1986-06-27

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, last week it was reported that many months after a major effort to remove the toxic blob of dangerous pollutants from the bottom of the St. Clair River, more blobs of the same chemicals are now turning up and Dow Chemical, the apparent source, cannot figure out why. The federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has been giving the impression that the matter has been solved. Last January he issued a report of a special federal-provincial working group which made some 24 recommendations on how to prevent the recurrence of the blob and similar problems involving the St. Clair River.
The Minister must tell us immediately why these toxic blobs have been recurring in the past three months, why he has allowed this to happen, what he is doing to stop it, what has been done and what will be done to implement fully all the recommendations of the special working group. The recurrence of the blob strongly suggests that with the spotlight of media attention away from him, the Minister is asleep on this matter. The people of the Windsor area want answers from the Minister. Even more, they want and expect action now.


TARIFFS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the imposition of a 10 per cent tariff on English-language books has proven to be sorry mistake, hurting Canadian publishers and authors as well as ordinary Canadians who like to read. It also risks retaliation on the part of Americans who may end the exemption allowing Canadian printers and binders to work on American contracts and not lose authors' copyrights. This small but growing Canadian printing industry should not be put at such risk.
It is hard to imagine a more misguided tariff. It is one which does damage to Canadians and Americans and does nothing to help the shake and shingle producers.
The book tariff will raise an estimated $36 million, yet the Government's new money for book publishing amounts to a more modest $4 million. This tells us all too sadly how serious the Government is in its support of Canadian book publishing. I call on the Government to withdraw the 10 per cent tariff on books.


EDUCATION
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, under the chairmanship of Mr. Jacques Nadon, members of Val-d'Or's Corporation de developpement de I'enseignement superieur have taken the initiative to establish a CEGEP in Val-d'Or.
At a Quebec City meeting with provincial Higher Education Minister Claude Ryan and Abitibi East Minister Raymond Savoie, corporation members drew the Ministers' attention to the fact that, compared with other regions in the Province of Quebec, the Abitibi region has always been deprived of adequate educational institutions.
Mr. Speaker, the corporation stressed the urgency of improving access to community college studies for anglophones, native people and adults. The corporation rallied the support of Mr. Ryan who will travel to Val-d'Or in late August 1986 to meet with the various interest groups.
Mr. Speaker, the residents of Abitibi and I fully appreciate the work done by Mr. Savoie and the corporation.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House my support for a very worth-while and commendable proposal put forward by a constituent of mine for the establishment of a tourist bureau for the disabled. This proposed tourist bureau for the disabled would keep on file up to date, accurate information on transportation needs for disabled tourists travelling within and outside Canada.
14956

June 27, 1986
I am fully aware that various Departments of the Government, namely, Tourism, Transport, the Secretary of State, and Employment and Immigration, have all had the opportunity to evaluate this proposal and make constructive suggestions. All Ministers of these respective Departments are to be commended for their genuine interest and understanding in meeting the increasing needs faced by the disabled.
I sincerely hope, however, that some form of financial assistance will be found for this commendable and innovative proposal.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the World Court condemned the United States for mining Nicaraguan territorial waters contrary to international law. The United States Government has said that it will ignore this judgment. What a sad day for leadership in the western world!
Here we have another example of the greatest power in the NATO Alliance systematically undermining international institutions which are the only alternative to military power in resolving international disputes. This comes one day after the United States House of Representatives voted $100 million for military aid to the Contra terrorists fighting to overthrow the legitimate Nicaraguan Government.
The United States has also sabotaged the Contadora peace process in Central America. It seems that the U.S. has forsaken the negotiated peaceful settlement of conflicts for a policy of military solutions. It appears that the policy of the present U.S. Government is "might is right", which is the law of the jungle-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


PRICE OF GASOLINE IN OTTAWA AREA
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, local consumers in Nepean-Carleton are being treated unfairly in respect of the cost of gasoline. The average price for gasoline in the Ottawa area during June was 44.8 cents per litre, while prices in other metro areas in Ontario were from 4 cents to 6 cents per litre less. There is a strong implication that these price differences are a result of oil companies recognizing a stable market and regulating prices.
Canadians are aware that our country is operating in a deregulated market where the price of gasoline is not set by government but by market forces. However, a 4 cent to 6 cent per litre differential is too great a difference and cannot be accounted by transportation costs.
I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) to investigate this example of potential price maintenance and to raise this concern immediately with Petro-Canada, which is now one of two major market trend-setters in the Ottawa area.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking this morning on behalf of some 600 outraged former White Farm Equipment workers in Brantford, Ontario.
Their pension program was just settled this past week. Most of them will be receiving a paltry $1,500 lump sum, to be invested over the next 25 years or 30 years in the hope that by the time they turn 65 years of age they will be receiving about $130 per month.
The problem is that those who are on unemployment insurance-and I understand there are about 300 of them- will have their UI benefits cut off, thus reducing the pension pay-out by at least half.
In view of the fact that almost all the 600 workers were laid off nine months before the new iniquitous UI regulation was brought in last January, I call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to rescind that regulation and allow these White Farm workers to receive at least the paltry $1,500 or $2,000 for which they worked for some 15 or 20 years.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I have just finished reading a new book entitled With Our Own Hands. It is a story about research and Third World development. On the whole it is a success story. It is of interest to Canadians for two reasons. First, it is about IDRC. Second, it concerns, directly or indirectly, several Canadian research institutions including the famous university in Guelph.
I have asked the President of IDRC for enough copies to give to all Members of the House.

June 27, 1986

[DOT] (mo)


CANCELLATION OF TRAVEL SUBSIDY FOR UNIVERSITY ATHLETES
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to protest the elimination by the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) of the travel subsidy for students to travel from Atlantic and Pacific Canada to attend Canadian university athletic competitions. From an original $500,000 allotted by Liberal Governments, to $378,000, to zero by the Conservative Government for university athletic travel subsidies, is another example of the Government's disdain for regional equality.
The purpose of the federal travel equalization grant to the Canadian Inter-University Athletic Union was to allow students from universities in British Columbia, Alberta, and other parts of western Canada right through to Memorial University in Newfoundland, to attend and participate in competitions across Canada. I must ask, Mr. Speaker, if some of the taxpayers' money that is spent on the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) foreign travel could not be spent just as effectively on travel for students from British Columbia and Newfoundland to attend their university competitions.
The Minister has given me an undertaking to meet again with the university representatives. I will be following the results.


TRIBUTE TO PAGES AND STAFF
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate today to pay tribute to all the men and women who have made our jobs as Members of Parliament immeasurably easier over the last year. To the messengers, mail people, cafeteria and restaurant staff, committee and House Clerks and all the other House of Commons staff, on behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the House I offer my sincere thanks and appreciation.
I would also like to thank a very special group of young Canadians whose cheerfulness and dedication have been a fine example to us all. The 40 House of Commons Pages have worked very hard for all Members this year while at the same time attending university full-time. This year's Pages were chosen from hundreds of qualified applicants. They represent all the potential Canada's youth have to offer.
I know that the memories and friendships formed this year will remain strong as the Pages continue their individual endeavours, and I want to wish them all the very best as they pursue their careers in their chosen fields.
Whatever they do, wherever they go, I know my colleagues join me in wishing them every success. I would not be surprised if some of them returned to sit in the House of Commons as Members of Parliament. God bless them!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Montreal East residents heard another good news: the Lavalin engineering firm announced that it would restart the former Montreal East Gulf plant through its Phenolmont affiliate. This investment by a Quebec private sector concern will create over 200 jobs when production begins in January 1987. This is further indication that prospects for the Montreal East petrochemical industry are brightening. As Hon. Members may recall, last year our Government gave financial support to Petromont to help the company maintain its operations.
Notwithstanding what many Opposition Members may have stated last winter, Montreal East will remain a major petrochemical centre. Although Opposition Members took a negative approach with respect to employment in Montreal East, our Government has always been convinced that a positive position was justified in this instance.

Once again the Government has fulfilled its political engagements for the Montreal region. That is a good Government, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's special investigation into the Manitoba region of the Department of Indian Affairs substantiated charges made by the Manitoba chiefs. Departmental officials had incorrectly coded disbursements of funds, had been involved in misleading reporting, had underfunded programs that had been transferred to Indian band control, and had cut existing programs. Further, departmental officials at a high level had made incorrect statements to the Public Accounts Committee of the House. In spite of these very serious charges, the Minister has not yet sat down with Manitoba chiefs to discuss what must be done to correct this situation.

June 27, 1986
Oral Questions
The chiefs put their reputation on the line when they made the charges. Today the Government's credibility with Indian people is on the line. The Minister must sit down with the Indian chiefs to work out a proper response to these charges of departmental abuse.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I too would like to congratulate the students from Carleton University and the University of Ottawa who served us so well as pages this year and I would like to wish them a good summer.
I also wish all Members on both sides of the House a pleasant and, if possible, relaxing summer.


DISASTERS
John Napier Turner: My
question is directed to the Solicitor General and concerns a rather delicate matter. I am referring to the Air-India crash in which 329 people, most of them Canadians, lost their lives.
The Solicitor General is aware that the victims' families are still very much affected by this disaster and are waiting for answers.
Could the Minister report to the House on the status of the criminal investigation being conducted by Canada and inform the House when he expects it to be completed?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can indicate that the criminal investigation is still under way. We are not in a position to lay charges at this time, but the investigation is continuing.


REQUEST FOR ROYAL COMMISSION INVESTIGATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a supplementary question on this subject to the Prime Minister. There have been public inquiries into this crash in both Ireland and India, yet the majority of passengers on the plane were Canadian. This week both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Canadian Security Intelligence Review Committee indicated that the plane was bombed by terrorists. Does the Prime
Minister not feel that it is in the public interest to have a Canadian Royal Commission thoroughly investigate this crash?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, an unprecedented degree of resources has been committed to this police investigation. The police and the Government are determined to prosecute those responsible for this act of horror.


SECURITY INTELLIGENCE REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in its report the Security Intelligence Review Committee says:
We were concerned with the intelligence produced in this matter and the quality of airport security in general.
This is a matter of intense public importance. Would the Prime Minister not agree that we need a wider and public inquiry of this crash?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board has looked into this. There are ongoing police investigations and, as well, investigations by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service under way.
Yesterday the Member for York South-Weston indicated that the individuals suspected of being responsible for the Air India crash had been able to flee the country and escape prosecution. That is not the case.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: What is the case?


Mr. Kaplan:: Do you know who they are?


REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, it has been over a year since the tragedy occurred. There has been an inquiry in Cork, Ireland, and another in India. We still do not have the benefit of those two reports, specifically the report conducted by Judge Kirpal in India. Many disturbing questions remain unanswered. The Security Intelligence Review Committee has now called into question the role of the Security Intelligence Service.
I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the questions that have been raised in this matter, and in view of the fact that many of the passengers were Canadian, will he undertake now to initiate a judicial inquiry in order to answer the disturbing questions which remain unanswered?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, in the Hon. Member's question he indicated quite correctly that the Security Intelligence Review Committee is presently reviewing whether the work done by CSIS was adequate. Let us allow it to do that job.
June 27, 1986


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the Government of Canada is reluctant to initiate a judicial inquiry. In view of the circumstances surrounding the tragedy, it seems obvious that there ought to be a Canadian inquiry. I would like to direct the question again to the Prime Minister. In view of the sensitivities involved in this particular tragedy will he assume his role and order a judicial inquiry into this matter to answer all the questions which remain unanswered?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should be fully aware of the fact that there is an ongoing police investigation here. The RCMP, CSIS, and others are actively looking into all aspects of the Air-India tragedy. As well, they are investigating the bombing of Narita Airport in Tokyo. It would be completely counterproductive if we were to set up some sort of parallel inquiry in competition with the police investigation currently under way. What individual Members of Parliament should be doing is not giving misinformation on the floor of the House of Commons, as the Hon. Member did yesterday, and not urging competing judicial inquiries. Rather, we should be allowing the police and CSIS to do their job.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Within an hour the Government will introduce a Bill which will increase drug prices for Canadians from coast to coast. Will the Prime Minister now acknowledge to the House that the reason the Government is doing this on the last sitting day before the recess is because it is part of President Reagan's agenda spelled out in his May letter to Senator Packwood?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday I allowed questions about a Bill which is not yet introduced. The Hon. Member is now saying that he wishes to ask questions about a Bill which is about to be introduced. That gets us right into the area of Orders of the Day. I ask him to phrase his question to the Government on policy matters without reference to a Bill in that sense, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I believe I am clearly in order but I accept your ruling. Does the Government intend to introduce a Bill as a follow-up to President Reagan's stipulation to a U.S. Senator that it was an unfulfilled agenda item to clear up this kind of irritant? Specifically, was it as a result of a request made by the Vice-President of the U.S. to the Prime Minister when he was here two weeks ago? Is that why we are
Oral Questions
going to have a Bill which will increase the price of drugs to Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The VicePresident of the United States never raised any such matter with me.


John Edward Broadbent: It is interesting that he did raise it with me after he talked to the Prime Minister, and said it was one of the items on his agenda.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the President has indicated that before there is a trade agreement there has to be a clearing up of all these irritants, among which the Americans have always included the drug industry. Why is Canada making sacrifices in the fishing, logging, and publishing sectors, and now in drugs, and the Americans get the benefits?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's statement is of course as inaccurate as his prediction that the last Budget would cost 150,000 jobs. The last Budget created hundreds of thousands of jobs. He was wrong then and he is wrong again.
Legislation introduced in the House is designed to increase access to international markets, including American markets. We deal with specific matters from time to time, as does any Government. We deal with those items in a way consistent with the national interest. If my hon. friend disagrees with any piece of legislation, as he does from time to time, he will express his views in the House of Commons at an appropriate time and vote against it.


POSSIBLE EFFECT ON CONSUMERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister think by introducing this legislation on the last day before the summer recess that Canadians will ignore the fact they are going to pay millions, and I will just leave it at millions, of dollars in higher drug prices? Are they going to forget that during the summer any more than pensioners forgot what the Government tried to do to them on the eve of last summer's recess?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend should get out of the prediction business. He is a good Member of Parliament, but he does not do very well when he looks to the future. He is wrong nine times out of ten and he is wrong again today.
You can be sure that legislation that is brought in now or any other time, which can be criticized by my honourable friend, and perhaps improved pursuant to constructive suggestions, is designed to be helpful to job creation, to

June 27, 1986
Oral Questions
regional growth, and to new jobs created here in Canada, which we need. Notwithstanding a job-creation record where more jobs were created in Canada than all of western Europe combined, we must do more.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DURATION OF DRUG PATENTS
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Twenty-four hours after the
U.S. Trade Commission hammered the Canadian softwood industry, what sense does it make for the Government to put forward legislation today to increase the patent life for the multinational American drug companies? How are we enhancing our Canadian trade bargaining position by this kind of a-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order, order, please. The Chair is in a difficulty because the same problem is now raised here where questions are being asked about legislation that is not yet before the House. Either it is anticipation or it is hypothetical. Order, please.
I think the Member can ask a question on policy matters without reference to the specific Bill.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, twenty-four hours after the U.S. Trade Commission has hammered the Canadian softwood industry, does the Prime Minister consider it wise that his Government would table legislation in this House that is going to increase patent life for the American multinational drug companies, and how is that move going to improve our bargaining position by this type of giveaway?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the last lesson that anyone needs on anything in terms of skill is from the Liberal Party, and from this particular Member. We saw, when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Finance, spending rose 23 per cent a year, the debt grew by 50 per cent, and debt service grew by 85 per cent. It was a result of those skills that he brought to bear that the country almost went belly up. That is the problem with the little Liberal attitude. Ours is progressive. We believe in international trade, competitiveness, increased productivity, and 600,000 new jobs already in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, we will not take any lessons from a Prime Minister who gave away FIRA, and the National Energy Program.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: How can the Prime Minister defend this legislation when his own report on intellectual property rights states
that stronger intellectual property protection will not necessarily result in changes in trade patterns between Canada and the U.S., but will accomplish the goal of stronger international protection benefiting the American nationals financially?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in the McMillan Binch newsletter it said that the National Energy Program is a legislative nightmare laced with ministerial and bureaucratic discretion. Then it said we cannot afford the outflows associated with more FIRA-induced Canadianization. The Leader of the Opposition was applauding our position.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The idea today is to get as many Members recognized as possible.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have an important question to direct to the Secretary of State. Yesterday representatives of many women's groups reminded the Minister of Canada's commitment to UN conventions to eliminate discrimination against women, to the Nairobi forward looking strategies, to improve the status of women, and also to equality under our own Canadian Charter. In view of these commitments that Canada has made, will the Minister reconsider the new 5 per cent cut to Secretary of State women's programs which is, in fact, a 16 per cent cut from 1983 commitments?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Hon. Member that in 1983, funding for the program to promote the status of women was around $5 million, and that this year, the Government will be allocating $12,453,000 to defend the status of women in Canada.


VOLUNTARY WORK DONE BY WOMEN
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has not answered the concerns that were expressed yesterday. Does he not realize how little women's groups get now, how much voluntary labour they put into their efforts, as well as the uncertainty involved? Will he end their uncertainty and restore full funding for women's programs?
[ Translation]


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, last night I met 60 representatives from various
June 27, 1986

Oral Questions CHALLENGE '86
Canadian organizations with whom we had a very good exchange of view. Although they obviously thought more money could be spent, they acknowledged that it was quite reasonable of the Government, considering all the financial restrictions it must cope with, to allocate nearly $13 million to defend the rights of women. And we intend to continue to do so, but I repeat, always in terms of the resources available to us.


DEREGULATION
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Will the Minister finally admit that deregulation diminishes air safety, as experience has shown in the United States? And why did the Minister fail to obtain an authorization from Treasury Board to hire an additional 250 or 300 inspectors to do a good job?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, just the other day I announced further funding for the upgrading of airport security in this nation. That provides for additional person years as well as enhanced equipment, enhanced research and development, and a whole series of initiatives which will improve airport security. I am sure the Hon. Member recognizes that both safety and security have improved immensely since we have taken over as the Government.


André Ouellet: The Minister's answer so far has been very timid.


AIR SAFETY
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, there have been no additional inspectors and I think the Minister's attitude has to change. Does he realize that Canadians are not prepared to sacrifice air safety just for a few dollars in savings? Is he prepared not to implement Bill C-126 which he introduced yesterday before his Department has hired the additional inspectors needed to do the job?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, neither are we prepared to sacrifice safety, nor shall we.


JOB RE-ENTRY PROGRAM-TRAINING OF SECURITY GUARDS AT GAINERS PLANT IN EDMONTON
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister knows that her Department has historically claimed that it refuses to become involved in labour disputes. For example, this refusal means that strikers do not get unemployment insurance.
Does the practice of non-interference by her Department still exist, since the Minister is now giving taxpayers' money for on-the-job training of security guards at her old friend Peter Pocklington's Gainer plant in Edmonton?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this is a training project for unemployed women in a non-traditional field. These women had been in the project long before the strike began. They are not scabs, as the Member called them yesterday. They are there to get training. We are interested in the training.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It is morally wrong and you know it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I will continue to monitor this program to see that the training continues to be adequate.


LOCATION OF TRAINING
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister not aware that there are dozens of establishments in Edmonton that use security guards and that this kind of on-the-job training could take place at one of those establishments instead of with her ideological twin, Peter Pocklington?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite know who my twins are, I have not looked this morning to see who else looks like me. At least I do not look like the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I notice that the Hon. Member did not raise this question when this training was taking place some weeks ago. I assure him that I am interested in the quality of the training. If there is anything about that environment that deteriorates or is not conducive to training, I will see that changes are made.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. He will know that last August, in St. John's, Newfoundland,

June 27, 1986
Oral Questions
Canada's Premiers unanimously passed a resolution saying that commercial viability of transportation links must be balanced with regional economic development objectives in order that the potential of each region can be realized. The Minister of Transport ignored the specific request of the Canadian Premiers that this principle be included in the legislation that he tabled yesterday. They wanted something beyond a mere recognition that transportation is important to regional development, and that transportation policy should recognize the need to combat regional disparity. It is not there. Why?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member took time to read the Bill he would see that in the preamble, Clause 3, it is clearly stated that transportation is recognized as a tool for economic development. That has never been stated in previous transportation legislation. It is part and parcel of the agreement that was signed by all the provinces and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion approximately a year ago. It forms a very integral and vital part of the Government's approach to regional economic expansion.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister would not want to mislead the House inadvertently by suggesting that the Premiers endorsed this tepid statement of fact. Will the Minister insert a clause in that Bill that will ensure that the regional disparity programs of other federal Departments and provincial Governments will not be destroyed because of the deregulation approach that is being taken, which simply has a market-place philosophy rather than a philosophy that recognizes the need to combat regional disparity?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this transportation Bill is the best news for regional economic expansion this country has ever seen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is not true and you know it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Before the Hon. Member inadvertently misleads the House, perhaps he should have attended the technical briefing which we sponsored for the opposition Parties yesterday, which they refused to attend. Maybe they would understand the Bill a little better if they had attended that meeting.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada
Post. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that Canadians waiting for home delivery in new subdivisions can forget it. Instead of developing policy at the Post Office by slips of the tongue, will the Minister ask Canadians whether they support his plans to treat some Canadians as second-class citizens, or whether they want him to re-examine whether rapid debt reduction at the Post Office is realistic?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question many times. We are looking at many alternatives in the Post Office. We will introduce a corporate plan soon and we will give all the details then.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister when he said in 1984:
The Progressive Conservative Party feels that Canada Post's current program of rapid debt reduction is unrealistic, and is the underlying cause of problems with regard to-declining postal service-
Will the Minister personally ask Canadians whether they want to be treated fairly or want to have rapid debt reduction at the Post Office? If he does that, does he not think that the message will get through to his cabinet colleagues?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I can say yes to both questions.


Cyril Keeper: Then do something.

M0)


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, my question this morning is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence and involves a promise made by the Minister to residents of Upper Gagetown, in New Brunswick, who suffered material, financial, and emotional loss because of the disastrous fires that occurred earlier this spring. In view of the Hon. Minister's statement that quick and generous compensation from the Government would take place, could he tell the House if there has been any progress whatsoever, in this respect, to report to the residents prior to the summer recess?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, a board of inquiry has indeed established that the Department of National Defence was responsible for starting the fire on the range at Camp Gagetown. I have sought and received Treasury Board approval for some of
June 27, 1986

the funds to compensate those affected, and I am told that the cheque-writing will start next week.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Last week, CN made it clear that 437 workers would have to take early retirement or be transferred, this in addition to the 225 employees who lost their jobs last fall, which gives us a total of 662. Will the Minister acknowledge that his Government has a responsibility and a duty to restore to the Moncton area the several hundred jobs that have now been lost, or is he simply going to wash his hands of the whole affair, as he is doing now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has a duty to ensure that the negotiations between Canadian General Electric and CNR proceed in an orderly fashion. I think the successful completion of that transaction would be good for Moncton, good for the Atlantic region. I would hope that the Hon. Member, rather than being so negative about this approach, would look at the brighter side and to the future in terms of a new manufacturing industry with tremendous spin-off benefits which will provide a long-term, stable future for the workers and for the community of Moncton.


REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF SENIOR MINISTER TO REPRESENT NEW BRUNSWICK
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the news about General Electric is good news, but it is just not enough. My supplementary is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.

Will the Prime Minister appoint a senior Minister for New Brunswick so that the province can regain the clout it once had in Cabinet and counter the forces that seek to drain the lifeblood out of Atlantic Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in response to the reference to "clout", 1 would just point out a fact released by Stats Can, that more jobs were created in 20 months in Atlantic Canada than were created in total between the 1980 and 1984 elections. There was no clout previously. There was a bunch of phoney people trying to spread borrowed dollars around, and people in Atlantic Canada know that is false and misleading.
Oral Questions


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Could the Minister confirm to the House that recommendations made by the Canada Development Investment Corporation argued against selling Canadair to the private sector because the offers made were inadequate? And could he give the House the assurance that the Government will not insist on privatizing Canadair against the recommendations of the CDIC which is acting as the Government's agent?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to answer this question and give my hon. colleague the assurance that the privatization process is unfolding as it should. We received the recommendation from the Minister responsible, following a recommendation by the board of directors of the CDIC. The recommendation was submitted to the privatization committee, which in turn will prepare a recommendation for submission to Cabinet.


