northern region for the Coast Guard. But the Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of Transport are well aware of this need. What I am trying to do this afternoon is to give them a little more encouragement in a policy that they have been pursuing for a number of years, both under the present Government and the previous Government.

October 18, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
That northern region of the Canadian Coast Guard exists already in embryonic form. It is under the very able directorship of an individual by the name of Carol Stephenson. It is my hope that this will continue and that it will become a full region within the operations of the Canadian Coast Guard.
Thank you very much for your kind indulgence, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).


James Ross Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Hon. Member a similar question to that which I put to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), and it is this: does he not agree that comprehensive aboriginal claims north of 60 should be resolved and that there should be a delineation of those zones where there should either be no access for freight traffic or access under limited conditions because of the biological nature of those areas?
Does he not think that those two steps should be completed before some of the operational potential that is contained within Bill C-75 is put into play?
The reason I ask the question is that the comprehensive claims process is one that has dragged on for many years. A great deal of effort has been expended by many Canadians in evaluating the sensitive zones north of 60. Some of the studies are not yet completed. The reason, of course, is to ensure that those shipping routes that are used in the future are those which result in the absolute minimum impact on those areas.
Does he not think that those two matters should be addressed and implemented before we see the kinds of routings that would be operationally possible under this Bill put into play?


Dave Nickerson: If the Hon. Member, Sir, has looked at the Bill, he will know that contained within it is the concept of Vessel Traffic Service Zones, and that will in part, if not in total, address the concerns he has raised.
If he is asking me whether second reading of the Bill should await the settlement of all aboriginal claims, or the aboriginal claims in that part of the country in which he is most interested at the present time, my answer is "no".
Shipping in all regions of Canada is important. I do not think we should delay the second reading of this Bill until there is an answer to every outstanding little problem. What is contemplated in the Bill is a provision to make regulations on a zone-by-zone basis, and certainly that will eliminate some of the problems.
It should be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that the people who are pushing hardest for a settlement of the land claims in the Arctic, particularly in the Inuit area, are the very people who use the petroleum products shipped into that region for use in their ski-doos and for heating their houses.
Those people tell me that while they want those petroleum products shipped into the region-they like to live in warm houses as opposed to cold igloos-they want it done in a
manner that minimizes the danger to health and the danger of the environment.
It is for that reason that the people who live in that region, I am sure, would like to see us proceed with this legislation in a speedy manner.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Member. The Hon. Member will be aware that the previous administration halted between two opinions, whether there should be enhanced oil tanker shipment or whether there should be more pipeline construction. A policy was never developed one way or the other. The waiting game was being played by acquiring more data and information. Now we have a clearly delineated policy. In Arctic waters and through the Northwest Passage, there will now be increased year-round oil tanker shipment. That is the policy of the Government as enunciated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and supported by this Bill.
The leaders of the Inuit people in the North have put forward the proposition that they have not been involved in this major policy development. As my hon. friend just reminded the House, there are some very major issues still outstanding, among them the settlement of those claims and political rights in the North. Perhaps the Hon. Member could advise the House if he as a northerner is satisfied that every effort to have a full measure of consultation has been made.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior is undoubtedly aware of the great number of consultations that have already taken place. In his opening remarks, he referred to the Lancaster Sound studies. I do not know how many public meetings took place while that study was being compiled. The Beaufort Sea environmental impact group has spent months and months soliciting views on oil and gas development in the North. There has been a lot of opportunity for consultation and public input. Much of what was said in those public hearings was that people wanted better shipping regulations and better environmental protection measures. The people were concerned with compensation aspects arising out of possible spills and this is precisely what is contained in this Bill.
I am not saying that there could not be improvements of a technical nature made to the Bill. That will undoubtedly occur when we get to committee. I know that the committee will call as many witnesses as possible.
I would like to make one comment with respect to the policy enunciated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is not quite the way the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior puts it. There is no way that any Hon. Member can say that there will be more oil traffic through the North. It is likely that a bigger population will lead to more oil traffic. It is also likely, as a result of what appears to be a very successful exportation of oil from Bent Horn this summer, that there will be more crude oil coming out. However, the Government cannot say that that will happen. That will depend upon the
October 18, 1985

economics of the situation and what the world price of oil will be.
The policy of the Government is that on the basis of the expectation that there will be increased traffic and particularly tanker traffic in the North, the Government asserts its sovereignty over those waters and will make provision for the safe development of that traffic if it occurs which in all likelihood it will.


Mr. Johnson:: Mr. Speaker, after listening to some Hon. Members speaking on this Bill, one would be almost left with the impression that no studies have been done in the Arctic and that native people have not been consulted. 1 know that that is not true. I am not here this afternoon to sponsor the oil companies, but I know that even without being told to do so by the Government, the oil companies, in anticipation of carrying out oil exploration in the Arctic, have voluntarily asked native groups to go on board the ships that have been carrying out the environmental studies. In fact, I have been in command of ships myself when there have been native groups on board. I have been in the Eastern Arctic in all of the months of the year except March carrying out environmental studies. Some of the things that I hear being said today in an attempt to hold up this Bill are pure nonsense.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak on Bill C-75 and I will certainly touch on the points made by the captain in a few moments. First I would like to deal with the expectations of many Members of the House following the speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) regarding the Polar Sea incident. I think we expected that quite a different tack would be taken.
We learned from the Manhattan incident and the passage of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act that a very strong statement was being made by Canada. Bill C-75 is doing through the back door what the Government would not do through the front door. The sovereign potential of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act is being diluted by making all kinds of regulatory changes to it that the Government would not dare bring forward for open debate in the House.
The exemptions in this Bill are incredible because what should be done by law is being done almost entirely by regulation. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister is here today. When he and his colleagues were in opposition, they pilloried the then Liberal Government for doing exactly what is being done in this Bill. This Bill is riddled with the powers of the Governor General and with ministerial discretion to regulate after the fact what should already be in the Bill, something which the House has not learned to expect but often sees.
I am interested that an Hon. Member from north of 60 would not even touch on the approach taken toward compensating those who are affected by oil spills. This Bill forces the litigant to prove damage, something which has been widely discussed for many years in committee and in the House. Once again, the onus will be on the fishermen, the Inuit and
Canada Shipping Act
northern people to obtain standing before a regulatory agency and prove reasonable costs and damages, not actual costs and damages. They have to be able actually to prove those costs. I think it is something the House has to look at very carefully. We should reverse that onus so that it is not the victim who has to prove the damage and the costs involved. Rather, the onus should be on the parties involved in causing the pollution.
Before dealing with this Trojan Horse Bill, I would like to touch on the matter of cost recovery in the transportation field. I believe the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) should be dealing with this today because I understand there is a meeting on this matter in Victoria this afternoon. In terms of Clause 4, this exemplifies what I will be bringing forward in my remarks when I speak of how this Bill affects shipping within all Canadian waters. I am speaking of the drydock at Esquimalt, B.C. which at present is earmarked for sale by the Government but brings to the people of Esquimalt over $26 million per year. The Government now wishes to dispose of this facility largely because of a $1 million loss reported for 1984.
I would like to deal with cost recovery on that point. While I can understand a decrease in business due to the state of the economy, there seems to have been no attempt to promote the services of this dock to the shipping industry. In fact, the Government has been throwing away business which has come to it. The Minister seems to rely upon private sector middlemen to attract business to the dock and allow those companies to make the profit while the public, again, keeps the deficits.
For example, there is a crane at the Esquimalt dry dock for which the Government charges $8 to $9 an hour to operate. The Government pays the operator $14 an hour. The same type of crane in Portland costs $35 an hour U.S. plus labour and materials. The largest crane in Esquimalt is charged out at $80 an hour, while a comparable unit in Portland brings in $150 an hour, with an additional charge per ton, plus labour and materials with a four-hour minimum.
I am told that even as we speak now Canada is losing a major maintenance contract to the Americans. This is not because of service or price but because of government disinterest in keeping the facility viable. This is a contract to maintain and repair some 30 Polish fishing vessels which, interestingly enough, fish in Canadian waters and take our fish. That contract could be ours for the asking except that the Department of National Defence has stalled closing the deal for some imagined security problem. It is not that we have said no to the contract, we have not given an answer at all. This $2.5 million contract has been floating between DND and Transport Canada while the Americans have been actively seeking the business. I am also told that an announcement could come as early as Monday that the Polish fleet will pull out and give the contract to Coos Bay, Oregon instead of Esquimalt because the Government has deliberately frustrated the deal. It would seem as though the Government does not want this facility to make money or at least break even.

October 18, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
What we are debating here today is cost recovery on Coast Guard services for Canadians while not even attempting to manage wisely Government projects such as this one. How much will we have to recover on navigational aids to cover the costs of this business to Esquimalt and to the Government of Canada? If the Minister is successful in running this facility into the ground to support his argument to sell it off, who will buy it and at what price? The dock's estimated value is $50 million. Why would any of the principal users of the facility want to buy what they can already have for next to nothing? If we sell it for less than $50 million, what new cost recovery scheme will the Minister bring forward to compensate the people of Canada? Or if the dock is closed altogether in March of next year, as planned by Transport Canada, how much more will we have to recover? That is a good example of what we see throughout the Bill which is before us in terms of user-pay.
Let us take a look at the Bill. I can certainly speak for the Port of Prince Rupert, the Port of Stewart and the Port of Kitimat in terms of Clause 3.1. I will tell Hon. Members what those ports will tell the Minister when he goes out to visit them. I would like to read the Clause because it is an important one. We have to look at it carefully. It states:
For the purpose of defraying the cost of navigational services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard, the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting charges relating to those services, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member has been here long enough to realize that under Beauchesne's Fifth Edition Citation No. 732 we are debating second reading of this Bill. The Bill should be debated in principle and not clause by clause. I hope that the Hon. Member will take that into consideration in recommencing his speech.


