1986-04-30

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation report emphasizes that little is known about the effects of toxic rain on our food, water, and health. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) responded by not assuming responsibility for research into this serious problem. Instead, he is reported as saying that: "Having Environment Canada conduct research would be just too easy. Maybe we are just going to have to ask the producers of toxic materials to research the effects of their own chemicals". What a shocking answer. However, this is not the first time the Minister and his Government have abandoned their role. Funding for the Guelph Toxicology Research Centre was cancelled by his predecessor.
This Minister is confirming that things have not really changed under his command. The authors of the report ask for action and Government initiative in dealing with toxic rain. The Guelph Toxicology Centre should be funded, and the budget for toxic-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: The Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) announcement today removed a number of irritants for hard-pressed farmers and we thank him for it. Increasing the ceiling for domestic wheat prices to $11; rebating an additional 2 cents per litre on farm fuel; removing sales and excise taxes on farm fuel; and freezing freight rate increases are all necessary for the farm community, and are a welcome fulfilment of election promises made two years ago.
The farm community and our Party applaud the removal of these irritants. We fought hard for recognition by the Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Prime Minister that there still were taxes to be removed from farm fuels and this announcement shows an admission of the correctness of our position.
We and the farm organizations of Canada have been pointing out that farm incomes need help this year due to the world price response to the U.S. Farm Bill. We regret that no mention of deficiency payments was made today, but we will continue to press the case because we know it is the only course of action open for the survival of Canada's farmers.


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: This morning, Mr. Speaker, I received very interesting statistics concerning job creation, particularly with respect to young people and women.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, our Government has created over 47,000 jobs since September 1984, hence the 2.5 per cent drop in unemployment over that same period of time. In addition the number of unemployed youths declined by 79,000 since we took over, whereas the former Government could only report increasing job losses rather than new jobs.
I also have a very positive statement about women in the labour market. The latest statistics indicate that 293,000 more women have found jobs in the past eighteen months.
That, Mr. Speaker, is further evidence that our Government has kept its promises. Our priorities and the economic upsurge-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The 60 seconds have expired. The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson).


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian grain farmers, through no fault of their

April 30, 1986
.
own, are faced with low prices. These prices bear no relation to market forces or cost of production.
Today the Government has responded to the concerns of those producers with a number of measures, foremost among which is the raising of the maximum allowable price for domestic wheat to $11 per bushel.
At present the farmer's share of a loaf of bread is hardly enough to make one decent sandwich. Our producers can now look forward to some relief as a result of today's domestic wheat initiative, an initiative which will have a minimal effect on Canadian consumers but represents a tremendous boost to western wheat growers facing a subsidy war between the United States and the European Economic Community.
This domestic wheat initiative is but one of a long line of agricultural measures put forward by the Government. The Government stands fully behind Canadian wheat producers.
Over the course of the last 20 months the Government has done more for Canadian agriculture than any previous Government in Canadian history. [DOT]


FINANCE
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, a recent study released by the National Council of Welfare has confirmed that the Conservative Budget of 1985 and economic statement of 1984 will leave Canada's working poor worse off than they were before. While the wealthy got a $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption, the poor were hit by the partial deindexation of child benefits and personal tax exemptions, a 3 per cent surtax, and higher federal sales and excise taxes.
Over the next five years a family with two children and a single income of $10,000 annually will lose $905 in disposable income. At $21,000, which is the poverty line, the loss is some $2,334. But those with an annual income of $100,000 will actually see a gain of $517 in disposable income.
It is time that the Government recognized that its regressive and short-sighted economic policies are not working on behalf of all of Canada. In fact they are creating and enhancing two different Canadas, where those in greatest need have been forgotten. That is simply a national disgrace.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, the agricultural community has been hard-pressed over the past several years and, as a result of the former Liberal Government's indifference, its real income has gone down by 50 per cent in the past decade.
The September 1984 election was our Government's starting point to implement an unprecedented number of measures designed to help agricultural producers whose work and productivity have been feeding Canada and the rest of the world. A new series of agricultural measures were announced this morning by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). As of tomorrow all federal taxes on farm fuel will be repealed. This will entail annual savings in exc million at a time when our farmers need them most.
Mr. Speaker, this is the way our Government inte the Canadian economy.
of $80	
to spur


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, how many more times must Canada continue to be embarrassed by the naivete of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) relationship with the President of the U.S.? He is negotiating a free-trade agreement with an America that not only imposed a countervail on us yesterday but made it clear that it intends to keep the right to impose such duties no matter what. Only the truly gullible could regard this as a hopeful process.
This reminds us of another hopeful process which led to the appointment of the acid rain envoys, and a report by them which recommended no research and no actual reduction, and which, in spite of presidential endorsation, now appears to be an item which the U.S. administration does not even intend to budget for, according to what U.S. Energy Secretary John Herrington said at a Congressional hearing yesterday.
Democrat Henry Waxman, quoted as saying wryly: "We sure fooled those Canadians," would have been kinder to a great many Canadians who were not fooled if he had said: "We sure fooled those Conservatives".
April 30, 1986


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced that the Government is removing all federal taxes on farm fuels for off-highway use effective May 1, 1986. The net savings to Canadian farmers resulting form this tax cut will be $165 million over the next two years. This announcement comes at a good time for farmers who are now seeding their 1986 crops.
This measure is part of the federal Government's initiative package designed to help the agricultural and energy sectors of Canada. Other agricultural measures in the package include the introduction and speedy passage of farm debt review legislation, an increase in the maximum allowable domestic price level of wheat to $11 per bushel, and a maintenance of WGTA producers' freight rates at the 1985-86 crop year levels.
Although these measures are not the total solution to the financial problems facing Canadian farmers, they do represent the ongoing federal commitment to agriculture. The long-term answer lies in an improved bilateral and multilateral trading environment. The old adage "Actions speak louder than words" is certainly true in this case.


TAX RELIEF MEASURES FOR WESTERN INDUSTRY
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced measures to assist in the survival of western Canada's most important energy industry. The Small Producer Credit of the PGRT will be increased from $500,000 to $2 million effective May 1 this year and for the life of the tax. The PGRT will be set to zero for Syncrude and Suncor's synthetic oil sands plants effective May 1. These measures will provide about $100 million of relief primarily to small and medium-sized Canadian producers but also available to all companies operating in Canada.
Western producers have already reported that this will provide significant revenue tax relief which should enable small and medium-sized producers to maintain activities. A healthy energy industry in the western part of Canada contributes to a healthy economy right across the country.
Oral Questions DISASTERS


SOVIET NUCLEAR REACTOR ACCIDENT IN UKRAINE-POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, the whole world is aware that over the weekend a very serious accident occurred at a Soviet nuclear power plant in Ukraine. I am sure all Canadians join with me in expressing deep concern for those individuals and families affected by the accident.
While few details of the incident have been released by the Soviets, we do know that radioactive fallout in substantial quantities can now be found in the Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark. We also learned today that as much as 13 per cent of certain critical Soviet agricultural produce, including meats and dairy products, may have been contaminated by fallout from the accident. If this is the case, there could be a serious food shortage.
I urge the Government of Canada, on behalf of all Canadians, to offer Canadian produce to the Soviet Union to replenish these contaminated food stocks, as well as to offer whatever other technical and medical assistance can be provided.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Deputy Prime Minister. I wish again to come to the right of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to continue to sit in the Cabinet.
Last September in a public letter the Prime Minister wrote to each Minister about the conflict of interest guidelines he stated:
You will find no quasi-independent agencies in this Code that will allow the Government to shirk its responsibility by saying that the problem belongs to someone else. Nor will you find anything which will relieve me and my colleagues of the necessity of exercising judgment.
Yet the Government has tried to pass its responsibility off on to the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, Mr. Boyle. I have spoken to Mr. Boyle. He did no investigation-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -beyond speaking to the Minister.
How did the Government satisfy itself that the guidelines had not been violated? Is the Government satisfied that the guidelines have not been violated?

April 30, 1986
Oral Questions


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that kind of question fully and repeatedly yesterday when I said to the House, in response to several questions from several different quarters, that on the instructions of the Prime Minister I had personally met with the Assistant Deputy Registrar General in order to establish that there had been full, complete compliance with the code of conduct, which it is more properly called, by the Minister concerned. He assured me that there had been that full compliance. That satisfied me. Accordingly, I reported to the Prime Minister.


MINISTER'S WIFE'S ACTIVITIES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Government has not challenged the facts of what the Minister's wife did, where she went to raise the money for her husband's company, or how she got it. Yet this morning when the Prime Minister was asked whether or not he believed that the Minister knew nothing of what his wife was doing the Prime Minister did not answer that question. That question has to be answered. Do the Prime Minister and the Government believe that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion had no knowledge of what his wife was doing? Is that the position of the Government?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government is that if the Hon. Member, or any other Hon. Member, believes that Mrs. Stevens has done something dishonourable or criminal, they should so state, and take the appropriate courses open to them, having made such a charge.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the conflict of interest guidelines are for Ministers to obey. I am asking the Deputy Prime Minister whether he and the Government believe the Minister since, as the Prime Minister said, it is his duty and responsibility to see that the guidelines are enforced. Do they believe the Minister when he tells them that he had no knowledge of what his wife was doing?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister and of the Government to ensure that there has been compliance with the code of conduct by all Ministers of the Government. With respect to this particular Minister, my advice to the Prime Minister, based upon the assurances I received from the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, was that there has been that full compliance.


KOREAN BANK LOAN
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In answer to my question yesterday concerning the one-year interest-free loan of $2.6 million granted by the company 622109 Ontario Ltd.
to the family business of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, the Deputy Prime Minister replied that at the request of the Prime Minister he had looked "once again, personally, into the same matter that I looked into last April 7", which was a loan from a Korean bank associated with Hyundai to the family business of the Minister. In reply to my question yesterday, why did the Minister refer to the loan made by a Korean bank which was a different loan from the one referred to in my question? Why did he make that automatic connection?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the application of the simple rules of logic suggests to me that the Hon. Member was probably absent on April 7 when the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor raised similar questions based on similar newspaper articles. I do believe they were from the same newspaper. On that occasion I took the appropriate steps on the instructions of the Prime Minister, as I did on this occasion.


INQUIRY WHETHER A COMPANY RECEIVED FUNDS OR LOAN GUARANTEES
Raymond Garneau: It was
obviously not the same loan, Mr. Speaker. And now for my supplementary. Could the Deputy Prime Minister give the House the assurance that neither numbered company 622109 Ontario Ltd., nor any of its officers who made a loan of $2.6 million to the family business of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, received funds or loan guarantees worth millions of dollars from the Korean Hanil Bank, the Hyundai Corporation, Magna International Inc. or any officers connected with any of these companies?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of the Prime Minister to the House and to the country is to ensure that there has been full compliance with the code of conduct which has been established for the guidance of Ministers of the Crown. That responsibility has been discharged. The Prime Minister, the Government, and I are satisfied that there has been full compliance with the code of conduct by the Minister. If the Hon. Member is going to suggest that something dishonourable or criminal has been done, let him say so and pursue the proper course.


ASSISTANT DEPUTY REGISTRAR GENERAL-INVESTIGATORY POWERS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the possible conflict of interest in the transactions involving the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. At
April 30, 1986

the Minister's suggestion, I took the opportunity yesterday to meet for an hour with the Assistant Deputy Registrar General in order to find out what investigation took place of the matters alleged in yesterday's newspapers.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the fact that no investigation took place and that the Assistant Deputy Registrar General informed me and my colleague from Windsor that in fact he had no power, or staff, to conduct an investigation into such allegations as those which appeared in The Globe and Mail yesterday? How could he tell the House that there has been full compliance in this particular case, when in fact there has been no investigation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see at least one Member of Parliament is doing his homework and learning the facts of life as they apply to the Assistant Deputy Registrar General. Of course I am aware of those matters, and he should be. If he was not told today, I am sure the Assistant Deputy Registrar General would tell him now, if he phoned him back, that there has in fact been compliance with the code by the Minister.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, would the Deputy Prime Minister kindly explain how he can give these repeated assurances to the House when in fact there has been and will be no investigation by the official who was responsible for this particular task and assured us that in fact he does not make those decisions but that he commends them to the Prime Minister who makes the decisions? Will the Government now agree to send the matter to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure so that we can have a full investigation of these very serious allegations?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's progress is encouraging. If he energetically pursues that learning curve, he will discover that the code of conduct which is in place for public office holders-


An Hon. Member:: Requires a resignation today.


Erik Nielsen: -does not require any investigation. It requires compliance. That compliance has been had. In respect of his suggestion, he knows, or should know, that there are processes available to him, and indeed to any other Member of Parliament, who wishes to invoke those procedures. He had better continue his studies.
Oral Questions MINISTER'S BEHAVIOUR


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I remind him that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has blatantly ignored the Prime Minister's direct instructions when he referred to "the responsibility to prevent conflict of interest including those that might arise out of the activities of spouses". Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to this House why he believes this incredible behaviour, in conflict with the Prime Minister's directive, is now acceptable behaviour?


Erik Nielsen: I suppose that is about the finest example of hang before trial that I have ever heard, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Broadbent:: We just want a trial. Let's have an investigation.


Erik Nielsen: If the Hon. Member wishes to charge the Minister with having done something dishonourable or of a criminal nature, he has that option open to him if he cares to take it on the floor of the House of Commons, and there are also procedures and processes available to him to invoke, should he care to do so.


GUIDELINE PROVISIONS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Deputy Prime Minister would have guts enough to answer the question. Obviously he doesn't.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to this House why the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is not in violation of Section 31(2) where it reads in part:
-being placed or the appearance of being placed under an obligation to any person or organization that might profit from special consideration by the office holder.
How has the Minister not contravened those guidelines? Explain that to the House.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I shall explain to the Hon. Member that, should he choose to have the courage to do so, there are procedures and processes available in the House of Commons and in its procedures for him to make that kind of charge and take whatever appropriate procedures are necessary in order to follow through on it.


An Hon. Member:: This is the same defence you used last fall.

April 30, 1986
Oral Questions TRADE


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-U.S. POWER TO IMPOSE COUNTERVAIL DUTIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Monday in the House he implicitly acknowledged that a free trade agreement with the United States in which the Americans would retain the countervailing power to restrict Canadian exports, whether fish today or softwood tomorrow, could be worse than useless. The Minister said "countervail is very much at the heart of these negotiations".
Given the importance of this restrictive power, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs assure us that this constitutionally entrenched power in the United States is on the negotiating table?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said earlier.


CONTENT OF NEGOTIATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister said earlier is what led to the question. He didn't tell us it was on the table.
I talked to the office of one of the crucially involved Senators today in Washington who told me that a majority of the 10 Senators who voted in favour of negotiations would strongly oppose removing the countervailing authority. As the Minister has said this authority is crucial to these negotiations, as I do, and since we don't want to lose any more jobs over this incompetent Government's negotiations, is it on the table or isn't it? That is what we want to know.