CANADIAN OWNERSHIP ISSUE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's answer is totally uninformative. Could he tell the House if there is a recommendation or if there are acceptable offers? Will he assure that Canadair stays in Canadian hands, since there is a bid from Bombardier, and will he also assure the House that the House will have a chance to consider the deal before it is finalized, rather than presenting us with a fait accompli over the summer?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to tell my hon. colleague that there are acceptable bidders. The recommendation was a positive one. It will be studied further, presented to Cabinet, and then due process will take course.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Customs. At the major U.S.-Canadian border crossings, U.S. custom officials have computer terminals to assist them in screening potential security risks. In light of recent cases and given the need for increased security at all of our points of entry, does the Minister have any plans to implement some high-tech system to assist our custom officials, who are the initial contact in identifying people who are potential security risks and are trying to enter Canada?

June 27, 1986
Oral Questions


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, our Department, in consultation with the Department of Immigration and the RCMP, is currently evaluating a number of such systems. We have recently completed a pilot project at Pearson International Airport. We are evaluating that at the present time.
At present our officers are issued special advisories; and also they have access to the on-line automatic procedures that are available to the Department of Immigration. So, these types of facilities are available and we will be improving them.


BANKS AND BANKING
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. According to the Government's own figures, the administrative costs of the Estey Commission, $1,172,000 up to the end of March, pale in comparison to the Government's expenditures on legal and financial advice, including $1,588,000 to prepare the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance for testimony, one day each, before the commission. Will the Minister tell the House when he expects to receive the Commission's report?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should comment to the Hon. Member that there is much work that was done by the lawyers for the Government in support of the work done by the Estey Commission in getting the material ready for the Estey Commission, to help the commission do its job. As far as the specific question is concerned, I have not been advised by the commission when it is expecting to report. We do hope that it will be soon, because there is legislation that we want to get on with, as the Hon. Member is well aware.


LEGAL COSTS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister and the Minister of State have repeatedly said that the decision to bail out the Canadian Commercial Bank was based on the best information available, why was it necessary to spend $1.6 million on coaching for the two Ministers to defend this decision before Mr. Justice Estey?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I responded to that question. There is much work that goes on in support of the activities of the members of the commission to provide them with the various pieces of information that they need from the Department in order to help them do their job. That is the basis for the work that has been done.
I caution the Hon. Member again concerning the way she has expressed the so-called bail-out. It was support of the
depositors in the banks, not the banks themselves, that was the result of the expenditure by the Government of Canada.


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As he knows, the special joint committee, in its report, has identified an absence of any significant progress in the termination of apartheid in South Africa and recommends full economic sanctions. Does the Prime Minister not agree that this provides powerful support for imposing the full economic sanctions he promised over six months ago? Does he not think it is about time the Government acted to impose those sanctions, now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Government's action was also joined to the serious view that the best kind of action would be to try to induce a common front among all Commonwealth countries-


An Hon. Member:: Still waiting for Maggie?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -including the United Kingdom, obviously. We received that degree of unanimous support in Nassau. It has been helpful and effective. We would look forward to the same kind of support in August. There have been meetings in Europe, yesterday and today. We have had direct communication with Prime Minister Gandhi, Prime Minister Hawke, President Kaunda and others with regard to building that kind of common front. Nationally, I met yesterday with the leadership of the CLC, Mrs. Carr and others, who have been so helpful on the issue in Canada and abroad. We are trying to put together that kind of coalition that will maintain Commonwealth unity but will also provide effective action against the evil of apartheid.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT CANADA IMPOSE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall all of those conditions being placed upon the absolute promise of the Prime Minister to impose full economic sanctions if there was no progress in dismantling apartheid. What the report, which represents the views of Canadian people, asks of the Prime Minister is this. Will the Prime Minister and this Government impose immediate sanctions as a model of the minimum level of sanctions that should be applied by the Commonwealth? Will Canada not exert leadership, the kind of leadership that the report states the Government should present to the rest of the world?
June 27, 1986


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the sentiments expressed by my hon. friend. I do not think that there is any doubt about where anyone in the House stands on this very fundamental issue. There is a great deal of unanimity in the country; but we have important meetings in train. I will be meeting with Prime Minister Thatcher here on July 13. We will then be meeting with the Commonwealth Heads of Government in London during the first week of August. The question, I suppose, is this. Does acting unilaterally now not preclude the effectiveness of Canada's participation in building a common approach? My hon. friend is signalling no. He will find many Commonwealth leaders, including leaders of black Africa, who disagree with him.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) levelled serious accusations concerning the utilization of Challenge '86 program funding, the kind of remarks which denigrate a program whose achievement has been to provide young Canadians with worthwhile work experience during summers.

Will the Minister responsible answer yes or no with respect to whether the allegation made in this House yesterday by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East is based on true facts?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the reference of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East to a Challenge '86 project yesterday is false. It is not a Challenge '86 project.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: What program is it?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It has no federal funding involved. It was simply a case of a private employer going to a Canada Employment Centre for students and hiring young people for the summer from his own funds. As happens so often, the Hon. Member from N.D.G. has made false accusations. He should stand in his place and apologize.


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


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Public Works, once again concerning the departmental contract awarding policy.
A few days after the report on the contract awarding policy was tabled in the House, Canadians have learned today through the daily newspaper Le Devoir that, in 1984-85, 570 contracts valued at $6.9 million were awarded in Quebec without the benefit of public tenders.
Can the Minister tell the House whether the fact that over half of these contracts were awarded to people who contributed to the election fund of the Conservative Party of Canada is sheer coincidence?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works is absent from the House on government business. I am sure that he would be very pleased to answer the Hon. Member's question when he returns to this place.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a take-notice answer. We do not give supplementaries on take-notice answers. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down, sit down.


Don Boudria: Mind your own business.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member knows that when a Minister takes notice simply for another Minister our practice is not to grant a supplementary question. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AUTO PACT PROVISIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Regional Industrial

June 27, 1986
Oral Questions
Expansion. Yesterday Mr. Reisman continued the Government's campaign of misrepresentation on the Auto Pact and the safeguards it contains. Will the Minister publicly confirm that the Auto Pact safeguards do apply on a company-bycompany basis and that this has given the Government the leverage to get individual companies to initiate new investments and new jobs here in Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not precisely sure of what Mr. Reisman has said. I would want to check in detail the comments he has made before responding to the Hon. Member's question.


NEGOTIATOR'S MANDATE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that despite Mr. Reisman's personal opinions his mandate as negotiator is to fight to maintain those safeguards which everybody on each side of the industry is convinced gets jobs and investments here in Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, of course we are seeking to create more jobs and to attract more investment into Canada. In fact there have been a couple of billion dollars go right into the riding of the Hon. Member for Oshawa.


John Edward Broadbent: Because of the safeguards?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, because of the new climate that has been created. I cannot comment on all of Mr. Reisman's observations. I did not see them all. I did see one in which he said that the Hon. Member from Windsor did not know what he was talking about, and I do not disagree with that.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Yesterday the Opposition was accused by the Minister of creating confusion regarding the National Research Council's Industrial Research Assistance Program. Unfortunately, the Minister does not realize that it is his failure to communicate, consult, and provide this House with full information that has created the confusion.
Will the Minister level with this House and admit that there were no consultations and that, if there is confusion, it is because of his failure to state his policies clearly and to advise the House of the full import of his decisions?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the House will have heard me tell
the Hon. Member on several occasions now that he will have access to everything that has been communicated to the National Research Council with respect to this program. It may take the Hon. Member a little longer to comprehend what has happened, but there is certainly no longer any confusion in the NRC, or any place else.


PROGRAM FUNDING
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister cancel the cut in the Industrial Research Assistance Program which will deprive some 2,000 small and medium-sized businesses of vital research support? Will he enter into real consultations with the Council, as members of the Council have asked, and as he is obliged to do under the law?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, again I repeat that there have been no cuts to the program to which the Hon. Member makes reference. As has been the practice in the past, parts of the program-and it is 5 per cent of the program this year-will be used for space-related activities. That is a decision which the Government has made in its wisdom. It was communicated in a timely fashion to the people who are managing the program for us.


Mr. Speaker:: One question. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister will likely be aware that the Minister of State for the Environment for the United Kingdom visited the underground research laboratory in Lac du Bonnet a couple of weeks ago. Can the Minister assure the House that the visit of the British Minister in charge of Britain's nuclear program has nothing to do with things that the Minsiter has mentioned before about the commercial possibilities of Canada becoming a radioactive garbage dump for the world? Will she tell us why that Minister was visiting that site? Will she reassure us about the Government's intentions with respect to Lac du Bonnet?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment further on the answers I have already given in the House. We have no intention of allowing-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Why was the Minister there?


Pat Carney: We have no intention of allowing the riding of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to become a
June 27, 1986

radioactive garbage dump, as was suggested, and I cannot tell the Hon. Member why the Minister from Britain was visiting. Permission is not required for visiting Ministers to go to Manitoba.


TRIBUTE TO PAGE STAFF
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Today, sadly, we must say goodbye to a special part of the parliamentary family, our Pages. Bright, personable, dedicated, they are that and much more. They have seen us at our best and otherwise. They tell me that they feel privileged to have spent this year here. Little do they know that the privilege is all ours, the privilege of having their enthusiasm and their intelligence pushing us daily to live up their expectations of us.
I am certain that we would want to thank these extraordinary and exemplary young Canadians most sincerely and to wish them Godspeed and every possible good fortune.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINTS OF ORDER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) purported to recite something about the Foreign Investment Review Act from a document that he tried to attribute to me. I would like to say to him and the House that those were not my words.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that it was from a McMillan Binch newsletter-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is exactly what the record will reflect. At that time I believe my right hon. friend was a partner with a willing pen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order.


ALLEGED MISSTATEMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
Fast): Mr. Speaker, during Question Period, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) said, in reference to a statement that I made yesterday during
Point of Order-Mr. Allmand
Question Period that the PC Fund was funded by the Challenge '86 Program, that she checked and found that it was completely false. I must tell her that before I raised the question yesterday I called her Department to find out if the information that was given to me was correct. I asked for a list of the Challenge '86 funded programs in Ottawa. Her Department refused to give me this information. If the Minister would make public a list of all the programs in Canada that are funded under that program, we would never find ourselves with this kind of problem. If she were more open and would make known-
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members know that this is what happens when a point of order is raised that is not a point of order. The Hon. Minister seeks to reply but it is not a point of order. I think she has already had her comment.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Well, it may not be, but on the same point of order that was raised by the Hon. Member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair cannot hear because of the noise coming from the government side.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Senate sent a message to the House of Commons concerning Bill C-62, along with another message which was not read in the House because there was no Royal Assent and, for reasons which I fail to understand, this does not appear either in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings.
As it must be done, I would like the Chair to make public both the message and the observations of the Senate concerning Bill C-62. I think this should be included in Hansard because I think it is important that the House be aware of them and know that the Senate have made an important comment on a Bill which has not yet been given Royal Assent, but which will necessarily go through this process later today, I think.
I urge the Chair to give every consideration to my request because I think it is serious. A very important message has

June 27, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Prud'homme
been conveyed to us and I suggest that the Chair ought to read the entire message before we go on to something else.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order simply to put in a caveat with respect to the point raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) about messages between the two Houses. I do not want to get involved in a protracted procedural argument at this point in time but, as Your Honour is aware, I think it is the tradition, custom and convention of the two Houses of Parliament that they do not reflect upon the decisions of the other place.
With respect to messages that are received in the normal way dealing with amendments or other procedural or substantive matters relating to Bills, of course there is an established practice that has developed.
1 would simply suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that when you are looking at this particular matter, it would set a very dangerous precedent indeed if we were to start sending little love letters between the Houses dealing with our views of the truth as we see it in each place.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order because I was the principal critic of the Bill when it was before the House. In this situation, the Senate has not amended the Bill, has not defeated the Bill but has respected conventions and has passed the Bill recognizing the role of the House of Commons as the elected body in Canada. However, it has in a way put forward its views in this message. It has attempted to convey to the House its dissatisfaction with the Bill.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to have the message printed in Hansard. To my way of thinking, that would be a way of providing better accommodation between the two Houses considering that there is a majority held by one Party in one House and there is a majority held by another Party in the other House. That would be a reasonable accommodation considering that this is the elected House and the other is not.
I think that would be a very reasonable approach to the problem.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask you to check to see if messages of this kind from the other place have been read to the House before. If I am correct-and I may not be correct-you may find such a precedent, and if you do, I think it is a precedent which must be followed. The matter of the relationship between the two Houses and the suggestion of the government House Leader of the other place reflecting on this place are not at issue. It is simply a question of whether this has been done before. If it has, it should be done again.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that we have to spend so much time on a matter such as this. I would like to suggest that the whole thing could be resolved if the Government would take our advice and abolish the Senate.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I notice that the full text of the message has been made public. It is contained in the edition of Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, June 26. This being the case, it seems to be a reasonable way of dealing with the matter. There is no necessity for it to be recorded in Hansard because it is in Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank Hon. Members for their interventions. The matter has been absolutely dealt with in the traditional House way.
To answer the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), such messages are often printed in our Votes and Proceedings when they are received from the Senate. The ones which are verbally read to the House are usually notices of an indication that Royal Assent will occur later that day, in order to inform the House that that is what will happen. Many times in the past these messages have been received from the Senate and printed in Votes and Proceedings. This is the way we have handled it before.
If Hon. Members are asking me to review whether there is a point of order with regard to whether it should be printed there-in fact it has become the practice-I would be happy to review that practice, but I see no point of order.
Is the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) rising on a separate point of order?


TRIBUTE
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will not object if I take just a short moment to render homage to Jean Drapeau, a long-service Mayor of Montreal who just announced his retirement. His fabulous personality will be long remembered and missed for many years to come.

Long live Jean Drapeau who has served Montreal, his province and his country so well!
June 27, 1986



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: I have one more matter with which I must deal. Unfortunately it is a little longer than normal. Yesterday the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) asked me to deal with a matter, and I think it is important to deal with it before we break for the summer recess.
The Hon. Member raised a point of order as to the effect of prorogation on requests made for Government responses to committee reports. Implicit in the Hon. Member's query is the understanding that normally the effect of prorogation is to abolish all pending proceedings. However, an exception is made in some respects. Standing Order 121 provides:
A progrogation of the House shall not have the effect of nullifying and Order or Address of the House for returns or papers, but all papers and returns ordered at one session of the House, if not complied with during the session, shall be brought down during the following session, without renewal of the Order.
Standing Order 99(2) which pertains to responses to committee reports reads as follows:
Within 120 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the Government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response thereto.
It would be well perhaps to engage as briefly as I can at this point in some textual analysis of the terms "order for return" and "Standing Order". As noted in Citation 412 of Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition, at page 150, an order of the House is a decision of the House directing that something be done. Abraham and Hawtrey in "A Parliamentary Dictionary", Third Edition, at page 186, define a return as "a paper or document presented to either House in pursuance either of its order or an address". By combining these two definitions we may deduce that an "order for return" is a short form of stating that there is a decision of the House directing that a paper or document be presented to it.
A Standing Order is, as its very name implies, an order of the House which is to have a continuing effect. In my view by its adoption of Standing Order 99(2) on February 24, 1986 the House therefore made a decision directing that within 120 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the Government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response thereto. In other words, the House thereby made a continuing order for the return of requested responses and, by virtue of Standing Order 121, further ordered that such returns should survive prorogation.
It seems to the Chair that the same reasoning developed earlier in these remarks can be applied in respect of responses to petitions as required by Standing Order 106(8) which provides:
The Ministry shall, within 45 days, respond to every petition referred to it.
The practice has developed of tabling these responses in the House. It would therefore appear that that practice has
Interparliamentary Delegation Report
accorded to responses to petitions the status of returns ordered by the House, which are capable of surviving prorogation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I accept your decision, and I think I agree with it also. However, I just want to make one important point. If the report in question had not been adopted by the House, would it still be an order of the House? If the report is pending, in other words no concurrence motion has been made, does Your Honour's ruling still apply?


Mr. Speaker:: The answer to that question is that if Standing Order 99(2) applies today, it applies tomorrow.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8),I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government response to the following 16 petitions: 331547, 331-548, 331-582, 331-587, 331-594, 331-612, 331-616, 331-618, 331-620, 331-621, 331-623, 331-707, 331-708, 331710,331-739 and 331-749.



WESTBANK INDIAN BAND


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I could have one of your stronger pages, I would table some documents. In accordance with Standing Order 67(1), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the documents related to the Westbank Indian Band.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will understand that I hope he does not have any further tablings today.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101,1 have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the final report of the

June 27, 1986
Committee Reports
official parliamentary delegation of the Canadian section of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group, which attended the twenty-seventh annual meeting of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group in Tucson, Arizona from February 28 to March 3, 1986.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure and, if the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day.



ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTRY-FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry to which, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the committee requests a comprehensive response.
This report on forest resources and industries in eastern Canada is the result of a study undertaken by the former Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and concluded by the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry. The report contains 27 recommendations, including a recommendation that the Government consider the creation of a department of forestry.
Knowledge, vigilance, concerted action, and integration have become keywords for all of those involved in the forest industry. The present time is crucial for our forest resources and their many uses. Canadians must draw upon their reserves of ingenuity and flexibility to guarantee that this great resource will last forever.
Through this report the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry hopes to encourage timely exchanges of ideas and to have thus contributed to the discovery of appropriate solutions.



CANADA PETROLEUM RESOURCES ACT-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-92, an Act to regulate interests in petroleum in relation to frontier lands, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and to repeal the Canada Oil and Gas Act, as amended.



MULTICULTURALISM-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism.
In relation to its mandate under Standing Order 96(3)(d) relating to multiculturalism, your committee is pleased to present a report summarizing activities in its first year of existence.
The committee met 22 times, and 14 of these sittings were open to the public. Appendix I contains a list of dates of committee meetings, together with the names of those who appeared as witnesses.



ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

['Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition duly certified by many residents of Willowdale who are voicing their opposition against any liberalization of availability and distribution in Canada of any pornographic material which exploits human dignity.']
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to which, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the committee requests a comprehensive response.
The North has expressed a desire to get on with solving its problems, creating employment, and building for the future. The committee sincerely hopes that its 21 recommendations will be helpful, and I thank all those who helped present the report.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings].



Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by some 50 of my constituents who say that in their opinion that all Canadians pay taxes and, therefore, pay for the services of Canada Post and that no Canadian should have to receive second or third-class postal service. They humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to direct Canada Post to change its policy of installing group and community mail boxes in new neighborhoods and to reinstate daily door-to-door delivery to all homes in Winnipeg.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and the honour to present an 85 page petition signed by some 1,000 Canadians who humbly show that in their opinion flight attendant Toni Corrado was unfairly treated by Air Canada, and the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to issue a strong policy directive to Air Canada and to all other Crown corporations and federal Departments to guarantee the right of free speech
June 27, 1986

to all employees, to ensure discipline procedures that uphold Canada's standard of justice, including protection of rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the guarantee of an impartial hearing when those rights may have been breached and the right of an accused to face his or her accusor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to take a few minutes of the House to present further petitions dealing with the grounds of the Governor General, specifically the unfortunate closing of the grounds to the general public. I think I have now tabled approximately 150 petitions. These are the last that I have with me today. The petitioners are asking the Government and Parliament to open up the decision for further consultation with a group of citizens representive of the large and growing opposition in order that a modus vivendi be created that will satisfy both the Government and the public. Indeed, if the security of the Governor General is in question, let us provide her with all the security she needs. Let us open the lands and the park to Canadians who want to see it.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition signed by a handful of my constituents in my electoral district who are opposed to the present abortion laws and who belong to one of the Pro-Life groups.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by many hundreds of people who live on rural routes in and around Thunder Bay. The names were collected through the good offices of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus). These petitioners direct Canada Post to halt its discriminatory cut-backs in service to rural residents and call on Canada Post to maintain individual mailbox delivery on its rural routes.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility and privilege to present petitions signed by many residents of the Hamilton area and many residents of the British Columbia area of Comox. These petitioners are protesting the change in the Unemployment Insurance Act which has seen pension income being used as earned income for unemployment insurance purposes. They call upon Parliament to request the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to withdraw that iniquitous change in the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Petitions


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition duly certified by many residents of Willowdale who are voicing their opposition against any liberalization of availability and distribution in Canada of any pornographic material which exploits human dignity.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Jean-Robert Gauthier: for leave to introduce Bill C-293, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act (primacy of bilingualism).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am back with another Bill aimed at confirming the primacy of bilingualism, as expressed in Section 2 of the Official Languages Act, over the other statutes, orders and regulations of Parliament and the Government of Canada.
My purpose is to ensure the primacy of the Official Languages Act and thus avoid embarrassing situations of the kind we had with the Gens de Pair, for instance.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



CURRENCY ACT


Marcel Prud'homme: for leave to introduce Bill C-294, an Act to amend the Currency Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 27, 1986
Motions


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, as you know, for 23 years it has always been my view that we should do everything in our power to educate our young people across Canada, and that is why today, I have the honour of tabling this Bill which is aimed at honouring the memory of our former Prime Ministers.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have honoured Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Robert Borden and William Lyon Mackenzie King. The object of this Bill is to honour John Diefenbaker. Since a decision is about to be taken, but has not as yet, I hope the authorities responsible will consider this as an honour to be given to Mr. Diefenbaker, to be followed by a bill later on to honour Mr. Louis St. Laurent, Mr. Pearson and others so that Canadians, young Canadians in particular, will know the history of Canada better.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that the rules require a brief summary of the Bill at this point.


