1986-12-19

Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, many Toronto residents, particularly the elderly and those in poor health, are experiencing hardship and inconvenience as a result of Canada Post's decision to remove some of the 1,800 red mailboxes located throughout Metropolitan Toronto.
In the worst cases, mailboxes located just outside or just across the street from senior citizens' highrise apartments have been removed, forcing people to walk blocks further in hazardous winter conditions to mail their letters. If we add to this the distinct possibility of higher postal rates in the near future it is clear that the Canada Post strategy of reduced service at higher cost leaves no room for fair and balanced treatment of the taxpayers who have to use the postal system. I urge the Government to rethink its strategy and replace the mail deposit boxes which have been removed from their locations in Toronto.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I have to rise in this House to raise the issue of the recently leaked closure of the Canadian Embassy in Helsinki, Finland. I appreciate and applaud the Government's objective in applying restraint to come to terms with the legacy of past government deficits. However, on behalf of the Canadian Nordic Parliamentary Friendship Association I implore the Government to reconsider its decision regarding the presence of a Canadian Embassy in Helsinki, Finland. There are several well-known historical facts in support of this request, not to mention recent significant Finnish investment in our country, along with advanced technology in ice-breaking, which strengthen the need for this important post.
The saving of $2 million per year is very small consolation when, at the same time, the National Capital Commission announces a plan to spend $15 million to replace the conventional asphalt pavement in front of our Parliament Buildings with some sort of red ceremonial pavement.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my New Democratic Party colleagues I want to say how pleased we were this morning to learn that Soviet authorities have allowed Andrei Sakharov, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and outspoken defender of human rights, to return home to Moscow from internal exile in Gorky. Andrei Sakharov has been a beacon to those around the world who believe that no matter how difficult and dangerous it may be, the freedom to speak out freely without threat of punishment is a basic human right that no state authorities can take away.
This was a welcome gesture by Mr. Gorbachev and his colleagues in the Kremlin. Let us hope that it signals a growing acceptance in the Soviet Union of the dignity of the individual. Among the civilized community of nations there is no place for those who imprison their people solely for the crime of speaking out for what they truly believe.
At this time of year, when we celebrate the birth of one whose life was dedicated to peace and harmony among all men and women, it is time to reflect on how we see each other as citizens of planet earth. We must learn to live together and cooperate for the betterment of all peoples and future generations. Mr. Speaker, the Soviet Union took one small humanitarian step forward today. Let us hope that it is just the beginning.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, this week a delegation of prominent members of the U.S.S.R.

December 19, 1986
Supreme Soviet visited Ottawa. At a meeting with Canadian Senators and parliamentarians a spirited two-hour discussion ensued. In answer to my queries, Mr. Afanasiev, Chief Editor of the Soviet newspaper Pravda, denied the existence of the Soviet-conducted Ukrainian famine of 1933 which caused the death of some six million Ukrainians. He also replied that the Baltic States of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania invited the Soviets to incorporate them with the Soviet Union, but said nothing of the hundreds of thousands shipped to Siberia.
Despite the differing Canadian opinion on these matters, dialogue between our countries must be promoted. A member of the Soviet delegation declared that an exchange of our parliamentarians would be most valuable. Mr. Speaker, Canadians agree. I look forward to my visit as well to foster dialogue, greater understanding and peace between the Soviets and Canadians.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is altogether unacceptable that a Government which poses as the defender of the French language in Quebec would send one of its Ministers, a francophone no less, to hold a press conference in Montreal almost exclusively in English. Mr. Speaker, this occurred only a few days after his leader and his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), stood up in that same city to reaffirm their conviction with respect to the supremacy of French in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, according to the information I got from the journalist who wrote about this, the Minister of State (Youth) (Mr. Charest) spoke half the time in French and half the time in English the day before yesterday in Montreal when he unveiled what was practically a carbon copy of a Liberal program for young people which was launched in August 1984. The people with him could not speak French. This kind of procedure made the newspaperman wonder whether Montreal had suddenly been proclaimed an English city.
The Minister was probably so ill at ease that he did not want to announce in French the money involved because it is very little compared with what young people need. This is probably why no Member of the Official Opposition had been invited to the press conference, neither in French, nor in English.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Last Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, I was in Quebec City to meet with more than 400 early retirees who had been denied unemployment insurance benefits by this Government. I was there with my friend, the Liberal Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), but I was quite surprised to realize there was no Conservative representative, not even a Member from the Quebec City area nor from Levis.
The executive of the association, ARSAC, wrote an open letter to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). In this letter they say that the Conservative policy in the field of unemployment insurance is unacceptable, arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory against the unemployed in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I agree with these 400 people, I agree with ARSAC, and I ask that the Government reconsider its policy before Christmas. Mr. Speaker, why not offer a Christmas gift?


GOVERNMENT JOB-CREATION MEASURES-DECLINE IN UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's commitment to youth is beyond question. Last year alone the Government spent $732 million on employment programs for youth. The unemployment rate for young Canadians has fallen to 14.3 per cent from 18.4 per cent. In addition, on Wednesday the Minister of State (Youth) (Mr. Charest) announced that the federal Govrnment will provide $10 million to support an innovative and creative project co-ordinated by the YMCA and supported by corporations like IBM Canada.
Eight youth enterprise centres will be created. At the end of a 12 to 16-week training period, participants will have a fully developed business plan. New businesses developed with the support of the youth enterprise centres will have access to all necessary expertise during their first year of operation. This project will give training, technical assistance, and help in acquiring financial assistance to young people who wish to become self-employed and create jobs for others. This program is a new and creative solution to labour market problems.
December 19, 1986


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, this morning, the U.S. free trade negotiator, Mr. Peter Murphy, took the liberty of sticking his nose into Canada's affairs by warning the Canadian Government against awarding an interest-free loan to General Motors in Sainte-Therese, which would help save 4,000 jobs.
"If Quebec and Ottawa decide to take action", he warned, as quoted in La Presse, "-we'll have to take a very close look at this".
Mr. Speaker, since when did the Americans start minding our business? Ever since the Canadian Government started showing signs of weakening and the Americans received a clear message that they could do what they felt like doing. For instance, that they could go through the Canadian North with their submarine Polar Sea and impose tariffs on softwood lumber. The image projected by the Canadian Government has led the Americans to try and dictate the kind of policies they feel the Canadian Government should adopt.
This morning at a press conference, the Prime Minister merely said: "The Canadian Government will make the decisions on Canadian affairs." That is merely saying the obvious. We urge the Prime Minister to be more forthright and say quite frankly that he is going to help save jobs at General Motors by subsidizing the enterprise, together with Quebec.


FINANCE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Hockin) tabled in the House his document on new directions for the financial sector. The message it contains will help the Canadian economy adjust to new communications technology and management techniques. The Government will allow the integration of financial services.
More good news: insurance agents or brokers will continue to occupy the field of retail insurance.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has managed to adjust to technological change while maintaining every consideration for the very personal relationship that exists, in our neighbourhoods, municipalities and cities, between the insurance agent and his client.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the Government has recognized the dedication and competence of our local insurance agents.
Canadians will continue to have their own insurance agents, thanks to the Conservative Party.

[DOT] (mo)


INSURANCE
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, for many years Canadians have looked for a clear policy on the regulation of financial institutions. With the announcement of new directions for the financial sector by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin), we have now received a decisive and clear message.
Our nation's independent insurance agents were very concerned that the integrating of financial services might have resulted in banks and trust companies selling property and casualty insurance, something that would have sounded the death knell for small independent insurance brokers.
Many of us, as Members of Parliament, have been working closely with our insurance agents to let the Minister know of our concerns. In the Minister's announcement we heard a sensible ownership policy, a strong framework for smarter regulation, improved supervision, and, most important, a clear unequivocal statement that banks, trust companies and other financial institutions will not be allowed to sell insurance at the retail level.
This is a victory for insurance agents and a sign that the Minister of State for Finance and the Government have listened and acted wisely.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, last February the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) declared his intention to tax northern benefits. One problem faced by many northern residents is that the Government, after nine months, has been unable to determine the value of subsidized housing.
The general guideline of fair market value is unworkable in many communities where there is little or no private sector housing. The Department of Public Works has now indicated that some Canadians will be asked to pay income tax on up to an extra $1,700 a month, money they never saw and never had. Where actual salaries are low or moderate, this will obviously create instant poverty.

December 19, 1986
Oral Questions
In this period approaching Christmas, I ask the Government to explain the fair market value of Santa's residence. Will his northern residence and workshop be seized for tax payment? Will his annual flight south be cancelled now that it is taxed?
Clearly the Government has not considered the consequences of its actions on ordinary Canadians. Save Santa and his neighbours; extend the moratorium until the Government gets its act together.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, as we leave this place for the Christmas break, it is a good time to review the highlights of the past year and the prospects for the year ahead. There were some great days for British Columbia in 1986, among them, of course, the outstanding success of Expo 86, which gave British Columbia a chance to show its stuff to the rest of the world. We hope that many of the millions who visited Vancouver and Expo will return to British Columbia and explore the fascination and beauty of the province.
We are also very proud of British Columbian Rick Hansen whose courageous voyage around the world has stirred our hearts and raised our understanding of the needs and potential of Canadians who suffer from physical handicaps.
As I sat last night, Mr. Speaker, mulling over my Christmas list, checking it twice, trying to find out who has been naughty, who nice, three wishes came to the top of the list, three items I would ask my frontbench colleagues to put under British Columbia's Christmas tree: from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for the financial and business community, an international financial centre for Vancouver; from the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) for the tourism, publishing and film industries, funding for a joint federal/B.C. cultural economic development agreement which, among others, would assist proposals such as B.C.s new Science World; at the top of the list, from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to the men and women whose lives and futures depend on the shipbuilding industry, a contract to proceed with the construction of the Polar 8 ice-breaker on the West Coast.
Merry Christmas! Joyeux NoeI\


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, Christmas is a time to be with family, a time to give and share, and a time to be grateful. It is also a time to contemplate the plight of the poor and disadvantaged in Canada.
This Christmas over a million Canadian children are being raised in families with incomes below the poverty line. There are 3.6 million of our fellow Canadians living below the poverty line. Poverty is a human tragedy and a national disgrace. All Canadians, regardless of where they live and what they do, are entitled by right to a decent standard of living. Our major priorty in 1987, as parliamentarians, must be to declare war on poverty.
Our goal as parliamentarians must be to ensure that all Canadians live above the poverty line. As we leave Parliament for Christmas, let us not forget the loneliness and despair of the poor and disadvantaged. Let us come back in January and work together with the new resolve to end poverty. Let us come back in 1987 and work toward providing decent housing, educational opportunities, and meaningful employment for those who have not shared in the economic benefit our country is capable of providing for each and every Canadian.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: wish you, Mr. Speaker, a Merry Christmas, and the Prime Minister, the Hon. Member for Oshawa, and all Hon. Members of the House.
Especially at this season we have to recognize that for millions of Canadians Christmas will not be the happy time it is for most of us. There are lonely people in our big cities, there are the homeless and the hungry. There are still over 100 foodbanks in this country, which I consider a national disgrace.
Would the Prime Minister tell us whether, in his view, 1987 would be a good year for us to reorder our national priorities and move the country toward a minimum standard of living? I ask him whether he would not think it a good idea to move toward a universal guaranteed annual income?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my right hon. friend for his comment about the Christmas season. To you, Mr. Speaker, and to all Hon. Members of the House, I extend warm and good wishes for a happy holiday and a very happy 1987.
December 19, 1986

The Right Hon. Leader raises-I include the New Democratic Party in that, very sincerely.


Mr. Broadbent:: That was an afterthought.


Martin Brian Mulroney: And his Quebec lieutenant.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Robert Cliche should turn over in his grave.
With regard to the very important point raised by my right hon. friend with its very important implications for the future, I point out-with an undertaking on behalf of the Government to do better in 1987-that the number of Candians living below the poverty line fell by 300,000 last year. That was the first decline since 1981. I think my right hon. friend will agree that while this is not perfect it represents substantial progress. I give him and the House a further undertaking to build and work to improve on that record in the future because poverty should not exist in a society as potentially prosperous as ours.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OPPORTUNITY FOR GOVERNMENT TO AIM TOWARD GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME SCHEME
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Prime Minister that one child out of five is living in poverty, that over one million Canadian children are living in poverty and that one third of the people standing in line at the food banks are children.
I therefore wish to repeat my question to the Prime Minister. Does he think the time has come to introduce a guaranteed annual income, in order to save Canadian children from the despair of poverty?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems we have had is that from 1981 to 1984, the number of people living below the poverty line in Canada increased by 700,000. This was a real tragedy.
Now, for the first time in six years, we are seeing an increase in the real incomes of Canadian families and a reduction of 300,000 in the number of people living below the poverty line. I think that is a vast improvement.
We are of course prepared to consider specific suggestions on improving our social programs for the needy in this country. I respect the Right Hon. Member's position and we shall certainly look into this as a Government and here in the House.


INCOME SURTAX
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can give the Prime Minister a specific suggestion. This week the Government proposed a 3 per cent surtax on
Oral Questions
individuals, including the working poor. One-half of the people living in poverty in Canada are members of families of the working poor. Despite the efforts of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides, to make an amendment in the House the Government insisted that that surtax apply across the board. Would the Prime Minister review the situation and see whether the working poor can be given relief from this surtax?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the number of Canadians living below the poverty line fell by 300,000 last year. That is the first such decline since 1981. This is important and good news for Canada.
From 1981 to 1984, some 700,000 Canadians fell below the poverty line. Last year some 300,000 Canadians were rescued from below the poverty line and lifted to a position of dignity in Canada. I thought that that was the objective of all Members. I think we should celebrate the fact that this is tremendous progress.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: There have been many other initiatives such as the refundable sales tax credit and so on, all of which have a positive impact on people who need help in Canada. I acknowledge that more must be done to be of assistance to people who genuinely need help in Canada. There ought not to be this segregation between the wealthy and those who are living below the poverty line. We must work as a Parliament and as a people to take positions that will resolve these differences in favour of the people who need help.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He must be feeling generous today, to entertain suggestions on eliminating poverty in this country. The Prime Minister will have to admit that among the elderly, and I am referring to single women, there has been an increase of 5,000 between 1984 and 1985. Today, 80,000 people in Canada are living below the poverty line just because this Government refuses to pay the spouse's allowance to those who are single, separated or divorced.
Since the Prime Minister wants some concrete suggestions for improving the situation and reducing the number of people below the poverty line, is he prepared to promise that in 1987, he will let those who are single, separated or divorced be

December 19, 1986
Oral Questions
eligible for the spouse's allowance, so that they will no longer live below the poverty line?
[DOT] (U25)


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the spirit expressed by the Prime Minister in his answers today is not unique to this season. The Prime Minister has made those points throughout his time in this House.
It is also to be noted that when the Government came into office we extended the spouse's allowance to include groups of people who for many of us as Members of Parliament had been our most difficult cases namely, widows and widowers who were not able to receive spouse's allowance because of the death of a spouse. The Hon. Member says that this should now be extended to other single persons. The Prime Minister and others have stated quite clearly over the months that as economic conditions in Canada improve-and they have improved-these are some considerations at which we will look in the second half of our mandate.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, and I am sure that people between 60 and 64 who are single, separated or divorced will be very disappointed to hear that the Government will not promise to help them.
Here is my supplementary for the Prime Minister, if he would care to listen: Is the Prime Minister prepared to make a commitment to reimburse the 35,000 elderly workers whose unemployment insurance benefits were cut off on January 5, 1986? Second, will he promise that the Government will not create two classes of elderly workers as regards unemployment insurance benefits?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Hon. Member would at least try to be fair. When this Government came into office we extended the spouse's allowance. Under a Government of which the Hon. Member was a part, widows and widowers did not receive any of that money. Now he is saying it is unfair.
This Government has not created two classes of citizens. In fact, as the Prime Minister has indicated, there are to date roughly 300,000 fewer Canadians living below the low income cut-off line used by Statistics Canada. We want to work further on that. I think the Hon. Member must admit that, as the economy improves, some of the very best news for all of us will be that people will be able to get meaningful work and get
out of the poverty cycle. That is what this Government is working toward.


UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to begin by wishing everyone, including the Leader of the Opposition and of course the Prime Minister, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I would add a special Christmas wish for the Prime Minister's Quebec caucus, particularly for all those who will still be there after the Christmas break.
My question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. During his press conference this morning we heard the Prime Minister boast about the remarkable progress Parliament has made this fall. One area in which there has been no progress whatsoever is the softwood lumber dispute with the United States. Since the Minister began this session on October 3 with a commitment that there would soon be an agreement, and since a commitment was made every other day since then, is she now prepared to announce to the House of Commons on the last day before the Christmas break that this important trade dispute with the United States has finally been resolved?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I too extend Merry Christmas wishes to the Leader of the NDP but I would point out that his remarks are certainly in the nature of a Scrooge rather than a Santa Claus.
At no time would I make commitments to have delivered an agreement on an issue that is within the U.S. trade law system. That would be irresponsible of me.


Pat Carney: May I finish? I have said that I have been trying to negotiate a solution to this very, very difficult dispute and I can tell the House that negotiations are continuing. It would be inadvisable to make any further comment on this issue while the negotiators are at the table.


EXPORT TAX INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister knows that we are all supposed to leave for our home constituencies later today, will she confirm that the Government intends to announce today its decision about imposing an export tax? Surely the Government has an obligation to inform Parliament now of its decision rather than waiting until Parliament is shut down and then announcing it, and expecting it to be totally free of criticism.


John Edward Broadbent: That's right. Mr. Nystrom: Right on.
December 19, 1986


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure this House that I am not intending to deprive the House in any way of an opportunity to comment or criticize on any agreement that we have. I am simply telling the House that negotiations are continuing. I will inform the House at the appropriate time should we be able to conclude this difficult dispute successfully. I think that the Hon. Member should be complimenting us on managing to keep everyone at the table so we can try to resolve this issue.


John Edward Broadbent: The greatest disaster in international trade in 20 years, and she wants a compliment.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: I wish to ask the
Minister if she will confirm that the Government plans to announce today-not next week-that it has already made its mind up that it will announce in the House later today the imposition of an export tax. While she deals with that, will she assure us if we impose that 15 per cent export tax here it will not simply be added to an additional 15 per cent in the United States? At least has that part been negotiated with the United States?


Pat Carney: I can
only say humbug to that allegation.
I may point out to the Hon. Member that the U.S. system provides for a final decision on the countervail on December 30, so the U.S. can go to December 30 on this issue. It can also go to around February 27 on an injury issue. I do not set the deadlines on this matter; it is a matter of U.S. law. I can only report again that I will inform the House at the appropriate time when I know how the negotiations have gone.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Evening Telegram in St. John's in November revealed that Newfoundland has the highest poverty rate in Canada, that 32,000 Newfoundland families have low income. That is 23 per cent of all families in the province. In light of these staggering figures, how can the Prime Minister's Government justify the cut-backs in fisheries and other programs, the cut-backs in equalization grants, and moreover the lack of any meaningful gesture to create the jobs that would alleviate this staggering burden of poverty in my province?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have said publicly that one of the problems in the kind of Canada and economy that we inherited was the serious structural imbalances that were created over many years, particularly in regard to Newfoundland. When we came in we inherited a situation where Newfoundland had unemployment in the neighbourhood of 24 per cent. I indicated at the First Ministers' Conference in Vancouver how unacceptable that situation was in Canada, where, for example, in southern Ontario or Manitoba unemployment at that time was 6.9 per cent, which is among the lowest of any jurisdiction in North America, and unemployment was still at 20.8 per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador, this is, notwithstanding the fact that it has come down since the time this Government was in, but not enough.
We have taken special initiatives of $200 million in ERDAs. The Atlantic Accord resolved for the first time, after 15 years of wrangling and difficulty, the offshore dispute with Newfoundland and Labrador where we pumped in $225 million, $77 million extra. EPF went up.


Bill Rompkey: It was supposed to.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Equalization that the Minister of Finance is mentioning is going up not down, as opposed to other actions that were taken by previous Governments. We are saying that Newfoundland and Labrador unfortunately bears an unfair burden in this country. We are working closely and intimately with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to try to make things right after 25 years of unfairness from a Government here in Ottawa of which the Hon. Member was a member.


HIBERNIA AND LOWER CHURCHILL PROJECTS
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, on the two projects that could help most in Newfoundland, the Hibernia project and the Lower Churchill, the Premier of Newfoundland has said that the ball is squarely in the Prime Minister's court.


Mr. Crosbie:: It used to be your court.


Bill Rompkey: Will the Prime Minister move on those two projects which will create the jobs to alleviate that crushing load of poverty and unemployment that we have in my province?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in regard to Hibernia, I understand there is a meeting tomorrow between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who has just come in, and the Government of Newfoundland.
In regard to the development of the Lower Churchill, last week when I was down in Havre-St-Pierre in my riding I repeated-

December 19, 1986
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Ah! Ah!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals still seem to want to make fun of the riding of Manicouagan. Again I see that the Member from Toronto speaks against the interests of eastern Quebec and the riding of Manicouagan.

When I was in my constituency last week, I offered again as Prime Minister of Canada-


John Edward Broadbent: Another prison!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -to intervene with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Quebec to try to bring about the joint development of the Lower Churchill to benefit the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and eastern Quebec generally. It would be a worthwhile national project, and I hope my hon. friend will support me in that view in trying to bring about that development.

[ Translation]


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS EFFECT OF SOFTWOOD LUMBER TAX ON EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. We happen to know that the federal Government might soon impose a levy on lumber. Can the Minister confirm that if these additional revenues were to be redistributed among the producing provinces they would be taken into account in the equalization formula so that the poorest provinces would not be doubly penalized through equalization and as a result of the direct and indirect impact of the levy itself?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Hon. Member's question is hypothetical.


CONSEQUENCES FOR QUEBEC
Robert Toupin: Of course the question is hypothetical, Mr. Speaker, but only for a short while. This is the last sitting day before the Christmas recess. Does the Minister realize that Quebec alone would stand to lose up to $50 million in additional revenues? This Figure has been confirmed by the Quebec Government.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I listened closely, but I fail to see where the question is.


John Edward Broadbent: There is a question. Answer. Yes or no?