Charles Joseph Clark: Of course, Mr. Speaker, that question is in the negotiations with the United States. Just for future clarity, when I receive questions from the Hon. Leader of the NDP I will send my letters direct to Shirley Carr.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: That is dumb, Joe.


Mr. Crosbie:: She is your Edgar Bergen.
An. Hon. Member: Send them to Dublin.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CANADIAN POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I won't comment on an insult to a newly elected leader of the largest labour body in the country.
I want to ask the Minister to be specific. Since I am told that a big majority of the Senators will never give up this power, since that goes to the root of the discussions and is harmful, if retained, for Canadian jobs, will the Secretary of
State assure us that no agreement will be signed by his Government in which that countervailing power remains with the U.S. to destroy Canadian jobs?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wasn't insulting Shirley Carr. I was simply commenting on her evident power.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Ed bows to her.


Charles Joseph Clark: If the Leader of the New Democratic Party had not been so busy last week taking his instructions at the convention of the Canadian Labour Congress, he would have known that the vote of the United States Senate was explicitly without condition. There are no preconditions to that negotiation. Of course this matter is going to be part of the negotiations. Yes, we very much expect that we will be able to make progress on it.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and is with regard to the loan affair. On December 18, 1983, the Conservative Leader said on the television program Question Period: "There will be conflict of interest guidelines which will be absolutely watertight and there will be a penalty for not observing it". When will the Minister in question be punished? Will this punishment be his dismissal from Cabinet?


Erik Nielsen: That, too, Mr. Speaker, is a prime example of total disregard for a fundamental principle of justice in this country namely, the presumption of innocence. As I have said to other Hon. Members, if that Member has a charge of dishonourable or criminal conduct by the Minister, he is free, if he has the courage to do so, to make that charge-


Mr. Ouellet:: It's your responsibility.


Erik Nielsen: -and to take advantage of the processes and procedures which are available to him in our system to follow through.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL DEMAND RESIGNATION OF MINISTER OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, crime has nothing to do with it. The Prime Minister said in the House on September 9, as reported at page 6399 of Hansard: The Government must be able to provide competent
April 30, 1986

management and, above all, to be guided by the highest standards of conduct-


Mr. Speaker:: The question, please. No preamble.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister intend to demand forthwith the resignation of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion? Yes or no?


Erik Nielsen: No.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister as well and deals with the problems of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Just a short while ago the Deputy Prime Minister asked Canadians to believe that there was full compliance with the code, even though there was no investigation at all. Would the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that a full and thorough investigation ought to be held to verify that in fact there is no conflict of interest?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the code of conduct for public officials is in place for the purpose of dealing with conflict of interest questions. All Ministers of the Crown are required to comply with that code of conduct. Through the office of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General I have satisfied myself that there has been compliance. I have so reported to the Prime Minister. I have said repeatedly, yesterday and today, that that compliance exists. If the Member has not done so, I invite him to confirm with the Assistant Deputy Registrar General that there has in fact been compliance with the code of conduct by the Minister concerned.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
John R. Rodriguez: Is the Deputy Prime Minister saying: "Trust us"? Canadians have heard that before.


MEMBER'S CONVERSATION WITH ASSISTANT DEPUTY REGISTRAR GENERAL
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister as well. Yesterday we heard from the Assistant Deputy Registrar General's office that it was absolutely not their policy to reveal information about any inquiries from any Members of Parliament. How was the Deputy Prime Minister able to intercept a private telephone conversation from my office, or was he simply passing by an open window?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with that.
Oral Questions
In my own experience, when I was the Minister of Public Works in 1979, and in each office that I have held in this Government, one of my first instructions to my officials was that when any Member of Parliament calls them I want to know about it because I want to assist those Members of Parliament in doing their jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, how does the Deputy Prime Minister expect Canadians to believe his statement that there was no conflict of interest when, quite clearly by his own conduct not only this week but also in the past, he has shown Canadians that he does not understand the meaning of the word "integrity"?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Andre:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order! The Hon. Member will withdraw that.


Charles Joseph Clark: Throw her out.


André Ouellet: It's a question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I asked a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order! It is not a question. The first part was a question. The last part was a statement which the Hon. Member will withdraw.


Sheila Maureen Copps: No.


Charles Joseph Clark: A martyr.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am looking for guidance. I asked a question.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the Hon. Member simply to withdraw the allegation.


Mr. Nystrom:: It's not unparliamentary.


Some Hon. Members:: Out, out.


Sheila Maureen Copps: A question, Mr. Speaker, should be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order!


Mr. Benjamin:: It's not unparliamentary.

April 30, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the Hon. Member, out of her respect for Parliament, simply to withdraw what she just said.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The question is withdrawn.


Charles Joseph Clark: Oh, no.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order! The Hon. Member believes she asked a question. I believe she made a statement. She told the House that she has withdrawn what she said. That is good enough for the Chair. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Without making any uncritical analogies between Soviet nuclear technology and Canadian nuclear technology, could the Minister tell us whether he takes at face value the assurances of AECL and Ontario Hydro that that sort of thing could not happen here, or does the Government of Canada have contingency plans for evacuation and other emergency measures in the event that something like that did happen here?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, more and more information is coming to our attention from the U.S.S.R. about the tragic accident. It behooves us as Canadians and as citizens of the world to put in whatever precautions we can, keeping in mind that in the Canadian system every attempt has been made humanly possible to build in every safety precaution that technology, that the best advice we have, the best social responsibility people in the field take, suggest should be incorporated in that system. I can assure the Hon. Member, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and others close to that industry would want to assure him and all Canadians, that that safety precaution is being taken. I assure him that we will use whatever methods we have to, and any up-date of them that we should consider after the very tragic accident in the U.S.S.R., to make sure that we have everything in place should an emergency occur.


EMERGENCY PLANNING MEASURES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, apart from the safety measures which are being taken to ensure that there is not an accident, could the Minister explain what plans are in place, or are being put in place, in the event that our technology turns out to be as imperfect as any other technology and there is an accident? As well, could he tell us whether the Government is now considering living up to a
promise, made by an earlier Conservative Government and his Party on numerous occasions, to have a full public inquiry into the role of nuclear energy in Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the second part of the question, 1 cannot make a Government statement and I think the Member understands why.
With regard to the first part of the question, in view of what has happened in the U.S.S.R. we immediately set up the federal Nuclear Emergency Response Plan. In an effort to be helpful to Canadians we have also set up a hot-line number: 998-3624. Any Canadian can use that number to receive further reassurance. Any long-term plans should be made with consideration of these events and others.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he thinks the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion should still be responsible for the privatization of Canadair, when we know-since the cat is out of the bag-that the Minister is obligated to the President of Magna International Inc., a potential buyer, who saved him from bankruptcy by helping him to obtain an interest-free loan.
Mr. Speaker, the conflict of interest here is as plain as the nose on your face. I would therefore like to know whether the Deputy Prime Minister could inform the House whether he thinks the Minister should still be responsible for this dossier?


Erik Nielsen: The hon. gentleman not only distorts in his preamble but he does not understand the privatization process. It is carried out under a ministerial task force established under the chairmanship of the President of the Treasury Board. It is, in turn, subject to Cabinet review and approval. Canadair is no different from any other company which has gone through that process, including the measure passed just the other day by the House involving Canadian Arsenals Limited.


PUBLIC PERCEPTION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Public perception demands more than that.
April 30, 1986

My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is: When a competitor like Bombardier wants to acquire Canadair, what kind of present should he give the Minister's wife to be sure of being treated on an equal footing?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh! Oh!


Mr. Bissonnette:: Go outside the House and charge him, if you have any guts!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will refer to the press release of April 3, 1986, the fact is that the CDIC Board has identified the five groups interested in acquiring Canadair. They are Bombardier Limited of Montreal; Canadian Aerospace, Montreal; Fleet Consortium led by Fleet Aerospace of Fort Erie, Ontario; the IMP Group of Halifax; and Magna International of Toronto, all of this under the review of Burns Fry Investment Dealers, which is a firm, among others, retained by the Board of Canadair to conduct that review.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given reports that Canada is considering the admission of some 330 Libyan student mechanics and pilots recently expelled from England, will the Minister assure Canadians that none of these individuals will be allowed to enter Canada until Libya ceases all involvement in world terrorism?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has no intention of weakening in any way at all actions which might have been taken by other friendly Governments regarding the Libyan regime. Our position regarding Libyan students has been clear for some time. There is a policy restricting the total number and the areas in which they can study. They cannot study in areas related to military matters or those which are technically sensitive. We are maintaining close vigilance on Libyan students in Canada, and the Hon. Member and the House should not be alarmed by the report in The Globe and Mail this morning.
Oral Questions HEALTH


DALKON SHIELD CONTRACEPTION DEVICE-DEADLINE FOR FILING COMPENSATION CLAIMS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As he knows, today is the deadline for women to file a claim for damages they may have suffered from use of the Daikon shield contraception device. A U.S. court has agreed to hear further argument on this matter on May 22. Is the Minister aware of that, and will he advise the House whether he is prepared to join with women's organizations across Canada to make representations to that court to have the deadline extended?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the deadline. As to whether there should be an extension, both the health and legal implications still have to be assessed. I will take his question as a representation and examine it in more detail.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, Canada allowed this device to be used for some 11 years after it was taken off the U.S. market. Therefore, will he not agree that any Canadian woman in the future who discovers that she suffered damages as a result of using that device will be allowed to pick up the cost of those damages from the Government on any claims filed in Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member understands that since 1981 the Health Protection Branch of my Department has advised users of the Daikon shield to stop its use. My answer to his suggestion can only be the same as it was to his first question. I can give no commitments on compensation or any position the Government will take on it.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He knows that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion did not have a blind trust if his spouse was part of its management. He had de facto the ability to run his own business affairs. If the Prime Minister refused to say, when questioned this morning, that he believed the Minister did not discuss his business affairs with his spouse, why should Canadians believe it?


Erik Nielsen: The hon. gentleman tries to afix me with a position which I reject in its entirety. He knows, or should

April 30, 1986
Oral Questions
know, that the code of conduct for Ministers has been complied with by the Minister. He in fact divested himself entirely of his assets which are in a blind trust. If the Hon. Member makes that simple inquiry of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, he will discover that for himself.
With respect to the details of that blind trust, he will not get that information for very obvious and explainable reasons.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: What about appearances?


MANAGEMENT OF BLIND TRUSTS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, how blind can a trust be when your spouse is managing it? How many other members of Cabinet have so-called blind trusts being managed by their spouses?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that assertion is totally false.


John Edward Broadbent: It is a question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: How many others?


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Erik Nielsen: The information as to the identity of the trustee of the blind trust is in the public domain. If the Hon. Member wishes to examine the facts carefully, he will find it is Victoria and Grey, I believe, the successor to the National Bank.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The joint Canada-B.C. report on offshore oil and gas exploration was released last night. The overwhelming body of evidence given to the panel revealed the dangers of offshore oil and gas exploration and the widespread opposition to the drilling. Therefore, will the Minister give his assurances that the 1972 moratorium will remain in place?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the time to study more fully than has been possible until now the report to which the Hon. Member refers.
I am very predisposed toward some of the concerns he has continually expressed on this subject and I will take them fully into account when I read the report.


OIL TANKER TRAFFIC
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, that answer doesn't mean diddly to people in British Columbia. The Minister has been studying the report for the last two years. He is aware
that the lifting of the moratorium will allow oil tankers to ply those internal waters. Therefore, will he assure this House that he will study the implications of both oil tanker traffic and exploration and production before even considering lifting that moratorium?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will take all relevant factors into account and I will be guided primarily by environmental considerations.


ACID RAIN-UNITED STATES FUNDING
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister. Recent dispatches from Washington indicate that the U.S. administration has no budget proposals for spending the $5 billion recommended by the acid rain envoys. To make things worse, the administration opposes congressional action on acid rain control legislation. What on earth is happening to the promises that were made in March at the summit meeting in Washington?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, clearly the Hon. Member is basing his question on one or two newspaper reports that appeared this morning and perhaps last night. I think we should beware the man who reads only one or two news reports and so bases his queries. The fact is that Energy Secretary Herrington said before a high level congressional committee as follows:
By late summer appropriate mechanisms for the full implementation of the-
Canada-U.S.:
-envoys' report will be in place and our continuing research and regulatory programs will have been reviewed for increasing opportunities for innovation and for consistency with the envoys' report objectives.


CONGRESSMAN'S COMMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, what are the Minister's comments, then, about Congressman Henry Waxman, who wryly commented about these developments: "We really fooled those Canadians"?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I defer to the Hon. Member on all matters relating to foolishness. I think the Hon. Member would be well advised to read the transcript of what was actually said in the relevant congressional committee. The Energy Secretary went on to say:
Technology transfer-
In other words, for the purpose of acid rain control:
-can be promoted by resolving present regulatory constraints that may work against innovation. This is under way and the acceptance of the envoys' reportby the U.S. administration:
-has given new impetus to this process-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Michael McMillan: It is clear in black and white. The Hon. Member only needs to read it.
April 30, 1986


FORESTRY
Mr. Aurele Gervais (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Forestry. Many of my constituents are concerned about the serious insect infestation by the spruce and jackpine budworm. I know I am speaking for many of my colleagues from across Canada and from all Parties who are concerned with the same devastating problem. Will the Minister indicate to the House what the federal Government is doing to control this infestation and to protect our forests?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, First, the Canadian Forestry Service supplies the advice, support, and research in that particular matter. The decision about what pesticide to use is absolutely in the hands of the provinces. We try to advise them but they make the final decision and issue the permits.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Forestry. He will be aware that Great Lakes Forest Products Limited in Thunder Bay is closing its wafer board plant tomorrow. Will the Minister personally intervene with that company to seek a one year delay that would allow the workers in the community to put together a package that would be designed to save the 150 jobs in question?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker* that question should properly be directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. However, I will take it as a representation from the Hon. Member and contact the company.


DEFERRED TAXES INQUIRY
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister will know that this company has, in the past, owed as much as $130 million in deferred taxes. Will he join with his colleague in contacting the company and suggest very strongly that the wise use of that taxpayers' money would be to keep the company operating?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member misunderstands the meaning of deferred taxes. They are a bookkeeping entry, not taxes that are owed to the Government of Canada. These companies pay their taxes that are owing to the Government of Canada as they are due. Deferred tax is a bookkeeping treatment to keep the amount of tax payable, in a bookkeeping sense, on a fairly
Oral Questions
level basis. It does not represent at all taxes that are owing to the Government of Canada.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. This morning the Prime Minister announced that he will give back the 2.5 cents per litre that he has imposed on farming since last September. When will the Government reinstate the 1985 initial price for wheat? How does he expect Canadian farmers to survive on $3 a bushel for wheat when American farmers are getting over $6 a bushel?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that someone rose in the House to ask a question about some important economic issues that the Prime Minister addressed this morning in a press conference.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: The Hon. Member should be getting up to congratulate the Prime Minister for making an announcement concerning agriculture and energy issues that affect the whole country. He should be congratulating him for taking the opportunity to sit down with farm leaders from across the country before going to the summit at Tokyo in order to take their concerns directly to the summit meeting. That is what he should be doing, instead of getting up and bad mouthing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles James Mayer: -a situation that he realizes is very difficult.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: It is obvious that the Hon. Minister does not want to answer the question.