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the Parties and, as you will recall yourself, Sir, there have been discussions by the Board of Internal Economy membership, and I think you will find a disposition to accept the following motion at this time and to pass it unanimously without debate. I move:
That the Board of Internal Economy shall be deemed to be the employer in respect of employees of the House of Commons, as defined in and for the purposes of "An Act respecting employment and employee and employer relations in the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. It requires unanimous consent for its introduction. Is there such consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
CONCURRENCE IN TENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved:
That the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts presented to the House on Wednesday, April 30, 1986, be concurred in.
['Mr. Speaker, I cannot miss this occasion. After a year and a half the Parliamentary Secretary has answered one of my questions today. I thank him very much.']
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt that motion?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I moved concurrence in this report because of the "no" you heard from over there. I think this report is important. I think it should be adopted by the House. I think it reflects highly on the good work that our committees have been doing and should, in my view, be accepted by this House as an important contribution to the parliamentary process and to getting things done in the bureaucracy which will help us better understand and better explain to our constituents what is happening.
There are four major concerns in the report of this committee. The concerns deal with the layoffs of public servants and the reverse order of merit which the commission claims is in effect. It also states that 98 per cent of staffing responsibilities have been delegated to Departments but that the commission is responsible for the monitoring. However, their efforts are less than adequate, especially as they relate to affirmative action programs. We all know that this House thinks affirmative action programs are important. Therefore, it is most valuable to us that a committee recommends that this system of affirmative action be strengthened.
I do not intend to speak very long on this matter. The staffing system in the public service, by the committee's own admission, is cumbersome and slow. If I understand the report correctly, the average time to fill a vacancy ranges from 136 to 160 days. Evidence to that effect was presented to the committee. In some cases it was possible to reduce the time for filling vacancies to 44 days. If it is possible in certain circumstances to reduce the time for the filling of vacancies to 44 days, I see no reason why the average should be in excess of 136 days and sometimes up to 160 days.
I will take a few minutes to tell the House about the recommendations of this report because I think they are important and imperative to the good working of the Public Service of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee's first recommendation is as follows, and I will read it to you:
Your Committee recommends that the Commission develop an action plan for the simplification and condensation of rules and regulations on staffing and report its progress in doing so in writing to your Committe by September 30, 1986.
Mr. Speaker, it is almost the end of June, the House is adjourning today, and since the report has yet to be adopted, we have a situation where the Commission would not be obliged to make its report, and that is one of the reasons why I insist the report be adopted by the House today.
Mr. Speaker, another recommendation reads as follows:
Your Committee recommends that the Commission:
(a)	provide your Committee with a written report by September 30, 1986 on its progress in improving its monitoring of departmental staffing procedures;
June 27, 1986


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts now and at the time the tenth report number 10 was prepared and tabled in this House, I would like to join with my friend from Ottawa- Vanier and support his motion for adoption of this report. It sets out a number of recommendations which my friend has outlined to the House. Those recommendations came, first of all, out of a report by the Auditor General and, secondly, out of hearings specifically held by the committee which relate to the material in the Auditor General's report.
The chairman of the Public Service Commission was called before the committee as a witness and presented evidence in response to questions relating to the role of the PSC in hiring and staffing in the Public Service. As a new Member in this

June 27, 1986
Motions
House I learned a great deal about the procedure for Public Service staffing. I was interested to learn, for example, that the PSC, under the authority of the Public Service Employment Act, has responsibility for staffing in the Public Service but in fact delegates 98 per cent of that responsibility to the departments. While there is the appearance that the PSC is the major force in the whole procedure, the actual responsibility for administering the staffing procedure lies not with the PSC but with the government departments involved. That created some real problems and led to the recommendations in this report.
The first recommendation deals with simplification and condensation of the rules and regulations governing staffing procedures. My understanding of the evidence was that there are several volumes of rules and regulations which every department manager has to follow. However, the evidence indicated that it was in fact impossible for any manager to have a firm grasp or understanding, or even to have read anything but a small fraction of the rules and regulations. As a result, it was and is quite clear to the committee that in no way, shape or form can these rules and regulations, which if piled end to end would probably be two or three feet high, possibly be carried out in any legitimate fashion by the various managers. Therefore that is an important recommendation which we should see implemented by the PSC.
The recommendation that I would like to target in on most specifically has to do with affirmative action. The recommendation is that the PSC develop effective procedures to monitor and assess a department's progress in implementing affirmative action programs and report that progress in writing by November 30, 1986. This Parliament has spent a good deal of time discussing the issue of employment equity. We had an employment equity Bill before us. It was substantially debated on second reading. There was a good deal of discussion in committee. It then came back to the House and there was a tremendous amount of discussion at report stage and on third reading. From what I understand there has since been a lot of discussion in the Senate on the Bill as well.
There was a feeling, if I grasped it correctly, in many parts of society that the Bill on employment equity did not go far enough in addressing some of the problems of affirmative action, if we can call it that. You will remember there were four target groups outlined in that Bill: women, the disabled, native people and visible minorities. The gist of the Bill was to make sure that in all dealings governed by federal law the principles of employment equity with respect to those four target groups should be put in place, made effective and maintained. The Bill itself did not deal with the federal Civil Service. Neither did it deal with businesses which contract with the federal Government. However, the Government at that time indicated as far as contractual relationships with other businesses were concerned, it was going to put in place by regulation the same sort of rules. At the same time it indicated that rules and regulations had already been put in place with respect to the federal Civil Service. However, it
became quite clear in the discussions relating to the employment equity legislation that that was not the reality.
The previous Government had some affirmative action programs put into place specifically dealing with women, the disabled and native people. However, there had been no such provision for visible minorities. When the chairman of the PSC, at the request of the committee, tabled material relating to the way in which Government was performing with respect to these four target groups, it became quite clear that there had not been much progress made at all. There had been some with respect to women but virtually none with respect to the disabled, native people, and certainly not for visible minorities.
When we looked at the material tabled, particularly with respect to senior management positions in the Public Service, we found no one from the disabled or visible minority groups in those positions. Therefore it seems to me we must start to address this problem with some urgency to make sure that the Public Service truly reflects the make-up of this country's population.
There are problems in doing this, especially regarding visible minorities. For one thing, there is a problem with the identification of visible minorities. As you know, according to our human rights legislation the question of race and colour cannot be asked on employment applications. That immediately puts the federal Civil Service at a disadvantage when it comes to trying to implement some form of affirmative action program for visible minorities.
Since September 4, 1984, when the present Government took office, there has been a specific effort made to implement affirmative action for visible minorities, and to overcome the technical problems of identifying visible minorities in the Public Service. This has been done on a voluntary basis asking all Members of the Public Service to agree or disagree with their consent to have this identification. It is starting to take some shape. There is starting to be a data base and there is starting to be some basis for actually ensuring that the program of emloyment equity at senior levels of government with respect to visible minorities can now start to become effective.
There is a specific women's secretariat within the Government to monitor whether women are going into place under the affirmative action program that was established some years ago. It seems to me that this is the same sort of thing that we should be doing with visible minorities and these other target groups. It is only in that way that we are going to ensure that this sort of a program is carried out and that we do have a Public Service that truly reflects the realities of life in this country and the realities of the make-up of the Canadian population.
It is with all of that in mind that I feel that the motion by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is certainly one that should be adopted by this House. There has been a feeling in
June 27, 1986

the past that, as I understand it, because of the fact that the Public Service Commission is not a department of Government and supposedly is independent of Government, if there is a recommendation by a parliamentary committee with respect to it, it will not be acted upon by the Public Service Commission because it does not feel that the force of Parliament stands behind it.
If this motion by the Hon. Member is adopted then Parliament will have, for the first time, I understand it, agreed and approved recommendations of a parliamentary committee with respect to the Public Service Commission. It will therefore have the force of Parliament behind it, the force of the people of Canada behind it, and the Public Service Commission will not have the option to ignore it, but must move forward and adopt it.
It is with that in mind that I would like to support very strongly the motion made by the Hon. Member, and I trust that the House will agree to adopt the tenth report of the Public Accounts Committee.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I only want to take a few minutes to reiterate and agree with the comments made by my colleague for Ottawa-Vanier when he brought to our attention today the very good recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee.
I would be remiss in my remarks if I did not start by congratulating the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) for the excellent work that she does in chairing the Public Accounts Committee. I know that every Member of this House would agree with me in that regard.
As a member from the national capital area I am very concerned with some of the problems that we see right now whereby it takes between 136 to 160 days to fill vacant positions in the Government. There are two reasons why, of course, that I am very concerned with this.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that when a position remains vacant for 150 or 160 days, which is almost six months, the former incumbent's co-workers have to do that person's job in addition to their own work. The present system therefore puts an additional burden on the other employees, and it is unfair to make them do the work of other people just because our bureaucracy has become so slow-moving.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention and to the attention of the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon), who is listening very attentively down there, that today, many of my cnstituents in the National Capital Region are unemployed. And as you know, Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in the Naional Capital Region is rising, although it seems to be going down almost everywhere else in Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious situation for my constituents. The eastern part of my riding, as you know, and as the Hon. Members opposite know, around Hawkesbury, has an
Motions
unemployment rate of about of about 14 or 15 per cent. That is pretty serious.
But as you know, in this particular region the percentage of people working for the Government in Ottawa is relatively low. Many of my constituents who are public servants in the Ottawa-Hull area tend to live in Orleans, Cumberland and the general area, as you know of course, and these people had been in relatively good shape in recent years during the recession and after, since there was not as much unemployment in the federal Government as there was in the private sector. However, Mr. Speaker, today the situation has been reversed, which means that many of my constituents are now unemployed or are losing their jobs while other Canadians, especially in the Province of Ontario, are seeing an improvement in their economic situation.
My point is, Mr. Speaker, that when positions remain vacant for six months, it means that one of my constituents remains unemployed for that long, and I think it is important to bring this to the attention of the House, to repeat the points raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), who informed the House so eloquently on this subject.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a few words about the layoff or surplus list, which includes employees who are about to lose their jobs, and some of them have already left as a result of the measures introduced by the Minister of Finance, who is sitting there in his seat, and the President of the Treasury Board, the executioners of the Public Service-it is important that we bring to the attention of these two Ministers that a large number of Canadians, about 2,000 or 3,000 people, are now on this lay-off list, some of whom have already lost their jobs or are about to do so very shortly. Now if this waiting list were compressed or shortened, as it were, many of these people could be re-hired by the federal Public Service and be employed instead of staying home on unemployment insurance or welfare or any of the other programs that are open to the unemployed.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, that it is very important for the House to adopt today-and I ask Hon. Members from all parties, including the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon), my good friend over there, to support this Bill, even the Minister of Finance, because it is still time for him to reform, to make up for the way his restrictions and budgetary cutbacks have affected federal public servants.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear from an Hon. Member, the Member on my right, I may say on my far right, in the Conservative Parly, that the Minister of Finance had no choice. Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, did the same Minister of Finance have a choice when he could have cut the Prime Minister's unnecessary spending? He had a choice there, and in fact a very clear and a very easy choice, and I'm delighted the Conservative Member brought this to my attention. They could have easily cut spending there. They could have said: Enough of this wasting of taxpayers' money, enough of these

June 27, 1986
Motions
photographs, enough of this arrogance-17 photographs in 16 pages-on the part of the Prime Minister.


M. Ricard:: He's photogenic!


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member on the far right, the Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard) is telling the House the Prime Minister is photogenic! Well, I am sure at least the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) thinks so, even if nobody else does. He certainly has his picture taken pretty often at taxpayers's expense, at the expense of Canadian voters, the same voters who were promised by the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition and even before then, when he said in the book he wrote or claims to have written that the Canadian Government would have to set an example and that the Canadian Government should not waste taxpayers' money.
And the same Prime Minister who was indulging in that kind of abuse today. And the Hon. Member on the far right, the Hon. Member for Laval, did well to bring this to my attention, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank him for doing so.
In any case, since I don't want to take up too much of the time of the House, so as not to upset my good friend, the Hon.Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon), I will conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I ask, as my good friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) said with such eloquence, for the unanimous support of Parliament for adopting the Tenth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this report is a result of deliberations by the Public Accounts Committee which go back through much of this year. I had an opportunity to take part in that committee some time prior to the presentation of the tenth report on April 30 which is before the House at this time.
I agree with my colleagues from the Conservative Party and Liberal Party that this report should be concurred in unanimously. I certainly will ensure that my colleagues in the New Democratic Party will join in concurrence.
This report reflects the very serious concern of the Public Accounts Committee, upon reviewing the staffing actions and the role of the Public Service Commission, as well as upon reviewing the March, 1985 Auditor General's Report with respect to the actions of the Public Service Commission. Other concerns also arose. The delegation of staffing by the Public Service Commmission had been almost total. The monitoring of over-staffing activity by departments was minimal as far as the Public Service Commission was concerned.
We were concerned that the departments went to such length to ensure that all the proper procedures were followed in the case of an appeal on staffing to the Commission, that it resulted in a very lengthy and time-consuming process. The report indicates that it took between 130 and 160 days to staff
a position. This is certainly undesirable in administrative terms, but it also means that fellow workers in a particular area have to cover for a vacant position for as much as half a year because of those delays in staffing. This does not lend itself to effective management, nor do I believe it is fair to the employees who are applicants for positions. They are forced to delay for a long time without knowing whether the position for which they applied will be available.
The report also addresses some general problems with the Public Service Commission. I am pleased that the Public Accounts Committee called for specific responses from the Public Service Commission by September 30, 1986. This is a better procedure than simply issuing recommendations or admonishing a department or agency for failure to comply with effective management, failure to be accountable, or failure to use government funds effectively. Increasingly, the Public Accounts Committee is asking the departments or agencies whose work it reviews to report back on how it is cleaning up its act. This is a better procedure than simply leaving those departments or agencies to make the same errors and develop the same problems in the future.
However, I believe the Public Service Commission has been less than vigorous in acting on one of the specific issues cited in this report with respect to workforce adjustment policy. The Public Service Commission will act within the deadline set by the committee.
One of the committee's major concerns with respect to the workforce adjustment policy was the use of the reverse order of merit procedure in determining which public servants will be laid off when a position is terminated for whatever reason. While no one likes cut-backs, unfortunately the Government wants to impose them so it can show some blood on the floor to the people of Canada as its idea of effective management.
For whatever reason cut-backs occur, the Government is not in a position to deal particularly fairly with employees who are affected. As a member from the National Capital Region, a substantial number of employees and groups of employees have come to me because of the unfair treatment they believe they have experienced as a result of the Government's cut-back procedure known as the reverse order of merit.
Let me explain the reverse order of merit. When a department is faced with eliminating a number of jobs it must evaluate the employees carrying out those duties and determine an order of merit for those positions. Let us assume half of the employees are to be laid off. Those on the bottom half of the merit list are dumped and put on the surplus list. They are automatically labelled as being less meritorious, or not very competent, when they look for jobs elsewhere in the Public Service during that year in which they are entitled to do so, rather than being dropped completely from the Government's responsibility.
When someone from within the Public Service applies and is considered for a new position, there is a rather complex and
June 27, 1986

well-developed procedure by which staffing action is undertaken if that person is passed over. There is a staffing board, a group of people including some from outside the department, who interview the applicants on the short list of those who are not cut from the written applications. They determine which are the best applicants for a particular position. Furthermore, the staffing actions are subject to review by the Public Service Commission and about 10 per cent of staffing actions within the Public Service are appealed. Perhaps 10 per cent of the appeals that go to the Public Service Commission are accepted, which amounts to a very small proportion-perhaps 1 per cent-of staffing actions being subject to some change because of intervention by the Public Service Commission. This is a very valuable form of quality control in ensuring that the merit principle is being enforced as best as possible.
However, there are no such series of checks and balances with respect to the reverse order of merit. A manager can decide, perhaps very quickly, what the order of merit shall be and employees may find themselves dumped because they have been judged to be of lower merit. They are in a very difficult position because it is very hard to grieve. There is no established appeal process, nor has one been set up.
I hope the Public Service Commission will consider this matter which I have already spoken about to some extent during my remarks when the commission's estimates came before the Government Operations Committee some time late in the month of May.
In early 1986, or maybe late 1985, in response to representations that I and others made, the commission stated that it would issue guidelines to Departments in terms of giving them a directive as to how the reverse order of merit should apply. It was curious to me that those guidelines were not in fact developed until mid-May, a week or two before the commission went before a parliamentary committee to have its estimates considered. I do not have the guidelines in front of me because I did not expect this debate today but, while they have been communicated to Departments, they have been done in a way which does not indicate that the commission attaches any particular priority to this area. They have been done weakly, they have been done limply, and the message that goes out, in my opinion, is that the Public Service Commission does not really care about this question. It is just doing it because it was forced to do so by the Public Accounts Committee and pressure coming from Members like myself and the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).
The Public Service of Canada has grown pretty much steadily since the Second World War, up until the last few months. There have been one or two instances in which certain functions involving certain agencies have been cut back, but in general that has been within the context of a growing Public Service. This has meant that even people affected by reorganization in their particular Department, or by the elimination of a particular branch or agency, could fairly easily have a
Motions
chance at finding employment elsewhere in the Government of Canada. A good example involves the actions of the former Government in chopping the secretariats for social and economic development. Very quickly, over the course of the few months of the Turner Government, the employees who were affected were found other positions, and very few of them had to go on to the workforce adjustment surplus list in order to survive. Now we are in a cut-back mold; we have many more cut-backs. It seems to me, if a well developed procedure exists for hiring and promoting people which protects the rights of public servants, that that should be the case as well when it comes to these cut-backs, but that is not yet the case. It is not good enough, in my opinion, to just send a message or a memorandum out to personnel directors in the Departments and say, "Will you please get it through to your people in whatever way you can?"
I recall, on a different issue, that the Public Service Commission was avid in its efforts to ensure that everyone knew what was the new policy. That was when it brought forward directives or guidelines in February of 1984 relative to political rights. There was a special issue of "Dialogue Express", which went to all of the Public Service; it was widely distributed to almost every employee's desk, so that they would know what the situation was.
Now, any employee can be affected by cut-backs, by a reverse order of merit ruling. Therefore, I believe that the information now developed by the commission should in fact by now been distributed to every employee. It should be widely distributed through the unions. There should be ample consultation with the unions to ensure that employees who are affected know the rules.
If I recall correctly, the rules themselves leave much to be desired. This should in fact be improved and tightened up to ensure that there is a process for appeal, so that something that has been put into employees' files some long time ago is not now used to kind of blackball them and put them low down on the order of merit.
Some guidance should be given to Departments as to whether academic qualifications, work experience, the level of performance on the job or years of experience should be the major factors in determining merit, if the system is to be used. It is my opinion, and I think that the unions representing employees and the government service would very strongly agree, that the Government is wrong to try to take something which can be and should be applied to hiring and use it for firing, as well. When one applies reverse order of merit, too often it leads to favouritism. Too often it leads to a situation where a manager decides that he or she will "get" certain employees who, for some reason, because of chemistry, or personality, do not get along particularly well with that certain manager. Therefore, the victim is someone who stands out, someone who has an unusual working style or who has perhaps shown up the boss because of being brighter or a bit more aggressive. All of these things will occur unless there is some kind of better protection for the employees.

June 27, 1986
Motions
If one is hiring or promoting it is possible to ask, "Out of a field of 100 or 10 or 5 people, which one or two are the best employees for a particular job". In other words, it is fairly easy to make a judgment call as to which one is the best. The differences between the employee who is hired and the two or three who are not, however, are often infinitesimal. In the end, it is a judgment call. One is almost flipping a coin. Anyone who has hired knows, as I do, that one often cannot say for sure that one's judgment is right. One must simply make the best judgment one can in terms of deciding who to hire and who not to hire.
However, when it comes to firing, one is making a decision which is much more crucial to the well-being, both economic and social, of the individual employee than when one comes to hiring. If one does not hire John Doe or Mary Smith for one job, then perhaps he or she has a chance at another one; if it concerns an internal situation then at least they have jobs already. If one fires John Doe or Mary Smith, however, he or she is out on the street, and it is a difficult job market. Here in the national capital, for example, we have an unemployment rate reaching 9 per cent. Federal employees in Montreal are facing a situation where the labour market is very clogged and the unemployment rate is over 10 per cent. These circumstances prevail in many parts of the country despite some general improvement in the employment situation in the last 10 or 12 months.
If one is down to deciding which 15 of 30 employees should be dumped, the differences between employee 15 who goes and employee 14 who stays are, in fact, impossible to discern. It is a totally arbitrary decision. I suggest that that would also be the case with employee 20 and employee 10. One might be able to determine which employee is the worst or next to worst and which employee is the best or the next to best. However, in between, it is much more difficult.
I therefore believe that if firings must take place, they should take place on the basis of seniority. That is the principle accepted in the private sector where a union contract prevails and where lay-offs occur. Perhaps there should be a formula brought forward which places the major emphasis on seniority, or perhaps one which only excludes, from determination by seniority, employees who have consistently shown a very marginal work performance as shown by a series of very negative performance reviews over the two or three years prior to the cuts being made. In other words, apart from those employees who are demonstrably very marginal, I believe that seniority should be the criterion which applies.
One might also, exempt from the cuts employees who have demonstrated outstanding performance. Again, maybe 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the employees in a particular branch or division might have demonstrated outstanding performance and have earned their right to stay even if they would not be able to stay by means of seniority. However, for the most part, one is dealing with employees who are equivalent, relatively speaking, within the Government of Canada, as anywhere else. One person may have better education but may not be quite
such a good performer. Another employee may not be as brilliant but is there every morning at nine o'clock, not punching the clock at 5 p.m. but, rather, sticking around to see if there is work to be done. Such employees are steady, reliable, get the work done, and serve the Department or agency faithfully and loyally, through thick and thin, through long periods of time.
How does one make judgment calls about those kinds of things? It is very difficult and that is why seniority becomes a principle which is at least acceptable and can be understood by people. One might ask, "Why should I go while she stays?" and come to the conclusion, "Well, I guess it is because she joined the Department a week before I did. I guess I should not have taken a holiday before I began working with my Department". But at least such employees understand that the decision was made on a non-discriminatory principle.
I am making those representations because the committee has recommended that the guidelines be issued to the department and that they be enforced. Let us get to that. I say to the Public Service Commission through Hansard that by September there should be an indication as to what further steps have been taken to publicize its guidelines, and whether it has by then reviewed its guidelines to make them more effective.
I want to make a final point on this report. Your Honour might indicate how much time remains to me. I believe it to be about three or four minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Three minutes.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The point is that I think there is a serious problem concerning the accountability of the Public Service Commission to the Parliament of Canada. Perhaps I can in fact address these remarks to Your Honour because of your responsibility for this place. The commission is an agency of Parliament. The appointments are made by Order in Council. Unfortunately, the new provisions ensuring that Parliament can review the appointments effectively will amount to a dead letter for some time because the three existing commissioners, all of whom have 10-year terms, have only been appointed in the last two or three years. Two of them were appointed in the last six to eight months.
The mechanism for that accountability, however, has never been thought through and has never been adequately developed. The commission works in close conjunction with the Treasury Board to the point where the functions are almost indistinguishable. Therefore, employees of the commission may tend to assume, naturally, that they form just another government department.
The commissioners appear before the Government Operations Committee once a year to defend their Estimates. This year they appeared before the committee for between an hour and a half and three hours-a short period of time. There is no
June 27, 1986

other means that has been used in the past by which Parliament has enforced any form of accountability on the commission. I recognize that under the new committee system the Government Operations Committee, or some other committee, could in fact call the commission to come forward for a series of more protracted hearings, perhaps in the fall of each year when the pressure of Estimates is not upon us. That is something that I would recommend as a stopgap measure at least. I think we should think it through.
I will give an example of what has disturbed me in particular. Some two and one-half years ago the commission issued a set of guidelines with respect to the political activity of public servants which was circulated throughout the Public Service. In the opinion of many people, myself included, these guidelines went substantially beyond the letter and spirit of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act, which Acts were meant to govern political activity. They were guidelines and not regulations. The committee of Parliament which deals with regulations issued a very stiff report that was severely critical of the Public Service Commission, in that it had not put this matter into a regulation which could then be considered by a committee of Parliament. However, the Public Service Commission did nothing about that. It did not honour Parliament's word when a parliamentary committee told it that it was out of court in terms of how it had acted. There was no action, and no apparent means for taking action, by any committee of this House, or by Parliament itself, to get the Public Service Commission to act in that particular way.
I know that my time has almost expired. I think that these are important questions. I hope that they can and will be pursued over the coming months, perhaps at a time when we have another report from the Public Accounts Committee relative to the September 30 deadline for reports back from the commission on this particular report.
Mir. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address some thoughts that have occurred to me over the past little while concerning the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I listened with interest to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), with whom I have served on the Public Accounts Committee. Because of his constitutency he has a greater understanding than many Members of the House with respect to the workings of the Public Service Commission.
I remember taking a look at the remarks of the Auditor General and his comprehensive audit of the Public Service Commission. At that time I remember that the committee was concerned about the problems of staffing. As a committee we addressed our thoughts to what might be done to improve the staffing and a simplification and condensation of the rules and regulations as suggested by the Auditor General. Today I want to spend some time discussing the staffing points.
Motions
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that the Auditor General pointed out in his report, and I think it was referred to in the report of the committee, that authority for 98 per cent of the appointments made in the federal Public Service has been delegated to the departments. In other words, the responsibility for implementing the staffing system has been delegated to the various departments. I am sure that all Members of the House would agree with me that there are very few managerial decisions which are as important to the effective functioning of a department as the question of selection of staff. The quality of the work of any department depends upon the quality of the members. For this reason alone I think that the managers have to devote a considerable amount of time to thinking through the selection process.
As an aside, we just concluded debate with respect to Bill C-45. I appeared before a committee in the other place just this morning on that Bill. It is a Bill which was supported by all Members of the House vis-a-vis the staff of the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament and the Senate. It is a Bill which was brought forward by the Government and worked on by members of all Parties. I pay particular tribute to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre and to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) who made very viable contributions to the work of the committee.
What we were trying to do was take a hard look at the staffing of the House of Commons. We were trying to set in place a procedure by which there could be bargaining rights for the employees and by which they would have an opportunity to have grievance procedures and independent arbitration concerning matters that could not be settled on the way up.
That speaks to our concern not only as Members of Parliament vis-a-vis the employees on the Hill but vis-a-vis the different departments as regards the importance of the selection process for employees, the structuring of jobs, language requirements and the essential qualifications. The key to the efficient and effective staffing of any Public Service department is this initial planning and preparation. With respect to Bill C-45, we have built into it a year's grace provision, shall we say, to allow for the proper planning and preparation of the implementation of the classification system. I know that under any administration the Public Service managers take, and have taken seriously, the question of staffing. They are very much aware that to have proper employee morale and productivity they have to pay attention to that particular item. It is a complex matter. It is time consuming and has many well-defined steps which must be taken along the way. There is no question that there are still efforts required to streamline and improve the system to make it more flexible and responsive to Public Service needs.
I would like to quote, if I may, from the commission's annual report for 1985 which states in part:
Throughout 1985, the Commission, mindful that restraint in the allocation and management of government resources has affected personnel administration, continued to explore the scope of possible changes to the Public Service Employment Act and Regulations. Many of these proposed changes have as a

