1986-11-18

[Stage Direction]
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (A) for the financial year ending March 31, 1987, was presented by Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Mr. Joe Price (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petition Nos. 332-1, 332-2, 332-7.



FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS


Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the First Report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report today.


PETITIONS
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of students at the Charles-Rodrigue school in Levis, and more specifically, a group which calls itself "Anti-war". Their petition concerns disarmament
and asks our Government for positive intervention to promote world disarmament.




André Plourde: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine):
That the First Report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, tabled in the House today, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[DOT] (mo)

Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 83 1 move:
That Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987, laid upon the table earlier this day, be referred to the several standing committees as follows:
Since the list is rather long and there is a detailed allocation of the Supplementary Estimates to the committees, if it is agreeable to the House, I would ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: We are
agreeable to this procedure, as long as the Minister gives his assurance that it is presented in the usual form, and there are no surprises in it for us.

November 18, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I can give the Hon. Member that assurance. If he does find some technical error, I assure him that I will make that correction.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development:
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 15a, 20a, 30a, 50a, and L56a.
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Agriculture, Vote 15a.
To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture: Communications, Votes 5a, 10a, 25a, 45a, 65a, 70a and 80a.
To the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources:
Energy, Mines and Resources, Votes L31a and 55a.
To the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry:
Agriculture, Votes 20a, 25a and 30a.
Environment, Votes la, 10a and 15a.
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade: External Affairs, Votes la, 5a, 10a, LI6a, 20a, 30a, 35a, L45a and 60a.
To the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs:
Finance, Vote 40a.
To the Standing Committee on Government Operations:
Public Works, Votes 35a and 40a.
Supply and Services, Vote la.
Treasury Board, Vote 21a.
To the Standing Committee on Human Rights:
Justice, Vote 10a.
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General:
Justice, Votes la, 5a, 25a and 40a.
Solicitor General, Votes la and 10a.
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration: Employment and Immigration, Votes la, 5a, 15a, 20a, 25a and 30a.
Labour, Votes la and 5a.
To the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services: Parliament, Vote 5a.
To the Standing Committee on National Defence:
National Defence, Votes 5a and 10a.
To the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare:
National Health and Welfare, Votes la, 10a, 15a, 25a, 35a and 80a.
To the Standing Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion:
Regional Industrial Expansion, Votes 2a, 10a, 15a, L25a and L26a.
To the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology:
Science and Technology, Votes la, 15a and 20a.
To the Standing Committee on Secretary of State:
Secretary of State, Votes 5a and 25a.
To the Standing Committee on Transport:
Transport, Votes la, 10a, 15a, 30a, 40a and 63a.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cadieux that Bill C-24, an Act to provide for the maintenance of ports operations, be read a second time and by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker:: When the debate on Bill C-24 was interrupted last evening at six o'clock p.m. the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) had completed his speech.
I will now recognize Hon. Members who wish to participate in the 10-minute question and comment period following the Hon. Member's speech.
There being no questions or comments, on debate, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, obviously we have not had a great deal of time to review the proposed legislation which was only tabled in the House yesterday and received in our offices at approximately 10.15 a.m. yesterday.
There are a number of points that I wish to make. One point that jumped out when I read the Bill, and I think it would probably impress itself upon all Members, is that in Clause 13(2) when the Minister invokes prohibition against unions or employers for breaking the regulations as set out in this new Bill:
No officer or representative of a union who is convicted of an offence under this Act that was committed while the officer or representative was acting in that capacity shall be employed in any capacity by, or act as an officer or representative of, the union at any time during the Five years immediately after the date of the conviction.
For some reason there is no such application against the employer. If this legislation is intended to bring an even hand to a difficult situation, in Clause 13(1) why did the Government see fit to apply the offence prohibitions against the individual, the union, or the company? Yet in Clause 13(2) the only people who stand to lose their jobs for five years are representatives of the union? This is clearly an indication of the anti-union sentiment and anti-union mentality of this Government.
Furthermore, there is one way of adding some sense of balance to the Act. Those Members who are from British Columbia will want to take a specific look at Clause 13(2). If there is an obligation imposed to respect the law, that obligation should be imposed on both sides. At the very least, there should be an amendment coming from the Government which includes similar sanctions against the employer.
In reviewing the legislation imposed by previous Governments, for example, the Shipping Continuation Act of 1978, an
November 18, 1986

Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of long-shoring and related operations at ports on the West Coast of Canada, assented to in 1982; and an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services assented to in 1978, for the first time in the history of this Parliament the Government is talking not only about proceeding with regulations which govern both union and management with respect to the application of this Bill, but it is also talking about kicking someone out of a union office for five years if there is a contravention. When we had a postal strike in 1979 the imposition was a $100 a day fine. There was never any consideration that someone should be kicked out of the union office for five years.
When we had the imposition of a back-to-work order on the West Coast longshoremen's strike of 1982, the prohibition was a contempt-of-court charge, if you did not live within the regulations as imposed on the back-to-work order. Likewise, in the Great Lakes shipping agreement of 1978, the only penalty imposed was a contempt-of-court order.
Why is this Government proceeding with legislation which would deny a union office holder the right to serve in that union as an officer for five years at the same time that there is no concurrent penalty being applied against the employer? Are we now suggesting that the employer should be kicked out of his or her office for five years?
I suspect that Clause 13(2) was a deliberate attempt by the Government to essentially buy the company line when it comes to this back-to-work legislation. The provisions for the industrial inquiry commission buttress my argument that the Government has bought the company line hook, line, and sinker. In the industrial inquiry commission the one area that is turned over to the commission is the container issue. Membership in this commission is again chosen in a rather ambiguous way by the Government.
The long-standing problems surrounding the Port of Vancouver were cited in the press release of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) when he announced the changes yesterday. He talked about the difficulties which have existed over the last 16 years. In fact some positive suggestions have been put forward by people working on the docks and in the port. They say that the container clause is only a smokescreen. It is the tip of the iceberg.
In fact there is a lack of competitiveness on the part of that west coast port. The Government is not prepared to provide the kind of massive investment into upgrading the port which we see in the United States.
Let us look at the report on the St. Lawrence project in 1985. It cites the Port of Vancouver as handling only between seven million and eight million tonnes of general cargo. Only 12 per cent to 15 per cent of this total is containerized. Therefore, containers are not the only problem facing the Port of Vancouver. That same report of June, 1985 cites the real
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
problem-the lack of competitiveness of the port. For example, between 1976 and 1983 there was reference to cross-border container traffic between Canada and the United States, according to Ports Canada data. In 1983 there were 47,362 unloaded containers destined for Canada in American ports. That amounts to a business loss to Canada because our ports were not competitive. However, 16,103 unloaded containers destined for the United States were waiting on the West Coast of Canada in the same period of time. The lack of competition is not strictly related to containers, because containers only amount to 12 per cent or 15 per cent of business ventures at the port.
I am sure most Hon. Members have had an opportunity to review the brief delivered to our offices by the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union. It pointed to the real problem. Let us look at the Port of Seattle which is in direct competition with the Port of Vancouver. That port has invested over $90 million in the last two years to build new facilities or upgrade existing ones. A comparison of container capability-who can deliver how much and how quickly- shows that Vancouver has five cranes and that Seattle and Tacoma combined have thirty-one cranes. Is it any wonder that there are competition problems in Canada? Is it any wonder that many of our containers are now being unloaded in the United States for shipment into Canada?
It is not the container clause problem. That is a smokescreen for a far more serious problem which relates to the Government's inability or unwillingness to upgrade the capacity for container movement or shipments over the last number of years. Let us look at the decision-making process in the United States. The union pointed out that most ports were under local control, so decisions could be made quickly and directly by those persons involved. In Canada we have theoretically passed legislation which decentralized authority. However, in practical terms most decisions are still made 3,000 miles away in land-locked Ottawa. We must not only look at the question of containers, we must look as well at the over-all issue of productivity at Vancouver ports.
We will in fact propose a number of amendments. It is our belief that the industrial inquiry commission to be set up by the Government should not be restricted to looking only at the container question. If that is the case, it has clearly bought the argument of the employers that the only problem is in fact containers. We would prefer to look at the over-all question of productivity and competitiveness.
One key issue which the Government has not addressed in this particular piece of legislation is the question of job security. We will be proposing amendments in that regard as well.
I should like to refer to the industrial inquiry commission. The Government is rather vague about who will be appointed to the commission and what will be their qualifications. I wonder whether the qualifications of the appointees to the commission are anything akin to those of recent Senate appointees. To wit, a Senate appointee was quoted this

November 18, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
morning as saying the reasons the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) appointed her were because she was a woman, a Catholic, and from the outports of Newfoundland. There were no references to capability or capacity. She was appointed simply because she was an outport woman who happened to be a Catholic. If that is the nomination process chosen by the Government in the setting up of this industrial inquiry commission, we see very serious problems in the actual application of the responsibilities laid out by the Minister, even as limited as they are.


Mr. St. Germain:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think this forum should be utilized by the Elon. Member to make statements relating to Senate appointments. I do not think it has anything to do with the debate. It is character assassination, and it should be stopped immediately.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with the Hon. Member. That was not a point of order; it was strictly debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The first part of the point raised by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) suggested that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) might have commented upon Senate appointments. As far as relevancy is concerned, she did that for an extremely short period of time. Obviously the Hon. Member did not intend to speak on it for a lengthy period of time. I do not consider it to be a point of order. Also, 1 do not consider the second part of the Hon. Member's point to be a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I believe my comments were related to subclause 7(1) wherein it is indicated that the Minister shall confer upon himself or herself the right to make appointments to the industrial inquiry commission. If we look at the precedent which was apparently set as a result of the Senate appointments announced today, obviously we have a few questions to ask the Government. We should like to propose-and we will be moving amendments to that effect- that the appointees to the industrial inquiry commission must have the approval of both the union and the management.
I think there are plenty of precedents. For example, if we look at the general composition of unemployment insurance boards, generally speaking there is a union representative, a management representative, and a third representative appointed by Government. We feel that that would be a more desirable model than the commission membership being appointed by the Minister.
Who is on the commission? What are their qualifications? What expertise do they bring? According to the Minister's press release, this is the result of 16 years to 17 years of debate and discussion; also there has been a number of studies. We should like to see someone on the commission who knows what he or she is talking about. Naturally, coming from the Conservative Government, that might be a little difficult to find. However, it is something which must be considered. We will be making some amendments in that regard.
We have concerns about appointees to the industrial inquiry commission. We should like to know how they will be appointed, and we should like to see an extension of the terms of reference of the commission. Because the terms of reference are restricted solely to the container issue, which represents from 12 per cent to 15 per cent of the business in Vancouver ports, 85 per cent to 88 per cent of the problem is not being dealt with. An examination of the brief submitted to all Hon. Members by the ILWU would be a good way for us to consider some of the amendments.
At the same time I must point out how concerned my Party and I are about subclause 13(2). It discriminates against union workers because it indicates that if one is a company man, there is no problem. The prohibitions against companies are excluded from Clause 13(2). If one is a union office holder then he can be thrown out of the union for five years. He can even be deprived of his livelihood if he breaks any of the provisions of the proposed legislation. It seems to me that fair is fair; if legislation is to be introduced which imposes a penalty on one party then the same penalty should be imposed on the other party. It will be our proposition that the only way of dealing with this unjust subclause in the legislation is to strike it altogether. There are plenty of precedents to suggest that contempt of court provisions, a fine or other such provisions may be substituted which will indeed get the point across that legislation which must be obeyed is being passed. However, at the same time we do not want to penalize someone by taking five years out of his life from union or working activity simply because he has not followed the provisions of the Bill when there are no similar prohibitions against the employer.

So there are certainly a number of amendments we would like to propose, including amendments which, I feel, are simply a matter of fairness to the workers, because if we look at the provisions of Clause 13 (2) of the Bill, they clearly reflect the policy of this Government which has decided that if employees do not agree and break the law and are convicted, they are faced with the possibility of being kept from promoting union policies for a period of five years. And the Hon. Member says that-I don't know whether he read the clause, but in any case, Subclause (2) provides that:
No officer or representative of a union who is convicted of an offence under this Act that was committed while the officer or representative was acting in that capacity shall be employed in any capacity by, or act as an officer or representative of, the union at any time during the five years immediately after the date of the conviction.
Unlike Subclause 13(1), the reference is not to both employees and employers, to both workers and companies.
The second subclause refers only to workers, not to companies: And we think that penalizing a worker or a union member by prohibiting him from union activities for five years is much too harsh. It is an abuse of the legislative process, and we would prefer to see the subclause withdrawn altogether. That would be our choice, first and foremost. Failing that, we
November 18, 1986

should at least have the same prohibitions, the same interdictions applying to employers. How can we tell employees that, if they break the law, they could be kicked out of the union for five years when there is no equivalent sanction for employers? We are going to move to have this provision withdrawn, because I know there have been instances, involving even Liberal Governments, where the Government and the Opposition supported back-to-work legislation, whether the problem was a strike or a lockout. There are precedents.
There have been quite a few instances but, to my knowledge, this is the first time, as far as we have been able to ascertain, that we have a penalty to the extent of putting someone out of his job for five years. For instance, if we look at the Shipping Continuation Act which was passed in 1978, at the time the penalty for refusing to submit to the legislation and breaking the law was contempt of court order. That was the penalty in 1978. Contempt of court. If . . .


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to conclude as her time has expired.
[ Translation]


Sheila Maureen Copps: It meant a $100 fine. So I think there are precedents for imposing less serious penalties and for at least having the penalty apply to both employees and employers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain).


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) questioned numerous aspects of the Bill. I would like to address a couple of the matters she brought up this morning. She obviously has only one issue in question, that is, Clause 13. She mentioned this point twice in English and once in French. She repeated herself three times on this very clause. She pointed out that she did not have time to study the Bill, which was obvious by the fact that she kept repeating herself on this particular issue. It is an important issue. I agree with the Hon. Member in that respect. However, I do not think that we need her making the country believe that she is the sole protector of labour in the House of Commons. As a union president in the past I will certainly stand up for labour front and centre, which was proven in this House when the issue of shakes and shingles was before us. At that time her own Party refused to protect the jobs in the shake and shingle industry by refusing to reject the exportation of logs, blocks, bolts and blanks to the United States of America. So we do not need any lessons on the issue from the Hon. Member. The NDP stood with us on this issue when it was raised. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) took a strong position with us, but Members of the Liberal Party did not. The Liberal Party was prepared to sell out to the shake and shingle industry.
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
Let us now come down to the ILWU union aspect. Had the Hon. Member been in the House yesterday to listen to the debate on this particular issue she would have heard the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) bring an amendment forward to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux). The Minister of Labour said it was an excellent idea. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment will be implemented into the legislation.
The Hon. Member has also misled, not intentionally, the House in that she said these people will be deprived of being able to earn a livelihood. That is totally wrong. If she were to read the clause she would see that they will only be deprived of sitting as executives of the union, but they will still be able to be longshoremen. If she were to read the proposed amendment-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You don't even know what a bargaining agent is. Have you not ever heard of a full-time union appointee?


Gerry St. Germain: The fact is that the amendment which has been presented so adeptly by the New Democratic Party and which we are prepared to accept as a Party is well taken.
The Hon. Member spoke of cranes. If the Hon. Member knew anything about the West Coast she would know that there are 31 cranes in Seattle and Tacoma simply because the business has been going there. That is what we have to stop. If the Hon. Member knew anything about the West Coast she would know that the Americans are thinking of building a port in Bellingham, which is just south of the border. That is why we have to get the business back to British Columbia. For years the matter has not been resolved.
I would like the Hon. Member to comment on what she really knows about the West Coast in terms of shipping and cranes. It is a disgrace to get up in the House and not know anything about an issue on which one speaks. This is nearly a repeat of the shakes and shingles issue. And Members of the Liberal Party are all excited again because they do not know the issues on the West Coast and they are trying to deal with a problem about which they know nothing. I would like the Hon. Member to comment on the cranes and why she was not here yesterday to hear the Hon. Member for Regina West when he so adeptly brought forward his recommendation.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, for one who describes himself as a former union president, I am disturbed that he does not seem to understand how unions operate. Of course I repeated the issue with respect to Clause 13. I repeated it and I will continue to repeat it because it is a union-busting clause. This is anti-union legislation and Members of the Conservative Party got caught with their pants down. The Hon. Member should not talk to us in the Liberal Party about fighting for the working man and woman. I represent the most industrialized riding in the country and I have the right to speak out on labour matters.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 18, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the clause in question states:
No officer or representative of a union who is convicted of an offence-while the officer or representative was acting in that capacity shall be employed in any capacity by, or act as an officer or representative of, the union-
Now, presumably the association which the Member purports to speak for has paid employees. If they happen to be found in contravention of this law they can be thrown off their jobs for five years.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Gerry St. Germain: They are longshoremen.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Absolutely. They also have bargaining agents. The Hon. Member talks about shakes and shingles-


Gerry St. Germain: You know nothing about them.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He had the President of the U.S. shaking so much that Canadians were left with a case of the shingles because that Government put us in a position to be ripped off by the Americans. Where was he? Was he speaking for Canadians when it came to saving Canadian jobs? He was shaking in his boots because he was listening to that shekel salesman, the President of the U.S., who sold this country out to get a fast-track deal on free trade.
As for the NDP double-talk, they can take whatever position they want. They may take one position in B.C. and another here in Ontario, but we speak as one.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I find it totally disgusting that the Member would get up and question the action taken on shakes and shingles. There is one thing about it, we are in control.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerry St. Germain: Today the U.S. would give anything to remove the tariff on shakes and shingles. They realized they erred in their judgment. The fact is that the action we took was so positive and so definitive that we saved 99 per cent of the jobs in that industry. That industry is going to come out ahead because we control the production of raw cedar in North America. We will continue to control it through the limitations on exports of cedar shakes and shingles to the U.S. or anywhere else. I do not need any lessons from her on this.
She asks if I know anything about labour. At least I represented labour and stood in the rank and file.


Sheila Maureen Copps: So have I.


Gerry St. Germain: As was pointed out by another Hon. Member, no one over there has run companies or represented unions.
The Hon. Member also brought up the matter of the Commissioner. She said we are the Government and we should be showing leadership. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the
leadership shown by the Minister is second to none on this particular issue.


Mr. Foster:: Why do you want to apple polish? This is a serious matter.


Gerry St. Germain: 1 realize that. It is very serious, to the point that I think the Minister made an excellent choice in Mr. Kelly as a mediator. This is an example of where we are prepared to make certain that there is compassion and understanding, and that labour is given its full day in court the same as management. We want to see the situation resolved to the benefit not of a select group of employers or employees, but for all Canadians. If the Hon. Member realized the dilemma that Canada is in as a result of our dependency on our natural resources, and how we must maintain a solid transportation operation on the West Coast-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member is making a speech. He had his time yesterday. Today he is supposed to make a comment or ask a short question.


Mr. Blais:: It was a comment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is commenting. He started the question and comment period. No other Member stood up to comment and therefore the Chair went back to the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain). I ask the Hon. Member to quickly close so that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has equal time to answer.


Gerry St. Germain: It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Party of Canada is quaking in its boots. The Hon. Members are shaking right now. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East is liable to end up with a case of shingles. Maybe she should put shingles on her roof and start buying more Canadian products so we can improve the plight of all Canadians.
I want to know whether the Hon. Member for Hamilton East opposes this legislation? Would she sooner see a major shut-down and lock-out on the West Coast as opposed to the resolution of the problem presented to this House so efficiently by the Minister of Labour?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member would stop apple polishing. He should realize that the Prime Minister is not going to give him a promotion just because he makes kind comments about the Minister of Labour. If he heard what I had to say in my speech, I made a number of specific proposals and we are going to be making a number of specific amendments. I would like to work with the Hon. Member to improve the legislation. At the moment it is anti-union and the Government's employer bias was clearly demonstrated by the fact that the commission is looking strictly at the question of containers. Also because of the aforementioned penalties assessed against union workers but not against management. If we can address some of these very serious anti-union problems,
November 18, 1986

then certainly I am prepared to look at a compromise. However, the Bill as it stands at the moment is in favour of the employers. The Government bought the employer version, line and sinker and we would like to have someone speak for the workers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook).