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last night two Hamiltonians, Andrew and Caroline Copley, swallowed their pride and told Canada how difficult it was for a family of four who are living in poverty and who are working to live when they are paying 70 per cent of their income for housing. When I spoke with Mr. Copley this morning he said about his visits to a food bank in Hamilton, "I cower in the house for a day in case somebody saw me on the food line". I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can tell this family that he will help them and the thousands of other Canadians who are living in poverty by guaranteeing to bring in a guaranteed annual income in 1987.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I also saw that television program last night. I want to say to the Hon. Member, as has been said earlier by the Prime Minister and other members of the Government, that we will continue our efforts to help people move out of the low-income cut-off area to which these people were referring.
I have to say in fairness and honesty to the Hon. Member that social assistance rates are set by the Province of Ontario. It is a province that has the ability to have higher rates than some other provinces. Social housing is also within the purview of the provincial Government with help through the federal Government. I hope that the Hon. Member is fair. There were people in poverty when her Government was in office. There are people in poverty under this Government, but at least signs and trends have been positive. When the Hon. Member puts her questions I hope that she will put them in the light not only of historical reality but also political reality.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT SURTAX BE REVOKED
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister to make a commitment to this family. How can the Prime Minister justify the kind of ridiculous answer we have just heard from the Minister of National Health and Welfare when this week in the House of Commons the Conservative Government of Canada imposed a 3 per cent surtax on the working poor? At the very least, will the P.M. not promise today in this House to revoke the 3 per cent surtax on the working poor?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can say what she wants. What I gave, I believe, for fair-minded Canadians was a realistic assessment of the situation. When the Member puts forward the proposition, I am saying to her that the Minister of
December 19, 1986

Finance, keeping in mind exactly that difficulty, put in the refundable sales tax credit.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about the working poor families?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Will the Hon. Member at least give the rest of us the same courtesy that she demands for herself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: The crybaby talks.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: As the Prime Minister has said, Mr. Speaker, and as others have said, we will continue working. We will work with those who are realistic. Obviously I cannot say that about the Hon. Member.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He has claimed that opponents of his patent Bill are guilty of agitation through misrepresentation. Is it not the Minister who is guilty when he has claimed, for example, the support of Fonyo and Hansen, and why was it necessary for the president of the Alberta Council on Aging to write him to tell him to desist from claiming the support of the seniors in Alberta?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in a list of telegrams and letters of support from various organizations was a newsletter from the Alberta Council on Aging with an editorial strongly in support of the policy we are introducing. I interpreted that inaccurately and I apologized to that organization.
Sometimes it is hard to tell where people stand. For example, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North was quoted in May, 1985, as saying:
If the higher prices went into a fund which could really be used for research and development, I think the consumers could live with that.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand that response.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Ask Orlikow.


PROFITS OF DRUG MANUFACTURING COMPANIES
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, instead of the Minister diverting the discussion to issues about who supports whom, would it not be better to
Oral Questions
answer the question why it is necessary to have a Bill that is supposed to improve profits when the average profit in the drug industry is 19 per cent? Wyeth Ltd. reported a profit of 51 per cent, Ayerst 21 per cent, and Burroughs Wellcome Ltd., 19 per cent. Why do they need more profits?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, they do not need more profits. What Canada needs is for those profits to be invested here in research and development so our young scientists can work for the health of Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: This Bill is going to make that possible, and I would think the Hon. Member and his Party would realize that it is important to Canada and to Canadians to undertake more research and medical science because cures for diseases that afflict citizens come from research and development and Canadians have the ability to do that. We have the universities, and the teaching hospitals. We will now have the law to make it possible. The Hon. Member should be supporting this Bill.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the Minister advise the House what progress or lack thereof he has had with respect to securing minimal and fundamental rights of consular access for Philip Engs who is in custody in Iran.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the continuing interest the Hon. Member and others have in this difficult question. I have no further progress to report in terms of a response from the Iranian authorities. I can advise the Hon. Member that at my request the Ambassador to Iran from Denmark will be visiting the most senior officers of the Iranian foreign service on Sunday to press our case again. I hope to have responses to the request that I have put and I will communicate them by the most expeditious way to the Hon. Member when they are received.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Thus far in 1986 there have been over 3,900 reported cases of family

December 19, 1986
Oral Questions
violence in the Province of Manitoba. In fact over 650 cases of child abuse have been reported to the courts. This is directly related to the fact that there are well over 40,000 families in that province living below the poverty line. The Government of Canada has, in fact, reduced funding totally for the clearing house on family violence and has brought forward no coordinated approach to family policy. Specifically, can the Prime Minister tell us whether in 1987 we can expect a clear definition of family policy for Canada, particularly as it relates to the serious problem of family violence?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the statistics have already been given. I find it rather strange that where this Government advances the child tax credit the two cases where that money has been withheld in part against social assistance payments have occurred in the Province of Manitoba. There is one right now. The Province of Manitoba should put in the same conditions and full transfers of child tax credit that other provinces do. We have two cases in Manitoba where that is not happening.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That is the Tory legacy.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is not a Tory legacy. It is an NDP Government in Manitoba. It is doing it.


DAY CARE-FEDERAL FUNDING
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question demanded an answer-not pawning off responsibility to some other level of government. I want a specific answer on what this Government will do about the serious problem of family violence. I ask the Prime Minister again. In a recent survey done in my own riding of over 9,000 households, 60 per cent supported a fully funded federal day care program. Can we expect the Government to announce in 1987 a fully funded day care program for all Canadians?


Ms. Mitchell:: Don't hold your breath.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we had the opportunity at the First Ministers' Conference to discuss this proposal actively. The Government of Canada is fully committed to alleviating that genuine concern in regard to day care. We will be making substantial progress in co-operation with the provinces-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What about the Budget? Have you got anything in there?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -to deal with what is not a women's issue, but society's problem that we must deal with together. I acknowledge that it as a priority and must be dealt with together.
It is unfortunate that over the years these matters were not more adequately considered. I was looking the other day, because of the tie-in to poverty and violence which my hon. friend quite properly pointed out, at an analysis done by the C. D. Howe Institute of previous Budgets including those when
the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Finance. This is a quote from that analysis:
It was not the poor and needy who were protected from the ravages of inflation during his tenure as Minister of Finance. In dollar benefits it was the richest 8 per cent of the families.
That was the problem in the past, and with the help of the Minister of National Health and Welfare we are trying to correct that very dramatically.


SOVEREIGNTY
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In a New York Times article this week by Richard Halloran, U.S. Navy officers said that attack submarines have travelled to the North Pole and back through the Canadian archipelago. Since the U.S. Navy now admits that its submarines have gone through Canadian waters as well as the other three routes, can the Minister tell us whether or not Canada's permission for these voyages was requested?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr Speaker, I saw that article in The New York Times and was frankly surprised to see that statement attributed to an officer of the U.S. Navy. The only answer I can give, as the Hon. Member knows, is that it is not our practice to provide information as to the potential presence of U.S. submarines in Canadian waters or the potential routes used.


UNITED STATES PLANS FOR FUTURE ARCTIC VOYAGES
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, it seems odd that one has to get information like this from The New York Times or naval officers in Washington. Has Canada simply become a total patsy on these issues? Has Canada been informed that the U.S. Navy plans similar and "even more extensive" expeditions to the Arctic next year? Have they asked for our permission and has it been granted?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would agree that it is most unusual for U.S. naval officials to be making those kinds of comments if indeed they were correctly quoted in The New York Times. Assuming for the moment that they were for the sake of argument, let me take this occasion to indicate publicly that the Government of Canada expects the U.S. Government to respect and enforce the understanding among all NATO allies about not revealing the presence of or routes used by ships of the U.S. or NATO fleets.
December 19, 1986

With regard to the second part of the question concerning a remark made by a spokesman for the U.S. Navy, I gather a serving officer of the Navy, and what that person expects the U.S. Government's intention to be, the Member will know discussions are under way now with respect to elaboration of Canada's claims to sovereignty in the North which were made by this Government a year ago September after a long reluctance to do so by former Governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Since this is the last Question Period before Christmas, time is going along and questions and answers have been long. I ask Hon. Members to co-operate by keeping the questions short, and Ministers to respond by keeping the answers short.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker-


John Carnell Crosbie: Why not wish us a Merry Christmas?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, at the request of government Members I will wish them a Merry Christmas before I direct my question to the Prime Minister.
My question concerns poverty. Why did the Government of Canada give a contract to a rich Tory friend of the Prime Minister, Roger Nantel, to prepare a communications plan to convince poor and sick Canadians that they should be happy to give at least $200 million a year more to rich multinationals through higher drug prices? When will he cancel this contract and stop spending money foolishly the way he has been over the last year?


John Carnell Crosbie: There is a poverty of intelligence over there.


Don Boudria: Put the money where it should be, helping poor Canadians.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that contract is a perfectly natural and normal contract of the same type the previous Government gave out with great frequency. It was for a period of three months, a maximum of $25,000-


John Edward Broadbent: I thought you were supposed to change that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Harvey is a Liberal.


Harvie Andre: -and $12,500 was paid. Like the previous Government, this Government hires experts to give advice from time to time on a variety of things. It is a normal practice, and any suggestion of something illicit or improper here is entirely in the mind of the questioner.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT BILL C-22 BE WITHDRAWN
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister.
Since the Program did not work and Canadians don't want this Bill, will the Prime Minister ask his friend, Mr. Nantel, to give the money back to the Government and cancel Bill C-22 which will increase poverty in Canada?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it is not true that Canadians do not want it. For example, the Hon. Member for Sudbury is quoted in The Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal in May of this year as saying: "I may be branded as a heretic among Liberals in this country but I happen to believe in intellectual property rights and I think the patent laws of 1969 went too far in one direction."


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: So there is at least one Canadian over there who agrees with us.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a couple of questions to the Minister of Transport. They concern the tragic case of Fred Turner of Yellowknife who, as a result of harsh and, I think, vindictive action of a government agency, lost his aircraft and equipment and was forced into bankruptcy. In discussions with myself and the Hon. Member for Skeena the previous Minister of Transport agreed to compensate Mr. Turner. The Government offered $15,000. The previous Minister told me the cheque has been processed, and I do not think that is true.
Would the Minister do what he promised last Monday night in committee and have his officials contact Mr. Turner and make sure he gets the money immediately?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member's interest in this case which indeed sounds harsh. I want to remind him, however, that this arises from a decision of the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission which, on April 4, 1984, before this Government assumed office, cancelled this man's licence.
We have recommended, and there is an Order in Council, that an ex gratia payment of $15,000 be offered to Mr. Turner. I will have to check to see whether he has been contacted since the committee meeting the other day where the

December 19, 1986
Oral Questions
Hon. Member brought up this matter. If he has not been contacted as he should have been, I will see that he is today.


REQUEST FOR NEGOTIATION OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As of half an hour ago he has not been contacted by anyone from the Minister's Department. Now that Mr. Turner has also lost his home will the Minister not only immediately send the $15,000 to him but enter into negotiations for further compensation? You owe him at least ten times that much.


John Carnell Crosbie: Our legal counsel will continue his attempts to meet with Mr. Turner and reach an agreement which will permit him to receive this ex gratia payment. As to further payments, that would be in the hands of our lawyers. We do not think there is any legal responsibility on the Government in this matter but we are attempting to assist Mr. Turner because we feel he was treated unfairly. I will definitely see if anything further can be done.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You ruined him.


John Carnell Crosbie: Not the Government.


DAY CARE SERVICES
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
As the Prime Minister said earlier, the Minister of National Health and Welfare will have to give special attention to day care in the coming year. Could the Minister inform the House if talks have already started with his provincial counterparts on the subject of day care and could he reveal the Government's concrete plans in this respect?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for her question. Following the discussions between the Prime Minister and the First Ministers in Vancouver, I will meet with the Social Affairs Ministers. This issue is on our agenda for January 22 and 23, 1987.


QUERY CONCERNING PROVISION OF FUNDS FOR DAY CARE IN FEBRUARY, 1987, BUDGET
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
At the First Ministers' Conference in Vancouver, the Prime Minister stated publicly that he would earmark funds for day care in the February 1987 Budget.
I wish the Prime Minister would tell the House how much he is prepared to spend on day care, and whether he is willing to set aside $150 million as requested in the Cook report, to show that the Conservative Government sees day care as a priority and not as an exercise in public relations.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the record would show that the Prime Minister was specific relative to the Budget of 1987.


Lucie Pépin: Oh, yes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Hon. Members should also know that Budgets are not discussed on the floor of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister said that the Government of Canada is committed to a day-care program. He also said that we will have to negotiate this with the provinces in view of the jurisdictional issue. The Member is on a recommendations committee. I hope she will make her recommendations early.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is with regard to the closing of our embassy in Equador. Equador has a population of nine million and has a good economy. It could have good relations with Canada. We could sell our produce and technology there. What is the reason for this closure?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that no Member of the House and no Government would voluntarily choose to close embassies in Equador or elsewhere. We face some very serious financial problems with which we must deal.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Shamrock Summit.


Charles Joseph Clark: You cannot simply wish away a deficit. You must work it down. With all respect, I suggest that the Hon. Member will have to live with that economic reality just as the rest of the people of Canada must.
December 19, 1986


DATE OF BY-ELECTIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It is a tradition that at about 4.30 on the day we recess for the Christmas break, appointments are made of hacks, flacks, and bagmen to the other place. In the spirit of parliamentary reform, would the Prime Minister not use this occasion-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: This is your big chance, Nelson.


An Hon. Member:: Remember Ian Deans.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap could be specific in his question.


Mr. Beatty:: Ian Deans asked the same question at the same time last year.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of good will, and breaking from tradition, would the Right Hon. Prime Minister not take this opportunity to announce the dates for the byelections in St. John's East and Hamilton Mountain?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question about the hacks, flack, dupes, and poops, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that Ian Deans asked the same question at exactly the same time last year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Look what happened to him.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I want you to know that for your comment I have taken you off the list. Boy, will I get a call from your wife!
With regard to the two by-elections, they are indeed due and will be called. There could be a third one if the Hon. Member for Terrebonne did the honourable thing and resigned his seat as an NDPer in Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the Question Period has ended.


CHRISTMAS RECESS
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to extend the usual invitation to all Hon. Members to join with the Speaker and others in an exchange of good wishes and compliments of the season in
Question of Privilege-Mr. Witer
Room 16 starting at five o'clock. I hope to see some of you there.
This is the last day we will be in the House before Christmas. People have been benevolent in exchanging their good wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I know that has all been said sincerely. I would like to say very sincerely that I appreciate, more than I can adequately say, the co-operation and good will which I have received, as your new Speaker, from all Members of the House. I am very proud of all of you. Merry Christmas.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINT OF ORDER
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the question asked of me by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Mr. Bickert of the Department of Justice contacted Mr. Turner this week after the Monday meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport. He has advised us that he wants $2 million rather than the $15,000 ex gratia payment offered. It appears that there is a large gap between the two positions.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of benevolence which exists in the House today, I think you will find unanimous agreement to extend the hours of the proceedings during the lunch hour from one o'clock to two o'clock in order that we can continue with the business before the House and perhaps finish it a little earlier this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday two Members of this House saw fit to cast aspersion on my integrity based on a libelous newspaper article which was an outright fabrication. The Hon. Members should check

December 19, 1986
Tabling of Documents
their facts before they accept such an outrageous story which insinuates that I was somehow tied to a fundraising organization for the Contras because I attended a banquet which apparently some representative of this organization was originally scheduled to attend. This ridiculous piece of logic was used to assail my reputation and integrity, calling my credibility into question, and inhibiting my ability to function as a Member of Parliament.
Erskine May states that the privileges of Parliament are rights which are absolutely necessary to the due execution of its powers. I believe credibility is absolutely essential to any Member of Parliament and, by mounting this scurrilous attack on my reputation, the Members of Parliament for Hamilton East (Miss Copps) and New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) have seriously breached my privilege.
Should you find that I have a question of privilege, I am prepared to move that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for examination.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other Members rising on this question of privilege?


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will find ample precedent to determine that the matter being raised by the Hon. Member who just spoke is really a matter of debate, or difference of opinion, and not a matter that affects the privilege of the Member. On behalf of the Opposition I want to put that position before the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Are other Hon. Members rising on this question of privilege? I advise the Hon. Member for Park-dale-High Park (Mr. Witer) that I will consider the matter. I must indicate that it would seem to me that, while the Hon. Member has a grievance, it may not be a question of privilege.
Under the circumstances, I think it would be appropriate for the Hon. Member to convey his concern to other Hon. Members who may have unwittingly put the Hon. Member in a difficult position. The Hon. Member's right of free speech has not been affected, although I will look carefully at the matter.
I urge all Members that if they are going to attack each other, as sometimes is done, they should be very careful not to make accusations that are not well founded in fact. That seems to be the complaint of the Hon. Member and perhaps he might speak with other Hon. Members involved and advise me afterward of the result of that discussion.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization) and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67, 1 have the honour to lay upon the table in both official languages draft legislation for the reorganization and divestiture of Teleglobe Canada which reflects policies outlined on November 19. Merry Christmas, Mr. Speaker.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 67(2) and 99(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government response to the first report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations concerning the Canada Post Corporation.


PETITIONS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government response to the following 99 petitions: Nos. 332-42, 332-44 to 332-53 inch, 332-108, 332-109, 332-111 to 332-115 inch, 332-117 to 332121 inc., 332-123 to 332-127 inch, 332-131 to 332-136 inch, 332-138 to 332-143 inch, 332-144 to 332-148 inch, 332-150, 332-151, 332-153, 332-154 to 332-159 inch, 332-161 to 332167 inch, 332-185 to 332-188 inch, 332-230 to 332-232 inch, 332-241 to 332-264 inch and 332-277 to 332-283 inch


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question No. 37 has not yet been answered.


Mr. Gauthier:: We are not there yet.


a
December 19, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member will wait for a few minutes, we will get to that point.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake tabled in the House the report of the Government Operations Committee concerning Canada Post's five year corporate plan. On behalf of all members of the House, 1 would like to thank the committee members for their diligent work.
As requested under provisional Standing Order 99(2), Mr. Speaker, the Government will be tabling in a few moments a formal response to the report presented by the Standing Committee. I would like to take this opportunity to address the most important issues raised by the committee.
Mr. Speaker, as Members will recall, my colleague, the Minister of Finance announced last spring that Canada Post would be required to eliminate its operating deficit by fiscal year 1988-89. Our objective was for Canada Post to improve service and reliability while managing both its finances and its operations more efficiently and effectively. Our resolve in this remains undiminished.

In response to the orientation set by the Government, the senior management and Board of Directors of Canada Post prepared a five-year corporate plan in which the corporation detailed the measures it proposed to take in order to improve both service and over-all efficiency.
When the details of the plans were scrutinized by the parliamentary Committee on Government Operations, it became apparent that some of the measures that the Corporation proposed were of concern. In particular, the committee devoted much of its time and attention to the impact of proposed changes in postal service on rural Canadians.
The committee has indeed done tremendous work. The Government has had an opportunity to examine the report of the committee and is in general agreement with its observations and recommendations.
In recognition of the changing demographics of rural Canada, Canada Post has been eliminating rural lot line delivery routes for years. The corporate plan proposed measures that would have further removed lot line service for some 100,000 rural Canadians. In response to concerns raised by the committee, the corporation has advised me that it will
Statements by Ministers
not proceed at this time on the replacement of rural lot line services.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michel Côté: This change will be reflected in Canada Post's next corporate plan.
On the subject of the possible amalgamation of some rural Post Offices, I am in agreement, as is the corporation, with the point made by the committee that a simple amalgamation formula cannot be imposed arbitrarily and uniformly on a country as broad and diverse as Canada.
Canada Post recognizes the need to be sensitive to local concerns that vary from community to community. During the hearings, the President of Canada Post made the commitment that there will be no amalgamation without local consultations and that in the future a 90-day notice will be given of proposed service changes to permit this process to take place.
While amalgamations of rural Post Offices must take place, it will be done on an opportunity basis, wherever possible, due to retirement of a postmaster or some such other vacancies. Where this is not possible, a human resource management plan will be developed.

I was pleased to note that the commitee is in general agreement with the proposal of Canada Post Management to involve the private sector on a broader scale through franchising in the provision of counter services in rural and other areas. The small businesses and entrepreneurs of Canada can do an excellent job in meeting many essential consumer needs in this country through franchising. As Members already know, 25 per cent of Canada Post's retail outlets are already managed by the private sector.
The subject of second class mail privileges for newspapers, periodicals and books is part of the larger issue of cultural subsidies for which my colleague the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) is responsible.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind Hon. Members that the Government is presently paying more than 70 per cent of the cost of sending publications through the mail. This particular approach has not been revisited since 1969 and, accordingly, the Department of Communications with the assistance of Treasury Board and Canada Post will be consulting with the publishing industry on this issue over the next several months. In the interim Canada Post will be proceedings with modest increases to the rates of published materials effective July 1st, 1987.
Of most concern to the committee were proposed postal rate increases for weekly newspapers. The Government shares the concern expressed by the committee on the impact these increases could have had on weekly newspapers. I have received assurances from Canada Post that there will be no increase in the rates for weekly newspapers.

December 19, 1986
Statements by Ministers


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michel Côté: With respect to services in urban areas, the committee also heard testimony regarding the faulty installation and a particular design problem associated with supermailboxes.
In response to these problems, members of the committee expressed concern with the security of mail delivered by this means. Canada Post has given its assurance, both to the committee and to the Government, that these problems will be eliminated prior to the installation of any new supermailboxes. With regard to disciplinary and legal action resulting therefrom, I understand Canada Post is giving these matters full consideration.
Canada Post is also taking steps to meet another concern voiced by the committee, the need to ensure that the services available to the public through supermailboxes are accessible to physically handicapped customers.

In many areas of the country, particularly in small towns, Canadians have never had door to door postal delivery services. In fact, Mr. Speaker, only 54 per cent of Canadians currently receive door to door service.
As members of this House know, the cluster box concept, as an alternative to door to door delivery was developed by Canada Post under the previous Government. Then as now, it was apparent that the cost of extending door to door delivery to new areas of the country was prohibitive. Supermailbox services, properly installed, are a vast improvement over the old green community mailbox delivery mode introduced by the previous administration or for that matter, general delivery, and represent an efficient means of servicing new growth areas at a cost considerably less than the $500 millions associated with the extension of door to door service in all new subdivisions.