June 27, 1986
Motions
goal the simplification of the staffing process to make it more accessible to line managers, while respecting the basic principles of merit and equity.
I am interested in some of the comments of the Public Accounts Committee with respect to what has been implemented. I note that the Auditor General suggested that monitoring of the departmental staffing activities by the commission was practically non-existent. The commission agreed that its organization was not sufficient in this area, that it did not effectively integrate monitoring information gathered from the departments and that it made inadequate use of this information.
While we have a system in place, the Auditor General is telling us that there are problems with it. I am pleased that apparently before the committee the commission suggested it was taking remedial measures to augment and centralize its monitoring activities. There is no question that in a variety of government departments there has to be an ongoing effort made to review what standards are used in each department and ministry and to compare and to continue to try to get the very best system that we can.
That brings me to the importance of the merit principle. There is no question that the merit principle must be addressed and I may wish to return to that in a moment. However, if I may, I would like to move on to affirmative action.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, our Party is very strongly in favour of affirmative action. During this session we passed a Bill to implement affirmative action in employment. I am sure opposition Members felt that the Bill could be better, but there was no question that all Members of the House felt that this was a first step-perhaps not a big enough first step, but it was a first step toward implementing a very important principle.
By the same token, there has to be extensive and effective monitoring of the Departments' performance by the commission. In reading the report I noted with interest that the committee was not satisfied with the evidence the commission provided, and pointed out that progress in the hiring of women, visible minorities and the handicapped had been unacceptably slow and the monitoring procedures put in place by the commission did not appear to be adequate to the task. I know that no Hon. Member wants to accept the continuance of that particular problem.
While we may have some differences of opinion as to how to implement affirmative action, there is no question that we all stand for its progress. If that progress is not coming fast enough, the Public Service Commission must take a hard look at the recommendations of the committee, one of which was that by September 30 there will be a written report on the progress of the committee in improving its monitoring of Department staffing procedures.
One of the things to which the committee pointed that I noticed when I was on the Public Accounts Committee was a breakdown in the followup the Departments should do when
looking at the recommendations of the Auditor General and consulting with his office. Recommendations were made by the Auditor General, but I often felt unsure that there was any consultation with his office to make sure that the problem would actually be corrected.
I am concerned about the part of the report which states that the committee was astounded when one government agency informed the committee that one of the most serious obstacles to good management is the current staffing system. I think that is a startling comment to make. It is a comment that does not speak to effective management. If we have that kind of a problem, I think it must be resolved.
The committee states that the average time it took to staff a position ranged from 136 to 160 days and the committee considers that this is far too long. There is absolutely no question that this is far too long a time to staff positions in any department of the Public Service. In departments where there have been administrative reforms, such as the Department of Agriculture, there are instances of staffing time being cut to 44 days. This was done in full compliance with the rules of the commission. I think that points out that it can be done. We have to urge that there be an action plan for the entire Public Service so that we can reduce in every department the average amount of time required to staff a position while taking care to ensure that we maintain the employees' legal rights.
I also wanted to point out that there are some problems in the division of responsibilities between the Treasury Board Secretariat and the commission. There was an earlier recommendation from July 30, 1982 that the Public Accounts Committee review this division of responsibilities between the Treasury Board Secretariat and the commission, and that these agencies resolve problems involving a lack of clarity and overlapping responsibilities. In this case the committee found that the agencies had failed to implement the recommendation in so far as the commission's auditing mandate is concerned. That is what I referred to earlier in my speech when I mentioned that recommendations of the committee are not implemented. I can say without hesitation on behalf of every Member who has ever served on the Public Accounts Committee, no matter of which Party, that that is very annoying.
The Public Accounts Committee reviews at length the reports of the Auditor General. Its members put a layman's imprint on it. We look at the comprehensive audit from the point of view of our constituents and ask how they would feel about it if they had to make recommendations. We put a lot of time and effort into these Public Accounts Committee reports, and if a recommendation is made the committee members feel that the Department involved ought to put a real effort into making sure the recommendation is followed. In its tenth report, the committee said that it expected the agencies to resolve this problem without further delay and ensure that a clear-cut division of responsibilities is established, and I endorse that position.
The Auditor General took a look at the Public Service Commission's program for audit staffing and was concerned



June 27, 1986

about the methodology, the documentation, the supervision, the review of the audit work and the training of personnel. I know that quite an extensive effort is being made in the area of comprehensive auditing. The Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation is currently involved in a comprehensive study which is trying to find a better format for comprehensive auditing, a format which will not only help the Public Service but will also help Members of Parliament understand comprehensive auditing objectives, so they will be able to ensure that comprehensive audits result in products which are useful to everyone. That will involve reviews of this kind.
I endorse the recommendations of the committee. It has called for the commission to clarify its staffing audit mandate and report progress to the committee. It has called for the commission not only to report in 1986 but also to report again in 1987. As well, it has called for evidence of consultation with the Auditor General, the point to which I referred earlier being the very real importance of a consultation process with the Auditor General so that the commission will understand his directives.
I have had an opportunity to review the report and, in view of its importance, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell):
That the motion be amended by striking out all of the words after the word "That" and that the following be substituted therefor:
"the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be referred
back to the committee to reconsider recommendations concerning monitoring
of affirmative action programs."


Mr. Speaker:: The amendment appears to be in order. Debate is now upon the amendment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I guess the Government would like the committee to reconsider certain dispositions in its report. I took it that the Parliamentary Secretary was in accord with most of its recommendations but would like to have more information on the question of affirmative action. He wants the whole report to be sent back for the purpose of obtaining more information on the application and the workings of the affirmative action program.
I do not disagree with that. I think it is a good idea. However, we all know that the annual report of the commission was a good progress report. Indeed, if I had been give notice of this, I could debate it quite thoroughly. I do not intend to to do so. I think it is a valid point. We are all in favour of affirmative action, not as a matter of reporting only but as a matter of action and putting teeth into the legislation. If that is the purpose of the motion, I say put the question.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few points. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which produced this report. I am a little concerned that we are going through this process without really defining whether or not the effectiveness of the report will be carried out by the Public Service Commission.
Motions
Consequently, it becomes rather important to put before the House, and I suppose before the public, the real aims of the committee in providing the report. The aim of the committee was to ensure that fairness to employees of the Government prevailed at all times, that government policy be interpreted in a way which particularly protected employees, and that affirmative action be recognized and monitored effectively.
It is very interesting to look at what the Auditor General referred to as a contrived and curious system of personnel which has developed in the Government over many years. It is now in place in such a way that it is very easy for an individual to become lost in the system and never have his particular problem considered by the people in management positions. I suppose one of the Auditor General's concerns in covering this particular area was that over 90 per cent of the monitoring or control of staff was not within the Public Service Commission but was within Departments. Supposedly the Public Service Commission was the structure which monitored and ensured that all cases were handled adequately. Also the Auditor General indicated that the monitoring of departmental staffing activities was practically non-existent.
I suppose that could happen for many years without it becoming a major factor in the Government or in the image of the Government across the country. However, in the last couple of years there has been a real move to reduce the number of people working for the Government. Therefore, it has become very important that the monitoring system be in place and that we as parliamentarians be able to look thoroughly at what is going on, so that there are no unacceptable situations in the real world out there, let alone within the government structure. If we do not do that, we are apt to have various kinds of bureaucratic or even political patronage in the structure of the Public Service.
Consequently, it became obvious to the committee, in the process of making its recommendations, that there should be guidelines. Therefore, the committee made recommendations in various areas such as the need for monitoring of departmental staffing procedures, the need for the establishment of some kind of personnel management manual, and the need for some kind of monitoring of the affirmative action policy of the Government.
As I indicated earlier, the Auditor General made comments about the contrived and curious system of personnel. Therefore, the committee suggested strongly that the Public Service Commission should simplify its staffing procedures to a great extent and should ensure that the average amount of time required to fill a position was reduced considerably. In the process we required the Public Service Commission to reply to us by September 30, 1986. Consequently we hoped that it would make it possible for parliamentarians to feel a little more secure that the procedures in place were for the benefit of the Government as a whole and for Canada as a whole.

June 27, 1986
Motions
We may have gone many years without noticing the effect of the lack of cognizant procedures being in place. If you start to eliminate a lot of the process by which you choose which staff are not going to be in place, this becomes very important. The committee also made a number of recommendations about adjustment of the workforce, that is who should be kept on staff. Again, the danger of leaving too much discretion to managers, and in some cases too much discretion to some people who had influence in the Department, was a concern.
The committee made a number of recommendations which suggested that the Public Service Commission put in place guidelines for the Department so that the reverse order of merit, which theoretically was the base for people being laid off, be put in place so that we would have some idea of whether government policy was being implemented in the workforce adjustment. Just to make sure, we also suggested that there be quarterly reports regarding lay-offs within the Public Service, and that the commission report back again.
In each case, our aim goes back to the real definition of responsibility of the Public Service Commission and its need to know what is going on in all parts of the Public Service rather than just with the senior management positions. The latter seemed to be the emphasis of much of the commission's work in the past, leaving the rank and file clerical positions, which make up a large part of the Public Service, entirely the responsibility of the Department.
I always have a concern that a report is taken seriously and not put on the shelf to gather dust. This report is from the Public Accounts Committee and we specifically asked that it not be put on a shelf to gather dust.
I hope the Government will concur in the report. In the case of the referral, I hope that this procedure is not a procedure which will eliminate the possibility of effective use of this report in the improvement of the Public Service procedures. I hope that the motion before the House for the report to be referred back does not give the Public Service Commission an opportunity to ignore what is in the report because it is very important to the level of government efficiency in the filling of positions and in the establishment of a structure with which we can work for many years to come.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think the House has to give serious attention to the report of the committee. After all, if we find that there has not been sufficient monitoring activity by the commission, especially as it relates to the affirmative action program and the 98 per cent of staffing responsibilities that have been delegated to Departments, I say that we then expect the Government, and the House itself, to give serious attention to it.
We have concern that there are no guidelines in place for the application of the reverse order of merit in the system by the Public Service Commission with regard to lay-offs.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I think we have to take note of the evidence before the committee that the staffing process could be reduced to 44 days without prejudicing employees' rights.
Having said that, I do want to conclude my remarks by stressing the need to pay serious attention to these very significant recommendations.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
['Agreed.']
Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion, as amended, carry?


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



Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) gave notice earlier today that he wished to seek the consent of the House to move a motion.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King), that the second report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that as a committee we have been working on this subject for some time. We have had some difficulties in the last little while because of constraints on the committee's workload. We have asked for an extension of time to give us a chance to finish the report in the first part of the fall. This request has the unanimous agreement of the committee which has worked very well and effectively together.
June 27, 1986


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief remarks to make. First, I want to reiterate the words of the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper).
The committee has worked in close co-operation, and with unanimous consent we agreed earlier this week to ask the House for an extension of time to finish the report. The committee made considerable process in its study of the registration of paid lobbyists in Canada. The issue is important. Needless to say, initially the members of the committee were divided along Party lines. As time went by there was considerable progress and the committee acted in the spirit of reform which we established earlier this year. I believe that if the House gives us the additional time which we require we will produce a report which will demonstrate to all Members and the Canadian public that the spirit of reform has worked quite well.
I want to congratulate the Member for Peace River for the excellent way in which he has chaired our meetings. He did an excellent job. I think I speak for members of all political Parties when I say that he did a very good and non-partisan job, particularly at the time when our committee dealt with a controversy involving a Minister of the Crown. We had to interrupt our deliberations on the registration of paid lobbyists for two weeks to deal with that subject. It must have been a difficult time for the Chairman and the Clerk. In my view, they both did an excellent job. I would like to take this occasion to point that out to the House.
Unfortunately, one of the effects of that delay was that the schedule of the committee was delayed. The committee did examine the registration of lobbyists which now exists in the United States, but because of the delay which I just mentioned the preparation of our report has been delayed. I would like to echo the sentiments of the Chairman and ask Members on all sides of the House to concur in this report and give the committee the additional time it requires. I think the whole House will be pleased with the results which I am confident we will achieve.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Shall the motion carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 560, 573, 582 and 586.


Mr. Parry: 1.	Has the government offered any concrete benefits to the Town of inuvik to compensate for the removal of some 25 per cent of its economic base by the closure of the Canadian Forces station?
2.	Does the government plan to demand a market price for the transfer of base facilities to Arctic College and, if so, in what manner will that price be determined?


Philip Derek Lewis: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence, Employment and Immigration and Public Works as follows:
1.	CFS Inuvik was added to the mandate of the Interdepartmental Committee that was established to deal with the CADIN/Pinetree closures. The goal of the Interdepartmental Committee is to provide maximum assistance to the affected employees and communities using existing federal programs. The focus of activities is at the local level, utilizing existing programs and sources such as the Relocation and Mobility Assistance Program and the Industrial Adjustment Services (IAS) provided by Employment and Immigration Canada.
On June 26, 1985, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission regional office in Alberta/N.W.T. signed an agreement establishing the Canadian Forces station Inuvik closure Industrial Adjustment Committee. The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission provided $20,000 to assist the Committee in this task. Also, the complement of the Canadian Jobs Strategy programs is now and will continue to be available to the community of Inuvik upon closure of the Canadian Forces station this December.
2.	Negotiations are currently under way with the Government of the Northwest Territories to dispose of CFS Inuvik at market value, for reuse by Arctic College. Current Government policy is to dispose of surplus property at market value, based upon a real estate appraisal which takes into account market conditions in the area, the attributes of the property and land tenure. In this case, an independent fee appraiser has been hired to complete the appraisal of Canadian Forces Station Inuvik.


Mr. Gauthier: 1.	To the knowledge of the Government, what is the most recent information available on the percentage of employees covered by pension plans in the private sector who belong to (a) non-contributory plans in which contributions for retirement benefits are provided entirely by employers (b) plans in which employers Finance more than 50 per cent of required employer and employee contributions?
2.	What is the average percentage of employers and employee contributions and payments made for retirement benefits in the private sector that is currently financed by employers?

June 27, 1986
Order Paper Questions
3.	Since 1976, by year, what was the percentage of employer-employee contributions and payments for public Service Superannuation Act benefits and their indexing that were financed by the Government as the employer?


Philip Derek Lewis: I am informed by the Department of Insurance and the Treasury Board Secretariat as follows:
1.	(a) Fifty-four per cent of pension plan members in the private sector are covered by non-contributory pension plans. There were 7,350 non-contributory private sector pension plans covering 1,378,258 members as at January 1, 1984. This is the latest date for which the information exists.
(b) No data available for plans in which employers finance more than 50 per cent of required employee and employer contributions.
2.	Approximately 75 per cent of total annual contributions to private sector pension plans are made by employers.
Source of Information: Parts 1 & 2 Statistics Canada data bank used for publication Pension Plans in Canada.
3.	The percentage of employer-employee contributions and payments for Public Service Superannuation Act benefits and their indexing that were financed by the Government as the employer.
Year	Per cent of total expenditures
1975-76	64.6
1976-77	61.7
1977-78	60.4
1978-79	61.9
1979-80	59.9
1980-81	61.6
1981-82	66.6
1982-83	61.7
1983-84	61.6
1984-85	62.3


Mr. Gauthier: 1.	As of March 31, 1985, what was the estimated balance of the (a) Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA) (6) Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA) (c) Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account (RCMPSA) (d) Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account (SRBA)?
2.	As of March 31 (a) 1990 (4) 1995 (c) 2000 (d) 2010 (e) 2020, on the basis of existing actuarial assumptions, what is the the estimated balance projected for the (i) CFSA (if) PSSA (iii) RCMPSA (iv) (SRBA)?
3.	What was the (a) total amount of the disability, survivor and retirement pensions that have been paid from the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA), the Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account (RCMPSA) together with the amount of the special payments that have been made form the Consolidated revenue Fund for the indexing of these payments (4) total amount of interest earned by the CFSA, the PSSA, the RCMPSA, and the SRB Account for each fiscal year since the SRBA has been in effect?
4.	Did annual Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account (RCMPSA) disability, survivor and retirement pension payments ever exceed annual RCMPSA interest earnings in the past and, if so, in which years did this occur?
5.	Is it expected that annual RCMPSA disability, survivor and retirement pension payments will exceed annual RCMPSA interest earnings (a) in the past (i) 5 (ii) 10 (iii) 20 (iv) 30 (v) 40 (vi) 50 years (4) ever and, if so, what is the year in which it is projected that this will first occur?
6.	Did annual RCMPSA disability, survivor and retirement pension payments plus the special payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) for the indexing of these RCMPSA payments ever exceed the combined annual interest earnings of the RCMPSA and the SRB Account with respect to RCMPSA participants in the past and, if so, in which years did this occur?
7.	Is it expected that the annual RCMPSA disability, survivor and retirement pension payments plus the annual special payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) to fully index these RCMPSA payments will exceed the combined annual interest earnings of the RCMPSA and the SRB Account with respect to RCMPSA participants (a) in the next (i) 5 (ii) 10 (iii) 20 (iv) 30 (v) 40 (vi) 50 years (4) ever and, if so, what is the year in which it is projected that this will first occur?
8.	Would the answers to parts 2 and 4 be different and, if so, how would they differ, if the RCMP's Act were amended to provide that RCMPSA disability, survivor and retirement pension payments made on and after January 1, 1986 be recalculated and determined on the basis of a RCMPSA contributor's best consecutive three-year average annual salary?
9.	Did annual Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA) disability, survivor and retirement pension payments ever exceed annual CFSA interest earnings in the past and, if so, in which years did this occur?
10.	Is it expected that annual CFSA disability, survivor and retirement pension payments will exceed annual CFSA interest earnings (a) in the next (i) 5 (ii) 10 (iii) 20 (iv) 30 (v) 40 (vi) 50 years (4) ever and, if so, what is the year in which it is projected that this will first occur?
11.	Did annual CFSA disability, survivor and retirement pension payments plus the special payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) for the indexing of these CFSA payments ever exceed the combined annual interest earnings of the CFSA and the SRB Account with respect to CFSA participants in the past and, if so, in which years did this occur?
12.	Is it expected that the annual CFSA disability, survivor and retirement pension payments plus the annual special payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) to fully index these CFSA payments will exceed the combined annual interest earnings of the CFSA and the SRB Account with respect to CFSA participants (a) in the next (i) 5 (ii) 10 (iii) 20 (iv) 30 (v) 40 (vi) 50 years (4) ever and, if so, what is the year in which it is projected that this will first occur?
13.	Would the answers to parts 2 and 4 be different and, if so, how would they differ, if the CFS Act were amended to provide that CFSA disability, survivor and retirement pension payments made on and after January 1, 1986 be recalculated and determined on the basis of a CFSA contributor's best consecutive three-year average annual salary?
14.	Did annual Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA) disability, survivor and retirement pension payments ever exceed annual PSSA interest earnings in the past and, if so, in which years did this occur?
15.	Is it expected that annual PSSA disability, survivor and retirement pension payments will exceed annual PSSA interest earnings (a) in the next (i) 5 (ii) 10 (iii) 20 (iv) 30 (v) 40 (vi) 50 years (4) ever and, if so, what is the year in which it is projected that this will first occur?
16.	Did annual PSSA disability, survivor and retirement pension payments plus the special payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) for the indexing of these PSSA payments ever exceed the combined annual interest earnings of the PSSA and the SRB Account with respect to PSSA participants in the past and, if so, in which years did this occur?
17.	Is it expected that the annual PSSA disability, survivor and retirement pension payments plus the annual special payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) to fully index these PSSA payments will exceed the combined annual interest earnings of the PSSA and the SRB Account with respect to PSSA participants (a) in the next (i) 5 (ii) 10 (iii) 20 (iv) 30 (v) 40 (vi) 50 years (4) ever and, if so, what is the year in which it is projected that this will first occur?
18.	Would the answers to parts 2 and 4 be different and, if so, how would they differ, if the PSS Act were amended to provide that PSSA disability, survivor and retirement pension payments made on and after January 1, 1986 be recalculated and determined on the basis of a PSSA contributor's best consecutive three-year average annual salary?
June 27, 1986


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: 1. Estimated Account Balance at March 31, 1985 (a) Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA)-$13,352 million; (b) Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA)- $19,919 million; (c) Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account (RCMPSA)-$1,828 million; (d) Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account (SRBA)-$2,417 million.
3. (a) Pensions Paid CFSA PSSA	RCMPSA ($000,000's)	Charges to CRF for Indexing	Total1970-71	$ 82	$ 95	$ 1	0	$ 1781971-72	97	106	2	0	2051972-73	115	122	2	0	2391973-74	129	139	2	10	2801974-75	147	162	3	52	3641975-76	164	188	4	82	4381976-77	218	181	5	115	5191977-78	199	255	7	152	6131978-79	220	297	9	190	7161979-80	242	351	11	245	8491980-81	267	404	13	301	9851981-82	291	460	16	395	1,1621982-83	315	516	19	500	1,3501983-84	336	568	21	578	1,5031984-85	363	637	24	646	1,6703. (b) Interest Earned CFSA PSSA 1970-71 S 182 S 198	RCMPSA ($000,000's) $ 9	SRBA $ .2	Total $ 389.:1971-72	206	229	12	.5	447.11972-73	240	272	14	1	5271973-74	307	310	18	2	6371974-75	349	364	23	4	7401975-76	412	447	29	8	8961976-77	468	524	36	13	1,0411977-78	530	616	45	21	1,2121978-79	593	715	54	37	1,3991979-80	652	823	64	59	1,5981980-81	751	979	77	94	1,9011981-82	880	1,192	97	158	2,3271982-83	1,061	1,525	124	180	2,8901983-84	1,192	1,742	148	185	3,2671984-85	1,328	1,971	176	260	3,7354.	No. 6. No. 9. No. 11. No. 14. No. 16. No.
Order Paper Questions
Questions 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 18, relate to longterm forecasts based on the present accounting system for public service pension plans. Given the intention to reform that system to conform with private sector practices, as assounced by the President of the Treasury Board in April, 1985, it would not be appropriate to provide such forecasts.