Mr. Chuck Cook (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, to emphasize the seriousness of this debate and what is taking place in the Port of Vancouver at the moment, I have been in touch with people in that city in the last 10 minutes and I can report to this House that there are now 24 vessels sitting there, 18 of which are grain cargo ships. The other 6 are there for other cargo. Some 18 of those grain ships will have demurrage charges which will have to be paid by the Canadian Wheat Board, which in turn is paid for by the farmers of Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and part of Manitoba. This dispute involves every farmer on the Prairies. It involves one in 10 people who depend upon the Port of Vancouver for their livelihood. Keep that in mind. If this legislation is not passed today the other six vessels will undoubtedly leave the port and go elsewhere. They are waiting only in the hope that this port can be opened by tomorrow morning, which hopefully it can.
It is a fascinating dispute in one sense of the word. It has a long history. We have had the container clause in contracts on the coast since 1970. Finally, in 1982, in the collective agreement signed that year, they made some forward movement in connection with that clause. One representative of the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association and one representative of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union were to do a study on the container clause and determine its effect and whether it was really that damaging to the Port of Vancouver. It is interesting to note that Mr. Don Garcia, at that time the Canadian area president of the union, worked on behalf of the union, and D.B. McLennan worked on behalf of the employers. They brought in their report which basically said that perhaps the container clause could be dropped for at least a year with guarantees from the employers that there would be no loss of work during that year to union members. It looked like it was a possibility. It is interesting to note that Mr. Garcia agreed to that. However, the 3,700 longshoremen in Local 500 turned it down totally. They would not agree. Mr. Garcia was defeated as union president in the 1984 union election. I suspect that was as a result of his agreeing to have the container clause removed for a year to learn what the result would be. Dave Lomas became the president of the longshoremen in 1984.
In 1984 the Vancouver Ports Corporation, representatives of the employers association and Mr. Dave Lomas went to the Far East searching out new cargo for Vancouver. They wanted to learn why shippers were not using the port and to tell them why they should use it. It was reported that many shippers in
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
the Far East said it was the container clause which caused them to avoid the Port of Vancouver. In fairness, there were other reasons, but the container clause was one reason.
Having learned this, Mr. Lomas began to express the view that something be done about the container clause. It is interesting to note that in April of 1986 Mr. Lomas lost his job as union leader. That possibly had a good deal to do with che fact that he had realized that the container clause was affecting the Port of Vancouver. Mr. Garcia won the election and became the president again.
There is absolutely no way Don Garcia could agree to anything with regard to the container clause. I think he believes that he lost his job over it on one occasion by attempting to be reasonable. Certainly Mr. Lomas lost his job because the 3,700 longshoremen in Local 500 want that bird in the hand and are not prepared to consider anything else. Even if it were guaranteed that the union would lose no work if the container clause were removed, could the union president agree to such a thing? Even if he did, the membership of the union would not ratify it. The 3,700 members of the union are absolutely immovable. The union executive would not dare to entertain such an idea. In addition, we now have an irresistible force because the employers now believe the clause must come out of the contract because of what it is costing them, the Port of Vancouver, the people of western Canada and our national image with regard to Vancouver becoming a major trading centre.
I am not prepared to say that the container clause is the only problem with the Port of Vancouver. It certainly is not. I found myself nodding my head in agreement with many of the comments made by members of the Opposition. However, we have an immovable object, the union, and an irresistible force, the management, which has locked the workers out because they want the contract settled. That situation presents a dilemma. The only answer is to force a solution, and that is the reason for the Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986. The port must be put back into operation.
Is this Bill fair? I think most Hon. Members would agree that it is. It forces the employers to open their doors in order that work may resume. It specifies the Larson Report as the basis of the contract until 1988, but only because the parties are at loggerheads and cannot agree on anything. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) has not denied the parties the right to bargain and reach an agreement on anything. If they reach an agreement, Clause 12 of the Bill applies. That clause states, in simple terms, that if the two parties can agree on any contractual language, that language will apply. The Act also calls for an industrial inquiry commission into the Port of Vancouver and the container clause. It specifies that the conclusion of that commission will become part of the contract until 1988 as well. How else can you solve a problem when people are not talking to each other?
In his opening remarks on this Bill the Minister of Labour said that in this situation there is more punishment for others than for those involved. That is true when the port is closed

November 18, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
down. One in ten people in Vancouver, every prairie farmer, every shipper of wheat, potash or anything else is affected. There are 24 ships in the port now. If this strike were to continue for another couple of days, prairie farmers may be paying for more than 18 ships awaiting grain. That is money out of their pockets every day.
There is only way in which I believe that we will be able to change the attitude of the longshoremen. I am not talking about the union leadership, because I believe the leadership knows the container clause should be investigated and removed for a trial period. The only way to change the attitude of the longshoremen is to guarantee them the same amount of work when the clause is dropped. In that way we can learn whether there will be as much work and whether the employers will have to pay a subsidy. We will find out if the removal of that clause will bring shipments back to Vancouver.
Another reason why I sincerely hope that the industrial commission removes the clause is that the Port of Vancouver and its officials have used the container clause as a crutch to explain why the port has not done better. If we take that clause out and the Port of Vancouver does not do any better, we had better look seriously at the management of the Canadian ports, and the employers will have to consider the kind of marketing they are doing because they will no longer have the container clause to use as an excuse.
I am not baiting labour. The employers are so convinced that this is the answer, they have already agreed that if there is any loss of work as compared to previous years they will subsidize the union for as many hours of labour as was done in the past. What could be fairer than that? If there is no improvement in the port without the container clause, and if the number of hours of work for longshoremen decreases substantially, then the union is right and the management and the port are wrong. They will have to realize that.
On the other hand, if there are 3,600 longshoremen who have been looking at the bird in the hand as opposed to the bird in the bush during this period of time, this is the only way they can be convinced about what is in their own best interest.
The longshoremen have made a number of valid points in the material that they sent to every Member of Parliament. There is more wrong with the Port of Vancouver than merely the container clause. The railway infrastructure is not as it should be. I can recall reading about the Port of Vancouver and the silk trains in the early 1920s. Shipments of silk would arrive from Japan, be instantly loaded onto trains which would be given a clear track right to eastern Canada. Silk from the Orient would arrive in eastern Canada quickly. It was a romantic period during which the silk trains became famous in the country. During my life I have not seen anything that the railways have done in terms of co-operating with the Port of Vancouver, either by applying rates or making it easier for shippers to use the Port of Vancouver. Without the cooperation of the railways, the trucking lines and the entire
infrastructure, the Port of Vancouver will continue to be defeated by Oakland, Seattle, Tacoma, and now even Bellingham. This is because the American railways are better competitors.
The double stack train has been mentioned. Many of them are being used because shipping a container from Seattle to Chicago by using double stacking saves the shipper approximately $400 per container. Canadian railways do not have this capacity, although Canadian Pacific is talking about implementing something similar next year.
In order for the Port of Vancouver to compete, obviously the federal Government through the Department of Transport must lean on CN and CP to pay more attention to the West Coast ports of Canada and ensure they have an opportunity to compete fairly, as they cannot do now because of the railways.
I agree with the Member who spoke previously that the scope of the industrial inquiry commission should be broader than just the container clause. It should cover the whole gamit. I am surprised at the attitude of the Liberal Party. For years I sat in opposition in the House of Commons asking for an industrial commission into the Port of Vancouver. That never happened and I never had any co-operation. I spent years dealing with the Canada Ports Act and fighting for more autonomy for the Port of Vancouver.
Let me give an example. When a shipper in Seattle wants to move a million widgets through the Port of Seattle, knowing the rates and the arrangements, a board meeting can be convened to make a decision in half a day. While there may be slightly more autonomy to the Port of Vancouver in Canada, that kind of special deal would involve telexes heading back and forth to the Canada Ports Corporation in Montreal so that possibly in a week or two something may be done. By that time, those million widgets would have gone through the Port of Seattle.
The Port of Vancouver will never realize its full potential until it can function independently. Unfortunately, that has not yet happened and those of us from the West Coast will continue to fight the good fight in that regard.
This Bill must pass today for the sake of all Canadians. The union is prepared to work. The Bill will force the employers to stop their lock-out, because it is an absolute necessity that the port begin to operate again. The issue may be settled by knocking heads together. If the parties are not satisfied with the Larson report, they only have to arrive at an agreement between themselves. We cannot allow the port to be closed because it is essential. I hope the legislation passes today so that the port will open. We can then proceed to address this long dispute at the Port of Vancouver.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Resuming debate.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-24 is an Act to provide for the maintenance of ports operations. Those who are beginning to follow this debate have come to realize that

November 18, 1986

the purpose of this legislation is essentially to end an employers strike. The fact is that employees are the ones who are locked out. My Party finds it interesting that we are seeing a capital strike by the Maritime Employers Association who are looking for more benefits. The fact is they are being ordered to open their doors.
My concern about Bill C-24 is that it is essentially an apple containing a razor blade. I say that because there are a number of matters that have to be addressed very carefully, including the process of selecting the referee, the final terms of reference for the industrial inquiry commissioner, who it will be, and how the much bandied about Clause 13 is finally handled.
Before I move on to the specifics, I want to comment on what the Liberals have been saying today. I found it interesting that today they are proposing many amendments and finding many things wrong with the legislation, yet only 45 minutes after they received it yesterday their House Leader stood in the House to demand that it go through all stages in one breath so that the lock-out can end immediately. They did not want a full debate to take place in the House of Commons.
Another concern, which I address to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) as much as to anyone else, is that it was unfortunate that even as Members of the House received copies of this Bill the ILWU and members of the MEA on the West Coast had not received a copy of the legislation. They did not receive a copy until we vaxed one over the telephone at 10.15 yesterday morning. I recognize that the Minister had time constraints, but I think that when any legislation affecting employers or employees comes before the House, there is a responsibility of the House to ensure that those who may be directly or indirectly affected by the legislation are given copies before a debate takes place.
It is clear that this legislation is to order employers to open their doors because the situation on the West Coast is a lockout. I have read the press clippings and I am amazed at the number of journalists, not only in the print media, but on radio and TV, who have called this a strike by longshoremen. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the employers who have been involved in a lock-out.
Let me deal with Clause 13, particularly Clause 13(2). The Minister moved quickly on the suggestion made in the speech by my friend, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). He agreed in principle that what is being applied to union officers must be applied to corporate officers as well. I am sure that everyone involved would have preferred that Clause 13(2) simply be deleted. I find no comparable precedent in the last decade of legislation before the House that was solely directed against a union. That is why the criticism directed against Bill C-24 as it now stands is correct. It is clearly anti-union. Because of the speed with which the Minister of Labour moved, I think he was intending to send a signal to the Maritime Employers Association as to where this process is going to go rather than simply taking a smack at the ILWU. The reason I say that is because there are two big
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
sleeper sections in this Bill. The first section is the referee clause which is for the implementation of the Larson Report which touches on many different things. It requires the referee, who is acting directly for the nine locals of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union and the 65 shipping and stevedoring companies to deal with various things, some of which are not fully delineated in the Larson Report as it stands. They are; recognized holidays, vacation with pay, the welfare plan, taking into account the effects of the unemployment insurance carve-out and the effect it will have on many workers. I would encourage Hon. Members of this House to take a look at the pension section of the Larson Report because I do not see how a referee, no matter how fair minded-and I understand from the Minister the referee will be chosen from Labour Canada-would be able to implement that with the kinds of wording and recommendations which have been left by the Larson Report.
There is automation protection. The public should be aware that the section on wages provides for no increase in 1986, which means an absolute freeze, 2 per cent starting January 1 of next year and 3 per cent on January 1 of 1988. All three of those increases run far behind the consumer price index or inflation. Therefore, the longshoremen are being asked to take a drop in wages for each of the next three years in terms of real pay.
There are sections on deep sea ship gangs, hours of work, despatch to rated classes, on-site training, continuous operations, transportation and travelling time and employment on the job. A previous speaker from the West Coast pointed out Clause 12 allows for the two sides, the ILWU and the MEA to come together to find common ground if they can find contractual language on any of these matters they find more satisfactory than the implementation of the Larson Report and its recommendations.
I would like to spend a moment on the other big sleeper. It concerns the industrial inquiry commissioner who is to be appointed by the Minister to deal with the container clause, the famed provision in Article 26.05, and such related other matters as the Minister deems appropriate to the container clause. This commission will have all the powers under the Inquiries Act and I, therefore, think Hon. Members of the House should keep in mind that that inquiry commissioner or commissioners will have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents, to cross examine, to take sworn evidence and so on, and perhaps for the first time on the West Coast really dig to the bottom of the container clause. But some kind of process should have been agreed upon in advance in terms of the appointment of the industrial inquiry commissioner. Other speakers have proposed that a short list be put forward and someone who is jointly acceptable to the two sides be chosen or that perhaps a short list of names be brought before a committee of this House, or the House Leaders, so at least there is a process to protect both sides.

November 18, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
I come back to my acronym of there being a razor blade in an apple because we can see clearly the anti-union bias in Bill C-24, and the signals which have gone to the Maritime Employers Association as a result. I think we want to be sure that not only the referee but the inquiry commissioner in particular must be and must be seen to be without bias in dealing with this highly contentious provision on containers in Article 26.05.
I would like to refer Hon. Members and those people who are interested to the Larson Report. Page 48 deals with both the Vancouver and Prince Rupert areas with respect to the packing and unpacking of containers at the docks and in warehouses, and I quote:
That requirement is emminently defensible based on the fact that a consolidated cargo must be packed or unpacked in any event in order to dispatch it to the several consignees to which it is destined or to consolidate it for shipping to a single destination.
Mr. Larson continues on this same point on page 54. He refers specifically to the container clause and why it is so important that the Minister move with extreme care in whom he choses and what is the attachment of related matters to that industrial inquiry:
There can be no doubt that the container clause constitutes a legitimate mechanism to secure and preserve bargaining unit work not unlike provisions against contracting out or non-affiliation clauses under other collective agreements.
Mr. Larson next says the following on page 56:
The employers expect that the profit from the one operation may be equal or greater than the profit from the other but for the employees who are presently loading and unloading containers it is a virtual certainty that only a few, if any, have the potential to be trained to operate cranes and even if all could be trained, there would not be enough work for them to do because the cranes are not labour-intensive.
Mr. Larson then goes on to say at page 57:
It has only been in the later stages of the negotiations that the Union has refused to bargain about the elimination of the container clause and I take that refusal to stem more from the failure of the Association to devise an acceptable guarantee than a firm decision that the clause not be eliminated under any circumstances.
Mr. Larson studied this in considerable detail and he gives us some idea of where to go in terms of the "container clause". I think some considerable study is required because, as we have learned from this debate, in the United States, following a number of very lengthy and protracted court procedures, the container clause is being reinserted on the West Coast of the United States because it was found that for many of those commodities it is more cost effective for them to be destuffed the way they did in the past.
In terms of the referee, who I understand from the Minister will come from Labour Canada, and in terms of the industrial inquiry commissioner, it is very important that not only myself, but other Hon. Members of the House not give the Minister carte blanche to wander off unwatched when we in this House are giving such powerful tools in Bill C-24 as those particular clauses.
I would like to look at some of the very important points raised by the ILWU in the release by Dan Cole, the Secretary-Treasurer of the ILWU, just in the last 48 hours. I quote from one of his documents:
Our Union understands the Port and its issues as well as anyone. We know that eliminating the Container Clause and crossing your fingers in the hope of increased business will cost us jobs without ensuring one more container moves through Vancouver.
Vancouver cannot compete with Seattle or Tacoma, not because of the Container Clause, but more imporantly due to inferior facilities, lack of local planning and control, and ineffective marketing of port operations.
The Port of Seattle has invested over $90 million in the past two years in building new facilities or upgrading existing ones. A comparison of container crane capability shows Vancouver with 5 cranes while Seattle and Tacoma combined have 31 cranes.
In my area on the north coast of British Columbia, there are several hundred longshoremen, about 150 full-time operating out of Prince Rupert and many more working part-time. We have 40 to 50 working regularly out of Stewart and 40 to 50 working regularly out of Port Simpson. We do not handle or deal with a lot of containers, it is principally raw logs being loaded for export to Alaska and to the Orient, wood in its sawed form coming principally by rubber and by rail to Prince Rupert, pulp, some explosives, grain and some other commodities. In Vancouver it is a much more complex fabric in terms of the work undertaken by the ILWU.
I want to spend another moment on Article 26.05, the container clause, because it has been touted by the Maritime Employers Assocation as being the big issue which is holding back development of the Port of Vancouver, but I believe it is more complicated than that. I quote from the background paper provided by the ILWU:
The container clause-Article 26.05 of the I.L.W.U.-B.C. Maritime Employers Association Collective Agreement-establishes a 90-mile radius around Vancouver (east to Hope, south to the U.S. border and west to Vancuover Island). Any container destined to a location outside the radius goes directly to that location. Any container destined to a location within the radius going to one owner, also goes directly to that location. Only containers with goods going to more than one destination and/or owner within the radius must be unpacked and loaded onto trucks or railway cars by longshoremen.
As Table 1 shows, the container clause affects less than 15 per cent of all containers which pass through the Port of Vancouver.
The report has this to say about container traffic:
Container traffic through the Port of Vancouver has been increasing: Since 1982 inbound container traffic has increased by 44 per cent and outbound by 64 per cent. The problem is that container traffic through American ports has increased even faster. In 1972, Vancouver container volume was 9.5 per cent of total U.S. West Coast volume. By 1985, Vancouver volume was only 4.8 per cent of the West Coast total.
You can see, Mr. Speaker, that it had been basically cut in half. The report continues:
There are several factors accounting for different growth rates: In 1985 Tacoma more than doubled its container traffic as a result of the move of Sea-Land, one of the major shipping companies, to Tacoma from Seattle. Seattle suffered a corresponding decline.
A major comparative study of West Coast ports concluded that the ports which showed the most growth-Long Beach, Los Angeles, Tacoma-were those where the local Port Authority had been the most aggressive in marketing and
November 18, 1986

developing inter-modal connections. Seattle, for example, has spent US $35 million on terminal improvements just to keep one major customer, American President Lines.
One only need refer to the chart provided in the same background document to see the problems we are having in the development of ports in British Columbia, including those of Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Stewart, Kitimat or any on the Fraser System. The political intervention in our system includes the federal Cabinet, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), Transport Canada, the Canada Ports Corporation Board of Directors, the Vancouver Port Corporation Board of Directors and finally the Port Manager and staff. There is this incredible bureaucracy, and of course those at the port level are all at this time appointed Conservative hacks.
The situation in Canada is not the same as the typical situation in a western U.S. port. The political intervention in that system begins with city council and goes to city officials, the port itself which is a public corporation, the Board of Harbour Commissioners, the executive and staff and then the actual seaport landlord. There is a much more direct chain of command for any borrowings required to develop the port.
I would like to deal with whether or not containers will come back to Vancouver because I think that is the key that has been misunderstood in this debate. I have touched on my concerns over Clause 13(2), and I think the Minister has agreed in principle that, although he will not take the clause out as it applies to unions, he is prepared to apply it evenly to corporations as well as the union. It is a saw off. I would prefer to see Clause 13(2) dropped.
Regarding the industrial inquiry commission, the commissioners and the final terms of reference, I am hopeful that the Minister will, later today, come to some kind of agreement on an amendment or procedure to see that fair-minded and unbiased people who are agreeable to the positions of both the ILWU and the MEA are chosen. This will provide for a process that will work and will be satisfactory in its conclusion. I think it is very important that whoever is chosen from Labour Canada to be the referee exercise great caution in providing contractual language so that it is acceptable and can be lived with by both sides in the dispute.
Let me wind up with something about containers which is not fully understood. I am quoting again from the union background document under the heading "Will The Containers Come Back To Vancouver?"
About 92,000 containers will cross the border from the ports of Seattle and Tacoma to Vancouver in 1986. Fifty thousand of these containers will be landed in the American ports by ships that also call at Vancouver (Dual Callers). If the longshoremen would only give up their container clause, so the critics argue, the shippers and freight forwarders would drop those 50,000 containers in Vancouver. The increased work would more than offset the 12,000 containers which the longshoremen currently unpack as a result of the container clause.
Then there are another 42,000 Vancouver-destined containers shipped to Seattle on lines that do not stop in Vancouver. Opponents of the container clause argue that a portion of these would be off-loaded in Vancouver as well.
So giving up the container clause should mean more work for Vancouver longshoremen, not less. The increased volume of containers moving through the port of Vancouver should more than make up for the loss of work unpacking a
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
small number of containers. Why won't the Longshoremen's Union give up the clause?
Quite simply, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the containers presently diverted to Seattle and Tacoma will come back to Vancouver.
The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma will do whatever they can to keep those containers flowing through their ports. The Port of Seattle will be "very responsive to whatever Vancouver does if they are successful in removing their container clause," says Seattle Port Manager Ross Dwyer. Their track record indicates they have been very successful in attracting business because of their aggressive marketing approach. An example is Seattle's promise to install three cranes with longer gantries to handle the new wider-body vessels ordered by American President Lines-each vessel can carry 3800 TEUs-even before these ships have been launched.
Vancouver, in contrast, has done little to get a larger share of the business or even keep what it has.
So far, there has been no indication that the Vancouver Port Corporation is prepared to change. The current strategy seems to be "get rid of the container clause and keep your fingers crossed."
I know that farmers across Canada are greatly concerned about the movement of grain, as are people in Vancouver. The over-all amount of merchandise coming into the Port of Vancouver for off-loading destined for areas throughout Canada and the number of commodities going out through Vancouver, Prince Rupert, the Port of Stewart and other ports clearly means that we must come to some kind of an acceptable process designed to get the collective agreement process moving again.
I can only say about the container clause that there seems to be a degree of acceptability both on the part of the ILWU and the MEA, but I would urge the Minister to move much more cautiously in the referee process and the industrial inquiry commission process regarding the appointments that are made and the terms of reference. Particularly, I would urge him to gut the anti-union signals he has so clearly entrenched in Clause 13(2) which provides that sanctions may be taken against unions and their officers with no similar provision for action to be taken against Maritime Employees Association companies. At least to this point in time, those are the ones who have been the dogs in the manger.
We are talking about a lock-out by the employers. This is not a strike by the workers. The workers have made it clear all along that they intended to continue to move grain and other commodities without any work stoppage whatsoever. They are the ones who have been the good operators. The MEA has brought this matter to the point where the House of Commons had to deal with it rather than the collective bargaining process.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Hon. Member has the same concern as our Party about the clause in the Bill which provides for the industrial commissioner, that is, that the clause is drawn too narrowly. It refers only to the container clause and does not deal with the concerns the workers will have with regard to job security, the development of the port, the development of rail facilities and improvement in the competitive position.
The B.C. Maritime Employers Association is arguing that there will be an additional 80,000 containers going through the

November 18, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
port if the container clause is taken out. At the same time, the unions are very concerned that there will be a loss of jobs. The Hon. Member has to some extent already made this point, but I would be interested in hearing confirmation from him that the terms of reference and that Clause 7 should make provision for the matter of development of the port, and so on. Without the development of the port and the competitive position, those jobs may well not be there.
The Hon. Member has very well outlined the type of aggressive marketing made by the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. But there was legislation in the Western Grain Transportation Act which required that CN and CP improve rail facilities and port facilities in Vancouver and other West Coast ports. Yet the Government is not pressing to see those actions taken to improve the port and make it more competitive. I would be interested to know if the Hon. Member feels that these types of provisions should be included in Clause 7 of the Bill. These provisions require that the industrial disputes commissioner report-perhaps not in a binding way-on the container clause, because that is in the Act, and as well that he report on job security, development of the port, development of rail facilities, and the improvement of the competitive position of the port. Unless that happens, there will not be the extra jobs which the employers' association is forecasting. Naturally, the employees will be unhappy if that competitive position does not improve with the removal of the container clause and the jobs are not there.


James Ross Fulton: I will be very brief in response to that question. The industrial inquiry commission will find that it has to look at some of the points that the Hon. Member has touched on. There is no doubt that in terms of the questions on rail, warehousing space, crane capacity, docking facilities, it is a great deal to ask of the commission to get a clear grip within six months. Because of the broad powers provided under the Inquiries Act, to be able to cross-examine witnesses and subpoena documents, a considerable amount of information at the nub of the issue will be looked at.
In terms of the broader aspects of the port, in terms of grain handling capacity, to ask the industrial inquiries commission to do all of that within six months would be unrealistic. Then you start getting into the questions of hopper cars, demurrage, how much grain is going to be moving out, what are the likely longterm contractual prospects with the Soviet Union, China, and everyone else.
In terms of what is presently in the Bill, I do not think it is possible to amend that clause to provide for something much broader. Certainly, as a British Columbia Member, I would like a process put in place that takes a closer look at all of the ports on the West Coast, and looks at the best way of developing those for dealing with the Pacific Rim, and market commodities that are just now starting to come on line. Here I think of new coal prospects, new grain markets, new wood
products, and other new products that may come on line, as well as new imports coming into the country.
In terms of asking the industrial inquiry commission to deal with everything that has been dealt with in the Larson Report, it is quite clear that the Government has decided to go another way. In terms of amending this Bill to try and throw all of the Larson recommendations in under Clause 7, I frankly think that would be ruled out of order during this debate.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is as follows: The Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux, Minister of Labour, moved:
That Bill C-24, an Act to provide for the maintenance of ports operations, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the Chair.
Marcel Danis: House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-24, an Act to provide for the maintenance of port operations.
Shall Clause 2 carry?
On Clause 2-Definitions


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-24 be amended on page 1 by deleting line 21 and substituting the following:
-payments in respect of pensions, M & M, Supplementary Pension, Welfare Plan and Supplementary Unemployment Benefit Program.