FREIGHT RATE FREEZE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Prime Minister claimed that he would freeze freight rates. Will the Minister admit now that all that has been done by the Government is to pressure the grain transportation agency to revise its estimates on grain deliveries? The Government is not bringing in any legislation to do this; it is strictly a smoke and mirrors show.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's own Province of Ontario is the third largest grain producer. He should know that what the Prime Minister announced this morning will benefit not only the west, but Ontario farmers and other farmers across the country. The measures announced by the

April 30, 1986
Oral Questions
Prime Minister this morning will save Canadian farmers about $200 million. The $40 million that he is talking about, which is a freeze on the freight rates for the WGTA, will save Canadian farmers $40 million in the coming year. That is what is important.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Minister is no doubt aware that industrial pollution is a serious problem in my area, and I would like to ask him whether there has been any progress in negotiations with Quebec and Noranda on building an acid manufacturing plant, a $110 million project that would remove 50 per cent of the 500,000 tons of sulphur dioxide emitted yearly in my region by Noranda mines.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, Quebec produces about one million tonnes of acid rain-causing emissions a year. Half of those emissions originate from one company alone, Noranda. In accordance with a federal-provincial agreement signed in February, 1985, the Quebec Government is now negotiating with Noranda on a control program. For our part the federal Government has committed itself to a fair and equitable contribution to the cost of a control program affecting Noranda, especially in connection with the acid plant to which the Hon. Member made reference. We expect those negotiations to be completed very soon and to be able to sign an agreement with Quebec and the company concerned shortly thereafter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION CONCERNING STANDARDS REQUIRED OF JAPANESE AND KOREAN CAR MANUFACTURERS

Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Since General Motors has threatened to close down its plant at Sainte-Therese and the Americans are not particularly anxious
to invest in Quebec because of the preferential treatment granted the Korean car manufacturer Hyundai, does the Government intend to apply to Korean and Japanese manufacturers the same criteria it applies to the Americans with respect to Canadian content and assembly done in Canada?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that as of January 1, 1987, a 6 per cent duty is being put on cars imported from Korea. Furthermore, my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, is presently carrying on discussions with both the Japanese and Korean car manufacturers to see what can be done to alleviate the concerns that he has so ably expressed.



INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER WILL ANNOUNCE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN CARS DURING VISIT TO KOREA AND JAPAN

John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Since these imports are a threat to thousands of jobs in the automobile industry in Quebec, does the Minister intend to ask the Prime Minister to announce restrictions on imports of foreign cars during his visit to Korea and Japan?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that I am aware of the briefings that the Prime Minister has received with respect to trade issues. As the Hon. Member knows, he is visiting both Japan and Korea. I believe there will be some discussions during that visit.


Mr. Speaker:: One question, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount.


Donald James Johnston: Did Your Honour say one short question?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, one short question.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I will ask my question, then, of the Deputy Prime Minister. In a press conference this morning the Prime Minister said that he was prepared to give his Minister the benefit of the doubt. If there was no perceived conflict of
April 30, 1986

interest would the Deputy Prime Minister tell us to what doubt the Prime Minister was referring?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. gentleman was watching. However, I carefully watched that press conference throughout. I heard no such words used by the Prime Minister. Since that time I have had the opportunity of going over the transcript very briefly. I have seen no such words attributed to the Prime Minister in the written copy.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has sent me a letter outlining a desire to raise a question of privilege arising out of yesterday's question of privilege. I cannot allow that. She knows that yesterday I invited her, if she wished, to submit further precedents to me. She may do that, in writing, if she wishes.
I must say that I was ready to rule on the question. Since she has not sent me a further letter I am prepared to wait one more day, if she wishes to submit precedents to me.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question of privilege can be raised only once. It cannot be raised a second day.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was responding to Your Honour's request to provide precedents. She is prepared to provide them orally on the floor of the House of Commons. If Your Honour would prefer to have them submitted-


Mr. Speaker:: I will accept that this is a misunderstanding.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member would be placing the Chair in a position of creating a precedent whereby a question of privilege could be raised one day after another. The Chair cannot allow that. The Hon. Member has misunderstood what I was saying yesterday, perhaps it is my fault, and that is fine. What I meant is that if the Hon. Member has anything more to submit to me, then she should do so. I invite her to do so. However, since the Hon. Member is an experienced Member of two Houses she should know that that should be submitted to the Speaker.
Committee Reports



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Governement's response to the following fourteen petitions: 331-52, 331-53, 331-79, 331-87, 331-119, 331-123, 331-125, 331-126, 331-129, 331-140, 331-142, 331-166, 331-183 and 331-184.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the official parliamentary delegation which represented Canada at the 75th Interparliamentary Conference held in Mexico City from April 7 to 12, 1986.
I would like to emphasize the major role played by the Canadian delegation in connection with a unanimous resolution by conference members on international terrorism.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2) the committee requests a government response to the recommendation in paragraph 15(b).
This report addresses a number of concerns relating to the Public Service Commission. First, the staffing system in the Public Service is cumbersome. The average time to fill a staff vacancy ranges from 136 days to 160 days. This can be reduced significantly while maintaining employees' rights of appeal.
Second, the monitoring of staffing activities delegated to government departments, such as affirmative action programs, is inadequate.

April 30, 1986
Petitions
Third, the Commission's claim that the reverse order of merit is applied when there are lay-offs is of concern, since guidelines do not exist for its application.
Finally, the problems of the division of responsibilities between the Commission and the Treasury Board Secretariat, first reported on in 1982 by the committee, should be resolved without further delay.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Aurèle Gervais: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a duly certified petition signed by 34 of my constituents who request that the House require the Government of Ontario to remove all restrictions placed on the Metropolitan Police Force in regard to laying charges under Section 251 of the Criminal Code against the operators of the Morgentaler Clinic.
[ Translation]


Aurèle Gervais: Mr. Speaker, I have here in this box a certified petition signed by more than 3,500 of my constituents-3,500, Mr. Speaker-from the riding of Timmins-Chapleau. They are strongly opposed to the portion of the Fraser study which advocates that pornography be legalized in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, their views are more fully expressed in this 3,500-signature petition which I am presenting to you.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from the City of Kamloops in British Columbia who remind us that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has announced that workers laid off after December 31, 1985 will have their pension benefits deducted from their unemployment insurance benefits, thus effectively eliminating the benefit to the workers of the pension package. It calls upon the Government to renew the previous position which would enable people to keep their entire unemployment insurance benefits without the deduction of pension income.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege as Member of Parliament for Moncton to present to the House a petition signed by a number of constituents of southeastern New Brunswick. It has been duly certified by the
Clerk of Petitions. They outline in their petition the importance of Canadian National and its shop facilities to the economy of the greater Moncton area. They indicate their concern with regard to the current assessment being conducted by Canadian National and the effect that assessment may have upon our economy.


André Ouellet: Talk to your Minister!


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am duty bound to present a petition signed by my constituents of Rexton, Richibouctou and the surrounding region who deeply regret the consequences of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which deny full unemployment insurance benefits to early retirees.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-106, an Act to amend the Young Offenders Act, the Criminal Code, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 539 and 540.


Mr. McKinnon: 1. In 1985, how many kilograms of cheese were imported under the 1985 allocated cheese import quota system?
April 30, 1986

2. In 1985, what was the amount in kilograms of the largest single annual quota allocated to any firm or individual?


Charles Joseph Clark: 1. Statistics Canada reported 20,693,000 kg. of imported cheese in 1985. Permit issuance for imported cheese totalled 20,393,420 kg. for 1985.
2. Information with respect to the allocations each firm or individual has received is deemed, under current government policy, to be confidential and, accordingly, cannot be divulged. That policy, however, is under review at this time.


Mr. McKinnon: Does the government briefing document given to possible purchasers of the Graving Dock at Esquimalt, B.C., list among the development opportunities the construction of icebreakers for Soviet bloc countries and, if so (a) is this the same Graving Dock which is barred to Polish fishing vessels because of a possible security risk (b) how many requests for construction of Soviet bloc icebreakers have been sought or received?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Acting Minister of Public Works):: The briefing document provided to potential purchasers of the Esquimalt Graving Dock did not list among possible development opportunities the construction of icebreakers for Soviet bloc countries.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT AND RELATED ACTS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 29, consideration of Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the
Canada Shipping Act
Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 5,6 and 11 (Mr. Angus, p. 12764).
Mr. Speaker:: There seemed to be a little uncertainty about the end of the ruling I gave yesterday. I thought we had heard arguments. I said I would hear arguments today, but other Hon. Members indicated they wanted to put arguments yesterday. I gather there has been some interpretation of the ruling I gave yesterday that I would allow further argument now. Therefore, I am now prepared to allow further procedural argument if there are those who wish to do so.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being allowed to make representation on an amendment presented by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud). In suggesting yesterday that the amendment may be out of order, the Chair made reference to two citations; first, Citation 773(7) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition and, second, Citation 246(3) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition.
The problem we have is that both of these citatations are based upon procedures that are no longer followed by the House. Beauchesne's Fourth Edition was written at a time when all spending Bills were based upon detailed resolutions that were debated and open to amendment in a Committee of the Whole before the actual Bill was given first reading. In December, 1968, the rules of the House were changed and the resolution stage was eliminated. It was replaced by a Message from the Governor General recommending the purposes of the Bill and printed on the Order Paper and Notices and on the Bill itself.
Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(7), was written after the adoption of the new rules but it refers to a Bill that was introduced very shortly after these rules were adopted when it was the practice to make the Royal Recommendation very detailed, almost as detailed, indeed, as the old resoltuion. Under our present practices, however, the Royal Recommendation is not at all detailed. It merely states that Her Excellency recommends to the House a Bill entitled, and so on.
The purpose of the Recommendation procedure is to preserve the financial initiative of the Crown, that is, to give effect to the constitutional provision that the House cannot spend any more money than recommended by the Government. That is the only purpose of the Recommendation.
The amendment of the Hon. Member for Westmorland- Kent does not create an additional new expenditure. It does not impose a new charge upon the Treasury and therefore does not go beyond the purposes of the Bill as recommended by the Governor General.
The citations mentioned by the Chair have been over-taken by time. If they are to be taken literally, they preclude any amendment to the Bill at all, because the form of the Royal Recommendation is that the Governor General recommends, not just certain provisions of the Bill, but the whole Bill. That

April 30, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
is what the Recommendation says. Such an interpretation is not what is intended by the rules. Amendments not creating a new expenditure should not be ruled out of order if they are otherwise relevant to the Bill. This amendment is relevant to the Bill and it does not create a new expenditure.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there any further procedural argument? I thank the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) for, if I am allowed to say it, one of the more interesting procedural arguments the Chair has heard.
With respect to the case made by the Hon. Member, I think he knows that whatever the desirability of arriving at a new procedure, notwithstanding his argument that the Beauchesne's Fifth Edition citation arises shortly after the adoption of the new rules, it has been confirmed many times by rulings from the Chair since that time.
Whatever the quality of the argument the Hon. Member is making, and without entering into, I hope, an obiter dicta, may I say to the Hon. Member that the Chair has already admitted as admissible amendments to the Bill, including in this particular case, amendments to Clause 4.
I believe the Hon. Member would expect me to understand the latter part of his submission as argument, let me put it that way. I think I am going to find, having looked at the matter, as he knows, at some length in advance, that Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have to be ruled out on the basis of our precedents and their relationship to the Royal Recommendation, as I indicated yesterday.
1 believe I might want to pursue that matter further with the Hon. Member on a more general basis. Perhaps that is the best way to deal with it. Therefore, resuming debate.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise in support of the amendment of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), with respect to Clause 4. The effect of the three motions put forward by my colleague would essentially be to bring Clause 4 under some sort of public review and parliamentary control; some sort of reporting and review regime which is not provided for in the present structure of the Act.
My concern and the concern of my colleague is, of course, the virtually limitless taxing powers this gives to the Canadian Coast Guard. We know it is essentially that the bureaucrats at the operating level will be making the decisions. What concerns me is that Clause 4 says nothing of the cost accounting structure of the Canadian Coast Guard. It says nothing as to target recovery percentages or target fee levy percentages. It simply places the power in the hands of, supposedly the Minister, but more realistically his officials, to recover costs, however those might be defined, with a view to relieving the public purse and with no consideration provided for of any form of assessment of the impact on users of canals, waterways, seaways and, of course, the Great St. Lawrence Seaway about which my colleague is so rightly and responsibly concerned.
I am sorry we have not had any participation as yet from Hon. Members on the other side of the House concerning the amendments put forward by my colleague. If these amendments are in any way deficient, if they overly circumscribe the powers and responsibilities of the Government, or if they would impose impossible operating burdens on the Ministry, let the Progressive Conservative Members say so. Let them stand up and put on the record their criticisms of these amendments. But just to let the amendments get voted down and the Bill to pass in its current form is not the way those concerned with the exercise of democracy should be conducting themselves in this House. What it essentially represents is a "hear no evil, see no evil, do not evil" type of philosophy where it is the apparent belief of Government that, after, all, the Minister, being the Minister, cannot do any wrong with this legislation. That, as we know from prior experience, particularly with the Liberal Government, is far from being the truth.
We know after all that when Ministers are given virtually unlimited freedom to set rates of charges or recovery there is a tendency, or temptation if you like, to rule arbitrarily by legislative fiat. I think the amendments proposed by my hon. colleague are very worthy of attention and incorporation in the final form of this legislation.
Under the Bill as it is now written, the only public review provision is that a regulation is to be published in The Canada Gazette at least 90 days before the proposed date with a reasonable opportunity afforded within those 90 days to make representations to the Minister. That really is a pretty loose, limp and eminently disregardable form of public review and input.
On the other hand, the measures proposed by my colleague are reasonable. They would not overly constraint the Government. I believe any Government should be able to live with them. They do not provide for lengthy hearings, for legal contestatory processes or for expensive review boards. In fact, they do not provide for any patronage appointments; that may be one reason why they are perceived as being deficient.
The amendments do provide that a committee of the House would, on the written request of 20 Members, review the regulation, and that would be the public forum. I think that is an excellent idea. Let us face it; with the necessity of getting the written request of 20 Members it would not be a rubber stamp. It should not be the sort of thing that one Member, however diligently she or he might ply his or her own parish pump, could put through willy-nilly. Presumably, it would depend on a degree of common understanding and acceptance that there was something worth questioning and, of course, it would depend on a degree of commitment on the part of Members of the House who wish to examine the regulation and hold hearings on it.
Motion No. 6 provides for the automatic review of Clause 4 by the Transport Committee every two years. Again, I think
April 30, 1986