Mr. McKinnon: What is the projected date for completion and tabling of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act annual report for the fiscal year 1985-86?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: The projected date for completion of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act Annual Report for the fiscal year 1985-86 is March, 1987. It is expected that the report will be tabled shortly thereafter.
Reports are prepared by the Personnel Policy Branch of the Treasury Board Secretariat based on information compiled by the House of Commons District Services Office of Supply and Services in the case of the House of Commons and the Senate Finance Directorate in the case of the Senate. Reports are tabled in the House by the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if the additional information to Question No. 552 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 552 supplementary be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	(a) As of August 31, 1984, by province, which law firms handled Federal Business Development Bank work (b) which firms are currently handling this work and on what date were they contracted (c) to date, what amount have these firms received?
2.	What criteria were used for the selection of the firms and who was consulted on their appointments?
3.	Were three law firms in North Vancouver, British Columbia doing FDBD work before the last election subsequently replaced by the firm of Stein and Lakes and, if so, for what reason?

June 27, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
4.	To the knowledge of the government, is Mr. John Lakes Jr. a member of the firm Stein and Lakes and has he played an active role in the Progressive Conservative Party in British Columbia?
Return tabled.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I hate to be a spoil sport on the last sitting day before our adjournment. However, I must ask the Parliamentary Secretary if and when the Government intends to reply to Question No. 313 standing in my name which I put on the Order Paper on March 28, 1985. I recognize that that question was put on the Order Paper prior to our new rules, which means that the Government may require slightly longer than 45 days to respond. However, I am sure that you, Sir, would recognize that a year and a half is much longer than 45 days. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he would now table this reply because I feel it is important.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to advise the Member that the Thirty-second Parliament answered 68.9 per cent of the questions asked. The Thirty-third Parliament has answered 86.6 per cent of the questions asked. That is our record. I will give this matter due attention and we will put all the troops to work on it over the summer.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I cannot miss this occasion. After a year and a half the Parliamentary Secretary has answered one of my questions today. I thank him very much.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 12, 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 in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume the comments which I began 13 days ago in the House which were so rudely interrupted when I had barely begun to examine this Bill. I am pleased that the Government of Canada has such confidence in Bill C-75 and stands so proudly behind it that it has chosen, in its wisdom, to bring it before the House two hours and fifty-six minutes before the House rises for the summer recess.
If one were to listen to the Minister of Transport of Canada (Mr. Mazankowski), his Parliamentary Secretary and Conservative members of the Transport Committee serving in the Government of Canada, one would be led to believe by the power of their rhetoric that Bill C-75 is a sound Bill based on principles of fairness and equity which they are proud to stand
behind. After listening to such comments one cannot help but wonder why, in the dying hours of the last day of the last week of the last month of this Parliament of Canada, the Government would bring forward this Bill which it says it is so proud to stand behind.
The tragedy of Bill C-75 is that it is fundamentally a sound Bill. The Canada Shipping Act has not been updated for decades. The Government wisely decided to update Bill C-75 to make it more relevant to the eighties. That decision was welcomed by everyone in the country who has any interest in Canada's shipping industry. It was welcomed because it made sense.
The public will wonder what the objection is to Bill C-75 as it has been presented to this Parliament. The objection is that above and beyond renewing and updating regulations pertaining to shipping the Government gave the Minister of Transport a brand new authority which has never before been seen in the history of the Shipping Act. That authority is contained in Clause 4. It is the equivalent of giving the Minister a gun and some ammunition without knowing who the Minister intends to shoot.
Clause 4 gives the Minister the power to impose charges or duties on shipping ranging from canoes to freighters which ply the Great Lakes. Such charges have heretofore never existed. Some members of the public are saying that it is not so unreasonable to apply charges for services provided by the Government of Canada. They do not appreciate that the authority which is being requested is a blank cheque. The Minister is asking Parliament to give him the authority to apply, at his whim, user charges to people in the shipping industry. However, in advance of being given this authority he will not tell us how much is to be raised, who the charges are to be applied to or what impact those charges will have on all these facets of Canada's shipping industry. He is asking for a blank cheque. He is asking Parliament to be deaf, dumb and blind, nothing more than a rubber stamp for the Minister of Transport and the Government. Those who have observed this Parliament with any degree of objectivity will know that the last thing it is-and it may be a lot of things, some good, some bad-is a rubber stamp for a Minister of the Crown.
Clause 4 of the Bill places an altogether festering sore on what otherwise would be a fairly sound Bill. That is the main objection I have to it. There is a secondary objection.


Mr. Skelly:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, can I get clarification from the Chair? Is the Hon. Member asking us to believe that this Parliament is acting just like the last Parliament under a Liberal Government with respect to being a rubber stamp?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair must say that this is not point of order.
June 27, 1986


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the gentleman that because of the brevity of my remarks I appreciated that opportunity to catch my breath and collect my thoughts.


An Hon. Member:: You don't have any to collect.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I always attempt to respond to well-intentioned and intelligent questions, therefore I shall carry on with my speech.
The other fault with this Bill is what it does not contain. Members will recall, as will all Canadians, that in February of 1982 a great marine disaster struck this country some 200 miles off the shores of Newfoundland when the oil drigging rig Ocean Ranger went down and every man aboard was lost. The Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland responded to that disaster by appointing a royal commission of inquiry, headed by Newfoundland Supreme Court Justice Alex Hickman. That was done to ensure that we as parliamentarians, here and in Newfoundland, had done everything possible to prevent a recurrence of the tragic loss of life in that disaster. The royal commission functioned for nearly three years. It spent some $15 million of taxpayers' money. It travelled to nearly every part of the globe deemed appropriate. It heard from every witness with expert qualifications who could contribute something to the hearings.
After all those years of study, after countless thousands of hours of testimony, the most exhaustive study of its kind ever attempted in Canada, one of the major recommendations of that royal commission was that oil rigs operating off Canada's shores, primarily on the East Coast, but also on the West Coast if and when that occurs, should come under the jurisdiction of the Canada Shipping Act. There were other recommendations dealing with search and rescue and training, many of which have been implemented. I acknowledge that. However, the major recommendation has been blatantly ignored. It is not in the Bill. Therefore, it is not only a faulty document for what is contained within it, being Clause 4, a heretofore unheard of taxing power, but it is also insufficient because of what is not contained in it.
The real tragedy is that that major recommendation was not included, not because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall), who is in the House today, opposes the recommendation or does not see the wisdom of it. The tragedy is not because the Minister of Transport does not agree with the wisdom of the recommendation of the royal commission, because he does. The tragedy is not because Members of Parliament, who made recommendations to the Government on changes to the Bill, did not say that rigs should be included under the Canada Shipping Act, because we did. The tragedy is that the Conservative majority, knowing better, feeling as strongly as I do about this question, nevertheless voted to ignore the recommendation because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) currently has jurisdiction over oil rigs. There is this empire-building mentality around this place which says that a Minister with jurisdiction will not give to another Minister, in this case the
Royal Assent
Minister of Transport, his rightful responsibility because that might affect the size, shape and importance of her empire. That is the real tragedy. The House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada, and the Ministry were all unable to rise above this self-seeking empire-building mentality and accept quietly, and may I say humbly, the recommendation of those people who spent years of their lives and a great deal of the taxpayers' money coming to this conclusion.
Notwithstanding the compelling logic of accepting a recommendation which is indisputable in its clear and simple logic, the Government did not include rigs under the jurisdiction of the Canada Shipping Act and continues to treat them as the orphan of the shipping industry, off in limbo under the jurisdiction of a Minister and Department officials who know as much about ships and rigs as I know about green cheese on the moon. It occurred purely and simply because of a system which has been unable to respond to the needs of people working at sea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills, without amendment:
Bill C-88, an Act to authorize the acquisition of Marine Atlantic Inc. and to provide for other matters in relation thereto;
Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977;
Bill C- 111, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff and to amend An Act to amend the Customs Tariff;
Bill C-112, an Act to amend the Energy Administration Act and provide for certain matters in relation thereto;
Bill C-116, an Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Federal Court Act;
Bill C-117, an Act to facilitate financial arrangements between farmers and their creditors;
Bill C-128, an Act to amend the Judges Act and other Acts in relation to judicial matters;
Bill C-90, an Act respecting pension plans organized and administered for the benefit of persons employed in connection with certain federal works, undertakings and businesses;


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, with respect I would like to know whether the Senate, in transmitting the information you
14988

June 27, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
just read to the House, had attached any comments relating to one of these Bills, and if so, could we perhaps hear these comments?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: To the Chair's knowledge, there were no comments relating to these Bills.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Artie Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader is attempting to get me to answer a phone call. I do not know why. I am just trying to continue comments I started some two weeks ago and have only begun to make the case to Members opposite, who I know are always open to sincere suggestions being made by Members on this side of the House as to how they can improve their standing with the people in Canada.
I touched very briefly on the two major flaws in Bill C-75. That is Clause 4, which gives the Minister an enabling power which heretofore has never existed, and the failure on the part of the Government to include rigs as ships and put them under the jurisdiction of the Canada Shipping Act.
Now, having very briefly just alerted Members who are paying such close attention to my remarks, the main subject areas of my debate on this Bill will be to examine in more detail why Clause 4 is such a problem clause for the Government and, more important, for those people who will be affected by it.
There may be those Canadians who are listening, two or three who watch the parliamentary channel, who are wondering whether or not this notion that I have that Clause 4 is such a Draconian measure is something that I have dreamed up. They may be wondering whether I am slightly paranoid in the dying hours of Parliament. They may be wondering whether I am being negative for the sake of being negative or opposing for the sake of opposition.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Canadians will not know, but parliamentarians will know, that before this Bill ever reached this Chamber it was the subject of exhaustive study by a legislative committee, and as part of studying the legislation the legislative committee, of which I was a member,
among other members, invited hundreds of organizations, which would be impacted by this legislation, to comment on it.
Almost without exception, in fact I cannot think of an exception, every single witness who came, be it the potato farmers in P.E.I,; be it the fishermen in Newfoundland, be it the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association based in Ottawa, be it the Quebec Metal Mining Association based in Montreal, be it the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia based in Vancouver, every single organization which came, said the Bill is not bad, but Clause 4 has to go.
I think I should remind Members of who some of the witnesses who came before the standing committee were and what they had to say. Before I do that, I cannot help but note this: does it not signify something to Members of Parliament when you can have a fisherman in Cape St. George sitting on a stage on top of his lobster pots staring off into the sunset waiting to go out and pull his pots saying the same thing about Clause 4 as the fellow who sits on the twentieth floor of a steel, glass and concrete tower in the City of Montreal? Both gentlemen, the fellow on his lobster pot and the fellow on the twentieth floor of the corporate boardroom of a large Canadian shipping company, are saying the same thing, that it is a bad Bill with Clause 4. Is it not a strange day in Canada when you can have the farmer, as represented by the National Farmers Union, out tilling the soil, doing battle with grasshoppers, trying to turn a dollar in a desperate year, saying the same thing about this Bill as the gentleman who looks out across Vancouver harbour and occupies the boardrooms of the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia? Is that not mind boggling that that prairie farmer and that corporate executive in the forest industry are saying the same thing about this Bill?
It is a strange day when one can contemplate that a potato farmer in P.E.I., who is worried about the impact of Clause 4, who raises potatoes for 2 cents a pound less than he is able to sell them for, and therefore, is not able to bear the brunt of more user charges, he is saying the same thing about this Bill as the gentlemen who occupy the office that used to be occupied by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), that is the people who occupy the ivory towers of the iron ore mining business of this country. They and the potato farmer in P.E.I. are saying the same thing, that it is an unreasonable Bill.
I think that in itself should alert parliamentarians that we are not talking about a special interest group per se that is opposed to this Bill; we are talking about every primary producer in Canada who has a need for transportation services, seeing this Bill as an unreasonable, unfair, unresponsive and unrepresentative attack on their industry.
The history of the United States was profoundly changed because of this kind of attitude. Indeed, Members will recall the historic significance of the Boston Tea Party when people decided that the notion of taxation without representation or consultation was simply unacceptable and they tossed the tea
June 27, 1986

over into the harbour. We know that a revolution followed shortly after the action taken by the American colonies.
I would suggest to the Government that the fact that it has earned a 211-seat majority at the election is no reason to treat Canada as a collection of colonies that shall be dictated to from on high by those who occupy the ivory towers of Ottawa. We ought to pay close attention to what the primary producers out there in the land are saying about this Bill.
Who are some of these primary producers that I am talking about? The Council of Boating Organizations of Canada says that "Clause 4 departs from the principle of cost recovery by Government, that principle being based on the theory of user payment. It is the council's contention that Parliament should not delegate a taxing power to the Canadian Coast Guard". Who are they? They represent tens of thousands of private non-commercial individuals who operate pleasure craft for the enjoyment of themselves and their families.
The Great Lakes Waterways Development Association says about Clause 4, "The clause as it stands is too broad in scope, and as a result has the potential of causing major disruption to the lake shipping industry, and shippers are left with no assurance that it will achieve the announced objective of deficit reduction".
Thirteen days ago we began the debate on this Bill and at that time the Parliamentary Secretary stood in his place and referred to the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association as an organization that supported Clause 4. The Parliamentary Secretary no doubt is by now aware that the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association a day after we began the debate 13 days ago, having heard of the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks, sent a telex to every single Member of this Elouse saying that the Parliamentary Secretary is wrong, "We do not endorse Clause 4. We are opposed to it, and he has taken our comments out of context".
More to the point, Canada Steamship Lines, whom the Parliamentary Secretary also indicated was supportive of the Bill, also sent a telex to every single Member of Parliament, all 282 of us, and to Members of the Senate, saying that, "To the extent that the Parliamentary Secretary has suggested that our company is supportive of this Bill, we are not supportive of the Bill, we see it as a Draconian measure, an unrepresentative measure, one that we would like to see defeated".
I just take a moment to set the record straight, because I know that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he has the opportunity to have the floor again, would do so himself. Despite being given the burdensome responsibility of piloting this flawed and festering piece of legislation through the House, in the final analysis the Hon. Member is an honourable gentleman. Since I expect to speak for a few more minutes, I thought I would set the record straight for him. I know he appreciates it.
Canada Shipping Act
The St. Lawrence Shipowners' Association said about this Bill: "We do not agree that we should give the Government a blank cheque which would allow it to set up a fee system about which we know nothing at the present time."


Mr. Crosby:: You want us to continue all of the subsidization-


Brian Vincent Tobin: I hope I do not take the Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) out of context, but he is basically saying that he considers the shipping industry that is important to the vitality of the City of Montreal as people who want subsidies forever. He is saying that the shipping industry, which attended the Montreal Economic Summit, that attended the Sept lies Economic Summit, is a parasitic bunch of people. I do not believe that Conservative cabinet Ministers nor Conservative Members from Quebec would agree that the shipping industry in the Province of Quebec is composed of nothing but parasites on the Treasury of Canada.


Howard Edward Crosby: Do not display your ignorance.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I reject such disparaging remarks about the Province of Quebec by the Conservative Member in the presence of his own colleagues who try to represent their province. Is it any wonder that Quebec Members have no clout in Cabinet and are unable to stop Clause 4, which will so negatively impact the St. Lawrence Seaway and the City of Montreal? One of their own colleagues from Halifax is describing the Quebec industry as nothing but a bunch of parasites. I hope the people of Quebec are not made aware of this kind of scurrilous accusation being made against them.


Howard Edward Crosby: Name one container ship owned in Quebec.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Quite frankly, I believe that Quebec has a role to play in this country and we should not underestimate the value and the importance of the St. Lawrence Seaway, not only to the Port of Montreal but to all regions of the country. Such dog in the manger attitude must simply come to an end.
Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was talking about the St. Lawrence Shipowners' Association who the Member for Halifax West believes are parasites. I do not consider them as parasites. I do not think that the fishermen who are opposed to this Bill are parasites. I do not believe that the potato farmers who are opposed to this Bill are parasites, nor the National Farmers' Union, nor the Council of Forest Industries in British Columbia who are opposed to this Bill. It is simple to put such a tag on people who would attempt to tell Parliament that it has moved without due consultation. Those groups are not parasitic at all. They have done their homework, which is more than can be said for the Government that has introduced this Bill.
The St. Lawrence Shipowners' Association said: "We do not agree that we should give the Government a blank cheque."

June 27, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
The Council of Forest Industries in British Columbia represents the number one industry in that province. That industry has just been devastated by the 35 per cent tariff imposed on cedar shakes and shingles. That industry is now on bended knee, waiting for the second blow as a result of the unanimous decision yesterday by the U.S. International Trade Commission that there is injury to the American industry as a result of Canadian softwood lumber exports into the United States. That industry is on bended knee, waiting for the sword to slice out its life blood.
That industry said about this Bill and this clause: "We urge the committee to consider the competitive position of exports and the port position. We can recover costs but we warn, we can also be out of business."
That is what the Council of Forest Industries in British Columbia is saying about this Draconian measure.
Earlier, I asked the House to imagine the lobster man on the bill of Cape St. George, sitting on his lobster pots; to imagine the gentleman sitting in the ivory tower of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, to imagine the gentleman overlooking Vancouver Island, representing the forest industry of British Columbia; and to imagine the farmers, all of whom are saying the same thing about this Bill. Yet even the Seafarers' International Union, along with management-employer and employee-are saying the same thing about this Bill. The Government has managed to get nearly every primary producer in Canada, along with management and union, to sing from the same song-book in opposing this Bill. I suggest it is a major accomplishment that everyone opposes the Bill and no one supports it.
The Seafarers' International Union says: "We cannot have full cost recovery if our Canadian marine industry is to survive. Canada and the U.S. are the only marine countries in the world that do not, in some form or another, subsidize the marine industry." It is thought-provoking to know that Canada and the United States do not, in some form or another, subsidize their marine industries. Despite the difficulty in competing with the rest of the world when other countries provide subsidies, the Government will turn around and impose an additional cost on our industry.
The Seafarers' International Union goes on to say: "Of course we will lose jobs. In certain cargoes, the lake companies will just not be able to compete. They will either go out of business or go under foreign flag and the jobs will be lost to Canada. Therefore, we will not have these cargoes. This Bill is very detrimental to our business." These workers are concerned with the movement of freight on the St. Lawrence Seaway.
The Government of Canada set up a five-member subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Transport to initiate a study into the conditions, viability and future of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Government decided to ask for a subcommittee to study the Seaway because it discovered that the Seaway traffic is decreasing every year and is losing traffic
to the Mississippi River system, which is causing a transfer of jobs from Canada. Furthermore, the international reputation of the St. Lawrence Seaway system has suffered because canal walls have collapsed and ships have been locked in due to ice. Therefore, the Government set up this subcommittee to study the St. Lawrence Seaway.
What is incredible, however, is that at the same time that the Government is setting up a subcommittee to discover why the Seaway is in such difficulty and what can be done to make it more economical, the Government introduces Clause 4 of Bill C-75, which every witnesses has said will contribute more to the destruction of the vitality of the Seaway than anything else.
This subcommittee had its first meeting in Thunder Bay only yesterday, two weeks since the Bill was introduced. During the course of those hearings it heard from Tony Kaplanis, Thunder Bay co-ordinator of the Western Grain Transportation Agency; Jack Masters of Thunder Bay; Jim Foulds, MPP; Doug Scott of the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Doherty of N.M. Patterson & Sons Ltd.; Jerry Cook of the Thunder Bay Harbour Commission, and others.
The vast majority of witnesses who appeared even yesterday indicated that their overwhelming concern was Clause 4 of Bill C-75. They were telling this subcommittee which the Government set up to determine how to prevent a continued erosion of Seaway traffic, that the first step it should take is to stop Bill C-75 and Clause 4 which is now before Parliament from receiving approval at third reading.
Although such representation was made only yesterday in Thunder Bay, the Government is prepared to approve third reading of this Bill. I must note that the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) was indeed at the conference as well. I am told that he joined with all those who opposed Clause 4 of Bill C-75. It seems to me that when the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, sometimes it is better to go back to the drawing-boards to do one's homework. This is clearly an illustration of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing at all. On the one hand, the Minister of Transport spends tens of thousands of taxpayers' dollars to send Members of Parliament around the country to investigate the current condition of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Government indicates it is concerned, that it wants to restore the economic viability of that Seaway, but, on the other hand, proceeds this afternoon with a Bill which will cut the legs out from underneath the St. Lawrence Seaway, and Hon. Members opposite are prepared to pass it, prepared to sit silently on their hands and let it go through. Seldom has a more confusing Act been seen around this place.
Yesterday, in the Port of Thunder Bay hearings that took place with the subcommittee on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway, the Thunder Bay Harbour Commission
June 27, 1986

stated that the Seaway should be recognized as an international marine gateway to Canada, in competition and on an equal basing with Canada's other coasts and, therefore, that all charges related to the operation of the Seaway be considered together and from a global perspective, with the objective that federal charges be uniform in application from port to port and coast to coast, whether imposed by federal legislation, such as the proposed Clause 4 of Bill C-75, or initiated by a Crown corporation, such as tolls imposed by the Seaway Authority.
Of course, the brief makes it clear that simply introducing Clause 4 in Bill C-75 and giving it passage without prior consultation cannot ensure that no negative impact will befall our Great Lake shippers and, indeed, those people who use the Port of Thunder Bay.
The brief goes on to state that the Seaway system is in a crisis situation and may not survive, and that government-imposed and regulated charges now make it the most expensive waterway in North America, that is, those charges in place even before the passage of Bill C-75 and Clause 4. The future charges envisioned by planned programs of cost recovery may cause the demise of the St. Lawrence Seaway, indeed, by extrapolation, the demise of the current position of the Port of Montreal, as well. That is why one of the overwhelming preoccupations at the Montreal Economic Summit that was held last week, indeed, at the shipbuilders' the meeting that was held at Sept lies, was Bill C-75 and the negative impacts of Clause 4 on the shipping industry.
I understand, as well, that yesterday the company, N.N. Patterson and Son, Limited, also made a submission to the subcommittee on the St. Lawrence Seaway, and it went on to state, "Of particular concern to us in this unhealthy circle of demise of the Seaway is Clause 4 of Bill C-75, enabling legislation for Coast Guard recovery, the implementation of which has not only potentially disastrous consequences for Great Lake seaway marine transportation but also for our home port of Thunder Bay, which is additionally of special concern to us.
While others may have sounded a middle-ground position on the proposed legislation, we want to go on record as being categorically opposed to Coast Guard user fees, and we strongly urge the Government to remove Clause 4 at the present time. In our view, it is not at all a question of obligation, any more than it is a matter of fairness". Let Elon. Members roll that word, "fairness" around in their minds and try to relate to it once again. They have been here too long, I submit. They have forgotten that basic concept of fairness. The company went on to state, "not only is it a matter of fairness but also a situation where additional charges in the face of our already burdensome and constantly rising cost infrastructure have pushed us to the limit of our competitive margin. In fact, there are many in our industry who believe we have already crossed the precarious threshold".
That is what those people who are out there employing Canadians, who are the engine of growth that makes this country go, who generate those new jobs about which the
Canada Shipping Act
Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) likes to speak, what those in the private sector, free enterprise, innovators, risk-takers, are saying about this legislation. That is what those people who are not Crown corporations, who are not authorities, who are not associations, but, rather, individuals who are prepared to go out and compete in a fair environment, are saying about this legislation, that it will push them over the edge and destroy an industry that is currently existing at a precarious balance. Still, Hon. Members opposite, the moment I sit down, will be happy to see this Bill pass Parliament with all of the consequent negative implications for Candian citizens, primary producers and, indeed, shippers.
Algoma Steel, Stelco and Dofasco also went on record before the committee on Bill C-75 to oppose Clause 4. The Canadian Harbour Commission pointed out that there is great potential for discrimination in such open-ended legislation as that proposed in the new Clause 4 against Canadian ports. The International Association of Great Lakes Ports indicates it is opposed to Clause 4. It states that charges imposed as a result of Clause 4 will cause deterioration in an already risky sitution.
It is absolutely amazing. It must dumbfound Canadians to see that I can stand here and literally quote every single facet of the marine industry, every single potential user group, every single primary producer in Canada, to know that all of these people have come to the Government of Canada, have made their case and, notwithstanding the opinions that have been put forward, Bill C-75 is still before the House. It makes Canadians just a little bit suspicious, just a little bit reluctant to swallow, hook, line and sinker, the "brand-new day for Canada" vision that the Prime Minister held out for all of us during the summer of 1984. It makes Canadians doubt, just a little bit, that promise of a new era of consultation and cooperation with the people of Canada. It makes one just a little bit, only slightly, cynical about some of the pronouncements of the Prime Minister with respect to the nature of the administration he would lead in this country.
There are some Hon. Members from Quebec on the Government side of the House indeed, some Ministers, who attended the Montreal Economic Summit only last week, and they will not be surprised to know that the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, when it appeared before our committee, was not stating anything different than it was stating last week at the Economic Summit. It was stating, "Dump Clause 4. If it cannot be dumped, let us not have Bill C-75". Nevertheless, at the time it appeared before our committee-


Mr. Forrestall:: Do you intend to let us have it today? Why don't you tell us that?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Tell you what, my friend?