Mr. Cadieux:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that the amendment proposed by my hon. colleague is unnecessary in view of the fact that those items mentioned in the amendment are already included in subparagraph (b). That is the reason why subparagraph (b) is there. I do not see the necessity of such an amendment.


Marcel Danis: The Chair is ready to rule on the amendment. The Hon. Member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: There are two different things. Obviously, the Chair does have the right to rule. However, in response to what the Minister has said, I do believe it is very important that we have some real guarantee that the words I have mentioned are included with what is in subparagraph (b). I would certainly prefer to see the Minister stand up in this House and indicate that he is willing to accept this wording just to make sure that the worker's right to these extra benefits are guaranteed.


Marcel Danis: I am ready to make my ruling. It may not be necessary to hear the Minister. I have the proposed amendment by the Member for Churchill which appears to me to be
November 18, 1986

a substantive amendment to the interpretation clause. I cannot accept that amendment by virtue of 773(10) of Beauchesne. Therefore, I must rule the amendment out of order.
On Clause 2, the Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Chairman, if I might discuss your ruling, on a point of order, he has indicated that it was basically concluded, so how can it be substantive?


Marcel Danis: The Chair has ruled on the proposed amendment, and of course the Chair must stand by its ruling.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to seek further clarification. Perhaps the Minister could assure the House that it is his understanding that the current wording in fact includes the items to which the Hon. Member for Churchill referred, namely,the discussion and negotiations on the M and M supplementary pension, the welfare plan, and the supplementary unemployment benefit program. Would he assure us that it is the Government's intention to include these items?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I believe I have already indicated that. We have been informed by the drafters of the Bill that they were included. That is why subclause 2( 1)(b) is there.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 3-Resumption of Operations and Work
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of amendments to Clause 3. However I should first like to move the following:
That subclause 3(a) of Bill C-24 be amended by deleting line 18 on page 2 and substituting the following:
"all grain handling operations at ports".


Marcel Danis: The Chair has read the proposed amendment of the Hon. Member for Churchill and finds it to be in order.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, could the Hon. Member explain the purpose of the amendment?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, the amendment in the name of the Hon. Member for Churchill along with another three amendments to be dealt with later are designed to meet the intent of the legislation. As we understand it, the intent of the legislation is to ensure that Canadian grain will begin to move again on the West Coast.
Rather than tinker with the collective bargaining process, which one would assume is still under way in British Columbia, our purpose is to instruct the companies, through this amendment, to open their gates so that workers can return to work at those places which deal with grain. Thereby we would relieve the pressure upon the federal Government and upon western Canadian farmers by allowing their products to go to market. At the same time we would not be interfering
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
further in the collective bargaining process. The union and company association involved would continue to take whatever actions they deem appropriate to achieve a collective agreement dealing with all other bulk commodities and, in particular, with the question of the movement of containers. That is the intent of this particular amendment as well as the additional three amendments to the same clause.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Chairman, I need a few more details about what is being proposed by the Hon. Member. He referred to grains. Is it his view that other agricultural products should be included in the same way? If that is the case, why are they not covered by the amendment of the Hon. Member for Churchill?
Having conferred with the Hon. Member for Algoma, who is our Party's critic and an expert on such matters, far more than most Members of the House, I am not even sure whether oil seeds and other agricultural products have been included. Perhaps the Hon. Member could indicate whether he feels oil seeds would be covered by the description of grains in his amendment. Perhaps he could elaborate upon whether or not he feels other agricultural products should be covered.
The reason I am asking these questions is that while it is recognized that "grains" is a generic term, we often refer to grains and oil seeds. I want to be assured that both are covered under his proposal this morning.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member used the term "grains" as being generic. In drafting this particular amendment and those to follow, it was the intention that it would be interpreted as the generic. If a grain product is being prevented from moving because of a decision by the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association, we think that it should be allowed to be moved. Quite frankly, those particular gates should be unlocked for the purpose of supporting prairie producers of any kind of grain commodity. Supposedly the whole purpose of the legislation is to provide for the movement of grains and agricultural products.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I am not being critical; I am just seeking further explanation of the meaning of the Hon. Member's amendment.
Would he entertain a further amendment, or is he thinking of amending it further, to cover other agricultural commodities shipped out of the same port?
Although we are speaking largely in terms of grains and oil seeds exported from that port, nevertheless it deals with other agricultural commodities, perishables, and some livestock, although certainly not in as great quantities as the other products. We recognize the general difficulty faced by agriculture, not just the grain sector. Although we know that its case is a particularly difficult one, generally we recognize that agriculture is faced with difficulties. Would the Hon. Member entertain amending it to cover other agricultural products? Perhaps it is just an oversight. I think it would further his very good proposal this morning.

November 18, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, of course I have no problem with modifying it. Perhaps I am in your hands, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the most appropriate mechanism and whether I can in fact accept a friendly amendment in this particular place or whether the Elon. Member would in fact have to move a subamendment to meet the intent of what he said. Either way we would certainly support the suggested change.


Marcel Danis: Certainly the Eton. Member could move a subamendment, providing it is in order.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues have indicated a desire to speak on this particular clause. While they are doing so, perhaps the Hon. Member could look at the wording and see whether he can come up with a very specific amendment before we complete consideration of the particular clause.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I will follow the Hon. Member's suggestion. While some of his colleagues are directing further remarks to the particular clause, I will draft an appropriate subamendment and present it shortly.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, in moving the amendment it was my intent to focus on what the Government and others have said was the real purpose of the legislation. There is a concern, especially in western Canada, that grain must be moving to port. In the past, union representatives have indicated their willingness to move grain. The problem is that they are locked out at the present time. If the real intent of the legislation is not to force workers back to work with a new collective agreement, and if we want to deal with the main problem of getting grain to market, that is what the Bill should do. If that is what the Bill proposes to do then that is what it should state.
What is now happening is that, by law, we have a situation in which the workers have the right to strike and the employers have the right to lock out. They have been denied the opportunity to come to any sort of negotiated settlement in this Bill. They fall under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code and must negotiate as employers and employees with rights in terms of this legislation. By acting today to close the situation we are saying that we will not let them negotiate.
The port has not been shut down for a very long time. We have an offer from the workers that they are more than willing to move grain products. I would like to hear from the Minister as to why this legislation does not restrict itself to that one item and why he will not support the amendment.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I should speak right away in view of the fact that there might be a subamendment to the amendment. Nevertheless, since my hon. colleague indicates that I would not support the amendment I might as well make it clear that I will not support the amendment.
The Bill we are dealing with now is entitled an "Act to provide for the maintenance of ports operations". We intend to have all commodities dealt with in the ports of British Columbia, which is what has to be done right now.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Chairman, since some of the comments made by the Hon. Member for Churchill disturbed me, I would ask him to look at Clause 12 of the Bill. The Hon. Member says that they cannot negotiate. They have every right to negotiate, and that right is maintained in that clause. If the parties can agree on any particular clause at all then the Bill will not apply to that clause. The suggestion that they cannot negotiate is entirely wrong. I think that should be very forcibly stated.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to move an amendment to the amendment which states:
That the amendment be amended by inserting immediately after the words "grain handling" the following:
"and other agricultural"


Marcel Danis: The Chair has received the proposed subamendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. In the opinion of the Chair, it seems to extend the scope of the amendment. However, I am ready to give it the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, I find the subamendment to be in order.
Therefore, the debate is on the subamendment.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your ruling with respect to the subamendment. The purpose of this subamendment is to clarify what is meant in the amendment. I believe this has been acknowledged by the Hon. Member who proposed the amendment in the first place.
So that members of the Committee of the Whole can understand the purpose of the subamendment, it is to further define what is meant in the amendment. First, it is not entirely clear whether grain handling would always cover oil seeds. The subamendment would ensure that there is no confusion and that, in fact, we mean grain in its generic sense.
Second, the purpose of the subamendment is to reassure the agricultural community, not just the grain producing sector, that we want to afford them the same protection as grain producers. The reason for this is because of the U.S. farm Bill and other policies which have hindered areas of agriculture in Canada that are not solely restricted to grain production. Indeed, there are various other sectors of our agricultural economy which are suffering as much as the grain area. My remarks are not meant to diminish the gravity of the situation with respect to farmers in the grain sector but, rather, to indicate that this is a burden that all farmers have been asked to carry. Therefore, potential damage from stoppages of shipments of any agricultural product is serious and the devastating effects, although considerable in the grain handling sector, also exist in terms of stoppages of potential exports of other agricultural commodities as well.
November 18, 1986


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, I would like to indicate our support for the principle of the subamendment. It extends and confirms the original intent of the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Churchill.


Marcel Danis: Shall the subamendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Subamendment (Mr. Boudria) negatived: Yeas, 9; Nays, 29.


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member for Churchill on the amendment.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the amendment, we certainly support the subamendment. We thought that was actually a very good suggestion by the Hon. Member on behalf of the Liberal caucus. However, we also, as we stated earlier, believe it is important to deal with the amendment itself and see that it is passed. There is certainly a perception in this country that we are ordering these people back to work because we want the grain to move. If that is not the case, then the Government should say so. It is very important to understand that we have legislation which regulates collective bargaining and gives certain powers to both sides if they are unable to reach a successful conclusion. What we are doing with the passage of this legislation is saying that the Canada Labour Code is not being allowed to work in order to settle collective agreements.


Marcel Danis: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. It being one o'clock, shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to consider the Bill again later this day?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1.03 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government is raping the economy of the Ottawa Valley. The people of eastern Ontario elected several Tory Members to Parliament in September, 1984, but they are now wondering where those voices have disappeared to.
While the Government romps merrily onward destroying many of the fine achievements of the National Research Council, right here in the city of Ottawa and across Canada, the people are asking what has silenced the voices of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper), the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner), the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), and the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) who is a member of the Conservative Cabinet and is supposed to be the defender of eastern Ontario interests.
All the Members carry on a deafening silence while the public service and scientific community of Ottawa are torn asunder, while one of the finest world-renowned science and technology achievements, namely, the $50 million Algonquin Radio Observatory at Lake Traverse is being phased out after only 20 years of operation, while another great achievement of Canadian science and technology, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, is cut to shreds and leading members of the scientific community are leaving Canada, and while the Government arranged for the sale of Mitel Corporation to British Telecommunications Corporation only to have the latter decide to cut several hundred jobs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: On Saturday, November 15, Mr. Speaker, Selbaie Mines, north of Joutel, marked the opening of the largest open-pit mining plant in Abitibi, or zone A-l.
This project called for investments of $130 million by Ressources BP Canada, Esso Mineral and TransCanada Pipelines, as well as 800 extra man-years of work for development and construction. In every respect, the project was carried out in a commendable spirit of team work.

November 18, 1986
Thanks to the outstanding performance of executive director Robert C. Bryce and the active participation of Quebec's Department of Energy and Resources, the employees are proud to work for Selbaie Mines and play a leading role in the mining industry of Abitibi-Temiscamingue and Canada.



ACID RAIN


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Over the past five years, Mr. Speaker, Quebec maple syrup producers have tapped 2 million fewer trees as a result of the acid rain phenomenon, a loss estimated at a minimum of $87 million by the Agricultural Producers' Union. In addition, if this serious situation does not improve, the Quebec maple syrup industry is expected to disappear within five years.
Mr. Speaker, owing to the nearly slavish respect of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for President Reagan, this Government is destroying the source of income of 10,000 men and women in Quebec.
But acid rain not only threatens Quebec's maple syrup industry, it also threatens one of our national symbols. If arguments of reason and common sense cannot convince the Government of the urgency of the problem, we can only hope that the evocative image of a withered and colourless maple leaf, and empty maple syrup bottles, will have the power to stir the Government to action.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of Members to an event occurring today that is of interest and importance to all Canadians.
Today the Royal Canadian Mint is officialy reopening its historic facilities at 320 Sussex Drive here in Ottawa. These renovated facilities will provide a renewed impetus for the Mint's future success in the highly competitive minting industry.
As members may know, the Mint's international marketing achievements were recently recognized when it won the 1986 Canada Export Award. This achievement speaks both to the technical expertise which resides in the Mint, and also to the excellence displayed in marketing this expertise all over the world.
Success stories like the Mint demonstrate how we Canadians can meet international challenges and compete successfully on a world-wide scale. I ask Hon. Members to join with me in congratulating the staff of the Mint and wishing it the best success in the future.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Canada Post has acted in a cowardly and irresponsible manner by cancelling at the last minute a meeting scheduled between himself and a group known as "Citizens United for Equitable Postal Service".
Representatives from this organization had made all their plans to travel to Ottawa from various communities in the country. Airline tickets were bought and other expenses had been incurred. The alleged reason for the cancellation of the meeting that was scheduled for November 18 is that the Minister is speaking in Vancouver two days later, on November 20.
I have news for the Minister. Holiday week was last week and nobody requires three days in 1986 to get to Vancouver, even if one is a Tory and a little slow at moving about.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) used one word in his statement which seems to the Chair to be unparliamentary. The word is "cowardly". I wonder if the Hon. Member would please the House by withdrawing it.


Don Boudria: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.



FASHION ACCESS CANADA


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise before the House today to encourage my fellow Members to support an exciting new national non-profit organization that will assist young Canadians make realistic and informed decisions as they seek education and career opportunities in the Canadian fashion industry. Fashion Access Canada-Entree Mode Canada, will publish a career guide next year. In 1989 it will convene a national symposium, to be followed by the creation of a fashion access resource and development centre.
This dynamic group has organized a phenomenal fashion presentation, with contributions from a stellar group of the
November 18, 1986

brightest lights in Canadian fashions, as well as some promising newcomers, Friday night in Ottawa at the Capital Congress Centre.
As it happens, the Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) and I today are wearing creations of a young designer from Toronto. With all the promise that Fashion Access Canada represents for the youth of tomorrow in one of our most important industries, I am confident that it will not be long before I will be wearing a dress fashioned by a young person from Argenteuil-Papineau.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago Mitel Corporation announced a major export of production which will result in the closing of that company's Renfrew plant at a cost of more than 500 jobs.
Mitel has said that the Renfrew plant must be closed so that production can be moved closer to international markets. We have to recall, however, that it is no longer Mitel management which is calling all the shots, but British Telecom which, thanks to the Government's blind faith in foreign ownership, now owns a majority stake in Mitel and is moving that company's technology to Wales.
On May 16, 1986, in Parliament, the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion read from a letter of intent signed by British Telecom promising to preserve Mitel's Canadian workforce of 2,500. That job guarantee has now been broken.
Since 1978 over $32 million in federal grants has gone to Mitel for the purposes of technology development. My leader has called for a full accounting into the contractual obligations of Mitel in all past and present federal spending agreements in light of the Renfrew plant closing. The Government should also table in the House all documents pertaining to the sale of Mitel to British Telecom so that a parliamentary committee can review the situation and this shoddy loss of Canadian jobs.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to call the attention of this House to the fact that Quebecers are very disappointed with the cavalier attitude taken by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) to the development of Quebec's pharmaceutical industry, when he sent a letter that was critical of this project to the entire English-speaking population of this country, forgetting Quebec altogether.
On Friday, November 7, Mr. Speaker, under the approving eye of their leader, the stalwart troops of the socialist party found nothing better to do all day in the House than delay the tabling of our Bill on the pharmaceutical industry.
Why does the leader of the socialist party want to deprive Quebecers of industrial investments totalling nearly one billion dollars? Why does the leader of the socialist party want to deprive Quebec of 3,000 jobs with very substantial technological benefits?
Mr. Speaker, Quebecers are not about to forget the socialist party!



NUCLEAR ENERGY


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Premier Peterson made the right decision not to favour the building of more nuclear power plants in Ontario. "I don't see another Darlington being built", he said. That is a wise decision considering Ontario Hydro's $25 billion debt is one half of the provincial debt. Peterson rejected the possibility of power shortages within five years and said his Government feels no pressing need to plan new generating facilities. He hinted his Government might try to save power through conservation rather than build a multibillion dollar plant.
The Ontario Select Committee on Energy called for a change to the Power Corporation Act to allow Hydro to invest in conservation efforts. Currently Hydro is only allowed to spend money to create power. We urge the Premier and his Cabinet to put Ontario Hydro on the path to energy conservation to reduce our dependence on nuclear power.

November 18, 1986



S.O. 21 LATVIA ANNIVERSARY OF PROCLAMATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on November 18, 1918, Latvia was proclaimed an independent democratic republic. Independence perished when the Soviet Army marched into Latvia in 1940.
The anniversary of Latvian independence is celebrated in recognition of the spirit of independence and freedom which still burns bright in the hearts of the Latvian people. As a nation, Latvia has had to endure great hardship, suffering from the devastation of two world wars and lengthy periods of foreign occupation. Today, on the 68th anniversary of its independence, Latvia remains illegally occupied by the Soviet Union.
When at times we take for granted the liberties we enjoy in Canada, we need only recall the adversity and strife suffered by Latvia to appreciate our good fortune as Canadians. November 18 is an important day of commemoration for Latvians throughout the free world. Let us join with them in marking this day as one of special significance for all who value freedom, liberty, and justice.



NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) has responded to the criticisms of the cuts to the National Research Council budget by stating that those criticisms are due to partisan considerations. I want to bring to the Minister's attention the fact that the Chemical Institute of Canada, representing 8,000 professionals in the chemical field, has written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) criticizing the Government for the cuts it has made to the National Research Council budget, and stating that continuous cuts in research will dismantle many scientific endeavours which have taken decades to build, and will relegate Canada to the position of a second-rate science nation.
We in the New Democratic Party agree with that view. We believe the announced review is unnecessary and what the Minister should do is put back the funds he has taken away from the NRC. Research teams are being broken up, expensive equipment such as the $50 million Algonquin Observatory is being effectively abandoned, and we have to ask ourselves whether we can afford not to make these-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, as all Hon. Members are aware, my constituency of Sarnia- Lambton contains many chemical plants situated along the St. Clair River. Similarly, every Hon. Member knows that occasionally we experience chemical spills into the river from these plants. This is the negative news of which we are all made aware in great detail.
For example, when the least toxic form of dioxin was detected in the parts per quadrillion range in a single sample of Sarnia drinking water, the information was immediately released and highly publicized. While not pleasant, this report was accepted as it fell within the Ontario provincial Minister's statement that he would not be party to any delay in reporting of data, good or bad.
It is, however, unacceptable that the constituency of Sarnia-Lambton had to wait several months for the news from the Ontario Minister of the Environment that, after extensive testing, no dioxins had been found in the St. Clair River between January and June, 1986. In fact the news was released to the press in late October. Several weeks later the report was given to the concerned organizations in my constituency. I would urge the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to liaise with his provincial counterpart to ensure that timely reporting with a balanced perspective becomes a fact.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of the so-called consultation process of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) and the Government's attitude toward the shipbuilding industry of Canada. Last week the President of the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Association was informed by officials of the Minister that the Minister could not meet with everyone and that he was simply too busy.
The Minister's predecessor was not too busy to meet with representatives of the Fisheries Council of Canada when it wanted to discuss the retention of the import duty exemption for foreign-built fishing vessels. Why then has the Minister refused to meet with representatives of Canada's hard-pressed shipbuilding industry who seek to reverse this exemption? Is it because the Minister is all too familiar with the broken promises the Government made to the Canadian shipbuilding industry? Is it because the Government has made a decision to write off this industry and allow thousands of jobs to be exported to other countries?
November 18, 1986

Canadians want a full and fair consultation process, not a process whereby only those with special influence or ties to the Conservative Government have access to the Minister. The Minister should acknowledge his grave error and should meet with the President of the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association to come up with a suitable policy for this sector.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. When the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition he said:
Effective and proper conduct of the affairs of the Department of National Revenue is based on two-way trust. That is indispensable.
Yesterday the Minister destroyed that trust by refusing to accept responsibility for the disappearance of the microfiche tax records of 16 million Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This is the biggest invasion of privacy in Canadian history and perhaps in world history. Why is the Minister evading responsibility for this invasion of privacy? Why is he evading responsibility for this bad management of his Department's affairs?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am not seeking to evade responsibility; neither am I seeking to minimize the gravity of what has occurred. I have undertaken to the House, and will undertake again to my hon. friend, to take steps to try to make certain that the Department is more secure in the future and that there will be security procedures which will make the situation less likely to occur again. I have undertaken to do this and to report to the House as soon as possible.


CONFIDENTIALITY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, for two weeks, the Minister has been aware of the greatest invasion of privacy in Canada's history. What steps did he take during those two weeks to keep the information contained in the microfiche from being used to obtain details of the income tax returns of Canadians, and can he guarantee in the House today that the information provided by Canadians in their income tax returns is fully protected? Can he answer this important question?
Oral Questions


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, first I think my hon. friend would realize that while the investigation was going on it was difficult to inform the House and the country of what had occurred. Second, I immediately asked my Deputy to exercise his responsibilities under the Financial Administration Act to account for the delay in the reporting of this loss.
We have sent directives across the country to ensure that the microfiche which are a necessary part of tax administration are in secure custody, that all of the necessary security procedures are in fact in place and that they may be improved upon. 1 have asked that the necessity for so many sets of microfiche be reviewed. I have asked that security procedures, not only as far as the custody of the material is concerned but as far as the suitability of personnel is concerned, be reviewed as well. There will be other measures taken in due course.


POSSIBLE USE MADE OF MISSING INFORMATION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to what the Minister said. I recall that he said yesterday "there is no likelihood that the information provided an entree into the computer system of taxpayers, there are safeguards in place to protect that."
Will the Minister confirm that even today, two weeks after he found out about this mess, it is possible to obtain information from the tax returns of taxpayers by simply phoning a Revenue Canada district taxation office and giving the type of basic information to the person who answers the phone that was found in the missing microfiches? Will he confirm that in spite of what he has just told us it is possible to use the information from those missing microfiches to obtain information about the confidential tax returns of Canadian taxpayers?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly to what circumstances my honourable friend is referring. What I have tried to say to Canadians and to this House is that one can never be sure in individual cases that there might not be a lapse in security. But to say that the information that was made available on this type of microfiche would automatically provide an entree, or that telephone inquiries to a Revenue Canada office under these circumstances would produce information, I do not think is in accordance with what usually occurs.


INQUIRY CONCERNING PROTECTIVE MEASURES
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: At my
request this morning a woman telephoned the Revenue Canada office in Montreal. She gave my name, my social insurance number, my address, my date of birth. She was able to get into my 1985 income tax return.

November 18, 1986
Oral Questions
My question to the Minister is this. Since November 4 you were aware that 16 million tax files had been lost. What type of measure did you implement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask that the Hon. Member remember that when addressing another Member or a Minister, he is not supposed to use the word "you".


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I gather that my honourable colleague certainly gave permission to this lady to do that. He probably also gave her a Power of Attorney. I do not know what the circumstances were. But if this situation has occurred, and if it is irregular, then there are measures that will have to be taken. On the other hand, I would like to know more about the circumstances before answering the question and just exactly why he did this, and under what circumstances the lady used his name and his data.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, you cannot give Power of Attorney by telephone. Therefore, the woman just picked up the phone and said that "I am Alfonso Gagliano, this is my social insurance number," and she received the information.