Finally, the committee carefully considered the planned two cent increase in the basic letter rate and concluded that the increase is not excessive. The Government concurs with this conclusion. Therefore, gazetting of the rate increases will take place at the earliest opportunity. Further increases to the basic letter rate which will henceforth become effective on January 1 of each year, as necessary, will be held to not more than the rate of inflation.
I want to be very clear today that the Government is maintaining the approval it gave last October of the CPC corporate plan for the period 1986-87 to 1990-91. We are holding the CPC to its projected loss of $30 million in 1987-88 and profits of $53 million, $44 million and $58 million in the following three years, and its full commitment to an improved postal service for Canadians.
Considerable progress has already been achieved by Canada Post Corporation. For example, over the last two years, the volume of mail processed has increased while at the same time using 2,000 less employees. Absenteeism has been reduced by 26 per cent. Expenses other than salaries in 1985-86 were close to 2 per cent lower than the previous year.
The committee expressed the view that while improvement has taken place since the corporation was established, further progress was called for.
[ Translation]
For example, first class mail's reliability has improved by an unprecedented 4 per cent since the summer.
Both the CPC Board of directors and management recognize that the financial discipline imposed by our fiscal framework is an essential element in their efforts to move the mail with service reliability, economy and efficiency.
They know that financial viability is the best guarantee of security that any corporation can give to its employees, and to its customers. They are heartened to receive this confirmation of their operating plan because it is a clear manifestation of the confidence and support which the Government has placed and continues to place in them over the difficult months and years ahead.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members of the committee, and the others who praticipated in the hearings, for their work. I believe that their report, and the results stemming from it, are a clear indication of the success of this Government's intentions to incorporate the views and talents of all private Members into achieving workable solutions to the important issues of the day.

As I said earlier, now is the time to let the corporation get on with the job.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that I did not say that the Minister was in charge of Canada Post. I apologize.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is because the Minister is not in charge of Canada Post that you forgot.
I am pleased to participate and respond to the Minister today. I wish, however, that the Minister had given us better news.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his remarks the Minister commended the parliamentary committee for what he felt was an outstanding job and contribution.
First I might remind him that the parliamentary committee heard only two witnesses: the Canada Post Corporation President and Mr. Sylvain Cloutier, President of the Management Office.
December 19, 1986

Many other people would have liked to appear as witnesses, including the Canadian Small Business Federation, postal workers' associations and a number of other Canadians, but they were not given an opportunity. The committee sat only eight times and began drafting its report very early. How can anyone conclude that the committee did a good job, how can anyone even conclude that it was objective? Everything had obviously been decided even before the committee began its proceedings.
The Minister had nothing but praise because Canada Post should wipe out its deficit by financial year 1988-1989. This is unrealistic, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, Mr. Marchment himself said in his report that it would take five years before operations might become profitable.
We hear about cut-backs today because the Government has taken an unrealistic approach. I am saying this as a Member of Parliament, and Mr. Marchment who was commissioned by the Government to produce the report came to the same conclusion.

The Minister said in his remarks that Canada Post "detailed the measures it proposed to take in order to improve both service and over-all efficiency". How can we improve service by shutting down post offices? How can we improve service by telling Canadians they cannot have home delivery? How can having something less than what we had before be considered an improvement? It is obviously not an improvement. It may cost less, as the Minister said, but please do not call it an improvement. Anything which is less than what we had is not an improvement unless it is an improvement in the effort to make things worse.
Given the fact that the committee had to issue a dissenting report-no Hon. Member of the Opposition was in accord with the Government-the report on which the Minister has made his statements today is a complete whitewash. I represent an electoral riding in which there are 42 post offices in the west end of the region. It is an urban area. People have had supermailboxes inflicted upon them. The rest of my constituency, by and large, is very rural with small post offices everywhere. We are told that the corporation will not proceed at this time with the replacement of rural lot line service. We still have not heard from the Minister as to what "at this time" means. We would like to get a commitment that the lot line service will remain, not only in the short term but in the long term. It is important for our rural constituents.
The Minister has proposed that consultation take place when post offices are closed. Of course, we do not want them to close at all. However, if the Minister is planning to close them, I wish he would give us an explanation as to what "local consultation means". Does it mean that the local municipal officials will be consulted? Does it mean that the Member of Parliament will be notified or will he or she only receive notice in his constituency mail after a decision has already been
Statements by Ministers
taken? It is important for us to know just exactly how that consultation process will take place.
In terms of closing down post offices on the so-called opportunity basis, that is wrong. That criteria should never be used, and I will tell the Minister why. I have a postmistress in my riding who is in her sixties. She has been saying for some time that she wishes to quit her job and retire. However, the citizenry have been telling her not to quit because if she does they will lose their post office. What kind of pressure is that to be placing on people? It is unfair to make a postmaster or postmistress personally responsible for whether or not a post office will be retained. It is unfair to place that type of a burden on people.

Mr. Speaker, with all the talk about privatizing post offices,
I still wonder how the Minister intends to do this, if we consider union contracts, and especially the successor clauses in those contracts, because we may well be in a situation where the same bargaining agreement will subsequently be binding on the person or the agency that takes over a post office, because some of these post offices have people who are unionized. So perhaps the Minister could explain this particular detail later on.
I would also like to point out to the Minister the problem of our weekly newspapers. Although we are glad there will be no rate increase in the immediate future, at least not for newspapers, I would like to know a bit more about this particular area, because the whole issue of mail delivery may affect our rural papers. I have seven in my riding.

The seven weekly newspapers that I have in my riding are very worried, not only about a potential increase or potential abandonment of subsidy, but if the system is made the way Canada Post proposes to make it with less efficient delivery, then we would centralize rural post offices. What this will leave us with is weekly newspapers that will no longer be delivered on the same day, which is now the custom. In rural areas the owner of a rural paper goes to the local post office, hands copies of the paper to the postmaster who places it in the boxes right away. If this measure is implemented then weekly newspapers will be delivered when they are one, two or three days old. For that reason alone we may lose very many of our local weekly newspapers. I ask the Minister to think about that situation because it is a concern that has been raised with me by some of the local weekly newspaper publishers in the riding I represent.
[ Translation]
The Minister did not mention the subject of religions publications, and I would urge him to clarify the situation on these publications because I imagine that recently, quite a few Members, including the Member now speaking, probably

December 19, 1986
Statements by Ministers
received comments from editors of these publications in their ridings.

I now wish to talk about the so-called superbox, and I recognize I have only one minute left. The superbox does not work. It is as plain as that. It does not work. The Minister says it is better than the old-fashioned green mailbox. At least the green mailboxes worked. They are temporary. They can be removed and replaced by better delivery later on. Most important, if the old green boxes had locks that did not work they could be sawed off and replaced with another lock. That cannot be done with the new set-up. It is clear that the only thing we can say about superboxes is that they should never have been invented. They should never have been sold. They should never have been bought by the Government of Canada and by Canada Post.
There is considerably more to say on the postal issue. I just wish I had more time in which to say it. I am sorry that my time has expired. I wish I had another 10 minutes in which to speak so that I could finish my remarks on behalf of my Party. This is an important issue. It is important to all Canadians. Perhaps if I were given unanimous consent I could have another five minutes and continue my reply.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent to continue his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to come right to the point. From the report of the committee and from the Minister's response it has been clearly demonstrated that the majority of the committee members were nothing more than yes-men. They were yes-men to the Minister and yes-men to the President of Canada Post. I say yes-men deliberately. Perhaps if there had been some female Members of Parliament on the committee there would have been some more humanity expressed by the majority, as opposed to the callous attitude that was taken with regard to postal service.
The Minister's statement today only deals in a token way with postal service. In effect what the Minister has done is dealt with the tip of the iceberg. When a sailor is out on the ocean he has to know not only what is taking place above the water-line but what is taking place below. He has to know not only where is the tip of the iceberg but where the bulk of it is beneath the water-line. That is what led to the sinking of the Titanic. Sitting across from me is the captain of the Titanic. His ship is going down. Postal service is going down and all the Minister deals with is the tip of the iceberg, that little part above the water-line.
I wish to give some credit where credit is due. What is being done that is positive has to do with lot line service in rural areas and with weekly newspapers. The Minister deserves some credit. He has put a halt to the reduction in lot line services in rural areas, according to the words in his statement. I hope he lives up to those words. He has also put a halt to the increase in rates for weekly newspapers. So the Minister and the committee deserve some credit in this regard.
However, the people who deserve the most credit are members of the Canadian public. I say that because it is they who spoke out. It is they who let the Government know in no uncertain terms that they are fed up with further reductions in postal service. It is because of the strong public outcry that the Government has backed down and buckled under with respect to these two issues.
To place the matter in perspective, this is just the tip of the iceberg. These are but two token elements of the over-all postal plan. What we have to examine is what lies below the waterline, what is left undone. We must examine where the real problems that will sink the postal service lie, the problems which will cause untold damage to Canadians in terms of their postal service.
What is below the water-line is rural service and rural post offices. The way the Minister deals with these matters is by saying that there is a need for a sensitivity to local concerns. That is no assurance that rural post offices will not be closed. In fact, the Minister has said that amalgamations will go ahead. Thus in the future we will see closures of rural post offices. What will be required is for people to continue to speak out, and to speak out loudly in order that their post offices not be closed.
The Minister said in his statement that there would be no amalgamations without local consultation and that in the future a 90-day notice will be required. It is already a requirement under existing legislation and existing post office policy that notice be given. That requirement has not been respected. It has not been effective. What faith can we have in the Minister with respect to him changing his ways regarding to rural post offices?
Having regard to rural post offices, I wish to deal directly with the Minister's claim about franchising, about turning over all of the rural post offices to the private sector. Let me point out that the Minister intends to do the same thing with urban post offices. What we are talking about is turning over all of the post offices in the country to the private sector in the name of efficiency and convenience. If we need more convenience and efficiency in the post office, that could be done equally as well in the public sector as in the private sector.
The danger in what is being done is not only that there will be a reduction in service but, when these contracts are let, there will be a real temptation for abuse. There will be

December 19, 1986

temptation for the Government to use these contracts as another patronage tool.
Over the last few days we heard about the way Citizenship Court judge positions are used as patronage tools. Here the Government is opening up a whole new line of patronage gifts to pass out. The difficulty with that is that the Government can abuse that process at the cost of service.
Another item that is below the surface of this postal plan is the issue of the superboxes. In his statement, the Minister talked about dealing with technical problems and he assured us that there will be no new superboxes put in place until all technical problems are dealt with. Why were the technical problems not dealt with in the first place? Why should we have any more confidence in his assurances today than we have had in his assurances in the past? On a number of occasions the Minister assured us that superboxes were an improvement in service, that they had been fixed and that they would work. Each time that was not the case. Experience proved otherwise.
What people need and want is equity in service. I give the Minister credit for putting a stop to the introduction of superboxes in place of lot-line service in rural areas. If the Minister can do this for rural citizens, why can he not do the same thing for those who live in urban areas? Why does he not say that there will be no second-class citizens, just as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said, not only in rural areas but in the cities as well? I challenge the Minister to live up to that principle and to apply the policy on an equitable basis.
I would like to deal briefly with the rates charged for mailing books, periodicals and religious magazines. I will sum up as quickly as I can, Mr. Speaker. There are a few important points that I must make.
While the Minister deserves credit for saying no to an increase in weekly rates, he has failed to mention in his statement, either inadvertently or through poor writing, the issue of religious publications. He mentioned weekly newspapers but he failed to give us the same assurance regarding religious publications. He said that rate increases for these publishers will go ahead. The survival of publications of religious and voluntary organizations continues to be threatened by this policy. As well, national magazines such as Maclean's and Saturday Night, instruments of communication that help keep this country together, are also threatened by the policy with which the Government is going ahead.
The Government is promising consultation and I hope that consultation will be significant rather than token, as it has been up until now. Unfortunately, the statement made by the Minister is not surprising. It contains some specific token elements on which the Government has capitulated in the face of public opinion. However, the over-all impact of this statement is that the Government is going full steam ahead with cutting back on postal service and with raising postal rates. Not only will rates be increased by two cents this year but they will be increased annually.
Petitions
The Minister has dealt only with the tip of the iceberg. Like the captain of the Titanic, this captain will take his ship down at a time when Canadians need good, reliable, efficient postal service.



POINT OF ORDER


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I must inform the House that at the end of Question Period, on a point of order, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) inadvertently, I believe, misinformed the House when he stated that the solicitor for the Department of Justice had contacted Mr. Fred Turner in Yellowknife this week. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and I immediately proceeded to the telephone in the lobby and called Mr. Turner. He said that no one had contacted him this week. The officials who informed the Minister of Transport misled the Minister and the Minister had better set the record straight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I regret that that is not a point of order. It is debate.


PETITIONS
Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to present to the House a petition on behalf of residents of Parkdale-High Park expressing their opposition to the Exodus Link parole privatization contract which would locate up to 80 ex-convicts in their neighbourhood, and I would like to add my strong support to their call for the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) to immediately terminate funding to Exodus Link until a location outside the boundaries of Parkdale-High Park has been found.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, again I would like to present 10 petitions from Canadians, mostly from Ontario and British Columbia, who make the point that the retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language has had limited effect on American export of books into Canada yet it has imposed a very difficult and onerous charge on Canadian publishers. It penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, book sellers, distributors and Canada's culture. Rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries. The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind

December 19, 1986
Petitions
this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries with respect to free trade negotiations.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are not surprised to find me rising once again pursuant to Standing Order 106 to present a petition on behalf of many, western Canadians who are very concerned about the proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. They believe this will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They are asking the Government to reconsider its intention to proceed with this legislation.
[ Translation]


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to present to the House a number of petitions from residents of Scarborough, Hamilton, Toronto, Niagara Falls, Keswick, Rexdale, Brampton, Richmond Hill and several other Ontario cities; these petitions relate to the sub-committee report on CN pensions.

One of those recommendations is that inflation protection be a priority item during the current round of contract negotiations. The subcommittee presented a report to this House in May and CN and the Minister have so far failed to respond. The petitioners also offer their support to the recommendation that, if an agreement is not achieved between CN and the railway unions, legislation be introduced in this House to provide a reasonable degree of inflation protection for railway workers and their survivors.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of residents in the constituency of Spadina, and in other parts of Toronto. They are complaining against the action of Canada Post in removing 700 letter drop boxes, which is about a third of the letter drop boxes in the City of Toronto. The petitioners complain that this makes it a great deal more difficult to post letters. It is also unsafe for the elderly and the disabled. The petitioners ask Parliament to ensure that Canada Post will replace these mailboxes, and in the future will consult with the residents of the communities affected before removing these boxes and other services.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I also have a petition from a number of residents of Vancouver, Mississauga, Toronto, and other municipalities who object to the Government's policy of
having low-level flight training carried out from the Canadian Forces Base in Goose Bay, Labrador. The petitioners object on the grounds that the Government should rather be promoting peaceful employment there that does not disrupt the environment or the life of the people, and does not constitute a provocative and aggressive war-fighting action that tends to endanger world peace.
Therefore, the undersigned humbly pray and cal! upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister ends all low-level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base, and cease negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base there.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to plead with this Government to pay attention to the 200 names that I am depositing for your consideration. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), has just tabled an additional 250 names. This past week alone we have tabled over 2,500 names of Canadian citizens who strongly oppose the Government's action-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that the Hon. Member would concentrate on her own petition.


Sheila Finestone: The petitioners oppose the retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information. The petitioners are opposed to this tax on reading.
They humbly bring to your attention that the tariff has had little negative effect on the publishing industry of the United States, yet it has severely penalized Canada's consumers, book publishers, book sellers, book distributors, and Canada's culture. The rise in book prices has placed an enormous strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries, which brings about a new buying procedure which is detrimental to these industries.
The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon you, Sir, and the Parliament of Canada to rescind this negative unintelligent tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry, and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect of free trade negotiations. It puts culture right smack in the middle of the free trade table.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to present another petition from citizens of the City of Regina who believe that the Government's proposal to change the Patent Act will result in higher prescription drug prices for average Canadians, and higher cost to provincial government drug plans. The proposed changes are another example of Canadian Government concessions to the United States in the free trade negotiations at the expense of average Canadians.
*
December 19, 1986

Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a series of petitions representing some 300 residents of Sarnia and surrounding communities, many of whom are employees of CN. The petitioners are petitioning the Government and the House that the recommendations of the subcommittee of the Transport Committee on CN pensions be implemented as quickly as possible. These CN employees, many of their colleagues, friends and family in their respective communities are concerned that CN and the employees' union will fail to reach an agreement on the recommendations of the subcommittee on CN pensions with respect to protection of indexing and inflation., If necessary, the House of Commons and the Government should enact legislation to ensure that justice is done on behalf of the CN employees in these respective communities.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 24 and 48.


Mrs. Cossitt: 1.	Are the Departments of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and National Health and Welfare working on amendments to the food and drug regulations to classify irradiation as a process rather than an additive and, if so, what are all the details?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to classify irradiation as a process and would irradiated food still be tested and labelled as such and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what will be the procedures and the proposed labels?
3.	Has the Government informed the Canadian people about the proposed use of irradiation of food and (a) if so (i) to what degree (ii) in what manner (b) if not, in what manner does the government plan to undertake a public awareness program on irradiated foods?
4.	Has the government requested input from the public and experts on irradiation of food and (a) if so (i) who responded (ii) how many responses favoured irradiation (iii) how many responses opposed irradiation (b) if not, for what reason?
5.	Are recommendations currently being considered with respect to the labelling of irradiated foods and (a) if so, what are they (b) if not, for what reasons?
6.	Did the Government conduct tests on irradiated foods to determine their effects on humans and, if so (a) what were they (b) on what date were they completed (c) what were the results (d) will further testing be undertaken and, if not, for what reason?


Philip Derek Lewis: I am informed
Order Paper Questions
by the Departments of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and National Health and Welfare as follows:
1.	The Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare issued an Information Letter to all interested parties, such as consumer groups, industry, associations, other governmental departments, etc., in July, 1983, proposing new regulations pertaining to the control of food irradiation. In effect, these regulations would remove food irradiation from the food additive provisions in Division 16 of the Food and Drug Regulations and establish a new division in the regulations specific to this physical process. The proposed new regulations contain definitions, detailed pre-clearance requirements and inspection procedures appropriate to food irradiation. In addition, under the new regulations, irradiated foods meeting the pre-clearance requirements and deemed acceptable from a human health standpoint would be listed individually in a table to this new division together with any restrictions on irradiation sources and dose limitations. Only those foods listed in this table would be permitted to be irradiated (within the limitations described) and sold in Canada. It should be noted that no relinquishing of control of food irradiation from a public health point of view will occur if these proposed regulations are adopted. In fact, these regulations will allow more effective regulatory control of this process than currently exists.
2.	(a) The pre-clearance requirements proposed would require testing to determine the minimum dose needed to be efficacious in individual applications. In addition, data which would indicate the effects, if any, on the nutritional quality of the food and data establishing that the irradiated food has not been significantly altered in chemical or physical characteristics to render it unacceptable for human consumption would also be required. Furthermore, tests to establish the safety of irradiated foods would be required in those instances where toxicological testing on a world-wide basis to date has been deemed to be inadequate.
(b) In so far as labelling is concerned, this issue falls under the purview of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It should be noted however, that consideration of food irradiation as a process does not preclude labelling. See also part 5 on this matter.
3.	(a) (i) (ii) As a means of informing the public and other interested parties, the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare issued and Information Letter on these new regulatory proposals in July, 1983. In addition, officials have given numerous speeches and media interviews on this subject and the Department of National Health and Welfare will continue to disseminate information on health and safety related issues as well as regulatory aspects of food irradiation. The Health Protection Branch expects to issue by February, 1987, a second Information Letter addressing the issues and concerns raised in response to the proposed regulatory changes and delineating the Branch's final position.
(b) Not applicable

December 19, 1986
Order for Return
4.	The Health Protection Branch distributed to various groups, organizations, individuals, et cetera approximately 7,000 copies of the Information Letter delineating the new regulatory proposals. To date, only 17 detailled responses have been received. Of these responses, 7 were from food companies, 2 from trade associations, 2 from provincial governments and 1 each from a scientific association, consumer association, contract irradiator, food irradiation equipment supplier, foreign embassy and public advocacy organization. The majority of the responses favoured food irradiation and the regulatory position proposed by the Department. In addition, however, the Health Protection Branch has received hundreds of letters from private individuals who, for the most part, oppose food irradiation for a variety of reasons including philosophical opposition to irradiation and nuclear related processes in general, health and safety concerns as well as relating to possible lack of adequate labelling.
5.	Yes. In July, 1983, the Bureau of Consumers Affairs of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs issued Trade Communique No. 39 requesting comments from food manufacturers and trade and consumer associations on a number of possible options to be considered for the labelling of irradiated foods. A second Trade Communique, No. 50, was issued in November, 1985, which summarized to responses to the options provided in Trade Communique No. 39 and offered for comment a proposed labelling scheme for irradiated foods. A draft regulation was recently discussed informally with a selected segment of the food industry and the Consumers' Association of Canada.
(a)	No final decision has yet been taken. The design and content of the final CCAC labelling regulation will be to ensure that consumers will be able to make informed choices and purchasing decisions between irradiated and non-irradiat-ed food products.
(b)	Not applicable.
6.	The Department of National Health and Welfare has not conducted any specific toxicity tests on irradiated food. Nevertheless, over the years several hundred toxicity studies including lifetime feeding studies in laboratory animals have been carried out world-wide on a large number of irradiated foods. Staff scientists as well as international experts have reviewed and evaluated in detail the results of these studies. Based on these data it has been concluded that the consumption of foods irradiated at practical dose levels (up to 10 kiloGray) would not pose a health hazard to consumers. Departmental scientists will continue to maintain close scrunity over the safety of this process as well as any proposed new applications and the need for further safety testing will be reassessed should any relevant new studies become available.


Mrs. Sparrow: Since September, 1984, have any sponsors in the constituency of Calgary South been approved to create jobs under Section 38 of the Unemployment
Insurance Act and, if so (a) how many (b) how many jobs were created (c) what was the total funding involved in the constituency?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Yes. (a) 6, (6) 44, (c) $281,070.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Philip Derek Lewis: If question 42 can be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 42 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Ouellet: 1.	At the time of the sale of Canadair Ltd. to Bombardier Inc. (a) what were the assets of Canadair Ltd. (b) what was their total appraised value and who made the appraisal?
2.	(a) How many bids were received (b) what were the names of the bidders (c) what were the amounts and conditions of the bids (d) in what way was the bid by Bombardier Inc. considered superior?
Return tabled.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alex Kindy: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 37 concerning Mr. Herbert Norman has not as yet been answered. I addressed it to the Solicitor General. The question is as follows:
1. Did the Solicitor General acquire information that showed Ambasador Egerton Herbert Norman, had been identified and discussed by Anthony Blunt as someone who, like himself, was associated with the Russian intelligence service?
I would like to ask the Solicitor General to answer the question as soon as possible.


Philip Derek Lewis: Subsequent to my colleague raising the question earlier, I have checked and I understand that the answer is being prepared and should be available immediately upon our return in 1987.
*

December 19, 1986


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point of order. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of whether Question No. 49 will soon be processed? It relates to concern about the export control list of the destination of goods going to a variety of countries that are noted for their abuse of human rights.