J. Michael Forrestall: Do you intend to let us have it today or are you going to speak until five o'clock?


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Montreal Chamber of Commerce was stating that in the case of Section 4 of Bill C-75, there has

June 27, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
been no prior consultation with the shipping community or the business community in order to assess the economic and other impacts of the Bill. It is surprising that on every other aspect of Bill C-75, there has been extensive consultation with industry, but on Section 4, there has been no consultation whatsoever.
This is the brand new day the Prime Minister promised all of Canada. This is the brand new era. This is the day of consultation when we shall put an end to confrontation. Well, the Prime Minister was half right. There is no confrontation on Clause 4 because he did not tell anyone about it. He tried to sneak it in through the back door. He tried to slip it in at the last minute, have it passed and have people find out about it later. So, he is right. There is no confrontation because he simply does not tell people everything they should know and everything they want to know. It is like sneaking up behind a fellow with a baseball bat and hitting him over the head. It is a way of avoiding picking a fight. One just slugs him when he does not see it coming. That way one can never lay the claim that one did not consult him before one hit him. In fact, he will never know what hit him.
That is what the Government of Canada is attempting to do to the shipping industry of this country. That is what it is attempting to do to the Montreal Board of Trade and to the fishermen on Cape St. George who are sitting on their pots pondering the horizon and their futures in the face of this regressive legislation. That is what it is attempting to do to the forestry workers overlooking the shores of Vancouver harbour and to the farmers who are sitting on the Prairies battling the grasshoppers. That is what the Government is doing. It is sneaking up behind these people with a two-by-four. When their backs are turned, a mighty arc of the arm will come down crushing forever their hopes of remaining economically viable.
The Prime Minister should recall his own words. Several times he has stood in his place in this House and said: "You can blind-side me once, but don't try it a second time". I am here to advise the Prime Minister that he can attempt to blind-side the people of Canada once, but it will not work a second time. The Government should not expect to be surrounded by a swarm of applauding hands that applaud at every utterance the Prime Minister makes in the House of Commons when this type of legislation, notwithstanding the concerns of Canadians, is still before the House. The Prime Minister ought not to mistake the applause of his 211 Members for the approval of the people of Canada. While the applause is loud and even thunderous on some days in this place, out there in the land there is no applause. There is the dead cold silence that comes with the realization that the commitments that were made in the summer of 1984 were no more than that-passing, momentary, whimsical comments designed to attract a handful of votes for a point in time, but never intended as a road-map for an administration that would keep its word. The people of Canada have sobered up.
What do members of the Canadian Merchant Service Guild have to say about Bill C-75? It is a guild of a few words. They say that they are against Clause 4. In the end their concern is the loss of jobs. Canada Steamship Limited, a large Canadian shipping company, has this to say about Bill C-75 in Clause 4. It states that the Canadian shipping industry has carefully honed its competitive edge through continuous innovation and productivity and that additional costs will dull that edge, harming the shipping industry and many other important Canadian industries, including agriculture. It says that Clause 4 could attempt to achieve a system of cost recovery whereby the high operating budget of the Canadian Coast Guard may be recovered primarily from the Canadian shipping industry, which can ill afford additional charges at this time. Ultramar is opposed to Clause 4. The Petroleum Association for the Conservation of the Environment has trouble with the nonrepresentative nature of the charges to be imposed as a result of Clause 4. The Canadian Shippers' Council states that user fees for Coast Guard services could result in some cargo being diverted through the U.S. transportation system and through U.S. ports. The Canadian Pulp and Paper Association says that its base business is export and cost increases can only reduce the very business that Government is trying to help.
For those who are living in the cities of this country who wonder whether or not they will be impacted by this Bill, and for all of you who live in the land of textile and high technology and go to work in the factories, I want to relate what the Canadian Manufacturers Association has stated. It has said that the enabling legislation on Coast Guard cost recovery is too open-ended and arbitrary. It states that there has been no shipper input, that little information has been received from Government and that there has been no indication of improved efficiency as an objective. It questions whether a public service such as the Coast Guard should be handled in this manner.
Even the Canadian Amateur Rowing Association is opposed to this clause. Can Hon. Members imagine an organization that does not even have a diesel or a gasoline engine behind it when it goes out on the water being opposed to this Bill? Its position is that the user fee for Coast Guard services should not be applied to Canadian rowing simply because rowing does not use the services of the Coast Guard. What type of legislation is this when those people who belong to an association, which allows them to go out on a Sunday afternoon with their wives in the front of the boat and Johnny and Annie in the middle of the boat, with a canteen with a bit of Kool-Aid and a few sandwiches, have to take the trouble to come before a legislative committee and point out that they, too, are concerned about the impact of Clause 4? Can Hon. Members imagine the fellow, who has a dory tucked away in his garage in the winter months and takes it out for a row around the lake on Sunday with his wife or girlfriend in tow, has to take the trouble to appear before a legislative committee to oppose Clause 4? The fellow with his row-boat, his two oars, no engine and a jug of wine, if it is a romantic trip, has discovered that he may be the victim of Coast Guard charges in the lusty pursuit of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to balance the
June 27, 1986

bottom line. The Government of Canada is now even interfering with the freedom of, dare I say it, young romantics to go out for a row on the lake in the evening with nothing more than their oars to keep them company. I cannot believe it. It is a shocking and insensitive Bill.
I have both oars in the water and I am barrelling straight ahead. The problem is that the Government of Canada obviously did not have its navigation straightened out when it decided to come to the House with this piece of legislation. It has no idea where it will end up.
The Prince Edward Island Potato Marketing Board also has something to say about the Bill. We now have the fellow who is going for a row with his wife in the evening and a bottle of wine upset about this Bill. The potato farmers of P.E.I. are upset about this Bill. The prairie farmers are upset about the Bill. The fishermen on the last bill of Cape St. George on the southwest coast of Newfoundland sitting on their lobster pots watching the sun go down are upset at the Government because of this Bill. The people in the steel and glass towers of the Iron Ore Company of Canada are upset about this Bill. The fellow who looks out across the Vancouver skyline at the tall trees that keep the engine and the economy of that province going is upset about this Bill. In the history of this Parliament could there possibly have been a piece of legislation that more negatively affected so many different Canadians from so many different parts of Canada in so many different circumstances who have all come to a unanimous conclusion about Clause 4 of Bill C-75?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Thank God!


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I need some clarification on the type of activity that is taking place in the House today. Would Your Honour make some judgment about the quality of the input today? We have heard about Johnny and the Kool-Aid. We have heard about all kinds of irrelevancies. There has been the odd solid point speaking out on behalf of the people of Canada. But did you not notice, Mr. Speaker, the irrelevancies in the speech and the tremendous abuse of Parliament that has been taking place until now? I realize that the previous speaker needed a breath of air. I wonder if Your Honour might make a judgment on the matter before us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member does have unlimited time. The Chair finds that his speech is relevant.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the New Democratic Party for giving the Speaker an opportunity to express something that he could not otherwise express. Every Member of the House knows that the Speaker must be regarded as being strictly neutral. He has an obligation not to show partisanship in the House. He has an obligation to be a sphinx. He has to be like the great Tower of London that stands unmoved by the events that occur around it. The Hon.
Canada Shipping Act
Member from the New Democratic Party has given the Speaker, who is from the great Province of Quebec, a chance to say what I know he has been dying to say. It gave him a chance to say: "I too, with all that is in me, am opposed to this Draconian piece of legislation". On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party for giving you an opportunity to rise and say how much you oppose this legislation by indicating that what I am saying is rather-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member knows that he should not bring the Speaker into the debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is okay, Mr. Speaker, you can thank me afterwards. There will be one Tory elected in Quebec and we will put him back in the chair after the next election.
The Great Lakes Commission has said the following about Clause 4 of Bill C-75:
We are particularly concerned about possible compounding effects which may occur on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system.
Simply put, when the costs, whether tolls or user fees, go up, some current business is always lost and some new business that would have been developed is not. So there is a potential double loss to the tax collector in this user fee due to these losses. The loss in production then translates into the loss of jobs for our binational region.
I cannot find anyone who has anything good to say about this Bill. The Economic Development Corporation of the St. Lawrence has also expressed its concern about the negative impact of Clause 4.
The National Farmers' Union, confronted as it is with the lowest wheat prices in 60 years, caught in the squeeze between the subsidies being paid wheat farmers in the United States and the subsidies being paid by the EEC, has had to rouse itself from the miserable battle for survival, which it is fighting with the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), to make a comment on Clause 4 of Bill C-75. Hon. Members will appreciate that most farmers' produce gets transported to market by ship and that anything that impacts on the cost of transporting by ship impacts on farmers' profits. What did the National Farmers' Union say? It said the following:
In its preoccupation to trim the federal deficit, the Government is in effect telling farmers through this Bill that the national interest can best be served by still further increasing farm costs at a time when farmers are in very serious straits.
Let me repeat that because it bears repeating. This is what the farmers of Canada believe is the message they are receiving from the Government of Canada because of its callous introduction of Clause 4 in Bill C-75:
In its preoccupation to trim the federal deficit, the Government is in effect telling farmers through this Bill that the national interest can best be served by still further increasing farm costs at a time when farmers are in very serious financial straits.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Can you make photocopies of that?

June 27, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
Mir. Tobin: I should make photocopies of that and send it around to all Hon. Members. I have a sneaking suspicion that over the next few days, Members of Parliament, because of the rumoured cabinet shuffle, will be standing by their telephones waiting for that telephone call which, for many of them, will not come. Instead, most of them will find, when they pick up their phones, that it will not be the Prime Minister with word of a new chauffeur, a chief of staff, a big budget and a $40,000 wage increase, but that it will be a farmer who will be saying: "In the name of God, man, why did you not rise in your place when you had the opportunity to do so and oppose the Draconian measures that are contained in Clause 4 of Bill C-75?"


Mr. Gormley:: What have you ever done for farmers?


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Hon. Member is suggesting that, because I am from the great and historic Province of Newfoundland, I have no right to speak on behalf of farmers. I would like to tell the Hon. Member that I have within the confines of my riding some of the most vigorous farmers to be found anywhere in Canada. I will tell him something else. We in Newfoundland and we in the Liberal Party believe it is the obligation and indeed the responsibility of every Member of Parliament when he comes to this place not only to speak for his region and his constituents but to speak for Canada.
If Conservative Members of Parliament can find neither their backbones, their legs nor their tongues to stand and speak for Canadian farmers, then I, existing as I do on the edge of the Atlantic Ocean in an area of fisheries and not a great farming constituency, will stand to speak in their places. Farmers in Canada deserve the support in the debate on Bill C-75 that they are not getting from many of the Members they sent here to represent their interests. For that I make no apology.
Who else has been moved in desperation to address the legislative committee?


An Hon. Member:: Get to the point.


Brian Vincent Tobin: An Hon. Member over there is making some unintelligible noises. He is generally a well-meaning fellow and I know that he would be opposed to this Bill were it not for the vicious whip that is being cracked in the able hand of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), otherwise known as Velcro Lips, who has imposed a similar affliction on all Members opposite. He has imposed on all Members opposite an inability to find their tongues and is saying: "Do not do as I say, do as I do". Of course, what he does is zip up. Hon. Members opposite have now zipped up and they have zipped out of any chance of re-election in the process.
Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was about to say that the Minister of Highways and Transportation from the Province of Saskatchewan which, for those who do not know it, is run by a Conservative administration of the same colour, hue and shade as this one, has said about Clause 4 of Bill C-75 the following:
Any increase in costs to users on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System will result in producers looking for transport services which are cheaper. As a result, some traffic may be diverted to the U.S. transportation system causing loss of Canadian jobs.
A Progressive Conservative Minister of Transportation from the Province of Saskatchewan is saying to his Progressive Conservative brothers and sisters in Ottawa that they are going to transfer jobs from Canada south of the border. What does the Government of Canada do in response to that in this new age of consultation and co-operation? It proceeds to transfer jobs south of the border, totally ignoring the representations of that Progressive Conservative Government. Again, Canadians have to attach a degree of cynicism to the commitment of the Prime Minister to bring a brand new era to Canada.
To show that the Government's inability to listen is not partisan and that it does not treat its own Party colleagues any worse than others, the Minister of Transportation and Highways in the Province of Manitoba, who is a New Democrat, had the following to say about Clause 4:
If this clause in the Bill is allowed to remain, it will lead to efforts towards full cost recovery which is beyond the limited financial capabilities of grain producers and other shippers and consumers.
The continued pursuit of the "user pay" philosophy without regard for the ability of shippers and consumers to pay will inevitably cripple the flow of the nation's commerce.
A while ago, a Conservative administration was in power in Prince Edward Island, but it suffered the backlash of this Bill. Just before the former Minister of Fisheries from the Province of Prince Edward Island went to the guillotine that awaits all of those who endorse this legislation, with his dying political breath-the man is still healthy, of course-he had something to say about this Bill as he was going down the chute because of the efforts of this administration.
I should like to refer to what the Minister of Fisheries for the Province of Prince Edward Island had to say about this Bill. He said:
fishermen, through the Fisheries Act, pay for right of access to the common property resource which they harvest through personal and vessel licence fees. It is my view that it is the responsibility of the licensing authority namely, the Government of Canada, to provide access to the resources for which fishermen are licensed.
The imposition of user fees to the fishery as proposed by the legislation represents the possibility of further substantial costs to an industry which has been beset with so many problems in recent years.
It is incredible for one to look at the list of organizations, associations, politicians, user groups, and individual Canadians who are opposed to this legislation. They are not opposed to it for reasons of discomfort or inconvenience. They are opposed to it for fundamental reasons of survival. It is incredible that the Government of Canada still persists with the Utopian notion that all it is doing is trimming a bit of fat around the edges of the collective T-bone which is Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government is not trimming a bit of fat. The Government has gone through the fat with its

June 27, 1986
broadsword, has gone through the muscle, has glanced off bone, has gone deep into the bone, and has ruptured the spleen and marrow which are essential to the rejuvenation of any body.


John Kenneth Gormley: The champion of mixed metaphors!


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Government has gone right to the core of the economy of all regions, that is, their ability to compete in the world market-place by moving goods and people to where markets are located. I fail to understand-


John Kenneth Gormley: You also failed English.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We Newfoundlanders are known as people of few words. We are also known as people who lack the ability of some Hon. Members in the House to present our views in a manner consistent with the disciplines of the English language. We apologize for that. We are ever so humble in the House when we speak. We do our best. We try to make our case. We understand that not all Members have the same capacity or incapacity. We do the best we can, notwithstanding the normal high standard of debate by the Hon. Members of the House, many of whom are here today. However, let me just apologize and continue.
What did the Premier of Ontario have to say about Clause 4 of Bill C-75? He said that there was good reason for serious concern about the negative impact on Canada's transportation and shipping industries as a result of the Bill.
The Government of Canada is about to embark upon a great free trade experiment with the Government of the United States. It is gambling that it can negotiate a satisfactory arrangement on trade between the U.S. and Canada. It is betting that it can reach an agreement which will satisfy Canadians in all parts of the country. However, with Clause 4 of Bill C-75, it is moving unilaterally for the first time in 30 years of joint administration of the St. Lawrence Seaway system. The Seaway is jointly administered by a U.S. commission appointed by the U.S. Government and by the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority appointed by the Canadian Government. They have jointly managed the Seaway for 30 years. Clause 4 represents the first time in the joint management of the Seaway that one of the two partners has acted arbitrarily and in isolation of the other. Indeed, the American commission wrote a letter to the Prime Minister pointing out that it was the first time in 30 years that Canada had acted unilaterally and arbitrarily, without consulting the American side, in imposing new user charges.
If we cannot even manage to stay the course or stay on track in the joint management of a system, for which we have had a joint management program for the last 30 years, why is it that Canadians should believe that we have the ability to initiate a new comprehensive free trade agreement representing all our sectors, not just particular segments such as the St. Lawrence Seaway system?
Canada Shipping Act
The Minister of Transport appointed a subcommittee to study the St. Lawrence Seaway and how best the Government of Canada could rescue that ailing system from apparent demise. Apparently it is suffering from a steady and progressive loss of traffic. Yesterday that subcommittee heard from the Thunder Bay Economic Development Corporation. It presented an excellent, well prepared brief. It was entitled "Canada's Third Coast-The Role of Thunder Bay in Future Canadian Export Trade". It almost put a question mark behind the word "Future" because the future of export trade is in doubt with the measures now being proposed by the Government. I commend to all Hon. Members this thorough brief as required reading for those who want to participate in a meaningful way in debate on transport policy.
In respect of the transportation system in the Port of Thunder Bay, the report indicated that in 1985 a number of factors, including grain production shortfalls, poor international sales performance, changing technology, continuing shifting grain traffic to federally assisted West Coast port facilities, and Seaway disruptions, resulted in the permanent loss of an estimated 500 direct jobs. It went on to indicate that higher Seaway and port user charges, as proposed in Clause 4 of Bill C-75, would have a dramatic, negative impact upon port and grain handling activities in Thunder Bay. Also its forecast indicated that unless these proposed cost increases were averted, its area of the transportation sector could permanently lose up to 1,500 direct jobs during the next five years.
The Thunder Bay Economic Development Corporation, having already suffered the loss of 500 permanent jobs and having noted the state of decline in traffic, went on to warn the Government that Clause 4 of the Bill, the user-pay clause, could result in the loss of an additional 1,500 jobs. That is just in the Port of Thunder Bay alone. We must understand that the potential job loss, direct and indirect, in the entire system could indeed amount to tens of thousands.
In dealing with Clause 4 the brief went on to indicate that the enormous economic and social costs of this potential dislocation should be carefully weighed against the very modest net benefits of all proposed cost recovery policies or measures under consideration by the federal Government. Also it indicated that when existing jobs were lost, experience has shown that they are far too difficult and expensive to replace, and that the significance of employment loss was far more acute in an already economically disadvantaged region like northwestern Ontario.
In the face of excellent work carried out by many organizations, several months ago when the Bill was before the legislative committee and as recently as yesterday when the subcommittee was in Thunder Bay, I do not know how the Government in good conscience could persist in bringing this Bill before Parliament.
It must be noted that many witnesses said they were not consulted about Clause 4, that it was a surprise. This indicates a sense that the Government was trying to slip something by them, something fundamental and important. I must note that

June 27, 1986

Business of the House
the Government has tried to slip something important and fundamental through Parliament. It strikes me as being strange and perhaps somewhat devious that the Government would bring in this Bill in the last few hours of the last day in the last week of the last month of this Parliament, which has been in session for the better part of two years.
The Government has come with this Bill in the expectation that Members, with visions of summer holidays dancing in their heads, with visions of ties and suits flung in the closets, with visions of summer gear and being down on the trail with constituents, with visions of seeing their wives and families- and husbands in the case of our female colleagues-would cave in and allow this legislation to slip through so that we could more quickly pursue our own personal vacations and agendas.
I am one of those who would rather be on the way back home today. I am one of those who would like to be heading home to see my friends and my family, my children and my good wife who puts up with my absences, but I will not on principle allow this Bill to be slipped through at the last second with all the concurrent negative impacts on so many people in Canada just because the Government is counting on an opposition to be tired and so allow, in the pursuit of our own pleasures, this Bill to slip through today. No, Mr. Speaker, that will not happen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, 15 days ago I started my speech. Two days later, in the middle of it, the Government actually changed the order of business and buried this Bill. It is like a skeleton in the family closet. You try to bury it deep in the corner where no one will see or notice it, and then you slip it back out at the last second, expose it briefly to the light of day, and then whack it back into the closet again. That is what the Government has attempted to do with this Bill. It is bringing it forward in the dying minutes to have it slip through. I will not allow that to happen as long as my voice stands up.
The Thunder Bay Economic Development Corporation in its brief presented yesterday went on to say with respect to the proposed application of the user-pay concept that it is both inequitable and short-sighted, and the Corporation is strongly opposed to the application of a user-pay philosophy or cost recovery as proposed in Clause 4 of Bill C-75. It also stated that it believes these proposed charges, as well as the existing revenue recoveries levied against the seaway system, represent an unfair form of indirect taxation. Further, it believes that the future extent of all proposed user charges can be quantified and compared closely to all similar charges imposed on other major transportation modes.
In recent testimony before the Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, His Worship Jack Masters, a former Member of Parliament and, I must say he was an able
Member of Parliament, a Liberal Member at that, stated that the City of Thunder Bay opposed Bill C-75. He further indicated: "Clause 4 of the legislation threatened 5,000 jobs in Thunder Bay" and said that "Clause 4 has the potential to greatly damage the economy of western Canada, the Great Lakes and Canada as a whole. Clause 4 should not be allowed to destroy our great inland waterway."
I think that sums up the brief presented by the Thunder Bay Economic Development Corporation.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt the Hon. Member during his speech. I have been listening very attentively to it and he makes considerable sense. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) has spoken for quite a length of time, and in view of the urgent nature of his submissions, could you seek the unanimous consent of the House to ask the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe some questions at this point.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John V. Nunziata: As I understand, the Hon. Member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 note there is not unanimous consent. Debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a rare day that a Member is prepared to stand and defend the logic of the arguments he puts forward on behalf of the citizens of Canada. Members of Parliament opposite are mumbling and grumbling under their breath and are grumbling to themselves. If they do not agree with the compelling logic of my remarks, why do they not take the occasion to give consent, stand on their feet to defend or to seek to destroy, if they can, the arguments I put forward and indeed the arguments of so many people in Canada who will be negatively affected by this Bill? Having noted the great confidence that Members have shown in their own Bill by their silence, having noted that they are obvious only by their silence, I shall continue. I have much to say about this Bill.
Just to keep Members of Parliament on the edge of their seats, as they have been for the last little while about this Bill, and to broaden their understanding of transportation and the implications of this Bill, I want to talk about the impact of the Bill as it affects oil rigs. This is just a little change of pace for Members for a short while, Mr. Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been some discussions among the Parties and I think you will find there is unanimous consent to the following. I move:

June 27, 1986

That, notwithstanding any Standing or special order of this House, at 5 p.m. this day the sitting shall be suspended to the call of the Chair for the purpose of witnessing the Royal Assent to certain Bills.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House at what time we can expect the messenger from the Senate to come in with Royal Assent? Does the Parliamentary Secretary have any idea?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the messenger will arrive at or about 5 p.m. What we are talking about is to avoid any technical problems. Royal Assent will take place very close to 5 p.m. I think this Order will take care of any technicalities.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Just so I have a full understanding of what the Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting, is he suggesting that rather than adjourning at 5 p.m. that the House continue to sit?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John V. Nunziata: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could explain exactly what he is proposing so we on this side of the House understand fully.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty in explaining the matter to the Hon. Member. It was worked out with Mr. Yanover of his Party to avoid any difficulty.
At 5 p.m. the sitting shall be suspended to the call of the Chair for the purpose of Royal Assent. There will be no further government business after 5 p.m.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary is using the terminology "suspend". As I understand it the House would be adjourning-


Ian Deans: No.