CONFIDENTIALITY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS
Alfonso Gagliano: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Considering the declaration of taxpayers' rights that guarantees that financial and personal information is confidential, how do you account for the fact that although since November 4, you were aware that tax files had been stolen, this morning, November 18, it is still possible to have access to that information by telephone? Is this declaration worth the paper it is written on?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: That kind of telephone access, if it is exactly as the Hon. Member described it, is certainly not a proper type of access. I will take that very seriously. As I did yesterday, I am also suggesting that in view of what happened there has been a breach of the Taxpayers' Declaration of Rights. The very fact that this information disappeared is a guarantee of that breach.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Starting yesterday and continuing today and tomorrow there is an important conference taking place in Detroit on the subject matter of water quality control in the Great Lakes.
Attending that conference are the Governors of two U.S. States and the Ministers of Environment from both the Province of Quebec and the Province of Ontario. At a time when we are trying to get the Americans to take environmental matters seriously, why was the Government of Canada represented by only an empty chair?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is based upon a story in The Globe and Mail this morning which was as outrageously unfair as it was totally inaccurate. It was unfair because I had three speaking engagements within the same 72-hour period, so it was not physically possible for me to be in Detroit, and inaccurate because the Government of Canada was in fact represented at that conference by the seven top experts on the subject in the entire country.


John Edward Broadbent: I want the Minister to know that, however the Government may act, we do not rely upon The Globe and Mail for our facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


COMPOSITION OF CANADIAN REPRESENTATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm that he just informed the organizers of the conference not many days ago that he would not be attending? Will he admit to the House that while there were officials there, there was not a political representative of the Government of Canada and there were political representatives of the Governments of Ontario and Quebec and of two U.S. States? Where is the leadership from Canada on this?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I would be the last one to accuse the Hon. Member and his Party of relying totally upon The Globe and Mail for their facts. When they rely upon facts at all, which is rare enough, they come from the Canadian Labour Congress. The truth is that the Government of the United States was not represented by a major politician. It was represented by a senior official. For our part, we were represented by among other people Dr. James Kingham, the Director General of the Great Lakes program.


John Edward Broadbent: The two million Canadians represented by the Canadian Labour Congress will have noted the Minister's comments with interest.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not think that the Government of Canada is lending credibility to the arguments of certain American politicians, namely, that we do not take the issue seriously when we do not send a political representative down there to make the case which would demonstrate Canadian government leadership? Surely that is the issue.
November 18, 1986


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is very important for the Minister of the Environment and other Ministers to go down to the United States to plead Canada's case in the United States. I have done that more often in 12 months than any previous Minister of the Environment has done in 12 years.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND MINISTER OF FINANCE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Gilbert Clements, Minister of Finance for the Province of Prince Edward Island.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXPORT OF HELICOPTER PARTS TO IRAN
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. There is increasing concern that our export control policy may be dictated by Washington. In January of last year, as the Deputy Prime Minister properly pointed out, export permission was refused for T-400 engine parts being shipped to Tehran. In September, the U.S. Department of Commerce authorized United Technologies to authorize Pratt & Whitney Canada to ship helicopter parts to Tehran. During the same month export permission was granted. During that period of time were there representations made by the U.S. administration to the Canadian Government to relax or set aside our export control policy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the reason that that process took place is because the assemblies in question had a U.S. component for which an export control permit was sought. Because the assemblies in this particular case were used for civilian commercial use, no permit was required.


MINISTERIAL CONSULTATION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister tells us that they were used for civilian purposes, something which I do not think we know yet from the evidence. That being said, the control policy itself provides that there will be ministerial consultation when
Oral Questions
any component could have a military or civilian application. Was there such ministerial consultation? What evidence did the Minister in question look at that satisfied him that it was for civilian application only?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House yesterday, we were assured by Pratt & Whitney that the parts in question were for civilian commercial use. That undertaking was reaffirmed in a letter to the Canadian Government. Furthermore, on September 10 the Secretary of State for External Affairs announced a new export control policy and drew attention to the fact that the area of helicopters is one that provides some difficulty because of the inter-changability of the use of helicopters from commercial to military service. As a result, the Minister drew that question to our attention. It is a matter which is being considered currently by Cabinet. If there is to be any change in that policy it will be announced in due course.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The fact remains that at a major conference at which issues of Great Lakes water quality were being discussed there was an empty chair in which a Canadian should have sat. Why did the Minister, or the officials in his Department, allow such a deplorable image to be created, that of an empty chair in which a Canadian should have sat? Never mind who attended the conference, the fact remains that beside the Canadian flag at an important panel discussion there was an empty chair. Why did the Minister allow that to happen?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the Government of Canada was represented officially by the seven top experts on Great Lakes water pollution in the country: Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Regional Director General of Ontario; Dr. James Kingham, Director General of Great Lakes Programs; Dr. Ron Shimizu, Corporate Adviser on the Great Lakes, and four others. There was no empty chair.


John Edward Broadbent: Where was the Government of Canada?


Thomas Michael McMillan: There was a Canadian flag and sitting behind that flag were seven of the top experts on Great Lakes water pollution in the entire Dominion of Canada.
1278

November 18, 1986
Oral Questions EMPTY CHAIR


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, no one is disputing who attended the conference. What we are disputing is why the Government of Canada allowed an empty chair and why it did not arrange for at least one of those seven top officials to sit in the chair representing Canada when an important discussion was going on. Why did the Minister not arrange for that to happen?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has the mistaken impression that a conference was being held in Detroit at which Canada and the United States were negotiating key questions-


John Edward Broadbent: No, he did not say that.


Thomas Michael McMillan: -in the absence of an official delegation from the Government of Canada. That is not true. It was a forum in which Great Lakes related issues were aired, just as they were several months ago on Mackinac Island when I was present with many of the same participants.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
USE OF PRATT & WHITNEY ENGINES IN IRAN-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I'm afraid that Canada is sending supplies to both Iran and Iraq, the two belligerents in the Persian Gulf, because according to my information, Iraq uses eight B-212 ASW-type helicopters, in a special configuration, to attack ships equipped with the same engines manufactured by Pratt & Whitney. It uses them to sink Iranian tankers in the Persian Gulf. I want to ask the Minister: How can he possibly believe Pratt & Whitney's claims that the engines are used only for peaceful purposes, when we know perfectly well that helicopters of this type require a steady supply of spare parts to be able to continue their missions?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we believe that Pratt & Whitney has acted in good faith. As well, we believe that the parts in question were destined for civilian commercial use. I can inform the House that as a result of the questions that have arisen Pratt & Whitney has voluntarily postponed further shipments of the order in question, the order being in the amount of some $2.7 million U.S. About $624,000 U.S. of the order has been shipped. However, until such time as the investigation and examination of this issue are completed,
Pratt & Whitney has voluntarily withdrawn or postponed any further shipments.
As I said, there has been an acknowledgement of the dual capability of these machines.


Mr. Garneau:: That is not what you said yesterday.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I informed the House yesterday on the basis of the information I had at that time. There is new information. I have always qualified my answers in that regard. I am trying to be as forthcoming as I can. If the Hon. Member has some criticism with that, then he is probably not interested in my further completion of the answer.


Raymond Garneau: That is what I have, some criticism. [Translation]


PROVISION OF HELICOPTER PARTS TO PERSIAN GULF REGION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is telling us that he has every confidence in the information provided by Pratt & Whitney which, in turn, gets its information from the Ayatollah Khomeini. That is how it works.
I want to ask the Minister how he expects this House to believe that helicopters, not commercial but military helicopters, in Iran and Iraq can keep flying without having a steady supply of spare parts to repair engines on a daily basis. How?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I think I pointed out, there is a difficulty in proving categorically that these machines are used for one specific purpose or the other. I think the Hon. Member knows that we do not have an embassy in Iran and that this is like selling a typewriter or a telephone. Conceivably, these items could find a way to be used militarily.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Come on, you can't kill with a typewriter.


Jacques Guilbault: Thank you for the admission.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I repeat, Pratt & Whitney, because of the questions that have arisen, has voluntarily postponed any further shipments until this case can be further analyzed.


EXPORT OF AIRCRAFT ENGINES
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Minister know that Pratt & Whitney has also been providing engines for military aircraft-not helicopters but military aircraft-being used in the Iran-Iraq war? Is the Minister aware that the Pilatus PC7 produced by a Swiss company with Pratt & Whitney engines has been used by both sides in the Iran-Iraq war? Did Pratt & Whitney ask for permission to export those engines? Did the Government give such permission?
November 18, 1986


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that assertion. I will certainly undertake to the House to try to find out and report back as soon as I can.


ISSUANCE OF EXPORT PERMITS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, although one cannot expect the Deputy Prime Minister in the ordinary course of events to know about these matters since they are not in his jurisdiction, I wonder if he could explain why he would not know today and have been informed that Pratt & Whitney has in fact been exporting engines for military aircraft. Does the Government not know anything about this at all? Were export permits granted? The onus was on Pratt & Whitney. Did it ask for the permits?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is making some very serious allegations. I hope that she can substantiate them. There have been ongoing discussions between the Department of External Affairs and, indeed, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and Pratt & Whitney. I am sure that any and all of the questions the Hon. Member is raising will be pursued.
I repeat, in our opinion-Pratt & Whitney has acted responsibly. It has followed the rules. It has followed the guidelines. The fact of the matter is that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry tried to allege yesterday that the specific engine in question was used strictly for military purposes, by using the Canada Defence Products Guide. He was stretching it somewhat in that the PT6 T-3 engine does not have a military application, but the PT-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -family of engines does.


Pauline Jewett: That is not what I am talking about.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is getting into debate.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. In light of the Neanderthal vote yesterday by the cavemen at the Calgary Petroleum Club, does the Minister intend to instruct the chairman and chief executive officer of Petro-Canada to turn in his membership, and then ensure that no employees of any other Crown corporation are subsidized in any way by the Canadian Government in order to belong to this club?
Oral Questions


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member might be interested to know that today I wrote a letter to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women in the Province of Ontario, pointing out that the Agent General for the Province of Ontario belongs to the Canada Club in London which excludes women.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: Next question.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER BURN MEMBERSHIP CARD
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister talks about another lousy Conservative appointment-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -I would like to get back to the question. Does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to instruct at least one of his cabinet Ministers, listed in the 1986 issue of Who's Who as a member of the Calgary Petroleum Club, to burn his membership card? If he does not burn it, some people in this House are going to ask him to do so.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Stand up, Harvie.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize that there are private clubs in this country where men go and there are private clubs where women go. I think if little boys want to belong to clubs and little girls want to belong to clubs, they are perfectly free to do so. It is not a policy that I support.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINES AND MINING
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Falcon-bridge Nickel Mines Limited will eliminate 275 jobs by the end of this year, and another 250 by the end of 1988. The company is claiming poverty as the reason for these lay-offs. At the same time it found $31.6 million to buy 24 per cent more of Western Platinum, a South African mining company. Can the Minister tell this House what kind of accountability the Government requires from Falconbridge when it treats Canadian workers in such a cavalier fashion, totally ignoring its social responsibility to the community?

November 18, 1986
Oral Questions
Elon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council): Mr, Speaker, we are deeply concerned about the lay-offs. We are also concerned about Falconbridge's reacquisition of 24 per cent of that South African firm. My understanding is it was a strategic corporate move which was not destined to be a long-term policy. Notwithstanding that and not having all the facts before me, I placed a call to the president of Falconbridge and asked to see him to discuss this and other matters, particularly the issue of jobs and the future of Falconbridge as it relates to the future of northern Ontario.


CORPORATION'S INVESTMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, that is sufficient only for now. Would the Minister not agree that the voluntary guidelines regarding investment in South Africa are not working? What does he intend to do about Falconbridge's blatant disregard not only for the guidelines but for the Secretary of State for External Affairs' letter regarding the guidelines? What does he intend to do about that?
Flon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, part of the purpose in having the president come to Ottawa is to examine this proposed transaction in light of the Canadian Government's policy, to ensure that it is consistent and that we have all the facts.
As to the longer question, I repeat that this Government has taken a very special interest in the economic welfare of northern Ontario. There have been more than seven possible initiatives outlined under the leadership of the Solicitor General, and the federal Government is going to continue pursuing those initiatives and try to address some of the very serious problems affecting northern Ontario. We hope we will have the support of the provincial Government as well.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and concerns pharmaceutical goods. Now that he acknowledged yesterday that the price of drugs will go up, is he prepared today to admit that the vague $1.4 billion investment in 10 years promised by the multinationals pales in comparison to the $211 million annual saving multiplied by 10 years? Why is the Minister willing to forgo a $2.11 billion saving for a promise of $1.4 billion?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I made no such admission yesterday because the price of drugs will not increase by one cent, not those now on the market, not those coming on the market. I
wish Hon. Members would stop trying to put false words into my mouth.
As to the potential savings and costs, when we get to committee, if the Hon. Member is there and looks at the true facts, she will see that the benefits from this Bill completely overwhelm any costs and those costs will not be in the form of higher drug prices.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Minister read yesterday's Hansard to see the reply he gave me then. Yes, I am willing to go to committee to study it, and I have a question en franqais.


INQUIRY WHY COST STUDIES NOT TABLED
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: If the
Minister is so sure that this legislation will have more benefits than disadvantages, why is he refusing to table the cost studies?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the whole idea behind a committee study is that all of these facts, studies and analyses can be gone over in a reasonable fashion and reasonable people can make judgments. If we are able to get along and pass the Bill through second reading and into committee, all of the evidence will be there. She will be able to see that drug prices will not go up by a single penny.


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE COMMAND
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister of Trade for Quebec, Mr. Pierre MacDonald, has just invited French companies wishing to take part in the Star Wars program of Mr. Reagan to locate in Quebec. My question is this: Does the Minister agree that the provinces or the federal Government can invite foreign companies to locate in Canada if they wish to take part in the Star Wars program of the United States?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the position of the Government in this matter has always been quite clear. We want to let the companies decide for themselves whether they want to take part in this program or not, and as for any invitation made by the provinces, this is naturally a decision made by the provinces themselves and we simply intend to follow the debate.
November 18, 1986


POSSIBLE PARTICIPATION BY PROVINCIAL CROWN CORPORATIONS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister with regard to Government policy. Is the Deptuy Prime Minister in agreement with the Quebec Minister, Pierre MacDonald, who says that the federal Government policy permits provincial Crown corporations to participate in Reagan's star wars program? Does he not agree that that is a violation of what the Prime Minister of Canada said about a year ago the guidelines should be?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary. I think the policy of the Canadian Government was quite clearly spelled out. While Government initiatives were not to be condoned, private companies and institutions interested in participating in the program would be free to pursue such opportunities.


HERBICIDES
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. For the past 40 years or so Canadian home owners and farmers have relied on a chemical weed killer called 2-4-D. Is it true that the Minister intends to ban 2-4-D prior to the next growing season?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that. There is a constant review of various herbicides which are used both domestically and for commercial farming purposes. I, along with the Minister of Agriculture, examined this very carefully, but no decision has been taken.


UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade, but in her absence I will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister. The 15 per cent countervail duty imposed by the United States on softwood lumber is costing Canadians jobs. Last Friday the sawmill at Searchmont, Ontario, shut down laying off 150 people. What action is the Government going to take to stop this loss of jobs
Oral Questions
and restore those which have already been lost due to the United States countervail?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will reply on behalf of the Minister who is presently at meetings with her provincial counterparts involved in discussing the United States countervail. There were meetings yesterday and there are meetings today. The Government is committed to fight this action.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT LAUNCH CAMPAIGN IN UNITED STATES
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, in view of the tremendous loss of jobs, the benefit of which is going mainly to three United States lumber companies, why is the Government not prepared to mount a massive offensive in the United States with consumer groups and house-building groups in order to fight this countervail? We must take action now if we are going to turn this back, rather than holding endless meetings as we are at this time.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the provinces own the resources in this country. We are working in co-operation with our partners, the provinces which are affected. Those decisions will be made by the Minister and the provinces as the negotiations proceed. It is very important that we work hand in hand with the provinces, as we are doing.


EMERGENCY MEASURES
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. His Department has recently published a book on what Canadians should do in the event of a nuclear attack. It makes recommendations such as digging a trench a foot deep and three feet wide, crawling into it and pulling a door or some boards down on top of you, and all sorts of other interesting proposals.
Is the Minister aware that tens of thousands of copies of this publication are being sent to Canadians? Did he authorize it?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: confess, Mr. Speaker, that I am not aware of the publication. If the Hon. Member has a particular question, I would be prepared to respond after making inquiries.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER EXAMINE PUBLICATION'S CONTENTS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do have a specific question. Part of the publication indicates that appropriate shields would include the following: water beds, tables, magazines, bookcases, doors, chests of drawers, dressers and so on. Surely the Minister will admit that this is a

November 18, 1986
Oral Questions
bizarre publication reminiscent of the Cold War of 30 or 40 years ago. Would the Minister take steps to examine this situation and ensure that tens of thousands more copies of the publication are not sent out to Canadians? This is an unbelievably bizarre Government publication.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has presented a situation which is deserving of an inquiry. I do not know the date of the publication. I will investigate and reply to him.
regard to the level to which the stumpage fees will be increased?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I just replied to the Hon. Member's colleague that meetings with the provinces and the federal Government are taking place at this moment. When there is an announcement to be made with regard to the action being taken, it will be made in the appropriate manner by the Minister.



GOVERNMENT POSITION


Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The issue of lapsing funds at the end of the fiscal year in dozens of Departments was to be addressed by the Government in the past months. It is certainly of concern to the Public Accounts Committee as well as taxpayers in general. What progress, if any, has been made on this issue?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that we have been monitoring our spending patterns very closely. As he will know from the Supplementary Estimates which I tabled this morning, which were the lowest for any equivalent period of time since 1972-73, we are on track and well within the spending limits set by the Minister of Finance. We follow the issue of lapsing funds very closely. We were able to reduce the amount of lapsing funds considerably last year. Through the measures which were introduced by the Treasury Board and the Comptroller General this year, we expect that performance will be repeated.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I recall very clearly the question asked by my colleague for Algoma a while ago. The Minister did not reply to my colleague and he is not replying now. We are simply asking whether the Government of Canada intends to use the suspension agreement in the softwood lumber disagreement. Is this what the federal Government has decided to do or does it intend simply to appeal to international organizations such as GATT?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Hon. Member is expressing his position on the negotiations.


Raymond Garneau: I am asking the question.


John Horton McDermid: If that is the Liberal position, we are pleased to have it, because that is something new and different.


Raymond Garneau: Answer the question. You are the Government.


John Horton McDermid: I will repeat what I said earlier to the Hon. Member. Those discussions are going on at this time. When there is an announcement to be made, it will be made in the proper forum by the Minister.



UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. We are rapidly reaching the end of the road of negotiations with the United States on the dispute about softwood lumber. Although we question the action, Canada has only until November 28 to negotiate a suspension agreement with the United States in response to the 15 per cent duty on softwood lumber.
Is it the intention of the Government to negotiate such a suspension agreement with the United States? If so, has the Government come to an agreement with the provinces with



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question would appropriately be directed to the Prime Minister who, on several occasions, has stated a commitment on the part of the Government to fairness and justice for the native people of Canada. Can the Government assure this House and the native people of Canada, whose future so much depends on it, that there will be adopted in the near future a fair policy for the settlement of comprehensive claims?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the
November 18, 1986

record of the Government in the area of Indian affairs has been outstanding. The Minister in charge today, the Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, and the former Minister, the Member for Rosedale, have both done an outstanding job on behalf of the Indian people of Canada. I am sure that the Hon. Member recognizes that these are very difficult and complex issues. Nonetheless, the Government is working very actively in this particular area, as well as other areas that affect the Indian people. I am sure that a more comprehensive response could be provided by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when he returns to the House.



POLICY INQUIRY

John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, since the Standing Orders do not allow for commercial breaks, and since the problem is that this responsibility is always delegated by the Government to the particular Minister, will the Deputy Prime Minister give some commitment from the Government to the introduction of a comprehensive claims policy which will improve on the previous abysmal record in the settlement of these claims?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows of the Cooligan report on comprehensive land claims. He has been told before by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development about the Government's response to the Cooligan report and the comprehensive approach that the Government is taking. This is also in preparation for the constitutional conference in May, 1987. I think the Hon. Member should co-operate very closely with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who has focused these issues and directed them toward that meeting.
* *
*



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. Has he investigated the comments of the President of the Manitoba Institute of Chartered Accountants who said that local chartered accountant firms routinely intercept and open mail without required court authorizations? How widespread is this practice and how many Canadians have had their privacy violated without a court order?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I have just been informed of this situation. I shall soon have an opportunity to speak to the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and I shall report to my colleague later.

Privilege-Ms. Copps REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the incident was reported in the Free Press on November 14. I think the Minister had enough time to investigate. I hope he will carry out a thorough investigation, and is he now committing himself to that thorough investigation so that this will not be repeated?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that the corporation is not investigating. I am saying that I am not aware of the progress of the investigation. As soon as the investigation is completed I will inform the Hon. Member of its conclusions.
* *



PRIVILEGE


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance under the new Standing Orders. According to Standing Orders 104(1) and 104(2), Parliament has empowered committees with the responsibility to examine appointees within a specific period of time, which is 30 sitting days, pursuant to Standing Order 103.
In an organizational meeting approximately a week ago, the Standing Committee on Human Rights decided to invite some 16 of the 28 recently appointed members to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for questioning pursuant to Standing Order 104. That particular agenda was agreed to by the subcommittee, which included a majority of members of the Conservative Party as well as representatives from each Opposition Party.
When the proposition was put to the committee, it was decided at a meeting that each Member of Parliament would have the opportunity to invite only one person to appear before the Committee. Therefore, instead of reviewing the 16 appointees which was originally decided by the subcommittee, we are now talking about reviewing two appointees, one nominee from the Liberal Party, one nominee from the NDP and the balance from the Conservative Party.
If the Parliament of Canada was truly sincere about reform of the committee process, to permit Members to review all Order in Council appointments, I submit that the action of the majority Conservative Members on the Human Rights Committee was a perversion of the attempt to democratize the process and allow Order in Council appointments to be improved-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You cast reflections on people. I would not do that to you.