this is an excellent idea. It is not an over-imposition on the Government. Presumably, the Government of the day will still have a working majority on the Transport Committee. Presumably an automatic review would be an opportunity to air concerns, to propose alternatives, to discuss the experience and to analyse the degree to which the objectives have been accomplished. It will not be merely a bi-annual bear-pit such as what might come about if there was a sort of tribunal process. Again, that is something a Government that is truly interested in the exercise of democracy could easily incorporate.
Motion No. 11 provides that the clause not come into effect before January 1, 1988. I think this shows how carefully the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan has thought out the amendments. He is not seeking to establish a process that would immediately bring down complaints on the Government. Under this sort of provision, there would have to be a working-out period in which the users, the exporters and the Government itself would have a chance to look at the experience and, indeed, would be forced to do so if they were to come before the parliamentary committee and cogently reason the case for the changes they might propose.
I think it is worth while to review some of the opposition there has been to Bill C-75, and particularly to Clause 4. We know, of course, that boaters everywhere in Canada, as represented by the Council of Boating Organizations of Canada and through their own personal submissions, have stated their concern about the way Clause 4 might be used. The whole principle of Government by laws and not Government by men is to protect the citizen from the arbitrary exercise of power. I am afraid that by setting up Clause 4 in the way it is, the Government is in fact permitting, and may well be encouraging, the exercise of arbitrary power over the boaters of Canada, although, after all, boating may not be a momentous area of human endeavour.
The St. Lawrence Shipowners Association has said the following about the Bill:
-we do not agree that we should give the government a blank cheque, which would allow it to set up a fee system about which we know nothing at the present time.
I recall to Members of Parliament the title of the recent discussion paper issued by the Ministry of External Affairs. One of the key words in that title was "competitiveness". I think that is something that has been generally ignored in the framing of Bill C-75. By allowing the Government an unrestrained taxing power restricted only by the total cost-but as I pointed out, that cost is susceptible to many different ways of determination-the Government has set up the users of maritime transportation routes for a possible beating that could very drastically affect their competitive position.
The Seafarers' International Union has said the following:
We cannot have full cost recovery if our Canadian marine industry is to survive. On certain cargoes, the lake companies will just not be able to compete-Therefore we will not have these cargoes.
Algoma Steel, Stelco and Dofasco have said the following:
Canada Shipping Act
-Our big over-all concern is to do with the seaway system itself, upon which we depend, and its lessened competitiveness.
They also mention the chronic over-supply of their commodity, steel, in the present world market.
The International Association of Great Lakes Ports has said:
The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system is a shared asset of Canada and the U.S. For the first time in the history of the seaway, each country is moving unilaterally on matters involving the seaway-
That is a warning of which the House should take very careful notice.
The Dominion Marine Association has said the following:
-this could amount to an additional $1.65 per tonne for every tonne that moved through the Seaway last year. Given the fact that traffic was down 20 per cent from 1984, this cost could have a dramatic impact on future traffic patterns.
Many other organizations have had something to say about this Bill including the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, the Montreal Board of Trade, Canada Steamships Ltd., the Canadian Shippers' Council, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the Prince Edward Island Potato Marketing Board. From the number of submissions that were heard in committee, it should be very apparent to the Government that it is establishing a measure which could come back to haunt the Government, a measure which could impair Canada's international competitiveness and could influence and, generally, harmfully modify possible decisions taken by shippers.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), has referred to this Bill as a Trojan horse document. He said that vessel owners and operators do not know what the cost is going to be. That, I believe, violates a fundamental principle of fairness and equity. I believe it violates a very normal commercial principle, which is that when a good or service is demanded or ordered, it is done so on certain assumptions and with at least a very approximate knowledge of price. That approximate knowledge will now be gone because users will be subject to whatever levy the Government decides to demand, and there is little provision for the modulation of those levies within the frame of reference of what the market can afford.
I would again call on my colleagues on the opposite side to rise to tell us what is wrong with these amendments that they are not going to accept. I think these are reasonable changes which would enshrine a number of key commercial and, indeed, moral principles in this Bill, principles that are sadly lacking at the present time.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity this afternoon during the debate on Bill C-75, to announce that the Liberal Party, the Official Opposition in the House, deplores the Government's decision to maintain Clause 4 in Bill C-75.
My colleague, the previous speaker, moved an amendment to have this clause struck out of the Bill. Unfortunately, after being voted down in Committee, the amendment was rejected by the Speaker in the House on procedural grounds.

April 30, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
I must say that if we cannot have Clause 4 struck out of Bill C-75, at least we will not object to the amendments presented by our colleague-the amendment before the House today.
But why should we agree to an amendment that is not as good as we would like it to be? It is because a bird in hand is better than no bird at all. What Clause 4 of the Bill gives the Government is the kind of absolute authority which in this day and age is unthinkable and unacceptable.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) has taken advantage of a Bill that amends the Canada Shipping Act, and the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act. Here we have a series of non-controversial measures, measures that are acceptable and praiseworthy and which could have been debated very quickly in the House and could have obtained the unanimous approval of all Members on both sides of the House.
But the Government saw in Bill C-75 a unique opportunity to create a new authority which I find quite unacceptable, the authority to impose a Canadian Coast Guard maritime service cost recovery program.
Clause 4 of Bill C-75 is the one we find so unacceptable and so reprehensible. We denounce it and we simply cannot understand why the Government chose to ignore all representations made in that respect.
The previous speaker listed a series of associations and organizations which have found fault with Clause 4 and urged the Government not to proceed with this part of the Bill.
Why do we share the views of all those who appeared before the committee to denounce this part of the Bill? Because the percentage of recovery, the charges imposed, the way they will be collected and, in short, who will pick up the tab are all matters left to the full discretion of the Governor in Council-the Minister of Transport, of course, but also his colleagues the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) who, as we know, are one-track-minded when it comes to finding new sources of revenues to reduce the Government's deficit.
Although some people do have confidence in the Minister of Transport, most of those who gave evidence before the Committee on Transport and the committee which considered Bill C-75, have strong reservations about the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board.
Nevertheless, we cannot agree with leaving the assessment of these costs to the entire discretion of Cabinet. In fact, that is what the Minister of Transport wanted when he presented the Bill and asked the Committee to vote in favour of the principle of service charges and give him and his Cabinet colleagues carte blanche to do as they see fit.
The Coast Guard services referred to in Clause 4 are aids to navigation, dredging, vessel traffic services, ice breaking services, vessel escort services and sounding. Since the Bill fails to define exact perimeters, there may be a host of other services,
as yet undefined, which may also be affected and may become a financial burden for people in the shipping industry, who because of the economic situation are having considerable problems at this time.
If we stick to a rigid interpretation of Clause 4, service charges would apply only to navigation services and not necessarily to the entire Marine Transportation Program. Now it is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that total expenditures for the Marine Transportation Program in 1985-86 were set at $824 million. The cost recovery now being requested for the same Coast Guard services represents about 3 per cent of total expenditures or $24.7 million.
When the Minister appeared before the Committee, he wanted to re-assure Members present, saying that his Department was not aiming at more than a 7 per cent cost recovery- in other words, 4 per cent more than the present recovery rate. He added that this would represent an increase in revenue of about $20 million.
Mr. Speaker, what worries me, and that is why I raise this point this afternoon, is that the users of these services, who have a vested interest in what is happening, are the ones who expressed their concern and made the most strenuous objections to this part of Bill C-75. And I must say they are right to be concerned, because this formula is not laid down in the Bill. I am quite prepared to believe what the Minister says, but I wonder why he failed to put it in writing in the Bill. Without wishing to doubt the Minister's word, it is obvious that he has full authority to increase the recovery percentage as and when he sees fit.
I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is doing his job-he gets paid to defend the Minister-and waxing indignant in the House. He may resent what I am saying here, but all I am doing is echoing the hundreds and hundreds of representations made to the committee Members who studied this Bill and who are saying in no uncertain terms that such absolute ministerial discretion is unacceptable. The Parliamentary Secretary's attack is not levelled against me but against all these associations and individuals who aired their grievances before the committee.
To some extent the amendment moved by the New Democratic Party clarifies the executory regulations from which would flow the Minister's absolute power. I am therefore prepared to accept the amendment because, at the very least, it does limit the extent of the power of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and his Cabinet colleagues.
I am glad to see that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) has just entered the House, because he should give more consideration to the concerns that have been expressed about Clause 4 of Bill C-75 more specifically by the Montreal Chamber of Commerce and the Montreal Board of Trade. Hopefully the President of the Treasury Board will make personal representations to the Minister of Transport
April 30, 1986

and urge his colleague to respond to the very legitimate requests of the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, and convince him to change his mind and not resort to Clause 4, at least not until the situation has been straightened out. Clause 4 should not have been included in Bill C-75 to begin with, but at least I hope the Government will accept the amendment now before the House under which the authority of the Minister would be restricted to some extent.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I remind the distinguished former Minister of his comments at second reading on October 17, 1985 as reported at page 7743 of Hansard. In responding to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) he said:
In answer to the Hon. Minister, I want to tell him that in some cases I would agree with some charges, but in other cases I think it is totally irresponsible-
That is the point of the observation which the former Minister has made. Might I ask the Hon. Member broadly and generally whether or not he totally disagrees with the Auditor General and whether or not he totally agrees?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Fernand Robichaud: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) on a point of order.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to know whether there should have been a question and comment period after the remarks of my colleague. Is that normal procedure?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately not. There is no period for questions and comments after the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary has the floor on debate.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, that may come as some surprise to the distinguished Member, who I might say has made extraordinarily interesting interventions on a number of occasions in committee and has brought forward what can only be considered as some very reasonable suggestions, as indeed did his colleague, the Hon. Member for Humer-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), in the Liberal Party, as did the New Democratic Party.
These amendments were intended to strengthen the Bill and were amendments which reflect clearly the intention of the Government to listen and respond to the comments and observations not only of opposition Parties but of the Canadian Council of Boating Associations, the Seafarers International Union, and I could go on. The list is almost without end. We
Canada Shipping Act
did listen and we did respond. The Bill is strengthened in all areas, there is no doubt about that.
Of all of the representations from the over 60 witnesses representing some 28 associations, which were heard by the legislative committee, only one brief disagreed with the fundamental principle of recovering some of the costs incurred by the Canadian Coast Guard in providing services to marine and maritime users in Canada. There was only one single disagreement. Everybody else agreed. I fail to understand what the Opposition's concern is, other than obstruction. I hesitate to say that because we are just now moving into report stage.


An Hon. Member:: It is provocation.


J. Michael Forrestall: I would ask the Hon. Member whether he is prepared to rise in his place and give unanimous consent, say tomorrow, to move to third reading. Of course he is not prepared to do that.
From the Great Lakes Seaway Corporation through to the boat users, from canoeists through to ship owners, the Dominion Marime Association, everybody agrees with the principle. To meet the very legitimate concerns and a legitimate question raised by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), the Minister has agreed not to move with this Bill in the proclamation of Clause 4 which amends Section 3.1 of the Canada Shipping Act until, at the earliest, January, 1987, or to move with the implementation of any charges until, at the latest, January 1, 1988.
I understand the arguments that have been put so far in opposition to us opening up an Act and including matters which have not as yet had the benefit of consultation. Let me respond to that. Historically we seldom open up a major piece of legislation. Here we have opened up a major piece of legislation in Canadian life, namely, the Canada Shipping Act. I think it was incumbent upon us, as we opened it, to deal with the six international conventions and five international codes, primarily dealing with safety at sea, safety of the lives of seamen, construction standards, operational standards and certification of these people in one broad category and in another broad category, the enhancement from present levels of national compensation capacity to international standards of compensation for those affected by oil pollution and spills. The movement toward that, which is 95 per cent of the Bill, is essential, urgent and must be dealt with. To raise the specious argument that nobody agrees with the right to impose certain charges for partial recovery of costs of the provision of services is bewildering, unless you consider it purely in the political context.
I repeat again, every single witness who appeared before the legislative committee, and I might add, with one exception every single witness who appeared on the freedom to move question in the Standing Committee on Transport, agreed that it is right and proper that the taxpayer recover some of the costs-not all, by any stretch of the imagination, but some of the costs of providing Coast Guard services. That is all that is contemplated. If you want to do the definitive arithmetic now

April 30, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
and preclude or prejudge the work of the consultative process, that is up to the Opposition, but we are not going to do that.
The Hon. Member for Papineau has said his piece and long since left the Chamber. He hits and misses on questions of transport, and although he is the Official Opposition's critic he rarely stays around to enter into debate or to respond to legitimate concerns and questions. Let me tell him that the Bill should stand. The proposed amendments have the effect of changing substantively the intention of the Bill. They will not serve the best interests of the Maritime community and I would urge Members to get on with the next grouping of amendments. I urge them to be careful and concerned. Every day of delay delays the imposition of international standards for the safety of the life of seamen. Any delay in that area is somewhat intolerable.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to amendments to Bill C-75 to amend the Canada Shipping Act. We have no objection to most of the contents of this Bill. Most of the contents concern modernization and other essential changes which are not subject to partisan debate. However, Clause 4 is an area of very grave concern and we have moved amendments to it which we to have supported.
Through Clause 4 the Minister is given inordinate powers to raise charges for the use of The Seaway. Clause 4.3.1 (1) presently reads:
For the purpose of defraying the cost of services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard, the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting charges relating to those services, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, aids to navigation, sounding and dredging, vessel traffic services, icebreaking services and marine aid.
(2)	Charges may be imposed pursuant to subsection (1) in relation to any
ship, regardless of whether the Canadian Coast Guard actually provides a
service to that particular ship, but-
There are then some qualifications.
The principle of user-pay is a very reasonable one. No one is objecting to the principle and that is not the issue. It is, rather, how the charges are set, what kind of appeal procedure there is, and what the effect of the charges will be. We certainly want to have reasonable payment for services which are provided, but it must be fair payment which is genuinely "user-pay". There are certainly arguments that people may be charged for services which they themselves do not use. As well, we must look at the general impact on the economy.
Shipping ultimately affects the producers of the products which are being shipped. Charges imposed on transportation are ultimately charges on the consumer or the producer. Someone must pay them. The notion that we can simply impose new charges without thinking about the impact on producers and consumers is very short-sighted. As the provision exists, it would give dictatorial powers to the Minister to decide what these charges are to be. That is objectionable. The Government has agreed to an amendment
to permit publication of proposed charges and to allow for a 90-day period during which representations can be made to the Minister. The same Minister who decided the charges in the first place would decide whether to proceed with them or change them. That is the old situation of the same person acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury in his own case. That is objectionable.
In committee we recommended a regulatory process which would provide for input in the determination of the charges by the public and the industries concerned. That was not accepted. Since that procedure was not accepted my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) has proposed three other amendments. The first motion, Motion No. 5, provides that there be an amendment to Clause 4 substituting the following:
(3)	A copy of each regulation that the Governor in Council proposes to make under subsection (1) shall be laid before either House of Parliament.
(4)	Where, within twenty sitting days after a proposed regulation is laid before either House of Parliament under subsection (3), fifteen Senators or twenty Members of the House of Commons, as the case may be, by notice in writing addressed to the Speaker, request that the proposed regulation be referred to a committee, the proposed regulation shall stand referred to the standing committee of the Senate or House of Commons, as the case may be, that deals with transportation matters, or to such other committee as the Senate or House of Commons may order.
(5)	A committee to which a proposed regulation is referred under subsection (4) shall forthwith consider the proposed regulation and report thereon to the Senate or House of Commons, as the case may be, within thirty sitting days after the referral is made.
One could go into other details of the amendment, but its purpose is clearly to provide for a parliamentary review and, through the committee system, for users and the industries concerned to make representations. There will have to be some public accountability, not just a letter to the Minister-


J. Michael Forrestall: Do you not understand the role of the Standing Committee on Transport? It can call such questions at any time it wants.