John V. Nunziata: -for the summer recess. I would like a very clear and unequivocal explanation as to the distinction between the House suspending and the House adjourning. Are we adjourning at five o'clock or are we suspending?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, unaccustomed as I am to a great deal of debate on this particular matter, it seems to me that we would be suspending at 5 p.m. until Royal Assent is obtained and at that point we would return to the House and adjourn without any further business.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary understands that we will, I am sure, give consent. If, however, we were not to be co-operative, and I want to show that we can co-operate, we could say no at five o'clock. Everything would be over. We could refuse to stay and, therefore, there would be no Royal Assent, meaning that none of these Bills would get Royal Assent before some time in September. I do not think that is the mood of the House. Therefore, I think we will co-operate.
Canada Shipping Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion presented by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis). It requires unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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 in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, if the Parliamentary Secretary is willing to suspend the sentence which he is attempting to impose on the shipping industry of Canada and many primary producers, we would be glad to have Royal Assent right now. Otherwise, I will be more than happy to spend the next hour and a half educating Members as to the concerns of Canadians about Clause 4. If the Government prefers that I wait and educate Members in the fall, I will be glad to do that because I do not believe that you ought to cram too much down a student's throat in the final days before summer holidays. My friend, the Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Price) told me that. He was a teacher for many years. He said that minds are always much more receptive to new information in the fall of the year when school resumes. However, if the Parliamentary Secretary would like me to continue, I will. If he is not interested in my offer, that is fine. There is nothing I would rather do than educate Members.
Earlier in my remarks I indicated that I have two problems with Bill C-75. One is that it is flawed because of what is in it, that being Clause 4, and one is because it is flawed because of what is not in it, that is any provision to include oil rigs as ships to fall under the jurisdiction of the Canada Shipping Act.
I reminded Members that on February 15, 1982, the Ocean Ranger tragically went down off the shores of Newfoundland. There were 84 men on board. All lives were lost. Sixty-nine members of that crew were Canadians and 56 of them were Newfoundlanders. Flowing from that disaster was a royal commission report sponsored by both Governments which cost $15 million. Its major recommendation was that oil rigs operating off the East Coast of Canada ought to be included in

June 27, 1986
Message from the Senate
the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act under the responsibility of the Minister of Transport of Canada. However, oil rigs are still the responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources notwithstanding the work of the royal commission, a $15 million expenditure, and the thousands of expert witnesses who convinced Justice Allan Hickman to make this recommendation to the Government of Canada.
It is a tragedy of great proportion that the Government was not able to resolve the personality conflicts and the empire building mania in the mind of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. She would not allow this little piece of her empire to be placed under the responsibility of the Minsiter of Transport. The decision not to place oil rigs under the jurisdiction of the Canada Shipping Act flies in the face of at least three rulings of Canadian courts, all of which have concluded that rigs are ships and, henceforth, should be under the jurisdiction of the Act.
People ask what difference it makes whether the rigs are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Energy. It makes a lot of difference. The royal commission on the Ocean Ranger disaster came to the conclusion that because of the inadequate command structure, because of the lack of regulatory procedure to be followed in terms of command structure, training procedures, and procedures followed in an emergency, and because of confusion during the disaster, lives were lost which might otherwise have been saved. The royal commission identifid specific problems as contributing to the disaster. Since rigs are not covered under the Canada Shipping Act, they are not required to have licensed captains on board. In fact, even today rigs offshore Newfoundland do not have qualified and licensed captains on board. I believe that one of six of them do. The other five do not because it is not required under the guidelines of the Minister of Energy.
The royal commission report said that the main contributing factors to the disaster were lack of proper procedures for emergency, lack of manuals and technical information relating to the ballast control console, lack of adequate training programs for key personnel, lack of knowledge of the vulnerability of the rig and its ballast system and human error which can be attributed to a lack of proper training. The report said that a mistake in reaction to the malfunction of the equipment led directly to the disaster as a conclusion. Closing the deadlights in the ballast control room before the storm intensified could clearly have prevented the loss. That was not done. Knowledgeable action by the crew in dealing with the effects of the seawater on the ballast control console would have averted the tragedy. The disaster could have been avoided or, in any event, prevented by competent and informed action by those on board. Because of inadequate training, lack of manuals and technical information, the crew failed to interact in the fatal chain of events which led to the eventual loss of the Ocean Ranger and, tragically, of the 84 men who were on that
rig-
How could this have happened? How could a $1 billion piece of equipment with 84 human beings aboard be out in the roughest seas in the world, aside from those at the Cape of
Good Hope, improperly equipped with an improperly trained crew? It happened because from a regulatory point of view, oil and gas rigs were perceived primarily as vehicles to extract oil from under the ocean floor. They were not perceived as ships or ocean-going vessels. They were not treated in a manner in which any vessel which operates 200 miles offshore in the Atlantic should be treated. More particularly, these rigs are not like ships. They are stationary and cannot roll with the punches in a storm. They must withstand the punches.
In 1982 there was not an appropriate appreciation of the fact that this was something more than a tool for extracting oil from the ocean floor, that it was a ship operating in some of the most severe conditions to be found in the world with 84 human beings aboard. After three years of evidence and $15 million of expenditure, the royal commission recommended that we must stop treating rigs as tools of extraction and start treating them as ships by bringing them under the jurisdiction of the Canada Shipping Act and the Minister of Transport.
I am incredibly disappointed that we have not done this for no other reason than that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is not prepared to give up her jurisdiction over oil rigs which operate in the Atlantic Ocean because she does not want to give a piece of her empire to another Minister. It is tragic and sad that personal vanity can stand in the way of honestly made and sincerely held recommendations of a royal commission which spent a tremendous amount of time generating its recommendations for the Government of Canada.
* *
*


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-45, without amendment, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament.
* *



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the message from the Senate accompanying Bill C-45 did not contain any comments. Since you did not read any. I suppose there are none.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! In the case of Bill C-45, as was the case for the other Bills we received today, there were no comments from the Senate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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 in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying about the importance of including oil rigs under the jurisdiction of the Canada Shipping Act-


Don Boudria: Could you repeat some of that, I missed it?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I would be glad to repeat it. You were not here.
As I was saying, it is time we started treating rigs as something more than just a means of exploring for and extracting oil from the sea bottom. We should treat them as vessels which hold the lives of men and women at sea. To do that adequately, those people have to be under a command structure and set of regulations which can be found only in the Canada Shipping Act. They should not be seen as simply a scenic point for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to visit once in a while by helicopter. The royal commission did not spend its time and our money making recommendations to have them ignored in a whimsical and flippant manner because of the frail vanities of Ministers of the Crown.
I get damn angry knowing that this Parliament has not had the ability to get its act together, be non-partisan, sensible and intelligent and accept the royal commission recommendation. It did not happen. There is not a Member of Parliament of any Party who knows a damn thing about this matter who will tell you that it was anything but foolish and irresponsible not to have included rigs under the Canada Shipping Act. I hope when we come back in the fall the Government will be prepared to accept an amendment to do the right and responsible thing.
Canada Shipping Act
Not only has the Government ignored the recommendations of the royal commission, it has ignored rulings of Canadian courts on this question. There are several Canadian and international decisions which support the argument in favour of defining oil rigs as ships. I want to cite a few of them. In the case involving the Seafarers' International Union and Crosbie Offshore Services of March 5, 1982, the Federal Court of Appeal was faced with the question of whether federal or Newfoundland legislation applied to the crew of supply boats working the rigs in the Hibernia field off Newfoundland. In the course of describing the nature of the services supplied by the boats to the rigs, the judge noted that supply ships are also ships. They have means of self-propulsion but, for one reason or another, may be towed to a drill site.
In the case of The Queen v. the Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry docks Company of July 7, 1981, the court considered whether a floating crane was a ship within the meaning of the federal definition. After reviewing the English cases on the point, the judge said that applying the law to the crane as described, he was of the opinion that the crane was a ship. While it appears that she was not capable of navigation herself and was not self-propelled, those facts did not detract from the fact that she was built to do something on water which required movement from place to place. Therefore, in his opinion the crane was a ship.
I have a third decision. This was rendered in the Exchequer Court, predecessor to the Federal Court of Canada established in 1971. In that case the judge decided, using the Canada Shipping Act definition, that a barge used for cargo was also a ship. The Canada Shipping Act covers barges. A garbage scow or transport barge, whether it has anyone on board, is a ship. A crane operating in a harbour or port is a ship. A supply vessel is a ship. However, an oil rig like the Ocean Ranger which went down in a violent Atlantic storm, with a crew which was, in the words of the royal commission, improperly trained, is not a ship. It does not have to be regulated under the Canada Shipping Act. The Minister of Transport is not responsible for the operation of that rig. It falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who would not know navigation law from the laws of backgammon.
The Government is barging along, insensitive to the impact this Bill will have on Canadian citizens. It will cause waves right across the land as it moves like some monolithic object, unintelligent about its destination, simply determined to push ahead.
I would note here the representations made by the Ocean Ranger's Family Foundation. That was set up to assist those families who lost loved ones to get over the consequences of the loss of the bread-winner in the family. It also recommended to
COMMONS DEBATES___________________June 27, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
the Government of Canada, during the course of its appearance before the royal commission, that when it next reviews the Canada Shipping Act it should include under that jurisdiction the responsibility for monitoring and regulating oil rigs at sea. That recommendation was also ignored.
During the course of my remarks concerning the St. Lawrence Seaway, I gave an assessment and profile of the organizations opposed to Clause 4, the user-pay clause. It is the guillotine clause. It is the Seaway destroying and Montreal Chamber of Commerce and Port of Montreal bashing clause. It is the fishermen bashing clause, the potato farmer bashing clause. It is a forestry worker bashing clause. It is the Quebec Metal Mining Association bashing clause. In the course of talking to ordinary Canadians, both powerful and humble, they are opposed to this piece of legislation.
I mentioned as well that it struck me as being rather strange that a Government that claims it can negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States is moving unilaterally to impose user fees on the Seaway, which is jointly administered by both the Government of Canada and a U.S. appointed commission.
At that time I said that certain individuals, including U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators, had written to the Prime Minister of Canada pointing out that after 30 years of joint management, 30 years of being able to agree on every single occasion to new rules, regulations or charges that would affect the authority, joint agreement, solidarity, harmony, happiness, blissful relationship between the American and Canadian administrations, for the first time we have Canada acting unilaterally. For the first time we have our U.S. partners moved to the embarrassing position of having to go past the Minister of Transport, to go past the good offices of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, to go past the good offices of the Canadian ambassador and to write directly to the Prime Minister of Canada asking the Government what it is doing. It takes two to manage the authority and this unilateral action the Government is taking with Clause 4 will destroy the joint nature of the management plan that has existed.
Just 24 days ago I received in my office a copy of a letter written by Mr. Donald Rothwell, President of the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) asking that the Leader of the Official Opposition contact his colleagues, the Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe to take a second look at what it is the Government of Canada is attempting to finesse in the dying days of Parliament past the noses of parliamentarians and onto the backs of Canada's shippers.
It was a very good letter that he wrote to the Leader of the Opposition because it included some very interesting material. As well as outlining his objection to Bill C-75, Mr. Rothwell provided the Leader of the Opposition with some very interesting correspondence, including a letter to the Prime
Minister by ULS International Inc., Toronto, Ontario. The letter is written to the Prime Minister of Canada, and obviously written by someone who knows him well because it starts, "Dear Brian". It says: "I would like to draw to your attention our concern over Clause 4 of Bill C-75. In its present form the authority it provides this and future Governments to charge for Coast Guard services is virtually unconstrained. As a result, potential for economic dislocation to the detriment of the lakes, St. Lawrence traffic is open ended."
He goes on to say: "I know it is unnecessary to recite recent stats to prove that utilization by both grain and iron ore was in free fall last year, culminating a downward trend that began in 1975."
He says to "Dear Brian": "Clause 4 requires a great deal of revision before it is ready to be passed into legislation."
I think we all know the "Dear Brian" referred to, the Prime Minister, went out shortly after this letter was received, and shortly after a meeting with the Premier of Quebec, and promised to have another look at Clause 4. We all know what happened. His commitment to have another look was like so many other commitments, like snow that melts in spring, when you turn around it is gone. Bill C-75, with all of its terible implications is still before the House.
There is another letter that I know Members would be most interested in hearing about. It is a more formal letter, more chilling.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, I guess it was two or three minutes ago, the Member referred to Crosbie Offshore. I am just wondering if he could inform the House as to whether this is the Crosbie Offshore of-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, to that question which was not a point of order and which I therefore did not hear, it is one and the same family that is represented by a certain Hon. Member from St. John's West in this House. There is a second letter written to the Prime Minister. The first letter started off, "Dear Brian", it was warm, friendly, confident of being heard. The second letter is more formal, more chilling. This one is written, "Dear Mr. Prime Minister", no more "Dear Brian". It is from the Great Lakes Commission of Ann Arbour, Michigan. The Great Lakes Commission, for those who do not know, is the American institution that is the equivalent of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. The Great Lakes Commission is the American body that does the same job and that works hand in hand with our agency to manage the St. Lawrence Seaway. In their letter they say: "The Great Lakes Commission is deeply concerned about proposed Bill C-75, which would authorize the imposition of cost recovery for Canadian Coast Guard services. The Commission respects Canada's needs to raise additional revenues. The Commission accepts Canada's choice of user fees as one vehicle to accomplish that end. However, the Commission, as the only co-ordinating and advocacy agency established by the States and approved by Congress to
June 27, 1986

provide a collective voice for the eight Great Lakes States on water resources and related issues, would be remiss if it did not express opposition to the current language of Bill C-75.
The Commission has monitored the progress of Bill C-75 in Parliament, has participated in regional discussions about potential impacts, the Coast Guard cost recovery provision, Clause 4. Commission testimony was presented to the Legislative Committee in Ottawa on February 13, 1986."
The Commission emphasized: "-four points believed to be necessary before a navigation cost recovery legislation can be successfully implemented. (1) federal user fees should be uniform in application from seaport to seaport and from coastal range to coastal range. Uniformity maintains the current competitive relationship amongst ports."
Concern number one is not met in this Bill. It continues: "(2) there must be a clear determination of the purpose for which fees are to be collected and the activities to which they are to be applied. This is critical to the ultimate acceptability of any system adopted."
Point number two is not met because the Minister is not going to tell anybody in advance of getting the authority to raise these fees, how much is to be raised, who is to be targetted, for how long fees are to be raised and at what rate they are to be raised.
It is the equivalent to giving a rogue a gun and a bullet without first assuring yourself that he is not going to point the gun and the bullet at you and do you great harm. The Government of Canada has raised up the barrel, has raised up the gun, has looked down the barrel, is squeezing the trigger and the bullet that it is going to use to do great damage to the Canadian shipping industry is this Bill. However, we will not give the Government the ammunition today. It will pull the trigger, only to find that it is firing blanks because we in the Opposition will not provide the Government with the ammunition that it seeks to do grave damage to the people of this country.
The Great Lakes Commission goes on to say that any user-fee proposal should involve thorough public consultation with all user groups, which should take place before initial application of fees and before any subsequent changes in the level of fees.


Don Boudria: Was that done?


Brian Vincent Tobin: That was not done. In fact, every group has complained that they had no consultation prior to the introduction of Clause 4 in Bill C-75. The Great Lakes Commission is responsible, along with our authority, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, for managing the Seaway. That Commission wrote the Prime Minister in a desperate bid, after having gone through all other channels.
The Great Lakes Commission is saying that they have managed to co-operate successfully with the St. Lawrence
Canada Shipping Act
Seaway Authority to jointly manage the St. Lawrence Seaway, so why can they not co-operate in a joint fashion in the establishment of new fees? I find it strange, indeed ironic, that if the Government cannot keep its act together with respect to the St. Lawrence Seaway that has been successfully managed jointly with the Americans for 30 years, how can Canadians believe that the Government is competent or capable of negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement with implications that are much more profound than those in Clause 4 of this Bill?
It strains Canadians' belief in the credibility of the Government that it can negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement when it cannot even deal with the joint management of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
I want to bring to the attention of Canadians and Members of Parliament a second letter that was written to Canada's Ambassador, Allan Gotlieb. The letter states: "Dear Mr. Ambassador: We wish to thank you for your recent letter concerning legislative action in Clause 4 of Bill C-75, currently pending before the Canadian Parliament. It was reassuring for us to learn that Bill C-75 was before a special legislative committee of Parliament for detailed analysis, that the Minister of Transport would be establishing a committee to consider the views of all affected parties prior to any decision to implement Coast Guard user fees." Those people were falsely reassured because I was part of that special legislative committee and, despite the words of wisdom that were ushered in from every part of Canada in opposition to Clause 4, it is still retained in the legislation.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, there are a precious 55 minutes left in this particular debate. I know that the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) is not yet half way through his submissions with respect to this legislation, specifically with regard to Clause 4. Once again, might there be unanimous consent in the House to permit me at this point to ask some questions of the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. Debate. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, again, Members opposite who profess to be ready and willing to stand on their feet only in the event that I shut up so this Bill can pass, do not have the courage or backbone to stand up and defend their silence. It is a strange place indeed, when the only time those Members opposite will be able to find their legs is to make a direct dart for the exit as they rush off on their holidays, having wreaked havoc on the Canadian shipping industry.
As I was saying, before my colleague, the Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), attempted to put such a sensible suggestion before the House, the Great Lakes

June 27, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
Commission wrote to the Prime Minister in opposition to the unilateral charges being applied to the St. Lawrence Seaway.
In addition, a coalition of Senators who represent Seaway or Great Lake states have written the Ambassador of Canada, complaining about the unilateral action that Canada has taken in Clause 4 of Bill C-75. They are the same Senators who were imposing tariffs on Canadian cedar shakes and shingles, the same Senators who nearly defeated free trade talks in the Senate Finance Committee. They are cynical about the Government's ability to deliver on free trade and are not much interested in free trade because they recognize that the Government of Canada cannot even deal effectively with the joint management of the Seaway Authority.
Those Senators who wrote Canada's Ambassador include Senator Alan J. Dixon, Senator John H. Glenn, Jr., Senator Levin, Senator Rudy Boschwitz, Senator Don Quayle, Senator William Proxmire, Senator David Durenberger, Senator Richard Lugar, Senator Bob Kasten, Senator Howard Metzenbaum and Senator Paul Simon. These Senators have taken the trouble to write the Prime Minister of Canada to express their amazement and shock that the Government of Canada, without consulting its partner in running the St. Lawrence Seaway, is about to impose a new set of user fees that will set up a two tier system on a Seaway that has been jointly managed by both nations for 30 years.
It is like Pavlov's dog in reverse. While Pavlov's dog was conditioned to go for a biscuit when a light flashed, Canada gives away another bargaining tool when the Americans impose a 35 per cent tariff on cedar shakes and shingles. That is Pavlov's experiment in reverse. The Government tells the Americans not to worry because it will not impose sanctions on any American products other than tea bags and oatmeal.
Yesterday, the United States brought down a unanimous ruling to seek to impose tariffs on our softwood lumber industry. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) stood in the House to table a Bill to increase the cost of generic drugs in this country-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to be more relevant to the Bill.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the reason I gave this example is that on the one hand, the Government of Canada is destroying a 30 year old working relationship with the American administration on the joint management of the St. Lawrence Seaway, while, on the other hand, it is making a mess of the comprehensive free trade negotiations.
During the course of the day, because I am a Member of Parliament from Newfoundland, and because I wanted to be sure that I was not parochial in my address, I spent a great deal of time speaking of the impact of this Bill and Clause 4 on the St. Lawrence Seaway, on the Port of Montreal, on the Port of Thunder Bay, the impact on farmers in the Prairies, on
foresters in British Columbia, on miners in the Province of Quebec, on the Great Lakes-


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize for interrupting the Hon. Member during his excellent speech.
I certainly don't want to criticize our interpreters whose performance in interpreting the Hon. Member's eloquence, word for word, is quite remarkable, but while listening to the French translation, I missed part of the Hon. Member's comments referring to the objections of people from Montreal who took part in the Montreal economic summit and who are also opposed to this Bill.
I therefore want to make it quite clear that in opposing this bill, the Hon. Member was also speaking on their behalf.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure it is not the fault of the translators, either, that for some reason I find it difficult-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The interpreters.


Mr. Speaker:: Or interpreters. I am sure that the point the Hon. member was raising became lost, as well.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's the interpretation.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, lest there be any doubt on whose behalf I am speaking, let me list the kinds of people on whose behalf I speak.


An Hon. Member:: All Canadians.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, all Canadians. However, 1 Find it strange that the Government has managed to make so many different kinds of people mad at the Government at the same time. Let us look at who is made at the Government because of Clause 4. It is an incredible array of diverse backgrounds and various interests all coming to the same conclusion.
The loneliest fisherman on the bill of Cape St. George on the southwest coast of Newfoundland is opposed to the Bill. The President of the Montreal Chamber of Commerce is opposed to the Bill. The potato farmer in P.E.I., who is producing potatoes at two cents a pound less than he is receiving when he goes to market, is opposed to the Bill. People along the northern part of New Brunswick, many of whom have harbours that need to be dredged regularly, are opposed to the Bill. People involved in the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association in Ontario are opposed to the Bill. The farmer who is on the Prairies, confronted with the lowest wheat prices he has had in 60 years and battling off a plague of grasshoppers, is opposed to the Bill. People in the Port of Thunder Bay, where 500 permanent jobs have already been lost, with the threat of the loss of 1,500 more permanent jobs, are opposed to the Bill. In the great Province of Alberta, those people in the forest industry, to the extent it exists, knowing they must get their product to the market through the Great Lakes, are opposed to the Bill. The people who are employed in
June 27, 1986

the forest industry of British Columbia, as represented by the Executive Director of the Council of Forestry Industries of British Columbia, are opposed to the Bill. All other Canadians who made representations before the committee were opposed to the Bill.
It is amazing that one Bill could bring so many Canadians from so many different backgrounds and interests together with a united voice, all singing a chorus from the same hymn book, "We are opposed to the Bill", yet the Government continues to feed up before this Parliament, in the dying days, in an attempt to sneak it through, this Draconian measure, this dastardly piece of legislation that would cause such ill effects throughout such a wide cross-section of Canadian society. It is beyond my comprehension that the 211 Members of the Government could have become so thick-calloused in so short a time.


An Hon. Member:: Why are they so partisan?


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is right, Mr. Speaker. Why are they so partisan? Having said that, I want to be a bit more parochial about the nature of the Bill. I think I have done my duty as a Member of Parliament for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Very well.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am speaking on behalf of all Canadians, including people in the great City of Toronto, from where the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) comes. I hope Hon. Members do not mind if I become slightly more parochial and try to describe this from the point of view of some of my constituents from the great riding of Humber-Port au Port- St. Barbe in western Newfoundland..


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I would like to explain why my constituents are opposed to the Bill, and in order for Hon. Members to appreciate why my constituents are opposed, I must draw a picture of a typical community on the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland, which received the first people who came from Europe to North America.