Philip Derek Lewis: I note that the question was first put on the Order Paper on December 1, 1986. I have not checked, but it has probably been looked into. When I have an opportunity, I will make sure that it is being looked into.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Michael Holcombe Wilson: that Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act and the Income Tax Act and to repeal the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Michael Holcombe Wilson: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to introduce Bill C-17 for third reading. This Bill will eliminate the petroleum and gas revenue tax, effective October 1, 1986. You will know, Sir, that this was a very speedy and quite a substantive response to the deteriorating position in the oil and gas sector in western Canada in particular. It is a demonstration of the concern that the Government has shown to the plight of that industry and the effects it is having and has had on the economies of western Canada, particularly in the smaller communities so greatly affected by the slow-down in the oil and gas service industry.
Members will recall that the PGRT was originally announced in October, 1980 as part of the National Energy Program, and first came into effect in 1981. It was a very controversial Bill at the time and much despised in western Canada. The Progressive Conservative Party in opposition took a very strong position against the impact of this tax, the impact of the tax on drilling activity and therefore on the jobs of those people reliant on the oil and gas service industry. We fought the Bill strongly at that time and we made a commitment in the 1984 election campaign to remove the tax. This is the culmination and the fulfilment of that commitment.
Major changes were made to the PGRT and the Western Accord signed with the producing provinces in March, 1985. The most important change was the introduction of a rate phase-out schedule which terminated the PGRT at the end of
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
1988, and the elimination of the PGRT effective March 31, 1985 for all new wells and new enhanced oil recovery projects.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the economic environment facing the oil and gas industry today is much different than it was in early 1985. The oil industry should no longer be subject, in our judgment, to a discriminatory tax on its drastically reduced revenues that have occurred since the Western Accord was signed. The Government's original intention was to phase out the PGRT over a three-year period. We felt that was a fair approach, taking into account the very tough fiscal conditions under which the federal Government was required to operate. We felt that that was an appropriate schedule after having reviewed the matter with the industry and with the provincial Governments concerned.
The Bill before us today proposes to eliminate the tax completely, effective October 1, 1986. It also proposes to increase the annual small producer credit from $500,000 to $2 million, effective May 1, 1986; to exempt from PGRT all revenues attributable to synthetic oil production, effective May 1, 1986, and to provide retroactive relief to January 1, 1986 for individuals and corporations. For corporations this relief will allow up to $1.5 million to be included in the income eligible for the small producer credit. For individuals, this deduction replaces the existing $10,000 deduction. This is a very helpful initiative on the part of the Government to take account of the difference in the impact of the phase-out that had been previously announced as it affected small producers and producers supported by royalty holders.
The Bill will also introduce other changes to terminate the PGRT Act, including a sunset provision for the use of the accumulative offset account against income taxes. Most of these changes were announced to taxpayers on September 17, 1986. I believe this is a very worth-while initiative, an initiative that recognizes the changed situation in western Canada as it relates to the oil and gas industry. I urge the House to give expeditious consideration to this legislation and hopefully deal with it completely today. I want to thank members of the legislative committee for their expeditious review of the Bill and to thank both opposition Parties for the support they have given in moving this legislation along.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity on third reading to comment briefly on the matter before us and how it relates to the central issue which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has just raised and the changed conditions of the energy industry in western Canada, to say nothing of the rest of Canada.
Somehow the Minister is under the illusion that this initiative is the panacea, that somehow by Parliament passing this Bill today and having it adopted by the Senate that those 25,000, 30,000, 40,000 people who are presently unemployed in the oil and gas industry in Alberta will magically come back to work. Somehow the Minister imagines that the capital investment, which is down 50 per cent this year over last, will

December 19, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
all of a sudden magically be restored. He is trying to purport that the lowest rate of drilling ever in the history of the oil and gas industry taking place this year will somehow be revivified and no longer will there be the total and complete decline of the industry.
I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, what kind of a cocoon does the Minister of Finance live in these days? What kind of immunity has he acquired to the incredible depth of depression that exists in the oil and gas industry throughout Canada by assuming that this measure, which benefits primarily the large producers because they are the only ones that had any revenue, would somehow be the turning point. It will not be. The lack of response, initiative or interest of the Government of Canada to the present calamity facing the oil and gas industry really is hard to comprehend.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You are in your own cocoon.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Minister says I am in my own cocoon. Let me put to him that he is supposed to be the steward of our economic health. Let us talk about the caterpillar approach of this Government.
The Government of Alberta has estimated that this year alone there will be 25,000 jobs lost in the oil and gas sector in the Province of Alberta. I suppose the Minister of Finance takes satisfaction in that particular statistic. I assume by his comments that he is totally happy about that state of affairs in the oil and gas industry. I presume as well that the Minister is overjoyed that capital investment has dropped well over 50 per cent. I presume that by his remarks today the Minister is taking great delight in the fact that the National Energy Board released a study this past week that said within a matter of a couple years Canada will be having to import 60 per cent of its petroleum requirements because there is absolutely no work going ahead in any of the major frontier oil developments, and that our light crude reserves are being depleted. Where is the Government's response to the National Energy Board? Where is the kind of leadership that the Minister of Finance says the Government has taken? Once again the whole question of energy self-sufficiency in Canada will be put in jeopardy. I assume that the Minister of Finance, living as he does in a sort of rarified atmosphere, is taking great satisfaction in these positions.
Then we have the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) saying the industry would be monitored to ensure that these funds were reinvested in Canada. He said that soon after taking office. I refer again to the National Energy Board report which indicated Chevron Canada sent $500 million of this PGRT windfall to its U.S. headquarters. It will not be reinvested in Hibernia, the Beaufort or heavy oil projects. It will sit in the vault of corporate headquarters in the U.S. It will not be used in any way, shape or form to the benefit of Canadians. At the same time the NEB reports there is no
investment in any of the oil and gas projects which are essential if this country is to maintain some modicum of selfsufficiency. Does the Minister of Finance really expect Canadians to jump wildly in the air and thank him for this initiative when the reality is as I have described it?
The Government loves to talk about problems caused by the National Energy Program. However, there were far more rigs drilling under the NEP than are drilling today.


John Carnell Crosbie: What is the price of oil today?


Lloyd Axworthy: There were far more Canadians working under the NEP than there are today. There was far more investment in oil and gas projects under the NEP than there is today. By some curious form of Tory logic, of which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) is the most noted advocate, that is to stand on your head and talk, the Government has somehow figured out that this is a successful policy.


John Carnell Crosbie: Which end are you on now?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Minister is engaging in a form of debate from his seat, which is usually the place from which most of his wisdom emanates. I would ask him about his own province. How many rigs are drilling off the coast of Newfoundland today? Where are the three or four thousand jobs promised under the Atlantic Accord?


John Carnell Crosbie: What is the price of oil?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Premier of Newfoundland, the great friend of the Minister of Transport, says the Government of Canada is ignoring Newfoundland's interest in offshore exploration.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why is he flying up tomorrow for a meeting?


Lloyd Axworthy: The initiative required by the Government goes way beyond simple elimination of the PGRT. What we require is an energy policy. We require the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to take his job seriously rather than mucking around on language issues in Quebec and providing further support for the separatist cause in that province. Instead of doing what he seems to be doing, he would be better advised to spend his time in his Department worrying about energy policy because the industry is going to hell in a handbasket very quickly.
This legislation is irrelevant to the problems faced not just by the workers in that industry but by all Canadians. Canada will suffer from the neglect of a Government which refuses to see reality. It is not providing an effective response to a critical downturn in a critical sector of our economy. Perhaps it is time the Minister of Finance and his colleagues woke up and came to grips with what is really happening in the energy sector. They should try to devise the required response to support the smaller producers who receive nothing out of this Bill. They need some kind of incentive for the development of the frontier and heavy oil projects. The Government should provide some
December 19, 1986

demonstration that it is not simply living on the outworn methodology and conventional wisdom of the past. It has to show that it is prepared to face the serious issues of today rather than living off the myths and dreams of yesterday.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to say a few words on this legislation. As I listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) make his statement I recalled the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announce that as a result of the Western Accord we could expect to see the creation of 300,000 new jobs. I was wondering what millennium she was referring to. Obviously it had nothing to do with reality. The conditions in the oil patch, particularly in Alberta, are now bordering on the catastrophic. People are waiting to see what bold initiative the Government will take to bring some life back to the oil patch, particularly given the importance of self-sufficiency in this critical resource. We are not talking about potatoes or codfish or coal, we are talking about a resource which is critical to the western way of life.
The resource sector is on its knees and requires extraordinary initiatives by the Government. Yet the best it can do is to have the Minister of Finance make some comments at third reading stage of the PGRT Bill. As the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) indicated, the Government has done virtually nothing. He referred to the NEB report tabled this past week. That report points out that hundreds of millions of dollars have been returned to the multinational oil companies. It indicates that rather than investing those funds back in Canada they are going to the corporate headquarters in the U.S. That does not come as a particular surprise to many of us. We predicted that that would happen if there was no requirement to invest these massive funds in the oil patch here. No, the Government said it was going on the basis of the good faith of the oil companies. It knew they would behave as good corporate citizens and reinvest all this money in the western economy. They are not doing that.
If you were to look carefully at the press release from the Independent Petroleum Association on September 8, you will see that the chairman, John Howard, said:
My discussions with our member companies indicate that the bulk of the money saved by the elimination of the PGRT will be reinvested in the industry.
Even he said: "the bulk of', not all of it. He went on to say that "most" of the PGRT money saved will be reinvested. I do not think it is unrealistic to expect all of the PGRT money to be reinvested. After all, that money was derived from Canadian resources and ought to be reinvested in Canada. The multinational oil companies decided to syphon off hundreds of millions of dollars and return them to their parent corporations in the U.S.


Mr. McDermid:: That association is not made up of multinationals.


Nelson Andrew Riis: This is a very serious situation.
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
The NEB report also pointed out a very serious problem facing Canada. It indicated that we ought to become extremely concerned because self-sufficiency in the very critical cultural resources of oil and natural gas is now in jeopardy. That self-sufficiency is a long way off because they predicted that in the next few years, because of the lack of exploration, the lack of activity in the oil fields and potential oil fields of Canada, we will again become a major importer of foreign oil. That is a very sad comment considering the tremendous reserves which exist within our borders.
I would like to indicate very clearly the position which New Democrats have taken on the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax. When the PGRT was first introduced by the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Allan MacEachen, of the previous Liberal administration, in November, 1980, we opposed the Bill. The legislation was introduced for first reading in the House of Commons on January 26, 1981 as part of a much larger Bill, C-57, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act. The Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act proposed an 8 per cent tax on gross revenue from the production of oil and gas.
During debate on Bill C-57 in 1981 the New Democratic Party opposed the PGRT for four broad reasons. The first reason was that the PGRT was in fact a royalty on a natural resource rather than a tax on corporate income and, therefore, was constitutionally dubious. We also opposed it because it was a regressive tax which would affect producers differently, depending on their size, with smaller producers being hit harder by this drain on their revenues than the larger multinational integrated producers.
In our speeches on second reading of Bill C-57 we predicted that the PGRT would hurt federalism and aggravate already acrimonious relations with the western provinces. As we all know only too well in this House, the divisions between western Canada and the rest of Canada were deep as a result of the PGRT. We predicted that when the Bill was first introduced in 1980.
Finally, we said at that time that we believed that more taxes on petroleum and gas would mean more lost jobs and less activity in that industry. It has become very clear since the PGRT was introduced that it was a major factor in the resultant decrease of economic activity in the oil patch.
I have just finished reading the speech made by our then finance critic on second reading debate on Bill C-57. He pointed out that because the tax is imposed on wellhead production, or gross revenue, it is in fact a royalty on natural resources rather than a tax on corporate profit or income. Under the BNA Act, natural resources belong to the provinces and, therefore, only the provinces may impose a royalty on them. In the words of the Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), the PGRT was, therefore, "an illegitimate revenue grab by the federal Government in a field of provincial concern".

December 19, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
Various members of my Party who spoke against the PGRT in 1981 said that it would have a disproportionate effect on various producers. One Member said:
It affects all producers equally, even though all producers are not equal, either in size, in origin or in terms of whether they are genuinely independent Canadian companies.
The finance critic of the day for the New Democratic Party went on to point out that the smaller producing and exploring companies tend to be Canadian while the larger, more diversified companies are usually multinationals which could more easily absorb the tax than smaller competitors who would likely be forced out of business by it. He said the PGRT will:
-have the effect of not increasing Canadianization of the industry but decreasing it. That tax and its effect will fall more heavily on smaller companies simply engaged in the production of oil and gas. These companies do not do anything else .... This will have a lesser net impact on the cash flow of the larger multinationals.
Our present energy critic, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) elaborated on this point months later. He argued that, since the goal of the National Energy Policy was to increase Canadian ownership of the oil and gas industry, the PGRT would have the opposite effect to what is intended by the National Energy Policy because, before the imposition of the PGRT, small Canadian companies reinvested the money they made when they found oil and gas and sold it. Some of the multinational oil companies liked to take a profit and send it to their American shareholders or put it into solar energy or coal or other investments in other jurisdictions. The case was made earlier today that that has taken place, presently takes place, and will likely take place in the future.
The effect of the PGRT would be to seriously jeopardize the existence of the smaller Canadian producers while only making a marginal dent in the profits of the larger, multinational companies. That point was made by our present energy critic. He said that the New Democratic Party would have preferred an income tax measure which would allow the Government to discriminate between Canadian and nonCanadian companies, as it said it intended to do in order to increase Canadianization of the national energy policy.
A number of western Canadian members of the New Democratic Party spoke out at the time against the PGRT because we felt it discriminated against western provinces. It was a tax on oil and gas, primarily resources of Alberta and Saskatchewan, but also, to a lesser degree, of British Columbia. We felt this was a discriminatory piece of legislation aimed specifically at western producers. While a special tax was being imposed on the primary products of western Canada, no similar tax was being imposed on the primary nonrenewable resources of central and eastern Canada such as nickel, lead, zinc, copper and other commodities. It is fair to say that this tax hurt co-operative federalism and discriminated very much against the western part of the country.
I suspect that my hon. friend, the Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), will be rushing out to read all the speeches made by members of the New Democratic Party in 1980 and
1981 when this Bill was originally introduced. I know of his interest in the history of this issue. At that time a number of New Democrats made the point that this tax would dampen activity in the oil and gas industry and throw people out of work. Goodness knows that in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia thousands of men and women have been thrown out of work because of the decline in the oil and gas industry. Various speakers made the point that people are losing their jobs because the national energy policy is imposing a tax which is driving rigs out of the country. In one speech which I gave I said:
Marginal wells will be closed because they are expensive to operate and this new tax being levied makes the difference. We will see wells that could successfully be providing us with energy resources for years to come being closed off because they will no longer be economically viable.
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think it would be appropriate to do so as I have made my case. In conclusion, we are pleased to support this Bill, and to have assisted all along to expedite its passage. We are pleased that it will be concluded before Christmas of 1986. However, I want to make it very clear that this does very little to help the small oil and gas exploration companies in western Canada. These are the companies which we depend upon to find new resources. The legislation does a great deal for the large integrated multinationals, Shell, Texaco, Imperial Oil and so on. They are very pleased with this legislation.
I would like to conclude by reading from an editorial which sums up today's discussion very well.
It states:
No wonder Calgary oil executives clapped approvingly on Monday when federal Energy Minister Marcel Masse told them that the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax (PGRT) would be lifted effective October 1. Masse was answering the prayers of Canada's oil giants-including multinationals such as Imperial Oil, Shell and Texaco-just when depressed international prices are pinching industry pocketbooks hard.
There can be no doubt which companies will benefit most from the government's decision to accelerate by 28 months its plan to phase out the tax-at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion to the federal treasury.
They are the biggest oil companies, the firms that make up the Canadian Petroleum Association, which lobbied heavily for the tax break and whose members account for 90 per cent of Canada's oil production, 76 per cent of the industry's workers and 80 per cent of PGRT revenues.
Yet these recipients of Ottawa's largesse aren't necessarily the neediest oil companies.
Indeed, when one looks at the various quarterly reports one can see that Imperial Oil's refining and marketing arm reported a profit for the third quarter of this year of $19 million, compared with $16 million for the same period last year. As a matter of fact, Imperial Oil's refining and marketing profits totalled $95 million. In the last number of months these companies have done extremely well, particularly in the refining and marketing sector. The fact is that this primarily helps the giant companies and does little for the small Canadian companies.
December 19, 1986

For many months we have been pressing consistently, especially since the depressed situation in western Canada became such a reality, for some kind of negotiated floor price because allowing the price to collapse to where it has simply makes economic life for the small Canadian companies very difficult at best. In order to work toward self-sufficiency in oil and gas and maintain a viable, healthy Canadian oil industry, it is in our interest to reconsider a negotiated floor price for our western oil producers.


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a happy occasion for me as a Member of Parliament from Calgary and one who has worked in the oil business both with multinationals and private organizations.
I am amazed by the selective memories of the two previous speakers, the Member for Kamloops-Shuwap (Mr. Riis) and the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). The Member for Kamloops-Shuswap correctly pointed out the discriminatory nature of the PGRT and the high-handed manner in which it was enforced on western Canada. However, the discrimination did not begin there, but with the aritificial made-in-Canada price which prevented us from selling in the market. This was introduced by a Liberal Government in 1973 in coalition with the New Democratic Party. Between 1973 and 1985, western Canadian producers, and western Canadian taxpayers went without $60 billion in income. This artificial made-in-Canada price began as a temporary measure in 1973 but lasted for 12 years until it was terminated by the Western Accord which this Government negotiated.
In October, 1980 the National Energy Program was imposed by a Government of which the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry was a prominent member. The Hon. Member stands up today to say that we should not be taking this action, but he did not stand up for the West in October, 1980 when it needed his voice. He should understand why so few members of his Party are elected in western Canada.
There is no doubt that the energy sector needs help. Let me refer to the petroleum monitoring agency's six-month report that was released this week. Upstream revenues fell 34 per cent in the first half of this year, compared with the first half of last year. Upstream revenue refers strictly to the producing segment. Furthermore, the cash flow decreased 38 per cent. The fact that one cannot spend what one does not have is obvious, except to those like the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry who belonged to a Government that believed it was the only way to stay in office. This legislation is a major step toward reversing the haemorrhage of funds from the energy sector.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap said this legislation provides nothing for the small companies. Obviously he does not understand the Bill because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicated that there is $1.5 million available to individual companies to offset that credit. In this regard let me quote from letters written by two people from this segment of the industry. The first letter states:
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
What a pleasure it is to know "Big Government" is not synonymous with "Non-caring Government". We realize that the captioned issue is but a "drop in the bucket" with respect to Canada's financial problems as a whole-
It goes on:
We greatly appreciate the outcome with respect to this matter, but, more important, it provides a message to all citizens of Canada that the Federal Conservative Government is making a sincere effort to establish a system of fairness and justice in Canada.
He goes on to say:
In terms of the matter of security of future supply, all Canadians are indebted to you for your part in the effort to keep a vital industry from collapse.
The letter is signed by Mr. Gary W. Litschke, President of Geeodata Exploration Services. It is a very small private Canadian company.
The second letter states:
I would like to express my appreciation of this action and especially regarding the retroactive aspect of the small royalty owners. Removal of the tax from January 1, 1986 had a substantial effect on my company during a difficult cashflow period.
That letter is signed by Mr. J. D. McArthur, President of Anna Resources Ltd.
This Bill corrects a terrible wrong and eliminates a measure that should never have been implemented. Yet the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry only speaks against it now when he should have opposed it in 1980.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I want to elaborate on some of the points made by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). He said that this legislation will help the major oil companies the most. While that may be true, I hope he will remember what we said when the Bill to establish the National Energy Program was being debated in the House. This Party continually, in speech after speech, pointed out that it would be the small western producer who would be hurt the most and that the multinational corporations would be able to suffer through the National Energy Program, as indeed they have. In the meantime, the small producers have been axed. They have suffered capital punishment in the severest way. In addition to that, we said the service industry and the suppliers in Ontario would be hurt. I think the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap will remember that and I hope he would agree that that was our point at the time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-16, an Act to
[Stage Direction]
December 19, 1986
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 2 carry?
On Clause 2-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Given that this Bill is an extension of the variable entrance requirement which recognizes that regional disparity should be an element in the calculation of unemployment insurance, could the Minister tell the House whether the Government has an intention of extending this timetable indefinitely, or is it just going to dump the variable entrance requirement when the Forget Commission Report is responded to by the Government?


Mr. Gurbin:: Mr. Chairman, the Government appreciates the concern expressed by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East with respect to the Government's approach to unemployment insurance. She will know we have received the Forget Commission Report on Unemployment Insurance. We have also had access to the Macdonald Commission Report, with which the Hon. Member will be familiar, to the House report and, in fact, to a variety of information which is available to the Government, to the Hon. Member and to other Canadians.
With respect to changes which might be made to the unemployment insurance approach, the Minister has said very clearly a number of times, and I will repeat it for the Hon. Member, that we have in fact made a commitment to consider these reports by May 15, 1987 and we will make our response in terms of the changes we intend at that time.
I would hasten to add, just on the off chance there might be some mistaken impression from the comments made by the Hon. Member that there is something unusual or some limit to this, she will know that the original provision has been extended a number of times and we are doing the same thing this time by extending for a full year, from January 4, 1986 to January 4, 1987, those variable requirements, in order that employees and employers, and others affected by other parts of the Bill, will know what they face. At this juncture the Government has made it clear that it is sensitive to the regional problems faced by unemployed Canadians. Some 208,000 of them will be protected by the measures presented in this Bill.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Chairman, I have still not heard what the Government's position is with respect to variable entrance requirements.