Iain Francis Angus: Hold it, Mike. You'll get another shot.


J. Michael Forrestall: I'll give her a shot. Obviously she doesn't understand the process.


Lynn McDonald: The provision would make it possible for Members of Parliament to have this referral made. That is not possible under the existing Clause 4. It is important that this provision be in place. The committee is dominated by Government Members who may, by majority, decide not to hear it. They could hear it if they wished to, but if a majority of the Government Members decided they did not want to hear the matter, there would be no hearing. This would give Parliamentarians who do not belong to the Party in power, and who may have concerns about this, an opportunity which they do not have under the existing clause to ensure that there is public accountability on this matter. Motion No. 6 reads as follows:
(10) Two years after the coming into force of section 3.1 and every two years thereafter, the Minister shall refer section 3.1 to the Standing Committee on Transport for the purpose of reviewing its economic impact on
April 30, 1986

users of services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard and the committee
shall report not later than the sixtieth sitting day of the House, following the
request for review.
This is a very simple amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that there is a review of the economic impact of the charges. Transportation is enormously important. Charges which are too high could certainly cause enormous harm. This would ensure that there is a review before a deteriorating situation has too long to develop.
Our third motion, No. 11, reads very simply:
by proclamation, with the exception of section 4 which shall come into force on or after January 1, 1988.
This is to permit some period of adjustment before the imposition of these charges. They should not come into effect immediately, which the Minister has said he would not agree with in any event. Its purpose is to clarify within the legislation that there will not be an immediate impact and to specify a time when the impact of these charges would be felt.
Let us consider the amount of money involved. The current estimate for Coast Guard services is $800 million, and costs usually go up. The present legislation would permit full recovery of these charges. The Minister said there would only be recovery of a small portion of that amount, but that could be changed. There is no reason why the Minister could not recover any amount he wished. That is a very substantial amount of money.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out, particularly to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall), that a vast number of witnesses appeared before the committee raising their concerns. They included representatives of the industries, producers, farmers, unions, workers, and recreational users. They saw major problems with Clause 4 and called for review and adjustments. They called for the kinds of changes which we are recommending through these three amendments.


J. Michael Forrestall: They supported it in principle, didn't they?


Lynn McDonald: We support it in principle, but we very much want these important changes to allow for public input. We do not want to allow the Minister the dictatorial powers to impose charges which may be harmful to the industry. That is what industry and union representatives have said and that is what we are very much supporting here. Principle is fine but not at any cost. The economic impact has to be a part of that review.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to say a few words on Bill C-75 and on the motion before us today. Right from the beginning, when this legislation was brought to the House by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), I very quickly noticed Clause 4 as it affects my part of the country and certainly my province. I spoke about how important the potato industry is to Prince Edward Island. We ship about 80 per cent of our potatoes to international
Canada Shipping Act
markets. Most of those shipments are through three ports, Summerside, Charlottetown and Georgetown. This legislation has a very detrimental effect on that industry. I realize that during the committee stage the Minister went some distance in saying that Clause 4 will not be proclaimed until January 1,
1987.	It also may be that the actual charges would not be imposed until January 1, 1988. However, that is little consolation to the people I represent.
I looked over some of the briefs presented to the committee.
I have one here from the Potato Marketing Board on behalf of the Prince Edward Island potato industry. This may be the brief that the Parliamentary Secretary spoke about. They spelled the situation out in real terms. Their studies indicate that the cost of icebreaking services alone is roughly $1,000 an hour. They indicated in their brief that in the winter ships generally need icebreaking assistance for about 30 hours in each direction in and out of Summerside. That is where most of the potatoes are shipped from. That would mean a total recovery, and we are not expecting that, of $60,000 a vessel if they were to recover all of the operating costs. Even if you go down to only 15 per cent of that figure, we are still talking about $9,000. They point out very explicitly that that is enough to kill the industry, and certainly customer orders in the export market.
I do not believe the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), and other Members of Parliament not from the potato belt, really realize how thin the margin is in that industry. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) is here, and he knows full well that his Government put $6 million toward subsidizing the potato industry and as a diversion program in order to get crops off the market. Our competitors have large crops and there was just no market for potatoes. Prince Edward Islanders appreciated that $6 million of aid, but I must say, as far as the diversion aspect is concerned, it was far too little and too late. Had the money been put in when it was needed, it would probably would have taken enough potatoes off the market to enable farmers to get a better price for their product.
When the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans travelled to Atlantic Canada, almost every person who presented briefs was against Bill C-75.


Mr. Skeily:: Some 150 groups.


George Roland Henderson: Yes, they were totally opposed. I cannot understand why the Parliamentary Secretary says there was no one against it.
Once this legislation is enacted it will never come back to this House for review during this Government's term. The Government talks about consuitation. It is easy to consult when, as my colleague from Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) said yesterday, the Minister has a loaded gun and if you do not go along with it he will pull the trigger.
Let us look at other briefs which were presented to the committee. I talked to the National Farmers' Union in Prince
12800

April 30, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
Edward Island. They are a representative group of producers. In their brief they in no way agree to Bill C-75, specifically Clause 4.


J. Michael Forrestall: But they do not disagree with the principle of recovery of some charges. Respond to that.


George Roland Henderson: I look at another group, Women in Support of Agriculture. I will put this on the record so the Parliamentary Secretary will know the correspondence his Minister is getting. I am sure his Minister does not tell him what is going on. This is a copy of a letter to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). It says:
Re: BILL C-75 CLAUSE 4
Dear Sir: Women in Support of Agriculture express our gravest concern that you may be charging user fees on dredging, vessel traffic services, icebreaking services and escorting services.
This added cost would be very detrimental to our primary industries here on Prince Edward Island.
During the fall and winter months, many of our seed potatoes are moved by boat to offshore markets. We have worked for years to establish our seed markets and with the competitiveness of the potato industry and the low prices we have been receiving for our product, our farmers cannot afford this added cost.
We therefore urge you to delete Clause 4 from Bill C-75.
Yours truly,
Wanda MacMurdo Provincial President Women in Support of Agriculture
Carbon copies of that letter went to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), the Hon. Member for Mal-peque (Mr. Gass) and the Hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Binns). If they had been listening to and expressing the concerns of Prince Edward Islanders the Conservatives would not have fared quite so badly in the provincial election. The Parliamentary Secretary must look at some of this. I do not care how many groups came forward and said they support something in principle. I can tell you that the people hurt by this legislation, the ordinary primary producer, is not supporting it in principle or in any other way.


J. Michael Forrestall: Do you want free transportation in Canada? Is that what you are in favour of? No charges at all?


George Roland Henderson: The Parliamentary Secretary and his Minister and Government will find that out. The Parliamentary Secretary will not only have a hard time getting his nomination, as he did the last time in his own riding, he will have a hard time getting elected. When I point the finger at him, he is gone.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am what?


Raymond John Skelly: That is harsh talk.


J. Michael Forrestall: Are you opposed to any cost recovery?


George Roland Henderson: The Parliamentary Secretary wants to go back home now and again, and come over to Prince Edward Island, up through New Brunswick and in the areas hurting-


J. Michael Forrestall: I probably spend as much time in Prince Edward Island as you do.


George Roland Henderson: He has been sitting around the corridors of Ottawa for far too long. He is in this sort of greenhouse environment where everything is fine. When he gets out and actually hears what people are saying, then I think he will take a different view. I expect that after this little talk I have been able to give for the benefit of the Parliamentary Secretary, he will get up and support those of us in the Opposition. I know he has a heart behind that sort of-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Cold facade.


George Roland Henderson: Yes, cold facade. He does have a heart. He would not try to do that to the good people of Prince Edward Island. He will talk to the President of the Treasury Board and his other colleagues who have influence in the Government and suggest that this clause should be deleted because it will affect them when they go back to the polls in the next election. He will warn them that not only will he not return, the Government will not be re-elected.
In conclusion, anyone who is involved in the primary industries in Atlantic Canada does not support Clause 4 in Bill C-75. I hope the Government listens to what the Opposition and other people are saying. While we on this side agree with much of Bill C-75, we certainly do not support Clause 4. I hope those Members on the Government side will come to their senses, delete that clause, and allow the rest of the Bill to proceed as expeditiously as possible.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate. At the outset, let me make it perfectly clear that we believe the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) are not proposing these measures of their own free will. Both those individuals are very well versed in the transportation needs of this country, and we believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the top level of the Cabinet are forcing them to bring in this legislation. They are being told that they must grind this money out of Canadians.
We direct our criticism at the Government as a whole, on the basis of principle. We are opposed to the Government's principle on cost recovery. The people who live and work on the coast of British Columbia live in one of the most dangerous and expensive environments in this country.
Other Canadians benefit from the Trans-Canada Highway, for which there are no tolls. Those people who live in Bella Bella, Bella Coola and the northern ends and the west coast of Vancouver Island paid for that highway out of their tax dollars. While they shared that cost with other Canadians, they are being asked to pick up the tab for their version of the Trans-Canada Highway, the safety and search and rescue aspect at sea. They are being asked to foot the bill for marine aids to navigation and for the harbours that are really the
April 30, 1986

highways and receiving ports of their communities. Those costs are being imposed on these people when the cost for other forms of transportation, such as the Trans-Canada Highway, are provided to others for nothing. It is interesting to note that the Trans-Canada Highway does not go to most areas on Vancouver Island or the coast of British Columbia. In fact, there are no highways.
This wrong-headed policy of the Government has taken effect in other areas as well. It is also incorporated in the Aeronautics Act. The Government's unique approach to user fees is punitive on certain areas of the country.
The question we are dealing with is an $800 million bill for Coast Guard services. When the Minister first appeared before the committee he said that the Government would get back 15 per cent. That means $120 million will be loaded on the backs of Canadians who live in those areas of this country where they cannot get any benefit from the major transportation system. Those people must depend on air and marine travel. The economies of their communities depend on that transportation.
I am talking about people in the fishing industry. They will be charged user fees by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the form of higher licences. They will be charged a finnage tax on their catch. They will be charged for the use of aids in navigation. In the past, many fishermen on the West Coast have had trouble at sea. When that occurs in the future they will have to pay for the search and rescue service.
The time has come to stop this foolishness of imposing these costs in an unco-ordinated fashion. Unfortunately, the Parliamentary Secretary is leaving. I hope he will return to hear the rest of my story about how other Canadians are being affected by this legislation. Tourism is very important to this depressed area of British Columbia that has experienced enormous problems as a result of the recession. Although that area depends on tourism, the Government has done very little in this area.
The British Columbia ferry system is already a high priced ticket for the people who live in those communities. They will experience even higher rates because the Government will impose user fees. That is absolutely wrong. It will impaire the growth of the economy of those communities.
The forest industry in British Columbia is tremendously dependent on the marine transportation system. The imposition of higher costs and user fees for the marine transportation system will make it even more difficult for that industry to survive in the face of tremendous American pressure and the lack of appropriate support from the Government of Canada.
Let us make no mistake that this policy is wrong-headed. It is punitive and discriminatory and should be stopped immediately. Many Canadians live in those small out ports and smaller coastal communities. They pay an enormous price to live and work in those areas. Their food costs are extremely high and the cost for other products which they buy, if they are available, are a third to double the price of what is paid in
Canada Shipping Act
the major centres. Yet the Government is advocating the imposition of the additional cost of user fees.
That will not severely affect the people in Toronto, Winnipeg or Montreal, but it will certainly have a massive impact in areas such as Port Hardy, Campbell River, Port Alberni, Prince Rupert and other smaller communities up and down the coast of British Columbia. It will have a massive impact on the coast of Labrador and Newfoundland and in the Atlantic Provinces. I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary would be so diligent in defending the Government for a policy that would have such a devastating effect in his own province.
This policy is another indication that the Government's left hand does not know what its right hand is doing. My colleague indicates that the Government only has a right hand in terms of its philosophy and approach.
It was clear from questioning in the committee that no one in the Government is keeping track of the enormous burden that these charges are placing on Canadians. The Aeronautics Act imposes charges the marine act imposes charges, and the Fisheries Act imposes charges. The Government cannot get enough of user fees.
I suggest it might be useful for an official in the Department of Transport to study the net impact of all the charges that come under the ports legislation, the Canada Shipping Act, and the charges being contemplated for small craft harbours and finnage taxes, because that has not been taken into consideration. The Government will clean out the wallets of fishermen and the people who depend on the forest industry.


J. Michael Forrestall: Nonsense.


Raymond John Skelly: The Parliamentary Secretary hollers
"nonsense". He can make some sound comments on this, if he wishes.
Let me dispel an argument which he made in the House. The Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) stated that some 150 groups appeared before the Fisheries Committee when we travelled throughout the West Coast and East Coast. A major topic of discussion was Bill C-75, to which they were absolutely opposed. They predicted that it would have an extremely negative effect on their personal livelihoods, the livelihoods of their communities and indeed on that whole sector of the industry.
I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this Bill and take a stand against the Prime Minister and the narrow minded people in that caucus who are suggesting that we clean out the wallets of Canadians in such an unjustified fashion. This is an extremely serious matter and I thought I saw a certain recognition of the truth by the Parliamentary Secretary. It was my hope he was going to move forward and see this horrendous section of the legislation cut out so that we could all support the good aspects of the Bill. But user-pay is wrong. It is punitive and extremely discriminatory.