James Ross Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The points which are in the clause are key to the general thrust of the Bill. It would add costs for aids to navigation, dredging, vessel traffic services, ice-breaking services and escorting services. It is estimated that in the neighbourhood of $200 million will be tacked on to the backs of pleasure craft operators, fishing vessel operators and general shippers. With respect to ports such as Prince Rupert, it is already suffering a dramatic loss in throughput. This is because Transport Canada has not managed to bring Prince Rupert Grain No. 1 back on line. In adding the types of costs which are being discussed in that clause on the fishing fleet we are expecting a $100 million buy-back. Where is that? If more and more costs are to be added on to industies which are already in difficulty, we will find out what the real implications of user-pay are.
Let us look at what the Minister had to say about the Bill on September 25. There was great expectation in the House and in the country at that time regarding sovereignty. Bill C-75 was seen as a Bill which would strengthen sovereignty. In fact, it has diluted the potential in terms of the sovereign Bill of the Arctic Waters Marine Prevention Control Act. Members opposite know that well. If they do not believe it then they
should speak to people in External Affairs who are aware of what the implications of diluting our legislation north of 60 will be.
I would like to point to the six international maritime conventions which are to be added. There is the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and its 1978 Protocol. There is the 1978 protocol to the 1974 convention with respect to the safety of life at sea; the 1978 standards of training certification and watchkeeping for seafarers; the 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage; the 1971 Fund Convention; and also the International Maritime Organization Codes for specialized ships carrying oil, gas and chemical cargoes.
1 would like to point out just how far afield the Government has gone with this Bill. It has taken six international maritime conventions and placed them in the Bill. I think Hon. Members opposite would be pleased to address why Crown vessels are specifically exempted should they get into some kind of difficulty and cause a spill north of 60. The onus for damage always returns to the individual, whether we are talking about the coast of B.C., the east coast maritime areas or north of 60. It is the individual who is hurt. Many of these are very poor people. They cannot afford to find their way into the courts and to have consultants prepare studies in relation to the damage and so on.
The Bill is very broad. It includes everything from new definitions for air cushioned vehicles to what to do with a stowaway. There are some good clauses with respect to safety. I was pleased to see the provision for new inspection procedures and so on. However, the adding of charges for navigational services is not going to go down well in the country. I would encourage the Minister to speak to some of those people who are knowledgeable with respect to how this can change shipping patterns and what the implications will be for our indigenous fleets of both fishing vessels and pleasure craft.
Ministerial exemptions are dealt with in Section 134 of the Act. I will not dig right into the section since I accept your advice with respect to going into the specific clauses of the Bill, Mr. Speaker. The Benthorn project is an example once again in which ministerial discretion, exemption and regulation was utilized for the Cameron Island project to bring oil down this summer. It was through Order in Council that that particular vessel was exempted from operating in those ice conditions. The same theme of exemptive powers finds its way throughout the Bill. The Bill which is before us is similar to saying to the Minister of Transport: "You can do whatever you want, wherever you want, however you want, under whatever circumstances you want. Whenever you feel like doing it, pass some regulations." This is Trojan Horse legislation. It is the type of legislation which government Members fought against when they sat in opposition. They could see that the interests of the individual, the little Canadian, were the ones which would be beaten around. It means that the big oil companies can knock on the door of the Minister of Transport and say: "We cannot comply with that particular zoning which Environment Canada, the Government of the Northwest Ter-
October 18, 1985

ritories, the Inuit or whoever say they are concerned with." The oil companies will say: "We have to have this routing. We have this window for accessing those ice conditions and we cannot go with all the other stuff." The Minister has taken all these powers upon himself. Knowing the man it surprises me. I think the bureaucracy have channelled this legislation up to him and they have decided that since it cannot get 8, 10 or 12 Bills through, which is how many it should be, it will push Bill C-75 through.
The Bill is all over the ballpark. It goes from air cushioned vehicles to very basic sovereign questions. It is similar to the backing down we saw from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I complimented him in the House. I honestly meant it with respect to the moves he was taking. He said: "We will construct a $500 million world-class state-of-the-art ice-breaker." Some two days later at a press conference the Minister spoke about an ice-breaking tanker. He practically read the press release of Panarctic. In the House he said that he would strengthen various pieces of legislation. The first matter I expect we would have learned in the world of international law from the Georges Bank experience is what type of laws we should be putting in place. Not only should we strengthen the demarcation lines in the high Arctic so that those would be internal waters, but we should strengthen the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, so that should a vessel like the Polar Sea re-enter Canadian internal waters, there could be a sufficient penalty. How many Members of the Government know that if the Polar Sea goes in after we pass this piece of legislation, the most we can do as a country is impose a $100,000 fine? What an outstanding piece of legislation this is. I expected some really tough-minded legislation which included a shell clause which not only allowed, but required, a Canadian Coast Guard to bring vessels back into port which attempted to enter Canada's internal waters without full open agreement and the accompaniment through Canadian northern waters by a class 10 state of the art ice-breaker.
I believe that I, as an Hon. Member, at the very least, misunderstood what direction the Secretary of State for External Affairs was taking. I had great expectations that we were going to see sovereignty and the high Arctic protected. The Minister planted the Canadian flag on the back of the Inuit and said the reason we have sovereignty in the high Arctic islands is because of the presence of aboriginal people who have been there since time immemorial. However, there has been no movement on that front. At the very least,in terms of debate and legislative committee time, we should be looking at how to complete the comprehensive claim process and how to realistically and properly deal with the important scientific components which were properly raised by my friend, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). We cannot now simply run head long into industrial projects after all the effort of public process. I see the Hon. Member for the Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). He probably thinks that it was just an interesting exercise in public relations to have the Beaufort
Canada Shipping Act
panel, to have that many Canadians volunteer their time to address the very real and sincere interests of this globe.
A large-scale oil blow-out in the high Arctic could change the entire weather patterns of this entire globe. We are not just talking about a few dribs and drabs of oil washing ashore, a few seals getting their skins dirty, a few fish dying or a few hunters being displaced. Some of the most serious global atmospheric questions have to be answered. As it stands now, this kind of legislation would certainly receive a good round of applause in the boardrooms of the oil companies in Calgary. They would say, "Right on. You finally put in place what we need to expedite at the lowest possible cost". I think the surveys which have been taken in this country over the years demonstrate that one of the highest priorities there is among Canadians is the protection of the environment and its utilization. Canadians are prepared to see certain higher costs in order that plans can be implemented with some kind of long-term forward thinking vision so that those areas of great sensitivity are not unduly and unnecessarily damaged.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I found interesting the comments from the Government side on the powers to make regulations in relation to hazardous cargoes. One would think that after all of the studies done by this Chamber on the transportation and management of hazardous materials in terms of rail and rubber, surely we would see the implementation of them as legislation rather than regulation.
I have raised many times in this House the fact that we still have very large tonnage quantities of military explosives being loaded on the Prince Rupert waterfront. There have been many requests for some kind of proper handling and management of those military explosives or in the alternative, shipping them in U.S. military bottoms from the southern U.S. north, but do we have it in this legislation? No. We find once again the Governor in Council may make regulations, and that is throughout the Bill. When we talk about parliamentary reform and when the Government brings legislation forward to be turned into law, we in this Chamber should not be asked to simply vote for or against these kinds of Trojan horse Bills which are scattered about.
The Governor in Council may make regulations to implement the pollution convention. What is that going to mean to northerners if and when there is a spill? What about people on the West Coast if a ship is to break up? What about Newfoundland? There are many questions which must be answered by the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. There are questions and comments for 10 minutes.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, just before the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) rose to give his excellent speech, one of the Government supporters was exercised about the fact that we were debating Bill C-75 in principle. We have not been debating it very long. I just wonder if the Hon. Member is really suggesting that there should not be a second reading debate? I think it was a curious intervention on his part.

October 18, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
However, the substance of the Hon. Member's remarks was that all kinds of studies have been done and the Hon. Member for the Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) made exactly the same point. No one has argued to the contrary. Of course, there have been studies done. Two paramount studies have been mentioned by several Hon. Members. One study is the Lancaster Sound study, which was extensive and indepth, and the other was the Beaufort Environmental Assessment Review Panel-which has the unfortunate designation of BEARP- which is one of the most significant studies. It was a three-year study which, in my view, ought to carry a considerable amount of weight in the decision-making by this Government.
My question to the Hon. Member for Skeena is with respect to those studies and any other studies of which he is aware. What are his views as to what reservations or cautions are pointed to regarding unrestricted enhanced oil tanker shipping through the Arctic waters of the Northwest Passage?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. The point was raised earlier with regard to all of the studies which have been done. It is quite true that there have been a large number of studies, particularly in terms of the Arctic. The problem is that almost none of the recommendations have been implemented. The studies have been the basic building block to bring this Chamber to a position where we in fact could make intelligent, sound, reasonable and scientifically based decisions in implementing them as legislation.
I am sure that many native people were on vessels in the Arctic, that they came on board and talked about environmental studies and so on. One of the reasons there is so much cynicism, particularly north of 60, is that there are a lot of bureaucrats, scientists, a lot of studies and public hearings, and although that process is good because it helps northerners and Canadians generally to come to certain conclusions, we are not carrying forward what we should, the step beyond, which is to implement, in the interest of northerners, of Canada and of the world, sound procedures. I do not think we can just charge head on without taking into very serious account what publicly funded panels such as the Beaufort Environmental Review Panel recommended in terms of having two class 10 ice-breaking tankers in order to ensure that if one was bound in ice, there would be an opportunity for assistance. I believe many people tend to think of the Arctic as just a great area which is ice bound a lot of the time, which is cold and windy and we do not really need to worry about it. It is a desert, Mr. Speaker, and it is a very profoundly sensitive desert. Large pools of black material in an area of 24-hour a day sunlight where the accompanying environment is principally white, water or a bit of rock, is a situation which scientists around the world are only just now setting their minds to in terms of what the implications would be. I do not think we can just run willy-nilly into these kinds of situations, Mr. Speaker. Surely there is enough depth in this Chamber to allow us to address the very real environmental, scientific and aboriginal concerns rather than casting them aside saying that we have studied them to death already.