November 18, 1986
Privilege-Ms. Copps


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Hamilton-East (Ms. Copps) will know that it is against parliamentary decorum to impute motives to any Hon. Members. I know the Hon. Member would not want to do that.
The Hon. Member is giving an explanation of a situation that has arisen in committee. I think it would be advisable if Hon. Members paid attention to these matters because, as a consequence of reform, committees are being asked to do things and use initiatives that they have not had before.
It is the Chair's disposition to continue listening to the Hon. Member. It may not be a question of privilege, but there certainly seems to be a point that the Hon. Member wishes to bring to the attention of the Chair. I would ask Hon. Members to hear the Member thoroughly.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I certainly did not intend to impute any motive. I am seeking your guidance because, as I see our responsibilities under the Standing Orders, specifically to be in a position to review all or part of Order in Council appointments as recommended under Standing Order 104, I do not see how we can fulfill those responsibilities when we are being limited as to the number of persons who can be brought before the committee in a kind of lottery system.
I seek your guidance as to whether or not the intent of Standing Order 104 is being subverted because of an arbitrary decision of the committee.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I was in attendance at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Rights yesterday. It had been agreed by the steering committee of that committee that some 16 appointees to Human Rights Tribunals would in fact be heard by the committee and examined with respect to their qualifications under the Standing Order in question.
Yesterday, over the opposition of both members of the Opposition who were present, it was decided that that list would be eliminated and, instead, each member of the committee would only be entitled to put forward one name. That means that each opposition Member could put forward one name and Government Members could each put forward one name. That is an attempt to muzzle the committee effectively in its important role of monitoring the appointments to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals.
I, as a member of the committee, raised serious questions with respect to the qualifications of a number of members who were suggested for appointment. The actions of the majority effectively deny me as a member of that committee and, more importantly, a Member of this Parliament, from giving any kind of effect to the Standing Order that provides for overview and scrutiny.
The final point is that the process of scrutiny in this particular instance is of particular significance because a broad coalition of organizations, including the Canadian Jewish Congress, the National Action Committee on the
Status of Women, the Canadian Human Rights Advocate, and many others, raised serious concerns with respect to the qualifications of the individuals who were appointed to this very important position of a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
What we saw yesterday in the Standing Committee on Human Rights was an attempt to deny Members of Parliament our right to question these appointees with respect to their qualifications. Surely that kind of muzzle constitutes a breach of the privileges of Members of the House, as well as a breach of the Orders of the House. I would ask Your Honour to take the necessary steps to ensure that the full intent of this very important and new Standing Order is in fact respected.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I attended that committee meeting as well. I can confirm the description of what occurred. I agree with the description given by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).
I want to make the point that this is a new section of the rules. I know it is very rare that the Chair will enter into procedures and decisions made by chairmen of committees. However, I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to bear in mind that this is a new section of the rules and a new power being given to committees. The practice followed last night effectively eliminates this rule, which is a rule of the House of Commons.
The Chair, I submit with respect, has a duty to ensure that these rules are applied and that committees do not follow procedures which prevent members of the committee, in their duties as members, from seeing that the rules are available and that the review of newly appointed individuals pursuant to Orders in Council does occur.
In effect, of the 16 members who were selected by the committee, nine will not be able to be reviewed because of the interpretation imposed over the objections of the Opposition by the majority of government Members at the committee last night. It is not a matter about which the Chair ought to say, with respect, this is a matter for the committee to settle. A real abuse took place last night.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, first I would submit there is absolutely no breach of an Hon. Member's privilege here. It is my understanding that the subcommittee made one decision and the full committee, all members of the committee, made another decision. What the Hon. Member is complaining about really is that she did not win at the full committee. I am sorry, but that happens around this place and the majority rules.
It is a very good principle that each member of a committee be asked to pick one member who he or she thinks should come forward under the appointments process. Something which has not been brought out, and I am sure you will be aware of it, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a committee of chairpeople who
November 18, 1986

look at the budgets of all committees. Each committee has a budget for calling witnesses. If a committee has a sufficient budget, it can call witnesses within that budget. However, it would be an abuse of the process, and what we are trying to do around here, if every appointee to every committee were invited to appear before the committee.
Lastly, I would point out that only yesterday the Toronto Star, which does not exactly support our Party in every case, drew to the attention of the Ontario Liberal Party that the federal Government has an appointments review process in existence which was brought in by this Government under parliamentary reform, and we make no apologies for bringing in what this Hon. Member never brought in at all when he was in Government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are making a farce out of it.


Philip Derek Lewis: It is a lot of nonsense that all of a sudden it is a breach of privilege to have the right to review appointments, which was never given under the previous Government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: So what is your argument?


Philip Derek Lewis: That is nonsense and everyone in this House knows it. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
We submit that every committee of this House is the master of its own destiny and that a full committee has a right to take what the subcommittee suggests and either endorse it or change it. That is the process which has been in existence since I have been here. It is just a continuation of the process, and 1 submit there is absolutely no abuse of privilege.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Liaison Committee and someone who has served as a chairman of a Standing Committee since the election of this particular Parliament. I am pleased in a sense that the issue has been raised because I believe we do need opportunities in the House to address the new rules, the purposes which brought them into existence and the possible consequences for the future and for the welfare of Canadians which can come out of the process of parliamentary reform.
It seems to me that the principle that committees must remain masters of their own destiny is a very important principle. The House should be very careful about going back to a system which really existed before, which is that the House had to rule on the activities which would engage the committee. Outside of Main Estimates, most of the committee in this House had no permanent standing reference. If we were to adopt the principle, which I think is implicit in the submission of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), that the House should determine, or you, Mr. Speaker, as the Speaker should determine the activities that a committee must engage in, we would really be taking a step backward from the notion of reform.
There are clear indications that the workload for different committees is of a very different order. However, there is a responsibility, I think particularly in the first two or three
Privilege-Ms. Copps
years of the new parliamentary rules, for committees to look very carefully at two things, both the opportunity and the responsibility to develop policy, to assert it to the House and to the Government, and to have the Government forced to respond to the policy ideas of Members who have taken the time and trouble to inquire into policy matters in detail. That is one sense of responsibility. The other is really the oversight responsibility. 1 think we often think of that as the financial oversight responsibility, but it includes the oversight responsibility in relation to appointments to boards and commissions.
I think of my own committee which has a lot of Crown corporations, bodies and appointments which are referred to it. It would be conceivable that my committee, for instance, if it were to examine each and every one of them, could spend four, five or six meetings a week and several times the allotted budgetary amount, simply to look at that particular responsibility of oversight. Instead, representatives from all three committees up to this point have decided that the policy development phase of our activities is the most important part of what we wish to do on behalf of the Parliament of Canada and the Canadian people. We have chosen to use our scarce resources to advance that cause.
I would hate to see any sense of principle enunciated in this Chamber which would take that right and responsibility away from the Members which this Chamber saw fit to appoint to the committee. Therefore, I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to take that line of reasoning into account in whatever ruling you might be prepared to make in relation to this particular point.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I attended the committee meeting in question last night as an alternate. I am not a regular member of that committee. I was astounded to see that a committee was thinking about talking to 16 people. However, it was explained to me that it did not really expect 16 people to attend-perhaps they would not be available that day. So the committee was really only expecting to see a small group of that 16.
I rise to put on record this fact. One of the Hon. Members opposite who spoke in favour of this point of privilege stated on the record of the committee that he was prepared to bring Canadians here from right across Canada, sit them in a committee room and give them a two-minute examination. That is simply an abuse I could not countenance, and I made a strong protest at that point.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think you very generously allowed the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) to make a point of privilege. I submit it is not a point of privilege. It is not even a point of order. Without getting into the issue per se, I submit in support of my colleagues that this is a committee issue. The committee has certain powers, obligations and responsibilities and, as has been said earlier, it clearly is master of its own House. In the true spirit of parliamentary reform, I think that has to be considered as well, because if the committee has more powers and more

November 18, 1986
Privilege-Ms. Copps
latitude in doing certain things then certain responsibilities and decisions it makes are part and parcel of that process. I simply want to bring the point back to the basics of parliamentary procedure and draw to your attention, Sir, that Beauchesne's Fifth Edition clearly outlines at Citation 117(7):
The opinion of the Speaker cannot be sought in the House about any matter arising or likely to arise in a committee.
I think this is still essentially the bible which governs our rules of procedure, consistent with the Standing Orders, and I would hope the Chair would take that into account when it adjudicates this issue.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Government proposed to the House with a great deal of fanfare and self-congratulation a number of changes to the rules, including the rule we are discussing, Standing Order 103, which says in part:
A Minister of the Crown may, from time to time, lay upon the Table a certificate stating that a specified individual has been nominated for appointment to a specified non-judicial post. The same shall be deemed to have been referred to a standing committee-
And it goes on. With an equal amount of self-congratulation, the Government proposed to the House Standing Order 104 which reads in part as follows:
The committee specified pursuant to Standing Orders 67(5) and 103, during the period of thirty sitting days provided pursuant to Standing Order 103, shall if it deems it appropriate, call the so named appointee or nominee to appear before it during a period not exceeding ten sitting days.
It may be generally true that a committee is the master of its own business, and it may also be true that even Standing Order 104 gives some discretion to the committee with respect to what it should do in carrying out the direction of the House pursuant to that Standing Order. However, I submit that the words of the Standing Order are clear. The committee must look at the advisability of calling each specific appointee whose name is presented to the House-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That's not what it says here and you know it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -whose name is presented to the House by the Government in an individual order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: My hon. friends are attempting to interject and make comments. They must be trying to interrupt me because they know that they have a weak case.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) that the Chair is hearing every word. I did not take it that anyone was seriously impeding the Hon. Member's ability to put his case.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am saying that I do not think it is appropriate for the committee to carry out the directions of this House pursuant to Standing Order 104
by making a blanket determination that all the people in a certain category referred to it for consideration not be heard. Rather, since each name is tabled in the House individually and referred to the committee individually, the committee must make an individual determination.
If the Government majority on the committee in question operates so as to prevent the Standing Order from applying in a meaningful way, then I submit with the utmost of respect that the Government and its supporters will be seen as not taking seriously what they claimed by presenting the new Standing Orders to the House as a major reform.
Further, not too long ago when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) was asked during Question Period why he appointed to the Human Rights Tribunal a supporter of Ferdinand Marcos and a supporter of martial law in that country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has, I believe, been generous in assuring that all Hon. Members have made a contribution to the argument, both pro and con. I would ask the Hon. Member to perhaps close off his argument now and not to wander too far into debate, history or other circumstances.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will relate my last comment directly to the issue on which you are asked to rule. I am paraphrasing and speaking from memory when I say that the Minister of Justice said that the question interfered with the work of a committee because the particular individual and his qualifications had been referred to the committee for consideration.
Either the Government is serious about having committees review the qualifications of appointees or it is not. If it is serious, then nothing should be done to prevent the committee from looking at each and every appointee. If government supporters on the committee use their majority to prevent that from happening, then it is a distortion of the intent of the House which passed the Standing Order in question. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to accept the proposals made in that regard by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Mr. Speaker:: I believe it is the prerogative of the Chair to close off the argument. I want to assure Hon. Members that I have listened very carefully to the points that have been made. As I said at the beginning of this debate, this is a matter which clearly does arise from a committee, but in view of the fact that changes are taking place in the committee procedures and approaches as a consequence of reform the Chair felt that this matter ought properly to be debated here in the Chamber so that a considered opinion could be rendered by the Chair at an appropriate time.
I would prefer not to make a ruling at this time. I can assure the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) who raised this matter, as well as all other Hon. Members who have spoken, that I shall look with very great care at the submissions made and will try to come back with some comments
November 18, 1986

which may be helpful. I will, of course, advise the Hon. Member and others when I will render a decision. Perhaps I can contact Hon. Members about that later. I want to thank all Hon. Members for their interventions. The Chair has found them all to be very helpful.
I would also like to bring to the attention of the House a notice of a question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm). The Hon. Member for Peterborough does not wish, as I understand it, to argue the case today, but wishes to be assured that there has been no delay which would prevent the Hon. Member from bringing his question of privilege to the Chair. I want to assure the Hon. Member that I consider this to be a valid notice, and when it is appropriate for the Hon. Member to raise the matter in argument, as I understand it is important and complex, that will be arranged.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciated the remarks that were made. I was trying to rise to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. Here under the shadow of the clock, it is sometimes a little difficult to catch someone's eye.
There is one other point I would like to mention which no other Hon. Member mentioned. The House Leader made mention of reflections on the work of a committee. We can see what happens to the House when that happens, but you have taken that into consideration, Mr. Speaker.
There was another point made under Standing Order 59 that was to me equally germane to the issue, and that is that there is not to be a reflection on a vote taken in the House, mutatis mutandis, under the rules. That also applies to committees. Even with the sincerity that exists and because of the new ground being broken by committees, something which should be left to the committees, we can see the procedural wrangle we can get into. No matter how well intentioned is a point which comes to the floor based on a vote of a steering committee, let alone an entire Standing Committee, the whole place bogs down. Standing Order 59 which says that no Hon. Member may reflect on a vote in the House applies equally, I would suggest with the greatest of respect, to the committee.
I am not going to deal with the argument of my good friend from Windsor. He must be a little tired as he heads into the last of the month. He made a very interesting argument. The angels on the head of pin had more vitality than the conviction in his voice. Nowhere in Standing Order 103(1) is there anything about a steering committee. It is the committee itself and that is what we all know is the committee-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley- Hants (Mr. Nowlan) has contributed to the debate and I shall take into account his comments. Certainly all Hon. Members will agree that this place cannot be used endlessly and continually to settle all matters that take place in committees. However, the Chair has indicated that it is my view that this is an important matter. As I say, I hope I will be able to make a
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
ruling which will be of assistance to all Hon. Members and to the committees.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-24, an Act to provide for the maintenance of ports operations- Mr. Cadieux-Mr. Danis in the chair.
Marcel Danis: When the committee rose for the luncheon break, Clause 3 was under discussion and an amendment had been proposed by the Hon. Member for Churchill. Therefore the question is on the amendment.


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise to speak on NDP amendment No. 1(A). The Government has said all along that its main concern about the lock-out of West Coast longshoremen is in the area of the stoppage of grain shipments from the Prairies. We share that concern. There has never been any question about it. I hope it is the priority of every Hon. Member of the House.
Why did the Government choose such a broad shotgun approach to this piece of legislation? It affects all operations, removes collective bargaining rights and imposes a contract. Why could we not have legislation to deal with the movement of grain and to provide for ways to deal with the other disputes?
Therefore our amendment asks the Government to be specific and to apply this piece of legislation to the handling of grain rather than to all port activities.
An article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press referred to prairie farm groups and grain companies which were demanding that Ottawa prevent a planned lock-out this week of West Coast ports, thereby shutting down half of Canada's export capacity. Mr. Moore, the general manager of United Grain Growers, said: "We want them to leave grain alone. If that does not work, we will be going to the Government". That is history now, but it is unfortunate that the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association refused to exempt grain from the lock-out. The longshoremen have stated publicly a number of times that they would work the grain.
The amendment before us would delete "longshoring and related operations at ports on the West Coast of Canada" and substitute therefor "all grain handling operations at ports". The effect of the amendment would be to require employers to lift the lock-out of workers in grain operations. The workers could return to work. The gates at the Port of Vancouver would be opened as would the gates at the grain elevators. Then waiting ships could be loaded with this year's abundant

November 18, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
crop of grain. Also waiting trains could continue to unload their cargo into B.C. grain elevators for future shipment to Pacific Rim destinations.
I think the Minister wants a positive resolution of the situation so that there will not be undue bitterness in the future. I urge him to consider seriously an amendment which would help resolve the lock-out and would allow the few longshoremen who work on the shipping end of grain to resume their work.
We all deplore the lock-out imposed by the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association which closed down the operations of the port. It is always very unfortunate when such a thing happens. Apparently it was a tactic to try to force an imposed settlement of the contentious grain container clause, which involves only a small aspect of port operations. Only a very few longshoremen handle grain on the ships, and they have always been willing to continue grain handling during disputes.
Again I ask the Minister to consider the amendment. It wouid allow time for other aspects to be resolved and it would keep our grain moving. We believe that Bill C-24 takes away the rights of workers and imposes a contract which I do not think is agreeable to either party.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments on the proposed amendment and on the points raised by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East and by other Hon. Members who spoke this morning.
I do not want to repeat the speech I made yesterday. It was a relatively long speech which outlined the history of the negotiations between the two parties involved. Everyone knows that their bargaining record is a dismal one. The reason that we are dealing with the Bill today takes that into consideration.
This Act may be cited as the Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986. I should like to answer certain concerns by quoting from my speech. As reported in Hansard at page 1231,1 said:
In addition to the damage which a lengthy work stoppage wouid cause to Canada's reputation as a reliable exporter of grain, the business community and its employees dependent upon water transportation for shipment of their goods and resources, are also subject to undue hardship as a result of this work stoppage. We are once again faced with a situation in which the parties to a dispute are able to inflict more punishment on others than on themselves.
Therefore we will not support the amendment.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I seek clarification of the Hon. Member's amendment. As I read it, it would reinstate grain handling operations but would not reinstate the handling of minerals such as potash from Saskatchewan, other minerals from British Columbia or lumber from British Columbia and Alberta. Would it strictly reinstate grain handling operations but not the handling of the other major resource commodities of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, I should like to respond quickly. Clearly the intention was to focus upon grain. That seems to be from where public pressure is coming; to my knowledge, there has not been an overwhelming cry about the other sectors. It has been indicated that if we are to allow for the collective bargaining process, we cannot leave one element working in the system. Both sides must have flexibility to take whatever stands or use whatever tactics are appropriate from their perspective in order to try to reach a collective agreement.
We have conducted a very narrow focus on the grain sector to allow it to get back to work. It is a very small component in terms of the members of the union. It is a very small component in terms of the companies involved. I think if Hon. Members look at Schedule I they will see that there is only one company listed that would be covered by this clause. I refer to the association of terminal operators. All the rest of the companies would be left out, allowing the collective bargaining process to continue.


Marcel Danis: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Amendment 1(A) (Mr. Murphy) negatived: Yeas, 11; nays, 56.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Just so that everyone is clear as to what we are doing, there are three additional amendments that relate to the same matter of substance and we will not be moving them. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West, will move the next amendment on our behalf.
Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 6-Terms, etc., of agreement amended.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to move with respect to Clause 6. I move:
That Bill C-24 be amended in Clause 6 by deleting lines 40, 41, 42, and 43 on page 3 and substituting the following:
"-1986, other than the recommendations contained in the report
concerning Articles 12, 13, 14, 16, 19.08, 21.03(1), 26.05 and 28.01(1) of the
agreement."
Mr. Chairman, I will be quite frank, open and honest with the Minister. The purpose of this amendment is to comply with a request by the union to switch the location in the legislation of where items in the collective agreement will be decided upon and be binding on both parties by a referee, that it be done by the industrial Commissioner or the commission. These items have to do with pensions, the welfare plan and a host of other items. It is felt that since they are subject to binding decision in any event one can now assume, although it is a risky assumption, that the two parties will continue their collective bargaining from now until the end of 1988, as is specified in
November 18, 1986

the legislation. Quite frankly, and to be perfectly blunt, there is no incentive for the employers to continue the collective bargaining process. I say this because in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, the employers believe that they have the least to lose when the matter goes before a referee and when they cannot agree on the interpretation of various parts of the Larson Report or on the contractual language. It is our view and that of the longshoremen that they would prefer to have these matters dealt with by the industrial commission or the Commissioner. They would rather rely on that binding decision than that of the referee.
I submit that this will make the decision making that might be required of the referee less onerous in terms of the numbers of items on which the referee will have to make decisions since they will have already been considered by the industrial Commissioner. Thus the remaining items of the collective agreement will be subject still to the collective bargaining process and the rulings of a referee.
I submit that this would speed up the process and that there would be less time required of the referee. I admit at the outset that this would place more duties on the industrial Commissioner. Elowever, the Commissioner already has access to a number of people. I presume the Minister will be generous in terms of the number and quality of staff the Commissioner will have. I presume that they will be the most competent people available, including the official he has sitting in front of him. In fact, the official he has in front of him now would make an excellent industrial commissioner. In fact, he would make a good Minister, provided he ran for the NDP.
In all seriousness, this is not only a genuine concern but a sincere request of the Minister to consider this amendment favourably. We provided copies of the amendment to the Minister and to members of the Official Opposition in advance. We have had conversations and the Minister has assured us, and we believe him, that he will give the most favourable and sympathetic consideration he can to this matter. He has said that he will continue to think about it right up until the time at which he has to decide whether he will accept it or vote against it.
I am faced with an onerous task, one which I do not know if I am quite up to or not. With all my charm, my perspicacity, my sweetness and light, I am trying to persuade the Minister, if he is not persuaded already, that this amendment is a good one. It is worthy of acceptance. I think it will help in the matters which have to occur over the months ahead, particularly in the next six months. I think it will also help to get a message through to both parties about reaching an agreement on all the other remaining items to be negotiated in the collective agreement.
Goodness' knows, both sides need to be given a message on many items. The Minister is somewhat more optimistic than I or many others are about the possible success of the collective bargaining process until the end of 1988, without the referee
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
having to do very much, if anything. I might say to the Minister that I believe his optimism is on very shaky ground. In fact, in light of his experience and that of his predecessors, he is somewhat more than optimistic and is on very, very shaky and weak ground. What he is faced with is the fact that the referee is going to end up doing the collective bargaining. It is highly unlikely, in my opinion, that the two parties will reach agreement on very many if any of the clauses other than the container clause. That is why, Sir, we ask the Government to accept this amendment. We genuinely believe it will assist him, his officials and the two parties to get a fair decision from the Commissioner on the clauses we have mentioned in the amendment.
It will also, we believe, spur the two parties on to reach an agreement on the remaining items. That would also serve for the time when there are disputes not only in the ports but in many other areas, whether it be railroads, grain handling or whatever. I would think it would have a beneficial effect on disputes in bargaining in many other areas of this country. When they realize what Parliament did in this instance, particularly if the Minister will accept our amendment, they are more likely to come to an agreement rather than lock-outs or strikes.
All of us who have been here any length of time have had to face this sort of situation, at least since I came here, six or seven or eight times. Nobody likes it, nobody wants it. No one on any side of the House is a winner. All Members and all parties are damned if they do and damned if they do not, and both at the same time. That is why the better this Bill is, the more likely that it will have an effect on collective bargaining in many other areas of the country. Both employers and unions will have to think about this as they begin the collective bargaining process.
Sir, I know the road to hell can be paved with good intentions but we feel this is a good intention worthy of acceptance. We really do believe from discussions and meetings we have had in many places and with many people, including Members of this House, that it will be helpful. It will strengthen the legislation. I plead with the Minister, who has been sitting carefully thinking, to agree that this motion is acceptable and would be of assistance as well as a good addition to this legislation.


Marcel Danis: The Chair finds the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Regina West to be in order.


James Ross Fulton: I have just a brief point in support of what my colleague has reminded the Minister of. The Minister is aware that some of the points dealt with in the Larson Report are not conclusive. They have not completely gelled. I am thinking of matters relating to pensions and welfare plans and the UIC carve-out and so on. Quite frankly, I do not think the referee is going to find it that easy to get together with the two sides and simply find contractual language in that Larson, as he completed his study, found certain points that had not gelled.