April 30, 1986
Canada Shipping Act


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75, as has been pointed out, makes some important contributions and changes for the future. However, that part of the legislation of particular concern to the Official Opposition has to do with Clause 4 which is in great need of amendment. We tried as a Party to see it properly amended in committee. Again today we are trying to persuade the Government to consider our amendments.
The reason Clause 4 is so unacceptable is that it gives sweeping powers to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski) without considering what this could mean, not just for now but in the long run.
My constituency is in the centre of Toronto. Many people might wonder, since my constituency is in Toronto, why I am concerned about this Bill. Perhaps it should concern only those people on the East Coast or the West Coast. But the shipping industry around the Great Lakes is a very major part of our economy. The Great Lakes represent not only pleasure boating but a great deal of commercial boating. When one considers the importance of the shipping of wheat and ore and understands the economy of Ontario, one realizes that the port of Toronto is of vital importance to the well being of that industry. Tens of thousands of people in Ontario own boats, either commercially or for pleasure. Therefore, this Bill is of concern to them. It is of concern to the province of Ontario because we face on to Lake Superior, Lake Erie, Lake Huron and Lake Ontario. In fact, we are a province which has an unusual amount of shipping, so we have reason for concern about the arbitrary powers which are being put into the hands of the Minister of Transport. It is in effect, one might say, a kind of loaded gun.
Clause 4 states in part:
-the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting charges relating to those services-
It then goes on to talk about all kinds of services including the dredging of harbours, navigational aids, escorting, lighthouses and all kinds of matters relating to ice breaking, search and rescue, and the like. This is of concern to Ontario and it also of concern to those who are struggling to make a living on the coasts of this country.
Having served on the Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are appalled by this kind of legislation, this carte blanche given into the hands of the Governor General in Council and the Minister, these incredibly unlimited powers to lay on the backs of people additional taxes and charges. That is why our Party is concerned. This clause has the potential to give into the hands of the Minister unlimited and arbitrary powers without any description as to how those powers should be limited.
Anyone who sat on the Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments knows how dangerous it is to pass this kind of legislation. Unless it is amended, the Government is making a grave mistake. It is not only for this year and next,
or whenever it comes into effect, it is for the years and decades to come. Legislation like this can be misused and produce a misdirected form of taxation.
The Government seems to have no memory of the promises it made to the taxpayers that it would not seek more taxation and that it would try to cut spending. All the Government has done since coming to power has been to lay burden upon burden on the backs of the taxpayer. The middle class is now the favourite target of the Government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised before the election that taxes were not going to be his way of solving economic problems. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) promised in 1985 that taxation was not one of the areas he would look to in trying to solve the problems of the deficit. Yet in situation after situation we find taxes laid on. There are hidden taxes and seen taxes in terms of surtaxes. The poor as well as the rich have to pay these extra hidden taxes. Now there is a user tax which is going to be given in the form of carte blanche to the Minister to apply to the shipping industry and to those who use shipping as their way of life, as if the fishermen were not already assailed by enough taxes. We have seen federal taxes put on them an additional burden by the Government which promised no more taxes, and by the provinces because the federal Government is cutting back on its transfer payments and they have no recourse but to turn to their own forms of taxation to provide health and education to their people. This Government is copping out on its promises.


J. Michael Forrestall: What has that to do with Clause 4?


Roland de Corneille: The provinces now have to add more taxes in order to provide health care because this Government is taking away in Bill C-96 the money which should be transferred to those provinces.


J. Michael Forrestall: Come on.


Roland de Corneille: The fishermen and people in the eastern regions, for example, and in the far west, have to pay municipal taxes as well. These taxes will have to go up again because moneys which should have transferred to the provinces have been withdrawn by the federal Government. We have federal taxes and income taxes, provincial income taxes, municipal taxes on property and now we have users fees. The Government is withdrawing money from the provinces with the result that they have to tax more, and now we have users fees.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are addressing a motion which would replace a provision in Clause 4. We are not dealing with municipal taxes. We are discussing a motion which is very relevant to Section 3.1 of the Canada Shipping Act. I am afraid my dear friend, the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille), has decided that he would import provincial and municipal politics along with municipal taxation. We are not debating any of those things. We are talking about a mechanism which would provide one form of appeal as opposed to the form of appeal set out in the Act.
April 30, 1986


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) on the same point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary is obviously practicing the classic defence when an articulate, powerful and succinct statement is being made, and that is to interrupt. The reality is, as the Hon. Member so properly pointed out, that when the Government of Canada is cutting off the arms and limbs of Canada-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously, the points of order are with respect to the matter of relevance. I believe the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) made an analogy to some other point, which the Chair allows. The Chair reminds the Hon. Member that he has two minutes left in which to conclude his speech.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the point I would like to explain to my hon. friend is that this is the heart of the matter. What is wrong with this clause is that, for the first time in the history of the country, a Minister is asking for arbitrary and undefined powers.


Brian Vincent Tobin: A loaded gun.


Roland de Corneille: Yes, as my colleague says, the Minister is asking for a loaded gun. He is asking for undefined powers to be able to add to the burden of taxation of what are already hard-pressed people-the fishermen of Canada. This is the group, in particular, about which I was trying to speak. As I have already pointed out, there are people in my province who will be affected by this measure. We see that the Government has slammed it to the people in the Maritimes in particular. Recently, I visited Newfoundland to speak to young people and to listen to their concerns. I saw what was going on.


J. Michael Forrestall: Welcome to eastern Canada!


Roland de Corneille: I saw what was going on in that province. As a Canadian I am concerned not only about my constituency but about that part of the country which has been adversely damaged by the Government. At the present time in the United States we are trying to work out a free trade package which will, in the meantime, allow Americans to slap additional burdens on our fishing industry. This is just the latest twist.
Why are we adding still more burdens through the arbitrary powers of the Minister of Transport to yet one more level of taxation, yet one more area upon all the others which have already been slapped on fishermen? I have reason to be concerned that the wording of the clause does not take into account these factors. User fees must be defined. There is no schedule put forward in the Bill. If Hon. Members consider the experience we have had in the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments they will see that this will allow for the passage of this measure without any type of schedule or limitation. It is simply a blank cheque to the Minister of Transport to be able to level still new user fees.
Canada Shipping Act
Added to the other user fees which are levied on other areas of the fishing industry, this means that we might as well tell our fishermen to pack it up. We might as well say that as a Government we do not want them to function any more, that we want to let the Americans and other countries take over the fishing industry on our coasts. This is just one more burden which is being placed on to their backs.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am at pains to understand why the Government will not accept the amendments which have been put forward by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) who, I might say, is very knowledgeable on this subject. He has done a great deal of work in this area in committee.
The first motion we are debating provides for any regulation made under this clause to be referred to a committee of the House or the Senate for review on the written request of 20 Members. I would like to ask Members on the government side in particular to think about the types of concerns that so many of them had when they were in opposition. One of the matters about which they were concerned was the scrutiny of regulations. They were concerned about arbitrary powers being given to the bureaucracy. They were concerned about powers being taken away from Parliament and the fact that Parliament, either in Committee of the Whole House or in its standing commiitees, did not have the type of power that it ought to have once legislation has reached the regulatory stage. They believed that things were then beyond the reach of democracy, so to speak. I have listened to many a Conservative criticize that fact concerning our Government.
Yet what are we suggesting here? We are suggesting that the regulations made under this clause be subject to some type of recall, some type of mechanism for having the matter brought before a committee built right into the Bill.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why would you want the committee to have that power?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall) would start acting like a Parliamentary Secretary instead of acting like some sort of second-rate heckler who cannot keep his mouth shut while other people are participating in debate.


J. Michael Forrestall: You don't know what you're talking about!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), who has just taken his seat, is in the process of making one of the finest speeches the House has heard on as important a matter as is Clause 4 of this Bill. The deliberate tactic of the Parliamentary Secretary to interrupt this type of persuasive argument when I think Members opposite are changing their minds with regard to this Bill is, indeed, unhelpful, unkind and not very polite. Would Your Honour ask him to control himself?

April 30, 1986
Canada Shipping Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask all Members to listen carefully to the speech of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).


J. Michael Forrestall: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to the distinguished Maritimer from Winnipeg-Birds Hill. I wish to remind my colleagues that we are dealing with a motion which, in effect, will replace the right of direct appeal through an established process.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is debate!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. Unfortunately, he is raising a matter for debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill has the floor on debate.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Parliamentary Secretary had his opportunity to say why he did not think this was a good amendment. He has made his argument. We did not heckle him while he was making his argument. We would like to make our arguments. I make no apologies for being able to comment on matters of process with respect to the relationship between legislation, regulation and standing committees of the House just because I do not come from the Maritimes. If there is anything more sickeningly parochial than the type of attitude that the Parliamentary Secretary has taken, I cannot imagine it.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why comment on my parochialism? You are contradicting yourself.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Many members of the Conservative Party while in opposition expressed a concern about ministerial power. They expressed a concern about power which was beyond the reach of the House of Commons. Yet in this Bill we have power being given to the Minister. I contend that had this Bill been a Liberal one, members of the Conservative Party would rise and talk about unwarranted ministerial power. Thus I ask members of the governing Party, who are capable of reflection, unlike the Parliamentary Secretary, to reflect on this matter.
The second point is that Motion No. 6, which provides for an automatic review of Clause 4 by the Transport Committee every two years, is analogous to what Conservatives have called for in other areas. It is called a sunset regulation. Once something is established it does not continue forever.


J. Michael Forrestall: You don't care for reform?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: There is some opportunity for automatic review. This is something which should at least have been considered by the Government, since it is in keeping with the type of review mechanisms which it advocated while members of the Conservative Party sat in opposition.
With respect to the question of authority and authority which goes beyond the scope of Parliament, I am reminded of the old days when we used to hear Conservatives talk about the
dictatorial nature of the Liberals concerning the passage of Orders in Council.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That's right!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: When the Liberals dealt with issues by Order in Council members of the Conservative Party said that this was evidence of a conspiracy of tyranny to deprive Canadians of their democratic rights. Whatever Your Honour may have thought of those arguments, the Conservatives were obviously not taking their own arguments seriously. I recently read that since they have been in Government they have put through just as many Orders in Council. In fact, they have put through even more within a given timeframe, if I remember the article correctly. So before us we see just another example of how insincere were a great many of the criticisms offered by the Conservatives while in opposition.
In the designing of this legislation, by accepting, in this case NDP amendments, they had the opportunity to build in more scrutiny of regulations, to build in more checks on ministerial power and to build in more automatic review of certain laws. They have not done that. They have refused to do that against the wishes of so many people involved in the sector with which this legislation deals.
I have 10 or 12 pages filled with quotes from various groups that have indicated concern about Clause 4. I do not have the time to read them all into the record. The organizations that have indicated concern about Clause 4 include the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association, the St. Lawrence Shipowners Association, Seafarers' International Union, Algoma Steel, Stelco, Dofasco, Canadian Harbour Commission Ports, the Interntional Association of Great Lakes Ports, the Dominion Marine Association, the Port of Indiana, the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, the Montreal Board of Trade, the Canadian Merchant Service Guild, the Canadian Shippers' Council, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Canadian Amateur Rowing Association, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, the Prince Edward Island Potato Marketing Board, the Great Lakes Commission, the Economic Development Corporation of the St. Lawrence, the National Farmers' Union, and the Minister of Transportation and Highways of the Province of Manitoba. The list goes on and on and even includes the Council of B.C. Yacht Clubs and the Labrador Inuit Association.
I do not normally quote yacht clubs, but my intent is to point out that there is a vast coalition of people of various descriptions who are concerned about the effect of Clause 4. It would seem to me to be in the best interests of the Government to respond to their concerns. The Government can do that by accepting the amendments proposed by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with great interest and attention to the debate on Bill C-75. The members of my Party led by a number of my
April 30, 1986

colleagues have certainly articulated at committee stage and during second reading our concerns about Clause 4.
Clause 4 gives the Minister the ability to impose user fees with respect to the Canadian Coast Guard services. Not only is the very issue repugnant and sets a very dangerous precedent indicating where the Government wishes to go, but the way in which it is being done is equally repugnant. The substance of what Clause 4 imposes is wrong and the process leading up to that determination was equally wrong.
When talking about the process, I am talking about the lack of consultation that has taken place between the Government and the various interest groups affected by Bill C-75. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Government Members have risen repeatedly to talk about a Government for the people by the people. In legislation after legislation, we have seen evidence that that is simply rhetoric. It is simply a public relations fa9ade that is not to be found in the legislation that this national forum discusses day in and day out.
Once again, we are discussing a piece of legislation which purports to help the people affected by the Shipping Act, but what do we see? Group after group has come before us to say: "For God's sake, please do something about Clause 4". We in this Party moved amendments to lift Clause 4 because it is harmful to the communities that this Bill purports to help.
This Bill affects not only the recreational boaters but also the shipping industry which is in very serious trouble. Members of Parliament who represent shipping communities have, during Statements Pursuant to Standing Order 21 and Question Period, tried to bring some sense of the importance of enhancing our shipping industry to the attention of the Cabinet. The Government has the audacity to put Clause 4 in the legislation, a clause that would give the Minister the power to charge user fees to these very constituencies.
Shipping concerns in this country calculate their shipping tonnages in cents, not dollars, and this would tend to communicate to us that their cost benefit analyses are so close that they are calculating pennies. Here the Government has an $8-million envelope the costs of which it is thinking of passing on to those shipping firms.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Whether they get the services or not.


Sergio Marchi: Whether they get the services or not, they make their calculations on the basis of pennies. They are coming to their Members of Parliament to say that their industry is in a crisis.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If my distinguished colleague had bothered to read the Bill, he would have known that charges will not be imposed upon those users for whom the services are not normally available. I think he has some responsibility to the Bill to stay somewhat in order and to be aware of that of which he is speaking.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order, it is a matter for debate.
Canada Shipping Act


Sergio Marchi: Not only is it not a point of honour-of order, rather, because there is no honour-


J. Michael Forrestall: It is a point of honour.


Sergio Marchi: The Hon. Member has been here longer than I have so I am somewhat surprised at him. Second, we have not yet seen a schedule of fees. If the Hon. Member has a schedule of fees, I would ask him to have the courage and conviction to table it and ask us to discuss it. Before he does that, I do not think he should rise, something which he is about to do once again.


J. Michael Forrestall: Would you please give him even a cursory briefing as to what this is all about, Brian?


Sergio Marchi: I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the Hon. Member has made suggestions before about the responsibilities of Hon. Members from Toronto and from the Province of Ontario to rise to speak on this issue. It behooves the Hon. Member to make those suggestions because in addition to representing the constituents we were elected to represent, it is an obligation for every Member of the House to rise to make contributions.
In this particular instance, we are talking about the definition of Canada. While this Bill will affect those in and around Toronto and the Province of Ontario, and particularly recreational boaters, we are really talking about the perverse Conservative definition of regional development. This Bill more than any other will affect the smaller communities of this country, particularly the East and West Coast communities that rely day in and day out on fishing and other commercial activities for a livelihood.
It is fine to say that this Bill will affect weekend boaters but this Bill will really hurt those individual communities that are already hard pressed to survive under the Conservative Government. Representatives of those very communities expect people like the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues to rise in their places and make representations that will defend their constituents rather than simply defend the indefensible legislation put forward by the Government. That is why we on this side of the House have no embarrassment and make no apology for once again pleading with the Government to hear the cries of our hinterlands.
We plead with Government Members to place this clause in abeyance until they have had a chance to speak to the groups who have been calling us, writing us, and saying that the Government is moving in the wrong direction. If we in the House are prepared to introduce legislation to amend the Canada Shipping Act to improve the lot of various constituencies, they should at least have the courage and respect to listen to the interest groups they are purporting to help.
This Bill is analagous to other pieces of legislation which we have seen, such as Bill C-62. The Government is claiming that

April 30, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
it is doing something about employment equity for four target groups-natives, disabled persons, women, and visible minorities. However, each of those target groups has appeared before the committee and has said: "We would rather have nothing at all than have Bill C-62". Why should legislation be introduced which is purported to be advancing the causes of those four target groups when those groups are saying that it is simply a sham? Here again we have the same philosophy.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw to your attention the fact that we are debating Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, not Bill C-62 which in fact has been passed into law. I ask the Hon. Member to make sure that his remarks remain relevant.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on that point of order. If the Hon. Member who just rose had paid attention to the debate and had followed the history of the Bill, he would know that my colleague is speaking on Bill C-75 for the second time. He would also know that my colleague is very much interested in it and has been very well briefed. Bill C-62 is not on our minds in the slightest. The Hon. Member has raised a nefarious and time-wasting point of order in the middle of my colleague's contribution to the debate on this nonsensical, cruel, harsh, and inhumane piece of legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could we please return to debate.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member did not listen to my point of order. I referred to the need for relevancy in this debate. We are dealing with Bill C-75, not with the employment equity Act which has now been passed into law. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the Hon. Member maintains relevance in this debate and directs his remarks strictly to Bill C-75.