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I will start with a very brief comment and then I have a question. I am very happy indeed that the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) has recognized the very real and important improvements that are brought about through the safety measures and standards in this legislation. I can assure the Member that our consultation was very wide. We consulted a variety of groups and interested parties. We were seeking some information from the Hon. Member's Party and we did not get a complete answer. I would like to know, as would my colleague the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), what percentage of the cost of transportation users should pay if he believes in that.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to address that because no one from the Department of Transport ever contacted me with regard to my responsibilities for northern development.


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: We asked you in the House.


James Ross Fulton: To make the record clear, I am saying that I was never requested either to study or to prepare that kind of a response.
With regard to user-pay, in terms of the fishing industry, the shipping of wheat and so on, there is already an abundance of money paid in either directly through the economy or through the production and export of those commodities. Therefore, to ask a fisherman having his vessel rescued off the coast of Prince Rupert to pay to be escorted back into the port by a Coast Guard vessel is absolutely ridiculous. I would encourage Government Members to give speeches in Prince Rupert explaining why they think that kind of user-pay approach should be applied.
One of the points made by the Member for Western Arctic with regard to the accompaniment of vessels by a Canadian Coast Guard ice-breaker must be addressed by the House. That is a very, very costly process. I would agree that the users of that type of service, which incurs an enormous direct cost onto the Crown of Canada, should be considered. The committee should look at that carefully. It should consider which other routings are being competed with and what the real costs are. I was demonstrated last year that many pleasure craft operators, fishermen, tugboat operators and shippers off the coast of British Columbia did not get adequate weather information in advance. I cannot imagine why those people would be asked to pay for Coast Guard escorts back into port. This year alone the fishing industry in British Columbia will provide over $500 million to the Canadian economy. 1 cannot see sticking fishermen with the costs of navigational aids.


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I am still in the dark here. From reading Hansard it seems to me that there is some discrepancy in the positions alluded to by various Members of the NDP on the question of user fees and the portion that should be paid by the user. We were never able to get a straight answer on that. With regard to weather forecasting services, I am sure that the Member is aware that that is within the realm of another Department.
October 18, 1985


James Ross Fulton: That is precisely my point, Mr. Speaker. The Government has provided no background documentation on user-pay. The Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) is saying that the NDP should be writing the policy for the Government. I would be glad to write the Government's policy on shipping in the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and so on. If the Minister wants to divorce weather services from navigational aids, I think she is dreaming in Technicolor.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the comments of the Hon. Member with regard to the environment and the concerns he has expressed with regard to this Act and its effect on the environment in the Arctic. I would ask the Member to consider the historical background of the petroleum and mining industries operating in the Arctic from the late 1970s to the present. I ask him to consider Dome, Imperial, the operation of Little Cornwallis at Polaris and how the shipping industry has evolved. Surely the Member will recognize that those vessels are equipped to handle the kind of environment in which they operate. If they cannot handle that kind of environment they do not operate in it. Surely he must recognize that legislation dealing with this issue today is new legislation. Surely he realizes that the Environmental Contaminants Act, for example, must be upgraded as well as the Ocean Dumping Control Act. However, you do not bring Parliament and this Act to a halt just to satisfy one element of concern.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, if the Member had listened to the beginning of my speech-


Robert Hylton Brisco: I did.


James Ross Fulton: -he would have heard that I said that I recognize that this is a marine routing and regulatory piece of legislation. I am saying, though, that there are all kinds of other matters that should be addressed at the same time by the House.


Robert Hylton Brisco: They will be.


James Ross Fulton: I do not think they are going to be. I see no reason to believe that the Minister responsible for Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) or any of the other Ministers involved will be bringing anything forward because they have made no suggestion, publicly or privately, that they are prepared to deal with comprehensive claims in an urgent manner or to deal with the setting up of environmental zones in terms of the Arctic.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. If the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) will forgive me, we have already extended the time by a couple of minutes. I would now like to carry on with debate. Before I recognize the next Hon. Member, I would like to remind the House that this will be the last 20-minute speech with a question and comment period provided for under Section 36(2). After that all speeches will be 10 minutes. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).
Canada Shipping Act


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to make a few comments about Bill C-75 which is presently being debated at second reading stage. My friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson), moved an amendment to hoist this Bill for a period of six months. I would like to reiterate to the House the reasons my hon. colleague moved that particular amendment. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, there was a very serious concern about Clause 4 in this Bill. I would like to go through that clause in a few moments and indicate the reasons why this particular clause is of such a fundamental nature that it must be eliminated from this piece of legislation.
As a member of the Committee on Transport I had the pleasure of travelling to western Canada earlier this year. The main purpose of that particular visit was to study twin-tracking with the CN line in British Columbia. As part of that trip the members of the committee had the opportunity to see firsthand the Canadian Coast Guard facilities on the Pacific Coast, especially those in Vancouver and Prince Rupert. I would like to indicate how impressed I was with the facilities that are provided by the Canadian Coast Guard in western Canada.
In effect, this particular clause would give the Coast Guard the authority to recover the cost of providing navigational services. As the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) indicated, that would mean, in effect, an additional $200 million that users of commercial vehicles and pleasures boats would be required to pay. Until now, it was the responsibility of the federal Government to pay for all of the services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard.
Under Clause 4, the Government is proposing to institute a user-pay scheme in order to facilitate full recovery of the costs of the Canadian Coast Guard. I believe that is fundamentally wrong because it is compromising safety. It is requiring Canadians to pay for services that would ensure the highest standard of safety on our coastal waters in all other services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard.
Being a Member from an urban riding in Metropolitan Toronto, one might ask why I would be concerned about the Canadian Coast Guard and what impact it may have on Metropolitan Toronto. I inquired of officials at the Canadian Coast Guard what facilities and services they provided in the Great Lakes and specifically in Lake Ontario. I was informed that the Canadian Coast Guard provides a number of services in the Great Lakes, specifically Lake Ontario. They provide search and rescue vessels in the Great Lakes and manage and operate two ice-breakers from Prescott west-the Griffon and the Simcoe. They service a rescue co-ordination centre at Trenton as well as providing the services from the marine radio centre. Therefore, the Coast Guard indeed provide some very essential services for people from Metropolitan Toronto who use the lake either for pleasure or business.
What impact will this Clause have on those people and others who make use of boats and vessels in other parts of

October 18, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
Canada? I believe it is fundamentally wrong for the Government to charge those individuals for these services that are provided. That is why we in the opposition have moved an amendment to hoist this legislation. I want to assure Hon. Members opposite that if this particular Clause is deleted from Bill C-75, other parts of this legislation will receive favourable consideration by this side of the House.
Let me briefly comment on the Bill itself. As the Hon. Member for Skeena pointed out, this Bill which contains over 100 pages is a Trojan Horse piece of legislation. This is an omnibus Bill. I would remind Members opposite of the position they took with respect to what they believed was omnibus legislation tabled by the previous Liberal administration, specifically a Criminal Code amendment Bill which the opposition argued was omnibus legislation. It provided for a great many amendments to the Criminal Code and when Members opposite were in opposition they stood to say that it was wrong to deal with so many matters in one piece of legislation because it was was a disservice to the matter being addressed. Now that they are in Government we can see the blatant hypocrisy of the Hon. Members opposite. When they were in opposition they made one argument but now that they are in Government they do another-


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 believe the word "hypocrisy", used directly as the Hon. Member for York South-Weston has just used it, has been found to be unparliamentary in the past in the House and I would ask for your ruling on the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 was deeply in thought listening to the Hon. Member's speech and I do not recall if he used the word in that form. However, let us carry on with the debate. I will look at the "blues" and make a ruling on Monday.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The Hon. Member opposite knows perfectly well that there is no rule or part of any rule that says an Hon. Member cannot say that hypocrisy has occurred. Hypocrisy is a reality in life and it occurs. However, Beauchesne says that it is not parliamentary to call another Member and refer specifically to another Member as a hypocrite. That is quite a different matter than dealing generally with an issue and saying it is a hypocritical approach. There is no point of order there at all, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's comment. 1 believe it was said in that context. However, I would like to look at the "blues". If there is a problem I will naturally ask the Hon. Member to withdraw and I know that he will.


John V. Nunziata: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker. I would withdraw and I fully recognize parliamentary rules that preclude me from calling individual Members hypocrites. Although that is what I feel and would like to say so in the House, I recognize that I cannot. Therefore, I will not call the Hon. Members opposite hypocrites. I would like to say that
hypocrisy has occurred. I would suggest to the Hon. Member who raised the point of order that if the shoe fits, wear it. If he recognized that he has been a hypocrite, so be it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Here we go. I know it is Friday afternoon and Members have done very well for the last few hours. I hope we may continue debate. We will make a ruling on Monday if it is necessary.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, let me return to my submission with respect to Bill C-75. The point I was making before being interrupted is that this is an omnibus piece of legislation. Members opposite argued against such legislation when they were in opposition but have decided to support it now that they are in Government for a short period of time.
We in the Official Opposition are opposed to this omnibus legislation. This Bill deals with far too many matters to properly deal with the subject of this legislation. If the Government is truly concerned about the measures addressed in this 120 page Bill, it would introduce separate pieces of legislation to deal with the varied subjects contained within Bill C-75.
I have already indicated that Clause 4 is fundamentally wrong. I was somewhat amused to hear the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), the former Minister of the Environment, commenting about user-pay. Members will recall that when she was the Minister of the Environment, before her demotion to Minister of State for Transport, she tried to institute user-pay for calls to the weather office. She wanted those who required services of the weather office to pay for that service. As Members on this side of the House argued, this was a disincentive to individuals to call the weather office and would serve to compromise safety in that respect. Now, the Minister in her new portfolio, supports a piece of legislation that would provide for full recovery of services-


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it in order for the Hon. Member to comment on previous responsibilities of the Minister? It is my understanding that the debate concerns this Bill and the Minister's responsibilities at this moment.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well that what he is talking about is directing questions to Ministers about previous responsibilities. It has nothing at all to do with debate whereby one comments on actions taken by a Minister in any capacity as long as it identified with the Government. There is no point of order there at all. That is just wasting the time of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.