November 18, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
He simply was put into a situation where he could not come up with a conclusion.
I do not think the proposal being made by my colleague would add substantively or enormously to the work to be done by the Commissioner in that the amount of track, so to speak, left to be put in place to complete some of those items is not that great. I think the commission is likely a better place for that to take place in that, as I said earlier, the referee may find it necessary on some of these points to come back through Labour Canada to the Minister, back to the House, to get direction through something other than Bill C-24 that would allow the process to be completed. I do not think that is what is intended by this legislation. I think that since the process as set out for the industrial inquiry commission is of a specific duration, that of six months in which to come up with the basic part of it, it gives the Minister some leeway in coming down with final contractual language and so on. This is really a more appropriate way for it to be done rather than throwing those uncompleted items to the referee who may in all likelihood be unable to complete them.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, on the same point, unfortunately the legislation we are dealing with today is very complicated and difficult. Instead of referring all the problems related to the breakdown of negotiations to one body, we have a number of different agencies involved. However, as any of us who have been involved in collective agreements, either through negotiating them or administering them or just studying them, realize, what happens in one section of a collective agreement has a definite bearing on other parts.
One of the problems faced by the union with the proposal of the Minister is that if the inquiry comes down with a certain recommendation or recommendations regarding how the container issue will be resolved, it certainly will affect the clauses we have suggested and should also be referred to the same authority, for example, the clauses affecting such things as welfare, wages, automation, hours of work, hours of work at bulk terminals, et cetera. Obviously if there is a recommendation on the container clause that reduces the hours of work, it will have some effect on the workers. It will also affect how the pension plan is going to be implemented, as well as their medical and dental plans. It will affect a number of issues which are very important to the maintenance of that collective agreement. You cannot divide them. You cannot say the container clause is very important and we will send it over by itself and forget about the other items in that collective agreement.
If the worst happens as far as the employees are concerned and the container clause is removed and a number of people lose work, then obviously they are going to be very concerned with what additional benefits should be there concerning their pension. They are going to be very concerned about the hours of work and how they are determined. That being the case, it is very important that the Minister listen to the representations made by the Hon. Member for Regina West and the Hon. Member for Skeena and by myself to make sure he does not
send parts of the collective agreement to the referee and other parts to an inquiry restricted to the container clause. The collective agreement is one agreement. It affects the workers and their families. It affects the performance of the workers on the job and it is very important that it be dealt with by one group, especially when there can be no joint agreement.
It is very important that this matter be resolved in the manner which we have just suggested. If the agreement falls apart six, eight or nine months down the road, it could very well be because of the split jurisdiction which the Minister is recommending. If the container clause goes one way and the hours of work, automation and welfare clauses are not appropriate, there will not be peace on the waterfront in B.C.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a couple of points to the arguments made by my colleagues. It is not necessarily to the advantage of the union to have the recommendations in the Larson Report reopened. There are instances in which the Larson Report recommends in the union's favour, but those clauses are included in this package to allow that crossover. Instead of a very narrow focus on the container issue, a number of things are included to allow the give and take which is necessary in the collective bargaining process to arrive at an agreement which the parties are prepared to accept and tolerate. I urge the Minister to give very serious consideration to our proposal to broaden the scope of the Commissioner in order to achieve a true collective agreement. Clearly, anything imposed from above is not a collective agreement.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, the issue which has been raised today is very serious, and what we are doing today is also very serious. If the issue were not so serious, we would probably not have introduced this special Bill. This legislation was introduced in the House because, as far as I am concerned, the parties have a horrible record with respect to collective bargaining. They were not able to arrive at an appropriate agreement between themselves. We have given them all the help possible. We gave them a conciliator, a commissioner, and then two mediators. All efforts were made to enable the parties to sit at a negotiating table and prove to the Canadian people that they could finally reach an agreement. They have failed.
I have been to see the parties. I told them that they have the responsibility to reach an agreement and that if they did not we would impose an agreement upon them. The Larson Report is based upon discussions which have taken place with the parties. In the circumstances, I think it is the best compromise we can make. This does not prevent the parties from sitting down and coming to an agreement. We will not support the amendment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I regret very much the Minister's decision. Our amendment fits perfectly with the arguments he has just made. We were only asking that these
November 18, 1986

crucial items, on which it is unlikely they will ever bargain collectively, be part and parcel of or connected to the container clause. The container clause affects most seriously the other articles which we have named. The remaining items can be left to the collective bargaining process.
Our amendment was designed to fit in with the arguments put forward by the Minister yesterday and just now. We urge the Minister to reconsider. This amendments suits his purposes and those of this House exactly. The amendment was drafted after a very great deal of careful thought and consultation. The union is no more happy about a binding decision of Parliament than are the employers. However, even the union admits that those are items which they would prefer to leave in the hands of the industrial commission which will make a binding decision. That surely fits in with what the Minister just said. I hope he will make a last minute reconsideration and agree to accept the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Benjamin) negatived: Yeas, 11; Nays, 27.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I hope the Chair will watch closely when votes are called. As soon as the Chair calls the vote no one else may enter the Chamber.


Marcel Danis: The Chair takes note of the point raised by the Member for Regina West.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, all of the additional amendments on the page entitled: NDP Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, were consequential and will, therefore, not be moved.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On Clause 7-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend Clause 7 by moving:
That Bill C-24, an Act to provide for the maintenance of ports operations be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 1, at page 4, and substituting the following therefor:
"this Act applies, including provision for job security, development of the
port, rail facilities, improvement of competitive position of the port and such
other matters relat-"
The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear to the industrial inquiry Commissioner that these other matters should be reported on by him. The employers association is arguing that if the container clause is removed, tens of thousands of additional containers will come through the Port of Vancouver. That clearly will not happen without these other matters relating to the development of the port and the rail facilities being dealt with.
I have spoken a couple of times this morning about the obligation which CNR and CPR have under the Western Grain Transportation Act to improve those facilities. There is also the competitive position of the port. These recommendations will not be binding on the Government, they are simply
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
other matters relating to the port operations. They are, however, very germane to the some 300 workers who are threatened with lay-off if the container clause were to be removed. It will make it clear to the Government and to the Port of Vancouver that it must get on with these improvements.
I think it is important that this amendment, including the provision for job security, be accepted. I hope the committee will give us full support for the amendment.


Marcel Danis: The Chair finds the amendment to be in order.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, we think that the amendment makes sense because it fully clarifies the role of the Commis-siner. We will support it.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, first I want to take this occasion to thank Hon. Members of both opposition Parties for their co-operation in giving me the text of their amendments in advance. Obviously it makes our task a little easier. I have had discussions with some members of each Party this morning in order to give them some preliminary impressions of the amendments. The effect of this particular amendment would be to require the Minister of Labour to refer to the industrial inquiry commission matters which are well beyond my authority as Minister and which are well beyond the scope of the collective agreement. Therefore we cannot accept the amendment as it is.
As I assured my colleagues this morning, the terms of reference that will eventually be given to the commission will definitely be large enough for it to look at those points that have been made by Hon. Members.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, it just occurs to me that the Minister seems to be saying that all of this will be done and that clearly the matter relating to job security is in the clause of the conciliation report now, so that there is no question about job security. The Minister seems to be saying that this will be done, that hopefully the industrial Commissioner will make this report and explore all of these matters, advise the Government and the port authority about what has to be done to ensure that the port handles more containers in the future. However, the Minister does not want to put it in the Bill.
Since the Minister expects the Commissioner to do this, I would feel much better if he would agree to put it in the legislation, even at this late moment.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, again I will assure my hon. colleagues that the terms of reference will be wide enough to include such points as job security. As a matter of fact, the Commissioner looked into that in his own report. I am sure that all Members of the House will be very satisfied with the terms of reference that would be given to the commission.

November 18, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister's answer still raises a lot of questions. Terms of reference are one thing; what actually happens with the recommendations is something else. That is the major problem with setting up this inquiry. It will only have the power to act in one area with regard to recommendations. It will be able to write a clause, include a clause in the collective agreement on the container issue, or remove a clause. It can make all sorts of other recommendations, some of which will go to the Department of Transport, some of which may go to the employer, and some of which may go to the employees. However, the point is that if the other bodies do not feel like acting, nothing will happen. That is a real problem facing the workers.
They have some security with the present clause in the collective agreement. That could be taken from them and no other agency of Government, the employer or anyone else must act on the recommendations. Only the container clause will be binding on the parties. There is no need to act on the other recommendations.
I know the difficulties involved in getting labour legislation passed in the House of Commons. There has only been one decent piece of legislation introduced during the seven years I have been a Member of Parliament. That was the legislation on occupational health and safety and maternity leave clause extensions. It took four years before the Government even bothered to introduce that legislation and it was almost killed at the last moment before the election. When one considers the history of how the House of Commons deals with labour legislation, I am not very optimistic about what the Minister just said.
We need some guarantees that if there are other recommendations, they will be acted upon by the Government. We cannot simply tell the workers to accept whatever comes down from the Commissioner because Parliament will look after the other recommendations that may be imposed. History has proven that the House of Commons will not act quickly on the recommendations that affect the job security of workers.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support of the Hon. Member for Churchill on this amendment. This issue has existed for 16 years. It is obvious that the Government, in concert with the employers association, plans to remove this clause. Surely it is not asking too much of the Government to include in the legislation the consideration of these other factors. There is the whole question of job security, the development of the port, the improvements that will be made, and the requirement for the port to be competitive so that we will in fact be moving containers back from Tacoma and Seattle.
I believe that if the industrial Commissioner ends up removing that container clause as recommended in the conciliation officer's report, he would feel much better if he described everything that must take place in order for that port to become competitive, attract additional containers, maintain and hopefully increase the number of jobs. I hope the Minister
not only agrees to do this in the report but will agree to do it in the legislation itself.
Amendment (Mr. Foster) negatived: Yeas, 10; Nays, 30.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. We gave notice before that we were having trouble with Conservative Members coming in when the vote already commenced. I think it is incumbent upon the Conservative Whip to have his Members here before the vote commences. It is not too difficult for them to stay here for the next 25 minutes and listen to the debate, instead of wandering in when they choose.


Philip Derek Lewis: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think it should also be pointed out to the House that Hon. Members on the government side are allowing full rein and discussion on the opposition amendments.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Allowing? Do we have rights?


Philip Derek Lewis: It would be very easy for every one of us to be in here speaking to the opposition amendments. Instead, we are carrying on business in the lobby behind the curtains. If the Hon. Member wishes plenty of discussion on every one of the opposition amendments, we will get into it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Okay. Go ahead.


Philip Derek Lewis: But I think we are doing the business of the House and we should proceed.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment.


Marcel Danis: On Clause 7?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes. I think we predicted that the previous amendment would not pass, so I have an amendment to Bill C-24 which has also been handed to the Minister as well as to the New Democratic Party. I move:
That Bill C-24, an Act to provide for the maintenance of ports operations, be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 1 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor.
"this Act applies, including provisions for job security, and such other
matters relat-"
1 think if you refer, for example, Mr. Chairman, to the recommendations of the Larson Report, the section which is being deleted, that is, you will find that the question of containers which is being referred to this commission deals in part with the question of job security because it suggests that there be a guarantee that the number of hours available to be worked on containers be fixed at 725,000 per year. So I do believe this amendment is within the terms of reference of the commission. It also speaks specifically to one of the concerns which has been expressed by the longshoremen, and that is, the question of job security. Surely, if we are going to look at the container question as an isolated case, we should have a more wideranging view. Even if we are restricting our commission specifically to looking at the container situation, I think this
November 18, 1986

particular amendment provides for a chance to look at provisions for job security and should be supportable by all Hon. Members, and I so move.


Marcel Danis: The Chair does find the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East to be in order.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take the time of the House. I gave my arguments previously on the first amendment. I think they apply to the second amendment. Again, I just want to repeat that the terms of reference will definitely include that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the arguments on the first amendment, as I understood the Minister, he could not agree to a provision for development of the port rail facilities' improvement of competitive position because it was outside the terms of the collective agreement. Quite clearly, the container issue, which is the one being put forward to the commission, includes a guarantee regarding the number of hours available to be worked on containers, so it is included in the container provision.
It is in fact a more stringent interpretation of the amendment. When the first amendment failed to come back, we decided on this one as it specifically relates to job security. Job security has a place within the confines of the collective agreement and surely the whole reason for the container issue is the question of job security for the workers. All we are asking is that in the context of this commission, among the other parameters and frames of reference set in the legislation as established, the Commissioner also be asked to look at provisions for job security. I do not see how this in any way is outside the jurisdiction of the collective agreement or the Larson Report because it was indeed in the Larson Report that reference was made to the minimum number of hours worked which translates in a certain sense to a kind of job security.
Amendment (Ms. Copps) negatived: Yeas 10; nays 28.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, especially after the Minister complimented us on giving him copies of our proposed amendments in advance-he actually meant well in advance-he just received part of our, if you like, Plan B, which we always need to have because we want to ensure that we keep working on behalf of the people out there. Therefore, I move that:
Bill C-24, Clause 7(4), shall be amended by deleting line 6 on page 4 and substituting the following:
-by the Commisison, however in no event shall the recommendation provide for a lower work guarantee than was recommended by the conciliation commissioner.
In brief, this establishes a bottom line. It says the commission cannot impose something which is less than what has already been recommended, nor can it negotiate below that point.
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Hon. Member for giving me the amendment, notwithstanding that fact that it was not received well in advance. Because we also like to work for the people out there, I have given consideration to the amendment. I do not think it would be right to impose limits, whether bottom or top, in the inquiry, and I will let the commission make its own decisions.


Marcel Danis: The Chair finds the amendment to be in order.
Amendment (Mr. Angus) negatived: Yeas 10; nays 28.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment concerning Clause 7 on page 4, to strike out lines 4 and substitute: "-appointed by the Minister, subject to the approval of the employers association and the union". It seems to me that we are really making a very historical decision.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Historical blunder.


Maurice Brydon Foster: My colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, says it is a historical blunder, and only history will prove whether or not that is true. In any event, it seems to me that the Minister would want to appoint an industrial commissioner who carries the respect and the confidence of both the employer and the employees. Whether he does that by appointing a single commissioner or a group of commissioners,
I think it is essential that both the employers association and the unions involved lend their support to this amendment. Therefore, I move:
That Bill C-24, an Act to provide for the maintenance of ports operations, be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 4 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"sion appointed by the Minister, subject to the approval of the employers
association and the union, for a final"
This amendment is a very simple one. It simply provides that the appointment of the Commissioner is subject to the approval of both the employers association and the unions concerned so that the final recommendation will be the most acceptable one by both the union and the employers association.


Marcel Danis: The Chair does find the proposed amendment to be in order.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, on this particular point, I would like to indicate to Hon. Members who are working so hard in committee this afternoon that these parties have not been able to agree on very much for the past 16 years. Unfortunately, I would not expect them to be able to agree on this either.
I would like to assure the House that in order to ensure that there will not be a blunder as someone has suggested, the best possible person or persons available will be appointed to head this commission. I am sure everyone will be very happy.

November 18, 1986
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, according to the words he just spoke, the Minister is almost acting in such a way as to create no possibility of future success. The amendment, which is something we supported in previous conversations with the Minister, is something that is necessary. If there is a time frame in which employers and employees must agree on a person to head the inquiry which is not met, then the Minister can act unilaterally.
It is important to consult both the employees and the employers to see if they can come to some agreement as to who should head the inquiry. This is a safeguard which is used in many arbitration laws across Canada. The reason for that is that there are people who are knowledgeable in various areas of transportation and labour relations on which both parties can agree. These people have dealt with certain people in Vancouver and in British Columbia. I am sure the union and the employers association could agree on a person who would listen to their arguments and would have some basic understanding of the transportation industry in B.C.
I do not think the Minister would have to accept that much if he were to agree to this amendment. If he wishes, we could move a subamendment putting a time frame on it. That would be agreeable to our caucus. However, I do think it is important that he does consult with and get the approval of both parties, or at least make the attempt to get the approval of both parties. He said that the parties have not agreed on very much in the last 16 years and that may be true, but I do think it is important that the Minister take another stance to show that he does believe that they can work together and that he give them the opportunity for which this amendment calls.


Marcel Danis: Shall the amendment to Clause 7 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Foster) negatived: Yeas, 9; Nays, 29.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 7 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 12 inclusive agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 13 carry?
On Clause 13-Punishment for offences


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose an amendment to Clause 13, copies of which were circulated to my hon. colleagues well in advance, I believe. I move:
That Clause 13 of Bill C-24 be amended by adding, immediately after line 16 on page 7, the following:
"(3) No officer or representative of a member of the employers association, including any corporation listed in Schedule I, who is convicted of an offence under this Act shall be employed in any capacity by, or act as an officer or representative of, the employers association at any time during the five years immediately after the date of the conviction."
That, I believe, reflects a very serious concern that was raised both yesterday and today in debate about Clause 13 and the additional penalty as it was referred to. I thought that concern had to be remedied. That is why the Government is proposing this particular amendment. Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, you will find the amendment to be in order.


Marcel Danis: The Chair does find the amendment proposed by the Minister to be in order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Chairman, we do have a number of concerns about the clause. I am afraid, however, that this particular amendment does not respond to those concerns.
In the Bill, the Minister is suggesting that an officer or representative of the union can be prohibited from holding the position of officer or indeed from actually working. For example, a person who happens to work full time for the union who is involved in a work stoppage which is a contravention of the proposed law could be deprived of earning a livelihood for five years because this particular-


Mr. Scowen:: Serves him right.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member says that it serves him right. We in the Opposition believe that there should be justice. The wording of the Minister's amendment suggests that no officer or representative of a member of the employers association may be employed by that association. That means that on the employees' side, a full-time union member can lose his job for five years, but on the employer's side, someone who happens to be a member of the employers association cannot hold office or membership in the association but can carry on his own private business in the private company which is a member of the association. On the employer's side, there is no way that a person may potentially lose his livelihood for five years, whereas on the employee's side, those who might be working full time for the union could actually lose their livelihoods for five years.
It seems to me that this is a punitive piece of legislation. We discussed this with the Minister and looked back on other precedents which do include fines or contempt of court charges. In fact, a five-year ban on officership in a union or on being an employee of a union is a penalty that is far too harsh when the impact of depriving one of membership in an employers association as called for in this amendment will essentially have no effect on the individual employer. It only means that an offending employer may no longer be a member of the executive of the employers association. However, people who work full time for the union and are involved in an illegal work stoppage can be thrown out of their jobs for five years.
Unless there is a similar prohibition against employers, this amendment is simply a facade because it pretends that we apply the law equally to employers and employees while in fact that is not the case. I believe that the current five-year penalty is too harsh and that it does not apply across the board. For these reasons we cannot support the amendment.
November 18, 1986


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the following subamendment to the proposed Clause 13:
That the words "employers association" be replaced with the word
"company".
I do not have the amendment in writing. I refer Hon. Members to Clause 2 of the Bill wherein the word "company" is defined as meaning the employers association or any member of the employers association, including any corporation listed in Schedule I.
The intent of my subamendment is to ensure that if employees of one of the companies make a decision to continue a lock-out, either because they are members of the employers association or because it is a decision of the company, they will be liable for the same punishment as members of the executive of the union whether they be in full-time paid positions or volunteer members of the executive. If my subamendment were accepted, it would ensure a total balance in terms of this particular clause.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of Clause 13 is that the livelihood of union members would not be lost in that their seniority within ILWU would remain. By virtue of that fact, they could still earn a livelihood by becoming longshoremen.
In the case of a company member who is a director of the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association, he could return to his livelihood. A member of the ILWU could revert back to his original role as a longshoreman. It would not deny him the opportunity of obtaining a livelihood for his family or himself as an individual.
It is important to understand that each of them would be deprived of serving in their respective organizations as a result of a violation or breach of any law. However, it would not deprive them of returning to their original sources of livelihood. Union stewards or representatives come from the rank and file. Members of the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association come from the executives of various companies. Basically we have an equitable situation. I think the intent of the Minister when he brought forward this piece of legislation was not to deny the right of people to enjoy a reasonable livelihood.


Marcel Danis: The Chair finds the subamendment of the Hon. Member to be in order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Chairman, if the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody is really sincere about fighting for equality, I think he has no choice but to support the amendment which puts companies and unions on the same footing and does not make a differentiation. That is a smoke-screen behind which they are hiding.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the Hon. Member for Hamilton East is trying to mislead the committee. It is not a smoke-screen. It is equity that we are seeking. We
Maintenance of Ports Operations Act, 1986
are making certain that each individual can source a livelihood from where he or she originated. It is important to understand that they are not being deprived of the ability to work in their original function.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to indicate, for the benefit of the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody, that the same applies to the employer, the representative of the employer or the company. Such a person would be prohibited from being a representative or officer of the company but could return to his original employment in the company. The same principle applies. He can return from wherever he came in the company but can no longer occupy a position as he did for five years. That should apply to companies as it does to the union.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely Draconian measure. In fact, it has never been contained in a federal piece of legislation before. We are to deprive union members of holding office after they have paid a penalty or fine, which in this case can be as much as $100,000.
If we look at the 1978 legislation dealing with Great Lakes shipping, there was no such penalty. The individual could be convicted of contempt of court. It was the same situation in the West Coast strike in 1982 and in the postal strike in 1979. There has never been a provision like this one before. I want to move an amendment which would completely remove Clause 13. I believe that the entire clause should be struck.
With the permission of the House, I would move that lines 9 to 16 on page 7 be struck. That would be my subamendment when we get to it.


Marcel Danis: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member for Algoma on two grounds. First, I must rule out of order the subamendment which the Hon. Member is proposing to the subamendment now before the committee. Second, it being 4.45 o'clock, pursuant to the order made on Monday, November 17, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forwith every question necessary to dispose of Committee of the Whole stage of Bill C-24. Accordingly, the question is on the subamendment.
Subamendment (Mr. Angus) negatived: Yeas, 14; Nays, 31.


Marcel Danis: Shall the amendment of the Minister carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Cadieux) agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 13, as amended, carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.

November 18, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Schedules I and II agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall I rise and report the Bill, as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On division.
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? Pursuant to the order made on Monday, November 17, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre H. Cadieux: that Bill C-24, an Act to provide for the maintenance of port operations, be read the third time and passed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-Environmental affairs-(a) United States funding of measures to combat acid rain (b) Sulphur dioxide emissions; the Hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young)-Patent Act-Effect of amendments on drug prices; the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens)-Consumer affairs-Possible gasoline price increase-(a) Delayed implementation on behalf of consumers (b) Government measures to give equality of treatment to Canadian consumers.

Shall we call it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We would be prepared to call it five o'clock if the private Member whose Private Members' Bill it is were here and ready to proceed. I believe he is a member of the Liberal Party. But in the event that Member is not here, it would be my suggestion that we suspend the sitting until five o'clock in order to give the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) an opportunity to come and properly present his Bill, I think that all Members of the House would be in agreement with that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the term of the proposal by the Parliamentary Secretary. Does the House agree?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I take the suggestion positively. I will try and contact the Hon. Member for Davenport now and bring him into the House as soon as possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will suspend the sitting until five o'clock this day.
At 4.52 the sitting of the House was suspended until 5 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 5.04 p.m.