John V. Nunziata: Johnny Cabot.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Hon. Member is absolutely wrong. John Cabot was recognized in the history books as the first person who landed in North America, in Newfoundland; along with Christopher Columbus, as claimed by the Americans. Actually, there has been a world heritage site declared on the great northern peninsula, in L'Anse Aux Meadows, as recognized in the special by National Geographic, where the Vikings came before John Cabot or Christopher Columbus. The Government of Canada has declared a world heritage site and this particular administration has put the finishing touch on a national park at that location.
Canada Shipping Act
In this land that received the first settlers to the new world, today, centuries later, there exists small communities of people who are close to the land and sea. These people have traditionally, for hundreds of years, made their living by going into the forests and cutting trees for the pulp and paper companies in the winter and by going to the water during the summer season and taking from the resources of the sea. These people are primary producers. They do not receive their salaries from the Government of Canada or from the Government of Newfoundland. They do not receive their salaries by working in office towers or in the service industries. They produce from the land. They ask nothing more of their country or society, being Canadians, other than the right to pursue this way of life that they have chosen. They have chosen not to be in Toronto, in the canyons of steel and glass and concrete. They have chosen not to be in Ottawa, surrounded by the ivory towers of centralized bureaucracy. They have chosen not to be on the farms in the Prairies. They have chosen to live on the rock, near the salt water, to make their living from the sea and from the forests.
How does Clause 4 affect my constituents? How does it affect the people of the communities of Port au Choix, Cook's Harbour, Trout River, Woody Point, L'Anse au Loup, on the side of the Prime Minister L'Anse Clair and L'Anse aux Meadows on my side? The Quebec north shore people are the same kind of people and have the same kind of lifestyle. How does it affect them?
This Bill will allow the Canadian Coast Guard to impose user-fees on fishermen. It will allow the Department of Transport to charge for navigational aids to fishermen. It will allow it to charge dredging fees to fishermen. The Kirby report, an exhaustive study conducted several years ago, stated concerning primary producers that even though their contribution to the GNP of this country is substantial, they, themselves, are among the lowest paid people of Canada, many living below the poverty line. How does this Bill affect them? It states to a fisherman who is at sea in his boat in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, taking on water with a crew of four and a 58-foot dragger, that if he calls the Coast Guard when he is in trouble, he will receive a bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It would be cheaper to sink.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It says to him that the Government of Canada states, "If you are in trouble, we will help you, but we will send you a bill". It states to that fisherman who is barely able to make it from pillar to post, and to pay to keep a roof over his head or to put bread and butter on his table, that maybe he is better off taking the risk. Perhaps he would be better off waiting for someone else to come rescue him. Maybe he can get his motor to limp back to shore. Maybe he will make it. If he can then he will not have a Bill waiting for him from the Government of Canada for asking that someone assist him when his life was in danger. That is what this bill does to a fisherman in Atlantic Canada. That is what it does to a fisherman in Port Saunders or Port au Choix.

June 27, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
What else does this Bill say? What does it say to those people who live in parts of Canada where ice builds up starting in the month of December and continues through January, February and March so that by April there are mountains of ice some 15 to 40 feet high? Tons of ice build up in some areas of Canada which separates fishermen from their boats and from the water on which they make their living.
The Bill says that if one calls the Canadian Coast Guard to come and make one trip to break that ice to allow a fishermen, his colleagues, his neighbours, his friends, his brothers and family to go back to sea to make a living from it, that it will be glad to oblige providing the fisherman pays. That is what Clause 4 of Bill C-75 says to fishermen on the Great Northern Peninsula.
I see that a former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is in the House. During the time he was Minister, and insofar as Fishermen are concerned, he earned a reputation, and rightly so, as one who would always err, if he erred, on the side of fishermen. He knows about what I am talking. He knows that the way of life that would see a man get up at five o'clock in the morning to go to sea in rain and snow and sleet and cold is not an easy one. He knows that fishermen, like farmers, miners and woodsmen, are our primary producers. They do not number among the wealthiest Canadians, but they are among the most efficient. They are among those who make the greatest contribution to this country. They are the people who will be negatively impacted as a result of this Bill.
What do we mean when we say "navigational aids"? We are talking about lights on harbour entrances that allow fishermen to come into harbour during severe weather or fog. The Government has now decided that it will provide navigational aids when and if local communities are prepared to pay for them, since they fall under the provisions of this Bill.
Canada is a marine nation. Perhaps there is no other nation in the world which has as much coastline, Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic, as does this great country of ours. Most countries develop policies to support their natural strengths, to recognize the realities of their environment. Can Hon. Members imagine Canada, which is the greatest marine nation in the world and with the largest coastline, developing a policy that would treat that intrinsic geographic nature of our being as something to be provided in the same manner as McDonald's sells hamburgers? That is to say, provide these services only when numbers warrant, only when the population is large enough to warrant it. Can Hon. Members imagine a nation which says to the people who live along the great coastlines, be they the coastlines of the Pacific, the Atlantic or the Arctic, those Canadians who by their presence guarantee our sovereignty, that they shall pay a penalty because of where they live?
Is it not insane to spend $500 million on an ice-breaker to go up in the Northwest Passage because the Americans sailed through with the Polar Seal Is it not insane to spend that amount of money on an ice-breaker which is used to reassure
our sovereignty when all we have to do is recognize the presence of our native peoples and others who choose to live in the North? They do not need these additional fees imposed upon them because of where they have chosen to live. If we are worried about sovereignty in the North, the best guarantee we have is the presence of our citizens. The best guarantee we have in terms of their presence is to treat them like decent human beings and not as another resource for the long pickpocket fingers of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who wants to yet again grab-


John V. Nunziata: Are you calling him a thief?


Brian Vincent Tobin: No. I would not call the Minister a thief. That would not cross my mind. I would call him a Scrooge.


John V. Nunziata: What is the difference?


Brian Vincent Tobin: A thief would come and take from one's pocket when one is not looking. The Minister of Finance would not do that. On the other hand a Scrooge would weasel, pound, twist, turn and squeeze every last ounce of blood out of one before letting go. It is the Scrooge-like mentality of the Government which I protest.
We are warning Canadians here and now that the long hand of the Government is aimed at their pockets. It is determined to rob from them their last pennies. It is determined in the case of fishermen and farmers, who are facing the worst crisis in decades in terms of prices, to take one more slice of bread off their plates in the mornings. The Government is determined to remove a few more potatoes from their pots in the evenings. Yes, it is even determined to take a few more bottles of Labatt's Blue out of the case at the end of a hard week when the fishermen look forward to a bit of relaxation. Why? Because the Government is imposing these additional charges on our farmers and our fishermen.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member in his flights. Obviously, his tank is still full. I wish to ask him a question. Would he not mind getting to some facts of the matter in terms of transportation and in terms of the Minister of Transport's commitment to transportation? Does the Hon. Member not realize that the Government and the Minister of Transport have cut off a grant of $48,000 to Transport 2000-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member has a speech he wants to make on the subject.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No. That is a question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that he is not raising a point of order. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, whether or not my colleague, with whom I have the pleasure of sitting on the Transport Committee, raised an appropriate point of order, he has raised a very good question. I wish to assure my colleague that having been
June 27, 1986

here for but a few minutes, I have not quite settled in and got on track. I thank him for his assistance in helping me to get back on track.
The Hon. Member mentioned something that is terribly relevant to this debate today, Transport 2000, which is a nongovernmental and non-political body. It does not carry any political stripes. It is an organization which has always provided the country with objective and useful commentary on government transportation policy. For the first time in many years it is being told by the Government that the funding which it received at arm's length with no strings attached is now being cut off. Some $48,000 was provided last year.
I suppose the objective and non-partisan assessment of Transport 2000 was not preaching the message according to the criteria that exists with respect to producing slick publications in Washington and making home movies for the Prime Minister. Transport 2000 has been told that because of its objective and honest critique of the Government's transport policy, the $48,000 grant which it has received for so many years is to be cut off next year. The Government is not interested in hearing non-partisan and objective comment on transport policy, and I find that to be tragic.
Indeed, I find it to be insufferable that the mere $48,000 which was providing such a benefit to all Canadians and an occasional sober slap to the Government is being cut off at a time when the Prime Minister and his entourage are spending $50,000 and $100,000 per day living like blue-eyed sheikhs in the cities of Paris, New York and Washington. I find it shocking that Transport 2000 should have its $48,000 yearly grant removed at a time when the Government is spending more than $50,000 per day to have a Hercules aircraft loaded up with two van loads of video equipment and technicians who chase the Prime Minister around the world making home video movies.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians are not interested in a northern version of Bedtime for Bortzo nor in The Life of Brian as represented by the flights of fancy on which the Prime Minister takes himself during foreign travel. They are interested in objective comment and the expertise Transport 2000 has provided to the consumers of Canada for so many years, something which is now in doubt because the Government has decided that this organization is not toeing the line well enough. I think that is tragic.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member permit a question?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Sure.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I appreciate his response regarding the matter of the grants for Transport 2000. Does the Hon. Member know that the office of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) retained Transport 2000 to do some work and has owed it $138.85 for the past year and a half? The
Canada Shipping Act
Government has not only cut off its grant but it will not pay the bill. I would appreciate it if the hon. gentleman would expound on that for a moment.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member had an intervention to make. I appreciate again that it is not a point of order and I will not recognize it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe it is appropriate on a point of order to ask a person who has the floor if he would permit a question. The hon. gentleman said he would, I asked him the question, what else do you need?


Mr. Speaker:: You need a ruling of the House that allows that to be done.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is tragic enough to discover that the grant for this neutral organization has been cut off, but it is even more difficult to comprehend that this Bill has been outstanding for over a year. I thank the Hon. Member for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and indeed to the attention of the Minister. Apparently his Parliamentary Secretary is taking a break or is answering the phone. Perhaps as a result of the Hon. Member's intervention, this small injustice might be resolved as we attempt to bring to the attention of Canadians this larger injustice represented by Bill C-75, Clause 4.
When the Government brought this Bill before the House for third reading some two weeks ago, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated to Members of Parliament that a number of major shipping organizations in Canada endorsed the Government's initiative in Clause 4. He said that the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association was supportive of Clause 4. What do you think happened, Mr. Speaker? The next day, lo and behold, every single Member of Parliament and Senator received a telex from the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association. One might have expected that the telex would have said that the association endorsed the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall). Surprise of surprises, that is not what the telex said. The telex begins with the word "contrary". Do you know what that word means, Mr. Speaker? It means counter, contrary, the opposite of, counter to and contrary. The telex read: "Contrary to the impression possibly left by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association does not now nor never has supported Clause 4 of Bill C-75. Bill C-75 should be amended to delete Clause 4 at this time."
I think it is extremely important that the record be set straight because we would not want the House to inadvertently or accidentally get the impression that anyone in Canada is warped enough or misinformed enough to endorse Clause 4 of Bill C-75.
More to the point, during the course of his remarks, the Parliamentary Secretary left the impression that Canada Steamship Lines supported the Bill. He left the impression that that company, a major Canadian company, supported the

June 27, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
Bill and that is one reason the House should pass the Bill, Lo and behold, the next day, a telex was sent to the Minister of Transport regarding Bill C-75. The telex read as follows:
"It has come to my attention that in third reading debate regarding Bill C-75 on Wednesday, June 11, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, Nova Scotia, and your Parliamentary Secretary said that he was "encouraged by the positive response of Canada Steampship Lines Inc. amongst others to Section 4 of Bill C-75". That is a distortion of our position that I would like to correct. In our appearance before the legislative committee on this subject, we stated that the "concept of user fees exists and is accepted in the shipping industry today". However, we went on to list a number of serious objections to Clause 4. We were and remain concerned about the open-ended nature of the Section and the lack of reasonable limitations on this new cost-recovery mandate. In addition, with declining cargoes on the Seaway and a weakened competitive position, we consider the timing of these proposed new charges to be particularly poor. Our concerns regarding Section 4 are outlined in detail in the brief which we sent to you and presented to the legislative committee. I think it would be appropriate that the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East and your Department take a second look at that brief as well as those presented by the Dominion Marine Association, the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association and many others. It is our opinion that Section 4 of Bill C-75 will be a serious blow to the shipping industry and the industries and economies associated with it. Any other statement is a misrepresentation of CSL's position.
It is indeed a strange day when major Canadian shipping organizations and companies find it necessary to send a telex to every single Member of Parliament and Senator to indicate that their positions have been misrepresented by a representative of the Government in seeking support of Members of Parliament for this ill-conceived Bill C-75.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) has been referring to a certain telex that was sent to Members of Parliament. I seek direction from Your Honour on whether it would be appropriate at this point to request that the document, to which the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) referred, be tabled in the House to enable all Canadians-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order. Neither the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) nor the Hon. Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata) have the right to table such a document.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, are you suggesting that we table the document or not?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is well aware that he cannot table it, no matter what the Chair or he might want.


Mrs. Finestone:: On a point of information, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: There is nothing called a point of information in this House. There is in some other Houses but not in this one.


Sheila Finestone: I was wondering whether we could have it appended to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have been very clear in what I just said. Neither the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) nor any other can have such a matter appended to Hansard, no matter how much they might want to.


Marcel Prud'homme: By unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Not even by unanimous consent.


Brian Vincent Tobin: All I can say about the whole matter is that if the Government of Canada was as consistent in delivering on its commitments as is the Speaker in the interpretation of the rules of the House, we would not be here today discussing this dastardly Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I will be more than happy to make copies of these two telexes which indeed are damning. They point to the misinterpretation and perhaps inadvertent misleading of the House which has occurred in an attempt to try to garner support for this piece of legislation. I would be happy to send copies of them to all Members of Parliament, both in the House and in the Senate. I know they are waiting with bated breath to see the telexes which clearly indicate the Government's complicity in trying to mislead, inadvertently of course, Members of Parliament in respect of Bill C-75 in the support it receives or does not receive.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What kind of breath was it?


Brian Vincent Tobin: It was a big one. It is beyond the comprehension of most Canadians. Indeed it is beyond the comprehension of most Members of Parliament who sit here, truly basking in the mood of reform which we thought permeated this place some months ago after the work of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the Hon. Member for Papineau, and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). They headed an all-Party committee on the reform of the House of Commons. Their good work appealed to the integrity in all of us. It also appealed to the lone individual in all of us to stand aside from Party consideration and Party lines occasionally and to exercise our individual conscience and judgment. Despite the appeal to make this place a better place and to make us true legislators in the true sense of the word, the Government has brought in Bill C-75. Notwithstanding the incredible, almost unanimous, well informed body of opinion about the negative consequences of Clause 4 of Bill C-75, the Government of Canada brought that same Bill before Parliament today.
June 27, 1986

I should like to refer to the stubbornness which is being demonstrated by the Minister of Transport. The Minister has earned-and to some extent he deserves it-a reputation as a fairly competent fellow. I think that reputation is going to his head in the same way as the Government's majority has gone to the head of the Prime Minister. Notwithstanding representations, he continues with Bill C-75. That stubborn streak ignores the views of the people of Canada and the views of parliamentarians in almost every Party. It is the same stubborn streak which has given rise to the situation within the shipping assets of the Government of Canada. Be they Coast Guard ships, DND ships, marine ships or freighters, there is a policy which says that employees on ships in Atlantic Canada should be paid less than those on the West Coast. I am referring to employees with the same job classification and doing exactly the same job. An employee in the same position in Atlantic Canada receives $4,000 to $5,000 less in salary than an individual in the same job, with the same classification, working on a ship along the West Coast of Canada. That situation exists today.
We have brought that discrepancy to the attention of the Minister. It is so ridiculous and so heart-rending that employees on the West Coast, from the great Province of British Columbia, who are recipients of the higher wages, joined with their brothers from Atlantic Canada in Ottawa to say that the discrepancy was unfair, unreasonable, and must be stopped. They displayed generosity, sincerity, and a desire to share in the carrying of each other's load. They were committed to the principle that we are our brother's keeper. Notwithstanding that, the Government of Canada turned a blind eye. The Government is saying that those ship employees who ply the Atlantic waters and work, by the admission of employees from western Canada, longer hours and in more difficult conditions are somehow, for some inexplicable reason, second-class citizens. All of us believe that our citizenship entitles us to exactly the same treatment no matter where we live.
It is that kind of stubbornness, pigheadedness, and insensitivity to the plight of our fellow Canadians which persists in Bill C-75. The inability to make things right when the solution is so obvious permeates the Government's mentality and, more important, the Minister of Transport who persists in putting this Bill before the House.
I should like to recapitulate what I said. This Bill has brought Canadians of diverse background and from different regions together as has no other Bill in the history of Parliament.
It is a rare day in Canada. Let me refer to the office vacated by the Prime Minister, that of the President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada. It is a smaller office now because part of the operation was shut down by the previous occupant, the current Prime Minister. Huge chunks of Quebec and Labrador were shut down.


John V. Nunziata: The cameras have been taken out.
Canada Shipping Act


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is a smaller office, the cameras are gone, and the bathroom has shrunk in size. Nevertheless, the person who now occupies that office agrees with those people who are working their fields at two o'clock in the afternoon in Alberta. They are fighting desperately to save their crops at a time when prices are the lowest they have been in 60 years. They are battling not only international pressure and competition from the EEC and the United States, but they are battling as well a natural plague of grasshoppers.
The grasshopper is no more insidious than this Bill. While the farmer can look after the grasshopper with a squirt of poison-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, he cannot.


Brian Vincent Tobin: At least some of them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It does not work any longer.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I hear the Hon. Member telling me that poison does not work on the grasshopper any longer. In that case, the Bill and the grasshopper have an identical impact upon farmers. No matter how much they squirt at grasshoppers, they keep coming and ultimately destroy the crops; no matter how much farmers keep howling and Hon. Members keep talking, the Government keeps coming forward with this Bill. One way or another, be it the natural plague of grasshoppers or the plague of the Minister of Transport, farmers will get it.
It is a rare day when farmers and the fellow who occupies the IOCC office agree, when the industrialist and forester who lives in the little town of Smithers, a beautiful location on the coastline of northern British Columnbia, a little piece of heaven, agree.
The decision yesterday of the International Trading Commission was five to zero. The decision said that the Canadian product is causing injury to American products. The worker wonders whether he will have a job in six months. It is a strange day when the farmer and the forestry workers who are sitting just below the peaks of the beautiful mountains of British Columbia and the fellows sitting in the ivory tower of the corporate boardrooms would all have the same view about this Bill. It is a strange day when we know that the potato farmer in the riding of the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson), who has made a submission before the legislative committee, has the same view as the President of the Montreal Chamber of Commerce about this Bill. Never has the Government succeeded in so uniting Canadians to sing from the same hymn book, Mr. Speaker.
It is a strange day indeed when we know that the poorest fisherman has the same view as the man who sits atop the heap in the corporate boardrooms of this country. Surely to goodness if Canadians are to believe that Members opposite are anything more than surfers-those who surfed in on this Tory wave are those who shall surf out on the Tory wave,

June 27, 1986
Business of the House
temporary occupiers of the surfboard-then they would expect Members opposite to oppose this Dranconian brutal, callous, heartless, destructive piece of legislation that will destroy this country from one end of the land to the other.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians are sitting quietly. They got over the nirvana and the euphoria of the summer of 1984. They are off the bandwagon.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As Your Honour will recall, at the time when introduction of Bills took place during Routine Proceedings, we were to have called first reading of a Bill to amend the Patent Act. At that time the Table indicated to me that the Royal Recommendation had not yet been received. Under those circumstances I am appealing to you, in view of your observations at the time that that was the case, to revert to Introduction of Bills so that this Bill may be brought forward.
We, on the part of the Government, have complied entirely with all of the requirements for this Bill to be brought forward.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that that procedure can only take place with unanimous consent. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is, therefore, seeking unanimous consent to revert to Introduction of Bills.
I have investigated this matter because it concerned me. I feel that I must say to the House that the Royal Recommendation left the House of Commons at 9.15 a.m. today. It was signed by Her Excellency at approximately eleven o'clock this morning. Thereafter, there was a series of errors that are administrative and partly as a result of my own administration's errors-people who work for me. I have to say that I cannot yet figure out and determine why the Royal Recommendation did not get here in time. I say that to the House because I think the House has a right to know.
I am putting to the House the request which has come through the Hon. President of the Privy Council which seems appropriate to the Chair, that unanimous consent be granted as it would normally be in other circumstances. Therefore, I seek unanimous consent to revert to Introduction of Bills.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, it has not been my practice in any way to thwart the Government's right to bring forward its legislation in the past and neither would I do that today were it possible that the legislation might be dealt with in the immediate future. In five minutes or less the House will rise, and, therefore, the legislation will simply sit around.
We understand that the Bill could be introduced in September and will be at exactly the same point in the proceedings as it would be now if introduced. I have been instructed by my caucus and my colleagues to withhold the necessary unanimous consent.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is my impression that the Government had ample time to get its act together to make sure the Royal Recommendation was in the proper form so the Bill could be introduced.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Liberals blew it several times.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is unfair, Herb.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That not having taken place, again with the advice of my caucus I will not, on behalf of my caucus, grant unanimous consent to revert to the Introduction of Bills.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would have thought better of you, Herb. That is beneath contempt and you know that.


Mr. Speaker:: Unanimous consent not being granted, we will resume debate.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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 in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks on Clause C-4 on Bill C-75.


John V. Nunziata: Not yet.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Just for today. I shall carry on in September. I want to acknowledge that the Royal Recommendation did not arrive in time for this Bill that would increase the cost of drugs for our senior citizens. It is an act of God.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: God interferes sometimes on behalf of the people of Canada. For that we give thanks.


Mrs. Mailly:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought the Bill before the House was Bill C-75, which deals with ... and I just heard my hon. colleague talking about pharmaceutical products. I have some doubts as to the relevance of his speech. If he has nothing more to say, Mr. Speaker, I think he should sit down.
June 27, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's point is well taken. The Member will bring his speech to relevance.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member permit one short question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my opening remarks on my speech, which I hope to conclude later in September, by saying that if the Government of Canada thought the opposition Members were so eager to go on holidays that they could slip this lousy legislation through Parliament, it was wrong. We will be as vigorous as September as we are today. We will not allow this Draconian, heartless piece of legislation that will so negatively affect our constituents to pass Parliament today, tomorrow or next September. We know that any time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Papi-neau (Mr. Ouellet).


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I want to thank my hon. colleague for the vigour of his comments and his desire to deal very extensively with his subject. I think this is what thousands of Quebecers want and what thousands of fishermen want and what thousands of small craft owners want. I urge him to keep up the good work.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not suppose I need to say that that is not a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that as a humble servant of the House of Newfoundland-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Can I keep going?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: In that case the Hon. Member will, I am sure, understand that I must call it five o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the Order adopted earlier this day, it being five o'clock the sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.
Members will know that there is an important discussion that occurs between Members of Parliament usually at this time. Therefore, the seminar on adjournment will begin in Room 16 appropriately.
At 5 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.
Royal Assent SITTING RESUMED At 5.04 p.m. the House resumed.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this Honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-98, an Act to consolidate various enactments that provide for drawbacks, reductions, refunds and remissions of duties, other than export drawbacks for which provision is made in sections 82 to 87 of the Customs Act, to amend the Customs Tariff and to repeal or revoke the enactments so consolidated-Chapter No. 29.
Bill C-118, an Act to amend the Currency Act-Chapter No. 30.
Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity-Chapter No. 31.
Bill C-106, an Act to amend the Young Offenders Act, the Criminal Code, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act-Chapter No. 32.
Bill C-l 17, an Act to facilitate financial arrangements between farmers and their creditors-Chapter No. 33.
Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977- Chapter No. 34.
Bill C-128, an Act to amend the Judges Act and other Acts in relation to judicial matters-Chapter No. 35.
Bill C-88, an Act to authorize the acquisition of Marine Atlantic Inc. and to provide for other matters in relation thereto-Chapter No. 36.
Bill C- 111, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff and to amend An Act to amend the Customs Tariff-Chapter No. 37.
Bill C-l 16, an Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Federal Court Act-Chapter No. 38.
Bill C-l 12, an Act to amend the Energy Administration Act and provide for certain matters in relation thereto-Chapter No. 39.
Bill C-90, an Act respecting pension plans organized and administered for the benefit of persons employed in connection with certian federal works, undertakings and businesses-Chapter No. 40.
Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament-Chapter No. 41.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I would hate to break a long established practice of mine. On behalf of everyone here I would like to wish you a very good rest, a good summer, and I am sure everyone will join with me in asking you to give our best regards to Madam Bosley.

June 27, 1986
Royal Assent


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!	It being after 5 p.m, the House stands adjourned until
Monday, September 8, 1986, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Mr. Speaker: I thank the Hon. Member and extend the Order 3(1). same wishes to all Members.	The House adjourned at 5.19 p.m.

Thursday, July 24, 1986