B. Keith Penner: These spurious points of order have to stop.


Mr. Dick:: Poor little Nunziata.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I have found no points of order. I would like Hon. Members to carry
October 18, 1985

on with the debate, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) has the floor. I have not deducted any of his time. Let us carry on please.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, these repeated interruptions by Members opposite only serve to make me more determined to make the points 1 wish to make more forcefully. It is quite clear that Members opposite are very sensitive and embarrassed about this piece of legislation by the action they are taking. For that reason they are continually interrupting my submission. I ask them to be patient, to listen and to wait for their opportunities after I have concluded by remarks and then ask me questions or comment on my speech.
Before I was interrupted by the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean) I was saying that we have a Minister of State for Transport who has a particular philosophy. That particular philosophy is users should pay, notwithstanding the fact that safety might be compromised on the high seas or on the Great Lakes. One can recognize and appreciate that philosophy because she is a Conservative. Conservatives believe in free enterprise and user-pay, regardless of the consequences.
This is the same Government that tried to reduce the deficit on the backs of the disadvantaged of our society and tried to deindex senior citizens' pensions. This is the same Government that is deindexing family allowances. Now we find that all in the name of reducing that almighty deficit it is prepared to compromise safety. I challenge the Minister and all Hon. Members opposite to prove me wrong, to prove that the introduction of user-pay concerning Coast Guard facilities will not compromise safety.
We, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to ensure the highest degree of safety for those using waters within our jurisdiction. What this Government is doing is compromising that safety. I would like to articulate the reasons. I refer to Clause 4 of the Bill and with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I shall quote Clause 4 and then begin to dissect the clause to indicate why this clause flaws the whole Bill. It reads:
For the purpose of defraying the cost of navigational services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard, the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting charges relating to those services, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, aids to navigation, dredging, vessel traffic services, icebreaking services and escorting services.
What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? I would like to tell you what it means. My interpretation is that if a person sailing on Lake Ontario encounters some difficulty, the boat capsizes requiring the Coast Guard to rescue an individual or individuals who may be drowning as a result of the accident, this Government is saying to those people making the SOS that it must be on the basis of COD, cash on delivery. In other words, if you want to be safe, you have to pay. If you do not pay, you might not be saved.
If I were involved in that situation and I knew that I might have to pay for a Canadian Coast Guard boat to rescue me, I might think twice-


An Hon. Member:: You said it.
Canada Shipping Act


John V. Nunziata: -and others might think twice before issuing the SOS. Hon. Members opposite laugh, indicating their callousness and lack of sensitivity with respect to the very serious ramifications of this provision in the Bill. This Bill will require an individual in distress to pay for that service. If they do not pay, this Bill provides in Clause 4(3) that interest may be charged for that service. That is totally and absolutely unacceptable.
What else does this piece of legislation say, specifically Clause 4? It says that ships and vessels have to pay for navigational services. What are navigational services, Mr. Speaker? They include lighthouses on both coasts, search and rescue and a number of other services provided by the Coast Guard. Rather than levying or charging individuals, Clause 4(2), reads:
Charges may be imposed pursuant to subsection (1) in relation to any ship or vessel, regardless of whether the Canadian Coast Guard actually provides a navigational service to that particular ship or vessel.
What does that mean? The Government is attempting to implement user-pay with respect to Coast Guard services and in Clause 4(2) it says that regardless of whether a person requires the services or calls upon the Canadian Coast Guard to provide any particular service, that person will still have to pay part of the $200 million which the Canadian Government has heretofore paid for that essential service. Is that fair, Mr. Speaker? We say it is fair that everyone should pay. Canadians generally should pay for safety and health. We believe it is wrong when it comes to the question of health and safety to require an individual to pay for that service. Rather than spreading the cost of a high standard of safety across the country to all Canadians, what this Government is doing is imposing that cost specifically on the owners of any ship or vessel regardless of whether they may or may not require the services of the Canadian Coast Guard. Someone who is in a canoe on Lake Ontario would have to pay a fee even though that person may not require the services of the Canadian Coast Guard on Lake Ontario. We do not know what the fee is, but it will be a fee nonetheless. Each and every individual using a ship or vessel in Canadian waters will have to pay a fee. That is wrong.
I hope Members opposite will recognize how fundamentally wrong this clause is and delete it from the legislation. We on this side of the House are not prepared to endanger the lives of the users of Canadian waters.
I note, Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that my time is up. On that point, there were several interruptions by Members opposite. I hope you have not subtracted that time from me.
I regret I cannot speak longer on this legislation. 1 would simply ask the Minister of State for Transport to take another good, hard look at this piece of legislation and recognize what will happen in reality if it is passed.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I should like to comment on the remarks of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) with regard to the user-pay

October 18, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
principle on which he launched a spurious and shallow argument. I am delighted he made a speech today because I will send it to every member of the Coast Guard in British Columbia whom I know-and I know several of them-and say that this is the kind of attitude, thinking and logic applied by Liberal Members to that principle. Those men often lay their lives on the line. He suggested that they would grab a man by the arm in deep, ice-cold water in the Pacific Ocean and say: "Buster, that's going to cost you a quarter first. If you don't pay, I will let go of our arm". I think it needs to be on the record very clearly that I find that kind of statement completely reprehensible.
Before he says anything more on this point, what does he have to say about the user-pay principle which his Government applied to airports, airlines and civilian air fleets in Canada? What does he have to say-and it might be the most useful comment he makes-about the user-pay principle which his Government in its depth of wisdom removed, the pay toilet?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member was concerned about my submission in respect of a person who may be drowning. I was simply dramatizing the point. Of course that would not happen. If he took my comments seriously, certainly it would lead one to make a conclusion about the shallowness of his intellect. Of course they would not do it. I have the utmost respect for individuals who serve in the Canadian Coast Guard. As I indicated in my submission, I was extremely impressed with the quality of services which they provided.
When I spoke with them during my visit to western Canada, they indicated how concerned they were about the Government not providing sufficient money for them to provide the services they want to provide. They took the Government to task for trying to cut back in order to reduce the deficit about which it is so paranoid. Individuals in the Canadian Coast Guard do a tremendous job.
When the Hon. Member distributes my speech to the several members of the Canadian Coast Guard with whom he may be familiar, I should like him to ask them for their comments with regard to whether or not they support the user-pay concept. I suspect that the Coast Guard does not support that concept. When he distributes my speech, I ask him to ask for comments on the whole question.
At this point I ask the Government whether it consulted with the Coast Guard before it inserted this particular section in the legislation. Government Members told us about a year ago that they were ushering in a new era of consultation and national reconciliation, that they intended to talk with people before they introduced legislation. Time and time again over the last year we have found with regard to legislation and the Budget in particular that there was no consultation at all. I suspect, with regard to this Bill, that there was a total lack of consultation with those people immediately and directly involved with the subject matter raised in this legislation.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of comments and perhaps a question. Hon. Members opposite have
been talking about full recovery. Once again I draw to their attention the comments of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) earlier in the debate. As reported at page 7744 of Hansard, in an exchange between the Minister and the transport critic for the Official Opposition, the Minister said:
Hon. Members across the way have been talking in terms of 100 per cent cost recovery. There is no transportation system which functions on 100 per cent recovery, and the Hon. Member knows it.
Since I think it is important to the users of the services about whom we are talking, on the question of cost recovery, as reported at page 7619 of Hansard, the Minister said:
I will be directing my Department to establish a consultative committee, mandated to meet with groups across the country, including shipowners and their representatives; unions, shippers and shipper-groups, fishermen and their associations, and other representatives of the marine industry and users of the marine infrastructure.
This will take place before any changes are in fact made. There is no intention to even approach 100 per cent cost recovery. The New Democratic Party has it on a "maybe" basis now that we should attempt to recover no costs. The Official Opposition admits that there is a need to recover some. Again I point out that the level of cost recovery on the maritime side is running about 2.4 per cent. For other modes of transport, the user pays a greater share. In no case whatsoever do the users of transportation services within the aegis of the federal Government pay 100 per cent. It just simply would not work.
To reiterate that, there is no question about it, and the suggestion that it is otherwise is erroneous and misleading and does a disservice to good legislation or good law. To suggest that what we are trying to do with the Bill is to recover 100 per cent of the cost of transportation services is simply not true. There is no intention of doing it.
If we are to bring deficit spending under some degree of control, there is an onus or responsibility to increase revenues-and we do that in several ways-to lower the deficit. However, we do not do it, as has been suggested in the last two days or three days by several Members opposite, by attempting to enforce 100 per cent recovery in the marine mode, for example, of the $824 million that we spend annually. The 2.4 per cent might be a figure which could be increased to 3 per cent, 4 per cent, or 5 per cent. Is that exploitation? Is that onerous? Will that bring our economy crashing around the maritime heels? I do not think so, and I honestly think the Hon. Member would not share in that at all.
I must agree with the Hon. Member's observations with regard to the excellence of the service provided by the Canadian Coast Guard. I compliment him on having made those remarks. Can we have this Bill by 4.20 o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated.
Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) on debate, I remind him that under the provisions of Standing Order 36(2) we are now in the 10-minute period with no questions or comments.
October 18, 1985