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of establishing a task force to examine, on a national basis and with full public participation, and to report to this House, the threats to human health and damage to the environment arising from the application of chemical pesticides on forest, agricultural and other lands, and to recommend alternative methods or practices of pest control.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the 10 minutes available I will try to put to you my case on the merits of this motion. I am grateful to the system for having it drawn for debate today.
I will start by saying that the question of pesticides and their use in society is becoming a national issue. Why do I say that? Because of the evidence produced almost daily by way of the printed media. I will give you a quick run-down. From Toronto there is an article entitled "Time for farming to break its chemical dependency". From Winnipeg, "Concern about safety of farm chemicals fuels debate over pesticide registration". From Calgary, "Study claims pesticides upset the immune system". From Halifax, "No 2,4-D spraying until review ends". From Montreal, "Pesticides are not sufficiently controlled". From B.C., "Chemicals poisoning wells", and,
November 18, 1986

"B.C. is to await federal word on chemicals". From Regina, "Pesticides in groundwater". From Vancouver, "Lawyer wants 2,4-D spraying voices heard". Again from Montreal, "There has to be a better way of keeping pests down". From Toronto, "Study launched into effects of herbicides on New Brunswick workers". Again from Montreal, "Popular weed-killers days may be numbered". From Washington, "Emergency order bans much-used pesticide". Again from Toronto, "Insecticide cited as health danger should be banned, officials say". That referred to Temik. Again referring to Temik, "Study cites insecticide detected in P.E.I. wells". From Ottawa, "Pesticide polluting Ontario waters, govt, report says". Again, "Ontario corn-belt rivers have pesticide, report says". Another more recent headline reads, "Poisoned well was a nightmare, farm woman tells Lasso inquiry". Again, "Pesticides may boost illness." Another one reads, "Neighbourhoods alarmed by poison sprays used in lawn care". Another one reads, "Minto stops using 2,4-D on properties". "Ministry spraying cited in three planters' ailments". "Conservation council concerned over chemical usage". "Chemical disposal rapped in Alberta". "Chemical warfare: bugs, weeds are winning it". "Farmers trying in vain to curb hoppers".
If time permitted, I could go on to give you a full run-down as to how frequently the media are reporting on the question of pesticides and how they are seen to endanger human health. Therefore, the question is: Are we not ready, as I submit we are, to investigate this matter fully on a national basis in order to hear the views of those who are using the chemicals, those who are concerned about them, and the public in general?
As we all know, pesticides are biologically active substances. They pose a potential risk to human beings. We know that the effects of chronic exposure to certain types of pesticides can lead to some forms of cancer or tumours, reproductive disorders, birth defects and other long-term illnesses. Numerous areas of Canada have had groundwater contaminated, as has been frequently reported, by chemical pesticides. These substances are now believed to pose a substantial threat to human health. You will also recall the effect on nature as described some years ago by Rachel Carson in her book Silent Spring. That book has become part of what has become almost a collection of memorabilia on this subject.
We are now in a new phase where the media are reporting to us incidents which confirm the preoccupation of the 1960s. This motion proposes the launching of an independent task force which would cross this nation to investigate this matter. It could be tailored along the lines of the Pearse water investigation which took place in 1985 and would attempt to achieve the following. First, it would establish the need to collect information on the existence and use of herbicides and pesticides and pass it on to the public. Second, it would endeavour to hear from concerned citizens, non-Government organizations, municipal, provincial and federal officials, labour and industry their views on the use of pesticides and alternatives. Third, it would search for new directions for research and development and alternative methods.
Pesticides
A very important role for this task force would be to search for alternative products and practices in agriculture and forestry. The task force would provide a forum for a good discussion of the fact that we will have to share the world with a few pests in the decades ahead, particularly with regard to lawns, highway green areas and parks. We have become almost obsessive about weeds. The use of certain herbicides, particularly 2,4-D are unacceptable to human health, both to those who have to utilize it and, in the long term, to the public which comes in contact with the substances in areas which have been sprayed.
Those are the five or six major points which this national task force would endeavour to identify. I emphasize in particular the part of the investigation which would deal with alternatives. There is great potential to finding better answers through biological controls such as a product called Bt. There are also answers through manual methods such as the clearing of forests and through a better understanding of the role of predators in nature.
Time does not permit me to elaborate further on this matter. I thank you for this opportunity to put this proposal to Members of the House. I look forward to the comments of Members.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, last October 9 the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) suggested that the Government should consider establishing a task force to examine, on a national basis and with full public participation, the extent to which the use of chemical pesticides over forest, agricultural and other lands threatens human health and destroys the environment. He also said that the task force might recommend alternative methods or practices of pest control.
The Minister of National and Welfare (Mr. Epp) shares the concerns expressed by the Hon. Member and did seriously consider the most appropriate solutions, in co-operation with his colleagues who are responsible for pest product control regulations. In this case, Mr. Speaker we must bear in mind a number of major factors. Indeed, I would suggest that responsibility for protecting the environment and health of Canadians against any possible negative impact of pesticides belongs to both federal and provincial administrations.
In addition we must remember that at each level of Government this task might fall within the jurisdiction of several departments, so much so that a change such as proposed by the Hon. Member, no matter how innovative it might be, could only come after consulting the various Government agencies involved.
Furthermore, while many traditional scientific and technological methods to ensure the safety of pesticides both prior and subsequent to the authorization of their use in Canada have been introduced or reviewed since the last time several

November 18, 1986
Pesticides
years ago, tremendous progress has been made since then in identifying and measuring many contaminants that are present at very low levels in the environment.
Today, chemical analysts can easily measure chemicals in drinking water in quantities as minute as a few parts per trillion. Expressed in terms of time, this would correspond to one second per 32,000 years.
Since we are now able to detect such minute levels of chemicals, people tend to think the whole environment is polluted by dangerous levels of pesticides or other man-made chemicals. However, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case.
In this respect, it is important to realize that public health experts, toxicologists, biomathematicians and other experts responsible for assessing the impact of minute concentrations of contaminants on human health have not been able to keep pace in their research with what has been achieved by chemical analysts in detecting increasingly low levels of chemicals. We may therefore have to spend a lot more time and effort on this aspect of safety evaluation, before consultations by task forces with the general public can be productive.
Furthermore, new initiatives and directives will be necessary to guarantee the safest possible application of the latest contributions being made by biotechnology and genetic engineering to the already vast range of pest control products that may be used in Canada.
For instance, thanks to genetic engineering, it is now possible to develop agricultural plants that are capable of producing their own biological insecticide. This ability to kill insects is found in nature among certain types of bacteria. It follows that any new plan to improve the safety of pesticides will have to cover not only the conventional chemical pesticides but also these so-called biological pesticides.
I can assure the Hon. Member that this Government has already taken steps to incorporate the new technology in existing programs, to ensure that these products are safe and that further progress will be made in this respect.
The Hon. Member also said that it would be desirable to involve the public in the process. Public awareness of the presence of contaminants in the environment and of their potential negative impact has heightened considerably in recent years. In a democracy like ours, it is common practice for the Government to act on the public's informed concerns, and the most productive way to air such concerns has been within the context of public hearings conducted by special commissions.
In fact, both federal and provincial Governments have benefitted from the recommendations made by these commissions, whose terms of reference have included holding public hearings on matters related to pesticides safety and environmental solution.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), whose department is responsible for the registration of pesticides under the Pest Control Products Act, is assisted by the Advisory Council on
Pest Control which has just been created. This council can deal with a wide variety of problems related to the use of pesticides, and it can also hold public hearings.
The Minister of Agriculture is empowered as well to establish review boards to look into problems having to do with particular issues or specific pesticides. It should be noted that, under their mandate, such boards may also hold public hearings. As an example, Mr. Speaker, I might mention the Alachlor Review Board which is now holding public hearings on the harmful effects of this herbicide.
Mr. Speaker, it is quite relevant to point out that in recent years the provincial Governments have set up a number of royal inquiry commissions or other bodies with similar powers. These commissions held public hearings on the hazards of chemical pesticides and on the safer alternative now available, namely biotechnological products.
Finally I might recall that a meeting is scheduled for early 1987 when provincial Ministers concerned over pesticides and environmental contamination will express their views and make recommendations on this subject to their federal counterparts.
Considering that the Government wants all provinces to be in on this, it is too early to make final recommendations such as creating a national task force empowered to hold public hearings on the threat of pesticides and on alternative solutions, even before the provincial Governments have had an opportunity to express their views on this matter.
Once they have been consulted, we will seriously consider every option available to reduce the threat of pesticides and the contamination of the environment. This study will include measures designed to ascertain whether new biotechnological products developed through genetic research might be hazardous to human health and the environment.
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, my brief remarks will be of some help to the Hon. Member.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my support for the concept behind the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I want to concentrate on a few specific issues with respect to the whole question of herbicides.
The case of the herbicide 2,4-D is but one example of the pressing need for real improvements in the control of pesticides in Canada. As far as I am concerned, this is a substance that evidence has shown should be banned.
Recent, well respected epidemiological studies in the United States show that 2,4-D is a likely carcinogen. A study by the National Cancer Institute has shown that Kansas farmers who had worked with products containing the chemical were six times more likely to develop non-Hodgkins lymphoma than farmers who did not use such products.
November 18, 1986

In another study by Hazelton Laboratories, sponsored by the chemical industry itself, 10 per cent of rats exposed to quantities of 2,4-D developed brain tumours. What makes the problem of 2,4-D so urgent is that the chemical is extremely widely used both domestically and in agriculture. More than 1,500 weed killing products sold in the United States alone contain 2,4-D. In Canada, approximately 7 million hectares of land are treated with products containing 2,4-D.
Also worrisome is the widespread domestic use of the chemical in lawn and garden products. Surely it is totally unacceptable that domestic gardeners and what I affectionately call lawn fanatics should put their health and the health of others, particularly children in their neighbourhoods, at risk for the sake of flowerbeds and a greener than average lawn.
We see this happen right under our noses at the House of Commons. For the last few years we are treated every summer to little yellow signs on the front lawn that warn us that the grass has been treated with some kind of herbicide and that we ought not to go on the grass because it would endanger our health. This also takes place on railway roadbeds and the sides of highways. I think it is scandalous that we should be taking such risks with these known carcinogens simply in order to have weed-free railway roadbeds or weed-free lawns. It is clearly an example of putting short-term convenience ahead of long-term health and concern for others and the environment.
The Environmental Protection Agency in the United States is accellerating its review of 2,4-D. It is encouraging that even Chemlawn, the largest U.S. lawn care company, has withdrawn 2,4-D products. Yet what has the federal Government done in Canada? It has written to the provinces, drawing their attention to the results of the American studies. Is that decisive action? The provinces have acted in a variety of ways. New Brunswick has banned the use of the chemical until December. Ontario is refusing to schedule new products containing the chemical but has done nothing to stop the use of products currently on the market. Manitoba is putting warning notices on the labels of products containing 2,4-D but unfortunately is in no way restricting their use. Other provinces have done nothing.
Our current haphazard federal-provincial arrangements for pesticide and herbicide control, combined with a lack of federal willingness to take the initiative in a case like 2,4-D, has meant that the response to the problem has been inadequate and inconsistent. Obviously we need to restructure our federal-provincial mechanisms to avoid situations such as this, where some Canadians are protected from known or suspected environmental health hazards while others are not. What is a carcinogenic in New Brunswick is carcinogenic in Manitoba, British Columbia and anywhere. The laws of toxicity do not change from province to province. We need regulations which obey the basic laws of science, as well as those of the constitution.
Another example of this confused situation is the case of Pentachlorophenol which, like 2,4-D, has also been linked to cancer and other health disorders.
Pesticides
As a result of mounting scientific evidence against PCP, Sweden has already banned the chemical, and the United States EPA appears to be on the verge of doing likewise. In addition, several plants around the world that produce PCP have been forced to close for a variety of environmental and health reasons. Despite this world-wide trend toward banning PCP, what do we see in this country? We are currently witnessing the bizarre spectacle of Bradbury Industries' efforts to build a PCP plant in western Canada. First, it proposed to locate in Lone Butte, British Columbia, but was forced to abandon its efforts due to intense local opposition. Now Bradbury plans to build in Alberta where it hopes the provincial Government will be more sympathetic. However, I noticed that the residents of Fort Saskatchewan were out in numbers to protest the fact that their community might be the location for such a plant.
This situation is ridiculous. Not only is Bradbury proposing to produce a dangerous product that fewer and fewer people want, but the federal Government appears content to drag its feet and allow the project to go ahead when it has it in its power to ban PCP altogether.
Finally, I draw the attention of the House to the case of Alachlor. Despite mounting evidence that Alachlor is also a carcinogen, the Government appears to be talking out of both sides of its mouth on the issue. On the one hand, last year the Government deregistered Alachlor. On the other, due to intense pressure from Alachlor's manufacturer, Monsanto, the Government has appointed an Alachlor review board that has already recommended a temporary reregistration of Alachlor and may recommend a permanent reregistration of the chemical when it submits its final report.
This ad hoc approach to these substances must stop. The Minister of Environment (Mr. McMillan) has promised what he says will be tough new environmental protection legislation to deal with toxic chemicals in this country. Government Members may have something to say about this during the course of this debate. Obviously, the control of these substances is part of a larger problem, and in so far as the environmental protection legislation lives up to the Minister's rhetoric about what to expect, I will welcome his initiative in that regard.
However, it is my understanding that the new Bill will deal primarily with new chemicals and it will do little to address the pressing concern raised by 2,4-D, PCP, Alachlor and a host of other potentially dangerous substances currently in use in this country. In addition, even if the new environmental protection legislation is to provide the so-called cradle-to-grave protection that the Minister says it will, I remind the House that pesticide registration falls under the jurisdiction of Agriculture Canada. This situation has long been of concern to both myself and many others because Agriculture Canada rarely places sufficient emphasis on the environmental consequences of the substances used in agriculture.

November 18, 1986
Pesticides
We have suggested, and I suggest it now, that if the Government is truly serious about the threat of toxic chemicals such as herbicides and pesticides, it should transfer responsibility for the testing of these substances and the registration of them to Environment Canada and beef up Environment Canada accordingly.
What is important to keep in mind, I think, is that very often we concentrate on the costs of what not using a particular substance would involve either to agriculture or to whatever is the involved industry. What we need to do is to change our way of thinking, do our bookkeeping differently, keep a different set of books, and ask the question, what does it cost to use these substances? This is a much more difficult thing to do.
It is very easy to calculate what the loss would be in terms of yield agriculturally if we do not use these substances. It is much more difficult to calculate what the cost will be in terms of increased cases of cancer, allergies and other health effects with the use of these chemicals. It is much more difficult but it is every bit as important. We need to arrive at the point where that is the kind of calculation we make when we decide whether or not to use a particular substance for a particular purpose. I hope the debate today will be helpful in bringing the handful of Hon. Members who are here for the debate, those who may be watching on television and those who may read Hansard, to the point where they will encourage the Government to think in that way when it is thinking about the question of herbicide and pesticide use in Canada.


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words with reference to the motion before the House today as someone who has a particular interest in agriculture and as someone who represents a western Canadian constituency. I would like to begin by complimenting the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for addressing what is obviously a very important issue, one which is recognized throughout the country. That has been true for a long time and, quite frankly, some of the mechanisms in place today, I readily concede, were commenced by the previous Government, and we are pleased to be a part of that process.
The pesticides program in Canada has been reviewed on a number of occasions. The whole question of seeking input of information is a continuing process as it properly should be.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers prepared a position on registration and use of pesticides in 1982 which referred to the subject before the House today. In addition, the previous Government appointed the Salter Commission. Its report was tabled in 1984 and its recommendations, according to my understanding, have been implemented by the present Government. Therefore, I think there has been a considerable amount of continuity on this particular issue, as indeed there should be, because it is one of the issues for which I do not think there is any particular partisan position. If I may say so,
I think sometimes we in this House do ourselves a disservice by allowing the division which exists in the House to receive a great deal more publicity than those issues on which there is general agreement. I think this is an area where there has been general agreement and perhaps that is worth noting. The ministerial task force which commenced in late 1984 looked at the question of program review as well. However, I do not believe that in itself has been as significant as the studies to which I have already referred.
The thrust of the reviews to date and the concerns of Governments, both past and present, is in terms of providing more information to the public with respect to pesticide programs and the need for pesticide control, and in terms of seeking and providing for public input. In that regard, there has been a considerable amount of progress, and the question before the House today is not so much whether the issue itself is worthy of our attention because, of course, it is, but of how best to proceed and whether or not we need to depart from that which is currently being done.
Beginning in October of 1984, there have been several attempts to provide the opportunity for more public involvement. That has included, for example, the creation of a Pest Management Advisory Board which as part of its responsibilities makes recommendations on broad policy questions and on issues of special concern. The PMAB consults with members of the public and with groups concerned about the assessment and registration of pesticides. As all of us know, the question in some parts of Canada today with respect to the chemical commonly known as Lasso lies very much within the jurisdiction of this particular board.
In addition, an information secretariat has been established within the pesticides directorate. It has as its responsibilty and function improvement in communications in general. There is evidence that a considerable amount of progress has been achieved in that direction. For example, as I am sure many Hon. Members know, there is a toll free telephone number or pesticides "hot line" where public inquiries can be dealt with in an expedient manner. According to my information, in the first year in which this hot line was in operation, the year 1986, approximately 500 calls per month were received on average from the public at large, Government officials, the media, the scientific community and many other interested parties. So that would seem to indicate, first, that there is a great deal of concern, as I think is evident to most Hon. Members of the House, and second, there is a method by which the concerned can be registered and by which information can be provided to those who seek it.
It seems to me that the media played a fairly important role up to this point. There has been a great deal of attention directed by the public. There is a great deal of awareness. I think there is every reason to believe that this type of input is both being sought and will continue to be provided.
I suppose the question now before the House is, therefore, not whether the issue is an important one, because all of us would recognize that it is. Certainly, it is an issue to which the
November 18, 1986

Hon. Member who presented the motion has given a great deal of his own particular time, and he should be complimented for that.
I think the issue is whether or not a national task force is the way to deal with the question of providing public information and seeking public input.
I would like to speak as someone who is relatively new to this place and in doing so reflect some of the feedback I receive from my constituents, and that is with respect to task force and/or studies. As an academic, I would never hesitate to defend the need for intensive examination of issues of importance. I think that is a very worthy undertaking and in many cases is well worth the expense of both time and dollars. However, I also think there is a considerable amount of cynicism within the public community with respect to task forces. There is a suggestion that here is another task force or another inquiry with no particular objective in mind. I say that in no way reflecting upon the Hon. Member whose motion is before us. I am simply trying to reflect the type of concern I often hear from the public. In that regard, I must question the expenditure of time and money on what I am afraid many citizens would perceive to be just another task force. There are some people who would suggest we in Parliament study things to death. In view of the reviews which have already taken place and the fact that many of the recommendations which came out of those reviews have been implemented, I would hestitate to go in that particular direction believing that the expenditure of time and money would not be warranted.
I think the mechanism which is in place, the Pest Management Advisory Board, the information system, the constant soliciting of public input, which is very much in place, all combined will ensure, at least into the foreseeable future, that there is adequate opportunity for public input to take place and a guarantee that its input is being recognized and responded to.
In closing, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Davenport on his motion. I agree with him that the issue he addresses is a very significant one which is worthy of the attention of this House and the public, but I question whether or not at this point in time we need a national task force to accomplish the objective he has in mind.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to address this very important issue set forth for us by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). Pesticide control and pest management in Canada is a partnership, a partnership in the co-operative efforts between federal Departments and, of course, between the federal Government and the provinces. At the federal level, Agriculture Canada takes the lead as that Department is responsible for the Pest Control Products Act.
Pesticides
Agriculture Canada is supported by three other federal Departments. Health and Welfare is concerned with health issues such as residues of pesticides in foods and exposure to pesticides by the user, those involved in the manufacture and handling of pesticides and bystanders. Fisheries and Oceans looks at the effect of pesticides on fisheries and fish habitats. Furthermore, all Canadians are concerned about effective pesticide use on the environment and wildlife.
On the provincial side, the provinces are responsible for the sale and procedures for the use of pesticides within their borders. Agriculture Canada has undertaken many initiatives along with the other federal agencies to improve the federal regulatory system for pesticides and to restore public confidence and credibility in the management of these important chemical products.
Within Environment Canada, improvements have been made to ensure that the environmental perspective in the regulatory decision-making process is sound and strong. In addition, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has made the resolution of the problem of toxic chemicals in Canada one of his chief priorities and we are now beginning to see the results of that effort.
On October 20, 1986, at the Air Pollution Control Association's environmental Government affairs seminar, the Minister of the Environment released two landmark documents. The first such document entitled "From Cradle to Grave: A Management Approach to Chemicals" is the result of the efforts of a group composed of representatives from the chemical industry, labour, environmentalists, consumer groups and federal and provincial Governments. The group came together to devise a management strategy for chemical compounds that would minimize risks to human health and the natural environment without jeopardizing the competitiveness of the Canadian chemical industry. The second document released by the Minister is the report of the consultative committee on the Environmental Contaminants Act amendments which recommends reforms to that law.
The work of both groups assumed added importance and indeed urgency when the Minister announced in 1985 the federal Government's intention to introduce a comprehensive environmental protection Act that would concentrate on toxic chemicals. The legislation was also heralded in the Speech from the Throne.
The document entitled "From Cradle to Grave: A Management Approach to Chemicals" provides the conceptual underpinnings of the proposed environmental protection Act with its stress on prevention. In December, the legislation will be tabled in draft form for public consultation. It will then be introduced in Parliament, hopefully in the spring of 1987.
Environment Canada also has responsibilities that go beyond the strictly legislative base of the Department in the area of chemical management. These include providing an