Mr. Nunziata:: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) seeking the floor on the same point of order? If it is just the matter of relevancy, could we please give the floor to the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi)?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on a separate point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am trying to get rid of the point of order dealing with relevance. The Hon. Member is seeking the floor on a separate point of order.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) is not sitting in his seat. It is my understanding that he sits to our right, and he is sitting to our far left now. Could I have some direction from the Chair on whether his permanent place in the House has been moved to the left?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not know if the Hon. Member has moved to the left, but in fact there have been changes in the seating arrangements on the government side. The Hon.
Member for York East (Mr. Redway) is in fact sitting in his correct seat. We will return to debate with the Hon. Member for York West.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because I believe that the Government is trying to talk out this Bill and is trying to waste the time of the House, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule more quickly on nefarious points of order, not allow Hon. Members to carry on and on with nefarious points of order and waste the time of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York West on debate, with two minutes remaining.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I hope the non-point of order raised by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) will not be deducted from my time. It is obvious from the tenor of the reaction which we solicit on the Government side that we are lifting a very sensitive nerve. It was correct that I raised Bill C-62 in connection with this Bill. It was perfectly in order because it depicted very clearly the malaise which has beset the Government and will certainly be eradicated in the next election. There is a difference between what it purports to do and what the legislation will actually do. Government Members cannot sit on both sides of the fence. They cannot simply say that they are in favour of helping fishing communities in this case and then live with Bill C-75 and its Clause 4.


J. Michael Forrestall: Sit down.


Sergio Marchi: That clause imposes user fees for safety, navigation and ice-breaking.


J. Michael Forrestall: You are filibustering.


Sergio Marchi: If the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to add his two cents to this debate, let him have the courage to stand on his feet. Let him have the conviction to rise in his place where careers are made and broken. Let him defend those communities of which he is a part rather than defend the indefensible-his Minister. He should not act in the same way as other Parliamentary Secretaries or lackeys who rise in their places and support something which they know is incorrect and wrong. If he has a genuine interest in the communities which will be directly affected, if he is interested in the representations the organizations are making and will continue to make, he should follow his conscience and his gut feelings by rising in his place and using any suasion he may have with the Minister in an attempt to bring some sensitivity, fairness and justice into the matter.
The clauses in Bill C-75-and we are flagging Clause No. 4-are insensitive and play into the hands of departmental officials rather than admit what the country is about. The country is about more than Ontario and Quebec. It is about regions and communities in our hinterlands. It is about regional development. It is about trying to make everyone an equal partner in the country regardless of where a region is
April 30, 1986

situated. Bill C-75 ignores our regional history, and Atlantic Canada will not forget.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the amendments to Clause 4 of Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other Acts in relation thereto.
I suppose one could ask why we in the New Democratic Party are concerned about Bill C-75. Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 11, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), are an attempt to put some sense and some stability into a particular clause. Much of the Act is worth while; it is a needed Act. However, Clause 4 is anything but needed and the three motions attempt to improve it.
Perhaps one would wonder how an Hon. Member from the Prairies would have an interest in a Bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act. As far as we are concerned, it is an important Act. As the Port of Halifax increases the charges it has to levy against goods going through that port, those levies are transferred sometimes twofold or threefold to farmers, manufacturers, or producers in Saskatchewan and on the Prairies.
I should like to refer to the kinds of concerns which were expressed during the fairly long and drawn out committee stage of this particular Bill. I will refer to the concerns of groups such as the National Farmers Union which indicated very specifically that it was against Clause 4, as it is presently before us, and that it required certain changes. Let me quote:
In its preoccupation to trim the federal deficit, the Government is in effect telling farmers through this Bill that the national interest can best be served by still further increasing farm costs at a time when farmers are in very serious financial straits.
Somewhat over two weeks ago the initial price for grain was announced in this House. The initial price for grain is established on the basis of the projected world price for the coming year. That price dropped by a considerable amount, which has put the western farmer and the Ontario farmer, who produces wheat or grain, in a very precarious position.
What this Bill suggests in this particular clause is an increase again of still further costs on freight, particularly on the cost of movement through the St. Lawrence Seaway. If the cost of moving freight is increased it means the price the farmer receives for wheat will be further pushed down.
The National Farmers' Union goes on to say:
We regard the St. Lawrence Seaway as a national asset that should be maintained in the national interest. It does not make good economic sense to raise rates in the face of declining demand.
There is no question an additional charge in any way placed on transportation at this time will in fact mean disaster to more producers. It will mean producers going broke.
As I have indicated before, by the time a user-pay philosophy is established in the ports or in any part of the freight
Canada Shipping Act
system, these user pay costs will be transferred to the producer in the resource area. Sometimes costs are added on twofold or threefold to the costs of the local producer in Saskatchewan.
In addition to those who appeared as witnesses before the committee, there were many others who felt it was important that something be done about Clause 4. Letters were written indicating that people did not believe that Clause 4 should be left as it is. For instance, the Minister of Highways and Transportation in the Province of Saskatchewan, a good Conservative Government in Saskatchewan which is looking after the welfare of the farmers said:
Any increase in costs to users of the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway system will result in producers looking for transport services which are cheaper. As a result, some traffic may be diverted to the U.S. transportation system causing loss of Canadian jobs.
I have recently written to the Hon. Don Mazankowski-and advised him that the imposition of charges to defray the costs of the Coast Guard are ill-advised-
The user pay concept in this Bill will have a devastating effect, not necessarily on the area where the charges are actually made but on the economic development and survival of other parts of Canada. It seems that the Government is less concerned than it should be about those areas that are farther away from the market. Instead of increasing the cost of transporting products from outside areas, such as Saskatchewan or the North, to the market, costs of freight should be decreased so that products are more competitive in the world markets. Transportation is key to our country. User pay has the effect of making remote areas more remote. Farmers will produce fewer products to be shipped. When you are getting very close to the line in a cash flow position, a small increase is sometimes the straw that breaks the camel's back.
The Western Regional Advisory Council, Alberta Economic Development, also wrote to the committee saying:
The introduction of any regulation which will create an additional cost to the port and port users must not militate against the use of Canadian Ports. We are most concerned that Clause 4 of the act which deals with cost recovery will impact negatively on Canada's international competitive position, by forcing business away.
This is the Western Regional Advisory Council from Alberta making a plea to the Government not to put a user pay status on the ports and seaways because if it does it will force people who use the seaways to look for other routes. The Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association made the same kind of plea as follows:
We do not feel commercial grain traffic should bear the burden of services provided for the public at large, such as defence, search and rescue, and research.
We warn that excessive Seaway charges may result in cargo diversion in both Canada, and in the United States, placing an even heavier burden on remaining captive users.
That point came up quite often on the Prairies. A great number of farmers in Saskatchewan are beginning to look at the Missouri and Mississippi Seaway as a route to ship their grain. A lot of Duluth, Montana farmers are suggesting that rather than send their grain through the Seaway they should send it down the Mississippi and ship it out through New Orleans because that route will be cheaper. These added costs

April 30, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
to the operation of the Seaway may force that kind of an action.
The Manitoba Pulse Growers Association Inc. suggested:
Since the Government has expressed a desire to increase exports by this nation, it appears contradictory to that desire to increase freight costs for the exporters.
Increased freight costs on the St. Lawrence will see more U.S. grain being directed down the Mississippi, with the predictable results being lower over-all St. Lawrence freight handle and even higher part-time costs to Canadian producers.
It is important that Canadian seaways, particularly the St. Lawrence Seaway, be used to the maximum. The more people we can get to use it, the lower the costs will be. But we have a situation where the Government is putting in a user-pay philosophy which will increase freight costs and force the users to look for alternative cheaper routes, such as using trucks or sending their goods to the West Coast or down the Mississippi.
I recommend that the Government support at least these minor changes in Clause 4 so that we will have some control over the possibility of increased freight on the Seaway if the Minister uses the powers he is given in this clause.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make submissions with respect to Bill C-75. Bill C-75 has 111 pages and is a rather extensive piece of legislation. When it was referred to the legislative committee, the preoccupation of the committee was Clause 4. In fact, I am advised that the bulk of the discussion in the legislative committee dealt with that clause and its controversial nature. For the record, Clause 4, subsection 3.1 (1) reads:
For the purpose of defraying the cost of services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard, the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting charges relating to those services, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, aids to navigation, sounding and dredging, vessel traffic services, icebreaking services and marine aid.
That means that the Government of Canada now intends to impose a user fee system with respect to the services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard. Until today the operational costs involved in providing all the necessary services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard have been borne by the taxpayers of Canada generally. The Government now intends to introduce a system whereby those who own boats in Canada will pay for the cost of the Canadian Coast Guard.
The Liberal Opposition has objected on a number of grounds and I would like to reiterate those objections. However, before doing so, I would like to take a moment to analyse why the Conservative Government is changing the system which is now in place. We need not analyse it too deeply to understand the philosophy behind this particular amendment to the Canada Shipping Act. Given the record of the Conservative Government over the last 20 months, we know that it is paranoid about the federal deficit. It is equally obvious that the Conservative Government is prepared to do anything to reduce that deficit.
During the last 20 months we found that the Government of Canada was prepared to reduce the deficit on the backs of the disadvantaged in society. In one case the Government attempted to deindex the pensions of senior citizens in the name of deficit reduction. There have been numerous other examples of the Government of Canada targeting specific groups in society to participate in deficit reduction. The Government of Canada is now targeting the ship and vessel owners in Canada to help reduce the deficit.
In the last fiscal year the cost of the Canadian Coast Guard was approximately $825 million. The Government now wants the authority to defray the cost of administering the Canadian Coast Guard services. It would like the opportunity to charge ship owners a particular fee. It is, as well, asking for the authority to charge recreational boat owners a user fee. Anyone paddling a canoe down the Humber River or the Don River in Toronto, or on Lake Ontario would be subject to a charge if the Government is given the authority which it seeks through Clause 4. That is quite clear from the legislation.
We ask whether that is appropriate and fair. Do Canadians agree in principle with the concept of user pay? It is my submission that Canadians do not support the principle of user pay in a general sense. If one were to extend that principle, only motorists would pay the costs of road repair.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 address myself to the question of relevancy. It is the tradition, under the new parliamentary rules, to insist on some degree of relevancy at report stage. I do not ask the Hon. Member to apologize for his inability to inform himself with respect to the content of the amendment before us, but I do ask you, who are aware, to insist on some reasonable degree of relevancy.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on that point of order. I would like to apologize for the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Speaker, because he has risen to interrupt the debate and to interrupt Members of the House. I would ask you to impose some sort of discipline upon the Member, who is not raising a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no need to hear from the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) on a point of order. I will recognize the Hon. Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata) on the point of order.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in my submission I was attempting to assess the philosophy behind Clause 4 of Bill C-75. This is extremely important in order to understand the motivation behind the Government's intention to implement a user-pay system for the owners of vessels and ships using the waters in Canada.


J. Michael Forrestall: We are talking about the amendment. Address yourself to the amendment.


John V. Nunziata: The Parliamentary Secretary does not appear to have the common courtesy to listen to other Members of Parliament who are attempting to make submissions. He will
April 30, 1986

be given the opportunity to stand up and try to defend this piece of legislation. I would ask him to extend the courtesy to other Members in the House of listening and sobering up.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I invite the Hon. Member to withdraw that remark.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I also ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his last words.


John V. Nunziata: Yes, I will withdraw the reference I made. It is regrettable that the Member provoked me into making that comment, but I will withdraw it. I ask that the Member withdraw his continual interruptions with points of order which, in effect, are not points of order.
As I was saying, one should question the philosophy behind this particular amendment with regard to user pay. If that philosophy were extended throughout the Government in general, various sectors of society would be asked to pay for the services which are provided for the exclusive use of that sector of society. It is tantamount to asking motorists to pay for all costs associated with the construction and maintenance of roadways. It is tantamount to requiring senior citizens alone to pay for the cost of services for them. It is tantamount to making young people solely responsible for the cost of education. That is not the basis of our society today. We have developed to the point where it is recognized that taxpayers in general should pay for certain important services which affect the national interest. I submit that the Canadian Coast Guard serves the national interest. It is there to provide a certain level of safety to the boating public.
You have indicated that I have a few minutes to go, Mr. Speaker, so I would like to make one or two other points with respect to Clause 4. I would like to ask the Government rhetorically whether it considered the economic impact of Clause 4. It would appear from the committee minutes and the language used in the drafting of the legislation that it has not. I am speaking specifically of communities in Atlantic Canada, British Columbia and elsewhere which rely very heavily on the Canadian Coast Guard. It appears that the Government has not considered the impact on these communities of being forced to bear the cost of the Canadian Coast Guard which is currently some $824 million annually. I ask that the Government reconsider the disservice this clause will do to those communities.
An amendment has been suggested by the NDP. The Liberal Party in general opposes the philosophy and principle of user fees.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: Tell that to Otto Lang.
Canada Shipping Act


John V. Nunziata: The amendment put forward by the NDP would require that the effect of Clause 4 be reviewed every two years. We, of course, would prefer the clause not to exist at all, and the status quo maintained concerning the Canadian Coast Guard. However, if the Government recognizes the wisdom of this amendment, it will reduce the harsh effect of Clause 4 and give parliamentarians the opportunity to assess that harmful effect. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this amendment.