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, after listening to some of the previous speakers on behalf of the Government,
1 wonder what legislation we are really speaking about. I realize that I only have a few minutes. I will deal with the legislation momentarily. In doing my research on this legislation, I had occasion to read the Government's press release in connection with this Bill, Press Release No. 143/85, issued on September 25, 1985.
In that press release, the Minister states that these amendments "will enhance safety at sea, enable Canada to deal more effectively with matters associated with the prevention and clean-up of marine pollution, and provide for a much improved scheme of liability and compensation for oil pollution damage caused by ships." The press release goes on:
Further changes relate to new sea training standards, improvement of navigational safety and efficiency, vessel traffic services and specialized vessel construction and equipment standards.
It then goes on to talk about various international maritime conventions. What is interesting, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that in the press release announcing these amendments, the Government hid the fact that it was going into a cost-recovery program, a user-pay program. I think that that is an indictment against this Bill. It is one of the problems that we in this House have with the Bill.
Previous speakers on behalf of the New Democratic Party have talked about the fact that there is nothing in this Bill to explain how the Government is going to recover some of its costs in operating our ports and the Seaway. That, Mr. Speaker, scares a lot of us, and particularly me, representing, as I do, those who live and work at the Port of Churchill.
We want to know exactly what this Government is going to do before we pass legislation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall) has been in this House for many, many years and he knows that we have, as have the Conservatives themselves when in opposition, spoken against vague legislation. We have said that where the Government has a given intent, that intent should be clear in the legislation; that if there are areas of concern, those should be dealt with in the actual legislation. That is not happening, Mr. Speaker.
As 1 mentioned in opening, the fact that the Government did not even mention the matter of cost recovery in the press release announcing these amendments indicates that it is not coming clean with the Canadian public. 1 think all of us can accept that there should be some level of cost recovery. 1 think that that is an acceptable position for the Government to take. However, I think that we in this House and those using our ports and waterways must have more information before this legislation is allowed to pass. For that reason. I certainly support the hoist motion that is before us at this time.
The present situation in respect of the Port of Churchill is a clear example as to why we are concerned that the Government be clear in terms of what it is doing. In the spring of 1984, the Government of Manitoba and the Government of
Canada Shipping Act
Canada signed an agreement in respect of the development of the Port of Churchill. That agreement involved such things as dust control at the elevators run by the companies, work on dredges, and work on the development of some tugs for that particular port. The agreement goes on to talk about other improvements in terms of rail commitment to rolling stock, and so forth.
The Province of Manitoba has lived up to its end of that agreement. The federal Government has not. From the answers to the questions that I asked of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) on this last week in the House, it became very evident that this Government has not yet decided whether or not to live up to that agreement.
That agreement is important to the people of the Port of Churchill. It is important to the people who work in the communities along the CN line, whether they be in Gillam, Le Pas, or in communities in Saskatchewan. It is important to the farmers of Saskatchewan and Alberta who ship their grains through that port, and yet this Government is not living up to its word to abide by that agreement, an agreement that was signed between the federal Government and the Province of Manitoba.
As I said earlier, the province is doing its work. It is putting into place the hydro line to the Port of Churchill and the other work that it committed itself to do. The federal Government- and I realize that the agreement was signed by a previous Government-is not living up to that agreement.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in the House that his Government, this new Conservative Government, would live up to federal-provincial agreements already in place; that it would not "rig" those agreements. He said that the Government would live up to those agreements, and that is not happening with the Port of Churchill Agreement. The fact that that agreement is not being lived up to, the fact that the work is not being done, the fact that the Treasury Board submissions are sitting on the desk of the Minister of Transport and not moving from there all relate directly to this Bill. If in this Bill the Government is going to be establishing some type of user-pay plan, then I think we have to know what that is before we pass it.
We have an agreement setting out what the federal Government is supposed to be doing in the Port of Churchill, and it is not doing that. We now have a piece of legislation pursuant to which, if passed, the Government will be able to charge the users of that port and other ports for certain work that is done in connection with those ports. Is the Government going to charge the work that was promised and should have already taken place in the Port of Churchill against future users of that port? Is that something the Government is contemplating? We do not know that.
The Government is not acting on what it should be acting on. If it Finally does act and gets around to doing what it should have done already in the Port of Churchill, will the costs for that work be charged to future users of the port, thereby decreasing demand for use of that port? We do not know that, and that is something which we as Members of the

October 18, 1985
Canada Shipping Act
House and others concerned about the Port of Churchill, should know. 1 raise that particular concern, not only because 1 represent that riding but because so many members of the Progressive Conservative Party have spoken about that particular port in the past.
Many Members will remember that the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. Murta), the Hon. Member for Lisgar, was in charge of a grain transportation study for the previous Conservative Government, the Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). At that time the Hon. Member was quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press as saying that the Port of Churchill was a "luxury which we could not afford".


An Hon. Member:: And it is not even luxurious.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That Member is now in the Cabinet, presumably representing the Province of Manitoba. What is his attitude now with regard to that port? We do not know. Since making that study on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus, he has been completely silent about that port.
In addition, we have the chief Conservative Whip, the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook), who has also got up in this House and spoken against that port. As well, we have the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone). There are a number of Conservatives that I can quote, Mr. Chairman, who are-


An Hon. Member:: If you speak in favour of no cost at all, does that make you a communist?


Rodney Edward Murphy: That is the kind of remark we have come to expect. I am speaking about this Bill and this port. If you want to talk about something else, get up on your feet and do it.
When 1 was talking about the plight of farmers in western Canada, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot is quoted in Hansard as saying: "What's Churchill got to do with grain?" That kind of attitude by a Conservative Cabinet Minister, by the Conservative Chief Whip, by an agriculture representative from western Canada is sufficient reason for me to stand up in this House and say that I cannot accept this Bill the way it stands.
We in this House have the right, and I have said this before-and Progressive Conservative Members, including the loudmouth over there who has spoken, used to demand this right when in opposition-to know what the proposed legislation will do. When in opposition, the present Government Members took the position that proposed legislation should make clear what the Government wants to do and how it is going to do it. This Bill does not do that in the very important area of how this Government is going to recover the costs involved from the shippers and other consumers of Canada's ports and waterways. This Government does not even have the honesty to indicate that that particular clause is in the legislation. 1 received this press release, and other Members of the House must have received the same press release from the Minister of Transport and it does not even acknowledge that there is a clause in the Bill dealing with cost recovery or with the user-pay philosophy.
Why not come clean? I am sure that this press release was sent out to the users of Canada's ports; I am sure that this
press release was sent out to all Government agencies dealing with transportation and port authorities and I suspect it was sent out to shippers. Why didn't it tell the truth? And if it didn't tell the truth, how can we trust this Government to make regulations that will benefit those who will be using our ports in the future?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I have made my point quite clearly.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to say a few words on this Bill. First 1 should say that 1 will not use the word "hypocrite". I will not call any hon. gentleman in this House a hypocrite. However, I remember that in 1974 and 1975 when a former Minister of Transport, as a matter of Government policy, brought in user-pay, 1 would say without using that unmparliamentary word that the Conservatives were just as vociferous as we were in opposing that. Of course, for the past year 1 have had to watch the spectacle of Conservatives making speeches that Liberals made a year and a half ago while Liberals are making speeches that Conservatives made a year and a half ago. Wihout using that unparliamentary word, 1 leave the matter for the consideration of all Hon. Members.
Transportation costs in a country with our kind of geography, climate and thin and widely scattered population should be a relatively neutral factor so that we do not discriminate against people because of where they happen to live or because of where they happen to manufacture, produce, ship or receive their goods. That is why in Canada, more so than in western European countries which are small and densely populated, it is required, because of our history, and no matter which Party is in power, that general tax revenues cover the costs of instrastructure like navigational aids, air traffic control, weather forecasting and the like. Those are public utilities and everyone has to use them both directly and indirectly.
I accept the word of the Parliamentary Secretary because I do not think even the Government is so stupid that it would try to get 100 per cent cost recovery. However, to think that there can be any significant increase in cost recovery under the user-pay principle in order to fight the deficit without harming the people and our competitiveness with the United States is to be dreaming in Technicolor. I do not know of any charges imposed by the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the American weather services. They do not make any charges and the United States has a lot more people, money and things to move than Canada.
If it is logical to impose a nominal user-pay charge on navigational aids, weather forecasting, lighthouse services and the like, then 1 submit that it is equally logical to impose a nominal user-pay charge on traffic lights, stop signs and pedestrian crosswalks. If it is logical to have that sort of principle in place in legislation or as a matter of government policy, then it would be logical to have some competition in the market-place. There should be more than one outfit making weather forecasts and providing navigational aids. The users
October 18, 1985

could then pick and choose according to the rates that are being charged. We know that that would not work, so there is a fundamental fallacy in the principle of user pay. Whether we are dealing with a nominal charge or with maximizing cost recovery to as great an extent as possible, the principle is self-defeating.
If we begin to impose additional charges on a port like Vancouver which has enough trouble as it is what with competing with Bellingham, Portland and Seattle just a few miles to the South, we will send the shipping to the southern ports. If costs are increased, no matter how nominally, for ports like Halifax, Saint John and Montreal, the ports on the northeast coast of the United States will be only too happy to take the business away from Canadian ports. The ramifications of that principle do not apply only to marine traffic. They then flow through to rail transport from Atlantic Canada and Montreal to central Canada and the Mid-West United States. We will lose that to the United States as well. It seems to me that the Government needs to take another look at that clause of the Bill. In fact, siA months would be enough time for the Government to do that.
There is one thing about this particular legislation that we like. We are now creating legislation that deals with pollution control and the environment in Arctic Canada and this serves as an additional notice to the entire world and particularly the United States that those are our national waters and not an international passageway. It allows us to strengthen our case.
The provisions regarding certification and pollution regulation are generally good. No doubt, my colleagues from Thunder Bay and Skeena will have some amendments to move in committee that will strengthen those provisions. It is all very well to have those regulations enshrined in legislation, but if we do not have the capacity to enforce them, we become a laughing-stock in the international community. We do not have the capacity to enforce even the minimal regulations that now exist. We need more inspectors and we need more people stationed in the Arctic. I would suggest the use of an Armed Forces brigade that would be rotated every two or three months. We should give the members of our Armed Forces some experience in cold weather. After all, Canada is an Arctic country.