November 18, 1986
Pesticides
environmental perspective on the process of pesticides registration and regulation.
The Environment Minister went to the Treasury Board and gained an additional 13 person-years and $1.5 million for 1986-87 as the first phase of a three-year concerted effort to ensure that the Department has the capacity to assess the potential impact of pesticides and to ensure that use of these products does not have undue adverse consequences for the environment.
The first phase of that program is now in place. Pesticide products now submitted for review for registration under Agriculture Canada's Pest Control Products Act are subjected to complete and comprehensive environmental reviews. Implementation of the full three-year program will make Environment Canada an effective and efficient partner in the pesticide registration process.
Environment Canada has begun the development of regulatory guidelines for pesticides. In co-operation with Agriculture Canada, the Environment Department is preparing guidelines on environmental chemistry and the fate of pesticides in the environment. In consultation with federal and provincial colleagues, Environment Canada officials are preparing guidelines for the disposal of these chemicals and their containers.
Agriculture Canada, with the co-operation and support of Environment Canada, is preparing guidelines for the registration of non-chemical pesticides that are biologically based. These guidelines, by defining the requirements for registration and by clearly defining the scientific questions that must be answered before registration of a pesticide can be considered, will allow the regulatory process to become more efficient and effective. Further, the regulatory guidelines, when published in an integrated form, can define for the public the criteria used in the evaluation of pesticides. Development of the guidelines will continue over the years until a complete and comprehensive set of instructions defining the full spectrum of environmental requirements is completed.
While the initial registration process for pesticides is a very important component of the management of these chemical products in Canada, it is equally important that the regulatory process have the capacity and flexibility to re-evaluate older products and to reconsider precautions and restrictions put in place in the past. Older regulatory decisions must be reviewed in the light of new information and new advances in science and technology in order to ensure that the use of pesticides continues to meet modern standards of environmental safety. This re-evaluation process, led by Agriculture Canada under its Pest Control Products Act, is in place. To serve the reevaluation process, the Minister of the Environment has implemented a co-ordinated national research and monitoring program which will provide the necessary environmental data to undertake regulatory re-evaluation. This is, in effect, an early warning system which will allow preventive action to be taken before significant environmental contamination can occur.
The research and monitoring program conducted in close cooperation with provincial agencies will determine the actual presence, levels and trends of pesticides in the environment and will also define their fate and effects. The first phase of this research and monitoring program is under way. This year, Environment Canada has, in co-operation with its federal and provincial colleagues, established a municipal water testing and survey program in Atlantic Canada. In Prince Edward Island, the Department of the Environment, in co-operation with the provincial Government, is assessing the fate and impact of pesticide use in both ground water and surface waters.
We have signed agreements with Newfoundland, Quebec and British Columbia to implement a federal-provincial index station network to provide data on water quality and the future measurement of trends in water quality in major river basins within these provinces. Environment Canada hopes to expand this network to encompass major river basins in all regions of Canada.
In the area of wildlife, Environment Canada is developing methods to measure the persistence of low-level pesticide residues in birds of prey such as peregrine falcons. The Department is also conducting assessments of the impact of forest pesticide use on song birds and other wildlife.
In concert with the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, Environment Canada is preparing water quality guidelines which will include acceptable maximum levels of pesticides in water intended for various uses.
In the regional offices of Environment Canada inventories of pesticide use will be employed to identify specific products of regional concern and to identify environmental locales and wildlife populations which are particularly sensitive to environmental contamination so that appropriate precautions can be taken to protect them. Agreements and protocols for sharing this information have been reached between Environment Canada and many of its provincial counterparts.
At Environment Canada's National Water Research Institute in Burlington, Ontario, methodologies are being developed which will allow detection of minute residues of specific pesticides in the environment and allow an even earlier analysis of effects of these pesticides on aquatic organisms.
The Department's Atmospheric Environment Service has undertaken a program to determine the precautions necessary to minimize the drift of pesticides during their use. The service has also initiated an analysis to determine the importance of atmospheric transport of pesticides in contributing to environment pollution.
This list of accomplishments, by no means complete, represents the beginning of Environment Canada's renewed efforts in assessing the state of the environment and in defining
November 18, 1986

the precautions necessary to protect the environment from the adverse effects of chemicals, including pesticides.
The Department intends to extend and expand its environmental research and monitoring program for pesticides until it forms, in co-operation with other federal Departments and provincial authorities, a truly national, co-ordinated program.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate. Certainly the Hon. Member's motion captures my interest. I have great respect for his past experiences and knowledge in the environmental area. I am in favour of supporting his endeavours, although I have some question about his particular motion today.
1 am sure the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) knows that the main value of the motion before us today is that it will stir up interest in this area. I am sure he is succeeding in that particular regard. The problem which he addresses is a massive one. Every Hon. Member is concerned about human health and the status of the environment. We are very eager to see something positive happen.
Perhaps it would take a task force study to establish what should be studied in this regard. The Hon. Member wants us to study the use of pesticides. It would be very important to study herbicides and other chemicals used in the agricultural field as well. What about the vast array of other chemicals, such as the ones used to ripen fruit and the ones used to prevent fruit from ripening? Chemicals are used in many different areas. Why should they not be included in such a study? The task would be a monumental one.
Can we afford to put all our efforts, time and money into a task force which would require years to produce a report? In that period of time each agency involved in pesticides and herbicides would probably say: "We will wait for the report of the task force to come down and then take action". It is possible that a task force could end up delaying the procedure.
Of course we cannot think of agriculture without thinking of the use of chemicals. At least that is my impression based upon what I have seen in my riding of Perth. Their use is essential for the prosperity of the area. In fact, they are essential for people in the area of the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes) who spoke so eloquently just a few minutes ago. She represents consumers, as do I, who wish to eat inexpensive Canadian food. Thus farmers will have to use some chemicals.
If we set up a task force, would it concern itself with only the effects of chemicals upon the environment and human health? Certainly it would have to look at other issues. What about alternative methods which do not involve pesticides or herbicides? What can be done to help the situation in that regard?
My area of the country is a high corn growing region where the product Atrazine is used to dedicate the land for use in corn year after year. In fact, it allows the land to be used in
Pesticides
that way. However, what is the spin-off effect of that chemical? I do not believe that this chemical presents a health hazard. Perhaps this raises another topic. How many chemicals are being used about which we do not know? As I said, the land in my area is dedicated to corn use year after year. The land gets packed. Farmers are required to use larger tractors to break the land and to plant their corn. The situation becomes less efficient as time goes on. At present the tendency in farming areas is to recognize that we cannot continue with this farming method and that we must look for a rotation method which allows the texture of the soil to improve. If we want to keep our topsoil-it is shrinking-we must look at different farming methods.
Would the task force study such alternative methods so that it would not be necessary to use chemicals? I would suggest that the task force would study that topic as well as a number of other ones.
In the centre of this debate is the tendency to sensationalize. We recognize that risks have to be taken in life and that many of the hazards are blown out of proportion by people who choose to do so for their own reasons. Perhaps they wish to sell newspapers. Other people might do it for political reasons, just to be on the other side of the debate or perhaps to garner votes from the people who are concerned about the issue. Some people feed upon the concern of others in terms of the use of chemicals in forestry or agriculture.
Returning to the farmers in my area, they were really sad when they lost the chemical Alachlor last year. It was an important chemical to them. However, they had alternatives; and they did not have to use Alachlor. Perhaps the greatest problem was that it took competition out of the field. It took a major chemical, which was shown to work and was working, out of the fields. Farmers in my area are also responsible people. They do not want to be part of a process where well water or other drinking water in Ontario might be contaminated. As a result, they took the responsible action and agreed that it should not be used. They still suffer from the loss. They would like to see more study of the situation to see whether the product can be used. If it is found to be safe and that it does not contaminate water-and I know that the evidence available at the present time is limited-Canadian farmers would use the chemical in a very responsible manner.
I have experienced chemical use on farms and the pressures faced by farmers. The only control they have over avoiding poisoning themselves is to mix their products standing with their backs to the wind, so that any fumes from the product are wafted away and they are not exposed to them. Perhaps these chemicals are more dangerous to users. Of course we worry about the end result, the contamination of the environment, the contamination of food product, and the contamination of water. However, very often there is more danger to the person applying the chemical product than there is to any end user.

November 18, 1986
Adjournment Debate
I believe a task force at this time might perhaps be counterproductive. There are many other initiatives going on in any case that will come toward the end point in our problem. We can talk about initiatives such as the integrated pest management control.
Mr. Speaker, I have come to the end.


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

Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), this item shall be dropped from the Order Paper.



[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, on October 28 I asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) a question that was very simple and straightforward, namely: Since March of this year how much money has the United States put into the abatement-I repeat, the abatement-of acid rain as a result of the envoys' report. The Minister of the Environment replied by saying that $400 million was put into that direction on nine major projects. The Environment Minister was wrong at that time. He was also wrong on March 19 of this year when he informed this House, and I quote from Hansard at page 11657, that the U.S. President had:
-committed himself to hundreds of millions of dollars of cash to abate acid rain in the United States.
On both accounts the Minister gave this House the wrong information. The fact is that he referred to $400 million in his answer on October 28. That amount should read $360 million. It has nothing to do with an abatement of acid rain flowing from the report of the envoys and the adoption of that report by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of Canada and the President of the United States. What the Minister was referring to was an amount of $360 million which has to do with the demonstration and commercialization technology which is part of a clean coal technology program adopted by the U.S. Congress in December, 1985. That amount has nothing to do with an abatement program in the U.S. from which Canada could benefit.
I hope that today the Parliamentary Secretary will come clean with this House and answer the question that the
Minister avoided answering on October 28. This House is entitled to an honest answer to this very simple question. How many kilograms of S02 have been reduced by way of the agreement that was announced in March of this year between the leaders of the two nations? This is what we want to know. We do not want to know what was done under the clean coal technology program. This is a U.S. Congress program. What has been achieved since March of this year? Why I am asking this question is that on more than one occasion the Minister of the Environment has raised hope during Question Period in this House, and has given answers that have turned out to be incorrect or outright wrong.
In the meantime, while these exchanges take place in this question and answer period that is so unsatisfactory, the cost of acid rain is accumulating in a variety of ways. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows from a committee meeting this afternoon, there is an increasing and substantial cost to the maple syrup producers in this country. It amounted to something like $87 million in 1986 alone according to L'Union des Producteurs Agricoles.
There is a cost involved in inhibited forest growth. There is a cost to motel owners and the tourism industry. There is a cost to the public purse through incidence of respiratory diseases and hospital admissions when air pollution reaches certain levels. There is a cost to buildings and structures eroded by acid rain. There is a cost to salmon breeding grounds in eastern Canada. There is, of course, this phenomenal cost imposed on the sports and fishing industry, as well as resort areas such as Muskoka affected by acidification. The Government took great pride in the envoy report which was going to resolve the question of acid rain and the emissions which pour over our border daily, totalling some 26 million tonnes or more of S02 a year. Therefore my question was intended to get an indication from the Government as to what the agreement has achieved so far. The question was simply this. How much money has the U.S. put into the abatement of acid rain since March and how much of a reduction was there in sulphur oxide emissions which cause acid rain and which spew across the border, damaging the Canadian economy and environment? That question is still valid today and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will come clean with us.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to this important question. The Hon. Member can be sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will come clean on all questions, not only with him but with all Hon. Members.
The endorsement of the report of the special envoys on acid rain by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan in March, 1986 was not the final word on a joint solution to our common acid rain problem. It established a foundation and a process which the two countries can use to move toward our ultimate objective of solving our transboundary air pollution problem once and for all.
November 18, 1986

One of the key recommendations of the special envoys was the need for the United States to establish a five-year, $5 billion control technology commercial demonstration program. This recommendation was designed to expand the menu of control options and make it easier to formulate a U.S. acid rain control plan. It was also designed to provide some nearterm relief from acid rain.
From the Canadian perspective, two of the special envoys' criteria are of particular importance. It is primarily against these that Canada will judge existing and new initiatives in the United States. These criteria are, and I quote from the envoys' report: "More consideration should be given to projects that demonstrate retrofit technologies applicable to the largest number of existing sources that, because of their size and location, contribute to transboundary air pollution"; and, "It should also result in some near-term reductions in U.S. air emissions that affect Canadian ecosystems".
We have established clear objectives on the acid rain issue. Acid deposition must be reduced to less than 20 kilograms per hectare per year. To do this, sulphur dioxide emissions in eastern Canada must be reduced by 50 per cent and the transboundary flow of pollution from the United States into Canada must be reduced by 50 per cent, from four million tonnes down to two million tonnes.
Canada assesses any U.S. clean coal technology demonstration initiative primarily by the extent to which the technologies can be applied to the principal sources of emissions affecting Canada and by the extent to which the demonstration projects provide immediate relief in the transboundary pollution flows. It is these criteria we are using to assess the nine projects under the U.S. Department of Energy's clean coal technology program.


PATENT ACT-EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS ON DRUG PRICES
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) about the anticipated increase in drug costs to Canadians because of the changes he has introduced to the Patent Act with respect to pharmaceutical drugs. The Minister has responded that prices for drugs already on the market will not go up and that one has to make assumptions about drugs not yet on the market. The drugs we are talking about are, of course, those drugs which will come on to the market under the new arrangement if the Bill is indeed passed.
The Minister tried to dismiss the question by underlining the difficulty of predicting future price increases. In fact, the Government knows that drug prices for Canadians will indeed go up and has done cost studies to predict the results of its new legislation. The Minister is afraid to make those studies public because they will show how adversely Canadians will be affected.
Adjournment Debate
During the summer I made a request for those cost impact studies through an application under the Access to Information Act. I was denied access to those cost impact studies as it was alleged that those pertinent documents are Cabinet confidences and, therefore, shielded from public view. All along the Government has wanted to handle this Bill as quietly as possible. It meant to introduce the legislation on the last day the House sat in June in order to lessen the public attention that would be paid to the Bill. The Government knows that, according to a Gallup poll released in September, 57 per cent of Canadians are opposed to those proposed changes.
Due to changes in the Patent Act in 1969, Canada went from having drug prices that were among the highest in the world to having drug prices which are now among the lowest in the world. By allowing increased competition among drug manufacturers, Canadians have benefited from lower drug prices compared to other countries. This legislation will change that situation by gravely increasing the length of time that the multinationals have exclusive rights to manufactured drugs.
Due to pressure from the multinational drug companies, and now the American Government, this Government has introduced this legislation which is certain to increase the cost of prescription drugs to all Canadians. The multinational drug companies feel the situation in Canada must be changed, not only because of the higher profits they see possible in Canada but because Canada sets an example these large companies do not want to have followed elsewhere in the world.
Neither the Government nor the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, which is the group representing the large multinationals, have come forward with any estimates of how the proposal will affect drug prices. However, according to the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association, which is the body which represents the generic manufacturers in Canada, the additional cost to Canadians in 1995 will be $650 million, and $745 million in 1996.
The cumulative cost is far higher than the increase in investment promised by the multinational manufacturers. These multinational companies have promised some $1.4 billion in investment over the next 10 years. Although the Government will not say it, these companies would only offer this additional investment if they could be assured of additional revenues which will come from higher prices. The multinationals have offered this publicly but the Bill the Government has introduced requires no guarantees about investment, research and development or job creation.
While the Minister argues that we cannot know the effect of price increases on new drugs, the Bill includes provisions to pay the provinces $25 million a year for four years to compensate them for a short-term impact on provincial pharmacare plans and give them additional security against any adjustments which have to be made. The Minister knows that by giving the large multinational drug companies this kind of freedom from competition in the market-place, the prices of drugs can only go up. The provinces, which through their pharmacare programs pay a large bill for prescription drugs,

November 18, 1986
Adjournment Debate
realize that prices will go up and that they will be stuck with higher bills.
[DOT]	(1815)
The Minister of Health for Nova Scotia, for example, says that the increased expenses to his province's pharmacare program will not be offset by the money offered so far by the federal Government.
I call upon the Government again to release all the cost impact studies it has done regarding the changes proposed to the Patent Act because Canadians have a right to know exactly how much it will cost them as a result of the Government's action. We know even before we start that it will cost them $100 million in the first four years. If the Minister or the Government does not understand that this will be paid by Canadians, it will be the first Bill that Canadians will have to foot as a result of the amendment the Government is proposing to this Act.
[DOT]	(1820)


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to give the Hon. Member the assurance that none of the proposed amendments to the Patent Act will increase the prices of the 3,000 drugs available on the Canadian market.
The competitive pricing brought about by the generic sector will continue under the new policy, since generic products now on the market will not be affected by the proposed changes. Furthermore, the new compulsory licences will continue to be granted to generic producers as soon as the compliance period for patented products expires.
Furthermore, the proposed amendments to the Patent Act provide for establishing a Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which will be authorized to review prices of all patented medicines. If a price is declared excessive according to the standards set by the Board, the latter will be empowered to impose sanctions on the producer. The Board can then prescribe a reasonable price level. It can also revoke the compliance period for the medicines concerned or for any other medicines sold by the manufacturer.
To set standards for evaluating the prices of medicines currently on the market, the Board will be authorized to consider the prices of other medicines in the same therapeutic class, the prices at which the same or similar products were sold in the past, prices charged in other countries, the costs of making and marketing the medicine, the rate of increase of the price of the medicine compared with the Consumer Price Index, and any other factor the Board deems relevant.
In the case of medicines being brought on the market for the first time, the Board will be authorized to set an entry price on the basis of factors similar to those mentioned earlier.
The Patent Act requires every manufacturer to provide the Board with the information it needs to carry out comparative
analyses. Failure to do so will be dealt with in exactly the same manner as the setting of excessive price levels. In this way, the Board can be certain it will obtain the information it needs to determine whether medicine prices are reasonable.
Finally, the Bill contains provisions that allow for a review of the legislation, four years and ten years after its implementation, at which time the price trends for medicines and the level of industrial benefits will be analyzed and, if necessary, adjustments made to the original legislation.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS-POSSIBLE GASOLINE PRICE INCREASE- (A) DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION ON BEHALF OF CONSUMERS (B) GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO GIVE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT TO CANADIAN CONSUMERS
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Last October 30, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) a question concerning gasoline prices at the pump.
It is quite normal that gasoline prices should go up or down according to supply and demand, on both domestic and international markets. What is not normal is that when oil prices go down the impact is not as quickly felt at the pump. Yet when the price of crude oil increases the consumer can feel the impact very rapidly at the pump. Consumers are fully aware of this phenomenon, and recently this prompted Consumers' Association of Canada President Sally Hall to state:
The oil industry claims that it takes between 75 and 100 days before lower oil prices are reflected by a decrease at the pump. (...) Therefore the same time lag should exist whenever prices go up.
As he said in his reply last October 6, the Minister can tell us that the federal Government has no constitutional authority to set gasoline prices. Fair enough. He might also tell me that he can only do his best to make sure that market prices remain as competitive as possible. I agree. But, Mr. Speaker, if we go back a few months when oil prices were going down for every customer, much more rapidly elsewhere in the world than in Canada, the federal Government-it has no constitutional authority, the Minister said-did send a telex to the oil companies to ask them to reduce gasoline prices at the pump. It had become obvious that the oil companies were dragging their feet and seemed in no hurry to lower prices at the pump.
Under pressure from the Opposition, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at the time sent a telegram to the oil companies. Its purpose was to ensure there would be a speedy cut in the price of gas. Did she have any constitutional authority? No, but she did have, still has and always will have, a moral authority and obligation to do so. Mr. Speaker, I think the same moral authority and obligation is binding on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The Minister may answer, as he has done on several occasions in this House, that the Director of Investigations and Research in the Competition Branch is monitoring petroleum markets directly. Mr. Speaker, the Director does this under the provisions of an Act of Parliament. In fact, it seems Petro-
November 18, 1986

Canada is being monitored by our Director of Investigations and Research because the Corporation will not let the U.S. buyers of its refinery at Come-by-Chance in Newfoundland sell petroleum products to the majority of Canadian consumers.
The Minister could also answer that there are price wars in various communities in Canada. He is comparing apples and oranges. Price wars are fought by gas retailers, not by the oil companies. If an oil company were found to be supporting a price war for the purpose of eliminating a competitor, or if the oil company were setting the prices to be charged by the retailer, it would be a direct infringement of the Combines Investigation Act. Consequently, when the Minister is talking about price wars, he must realize, if he knows anything about the subject, that retailers pay the price of these wars. The retailers are stuck between the consumers and the big oil companies that lease garages and sell their gas at high prices. The Minister ought to know that generally speaking, gas retailers do not make money selling gas. They make money on other activities such as car repairs and towing services.
The Canadians who elected us, Mr. Speaker, have a right to expect their Members and Ministers to uphold our laws. But they also expect leadership from their Ministers. And when a Minister hides behind legalistic arguments like the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) has been doing, he may be legally right, but he is not showing any moral or political leadership.
And in the final instance, he is leaving consumers to fend for themselves.
I have here a letter to the editor that appeared in the Montreal Gazette on November 12, signed by Mr. David Senenbaum of Saint-Laurent.

I, like most Quebecers, am sick and tired of being conned by the oil companies and government.
It's not enough that we are being ripped off by outrageous gasoline prices; the oil companies take a sadistic pleasure in rubbing salt in the wounds.
Ultramar was the first to raise gasoline prices 2 cents a litre and the other goody-goody rip-off artists played coy.
Carole Pressault, of Petro Canada, said "We haven't done anything yet (re increases)." Pierre Despres, of Imperial Oil, said "At this moment we have not increased our pump prices".
Yet they, and the rest of the gang, raised their prices within 24 hours.
Why are we taking this kind of abuse? Where are our politicians, spokespeo-ple, human rights groups, lobbying groups and protestors?
Can anyone out there explain to me why there is no competition in gasoline prices in Quebec?
I was always under the impression that a cartel in this country was illegal. Then why is the price of a litre of gasoline exactly the same at so many service stations, not only to the cent, but tenth of a cent?
Unless something drastic is done by the general public, this wanton gouging will continue.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister will take note of my comments and those of Canadian consumers.
Royal Assent


Gabrielle Bertrand: In response to my colleague, Mr. Speaker, I might repeat, as the Minister stated last October 30, that the federal Government has no constitutional authority to set gasoline prices, and I know she agrees with that. Last September 8, however, when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) was in Calgary to announce the abolition of the petroleum and gas revenue tax, he indicated that he had already been assured by the major oil companies that any crude oil price increase will take as much time to be reflected at the pump as when prices went down earlier this year. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources closely monitors the price of crude and refined oil products.
Crude oil prices now account for less than 30 per cent of gasoline prices and are only one of the many elements which bear on prices at the pump. All things considered, market competitiveness is the determining factor of gasoline prices.
The Government has taken several initiatives to ensure maximum market-place competitiveness. Last year it used the Western Accord to deregulate the oil industry production sector, and since then Canadian crude oil prices have dropped as a result of world-wide demand. Lower crude oil prices did translate into decreasing gasoline prices, to the benefit of Canadian consumers.
In June 1986 the Government pushed for the adoption of the competition legislation, thus completing the long-awaited reform of Canadian legislation concerning competition. This competition legislation, being of a general nature, will apply to the oil companies and will eventually protect the interests of consumers, not only with respect to the petroleum sector but also in all spheres of economic activities.
The Director of Investigation and Research appointed under the competition legislation constantly monitors changes in the oil sector, and I can assure you that should he find evidence of conspiracy, price fixing or any other unlawful activity, he will take the necessary action as he did in the past.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made Monday, November 17, 1986, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn.

Accordingly, the sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.
At 6.28 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 7.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
November 18, 1986
Business of the House
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill C-24, An Act to provide for the maintenance of ports operations, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa,
November 18, 1986
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Antonio Lamer, Puine Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 18th day of November, 1986, at 7.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Leopold H. Amyot Secretary to the Governor General



[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:
['It being 7.45 p.m., pursuant to an Order made on Monday, November 17, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).\nAt 7.46 p.m. the House adjourned.', 'Wednesday, November 19, 1986']
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-5, 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-Chapter No. 45, 1986.
Bill C-24, An Act to provide for the maintenance of ports operations- Chapter No. 46, 1986.



Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Government House Leader what the business will be tomorrow so that we will be organized and can probably debate some interesting Bills.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to respond to that request. Tomorrow we will be dealing with Bill C-25, followed by Bill C-20 and Bill C-22, but not necessarily in that order. Bill C-25 will be called first.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 7.45 p.m., pursuant to an Order made on Monday, November 17, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 7.46 p.m. the House adjourned.

Wednesday, November 19, 1986