John Carnell Crosbie: It's in the Bill.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member for St. John's West says that it is in the Bill. I want to know what the Government feels about variable entrance requirements. I have just heard the Parliamentary Secretary say that this particular measure will affect over 200,000 people. I would like to hear the Government on the variable entrance requirement issue so that five months from now we do not see the rug being pulled out from under those 200,000-plus people whom the Member is suggesting we should now move to protect. What is the Government's view? Will it defend this Bill? Is it in favour of it for only the next five months until the Government prepares its response to the Forget Report? Just what is the Government's position with respect to variable entrance requirements? Does it support them?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, in a statement made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration on the tabling of the Forget Report in this House he made the Government's position on the unemployment insurance legislation now in effect and the Forget Commission report very plain indeed. The fact that this Bill is now before the House shows the Government's concern about regional disparity and about those who are unemployed in areas which suffer from regional disparity.
The Minister also made clear in his statement that any proposed changes to be made to unemployment insurance legislation will be introduced in the House by the middle of May. At the present time there are no proposed changes. If there are any changes to be proposed they will be proposed by May 15. It was also made clear at the time that any changes made would be to improve the unemployment insurance system and its functioning and that they would not be for the purpose of reducing the costs of the program.
I think that should be clear to anyone with any good will or to anyone who wants to understand what the language means. The Hon. Member does not need to continue to spread alarm in the country with respect to there being a change. This Bill follows on a number of Bills introduced by the Government and by the previous Government which extended regional benefits for another year. Thus it is following a well-worn precedent followed by past Liberal administrations as well.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Chairman, I know the position of the Hon. Member for St. John's West. I think he has been clear on his position. I do not think that the position expressed by him is the same position we heard expressed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration who was waffling in the House at the same time as the Hon. Member for St. John's West was in Newfoundland telling the people of Newfoundland not to worry because he had things under control. At that time the
December 19, 1986

Minister was saying that he would be looking at annualization and variable entrance requirements. I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary with respect to what specific type of commitment the Government is prepared to make in a substantive way to variable entrance requirements since, as the Parliamentary Secretary said a few moments ago, we are talking about the lives of over 200,000 people whose livelihoods and very means of existence are being left on tenterhooks.
I say that because on the one hand the Hon. Member for St. John's West is making certain declarations in the news media in St. John's and on the other hand the Minister and other members of the Government, including the Minister of Finance, are saying that they will change the system. There are a great many frightened people out there. Since the Government is asking us now to support an extension of variable entrance requirements we should have a commitment from the Parliamentary Secretary that it will not be just a short-term extension.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Chairman, if the Hon. Member for Hamilton East cannot hear then perhaps she can read. If she can read, then what she will be able to read is the previous legislation. The previous legislation passed by the Liberal Government stated that variable entrance requirements would stop on Janaury 4, 1987. In spite of what the Hon. Member and her Party would have done, this Bill extends for one year the variable entrance requirements, quite independent of any other consideration of any change in the unemployment insurance legislation.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the Parliamentary Secretary has just engaged in a piece of parliamentary chicanery.


John Carnell Crosbie: You should know all about that.


Lloyd Axworthy: Normally, the Parliamentary Secretary is one of the few Members on the opposite side of the House from whom we can get a straight answer. I remind him that under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act passed in the early 1970s there was a provision that variable entrance requirements be reintroduced on a periodic basis. The Parliamentary Secretary clearly stated that the Liberal Government had legislation to end those requirements. That is not the case. We extended the requirements on several different occasions, as statutory time limits ran out. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify his position. I was the Minister then and I know what was the case. He was around at that point in time and he knew exactly what the requirements of the legislation were.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Chairman, the legislation as it now exists, which was amended in 1977, would have at that time extended for 109 months, commencing December, 1977, to January of this coming year-


Lloyd Axworthy: It was extended twice when we were in office.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


Gary Michael Gurbin: I am not disputing the fact that it was extended before. I am simply saying that the legislation as it now exists would have come to a halt if we had not brought forward this particular amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act which will extend the provision for an additional 12-month period.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, the Parliamentary Secretary still does not have it right. It is important to point out that under the legislation there was a requirement that the variable entrance requirement be extended, which is what we did when we were in office in 1982. I introduced the legislation myself. It was not extended until this period of time. The Parliamentary Secretary who says that other people should know the facts should know that fact in particular. I introduced the legislation myself to extend the provision after the 1977 period to expire at this point in time. That was done simply to facilitate looking at the labour surplus rates as they exist at a certain point in time in various regions of the country. The Parliamentary Secretary should stop trying to insist that there was a sunset clause. It was always clearly the case that the variable entrance requirements would be assessed periodically in the calendar year to determine how they might be adjusted to fit the labour surplus rates in various regions of the country.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to suggest that there was a sunset clause. I am simply stating clearly and plainly, as the legislation sets out, that the variable entrance requirements would no longer be enforced and that the existing legislation would run out if we did not pass this legislation today. It will allow some 208,000 Canadians to take advantage of the variable entrance requirements change that is in place in this legislation. In fact, what the Government is doing is committing itself to understanding and accepting the fact that there are regional differences and that there are people in those regions who are unemployed and who need special considerations. This legislation is required at this time and the Government is bringing it forward in recognition of that fact.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty in supporting this Bill since the extension is to be for a period of one year. I know that the whole question of unemployment insurance is under careful consideration by the Government which has taken into account the Forget Report and other information available to it. I am certain that eventually we will be able to resolve the great problems with which we are faced in terms of unemployment insurance.
I notice Members from all sides of the House almost falling over backward to support the variable entrance requirements, especially those Members who represent areas where there is high unemployment. It is quite understandable why they should be doing that. However, there is another side to the question. By keeping these special deals for people in areas of high unemployment what we are doing in the long run-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Is this the Government's position?

December 19, 1986
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


Dave Nickerson: -is encouraging people to stay in areas of high unemployment rather than moving to other parts of Canada where their services might well be required. In fact, what we are doing is prolonging the agony in the long run. We are encouraging regional areas of high unemployment, whereas if we had a standard system across the country it would be much more neutral in its effect. I hope that the Government will also consider that point of view as well.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that we finally found out the government position as put forward by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic. The Hon. Member seems to have given us the true intention and the true story of what the Tories intend to do.
However, I am interested in a previous response which was given to us by either the Parliamentary Secretary or by the Hon. Member for St. John's West. One of them said that they were sensitive to regional concerns. I believe it was the Parliamentary Secretary who said that. The Minister said that the Government was concerned with issues of regional disparity, or something along those lines.
Given the concern about regional disparities to which the Government referred a while ago can the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether or not the Government will reconsider its position enunciated through the Minister about one week ago? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to answer this question. He is better informed than is the Hon. Member for St. John's West who is not usually well informed. The Minister stated that someone who was retiring or leaving a job would be unable to receive unemployment insurance benefits upon retirement unless he or she found a new job and retired again. Given the new-found concern about regional disparity the Parliamentary Secretary must be aware that in some parts of the country, for example Hawkesbury in my riding, if one loses one's job the chance of finding another to requalify for unemployment insurance is almost impossible. If it is not impossible then it is at least very difficult. With the new concern which the Government has seemingly found today can Members of the House anticipate that there will be more change, or will we still have to wait until the month of May next year before finding out?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Chairman, it is clear that Members opposite will have to wait until the middle of May of next year to find out what the Government's full intentions will be as far as the unemployment insurance program is concerned.
I ask the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and all Hon. Members to read the Forget Report over the holidays when they have some time. What Hon. Members often tend to do when they are talking about a recommendation with respect to someone on a pension is neglect to read the whole recommendation made by Mr. Forget.
The short answer, as the Minister has said, is that the unemployment insurance program is treating people fairly. Any changes that we have made on behalf of pensioners are completely fair. There are other parts of the program with
which we are trying to deal and pass today so that different regions of the country will not be disadvantaged. Other parts of the program take into account regional disparities. That is where the variable entrance requirement comes in and that is why we would like to pass this Bill.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, all of us want to pass this Bill. Obviously we do not want to delay it unduly, but we have only been speaking on it for the last 10 minutes. 1 think the Opposition is demonstrating a reasonable amount of the usual kind of co-operation that we try to provide as frequently as possible to the Government across the way.
Perhaps I could put my final question to the Parliamentary Secretary. A few moments ago he suggested that the previous Government had perhaps been derelict in its duty because this Bill had to be renewed periodically, as it must this year by December 31. He attributed some of the blame for that to the previous Government.
The present legislation has existed for some time. The last adjustment that was made was made for more than one year. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why the provision is being renewed for only one year this time? Is it merely an interim measure designed to let the Government use Forget's annualization scheme or is it merely that the Government is so hesitant to provide legislation that it dare not move any faster than one year at a time?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Chairman, to be perfectly clear, my point simply was that the legislation does run out unless we renew it. Obviously the Government has made a commitment for a further one-year period which may be extended further when and if required. That is all we are trying to do.
The message we are sending is clear. We are sensitive to the needs of Canadians across Canada. Canadians should have access to the important measure contained in this amendment to the Bill.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Chairman, I have one short question to ask since we are so close to Christmas and this is the last day I will have a chance to discuss Bills in the House for some time. Given that the Hon. Member for St. John's West said that the Government is committed to the principle of variable entrance requirements in a long-term way, I wonder why the Parliamentary Secretary cannot give us that commitment today. For this provision to be applicable for only one year is clearly a strategy of the Government to clear the decks so it can bring on Forget and wipe out the benefits that go to areas like Newfoundland, and obviously that scares the Hon. Member for St. John's West. I do not blame him.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary come to the House with an amendment which would extend this particular provision, not for one year as suggested in the Bill but for three years? If not, why not?

December 19, 1986


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly take the Hon, Member's comments as representation. She knows that 1 cannot give her that commitment any more than I can tell her why the variable entrance requirement would have run out this January under the previous extension. I regret that I cannot do that, but I can say that the commitment for the consideration of regional disparities across Canada stands. The Hon. Member for St. John's West and other Members on this side will ensure that we take that into full consideration in the future.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Chairman, of course my desire to rise and put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary has nothing to do with my clear curiosity about the thinness of the air down on the front-benches. Further to questions put by my colleague, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary why the Government has brought forward a continuation of the variable entrance requirement for a period of only one year. Is there any particular legislative requirement that would dictate that the extension should be for only one year?
We do know that the Government has promised to respond to the Forget Commission report by May and that matters will stay as they now are for six more months. It seems to me in my devious mind that six months from May would give a six-month legislative timetable which would allow the Government to do something at about the time this particular Bill would expire. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us now-


John Carnell Crosbie: Don't worry about it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am concerned. The Minister of Transport told me not to worry. I know the Minister means what he says, but he told us not to worry about the Nielsen task force report. The Nielsen task force report recommended increased ferry rates and there are now increased ferry rates. The Nielsen task force report recommended consolidating Transport Canada's Coast Guard office in the Minister's own riding and it has now been consolidated. Some positions have been moved out of the Minister's riding and right out of the province to the Province of New Brunswick. The Nielsen task force report recommended implementing cost recovery in a whole series of transportation areas. The Minister of Transport told us not to worry about it but all those recommendations have now been implemented.
As much as the Minister of Transport tells us not to worry about it, sincere as he is when he says it, unfortunately we have learned that, while we agree with his views on the Nielsen task force report, his views are not carrying the day in Cabinet. With the greatest of respect, it is in that context that I make the complaint that the Cabinet is not listening to the Minister of Transport. I would advise the Cabinet that it would do well to listen to him and I regret that so far, at least about the Nielsen task force report, it has not. Rather than take at face value his assurance that we should not worry about the Forget Commission report, I worry all the more.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
I would like to put a sincere question to the Parliamentary Secretary. What prevented the Government from bringing a Bill forward today that would extend the variable entrance requirement by a period of two, three or four years?


John Carnell Crosbie: Why didn't you when you were in?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Because when we were in there was not a Forget Royal Commission commissioned by the Government of the day talking about doing away with the variable entrance requirement, talking about bringing in a program called annualization, talking about cutting $3 billion out of the UIC pay-out and talking about correcting the so-called unemployment insurance program and making it less available to those people who need it most, including those who live in the riding of the Minister of Transport. We did not do it because a gun was not being put to the heads of the people who are most dependent upon that program. That gun has not only been put to our heads, but the hammer has been pulled back, the barrel is aimed right between our eyes and we are afraid that the Government is about to pull the trigger. An extension on the variable entrance requirement of two or three years would, in effect, be a safety mechanism on the trigger.
In this Bill with which we agree, why is the extension on the variable entrance requirement not for more than one year? It seems to me that an extension of one year would allow the Government to be ready a year from now to start implementing portions of the Forget Commission report.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the Hon. Member that the apprehension he has in his own mind about a timetable of one year, six months, 18 months or 24 months is a figment of his imagination. At this time of year, we should all have something in our minds, but I would hope that what would be in his mind would be generosity toward the people who will be caught in the terrible trap of not being able to take advantage of the variable entrance requirement if we do not pass this legislation. We can withdraw it if the Hon. Member so wishes. We can go on forever if that is what he wishes.
1 cannot give the Hon. Member a firmer answer than the one I gave the Hon. Member for Hamilton East to the question of why it stops now. Why is it to stop in January of this year? The Bill has been extended a number of times and I take in good faith what the Hon. Member's colleague said about the time he extended it. Indeed it has been extended month by month from 1977 on.
We have no magic figure in mind. We must deal with the Macdonald Royal Commission, we must deal with the House commission and we must deal with the Forget Commission.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Cut, Garry, enough.


Gary Michael Gurbin: All those things will be properly responded to by the Government in the middle of May under the important parameters established by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance when they said they would not look at changes to
2318

December 19, 1986
National Transportation Act, 1986
the unemployment insurance legislation as a deficit-cutting exercise.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was concerned that the Parliamentary Secretary was trying to filibuster this Bill. We wish to see it voted on as quickly as possible.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that Bill C-16, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Prior to moving the motion on Bill C-18,1 wish to advise you that there have been discussions among the Parties. There is an understanding that the Hon. Minister of Transport will introduce the Bill and make the introductory speech in speaking to the Bill. Then we will move that the debate be adjourned on the understanding that when the debate recommences that the first speaker recognized would be the spokesperson for the Official Opposition, and following that, the official spokesman for the New Democratic Party.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm that there have been negotiations. We will agree to that procedure. We would like the Bill to be called as soon as we return in January, if possible.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify the point of the Government House Leader, is it the understanding that this Bill will be the first Bill called when we return after the Christmas Recess?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that would be my intention, barring any emergencies that may arise. But, that would be subject to discussion with the House Leaders of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I have a point of clarification on the agreement that has been reached. We understand that this Bill is going to be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport as soon as discussions have taken place with the Minister and the House Leaders on that matter.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Indeed, there have been discussions on that point, but as yet there has been no agreement reached. If and when we do reach an agreement, we can certainly make
that change by all-Party agreement. We are still prepared to consider that.


NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1986 MEASURE TO ENACT
John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move the second reading of Bill C-18, and to introduce the legislation to the House. It is a distinct pleasure for me to give my maiden speech today as the Minister of Transport.
As a Minister from one of our two island provinces I have a special appreciation of the role that rural transportation plays in tying this country together economically and socially. One of those provinces may be connected to the mainland if the studies that were announced today turn out to be positive over the next few months, but that is still for the future. I have a lot of enthusiasm with respect to this job. I hope that during my term we will be able to do some important things since transportation affects the everyday lives of more Canadians in all regions of the country than I can otherwise think of. Every day in Canada about 1.4 million tonnes of freight moves by rail, truck, or water. This does not include the freight that is moved by the private trucker. Passenger traffic on Canadian airlines has more than tripled since 1967, to a total of 24 million people in 1984.
The legislation that we are now presenting to the House has as its purpose the increase of competition in air, rail, marine, and trucking. It will set out the framework for our transportation industry to provide the best possible service at the best price to shippers and air passengers throughout the country. The benefits hopefully will go beyond a more competitive transportation system. Cost efficient transportation will create opportunities for expansion and development in industries across Canada. That should mean more jobs for Canadians in primary production, resource processing, and manufacturing in all regions of the country.
These Bills, C-18, and C-19 which accompanies it, are about economic efficiency. However, as the Minister of Transport my responsibility in addition to providing an efficient transportation system is to provide a safe one. Our first priority will always be safety.
In Canada we have an excellent safety record in all modes of transportation, a record that has to be maintained and improved on wherever possible. Action on that priority has been taken or will be taken in all transportation modes during the year. Members of the House will remember that last year major amendments were passed to the Aeronautics Act. Those amendments were introduced by the learned Deputy Prime
December 19, 1986

Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) in his former role as Minister of Transport which he performed so brilliantly and capably. Those amendments gave us a thoroughly modern and effective air safety system of regulation. In addition, they provided the framework for the Civil Aviation Tribunal. Last year comprehensive regulations were introduced for the transportation of dangerous goods.
In the marine sphere, I plan to reintroduce into the House the safety amendments that were contained in the Canada Shipping Act, before the House last spring. They had reached third reading, and 1 am expecting to introduce the legislation again in January. I trust that with the co-operation of the members of the Opposition these important changes will be passed in the House during 1987.
In October, the provincial and territorial ministers of transport joined with me in endorsing the uniform national safety code for trucks and buses. I would like Hon. Members, including the Hon. Member for Regina North-


An Hon. Member:: For Regina West.


John Carnell Crosbie: I was thinking of Dorval and Mirabel.


An Hon. Member:: That is a terminal case.


John Carnell Crosbie: He is a terminal case, I believe, the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), and I want him to note this.
In October the provincial and territorial ministers of transport endorsed a national uniform safety code for trucks and buses, so that has been endorsed. It will be in place and operative before the three-year period has expired in connection with the trucking parts of the legislation. Work is now nearing completion on the changes that are required on the outdated safety provisions of the Railway Act. As a matter of fact, there has been passed by Cabinet the principles of the new rail safety act which is now being worked on by the lawyers and should be introduced in the House by June of this year. That will be a new rail safety act to set the stage for maintaining and improving our safety record in rail.
As Hon. Members know, we are shortly expecting to receive the report of Mr. Justice Foisey of the Supreme Court of Alberta. He has completed his investigation into the tragic accident that occurred in February, 1986. We will have that report early in the new year. From that we will see what his views are. We have already agreed in the Government on a new safety act.
In addition, between the Department of Transport, the Canadian Transport Commission and the Canadian Aviation Safety Board-Members may not appreciate this and I found it to be an astounding fact myself-approximately 13,000 people work to ensure the safe operation of the transportation system. I am pleased to see the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, the Hon. Member for Annapolis
National Transportation Act, 1986
Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) here today listening intently to
me.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Over 100 additional safety personnel are being put in place, including inspectors for air safety and dangerous goods. These actions demonstrate our commitment to safety, and for the first time this commitment to safety will be enshrined in the legislation. The new national Transportation Act states clearly in Section 3, among the policy objectives, that safety is essential. This is the first time safety has received such recognition in the legislation. That policy statement also reiterates that our transportation system has to be efficient, effective and adequate-EEA. It goes on to add two very important principles that are missing in the current legislation, principles critical to our future economic growth.
What are those two principles, Mr. Speaker? I hope that the Hon. Member for Regina West is listening. Transportation exists to serve the needs of shippers and travellers. It is often forgotten. The railway companies sometimes think that the whole system exists to serve them. The whole system happens to be there to serve the shipper and the traveller, to serve the consumer. That principle was ignored by our predecessors in Government.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: And ignored by VIA right now.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is a "heap" of point to what the Hon. Member is saying. He is a "heap" of a "heap", although he often gets on with a lot of heat.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The fifth principle not previously in the legislation has to do with-and I am sure that Members on our side will agree with it but of course the reactionaries, the fuddy-duddies and those who would throw Canada back 100 years into the murky past will never agree with it-competition and market forces. Wherever possible they should be the prime agents of providing a viable and effective transportation service. You can see them on the other side turn green, Mr. Speaker, when they hear anyone mention competition or market forces. They do not like those words in the NDP. If looks could kill, I would be falling on the floor right now.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: These principles are hardly revolutionary. They represent a major shift in the philosophy of regulation of transportation in Canada. I have to admit that I am not the author of this major shift. This was introduced by somebody who was entirely-I was going to say shiftless-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I am only kidding, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 19, 1986
National Transportation Act, 1986


John Carnell Crosbie: I have to admit that the author of this major shift is the Deputy Prime Minister who has had such a long career in the area of transportation during his public life.
The current regulatory regime was put in place in 1967, I believe by a gentleman elected from Newfoundland in the person of Mr. J.W. Pickersgill, that well known Newfoundland representative. Since then, of course, the world economy, our economy and the transportation industry have changed significantly, but the regulatory regime in transportation in Canada has not kept pace.
What is the result of that, Mr. Speaker? Our regulatory regime today impedes-that is the tendency-rather than supports economic development. It stifles competition in all modes of transportation. It reduces the competitiveness of our producers and the free movement of goods and people. If we do not have an efficient and effective transportation system, everyone who manufactures goods or provides services here in Canada is at a disadvantage compared with their competitors in the rest of the world. That is why these bills are known as the freedom to move legislation. They are to send a message to Canadian business and the traveller. We are freeing the transportation sector from the shackles of heavy handed economic regulation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The greatest supporters, shacklers in this House, of course, are Members of the New Democratic Party who apparently are dedicated to opposing this Bill, although I am hoping they will have a conversion before they stand up to speak. That is why I am speaking now and we are giving them a couple of weeks of sobriety over the holiday period to think about their approach to this legislation. I hope they will not blindly follow the Canadian Labour Congress and those who are opposed to this Bill without ever giving it a chance.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They are following me.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Member for Regina West says they are following him. I hope he is right. I hope they realize that he is in existence-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Two million of them.


John Carnell Crosbie: -and that they do follow him.
The decisions we make on Bills C-18 and C-19 will affect consumers, businesses and air travellers throughout Canada. This is one of the principal features of this Bill and that is why there will be enthusiastic support from such as the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), I was going to say cow-wump but it is Crowfoot-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -and other Members from the West. Why? Because we are going to give primary resource producers some
alternatives for getting their output to market. Such a system is needed, not only for economic growth in Canada but for development in our less favoured regional economies. Real jobs will be created or maintained in all regions wherever better transportation service at a better price will make a resource producer, a manufacturer or other business more competitive in the market-place. That is why we cannot jump automatically, including those of whom we are the owners, to stop the transport companies every time, regrettably, they have to take some step to become more productive or efficient that involves the employment of some of the persons who work for them.
It is a regrettable fact of life that in the transportation system today, in just about every country, as the nature of that system changes it becomes more capital intensive and less labour intensive. One of the consequences is that some people lose their jobs, become laid off or whatever. In that circumstance, Mr. Speaker, I believe all we can do is insist that the companies we the Government own in this system treat the employees affected in as generous and as fulsome a way as is possible, otherwise they become unproductive, ineffective or inefficient and then cannot stand up with their competition. This would have the ultimate result, if that continued in any extreme way, of everybody losing his or her job because the enterprise is no longer useful for the purpose for which it exists.
We remain committed to the principles of economic development that were endorsed by the federal and provincial first Ministers in February, 1985. We are continuing to be dedicated to those principles. I only hope the leaders of those provinces remain dedicated to those principles and they do not now backslide whenever some aspect of the legislation or policy comes along that affects them in some unexpected way. These principles are a guide for the policy.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Just watch them backslide.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, I am afraid that I am not sanguine about the prospects of solidarity forever with the 10 Premiers of Canada and ourselves, but one can always hope.
Transportation is a key to regional economic development, which is recognized in this Bill for the first time. Our predecessors never recognized it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We will hear the Official Opposition act as though this was some principle which the Opposition had put in to the legislation or enunciated when in power for the 18 years before us, 18 barren unproductive wasteful, extravagant years. Never once did the Opposition put in a transportation legislation the fact that transportation is key to regional economic development. We put that into law for the first time.