Harvie Andre: You can get cold-weather experience in southern Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, I know you can get it in downtown Regina as well. However, in terms of our national sovereignty, the presence of members of our Armed Forces who are being trained in the military and in environmental issues and pollution control will be of benefit.
The Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment will need a greater capacity to deal with this than they have at present. That means spending more money. However, that is the kind of expenditure about which the people of Canada will not complain. They will be only too happy, even if it increases the deficit for a short period of time, to agree to that kind of extra expenditure.
Canada Shipping Act
1 hope the Government will take a second look at this and do some more thinking about it. I also hope that Government Members will return to the arguments they made in 1974 and 1975 when they kicked the heck out of the Liberal Government for bringing in this fundamental policy of a national Government, a policy which is being continued in spades by the Progressive Conservatives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cooper):: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to enter into this debate. There is an interesting question with respect to whether or not the Coast Guard station in my constituency is the most southerly in Canada. I think it probably is. Partly for that reason I felt it important to add my voice to the concerns which have been raised by some of my colleagues with respect to the introduction of user-pay principles in the provision of Coast Guard services.
Coast Guard services with respect to my constituency are of special and particular concern because of their connection with the tourist industry. The tourist industry has been identified by local economic development groups as the area in which we see economic expansion and job growth in our community. In fact, we find a great many people who come across the inland waterways in the Essex County area to take advantage of tourist opportunities on the Canadian side, both in Lake St. Clair and in the Detroit River. I fear that if we institute a system of fees which could be applied to pleasure boats this could become a serious disincentive to those people who make the choice to take advantage of the tourist facilities on our side of the water system in which people have invested.
I raise a point which has been stressed by my colleague from Regina with respect to philosophically questioning the idea of user-pay. I think it is fair to say that in the country we have a history of transportation infrastructure which is in place and which was built by the community for the community. It is something which has contributed to the development of our country. At this stage in our history the putting into effect of an alien principle, a principle outside of our traditions, needs to be closely examined. We cannot examine the matter closely with respect to this Bill because the details of how the user-pay principle would be implemented are not spelled out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cooper):: It being 4.20 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wondered if the Government House Leader or his representative could tell us what legislation this House will be looking forward to studying on Monday at 11 o'clock.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I will make a personal report to the Hon. Member in a few minutes, Mr. Speaker.

October 18, 1985
National Hymn Act


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   NATIONAL HYMN ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills) moved: that Bill C-224, an Act respecting the national hymn of Canada be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today to speak in favour of my own Private Member's Bill which is entitled the National Hymn Act.
Private Members' Hour is a process which to some of us is absolutely critical in terms of parliamentary legislative life since many of us come here and are not able to participate actively and constructively in many dimensions of that life. Private Members' Hour is ours. 1 genuinely appreciate the process. Personally, I am even more delighted that the Government has indicated it is prepared to see the subject matter of this Bill referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. Other Hon. Members will agree with me that that in itself is a major victory since for years and years we were not able to have our Private Member's Bills move on in the process. However, as the reform of Parliament moves forward we will come to play an increasingly more significant role in the legislative life of the nation. That will only be for the good of the nation, and I thank the Government for agreeing to the process.
In terms of the Bill I wish to commend Dr. Kenneth Hicken, a professor at the University of Lethbridge, whom I suppose is also somewhat frustrated by the process since it was in February of 1984 that he approached me with respect to a national hymn. It was not before the House until February of 1985 when it received first reading. Today, it is being dealt with in terms of second reading and reference to a standing committee. We who are involved in the legislative process realize that is not a long time, but for a private citizen it seems like forever. I am sure he will be pleased that this Bill is moving on.
I would also like to commend Dr. Gaston Renaud, another professor from the University of Lethbridge who translated the hymn into French. Thus, it is a beautiful bilingual national hymn.
As Hon. Members become more familiar with the hymn and once it is referred to committee, they may find it to be appropriate as a national hymn for Canada. I realize that in the committee other songs will be considered to fill the role of a national hymn for the country. While the hymn which is being considered now may not be selected as the national hymn for Canada, Dr. Hicken deserves an incredible amount of credit for commencing the process.
Some object to the idea of Canada having a national hymn. I disagree with that. In the public life of a nation it is these types of national symbols which can see a nation through bad
times as well as good. We have a national anthem which is for great patriotic events and July 1, celebrations where the country is happy. However, it is good to have a hymn to handle the crises in our nation. After all, we will face crises as we go on. Perhaps a national hymn would be appropriate for the death of leading Canadians and more appropriately sung than the national anthem. I believe it is a valid idea. I do not intend to speak any more because I wish to hear from other Members of the House in order that they can put their Parties' views forward.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that 1 rise to speak in the debate on Bill C-224, an Act respecting the national hymn of Canada. It is a great honour for me to speak on the Bill which was introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), for whom 1 have nothing but the greatest respect. It is also appropriate to congratulate the Hon. Member for introducing this important Bill since it gave me the chance to explore the question of national symbols as I sought to inform myself for this discussion. I might mention that in my research I had the good fortune to come across the transcript of a broadcast interview carried out by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and, as it happens, it was with the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills.
I would like to say at the outset that I thought it was admirably candid of the Hon. Member to acknowledge the fact that the inspiration for the hymn came not from him but from one of his constituents, Dr. Kenneth Hicken, a professor at the University of Lethbridge. He composed the music and wrote the lyrics. It was translated into French by another University of Lethbridge professor, Dr. Gaston R. Renaud. His admission came in response to a question which I suspect is common to many Canadians, namely, why do we need a national hymn in this country? The Hon. Member replied in these words, and I quote:
Well, I think Dr. Hicken hit the nail on the head when this country's come through some real tough times ... and so he simply decided that what he needed, in view of the moral situation of the country, and the East-West antipathies, and the French-English problems ... that we needed to have a national hymn to remind us that there's more to living than just our own lives-
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, when Professor Hicken got to thinking about the need for a national hymn, he sat down and composed one.
In that CBC interview, the Hon. Member suggested that for very special, solemn occasions-particularly if the Queen were here-Canada could have what he called a triad of God Save the Queen, our national anthem, O Canada, and the national hymn. He suggested its use would be limited to times of national crisis when we are trying to bring people together. A national emergency, perhaps, or wartime, would be an appropriately important time to have a national hymn. He went on to say that while our national anthem is excellent, and the proposed hymn is in no way intended to supplant it, there are occasions where you would want something more solemn,
October 18, 1985

something along the lines of when the Americans employ their hymn America the Beautiful. It would, he said, be a kind of companion to the national anthem.
The Hon. Member said he is pleasantly surprised at the number of people who support the idea of a national hymn and indicated that while he is proud of the Hicken hymn, he feels that, if the Government and Parliament favour the principle of a national hymn, it might be well to open the matter to a country-wide submission of hymns. He foresaw a sort of hymn-writing competition, and it is here that I am strongly in agreement with the Hon. Member. I am one who is enormously stirred by the strains of O Canada sung sincerely, and I trust Canadians of whatever descent will never cease to respond with pride to our anthem.
A national anthem, like a national flag, is an important external symbol of nationhood. I had the pleasure, as a backbencher in a previous Parliament, of introducing a Private Members' Bill to have O Canada recognized as Canada's official national anthem. Of course, as a back-bencher in the Opposition that did not happen, but I had the honour of being the official spokesman for the Conservative Party. The Government of the day brought in legislation which finally brought the idea to fruition.
I feel, however, that the words to O Canada have not been publicized enough and a lot more should be done. I also feel the need for more songs celebating our land. It is at this point that I would venture to offer a refinement to my hon. colleague. Would he agree that a national competition to write songs about Canada would be a very beneficial exercise and that they need not have a religious connotation in the way of a national hymn?
We all recognize that about one third of our fellow Canadians are of a lineage other than native-French or Anglo-Celt-and that, consequently, a number of our fellow citizens follow religious beliefs which would not necessarily square with the sentiments of a conventional hymn.
As I mentioned earlier, I have taken the opportunity to look into the question of national symbols and how they have evolved. We have a wealth of symbols, all of which play an important role in our life. They represent and project a image of our country, they provide a link with our heritage and give us a feeling of continuity and serve to give each of us a concept of our identity. The history of the maple leaf as a Canadian emblem is almost as long as that of the beaver. It has been stated that the maple leaf was considered as an emblem as early as 1700. For years the maple leaf has been used as a symbol and identity mark for regimental badges of the Canadian forces. Since 1965 it has been part of our national flag. The beaver, which portrays diligence and hard work, was used as an emblem by the Huron Indians and first appeared as a heraldic symbol of Canada on a coat of arms granted in 1633.
Symbols have the capacity of expressing varied and often complex ideas through imagery. The symbolism of flags, emblems and coats of arms reflect the ideologies, history, beliefs and aspirations of a nation's people. I would argue, Mr. National Hymn Act
Speaker, that a nation's symbols must truly reflect the nation as it is, and as it is perceived by its people, or at least the overwhelming majority of them.
It would be a brave individual who would attempt to define a consensus on the matter of national symbols. Alas, he or she would have to wrestle with the perennial Canadian problem of identity. I came across an interesting letter recently in the Toronto Daily Star. The writer was dealing with the multicultural quality of our society and wrote that there are some 70 languages in use now in Ontario and that more than 50 per cent of Metro-Toronto's population is from outside the country. The letter dealt with the problem of Canadian identity and noted that Canadians often refer critically to the "overdeveloped America flag-waving brand of nationalism". He said, "This rah-rahing has served the U.S. very well, thank you. Maybe it is this fervency we are actually looking for". Which brings me, Mr. Speaker, back to my thesis. I wish to support the spirit of this Bill, but more, I wish to support the observation of its sponsor that we ought to encourage a national competition. My preference would be for a competition to write songs to glorify our country, to sing the praises of Canada and its regions and not specifically in the form of a hymn.
I am not sure whether the entire populace should be turned loose on this kind of contest or whether it should be an invitational competition among the known top song-writers of the country, people like Gordon Lightfoot, Bobby Gimby, and others. After all, we have produced a wealth of Canadian musical talent from Oscar Peterson and Joni Mitchell to Anne Murray and Hank Snow. As someone said, Mr. Speaker, we are not short of symbols which remind us that we live in a unique country and that we have a heritage which we treasure. We are, however, short of musical symbols, and the Hon. Member's Bill, while contemplating a national hymn, has much merit in requiring that we give thought to music to celebrate our nation. It is in this spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-224, An Act respecting the national hymn of Canada,
be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill
withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee
on Communications and Culture.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: May I speak to this motion, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cooper):: The Hon. Member may speak to the motion.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The motion, I believe, is a practical motion and I would not, of course, wish to oppose it. However, since this was scheduled for debate, I do wish to make some comments on both the substance of the motion as it has now been moved and on the only example which illustrates