J. Michael Forrestall: You can review it regularly in the standing committee right now.


Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly regarding this amendment to Clause 4. I think it is totally unnecessary. With the implementation of parliamentary reform and the setting up of legislative committees, I thought each Member had the opportunity to express his or her views on a given Bill and its amendments. That is certainly true in this case. Government and opposition Members voiced their concerns about Clause 4. The reason we did so is the uncertainty over what Clause 4 will mean concerning charges applied to ship owners and shipping companies. However, when he appeared before the committee, the Minister agreed that no charges would be imposed for at least a year, and that public notice of any charges to be imposed would be given 90 days prior to their taking effect. In that way, those people opposed to the charges would have an opportunity to voice their concerns.
This motion would have no serious effect on the Department. The Standing Committee on Transport can now review this matter at any time during normal program review or on the special request of some of its members. Therefore, I do not see the point in this amendment at all. I do not believe there is any serious objection to a review by the standing committee two years after the Bill comes into effect. However, a routine review every two years thereafter is completely unnecessary. The committee could review the Coast Guard cost recovery program whenever it deemed it prudent to do so. If this amendment is adopted, it would in fact remove the legislative requirement to re-publish regulations revising charges under this clause of the Bill.
I believe the Hon. Member who introduced this amendment did so in order to have a forum from which to attack the Government on other issues. Most of the debate I have heard today on this issue is not so much on the proposed amendment but on Clause 4 itself. Everyone in the legislative committee had an opportunity to express his or her views on Clause 4. I thought the legislative committee did a very good job in getting various changes agreed to during the clause by clause study. While it is perhaps not perfect, it is a heck of a lot better than what we have had for a good many years. It has been a long, long time coming.
Having been involved in shipping all my life prior to coming to this Chamber in 1984,1 am quite aware of what the Canada Shipping Act means. I certainly have sympathy for the people

April 30, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
who have to pay for services, but it is my understanding, and I stand to be corrected, that charges will not apply to vessels which do not use the services of icebreakers. If memory serves me correctly, that is already in the Bill as it stands. Like other Members I would certainly like to see the charges set out in the Bill, but if the Minister is not prepared to do that at this time, then I am sure that the ship owners and shipping companies are quite capable, given the 90-day notice they will receive, of preparing something to give some guidance to the Minister and his staff as to what exactly the charges should be.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is a terrible Bill.


Morrissey Johnson: I am sure the Hon. Member for Humber- Port au Port St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) is saying that in jest. He knows that it is long overdue. He is simply envious of the Progressive Conservative Government because it had the initiative to bring the long needed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act in place.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the series of motions that have been grouped for debate on Bill C-75. Motion Nos. 4, 6 and 11 deal with Clause 4 of the Bill which has been particularly controversial. Many of the witnesses who appeared before the committee asked that that clause be deleted from the Bill.
Members of the committee were ruled out of order when they attempted to delete that clause from the Bill. Consequently, the motion which most of the witnesses preferred cannot be introduced again in the House, having already been tested in the committee.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan (Mr. Angus), is left with no choice but to attempt to amend what is essentially a bad piece of legislation in order to make it as palatable as possible. My colleague's motion attempts to give more parliamentary oversight to the imposition of fees for a variety of shipping services. One of the motions calls for the referral of the matter to a committee upon the written recommendation of 20 Members of the House. The second motion provides for an automatic review before the Transport Committee every two years so that the affected parties who are being charged these rates could presumably appear before the committee to give their opinion on the policy behind the rates.
Motion No. 11 would require that Clause 4 of the Shipping Act not come into effect until January 1, 1988. This is in keeping with the representations made by a wide variety of individuals who appeared before that legislative committee, asking that proper time be given. While their arguments varied, essentially they were saying that they are not certain there has been proper consideration given to the impact of this policy on various ports. For example, some ports would have higher charges due to the requirements of dredging, pilotage services, ice-breaking services and so on. Other ports might be deeper or be situated in warm water areas.
Previous to the 1960s, Canada had a transportation policy which looked upon transportation as one of the vital services required by all Canadians. When we considered the vast expanse of this country, we realized that the great distances involved meant that we must use some seaports and waterways that might not be competitive on a world-wide basis but would provide services for the people who live in those parts of Canada. Consequently, the Port of Churchill remains open. It is an Arctic port that needs much dredging because the shipping that is available today draws more water than ships which sailed there 20 years ago. While it was felt that the port was very competitive-


J. Michael Forrestall: What does that have to do with the amendment?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: -20 years ago, it is having difficulty remaining competitive now. I remind the Hon. Member from Halifax, who keeps saying that we are not relevant, that these amendments give those ports an opportunity to be heard every two years and allows them two years to prepare their case. It would give future Members in the House of Commons an opportunity to appeal the actions of the Department on behalf of those ports.
The philosophy which regarded transportation as an essential service to all Canadians has been abandoned by the present Government and the previous Liberal Government and replaced by an attempt to invoke user pay. Such a measure will put ports like Churchill at a disadvantage. Consequently, a vast region of the country will find it even more expensive to obtain services and shipping because of the additional charges levied directly on the users of that port, for the dredging and the use of ice-breakers which accompany the shipping into Churchill during its shipping season, as short as it is. Such charges make it very difficult to maintain equal services to Canadians, regardless of where they live.
Sometimes I think the older policy makers in this country had a greater understanding of what makes society and economic activity work well than some of the new intelligencia who are coming out of our schools of management at the present time.
Let me illustrate the kind of problem that arises by telling a true story about a person from my riding. He attended agricultural college and specialized in farm management and efficiency. His older sister, who preceded him in university, had been a plant scientist and in fact was a plant reader for the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa until her retirement approximately a year ago.
During her time on the farm she and her father had established a small orchard. When the younger brother finished his education he immediately began to apply all his management techniques that he learned in college. He got rid of the remaining horses and horse equipment. He mechanized everything with state of the art equipment. He checked his books, his figures and production costs and pared everything to the bone. At the end of the year, when he had finished his
April 30, 1986

harvest, he found that he had produced more grain, at lower cost, than had ever been the case before on that farm.
One wet afternoon, he was talcing stock of the rest of the farm. He noted that only 11 of the plum trees in the orchard had borne fruit. One did not have any fruit. He immediately utilized his extensive knowledge from the school of economics and ripped out that one plum tree. Thereafter, he had no more plums because he had pulled out the male tree.
I think the planners in the Department of Transport and some of the policy makers in the previous Liberal Government and this Government are doing the same thing by looking at the bottom line and trying to instigate a user-pay philosophy. They are missing the whole point of why we have a transportation system. That is why we are attempting to have recourse to Parliament where the whole intention and feelings of the people of Canada can be heard, so that 20 parliamentarians can intervene if the rates at Churchill or the rates through the Seaway-which is also a very real possibility-become too high for people to use these waterways. We have a lot of wheat and iron ore going through the Seaway. That traffic has been tapering off because of economic conditions and demands. Now is not the time to impose another 50 cents per tonne in charges against those commodities shipped through the Seaway. Now is the time to realize that transportation is a necessary function for all Canadians, and that is why we think we should receive support for these motions before us.

Mir. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):	Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-75 this afternoon. I am somewhat familiar with this measure because I sat on the legislative committee to which it was referred. As a Member of the committee I was privileged to listen to a number of very interesting briefs presented by groups of people who are going to be affected by this Bill. In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that some of the proposed changes are long overdue, and time has come for Canada to overhaul the Canada Shipping Act which ensures navigation safety, safeguards human lives offshore, and protects marine wildlife in Canadian waters and fishing zones.
A number of these changes are urgently needed, such as allowing Canada to deal more readily with cases of marine pollution, to improve shipping safety and to adopt a number of important international maritime conventions. I can agree with this part of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot agree with Clause 4, which is aimed at giving the Government, and more specifically the Minister, the authority to impose charges for a number of services. I certainly do not agree with letting the Minister impose charges on navigation aids, sounding, dredging, vessel traffic services, ice breaking services and marine aid.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to listen to several submissions, and the Parliamentary Secretary was saying earlier that most of these submissions agreed with the principle of service charges, of user fees. Now I would like to
Canada Shipping Act
ask the Parliamentary Secretary to name a single intervenor who agreed with the way the Government intends to impose these charges. I do not think there was a single group, Mr. Speaker, that agreed with the procedure. There were a number of comments regarding the other clauses, and it seems there had even been some consultations with these groups, but none of the groups had been consulted about the changes being proposed in Clause 4, and that is where the groups objected to giving the Minister authority to impose user fees. Mr. Speaker, after listening to all these submissions, some Hon. Members, if we are to believe the articles we saw in the press, agreed and felt that Clause 4 should not be implemented as proposed, and with your permission, I will read a short article:
"Service charge plan likely to be dropped."

This was from Halifax.

"'The federal Government probably will change its mind and not start charging people for Coast Guard services such as ice breaking, tows, rescues and dredging', Mike Forrestall, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, said yesterday. The cost recovery plan has evoked steady criticism."

Today, Mr. Speaker, I see the Parliamentary Secretary has changed his mind, since he now supports Clause 4. I realized recently that Government Members could change their minds without being too worried about the consequences, and this clause proves it.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Clause 4 and service charges. Neither the Minister nor anyone on the Government side has been able to tell us how much these charges would be and how they would be implemented. The groups appearing before the Committee asked us: How are you going to collect this money and how much will the charges be?
Some representatives, some of the people who made submissions told us that the marine shipping industry was very competitive. They were talking about cents, not dollars per ton, which could make all the difference in whether or not you obtained a shipping contract. The competition is so fierce they were talking about cents per ton.
Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to present some of the arguments we heard from these groups. These are in fact the reasons why I support the amendments proposed by my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus). If these changes were adopted, we would at least be informed of any change in the regulations. We would also have the assurance that Clause 4 would not become effective until January
1988.	Even though the Minister has said he will not put it into effect before January 1988, it would be a good thing to have the Bill say so.

April 30, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
Now as I was saying, I want to inform the House of some comments we heard from groups that appeared before our Committee. I can mention the Federation des pilotes du Saint-Laurent et des Grands Lacs who said in their brief: We submit that before adopting Clause 4, a thorough impact study be made of this user fee cost recovery plan.
The National Farmers' Union also submitted a substantial brief concerning Clause 4 and its possible impact on farmers, and I quote:

Farmers face in Section 4 a proposal for further indirect taxation of their income. Section 4 will only further impoverish farmers and it should be removed from the Bill in its entirety. It is ill-timed and unjustified if measured against the weak farm income position currently evident in Canada.
The P.E.I. potato industry which is now in a very difficult economic position said in its submission that it is vigorously opposed to the introduction of charges relating to navigational services.

Mr. Speaker, you are saying I have just one minute left to speak, and I have yet to deal with the impact the implementation of Clause 4 will have on Atlantic fishermen. However, I am sure I will have another opportunity to criticize this Clause, especially as it affects the Atlantic region.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I want to say that Clause 4 will have a devastating effect on the Atlantic region.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part again in this debate. I know that my friend, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), is anxious to hear me again.
I have listened to the debate with care this afternoon. I found it most interesting, amusing and ironic.


An Hon. Member:: And irrelevant!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I cannot understand why Government Members do not have the courtesy to blush.
I have sat in the House since 1968. There was no mention made which I can recall from 1968 until 1974 of the concept of user pay. Following the 1974 election, the Liberals returned to power with a majority. The ink was hardly dry on the ballots when the former Minister of Transport, from the riding formerly known as Saskatoon-Humboldt, the Hon. Otto Lang, of late repute, and some repute, made speeches in 1974 and 1975 saying such things as: "It's time for the Crow's Nest Pass rate to be reviewed". I doubt that after its review the Government planned to reduce it. He also said it was time to start implementing the concept of user pay. That became the policy of the Government of the day and it continued right through until this day. User charges imposed by previous Liberal administrations were not cancelled in the short life of
the Conservative Government in 1979. However, from 1974 on Conservative Members of Parliament who still sit in the House-


J. Michael Forrestall: This is obviously your speech on third reading.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -including the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), ranted, raved and railed against the terrible Liberals and that terrible Minister of Transport who imposed user pay.
I am glad to see that members of the Liberal Party have come around to some type of deathbed repentance. They now agree that they were wrong. They admit that. They have changed their minds and are now opposed to user pay. However, I have noticed that this feeling is expressed mostly by Liberals who were not here between the years 1974 and 1979. It is younger members of the Party who sit on the back benches who have seen the errors of the ways of their own Party.
I listened to Conservatives condemning Liberals on the subject of user pay. I have now listened to Liberals condemning Conservatives on the subject of user pay. Yet neither side has the courtesy to blush.
I am glad that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) is here. I am sure that he is the main culprit in this whole operation because of his desperation for more money. He has a majority in Cabinet which will shoot down the Minister of Transport, who I do not think is particularly happy with user pay. In any case, there is little problem with user pay if it is only a modest cost recovery that is collected. However, when we get into the area of one-half, three-quarters and full cost recovery, user pay is self-defeating. I say this because the Bill allows the Minister to charge up to 100 per cent of cost recovery. The Bill allows him to do this at his discretion. This makes the President of the Treasury Board happy; but it does not make grain farmers, fishermen, shippers of iron ore or the Seaway Authority very happy. It does not make 12 U.S. Senators very happy. It is interesting that members of the Conservative Party are helping kill themselves with respect to the free trade negotiations. How dumb can they get?


Mr.   de Cotret@: You must know.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It will be self-defeating when shippers and receivers quit using the St. Lawrence Seaway. It will be cheaper to ship grain through New Orleans.


Mr. Crosby:: This is all being recorded, you know.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, I hope so.
Members of the Government accepted some amendments to the Bill in the legislative committee. That was big of them. This means that, for example, the Government has agreed that there will be no cost recovery for ice-breaking on the West Coast. I do not know why Hawaii and Fiji were not included as well. The folks on the St. Lawrence Seaway, those on the East
April 30, 1986

Coast and those up North will have to pay the cost of icebreaking. Therefore, if one follows the logic of the Government, we will have to charge those on the West Coast for the use of their warm water. I really do not think that move is imaginative or logical. It was big-hearted of the Government to say that it will not charge for ice-breaking on the West Coast. That is fantastic. I wonder how much was paid to a consultant to dream up that idea.
The move is self-defeating. I mentioned this at a conference on risk management and handling of dangerous goods at the University of Waterloo yesterday. There were some people out there who were talking about user pay. In terms of risk management, to be logical and to take this concept to the proper conclusion, when someone calls the police department to stop a bank robbery then the police department should send a bill to the bank for the cost of recovery of the policeman's time, the patrol cars, the stopping of all the traffic and all the other costs involved. Alternatively, if someone's house is on fire and he happens to call the fire department, then the fire department should bill him for the cost of putting out the fire. The fire department can also bill the neighbours surrounding the home which was on fire for a portion of the costs, since putting out fires will prevent them from spreading. Thus those
Canada Shipping Act
homeowners who get some use out of fire departments should pay for some of the cost recovery.
These concepts are as logical as cost recovery is in terms of a public utility. We do not oppose some modest utility fees. We all pay taxes for our sewer and water systems. We also pay modest utility fees. However, our taxes for the system come to a heck of a lot more even though we all pay modest monthly fees. The St. Lawrence Seaway, the Coast Guard, navigational aids and dredging, all form part of public utilities for which everyone in Canada receives some benefit. Therefore, the nation as a whole shares in the cost of these utilities. To suggest that we be charged for navigational aids, ice-breaking and so on is simply self-defeating. It harms our economy. It harms dozens and dozens of communities. I hope that the Government will look at this matter, reconsider it and be prepared to accept these three excellent amendments by eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, May 1, 1986