Mr. Malone:: Do you hear that, Lloyd?


Lloyd Axworthy: Words are cheap; it is action that counts.
December 19, 1986


John Carnell Crosbie: As Minister of Transport and a Member from the least advantaged province in the economic sense and the most advantaged province in the sense of beauty, culture, tradition, in the virility of its people-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -maturity-


Nelson Andrew Riis: British Columbia, John?


John Carnell Crosbie: British Columbia is next. If I ever left Newfoundland and Labrador, my virility would impel me not to stop until I got to British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: As a Minister and Member from that province I intend to ensure that transportation plays its proper role in particular initiatives for regional development. We have to recognize that this depends on a host of factors, not simply on one. There is nothing simple about it. Those factors are influenced by the federal and provincial Governments. That is why co-operation and a sense of fair play are needed. In other words, it is not just good enough to say that transportation must give way to regional development and overcoming regional disparity must be the one and only principle. It is one factor. We have achieved a much more co-operative relationship with the provinces and we will continue to consult with them on how transportation can contribute to the success of economic development plans. However, co-operation is a twoway street and I for one do not intend always to keep turning the other cheek. I am the type that runs out of cheeks fairly quickly.
Transportation assistance programs which benefit particular regions will continue. We have the Maritime Freight Rates Act and the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act. They benefit Atlantic Canada to the tune of more than $75 million a year. The Western Grain Transportation Act provides something like $600 million a year to help the grain-growing region. The new Bill recognizes the unique transportation needs of northern Canada as well. It introduces beneficial aspects of competition but maintains safeguards to protect essential air services and marine resupply to northern communities.
I want to pay tribute to the work done by the Standing Committee on Transport. Its members looked at the principle of freedom to move one year ago. They travelled about the country and suggested changes, including recommendations regarding the North. I am sure they are going to have a very important influence on this legislation and will leave their mark on it. I also know it will be done in a co-operative and consultative manner and the Chairman of the standing committee will not just run off on a frolic of his own every now and then and announce major changes to the legislation without at least telling the Minister what he is going to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!
National Transportation Act, 1986


John Carnell Crosbie: We have before us now a made in Canada transportation policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: It reflects this country's special needs and concerns. It is not patterned on the U.S. It is our own. We have heard from an immense number of people and we listened to them in putting the legislation together. We know that some who work in the system feel trepidation at the prospect of change. That is natural. They are worried about what might come about as a result of changes in the status quo. We are hoping to persuade them that if they look at this with an open mind the changes are well worth any risk they feel there might be.
All of us in the transportation field are going to have to make some adjustments and display imagination and flexibility. We intend to monitor the effects of change on employees. We are not going to forget them. The offer to consult with representatives of employees and employers to identify adjustment measures which might be required above and beyond those which already exist still stands.
I met the other day with Nancy Rich, Bob White and other representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress to listen to their views. We will continue to meet with them whenever they wish to. I do not anticipate that additional adjustment measures will be necessary but it may turn out they will be. The new legislation is not just to create or preserve jobs in other sectors of the economy; it is to help create and maintain jobs in transportation itself. That can only be done if the demands of travellers and shippers increase in a growing economy.
I mentioned our Crown corporations and how they have to adapt to this system as well. I want CN, Air Canada and VIA Rail to have the greatest possible freedom to manage their business affairs in a business-like manner. They are expected to be effective, efficient, and to operate as good corporate citizens. It was the previous Liberal Government which made that principle clear with reference to CN in 1978. The company was to stand on its own feet and not receive financial assistance from the Government. Therefore, they had to be permitted to operate in the most effective and efficient manner possible.
What about the specifics? In the air mode we have a special regulatory regime in the North which includes parts of five provinces and both territories. In the rest of the country economic regulation of air services will be reduced significantly. No longer will virtually every aspect of airline operation be regulated. At the moment the setting of fares, establishing of routes, schedules and types of aircraft to be used is all regulated. The CTC has eased application of many of those regulations, but further progress is impossible without legislative reform. As a matter of fact, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), as Minister of Transport, started the process of deregulation in the air.


December 19, 1986
National Transportation Act, 1986
The test of public convenience and necessity has been used to limit entry and restrict competition in the airline industry, and that will be replaced. This has frustrated entrepreneurs for years. They saw a demand for service and wanted to fill it but were not allowed to. We think the air transport market should be open to competitive-minded, enterprising companies. All they will need in the future is to demonstrate that they are fit willing and able to provide air services. The new company will have to be Canadian-controlled, carry adequate liability insurance and, most important, will have to prove it can meet the safety standards of the Aeronautics Act. If they demonstrate those things, they will be granted a licence.
We think new companies will be encouraged to enter the market and existing companies will offer new services. We believe competition will benefit air cargo shippers as well as air travellers. Airlines will be able to adapt quickly to changes in the market-place. If they see an emerging demand and feel they can fill it, they will be able to do so without the delay and expense of licensing hearings and bureaucratic red tape and appeals. They will be free to change fares in response to marketing conditions without reference to regulatory agencies. We believe that for many small communities this new freedom to move will mean better service and competitive fares. Large carriers with large aircraft and inconvenient or infrequent service will increasingly be replaced by smaller entrepreneurs who know local conditions and requirements and can provide convenient and more frequent service. Jet aircraft, inefficient on short hops or half full, will be replaced by more suitable aircraft operating efficiently at affordable prices and at more convenient times. This is occurring in many parts of the country now and greater choices are available. Many of the new regional air carriers are using Canadian-made aircraft, in particular the Dash-7 and Dash-8 made by de Havilland. That is a tremendous spin-off benefit of this policy. The activity at de Havilland is quite remarkable. In Atlantic Canada we have Air Nova and Air Atlantic, both using Dash-7s and Dash-8s.
There are two important safeguards for the public in the new air provisions. The carriers will not be permitted to charge fares and rates in excess of those published or displayed. They are forbidden to do that. On routes served by only one airline, increases in regular air passenger fares will be appealable to the new national transportation agency which can order a reduction and refund if the increase is found to be unreasonable.
Exit from the market is also simplified under Bill C-18. A carrier will be able to discontinue or reduce a service if it provides 60 days notice to the public. That period will give other carriers the opportunity to add the route or time of service. It will also enable an airline to try out a new service without becoming rigidly locked into a money-losing proposition. With reduced risk, more innovation should follow.
To ensure that existing essential air services are not lost in any part of the country, please note that the Act empowers the
Minister of Transport to authorize direct or indirect financial assistance. If it is necessary to keep existing essential air services going, the Act will permit the Minister to do this. We do not expect that to occur often.
I mentioned the additional safeguards which have been provided for the northern part of the country. Fit, willing and able will be the basic test for entry into the northern air market, but there will be an additional test for new services in the North. Any interested party which feels that a new service will jeopardize existing essential services may file an objection with the new National Transportation Agency. The objector will have to show that the proposed new service would lead to a significant negative impact on existing service. If that is demonstrated, the licence will not be issued.
The type of service to be provided in the North, the routes to be followed, and the communities and settlements to be served will continue to be regulated as well. To ensure that fares remain at reasonable levels, the National Transportation Agency will be empowered, on a complaint, to reduce any fare it finds to be unreasonable. Northern shippers, carriers and residents have all indicated they would welcome increased competition, but they want a gradual and controlled rate which this legislation is designed to provide.
Marine transport is also important to many northern communities for resupply services. The shipping season is short up there and it is very important that marine operations be reliable. Therefore, the provisions which apply to northern marine services are tailor-made with that in mind.
The ground rules for Canada's railway shippers and carriers will be significantly altered. At present, competition between the railways is limited and often nonexistent. They are now free jointly to discuss and set freight rates. All freight must be made public through the CTC. In other words, a shipper and a carrier cannot privately negotiate a contract which addresses their particular needs. They cannot make contracts in the way in which businesses ordinarily do. As a result, the railways operate below maximum efficiency and lose business to railway carriers in the U.S., where private contracts are permitted, and to trucking. Both shippers and carriers have called for the right to contract privately for rail services. This legislation provides for such contracts as part of our plan to encourage efficiency and competition in the rail sector.
With regard to branch line abandonment, the new agency and the Minister are given many more options to deal with applications. Grain dependent branch lines designated under the WGTA will remain exempt from abandonment proceedings. The options now are to order abandonment of branch lines which are losing money, or to order them retained and for Government to subsidize the losses of the railway. The most significant new option is to allow the Minister to use moneys, which otherwise would have had to be spent to subsidize the line, to help shippers and communities adjust to alternative services such as trucking.



December 19, 1986

The Bill also has three competitive access provisions: extended interswitching limits, terminal running rights, and competitive line rates. All those provisions will assist captive shippers, that is, shippers which have access to only one railway. Those shippers will now have far greater bargaining power on rates and services, and railways will, in the future, have to compete with one another for traffic from the captive shippers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Incidentally, that is the reason so many shippers are supporting this legislation. As far as I know, practically every shipper in the country has indicated support for the Bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The big shippers and the bull shippers.


John Carnell Crosbie: Well I have never seen a bull shipper except in this hon. House where I have seen quite a few, many from the hon. gentleman's Party. I certainly take note of the bull shippers when they come into my office and when they leave to see what they left behind.
We believe that the financial viability of railways can be compatible with competition. We want a viable railway industry. The railways, of course, feel endangered by this legislation. The committee will have to listen to the arguments put forward by them. Provided they offer an efficient service which meets the shippers' needs, we believe the railways can compete effectively and their financial viability will not be jeopardized under this legislation. We do not believe that the railways need a monopoly to be viable or to compete with the U.S. railways.
We are also very conscious of the fact that no other effective means have yet been identified to resolve the problem of the captive shipper. It was a captive shipper, Champion Paper in Hinton, which was assisted by the CTC in the last day or so.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The captive shipper and Canada need better service at better prices to meet the ever-increasing rigours of domestic and international competition. Captive shippers want, and should have, the right to bargain. That is what this legislation will give them. That is why I believe the Official Opposition will support this Bill. These rail reforms represent a balanced package, a redressing of the balance between shippers and carriers. We think that everyone can be a winner under these new rules. We know that everyone does not agree. The Bill is naturally a compromise and we hope that everyone will see that that is the case.
Canadian railways will be better able to compete with each other and with American railways for transborder traffic. Greater efficiency will help them secure existing jobs and create new ones in all the industries which depend on rail transportation. There are important regulatory reforms with regard to trucking contained in Bill C-19.
National Transportation Act, 1986
In 1954, the Government of Canada delegated its regulatory responsibilities for extra-provincial trucking to the provinces which all developed their own regulatory regimes. In different provinces there were different requirements for entry, for routes, for rates, for commodities, for safety precautions and so on.
That situation has made the job of meeting the needs of shippers more difficult than it needed to be. However, as the trucking industry grew and matured, regulation was reduced in all provinces, particularly in recent years. Truckers now have greater freedom to compete within the industry and with the railways. However, truckers remain saddled with a regime which limits growth and innovation. It is also inconsistent from province to province. It restricts services and imposes unnecessary costs on the industry, its customers, and on our economy. This is no way to meet future needs. In trucking, the task has involved federal and provincial Governments, the industry, producers and shippers in consultation over a number of years. A broad consensus developed that we need less regulation and more uniformity in regulation of trucking across Canada.
A historic agreement on regulatory reform of the trucking industry was reached in February, 1985, under the aegis of my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), by all the provinces, the territories and the federal Government. The new Motor Vehicle Transport Act puts that agreement into law. However, some of the provinces are starting to backslide and say "but, if' and "but, what", indicating that the agreement does not contain that to which they agreed. As the pressure mounts more may attempt to take what they consider to be the safer way out. It is important to remember that everyone agreed in February, 1985, that there had to be regulatory reform of the trucking industry. The federal Government has the courage, the initiative and the guts to carry on with it no matter what the obstacles.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Effective January 1, 1988, there will be a uniform, nation-wide licence standard for trucking based on a new fitness test. That will consist primarily of safety and insurance requirements. The shippers would like that to be the end of the story. They would like to have the full benefits of competition as soon as possible. The industry, however, and Governments involved are convinced that an abrupt end to strict regulation might cause too many problems of adjustment. Therefore, we are including a transition phase to ease the adjustment. It will be a three-year period during which licence applications will continue to be subject to a public interest test. Those who object to the licensing of new trucking operations can still object, but the onus will be on them to prove that public harm will result if a new licence is granted.
The Bill also abolishes the extra provincial tariff approvals and route restrictions. We believe this will lead to increased competition and efficiency in the trucking industry.

December 19, 1986
National Transportation Act, 1986
Shippers will have a wider choice of carriers, enabling them to get their goods to market more quickly and efficiently. This will mean greater market opportunities, expanded sales and more jobs across Canada.
I mentioned earlier that in October we reached an agreement with the provinces and the industry on a uniform national safety code for trucking. We have agreed to a joint plan of implementing the code at the same time that the new economic regulations come into force in 1988.
Let me return to Bill C-18. What about the role of the new National Transportation Agency? The Canadian Transport Commission is the current regulatory body in transportation and carries a lot of clout. Under existing legislation, it can regulate air fares and examine any rail freight rate. It stipulates where carriers can and cannot go, what kind of services they can offer and with whom they can compete. It intervenes in disputes, holds extensive hearings and controls access to new transportation markets. It is a huge albatross about the necks of those involved in the transportation industry, and has enormous authority.
With the changes I am outlining today, which put the emphasis on competition, we need an agency that better reflects the new approach of our freedom to move legislation. It will be the new National Transportation Agency.
Its functions and powers will be tailored to this more flexible approach. It will reflect its mandate to fit regulation to the needs of people, rather than fitting people to the regulation. That is something that strikes terror into the hearts of the socialists and those who believe in state authority, and that they should regulate our every breath. We heard them asking questions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). They want us to be governed by whom we can or cannot contribute to. We should only contribute to those to whom the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) or the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) want us to contribute to. They are leading us toward the society of Big Brother. That is not the society for which we are headed. We want the more flexible approach of the National Transportation Agency and we will fit the regulations to the needs of the people.


Brian Vincent Tobin: What are you going to do with the Newfoundland railway in this competitive environment?


John Carnell Crosbie: You have asked a good question. It deserves an answer sometime.
Unlike its predecessor, the new agency will not exercise strict economic regulatory control. As the Government that represents the people, we will set transportation policy and be responsible for it. We will not slough off responsibility to someone else because we are not involved in a Liberal slough-off regime. This is a regime of responsibility.


Brian Vincent Tobin: What are you going to do about the Newfoundland railway?


John Carnell Crosbie: From time to time we may provide policy direction to the Newfoundland railway, and to the NTA. We may ask it to conduct general inquiries, but for the most part it will administer the remaining regulations and help resolve individual shipper-carrier disputes.
There will be a process for appealing agency decisions. The new dispute resolution provisions in the legislation are especially important. They put the onus squarely on the parties involved to attempt to settle conflicts before going to the National Transportation Agency. Surely it is sensible to have the parties resolve their disputes before going to the agency. This is an absolute work of genius, I say to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Let me give an example of how it will work. Suppose a large coal producer and the railway serving it cannot agree on a price to move the coal from the company's mine to market. At the request of both parties, the National Transportation Agency will be empowered to appoint a mediator to seek to resolve the dispute.
Another alternative is final offer arbitration. It is a new concept in our transportation law. The shipper may ask the agency to appoint an arbitrator to choose between its final offer and the final offer submitted by the carrier. The decision of the arbitrator will be binding for at least one year, unless the two parties can come to an alernative agreement in the meantime. In other words, it is "put up or shut up". The Member from Prince Rupert has difficulty understanding the "put option" and the "call option". Of course, I do not blame him because he is the average NDP transportation expert. This means that "put options" and "call options" are somewhat difficult for them to understand. They have been putting it to the people for years but have not yet been called upon to answer for it.
This Bill also simplifies investigations into matters of public interest. Upon receiving a complaint from a shipper, carrier or other interested party, the National Transportation Agency will have the authority to inquire into any carrier's rates, acts or omissions where the public interest may be prejudiced.
We are trying to provide maximum flexibility in the legislation. We know that it may have to be fine tuned and that there may be unforeseen developments to which we will have to respond.
The National Transportation Agency will review the operation of the legislation on an annual basis. In addition, a comprehensive review of the legislation will be undertaken by the Government in four years. It provides for annual reports, and the four-year review will be tabled in Parliament.
This is a made-in-Canada policy which balances the interests of all and the benefits to all Canadians. We believe that it will lead to more jobs and stronger regional economies. They will be stronger because there is a more reliable, efficient transportation system serving businesses there.
December 19, 1986

We think the legislation will bring about and provide for road, rail, air and marine services that can deliver goods and people more quickly, in a way that they can afford without excessive regulation, and that it will bring about competitive fares. It will result in flexible transportation networks that can adapt to new demands for services and new market opportunities. It will protect those who need protection. Public interest will be safeguarded, including the highest public interest, which is safety. It is all part of this made-in-Canada package.
We recognize the need for change and the result is this legislation. We want to thank all those who helped us, including the shippers, carriers, provincial and territorial Governments, Members of the House and the Standing Committee on Transportation which has produced two reports. 1 was especially pleased to note that the members of the committee who are of the Liberal persuasion agreed with the freedom to move proposals in many respects. I presume that means they will support this Bill in principle but, of course, damn every detail in the Bill. Nevertheless, I would sooner have them inside the tent, doing this in an outward direction, rather than outside the tent doing it in an inward direction. Of course, we do not think the NDP will see the light, but they have the Christmas period in which to consider the Bill.
It is time to get on with the job of making these changes a reality. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) place a high priority, as do I, on this legislation. I invite all Members of the House to join with us in completing the job as quickly as possible.
This does not mean that we are no longer listening. We anticipate that during committee stage, Members will examine the Bills carefully and will hear from all interested groups. There will be good, workable suggestions for improvement and we will consider them seriously.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You know that you are the Deputy Prime Minister's surrogate mother on this?


John Carnell Crosbie: Absolutely. The Deputy Prime Minister, having developed these lofty concepts, has gone on to greater things, leaving me to do the dirty work and to bear the brunt of all those who come to argue about what is wrong with the Bill.
I believe this is an exciting era in Newfoundland, and not only in Newfoundland but in Canada as a whole. I do not believe we are following the United States route in regulatory reform. We are learning our lessons from what has happened there. Safety will continue to be our main concern, on which we will not stint. I believe the legislative committee will have a most interesting time in considering this Bill which deals with the very sinews and guts of this country. There is not one area, no matter how small, which is not affected by this Bill. I am happy to be bringing in the legislation, which is in reality the
National Transportation Act, 1986
brainchild of the Deputy Prime Minister. If the House passes this Bill, it will be a monument to his experience and pertinacity in the field of transportation. I am very happy to have the job of following behind him-


Brian Vincent Tobin: With your broom.


John Carnell Crosbie: -with my broom, sweeping up behind him, and trying to see that this legislation is carried through. We hope it will be in effect by the end of this year. We intend to listen to all members of the Opposition, all interested groups and to our own back-benchers.


Brian Vincent Tobin: By the end of this year?


John Carnell Crosbie: Sorry, by the end of 1987. We hope it will be in effect by January 1, 1988. Thank you for being so patient.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Parliamentary Secretary makes the move I think he is going to make, I wanted to ask you, Sir, if I may ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) a question in order for him to correct the record from earlier today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No, I am sorry.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Minister has unlimited time and I wonder if he would permit a question.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, he has 40 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as agreed, I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before the debate is adjourned, does the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock- North Delta (Mr. Friesen) have a point of order?


Benno Friesen: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the debate be now adjourned as agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
December 19, 1986
2326 ________________________________________
Immigration Act, 1976 IMMIGRATION ACT, 1976

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Don Mazankowski (for the Minister of Employment and Immigration), moved that Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find a disposition in the House to have Bill C-34 referred not to the legislative committee but to Committee of the Whole and dealt with at all stages this afternoon.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of Christmas we are prepared to co-operate with the Government in that regard.


Don Boudria: Our usual co-operation.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The same for us, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Hon. Members for agreeing to proceed expeditiously with this measure. On one hand its purpose and objective are simple, on the other hand its results and consequences are a matter of great urgency.