October 18, 1985
National Hymn Act
the possible content of the motion which is before us. If this is going to be discussed in committee, I would hope that Members of the Committee would take into account certain matters which are illustrated in the hymn we have here, for example, the word "native" as in "our native land". Canada is my native land. It is my mother and father's native land and the native land of some others of my ancestors. However, it is not the native land of most of the people who live in my constituency in the usual sense of the word. There are also the aboriginal peoples of Canada for whom it has, perhaps-I do not really know-an ironic twist. They are not in a sense any more native than someone who is born here but they are aware of the historic division between themselves and us over this issue. So that I would hope that the committee would look-if it's going to choose a hymn-would look for one that steers clear of that kind of difficulty. There's another type of difficulty altogether in the word "thee" and the word "thou". "We raise our thanks to-God for thee". This is a usage which is beginning to disappear, at least in the English language. I don't wish to comment on the French usage, but to the extent that a song of this sort may be used in English, we have to consider the fact that the word "thee" has changed its meaning over the last four centuries in this sense; although it still is used to address a single person rather than a group which we address by "you", it is almost never used now except to address God. In the time of Queen Elizabeth I of England it was used very often to address any person. Since that time there was an attempt to continue that usage in English by people such as the Quakers who considered that to address a person as "thee" or "thou" was very properly intimate and that one should talk to members of one's family, to close friends and to God as "thee" or "thou" as grammar might indicate. However, the big majority, a very great majority of the users of English now use "you" to address even the closest members of the family. "Thee" or "thou" is very little used for intimacy or for the individual relationship.
So what happens then in the English language when we use "thee" or "thou" to address God we put him away off in the sky. We put him farther away than anybody else. Instead of the usage, for example, that we have in the King James Bible, which used Elizabethan English, and which also said in the psalm that God is closer then breathing, closer to me than my own breath, a very strong sense of intimacy with God notwithstanding his power. Now this word "thee" and the word "thou" put him off at the far end of the universe. That I regret. There are many people now who are changing the words of hymns and prayers in English so as no longer to push God away by addressing him as of "thee" or "thou".
Another change that is becoming much more common is to try to write our hymns in a way that does not exclude half the human race from being of the same sex as God, does not call God exclusively "him" or "he". I see some people smile at that but I don't find generally the women in my church smiling at that as though that were a silly idea. I find there is a strong feeling amongst many of the women and men in the Anglican
Church that we should find ways of addressing ourselves to God through word symbols that do not separate earthly men and women, do not make God exclusively male. I would hope that if we were to choose any hymn such as this for Canada we would bear that in mind.
I have one other concern with this particular hymn and that is that there seems to be really very little content to it except a kind of self-congratulation put into the language of the worship of God, that we're so glad that God has done such a good job of making Canada a good country and us good people and it's not clear whether he's the lucky one or we're the lucky ones.
This is a problem that has bedevilled-I use that word advisedly-has bedevilled worshippers certainly throughout the known history of the Jewish religion and the Christian religion and probably, for all I know, in the other religions of the world as well and amongst the people who conscientiously try to avoid any religious attachment. The form in which we find it in what Christians all the Old Testament is most clearly where the prophets preach against idolatry. Idolatry in their day was not a funny little superstitious use of images of stone or something like that. That was only the form of it. The idolatry of their day was a matter of the glorification of the state and the identifying of the state with the deity and that if you are against the state you are against God and that if you worship God in any way that's a little bit different from what the state provides then you should be killed.
Now, there were different opinions as there were switches of power during those centuries in the area we now call Palestine-different opinions about who was the state and who got to say what's the truth about God and just how people are going to worship him or her. And they had, as it happens, a long tradition of thousands of years behind them already as seeing God as both male and female. That became a very bitter fight in itself. So I think we have to be very careful about a plan to impose on the people of Canada, by some kind of statement of authority, a hymn which identifies God with the Canadian state because the Canadian state imposed the hymn.
It is said we need one because we only use O Canada for great occasions. In fact, I find O Canada used on many, many occasions and I still find God Save the Queen used on many occasions. I don't think we have been lacking in some way to express patriotism in a conventional religious mode. However, if a lack is felt, if we need still another hymn, I see no objection in principle to having it, but I'm very uneasy at the idea that we should try to have a kind of imposed or enforced unity among us by using a hymn as a peptalk.
When I was in high school and university we had pep rallies, we had freshmen initiation, we had the usual horseplay and so on and it could be endured then because we were just kids, or almost kids. But I would like to leave that behind me as an adult and not engage in sort of pep rallies and peptalks, not treat the worship of God as a way, as it were, of trying to hypnotize ourselves into believing that we all agree on everything, we have no divisions and no struggles among us. That,
October 18, 1985

for example, if that is the picture some people have that we have no divisions and no struggles, it might be untrue to our present scene, but it certainly would be untrue to the Jewish and Christian tradition from which I for one come. Therefore, I have learned over the years what 1 didn't think about so much in my youth, 1 learned to respect the concept of the separation of church and state. I have my Christian faith. In fact I'm a priest of the Anglican church, but I don't want to push my religion on anybody else, not even by saying, "Everybody stand up and sing this hymn because it's our national hymn".
The history of Israel, and for that matter the history of the Christian church, shows that Christians have had, from time to time, the gravest heart searchings about the state, about the territorial Government, about the human authority, and there are times when Christians have had to rebel against the state. We can all find them in past history. It gets a little touchier when we look into the modern century, but in past history it can't be disagreed with. So I would favour the idea of having this opened up in a committee discussion and I would hope that a variety of songs might be considered. I have one-I don't have the full text here, I only have the chorus. It's a poem-


Mr. Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Sing it.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Well, if the mover of the motion will sing his song I'll sing mine, but I don't want to give the Speaker a problem with Beauchesne. There is probably something in Beauchesne about that. But this is a poem by the late Joe Wallace who was a poet of Nova Scotia, I think Cape Breton perhaps. I stand to be corrected on that. He was a miner.
The chorus of his poem is this, "O Canada, O promised land, this is the dream our fathers planned; and though the rich have ravaged you, we swear to make that dream come true". I would hope that would be considered as well.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-224, an Act respecting the National Hymn of Canada.
This Bill, and I quote:
-would provide Canadians with a national hymn in both official languages and could be used on occasions of a sacred or patriotic nature.
Mr. Speaker, I would like my views to be read into the record, so that the committee examining the amendment to this Bill will be able to consider my comments in future debates on this question.
Needless to say, I agree entirely with the reasons behind this Bill. To love one's country is a legitimate and noble sentiment that all the Members of this House who are dedicated to the
National Hymn Act
well-being of this country can understand and share. It would, in fact, be moving to see the members of a community give free rein to this feeling by singing together a solemn national hymn.
This hymn could forge one more link in our national unity. It is a fact that we need certain links to maintain our unity. But what theme could be the inspiration for this hymn? With what theme could each and everyone of us be expected to identify?
Unlike most countries, we cannot say that we have a homogeneous culture. With the exception of a small minority, the people living in Canada today were not born here or at least their parents were not born here. In fact, a very considerable part of the population of Canada was born under foreign skies.
As geographers keep telling us, the physical characteristics of this continent make it entirely appropriate for trade to flow in a north-south direction. It would have been entirely logical to see Canada absorbed by the States south of the border, which would have made it unnecessary to create artificial barriers to the natural flow of trade and transportation. But we knew what we wanted, and struggling against time and tide, we have progressed along our narrow strip of intermittently populated land, from one far-off ocean to another.
And how did we manage to do this? By the only means Canada had to populate its vast territory: immigration.
We can read the following in the foreword to a book published under the title: The Last Best IVest and written by Jean Bruce at the request of the Multiculturalism Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State. It is a history of how the Canadian West was colonized, illustrated with many photographs from that time.
"As the great tide of settlers surged into Canada in the years 1896-1914, to claim the free homesteads advertised by the government, immigration officers laboured to record a bewildering variety of nationalities, languages and occupations."
"Inevitably, the breakdown was somewhat arbitrary and rough. "Austrian" immigrants included Germans, Bohemians, Moravians, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Slovenes, Servians, Croats, Roumanians and Magyars. "Russians" were often actually Jews and Germans, sometimes Lithuanians and Poles. Occasionally, "German" meant only that the settler had sailed from Hamburg."
Incoming "Americans" came, in fact, from diverse backgrounds. Language was a major problem, and sometimes it was compounded by illiteracy. Harried immigration officers often wrote their own crude approximation of difficult names upon the entry forms, and many immigrants used that version in the years that followed, and passed it on to their descendants. The variety of newcomers was infinite.