I would like to begin by quoting part of a letter from a Canadian spokesman for a parish in Hull which had sponsored a young Kampuchean. It reads:
As a student, he is not in positon to repay this by himself, but it is only fair that this money goes back to the Government, especially in the view of helping more refugees to start a new life. In particular, our parish has undertaken to sponsor his parents, and this is another instance where funds will be required for a transportation loan.
As a Canadian citizen, I am very proud and supportive of what my Government does to help refugees, and I am very satisfied-
If this Bill is not passed before the end of this calendar year, we will have to curtail the refugee movement until it is passed. This will make it most difficult for Canada to meet its international commitment to accept 12,000 refugees during 1987, and the entire refugee program would be severely disrupted. At the very least, refugees will be faced with an additional one, two or three months' wait in refugee camps. Family reunification would also be delayed as spouses and children will have to wait until new funds are available before they can be given loans to assist them to come to Canada.
The transportation loan fund was first established in 1951 to aid immigrants who could not afford the passage to Canada, to aid immigrants joining their families in Canada, refugees seeking a new life and people whose occupational skills were in demand in Canada. The fund is a revolving one and is
replenished as the loans are paid back. Although the original ceiling on the loans fund was $3 million, it has been necessary over the years to increase this amount to keep pace with rising costs resulting from inflation and the number of loan applicants. The last increase to $60 million was on May 7, 1980. This means that no more than $60 million may be lent at any one time.
A $60 million fund is not adequate to provide for our ongoing immigration transportation program because a shortfall has resulted from the large amount lent to the 60,000 Vietnamese refugees admitted in the early 1980s. Put simply, a large percentage of this money remains due because a huge sum is being repaid at a very slow rate mainly due to the employment difficulties encountered by this group of refugees.
I am pleased to say that since its inception the Canadian Government has lent $177.5 million to immigrants and refugees. Of this amount, the Government has had to write off only $4.4 million or 2.48 per cent. This is over a period of 35 years. The majority of the loans are made to refugees interest free and these loan recipients are very conscious of their responsibilty to repay the loan. They fully realize that the dollars they return to the fund would be used to bring other refugees to Canada.
Since 1970, over $94 million worth of loans has been provided to refugees. To this day, only $77,000 of this amount has been written off. That is a very low percentage. Since its beginning, the fund has served Canada well. Canada has been able to respond quickly to requests from the international community to help victims of world disasters such as the British flood victims in the 1950s, the Italian earthquake victims in 1980. The request from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to assist the Hungarians in 195657, the Czechoslovakians, the Vietnamese and, more recently, in the Polish difficulties have been responded to with assistance from the transportation loans fund.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, family reunification has always been a cornerstone of our immigration policy. There is a favourable side effect to this policy. It has been proven that a refugee or immigrant adapts at a quicker pace if the spouse and children are in Canada. The whole family adjusts to Canadian ways together and there is no cultural gap within the family unit. The loan fund has been the instrument which has enabled the refugee to have the spouse and children join him or her that much sooner.
I have already noted that we have had some response from a number of sources. I would like to end my comments today in encouraging members of the Opposition, all Hon. Members in fact, to support the quick passage of this Bill. I would like to read from two letters received by the Government with respect to the transportation loan fund. The first correspondence is from a young Vietnamese family of three living in Niagara Falls, Ontario, who sent a card which states on the cover: "Thanks so much". What really warms our hearts is the handwritten note inside which says:
December 19, 1986

To,
The Immigration of Canada,
Dear,
We are deeply thank to our immigration and the Canadian Government, was helping my family immigrate in Canada. Thank to this great favourite.
While the words may not be exact, the meaning is clear.
Finally, the following are extracts from a note from a young man from Poland who writes:
I would like to take this opportunity, send my last payment, to thank you for entering me the door to Canada and giving me the opportunity to live in this well established and peaceful country.
This year, in April, I became a Canadian citizen. A few months ago I got an interesting job. Very shortly, I will be continuing my education through part time courses in university. I got married in June 1986. It seems that I have adopted well in Canada.
Once more, thank you, Canada, for your help!
That concludes the Government's representation to Hon. Members with respect to extending this loan fund from $60 million to $90 million so that we may fulfil our obligations in the manner in which Canada has always done on behalf of refugees and immigrants who wish to enter our country.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to make some very brief comments on Bill C-34. As I indicated, in keeping with the spirit of Christmas, the Official Opposition is prepared to co-operate fully with the Government to ensure the speedy passage of Bill C-34 in all stages this afternoon. I say that notwithstanding the fact that it is literally Christmas Eve and within a few hours we will adjourn for the Christmas break. Yet the Government is asking us to deal with a piece of legislation which, it says, if it is not passed by the end of the calendar year the refugee movement will be curtailed until it is passed. We must take some exception to being lectured by the Government at the eleventh hour telling us that, if we do not pass this Bill, somehow the magnanimous doors that have been flung open in the past by the Liberal Party to refugees will be shut.
We have been here for two years since the new Government took office. Why did it not bring this piece of legislation forward sooner? It is not as if there has been a material change in circumstance overnight or over the last week. The problem which this Bill addresses could have been recognized some time ago.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is not a lengthy Bill. Bill C-34 amends the Immigration Act. It states:
Subsection 121(3) of the Immigration Act, 1976 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(3) The total amount of outstanding advances to the Minister under this section shall not at any time exceed ninety million dollars."
As the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, the $90 million figure replaces the $60 million figure which is in the present Act. I am pleased to note that since the inception of this fund some 35 years ago only $4.4 million has had to be
Immigration Act, 1976
written off. From this fund the Government has lent $177.5 million to immigrants and refugees to facilitate their passage to Canada. These are not grants which the Government gives but loans. The Government of 1951 which was responsible for setting up this fund ought to be congratulated for what it did back then in terms of implementing a transportation fund to assist refugees to come to Canada. It is interesting that only $4.4 million, or 2.48 per cent, of this $177 million has had to be written off.
What does that tell us? It tells us that the people who received these loans have paid them back. I challenge Hon. Members to find any other government programs in which loans are granted to students, business people or farmers who have write-off rates of 2.48 per cent. I do not imagine we could find many such programs. The point is that over this period of 35 years we have learned that the recipients of these loans are God-fearing, tax-paying citizens. And they are good ones. They recognize the obligations they have as a result of borrowing money from the Government of Canada, and they have paid that money back.
As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, the last increase to this transportation fund was in 1980 when it was increased to $60 million. I do not wish to repeat what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. However, it is clear that the fund must be replenished. It is clear that the Minister must have the authority to increase the fund to $90 million. We in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are prepared to offer our full co-operation in this regard.
In closing, as a member of the parliamentary wing of the Liberal Party of Canada I take great pride in what the Liberal Party has accomplished over the last three or four decades in terms of our immigration policy. I believe very strongly, as I am sure Members on all sides of the House do, that we have one of the finest immigration policies in the world. Canada has a record and a reputation in the world for assisting and welcoming people of all races, creeds and religions to our shores. Of course, we have been critical in the last two years with respect to some of the policies of the Government. However, today is not the day to be overly critical in view of the fact that Christmas is but six days away.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to speak to Bill C-34 which will raise the total loan limit for transportation for selected refugees from $60 million to $90 million. That is to say that at no time can more than $90 million be out on loan.
The fact that there has been no increase in this amount in the last six years, a time in which transportation costs have increased by 50 per cent and the number of refugees has increased, makes it quite obvious that if we are to carry on the program this increase is necessary. As has already been pointed out, there is little danger of loss of money from this revolving loan account since less than 2.5 per cent of it has not been repaid.

December 19, 1986
Immigration Act, 1976
I think there are very few Canadians who know about this loan fund or even why it exists. It is those who have benefited from it who know about it. I agree with the previous speakers who have said that there is great gratitude for what has been done. However, I wish to say something about the basis of this program. It has been said by a very great Canadian teacher, Rabbi Plaut, who himself came here as a refugee, that there is a price we Canadians must pay for living in a country that is wealthier and more secure than most countries in the world. Part of that price is our obligation to help people who are in serious political or similar troubles arising out of conflict and oppression. These are refugees and there are 10 million or 15 million of them in the world, mostly in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Most of them do not come to Canada. They do not want to and it would not be practical for them to do so. However, some of them do need to come here. Some have been selected from the many by our officers overseas. The problem lies in getting them and their families here. This program is designed to lend them the money to pay for their travel to Canada in the certain knowledge that the very great majority of them will, when they arrive, work to repay these loans.
A few months ago, I had the privilege of visiting Guatemala in Central America. I learned that our embassy there made it possible for 750 people to escape from Guatemala in 1985. They escaped because they had to escape and they convinced our embassy, case by case, that their lives were in danger. Technically they were not refugees according to the Geneva definition because they were still in their own country, but that did not make them any safer. There were death squads threatening not only political opponents of the Government but trade union officers, school teachers, priests, teachers of catechism and anyone who was independent of the military dictatorship that ruled that country so harshly.
People were not simply being killed. Sometimes the situation was worse. I spoke to a woman who, along with her husband, was engaged in asking questions about the Government. One day her husband did not come home. He has not come home since then, but no one has told her if her husband and her daughter's father is alive or dead. A body has never been identified. To this day, she does not know if she is a widow or if she is still married. It is a terrible strain.
Families like the one to which I just referred who have been threatened often find that they cannot stand it any longer and have to get out. They get out by going to our embassy and, on the basis of the facts shown and acknowledged by embassy staff, they come to Canada. One step in that process is the provision of air fare for which most of them could never come near to paying, particularly since the value of Guatemalan currency has dropped to about one-third of what it was a couple of years ago.
In 1985, 750 people were brought out of Guatemala. This loan fund provided part of the means to make that possible. I am very proud of Canada for doing this. This is the kind of
thing that justifies the decision made a few weeks ago to give Canada the Nansen Medal for the work not just of the Government, not just of certain people but of the Canadian taxpayers through a fund like this.
I am very happy to support this Bill. I do not mind at all the fact that it comes before the House at the end of the year. It had to come before the House sometime, and why should it not come before the House during the Christmas season?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976.
Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-Limitation


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this oportunity to ask some questions from the front row. You know how lonely it is in the back row, Mr. Chairman. You have been there.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I would like the Hon. Member to know that I was on the back benches but not for too long.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, I hope that I am not there for a lengthy period of time. Of course, after the next election, we will have the whole front row on the other side of the House to occupy.
On a more serious note, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary some general questions with regard to these loans. Could he indicate, for example, how much is lent per individual family and what the interest rates and repayment periods are?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Chairman, I cannot give the Hon. Member the average size of the loans. I will undertake to provide that information. The majority of these loans are interest-free. Interest rates on the ones that are not interest-free are paid according to the interest rates required by the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is a floating rate and it changes year by year. I will undertake to provide the Hon. Member with a specific figure for the average size of the loans if he wishes.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, is an application for this loan made overseas or is the original cost of passage paid and then reimbursed by the Government? How exactly does that work?
December 19, 1986

Would a refugee apply for loan assistance from an embassy? That might be difficult at times when a refugee would claim refugee status after arriving in Canada. Could the Parliamentary Secretary shed some light on that question?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Chairman, it is a little difficult for me to be specific on this. I suspect that there are a number of ways of accessing this fund. Clearly, people who already live in Canada can make direct application for the loan to bring their spouses or relatives to Canada. People in other countries may contact our embassies and the officials there would be the primary contact in applying for the loans. Again, I would have to check with our officials on that detail to be more specific.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Paul Dick (for the Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should have indicated this earlier. There have been discussions between the Parties with respect to the Bill which we are now asking leave to introduce. I think you will find that there was consent for leave to introduce the Bill, give it first reading and move it through all stages this afternoon.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like to give our consent to that procedure. Of course, we would like to see the Bill first. We agree that we should proceed with it now.


SALARIES ACT
Hon. Flora MacDonald (for the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Salaries Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Minister have leave to introduce the said Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Salaries Act
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be read a second time? By unanimous consent now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: that Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Salaries Act, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Salaries Act.
Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1


John V. Nunziata: As you know, Clause 1 amends paragraph 3.1 (1 )(a) of the Salaries Act and substitutes the following:
"(a) the percentage that the Industrial Aggregate for the first adjustment year is of the Industrial Aggregate for the second adjustment year;-
I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary exactly what salaries we are talking about here, and to whom we are paying these salaries.


Philip Derek Lewis: I have some information on that point. This is an Act which takes into account the fact that in 1984 Statistics Canada ceased to publish the Industrial Composite Index and instead substituted an Industrial Aggregate Index. The salaries of Lieutenant Governors across Canada are based on the lesser of the index used, or 7 per cent. Since we no longer have the Industrial Aggregate Index, we had to substitute the Industrial Composite Index by this simple one paragraph Bill.


John V. Nunziata: What is the Government of Canada paying to the Lieutenant Governors of the provincial parliaments in Canada? Are they all paid the same? Is there a salary range? Is it according to years of experience?


Philip Derek Lewis: I do not have that information at my fingertips. If necessary, that information can be obtained. It is paid by the provinces, and we are simply assisting by making this change in our Act.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Flora Isabel MacDonald: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


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

December 19, 1986
Archives of Canada Act


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I have unlimited time as I stand in my place on third reading debate. I wish to assure the Members of this House that, as is my right, I intend to exercise the option of not using unlimited time today. I intend to be limited in my remarks. I hear an audible sigh of relief from the benches across the way, and an audible sigh of disappointment from both the NDP and Liberal camps.
I wish to take this opportunity as this Bill flies through the House. This Bill affects the way in which the salary scales are determined for the Lieutenant Governors of the 10 provinces of Canada. This Bill affects those ordinary citizens who have been elevated to a position of ceremonial responsibility; in fact, constitutional authority when necessary-ceremonial largely and constitutional occasionally. We saw that in Ontario very recently where the Lieutenant Governor made a very wise and proper decision.
I wish to take this opportunity to indicate that at some point it would be wise for the House and the Government to produce a paper advising the people of Canada, and inviting Members of Parliament to participate in the discussion on the criteria used in choosing Lieutenant Governors. In that manner, Lieutenant Governors may arise from the relative obscurity that sometimes enshrouds the office and take their proper place within the Canadian establishment and system. That can best be utilized when Canadians have a better understanding of how it is that Governments, the Government of Canada and provincial Governments, come to a decision as to who the Lieutenant Governor of a province should be.
I believe that the Lieutenant-Governor who was recently named for the Province of Newfoundland, the former Member for St. John's East, was a long-time servant of this Parliament and an extraordinary parliamentarian. Joey Smallwood in Newfoundland holds the title of the last living Father of Confederation. It can truly be said that Jim McGrath, who is no longer a Member and I can use his name-outside this Chamber, of course, it is His Excellency-is the father of reform in this Parliament. He would endorse my suggestion today that the process by which we select Lieutenant Governors ought to be opened up and examined more closely, so that these positions are more relevant to the public at large.
Let me take this opportunity to wish all Lieutenant Governors, but in particular the Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland, a very Merry Christmas, all the best in the New Year, and to tell them that after only such a short period of time, a few weeks or months since he has been Lieutenant Governor, we in Newfoundland see in him a gentleman who has brought a fresh surge of energy, life, and relevance to the post. We are proud. Mr. Speaker, you know that I am a man who always speaks in a non-partisan way, so this comment will not be unusual coming from me. We are indeed proud to this date of the manner in which he has upheld his office.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as a Member from the Province of Ontario, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about our Lieutenant Governor. As you know, the Hon. Lincoln Alexander is a former Member of the House of Commons. He was not from this side of the House but a Conservative Member of Parliament from the opposite side. I am very proud and honoured to have the Hon. Lincoln Alexander as our Lieutenant Governor. I had the opportunity to meet with him for the first time at a dinner in my riding some months ago. I greatly admire the work he is doing as the Liuetenant Governor of the province. He is a true gentleman and a great Canadian.


Paul Wyatt Dick: And a super Tory.


John V. Nunziata: My colleague, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) rhetorically asked how Lieutenant Governors are chosen and what process is taken. The Hon. Lincoln Alexander shared his experience with us. He read in a newspaper that he was being considered for the position of Lieutenant Governor. He was deeply honoured to know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was considering appointing him. He waited for the phone call. He told us that his legs were shaking when the voice at the other end of the line asked whether he would like to be the next Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Ontario.
In closing, allow me as a Member from Ontario to express my personal season's greetings, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and I am sure on behalf of all Members of the House of Commons and to express our sincerest best wishes to Lieutentant Governor, the Hon. Lincoln Alexander, and his family.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


ARCHIVES OF CANADA ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-7, an Act respecting the Archives of Canada and records of government institutions of Canada and to amend the Copyright Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are two report stage motions on today's Notice Paper in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), in amendment to Bill C-7. I regret, but I must rule that Motion No. 1 is out of order in that it seeks to amend the interpretation clause of the Bill. I refer the Hon. Member to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773 (10) which reads:
A substantive amendment may not be introduced by way of a modification to the interpretation clause of a bill.
December 19, 1986

Motion No. 2 is in order and shall be put to the House.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 2
That Clause 2 be amended by striking out lines 20 to 26 at page 1 and
substituting the following therefor:
"ministerial record" means a record created or received by a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who holds the office of a Minister, in the course of conducting actitities which relate to the carrying out of the statutory duties of the Minister;
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to my amendment which would change the clause on the definition of ministerial record which presently reads:
"Ministerial record" means a record of a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who holds the office of a Minister and that pertains to that office, other than a record that is of a personal or political nature or that is under the control of a Government institution.
My argument is based on the fact that the present definition defines a ministerial record by what it is not, not by what it is. It is not political, it is not personal, according to this definition, nor under the care and control of a government institution. I would suggest that that is not a very constructive way to determine what is a ministerial record. I would like to recommend my proposed amendment because I believe my definition brings into much clearer focus the kind of information and documentation we would like to hold in the Archives of Canada which would be an ongoing record for all time as to the role, accomplishment and function of the particular Minister in question.
The proposed amendment came out of a fair amount of research on our part. This was directed by the prior Minister of Communications who had suggested we look most carefully to definitions and descriptions throughout the democratic world as we know it and to those public archival institutions that exist elsewhere. As a result, the proposed amendment flows most particularly from the American definition of presidential record. The other models we looked at were the British, the American and the Australian, but this one seemed the most constructive one that I could find, and I submit that the definition of ministerial record will be much clearer. We heard considerable testimony about the lack of clarity and the breadth of documents that could escape the archival control from the Association of Manitoba Archivists, from the Manitoba Council of Archives, from L'Institut D'Histoire de I'Amerique Frangaise who argued that a clearer definition of what constitutes a ministerial record be found. In their view, it should be made clear that all ministerial records stemming from Government activity or involving a Minister in the conduct of official business, including documents relating to the formulation of policy or to be deemed public records and transferred to the archives when the use for which they were orginally created ceased. The present definition is more in the nature of what it is not rather than what it is.
In light of the fact that my other amendment has been ruled out of order as beyond the interpretation of the Bill, I respectfully suggest that this amendment would allow things like
Archives of Canada Act
royal commission studies that would fall under the Inquiries Act to be commissioned by a Minister. It would then be part and parcel of the record in our archives. It is quite surprising that the records of CN, Air Canada and CBC will not be held, as they would fall under ministerial responsibility. Therefore, they would fall under the collective memory that we would find in our archives.
I know there was much discussion in committee with the Minister present as to the definition that I have proposed. There was concern that it might be limited. I am suggesting that the original presentation of that clause is a limited one and this would be a much broader interpretation. Therefore, I strongly suggest that the Minister accept this new definition which is brought with the best of intent to make the archives Bill function in the way in which the standing committee wished to see it function. I know it was in the interests of everyone. We were pleased to see this new revision of the Public Archives Act.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few observations in response to the proposal put forward by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) concerning the definition of ministerial record. The definition agreed to by the legislative committee on December 10 reads as follows:
"Ministerial record" means a record of a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who holds the office of the Minister and that pertains to that office, other than a record that is of a personal or political nature or that is under the control of a government institution.
That definition sets out the three categories of records which can be found in the office of a Minister. The first is those records directly controlled by a Minister which pertain to his or her position as a Minister and member of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada. The second is those records under the control of a government institution which deal with the business of the institution. The third is the personal or political records of the Minister relating to his or her functions as a member of a political Party, representative of a federal constituency, or as a parliamentarian, or to his or her private life and interests. I believe that this is a very comprehensive definition and will serve Canadians well. The amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal is as follows:
"Ministerial record" means a record created or received by a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who holds the office of a Minister, in the course of conducting activities which relate to the carrying out of the statutory duties of the Minister;"
I believe there is a serious flaw in that proposal. In referring as it does to the statutory duties of the Minister it does not cover the large class of records which relate to ministerial responsibilities and duties not based on statute. For example, the Queen's Privy Council is not a statutory body. The duties of the Minister as a member of the Cabinet are not statutory. Accordingly, the definition proposed by the Hon. Member for

December 19, 1986
Archives of Canada Act
Mount Royal would not apply to records relating to a Minister's duties as a member of Cabinet. I believe that would be a most unfortunate consequence of passing this amendment.
In short, I am fully satisfied with the current definition of ministerial record and it is my hope that this amendment will not be sustained.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). In doing so I want to indicate to the Minister that the argument she has made in, I believe improperly but not deliberately, interpreting this amendment sounds rather strange when the wording the Minister proposes says:
"ministerial record" means a record of a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who holds the office of a Minister and that pertains to that office-
The argument she makes, wrongly, I believe, that this amendment would be limited in its effect is in fact the problem with her own interpretation of ministerial record. It is too limited. Her definition goes on, and this is the escape clause:
-other than a record that is of a personal or political nature or that is under the control of a government institution;
That is a huge escape clause with respect to what should be counted as ministerial record.
I think the Hon. Member for Mount Royal has done a great service to Parliament in taking the time to examine this matter closely. She has put forward an amendment based on the American model of ministerial records of responsibility. I would go so far as to say that if the definition she now has in the Bill were in place in the U.S. during the days of the Nixon presidency then the tapes of the conversation between the President of the U.S. and his aides concerning the cover-up of a break-in would never have been part of the official record.
Members opposite can chuckle, but the President would have said, according to the Minister's definition, that the break-in at the Democratic Party headquarters was a political matter. Therefore, the record of his conversations with Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Erlichman and Mr. Dean would never have been made available as they were ordered to be by the U.S. Supreme Court. They would not have been considered part of the record of the President's day-to-day activities. They would have been considered to be of a political or personal nature. Therefore, given the kind of interpretation contained in Bill C-7, Watergate could never have happened, not because the system is incapable of that kind of political activity but because the truth would never have been known. Neither the people of Canada, the nation's press or an independent judicial commission of inquiry, the Canadian equivalent of a U.S. special prosecutor, would have been able to get to the bottom of the matter because they would never have been able to obtain the records in the first place.
What we are saying to the Minister, who obviously has no fear about that kind of exposure, and her colleagues, who also obviously have no fear of that hypothetical situation in this country, is that the definition provided by the Minister allows
for an escape hatch big enough for an 18-wheel Mack truck to drive through. That is the difficulty with this definition.
The Minister should know that this amendment is proposed with the knowledge of the kind of activities which went on during Watergate and which are going on today in what is called Irangate in the U.S. A special congressional committee and a special Senate committee in the U.S. are examining all matters relating to an activity which breaches American law. In the course of their investigation they are asking for records and transcripts of phone calls and other conversations. Let me ask the Minister this: If the President of the U.S. and his chief aides and cabinet secretaries were to say "Yes, but those conversations were of a political nature, we were trying to figure out how to avoid a political fall-out", then what is the definition of a cover-up? Is it an official responsibility? It is not part of his official responsibility to cover things up. That is political. It might be illegal. Based on such criteria, we would never have a Watergate in this country because we would never get to the bottom of the barrel and find out the truth. That is why the amendment moved by the Member for Mount Royal, who has done excellent work on behalf of Canada, ought to be accepted today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 2 in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 2 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: that Bill C-7, an Act respecting the Archives of Canada and records of government institutions of
December 19, 1986

Canada and to amend the Copyright Act, be read the third time and passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House as Bill C-7, an Act respecting the National Archives of Canada and to amend other Acts in relation thereto, receives third reading. On this occasion I am reminded of a similar event in our nation's history. Almost 75 years ago, in January, 1912, the Conservative Government of Robert Laird Borden introduced the first archives legislation. At that time, the archives branch had already been operating for 40 years. It had been operating for those 40 years, acquiring and conserving both public and private historical records, without benefit of a legislative mandate. That legislation came before the House in 1912.
At that time Prime Minister Borden acknowledged the essential role of the Archives when he expressed the intention of his Government to take concerted and deliberate action to ensure the preservation and safeguarding of our nation's archival heritage.
The object of the Public Archives Act was that records "no longer required for the every-day purposes of public administration-should be removed to a place of security-and classified so as to be easily accessible to those who may desire to consult them".
[ Translation]
Prime Minister Borden's proposal was supported by the Leader of the Opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and the Bill was quickly adopted. In 1912, the general consensus was that the legislation met a need and was an adequate response to the general desire to preserve the historic documents of the nation.
It therefore seems appropriate for this Government to introduce a new National Archives of Canada Act to replace the outdated Act of 1912, and it is with great pride that I take this opportunity to speak to Bill C-7 today.

I would like to review, for a moment, the progress of this Bill. It first came before the House during the first session of this Parliament as Bill C-95 on February 12, 1986. It received second reading on June 11 and was referred to committee for study. The committee's examination of the legislation was well under way when the first session of this Parliament was prorogued. On October 3, 1986, all Parties agreed to reinstate the Bill at committee stage. Bill C-7 was referred to the legislative committee chaired by my colleague, the Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault), who guided the committee adeptly through a number of hearings.
The co-operation which characterized the enactment of the 1912 Act has also been evident through the proceedings of this committee. The committee undertook its study with a view to making the Bill a better piece of legislation. It has succeeded. It listened to many Canadians representing archival associations, provincial organizations, learned societies, universities, historians and writers. Some submitted briefs and several
Archives of Canada Act
appeared as witnesses. The views of these individuals and groups have been invaluable. So, too, have been the contributions of the committee members. It was apparent to me when I appeared before the committee that its members share a sincere interest in our nation's archival heritage and the legislation designed to preserve it.
I am particularly pleased to advise the House that at clause by clause study of this Bill on December 10 agreement was reached on seven substantive amendments. In brief, Mr. Speaker, with regard to Clause 3(1), it was unanimously agreed to change the name of the institution to the National Archives of Canada/Archives Nationales du Canada. Similarly, it was agreed that the title of the deputy head should be National Archivist of Canada/Archiviste National du Canada. Witnesses had requested these changes to ensure that the name and title reflect Canada's federal structure, and to follow international practice.
A second substantive change, also unanimously agreed to, was the deletion of the opening words of Clause 5(1) "Except as otherwise provided under an Act of Parliament". Witnesses had unanimously requested this change. The intent of Clause 5 is, as a result, much clearer. It establishes, for the first time in law, the requirement for government institutions to obtain the consent of the archivist before destroying or disposing of their records.
As a result of a consensus reached with Departments and agencies responsible for security and intelligence matters, I was able to respond to the serious concerns of witnesses about Clauses 5(6) and 6(4). I am very pleased to report that the legislative committee unanimously approved the deletion of these sections, together with Clause 6(l)(b). I am confident that existing records management practices are fully adequate to ensure that the legitimate interests of our allies in the areas of security and intelligence are respected.
Another substantive issue on which there was agreement to amend this Bill relates to the legal deposit provisions of Clause 8(3). This passage provides for the Archives to pay the actual costs of making a copy requested under this provision of the Act. The amendment excludes government institutions and their agents from the effect of this reimbursement provision. Recordings are regularly acquired from government institutions, and it was never the intention of Clause 8 that this reimbursement provision should apply within the Government.
The final major issue on which agreement was reached in committee was the establishment and the composition of an advisory board.
Clause 9(1) had provided that the Minister might establish a board with certain ex officio members, and not more than seven members appointed by the Minister from among persons who had expertise in archival matters or who are residents of Canada.

December 19, 1986
Archives of Canada Act
The committee agreed that the Minister shall establish such a board. It also agreed that the seven other members shall be appointed by the Minister from among persons experienced in archival matters. I am convinced that this change will result in a stronger board, which will provide useful advice to the archivist.
In conclusion, I believe that we have responded to the concerns of witnesses. Their testimony was most helpful in the formulation of amendments. I also wish to cite the extremely co-operative role of the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) and the Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). Their assistance made possible significant improvements to this Bill.
It is a pleasure for me, as a Minister of the Crown, to sponsor a Bill that has received such broad support from the Members of the House. I believe this is because we all recognize that the new national Archives of Canada Act is vital to the Canadian archival community. It is now my privilege to recommend this Bill to the House for third reading.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) that she will have her Bill for Christmas.
I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-7, an Act respecting the National Archives of Canada and records of government institutions of Canada, and to amend the Copyright Act.
(Translation]
The National Archives of Canada Act will replace the present Public Archives Act which goes back to 1912. Since 1912, the Public Archives of Canada have freely interpreted the unique definition, never changed since that time, of its mandate or mission to collect and preserve historical documents of every kind, nature and description-, to justify its present day activities. These activities will now be more acurately defined in a completely revised version of the Public Archives Act, reflecting not only the scope of the Archives' present collections and the methods used to preserve them, but also the other duties and activities of the Public Archives today.
The Public Archives is an institution that is essential to the preservation of our heritage and shares this purpose with the National Museums of Canada. The importance of the institution was admirably expressed in the presentation by the Public Archives to the Applebaum-Hebert Committee, and I quote:
If the archives of a nation, a government or an organization are not preserved, then the history of that nation, government or organization will be forgotten, and the price which a people pay for the loss of their history is a misunderstanding of their roots, confusion in their identity and the misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the nature of their country.

"Of all our national treasures, the archives are the most precious. They are the legacy of one generation to another, and
the quality of care we give them testifies to the quality of our civilization". This was said more than 50 years ago by a former Dominion Archivist, Arthur G. Daughty.
During second reading of this Bill, the previous Minister of Communications gave an eloquent explanation of the importance of the Archives. I want to quote him.

If a people is not aware of its past, it has no identity. It suffers from amnesia. It does not know its strengths, it does not know its weaknesses and cannot build on its experience. It cannot leap forward because it lacks the starting block of history. It cannot legitimize its institutions or identify their responsibilities, anymore than it can determine the rights of individuals and groups.
The original identity of our country, which we defend and strengthen, each in our own way, is partly reflected in our institutions and our present day way of life, but also in the roots of the present which we can find through the archives.
These, according to Doughty, are the soul of a people, its collective memory. They are essential to a people's understanding of itself, its past, its present activity and its aspirations for the future.

I would like to add another dimension. Within the mission of the National Archives I want to underline how important it is to reflect the multicultural, multilingual background which is the tapestry and design that forms the background of Canada's beautiful landscape and guards and preserves for our children and our children's children the historical records of our society. It is from these very societies that we must seek to collect and preserve this historical documentation so that people see themselves reflected through their roots in our own archives. They are the archives of all the peoples of Canada, regardless of when they arrived on these shores.
That is one reason why I regret most sincerely that my first amendment was not accepted by the Government. It enlarged the interpretation of the Bill, because when we lose the history of the CNR or Air Canada, we lose a precious part of our heritage. There is a potential for loss when such preservation is not mandated.
Consultations with informed, interested and public minded citizens and other groups was absolutely key to this Bill's ability to truly fulfil its mandate. The considered opinions enabled the legislators in the House to perform our duties much more effectively. A key example of the vigilance that can be found in community based groups and by professional associations can be seen with respect to Clause 5(6) and Clause 6(4) of the original Bill.
In the original text of Bill C-7, before it was amended, documents relating to international relations or defence were to be exempted from the requirement that no documents be destroyed without the consent of the archivist. There were strong representations from such groups as the Social Science Federation, the Canadian Historical Association, and the Canadian Association of University Teachers, who felt that the reference to any record containing privileged information from a foreign state was far too broad. By exempting all such records from the National Archivist's control, irrespective of how much privileged information might be contained in them,
December 19, 1986

it was argued that too many valuable Canadian records could be destroyed on this ground and, therefore, lost forever. As a result of the strong arguments brought forth by these witnesses, this exemption was deleted.
In Clause 6(1 )(b) and Clause 6(4) there were similar significant exemptions. Under its terms, records containing confidential information from a foreign Government or an international organization of states, dealing with either the conduct of international affairs, the defence of Canada or any of its allies, or the prevention or suppresion of subversive or hostile activities, were exempted from the provisions under Clauses 6(1 )(b) and 6(4) unless the foreign entity in question consented to the transfer of the confidential records to the Archives. Witnesses as well were concerned about the National Archivist's ability to exercise full control over records containing valuable information. Once more, witnesses played a significant role in deletion of this clause and helped immeasurably in the improvement of this Bill.
Another significant change to the legislation was in the nomenclature. This change was proposed by the Government and myself. The former Dominion Archivist, Doctor Wilfrid Smith, the Social Science Federation of Canada, and the Association of Canadian Archivists recommended that the name given to the Archives should correspond to the existing patterns of other national cultural institutions such as the National Library, the National Arts Centre, the National Museums Corporation, and the National Film Board. We were also told during the hearings on Bill C-7 that of approximately 140 countries that are members of the International Council on Archives, approximately 130 have "National Archives" as their title. We are pleased that the Minister gave this new title to the Bill. It is now formally known as the National Archives and gives it a distinct definition from provincial archives and other municipal archives.
While I generally support Bill C-7 and am pleased with the changes passed by our legislative committee, there were two changes I would have liked to see incorporated into the new legislation. They involve the definitions given to "government institutions" and "ministerial records". The term "government institutions" is defined at Clause 2 to mean:
A government institution listed in Schedule 1 to the Access to Information Act or the schedule to the Privacy Act or any institution designated by the regulations of the Governor in Council as a government institution for the purposes of this Act.
I did not find that large enough. I regret most sincerely it was ruled out of order because I really believe that boards, commissions or Crown corporations established by or under an Act of Parliament should be included along with, as I said, Air Canada, CN and CBC.
The term "ministerial record" in turn refers to:
A record of a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who holds the office of a Minister and that pertains to that office, other than a record that is of a personal or political nature or that is under the control of a government institution.
Archives of Canada Act
That particular definition is of great ongoing concern to me and I shall come back to that as I point out what my hon. colleague just recently underscored for us.
Of those who made written submissions or appeared before the committee, the majority felt that these definitions were too narrow and vague. They argued, and I argued, strongly that the Act should also apply to the records of Parliament, royal commissions of inquiry and Crown corporations as well as other institutions not listed in the relevant schedules of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, that is, Air Canada, the Canadian National Railway and the CBC. It was suggested as well by the Association of Canadian Archivists that judicial records also be included.
It was widely held that unless the National Archives had jurisdiction over these records, an important part of Canada's heritage might be lost. Without effective control, historically valuable records might be dispersed or destroyed and research would accordingly be extremely difficult or impossible to carry out.
The Social Science Federation of Canada expressed its understanding of the desire of vital institutions such as the CBC or Parliament to preserve their independence. However, it felt that such freedom could and should be limited slightly to ensure that historical records were fully preserved. In its view, alternative arrangements could be made. For example, records scheduled for retention to the physical custody of the originating agency, should the latter not want them to be placed in the National Archives indefinitely, would be fine. It was for these reasons that I and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), proposed amendments which would have addressed these very concerns and ensured access to records which now could potentially be lost forever.
Apart from the question of the too narrow definition of "government institution", some concern was also expressed in relation to the definition of "ministerial record". The Institut d'Histoire de I'Amerique Franqaise pointed out the difficulty of establishing a clear distinction between records of a personal or political nature on the one hand and those which strictly relate to the office of a Minister, on the other hand. It was felt that the archivists should have the right to view all ministerial records and decide, in co-operation with the Minister, what records should be preserved. Again, this clause is not truly inclusive of all the areas which should be part of our collective memory over time.
I could not have said more eloquently than my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), who expressed his concern that Watergate could not be found out now as we pass this Bill into law. He points out that this is called the "cover-up" clause. The Minister may laugh all she wishes. I hope she is correct and that I am proven incorrect. As the clause now stands, it becomes a serious cover-up clause and even the findings of the Parker Inquiry would have been damaged had this present ministerial record held and the information we required from the Archives not been

December 19, 1986
Archives of Canada Act
recovered. I hope the Minister will pay attention to that particular reservation because it is most serious.
The Association of Manitoba Archivists and the Manitoba Council of Archives argued that a clearer definition of what constitutes a "ministerial record" should be found. I believe, and the amendment I proposed tries to make clear, that all ministerial records stemming from government activities ought to be deemed "public records" and transferred to the National Archives when the use for which they were originally created ceased. Documents relating to a Minister's private life and interests, of course, and perhaps political Party and constituency files, should be considered his or her private or personal papers and could be given to the Archives as, if and when the Minister might so desire. I really quite regret the decision taken in this area.
An enormous amount of space is required to store more than the billions of items, including 11 million photographs, maps and plans and 365 million pages of federal government documents which the Archives own. At present the Public Archives' holdings are scattered among seven different buildings throughout the National Capital region in addition to the main building which it shares with the National Library on Wellington Street. Not only are the spaces insufficient but the conditions within them, which I am sure the Minister knows, pose serious threats for the long-term preservation of the collections of the historical record, information and knowledge about our cultural heritage.
They are the background documents which define us as a distinct and proud nation. They are the record upon which we can build through film and videos our own heroes. They are key to much that is our future. Those stacks are overflowing in buidings which are not protected against humidity, theft, vandalism or water damage. As each day goes by, a lot of data, part of which is significant to our history, is being erased and is disappearing. It is not because the archivists do not care, it is because they do not have the resources to do their jobs properly.
Added to this is the fact that storage space is being shared with other organizations which all supposes control and security problems. Because holdings are spread among several locations, the records frequently have to be moved about. This repeated handling is another cause of damage, as are the changes in atmospheric conditions and contamination by insects. I sincerely hope that we can do something about this because the consequences of such a situation are disastrous.
During the last four years there have been no less than 45 emergencies. In some cases there were major floods causing irreparable damage and loss. In other cases, it was simply a leak or recurring leaks which damaged the collections. Over the long term, the documents in the Archives are attacked by mildew, oxidation, dust and unnecessary wear and tear. Now that the Government will have this new legislation, I sincerely hope a new facility will soon be announced to address these problems as I believe that successive Governments have, in the
past many years, allowed this situation to arrive at such a critical state.
I would like at this moment to congratulate the Minister for bringing in this Bill. It is a fine New Year's present for Canadians as we become more sensitive to our place in world history and more appreciative of our profound cultural beauty and heritage. I hope we will have a new building to go along with the Minister's new Bill in the very new future.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have to concede, first, that my acquaintanceship with Archives policy has not been nearly as close as those who have sat through the excellent committee hearings that took place on this Bill. On the contrary, my role has been to use the Archives at different points in time. That is where I gleaned my knowledge of the Liberal Party in terms of its disastrous past and, hopefully, its limited future.
When the Bill was first introduced in the House it was a Bill which had in it a number of points that were quite seriously mistaken. This shows us how the parliamentary system by permitting input from sources outside the bureaucracy and outside the profession of archivists themselves is able to improve significantly on legislation.
When the Bill was first brought forward I recall making a speech in which I outlined some of the very considerable reservations which existed on the part of the Social Sciences Federation, for instance, with respect to the original Bill. It is a source of great pleasure to have seen this Bill referred to committee where the suggestions for change put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) were heard. It has been wonderful to see those changes and to see that the Bill before us is in a much improved form.
In view of this tremendous progress we recognize that this is an important piece of legislation. If my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood were here she would point out that there are areas in which problems remain, as with any piece of legislation. Therefore, I am pleased to be able to support this Bill on behalf of our Party for third reading.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have but a short comment to make. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) said that we needed her amendment. She said that the most glaring example which showed when we needed it was Watergate. I wish to point out to her that Watergate did not use the archives to expose the crime. It would have been a little late at that time to expose that particular incident.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to reply to the comment made by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). It may not have been exactly correct to use Watergate as an example. It
December 19, 1986

would be more exact if we had used the Stevens Inquiry as an example. A great deal of material used in that inquiry came from the Archives. If those documents had been judged confidential, private or political they would not have been available to that inquiry and therefore the people of Canada would not have known how this gentleman abused the system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


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


SITTING SUSPENDED
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. As the House is aware, we have passed several pieces of legislation this afternoon which are proceeding through the other place. Therefore, I believe Your Honour would find unanimous consent with respect to the passage of the following motion:
That this House suspend sitting to the call of the chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are being asked to agree to adjourn the House to an unknown time. It may be an hour from now. It may be a day from now or perhaps even a week from now. We are all anxiously waiting because we have been informed that the Government plans to table a Ways and Means motion with respect to the softwood issue.
If we are being asked to co-operate and provide an open-ended invitation to recall the House whenever, perhaps in the middle of the night or early tomorrow morning, I think it is not unrealistic to expect the Government to explain just what its agenda is, if in fact the Parliamentary Secretary knows, rather than for him to ask us to buy a pig in a poke and agree to return sometime in the future. That seems a little vague.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), I would point out that the House cannot control what goes on in the Senate. I regret that there is nothing we can do about that. I will listen to other points of order. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. This is a matter which is not in the normal, ordinary routine simply waiting for the Senate to dispatch its business. We have been given some advance notice that there could be a Ways and Means motion tabled. We do not know for sure if it will be. Obviously, it will have major implications for us in terms of managing the business of the House and where we go from here.
Suspension of Sitting
It would seem to me that, since the Deputy House Leader asks for the co-operation of members of the Opposition, we can invite some co-operation in return. In this way we would be able to receive at short order what it is that the Government plans to do and whether in fact it is its intention when the House resumes to table a Ways and Means motion. I think that is the least that we can request from the Government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few comments. First, we have had a rather good day today, a very profitable day as far as the Government is concerned in terms of Bills. We have operated on gentlemen's agreements all day.
I would hate like heck to see the Government try to bootleg something while we are waiting somewhere for the House to be recalled. I wonder if we can have a commitment from the Parliamentary Secretary that once the Government has its act together as to whether or not it will table a Ways and Means motion we can be advised with an appropriate amount of time. Will the Chair tell us if the bells will ring to give us fairly good notice with respect to when the House will be recalled?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we have moved a great deal of legislation through the House with the cooperation of both opposition Parties. This is important legislation which requires Royal Assent, especially the Bill with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act to ensure that the benefits are paid appropriately in the various regions.
I am sure no one wants to jeopardize that particular Bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Or be threatened.


Philip Derek Lewis: I will not respond to that comment.
My colleagues have asked me on the floor of the House about something about which I have no knowledge. However, if there is concern among my colleagues with respect to any action which may take place other than that action which we have discussed, that is, a motion with respect to the sitting of the House-if that wording is precise enough for some of my colleagues-and the return of the Chair for Royal Assent, I undertake on behalf of the Government to have the necessary consultations with my colleagues in the other two Parties prior to any such action taking place.


John Napier Turner: With appropriate notice?


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I accept the commitment as I believe the hon. gentleman to be truthful. I will simply repeat my last question. Will the bells ring to give us notice of when the House is to be called back? How long will the bells ring?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All hon. gentlemen are truthful.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as we have heard on a number of occasions, this has been a most productive day. There has been

December 19, 1986
Business of the House
co-operation on all sides of the House. It is now 20 minutes before the time at which we would normally adjourn and we are being asked to agree to adjourn the House until some time in the future.
Today is an important day. This is an extraordinary moment. We understand the government plans to introduce a Ways and Means motion which will have extremely important implications on all parts of Canada. This is not a usual Friday and it is not a usual last day before the Christmas recess.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary know approximately when we might expect to be recalled? Will it be within the hour? Will it be some time before midnight? Will it be some time tomorrow, or will we simply have to accept an open-ended invitation?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I think that will be decided by the Chair. I will give the Hon. Member a half-hour bell, if that will be sufficient. We cannot determine what will happen in the other place. Does the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) agree that a half-hour bell would be sufficient?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would agree that a 15-minute bell would be sufficient. Again, I would like to think that we could have some understanding that the Government will expedite its own business, other than that with which we are dealing today, and if it wants to introduce legislation, it ought to do so at an appropriate time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.
At 4.43 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 5.37 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
That the proceedings in relation to Standing Order 66, on those days, shall be taken up at 9.00 o'clock p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-35, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1987.
I also have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills, without amendment:
Bill C-14, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act;
Bill C-16, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971;
Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act and the Income Tax Act and to repeal the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Gas Tax Act;
Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and a related Act;
Bill C-25, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith;


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976; and
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion with the House Leaders of the other two Parties and I think you will find acceptance to the following motion being put:
That when the House adjourns this day, it shall stand adjourned until 11 o'clock a.m. on Monday, January 19, 1987;
That, for the purposes of Standing Order 4, the first sitting day in 1987, shall be deemed to have been January 12, 1987;
That on Monday, January 19, 1987, the House shall continue to sit between the hours of 6 o'clock p.m. and 9 o'clock p.m. for the purpose of considering Government Orders;
That on Tuesday, January 20 and Thursday, January 22, 1987, the House shall continue to sit between the hours of 1 o'clock p.m. and 2 o'clock p.m., and 6 o'clock p.m. and 9 o'clock p.m. for the purpose of considering Government Orders; and
Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Salaries Act.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa
December 19, 1986 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerald Eric LeDain, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy
December 19, 1986

Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 19th day of December, at 4.55 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Leopold H. Amyot Secretary to the Governor General


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to take this opportunity, while we still have a few minutes left, to offer the entire staff of the House of Commons and all those people who work so hard for us, our best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I admit there is a new ambience in the House, and I must say it does make it more pleasant to work with the Government, although that is not necessarily always the case. However, I would also like to wish my hon. friends opposite a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year, and I hope that 1987 will be a good year for us and perhaps for them as well, if they behave. [English]


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I was going to make some comments before I move the motion to adjourn. However, since the opportunity has now presented itself, may I also, on behalf of our Party, express to you, Mr. Speaker, and to your colleagues, who occupy the chair at various times, our best wishes for a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and happy holiday season. I want to thank you very much, from our standpoint, for your tremendous co-operation and support over the course of the last number of months. I also want to thank the Clerk of the House and the Table Officers for their support, as well as the Pages for the very good work they do, but most of all I appreciate the tremendous support and cooperation we received from the Table.
I wish all my hon. friends and colleagues a very happy holiday season. I know we are all extending the holiday break but I think it is well deserved. I wish you all a very happy holiday season.
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this Honourable House in the Chamber of the Honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was
Royal Assent
pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Railway Act-Chapter 49.
Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act-Chapter
50.
Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act-Chapter 51. Bill C-31, an Act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act-Chapter 52.
Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act-Chapter
53.
Bill C-14, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act-Chapter
54.
Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and a related Act-Chapter
55.
Bill C-16, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971-Chapter
56.
Bill C-25, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith-Chapter 57.
Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act and the Income Tax Act and to repeal the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act- Chapter 58.
Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976-Chapter 59.
Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Salaries Act-Chapter 60.
Bill S-3, an Act to amend and repeal The Alliance Nationale Consolidated Act, 1945.
Bill C-29, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the Financial year ending the 31st March, 1987- Chapter 61.
Bill C-35, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the Financial year ending the 31st March, 1987- Chapter 62.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the House do now adjourn.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that I cannot hear the Hon. Member's point of order.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Debate!


John Napier Turner: On a point of order then.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but that is not a debatable motion. Accordingly, pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House stands adjourned until Monday, January 19, 1987, at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 6.02 the House adjourned until January 19, 1987, pursuant to Special Order.

Monday, January 19, 1987