October 18, 1985
National Hymn Act
The period from 1897 to 1914 marked a turning point in the history of Canadian immigration. During that short period of eighteen years, Canada received more immigrants than during its entire previous history. During that period, more than three million immigrants landed on our soil to find a home. About
1,250,000	were from the British Isles, 1,000,000 from the United States, 800,000 from Continental Europe and 20,000 from the Orient, including India.
Mr. Speaker, one may conclude from this picture that these immigrants who came from all parts of the world were for the most part white Caucasians. However, we were not all white or Protestant or Catholic. Canada has had a Chinese community, for instance, for over 125 years, and we can say that the members of that community have contributed to a very large and profitable extent to the development of some of our large cities, especially in economic terms. They have made distinguished careers in many disciplines including the arts, science and the liberal professions. In Canada they have managed to preserve their language and a large part of their cultural heritage. How many are Christians, agnostics or members of other denominations? I have not the faintest idea.
Arabs as well settled in Canada a long time ago. In fact the first Arabs landed here over a century ago, and many more have since come to Canada from various Arab countries, so much so that a number of Canadian cities are now home to industrious Arab communities. The Arab community easily blended in with the Canadian people and, as it has done for thousands of years, it made a generous contribution to the western world. In mathematics for instance, the famous Arabic numerals are still in use the world over. The wealth of Greek philosophy, the mainstay of contemporary western thinking, was set aside during the Dark ages and would probably be forgotten by now had Islamic theologians not made painstaking research in the major libraries of Moorish Spain. Even in Canada the Arab community has been able to preserve its ancestral culture. In that case, however, the main religion of this group is well known, as evidenced by the many mosques we can see here in Ottawa and elsewhere throughout Canada.
A relatively recent phenomenon attests to the generous conscience of Canadians. Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the poor unfortunate people who were chased right out of the bloodied lands of Southeast Asia, the Boat People as they came to be known. Those human beings of strong character had to live through experiences they did not deserve, but they were brought here in great numbers to live within our heartwarming and generous society where they were provided with the means to build a new and happy life for themselves. And they are proving to us that, humanitarian considerations aside, it was a sound investment for Canada.
In short, Canada is a genuine multicultural society-an amazing discovery for those who have never thought of our country in such terms. But the fact is that one third of Canadians are not of native, English or French ancestry. Their
number is growing, just as the multiplicity of their countries of origin is widening, just as their numerous contributions to the growth and well-being of our country are increasing.
This trend is ever more apparent in our urban centres, and it is a reality which has significant consequences for all of us. Strictly speaking, Canada's diversity cannot properly be defined as a mosaic. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, a mosaic brings to mind a static and unchanging image, whereas the make-up of the Canadian population does change from day to day. 1 would suggest it would be more accurate to say kaleidoscope, reflecting as it does ever varied, ever new and ever dynamic patterns, with all the challenges such a situation represents for us elected representatives of the people.
The Federal Government believes that the people are indeed Canada's finest resources. We believe also that our wealth is based not only on a wide variety of resource industries such as fisheries, forestries, mining, and vast agricultural lands such as those found in my great riding of Argenteuil-Papineau, but also on the diversity of our human resources, which are a major factor in the enrichment of our multicultural society.
The bottom line is that multiculturalism represents for every Canadian man and woman his or her country, people and culture.
To return to my question, what common theme could we use to conjure up a collective ideal? We have a number of symbols which are readily understandable and acceptable. The beaver is first and foremost in my mind. This industrious little animal, even though it is often a source of headaches for many landowners because of the dams which it builds and which flood farmlands and woodlots, is a perfect example of unremitting effort. The maple leaf, which is represented on our national flag, is also quite distinctive. It calls to mind our huge forests which were used to build our first settlements and, thanks to its simple and easily recognized design, makes for a great national symbol.
For quite a long time now these two symbols have been universally associated with Canada. They have no trait which would characterize this or that culture in particular. They are perfect and could be readily accepted by the Canadian people as a whole. Beside dedication to work which is a trait often associated with the beaver, they embody no idea or ideal which would require a careful scrutiny.
Such is not the case of the new hymn. I share the feelings which it expresses. But I do so simply because I am a Christian. But there certainly are a great many good and loyal Canadians who are not Christian. Their freedom of religion is guaranteed by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our National Anthem is part of our heritage and it has been more and more popular for over a century. And few people really
October 18, 1985

object to the verse "il sait porter la croix". But to impose outright a new hymn which has not stood the test of years to a great many people whose freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution would certainly not contribute to the unity of the Canadian people.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on the motion presently before the House. 1 would like to begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) for his initiative. I also congratulate Dr. Kenneth Hicken the composer and Dr. Renaud the translator of the hymn. This hymn as well as others should be considered by the committee when it looks into this important matter of national symbols and a national hymn. This subject has caused some difficulty in Canadian history, perhaps one with which we have not always been comfortable.
1 remember reading an article by a professor at Queen's University, I believe in 1958, who asked the rhetorical question, is that anyone in this country who noticed or is interested in the fact that although Canada is unquestionably an independent country we do not seem to have the usual national symbols characteristic of an independent country?
In 1958 we did not have an official national anthem. We did not have an official or a distinctive Canadian flag. That situation gradually changed. A consensus developed on both issues, the national flag and the anthem, less so in the former case. The flag debate was a very emotional debate in 1965 and I believe a very difficult one.
1 grew up in the 1960s. Only just a few years after the flag sitting at the right hand of you, Mr. Speaker, became our national flag everyone accepted it, yet it had been the centre of so much controversy and debate.
0	Canada is a fairly old tune in Canadian history. Its acceptance as our national anthem came gradually for many people. As a child in Niagara Falls in kindergarden in the late 1950s in the first song we were taught on the first day of school was God Save The Queen. I remember seeing a hockey game in Detroit. The U.S. and Canadian national anthems were played as part of tradition. I heard O Canada and 1 was curious. Why would they not be playing God Save The Queen? My father pointed out to me that O Canada was more distinctive of Canada and it was appropriate in international fora for
0	Canada to be played.
In the last four years of public school both O Canada and God Save The Queen were played every morning. By the time
1	got to high school in 1967 only O Canada was played.
1	have noted that the subject of O Canada being our national anthem has been in committee since 1968. I have a feeling, because of the controversy surrounding the debate on the national flag that parliamentarians lacked the impetus to get going on making O Canada official. By 1980, Parliament caught up with history, so to speak, and granted what was described as legal status to a heart-felt tradition. I believe the Bill went through with discussion but no dissent. There were certain problems that people perceived with the words of 0
National Hymn Act
Canada and, although it was proclaimed in 1980, Parliament had been looking at the question of O Canada and its words since 1967.
The committee issued its report in February, 1968 and unanimously recommended that the Government immediately adopt O Canada as our national anthem. In its recommendation, the committee slightly modified the original words as writtten by Judge Robert Stanley Weir, who I believe later became a chief justice of Canada. The original French was not changed. I feel that those who speak and understand French have an advantage when it comes to O Canada. As far as I know, there was no particular controversy with the French words. The controversy seemed to be about Robert Stanley Weir's words. Accordingly the committee, in its wisdom, adjusted slightly the words of O Canada at that time. As I said, when it was passed, there was no dissent.
When O Canada officially became our country's national anthem, the then Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, the late Hon. Walter Baker, suggested that everyone in the House should stand and sing O Canada. I am sure it must have been a very moving moment in the history of this Chamber. The national anthem was proclaimed on July I and was sung for the first time in the Dominion Day ceremonies of 1980.
I mentioned earlier that the words were slightly altered. It was felt that in the original words there was a little too much repetition and that they leaned too heavily on the words "stand on guard for thee". 1 believe that line was in the song five times and with repetitions was repeated fifteen times. 1 think there was some justification for changing it. It was modified slightly.
At the time people really questioned all the words. They asked the question: For what are we standing on guard? Pundits were quick to point out the decline in Canada's military status, but I always felt that the words did not have a strict military meaning. I always felt that "stand on guard for thee" was just an expression of people's love for country. At the same time, when the military or the security of the country was called into question Canadians did stand on guard. In fact, going back to the War of 1812, and before, there have always been people who have fought for this land and were alsays there when Canada needed them. Therefore, as 1 said, because of the repetition there were some minor adjustments.
Other words were suggested, but those which were accepted changed "keep Canada glorious and free" to "God keep our land". I like that change. Certainly it was in accord with my own philosophy that I hoped God would protect the country which I loved. At the same time I appreciate the fact that there are those people who have a different conception of what God is and what God should be. When the committee looks at this, I hope it has sensitivity to the views of other people. I would be the first one to say that perhaps we will never reach a complete consensus on the words of O Canada. My guess is that when the committee looks at it and tries to decide on a national hymn, it will not be universally accepted.

October 18, 1985
National Hymn Act
It is the same with the national anthems of other countries. For example, if Americans sat down today to write a new national anthem I am sure it would not have the militaristic flavour of the present one. I think national anthems or hymns must be looked at in the context in which they were written. The Star-Spangled Banner was written during the British attack on Baltimore in the War of 1812, and of course reflects that.
This is one of the problems I have with continually making changes to the English version of O Canada. Surely the man who wrote the words considered O Canada to be a work of art. 1 have some difficulty with the idea that we should keep revising and updating them to current thinking. There is probably no committee of the House of Representatives of the United States cleaning up some of the language in The Star-Spangled Banner and getting rid of some of the militarism which is not quite in keeping with the standards of American society today.
The situation is the same with God Save The Queen. It was written at a particular time in British history. People have generally accepted its words.
When 1 talk about further changes to O Canada, most people indicate that they had enough trouble learning the old ones and ask us to leave it alone. 1 appreciate that there are people who have some difficulty with it. If 1 were to give any advice to the people who will sit down to review this question, it would be to ask them to look at the concept of a national hymn. I think it is a good idea.
These symbols of Canadian identity have been inspirations. They are something to which people feel very close. In the case of our flag, for instance, people feel a warmth about it. Someone mentioned a stirring when the words of O Canada are
sung, so I believe there is a place for a national hymn. However, there will never be unanimous agreement on a particular hymn or the idea that there should be a hymn. As far as possible the committee should be sensitive to the concerns of people when it actually makes a choice.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to conclude by congratulating my colleagues for their initiative in this regard.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I commend Hon. Members who have spoken to the Bill this afternoon. I am sure Hon. Members will agree that if anyone else speaks, the motion will be killed and effectively the Bill will be killed. Therefore I ask of you, Mr. Speaker, to put the motion now in your fine style.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Stewart) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cooper):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cooper):: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cooper):: It being after five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.18 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 21, 1985